Target: Israel

 There seems to be a deep resentment against Israel lately at the height of the Middle East protests, and for a variety of reasons. Shiite Muslims want Israel gone so they can reclaim the 'promise land' and among the list of suspects include Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslm Brotherhood and yes even, Moammar Gaddafi.

You may be asking yourself why Muslims and al-Qaeda are currently allies right now with the United States to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya. Well, its very simple. If they can rat out the dictator, that means the people Gaddafi has controlled for over four decades will now come under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, after all the clerical leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi called for an assassination on Gaddafi.

Isn't it also interesting that Egypt was the only country in the Middle East that helped keep the peace with Israel. After Hosni Mubarak's removal as President, Qaradawi, who was banned from Egypt for many years was seemingly allowed back into the country and he spoke in front of a crowd of the so called 'peaceful' protesters calling for the extermination of Jews.

You would think Adolph Hitler was resurrected. 

Switch back to September of 2010, when President Obama spoke at the United Nations calling for Palestine to become a State by 2011. See the trend?

I don't doubt for a moment that the early protests in Tunisia back in January were a result of people becoming fed up with dictatorial control, poverty, unemployment and shortages. However, there is seemingly an evil throughout the Middle East that have used these protests as a catalyst to do something far more worse.

Strangely, this President has not once called for unification with Israel during these times of crisis. He is a President that you simply cannot take seriously and he himself, seems to harbor some kind of resentment against Israel. If he does want a Palestine state to be established by the end of 2011, wouldn't that mean the removal of Israel? I can't see why a terrorist organization like Hamas would suddenly decide to surrender and become friends with Israel over night, since they are largely occupied in the Palestinian region.

But perhaps nobody is more anti-Israel than the Jew hater himself, George Soros, someone who actually participated in the extermination of Jews during Hitler's reign in Nazi Germany. He was quoted as saying"Israel is the major stumbling block for world peace."

Perhaps Soros and his puppet Obama actually want Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to throw a nuclear bomb in Israel's direction?

Yes, it is a serious question.

U.S. joins with al-Qaeda to topple Gaddafi?

When Moammar Gaddafi indicated that Libyan civilians were being 'drugged by members of al-Qaeda', my first impression was that his comments about a terrorist network presence in his country was a load of BS, and that he was just babbling like any other insane dictator. Well, take it with a grain of salt.

It turns out, seeing that the Muslim Brotherhood presence in Egypt escalated after Hosni Mubarak's resignation, Gaddafi's comments are turning out to be completely true.

Libyan rebel forces have recruited Muslims from the terrorist group al-Qaeda to combat Gaddafi's regime. This means, the U.S. has in an essence have become allies of al-Qaeda. This is breathtaking.

The same terrorist group that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on American soil, is committed to bringing down Gaddafi, with the assistance of U.S. military and the so called 'international community'. Do you think anyone in this Administration is going to admit that we have officially aligned ourselves with a terrorist network? Not in a million years, the mainstream news media and the left-wing 'supposed' 501 c 3 non-profit Media Matters for America, (also known as Media Matters Hates America) would never touch base on something like this.

Now some Libyan rebels are already expressing the belief that "not all al-Qaeda members are bad Muslims."

I beg to differ. Anyone that has an association whether it is al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood poses as a danger to the world. To be frank, the people associated with these organizations have absolutely no remorse anything. These are the kinds of creatures that cherish their barbaric lifestyle by kidnapping, torturing and murdering people, whether its Americans or Israelis, or anyone else for that matter.

Yet in a situation like this, we have indirectly aligned ourselves with a terrorist group that is committed to destroying America, just because President Obama felt that it was necessary to impose a No-Fly Zone on Libya which had no immediate threat to our national security.

By the way Mr. President, I understand there is violence going on in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Will the UN decide to impose a No Fly Zone in those countries as well?

President Obama tonight

Tonight, President Obama will be speaking to the nation and offering some clarification as to why he sent troops into Libya, following the United Nations authorized "No-Fly Zone".

Since his decision to sent troops without the approval of Congress, the President has generated overwhelming heat from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington as to why he violated the U.S. Constitution.

This is the same President Obama who was quoted in the Boston Globe from December 2007 that "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Apparently, then Senator Obama had knowledge about the Constitution. Obama as President? Not so much.

So tonight, the President should offer some answers to the American people as pertaining to his decision in doing so. Isn't it interesting that no U.S. military was needed in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Syria? Some of these countries have used force against their people as well, but a "No Fly Zone" was never called upon by the United Nations.

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich made a valid point. We have spent far too much money in the Middle East with Afghanistan and Iraq. Now funding a war against another Middle East nation like Libya is something this country simply cannot afford. Kucinich is proposing a resolution to cease funding military action in Libya. Good!

But I'd take it that the real reason we're in Libya is to "protect European energy" since Italy and France want oil contracts. Interesting that President Obama's vacation in Brazil, he was promoting off shore oil drilling, but he won't promote that here in the United States.

While military action was taken on Libya, this President spent last week hopping all over South America for a pre-Spring Break vacation, and here at home we still have no federal budget because Republicans and Democrats have nothing to do and the country has for the most part, gone broke.

So tonight when the President speaks, you're going to hear a bunch of blathering as to the "real reasons" on Libya and it will not make any difference. From my viewpoint, whenever this President speaks, it is the equivalent of Charlie Brown's school teacher.

Calif. Senate approves "safe ski" bill for kids

The California State Senate announced yesterday the approval of legislation to make California's ski slopes the safest in the nation for kids.    

I thought that kids were typically subjected to skiing on the bunny hill?   

The legislation led by Senator Leland Yee (D- San Francisco) would require minors to wear helmets while skiing and snowboarding. Is this really what the State of California needs right now? Legislation can sometimes sound so ridiculous, you almost want to break the laptop you presently writing on...   

The backed up sewage tank which is the Legislature in Sacramento approved SB 105 under Yee's legislation, as if he doesn't have anything more important to do in his time right now, will also require ski resorts to post signs about the law on trail maps, websites and throughout ski resorts' property and impose fines not larger than $25 on parents that fail to provide helmets to their children, while they are skiing.   

Yee believes that SB 105 will "significantly reduce instances of traumantic brain injury or death for such a vulnerable population."   

Of course wearing helmets has shown to reduce traumantic brain injury. According to the National Ski Areas Association, 19 of the 38 people that died on ski slopes in the 2009-2010 winter season were not wearing helmets at the time of their deaths. What Yee doesn't address is what percentage of those individuals that died on ski slopes during this time were minors?  

 It should be the parents responsiblity for teaching their kids how to ski and to provide safety for them on the ski slopes that may be deemed to dangerous. It is simply common sense and it should not be the State's responsibility. Soon, you'll probably hear Senator Yee asking tax payers to pay for helmets to be sent out to ski resorts across the Sierra Nevada mountains.   

Oh and by the way, California still has a $26 billion budget deficit, unemployment around 10% and we're basically bankrupt.

Contradictory issues on Libya

Well, so far, it looks like Libya has already been mismanaged from the top down. The United Nations imposed a "no fly zone" this weekend, and then backtracked saying air strikes were not necessary. President Obama, right before his vacation to South America, supported the air strikes and engaged military intervention without Congressional approval. Something that Congressman Dennis Kucinich calls an impeachable offense.

However, nothing is more mismanaged on Libya then this breathtaking contradictory statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While President Obama was hoping all over South America, Secretary of State Clinton was in Tunis, Tunisia and told ABC News in an interview "The UN Security Council resolution was very broad but explicit about what was legally authorized by the international community. There is nothing in there about getting rid of anybody."

So why is Secretary Clinton and President Obama going on and on for the last week and a half that Moammar Gaddafi must leave immediately?

If the UN Security Council specifically says nothing about removing Gaddafi from power, then it seems necessary to perhaps call this action on Libya nothing more than a war crime. Wow! Obama and Clinton are war criminals, just like Bush and Cheney. I guess history does repeat itself.

Of course, Secretary Clinton calls this as nothing more than an act to protect civilians. Yet, the role of the so-called "Rebel allies" in Libya has not even been clearly identified. Gaddafi is no cake walk, everyone can attest to that. However one has to ask themselves about how democracy can be established in the Middle East. We already saw what happened in Iraq. Free the people. Well, Iraq is probably just as much of a disaster area now, as it was under the reign of Saddam Hussein.

If Gaddafi leaves power or is killed in the war, most likely the entire country will become more of a mess than it already is. Something I'm sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is waiting silently for.

Congressman Kucinich suggests impeachable offense?

If there are any two members of Congress that typically do not always side with their own party, it is Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. You know, they actually do what they're elected to do and set policy for the American people, instead of acting like rubber-stamps for their own party.

At the height of the United States participating in the air assault on Libya following the United Nations resolution for a no-fly zone, Congressman Kucinich suggests President Obama's decision to go into Libya is an impeachable offense because the President did not get formal Congressional approval.

Kucinich also introduced impeachment proceedings against President Bush in 2007 after the mismanagement of the War in Iraq, but it was turned down by Speaker Pelosi. Now any impeachment against President Obama is probably unlikely, however there is admiration for the liberal Congressman Kucinich, because, unlike the rest of the left who keeps cheer leading the President on just about everything he does, this particular situation, Kucinich claims "He didn't have Congressional authorization, has gone against the Constitution, and involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way."

An argument could be made that President Obama as Commander in Chief does not need Congressional approval to take military action into another country if there is an immediate danger. Kucinich says otherwise. Libya simply does not pose as an immediate danger to the United States.

Insofar, Congressman Kucinich does point out the grave reality that the no-fly zone could cost U.S. tax payers between $400 to $800 million. Iraq and Afghanistan combined has cost trillions of dollars. Furthermore, Kucinich insists the United States does not have the time or the will to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the Middle East for the third time, while the United States continues to go broke.

Now, Kucinich is anticipating on introducing a resolution to defunding military operations in Libya.

No question that Moammar Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people as we speak and a resolution by the United Nations to try and stop his despicable actions was necessary. However is it necessary for the United States to continue to take action in the Middle East every time there is an uproar? After all, other countries in the Middle East like Lebanon and countries in Africa including Liberia and the Ivory Coast have engaged themselves in civil wars and action from the United States was limited, if any.

I think the bigger problem is going to be the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood after the chaos in Libya is finally over... 

Libya becoming Obama's Iraq?

You remember when Bush had pleaded to the United Nations asking for Saddam Hussein to either disarm or disclose his so-called weapons of mass destruction or face serious consequences? And when Hussein didn't, it gave an indicator to the United States to invade Iraq, without Congressional approval?

The same thing may end up happening to Obama over the situation in Libya.

When British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya, many countries including France and Italy supported the notion and the United Nations felt it was a good idea.

Now it seems there is a great deal of hypocrisy within the United Nations over the so-called "no fly zone". Critics say members of the UN call it unnecessary for any air strikes launched by Britain, France and the United States, even after Defense Secretary Robert Gates had informed Congress that air strikes would be necessary, if a no-fly zone were to be imposed.

Even with international attention from countries supporting the UN resolution and participating in air strikes, there appears to be little determent from Moammar Gaddafi and his regime who are vowing a long and bloody fight against the rebel opposition.

But perhaps most surprising of all is the hypocrisy of the liberal left in America, now angry at President Obama for supporting the UN resolution and to support the military intervention in Libya. So after weeks of supporting the so called "protesters overthrowing the dictator", now critics are saying we should say out of Libya and avoid another mismanaged catastrophe like we had in Iraq.

Like Bush, Obama called for military intervention without the approval of Congress. The difference is that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, and with Libya, you have a dictator slaughtering his own people.

As usual though, the liberal left and mainstream news media are silent on this particular issue.

One week later, what's next for Japan?

What a week its been for Japan. An earthquake, tsunami and scrambling to prevent a nuclear meltdown.

The death toll has killed over 6,548 and the number of the anticipated is climbing to well over 10,000. The devastation has displaced over 380,000 people into 2,000 shelters. While roads are being reopened to provide supplies, food and water to many of the displaced survivors, many are still without.

Additionally, the sub zero temperatures are not helping the situation either.

Japan's local governments in the ravaged areas says they'll be unable to provide its people with temporary housing and that it will be more efficient to relocate earthquake survivors into other areas.

So what's next for one the world's most successful countries in the wake of a major disaster?

Well, if there is one thing we've seen from the Japanese, unlike other countries, is the common denominator of banning together after disaster. Maybe it is their Buddhist religion? Or maybe it is their respect for one another? After all, when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana in 2005, there was looting and people fighting against one another. The same scenario was seen after Haiti's earthquake.

In Japan, it is strangely not the case. What has to be the worse disaster since Hiroshima, Japan will most likely rebuild itself and continue as a prosperous country once again.

Let's hope!

U.N. imposes no fly zone on Libya

Well, after weeks and weeks of talking, and talking, and talking, about imposing a no-fly zone on Libya, the United Nations finally decided to go ahead with it which they hope will prevent the Moammar Gaddafi regime from attacking its own people.

Meanwhile, Libya offered an immediate cease fire as a strategy to prevent international military intervention into the country. However that really doesn't seem to be the case. The kind of subterfuge that exists in any dictatorship, is to give the impression that you're going to stop attacking your people when its clearly the other way around.

Maybe he is standing by his promises? After all, Gaddafi said he would die fighting to the end and showing no signs of retreating.  As we speak, the regime is bombing Misurata and Adjadbiya.

The U.N. Security Resolution to call for the no-fly zone also included military action from Britain, France and Italy. The United States has not really identified its role, but it is more than likely that if anything goes wrong in Libya, the U.S. will be held responsible.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that this is the first goal of international action to end the violence in Libya. Ever wonder that she acts more like the President of the United States than the puppet we have in there right now?

Of course, reading through the lines, this is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood wants. Get international intervention in Libya, overthrow Gaddafi, once the intervention leaves, impose Shariah Law on the Libyan people.

U.S. drones allowed in Mexico

If you have not already heard, our nation's borders have been unsecured for many years and the United States has dealt with constant bombardment of criminal illegal aliens from Mexico.

Furthermore, the drug cartel violence throughout Mexico has continued to escalate. I reported in previous blog posts here on Independent Word, that the Mexican Military and Police Force are loosing the battle against the cartels. Since 2006 when President Calderon declared war, more than 35,000 people have been killed. I also came to the conclusion that sometime down the road, the United States would have to join Mexico if they ever expected to wipe the drug business out completely.

Well today, Mexico announced that U.S. drones would be permitted to fly over parts of the country adjacent to the U.S. and Mexico border in hopes to gather intelligence on drug traffickers. Now, critics are already jumping on this calling intervention from the U.S. unnecessary. Mexican Senator Luis Villareal said that "U.S. involvement violates trust and undermines national sovereignty." 

The truth of the matter here is that Mexico's inability to stop drug cartel violence and its largely outnumbered military would have only called for more intervention from the United States. Still, there are several questions. Drug cartels are a multi-billion dollar business.  It has been years dealing with a constant broken borders system and hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years which go to what? Paying off politicians or giving kick-backs? Many of them covered in blood money? Why in the hell has it taken the United States so long to get the hint that something needs to be done to disband the drug cartels, close the border, reduce the crime wave and stop illegal immigration?

Nothing has been done. President Obama continues to play around with the idea that the borders need to remain open to welcome immigrants and it plays a crucial part in the ridiculous North American Free Trade Agreement and the Security and Prosperity Partnership that President Bush put together during his reign.

Security? Really? The CIA has verified for years that Hezbollah and other terrorist groups from the Middle East also have a presence in Mexico and are just as much of a threat to this country's national security as the drug cartels, but I digress...

Now, it appears that when the United States decides to try and work with Mexico on gathering intelligence on drug cartels, Mexico snaps back saying "we don't need you're help!"

From the looks of it Mexico, you're going to need all the help you can possibly get. How many more innocent people on either side of the border need to get killed?

Arabian troops deployed to Bahrain

As the world has focused its attention on the devastation in Japan, tension continues to escalate in the Middle East.

Yesterday, Saudi Arabia deployed roughly 1,000 military troops to Bahrain, the small Island country in the Persian Gulf and the most recent country to spark protests like the ones we've already seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. The purpose of Saudi Arabia enforcing military intervention in Bahrain claims to support the monarchy against the opposing demonstrators.

The opposition calls the intervention by Saudi Arabia as nothing more than an act of "undeclared war".

Bahrain's government apparently called upon outside force from Saudi Arabia on Sunday after protests that were so large, gathered in Pearl Square, set up roadblocks and stood their ground in its financial district. Martial law imposed by Bahrain, required its police force to use tear gas against the protesters, but it was deemed to be too ineffective. The Peninsula Shield Force, which is made up of neighboring countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were deployed to maintain security and stability.

The demonstrators in Bahrain led by a majority of Shiite Muslims, claim that they are hoping to remove the Sunni Monarchy, and Sunnis are concerned that any change of rule would threaten their own foundations they've had for over two hundred years.

Not to mention that if Shiite Muslims were to gain control, it may even give more of an indicator for Iran, also led by Shiites, to make a move against other countries in the region.

Interestingly, that nation's government led by the Hitler of our time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has remained rather silent since all of these protests began across the region nearly three months ago.

CalPERS holding taxpayers on the hook for pensions?

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) is proposing an idea to reduce its estimate about how much money the fund's investments are projected to earn in future years which may drop the discount rate assumption from 7.75% to just 7.5%.

According to an Associated Press article released today, the small reduction in the discount assumption rate would ultimately require the State and other employees that are covered by the CalPERS program to increase the amount of money workers pay into the pension fund, which is estimated to be around $200 million.

And as usual any change to public pension reform will put the tax payers on the hook. In this particular situation, it looks as though tax payers will have to front more money allocated to public workers. Why you may ask? The CalPERS program admits that by reducing the assumed rate of investment, it has the effect of "increasing contributions to employers."

In other words, government agencies use tax money to pay themselves and cover their benefits. No surprise, business as usual.

Meanwhile, the State is faced with a $25 billion budget deficit. Governor Jerry Brown's current budget proposal that is waiting in the wings of the State Legislature, included specifics on CalPERS lowering the discount rate. Instead of actually doing something meaningful, like they are in Wisconsin or New Jersey, our State has to remain committed and loyal to the public workers.

Tomorrow, the Board of Directors for CalPERS will consider the change. As it stands now, the pension fund deficit is estimated to be $75 billion.

You think it is high time for California to get serious about pension fund reform?

Short answer: Yes!

Ravaged Japan facing possible nuclear meltdown

The 9.0 earthquake that ravaged through Japan on Friday and causing a tsunami has left behind in its trail nothing but death and destruction. Hundreds of thousands of people are left homeless and it is expected that the death toll alone will be more than 10,000. The damage alone projected to cost over $180 billion.

Now there has been a much larger threat.

The Fukushima Nuclear Complex north of Tokyo has experienced hydrogen explosions and falling water levels leading to the possible scenario that because of the coolents failing, the nuclear reactors could experience a meltdown.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that the radiation released after the earthquake was limited and that nuclear plant workers are doing every thing in their power to prevent a meltdown from happening. Furthermore, the agency has yielded concerns that any meltdown would be similar as to what happened in Chernobyl. The agency is optimistic and says that in Japan’s nuclear situation there is a containment structure built to prevent radiation from blowing out into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, the stakes are indeed quite high. When you consider that Japan is roughly 100 miles from coast to coast and if radiation does leak out into the atmosphere from a meltdown, this will put a decent portion of the country at risk from radiation exposure.

In short, Japan has experienced hell.

Peter King, Louis Farrakhan and Radical Muslims

In what some people are calling as "McCarthy" style series of Congressional hearings, New York Congressman Peter King, recently elected as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, began a series of investigative hearings into radical Muslims in the United States yesterday. This is not to say that all Muslims are bad people, a handful of them are good people and I'm happy to say that I have friends who practice Muslim as a religion.

However there are a few bad apples right here in America and in the Middle East.

In the last two years, there have been several attacks on our country's soil by radical Muslims. Yet, the Department of Homeland Security and the Obama Administration continue to all but deny this. The shooter who screamed "Allah" after murdering soliders at a Fort Hood army base in Texas, the Time Square and Underwear bombers and a young boy named Carlos Leon Bledsoe who converted to Jihad. All of these cases in the last couple of years, were carried about by Radical Muslims.

Yesterday, the father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe gave testimony at Congressman King's Committee hearings and expressed a great deal of sorrow that there was nothing he could have done to prevent his son from becoming a radical Jihad which ultimately concluded in the fatal shooting of a U.S. solider at a Little Rock training base in 2009 all in the name of Allah.

But apparently, the Congressional hearings are all but ignored by just about everyone in the media. So much so that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News did not even bother to bring much attention to the hearings, nor did C-SPAN even bother to broadcast it live.

However one commentator on CNN, Fareed Zakaria said today " There is no question we should be investigating the radicalization of American Muslims.  But by “we” I mean the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement, not Peter King".

Wrong Fareed.

Congress has ultimate responsibility and oversight of every branch of the Federal Government, including the President. Congress has, for the better part of several years, tried to persuade the FBI, CIA and the Department of Homeland Security to investigate radical Muslims in America, which the far-left apparently didn't like. And yet, the far-left still doesn't like to investigate this. President Obama won't even mention it as a critical problem happening right now inside the United States. As far as Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are concerned? Well, they don't "have the time".

Meanwhile we have Gaddafi killing his own people in Libya, and last week Louis Farrakhan, who is the leader of a group called The Nation of Islam in Chicago and not to mention a friend of President Obama, gives a speech saying Gaddafi is not killing his own people and that the "Jews in America are the devil".

No condemnation from Obama or Holder. Tell me something, is Obama's friend Louis Farrakhan a radical Muslim in America?

I think so.

Wisconsin turns ugly

What a load of crap. Democrats in Wisconsin's State Senate, after hiding out for weeks in Illinois, magically decided to try and make it back to the Capitol in Madison before Republicans voted on the controversial bill to end union rights to workers. These Democrats, who all vowed to try and block the bill by running away from doing their fiduciary duty as elected officials, are now 'mad as hell" from the outcome.

The Democratic State Senators in Wisconsin have no right to be mad nor to voice any opposition on this, because had they actually did their jobs, perhaps they could have found some common ground by compromising with Republicans. Instead, they all ran away, like a bunch of rats.

Now that progress has actually been made in one State, it has turned ugly. After weeks of union protests at the Capitol in Wisconsin, several Republican Senators that voted for the bill, have received death threats. I wonder if MSNBC or NPR will report this? Remember, the Tea Parties are made up with a bunch of racists, but pro-union workers threatening law makers must be okay in the minds of the liberal controlled news media in this country.

Governor Scott Walker is going to sign the bill into law which would remove union rights and fill the budget deficit Wisconsin is facing. Unlike most of the pigs running our States into the ground, Governor Walker actually has real political courage by eliminating entitlements to public unions, while the rest of the Governors in this country continue to think that funding inflated pensions and benefits to public union workers is mandatory, even though just about every State is broke.

Finally, one person in politics actually gets it.

Newt Gingrich's affairs were for America

There are many clowns in the Republican Party that will probably be seen on the GOP Presidential Ticket in 2012. Mitt Romney is identified as a Socialist Republican; Sarah Palin is a joke, Mike Huckabee talks too much like a televangelist and Newt Gingrich screws around too much... literally!

The former House Speaker who has admitted publicly of his affairs having been married three times told CBS News "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate."

While in Congress, Gingrich proposed to his second wife while he was still married to his first wife who was being treated for cancer. He then had an affair with his then soon to be third wife, while still married to his second wife. He went on to say "I cheated on my wife because of my love for my country."

 In other words, Gingrich's screwing around as an elected public official was nothing more than a generous service to America. The impeachment of President Clinton for his screwing around with Monica Lewinsky which Gingrich initially laid out the carpet for, is nothing in comparison.

I wonder if Gingrich will get the same heat that John Edwards received?


Nevertheless, Republicans are standing behind Newt Gingrich as a most likely contender in the 2012 Presidential Race. Those in the GOP should do a little investigating on the candidates they're going to support and eventually vote for.

Right now, with the exception of Ron Paul, none of them look very appealing to me.

California redevelopment agencies misuse tax money

Money was apparently misused last year by 18 redevelopment agencies, according to a California State Audit that was released on Monday.

Redevelopment agencies in California receive roughly $5.5 billion a year to beautify areas and build low to moderate income housing, and several of these so-called agencies claim that they produced jobs last year.

$5.5. billion of tax payer money, has nothing to do with actually creating jobs. Far from it.

According to an article released by Southern California Public Radio, the State Controller's office found that 10 out of the 18 agencies failed to verify their claims that they "created" jobs; failed to provide transparency and keep proper accounting records and misused money that was supposed to be spent on building housing. Instead, this money went to cover administrative salaries, in some cases more than 20% alone. 

The head of the California Redevelopment Association, John Shirey, calls the audit "politically motivated". What's motivated about this Mr. Shirey is that many public workers simply used millions of dollars on themselves, without any consideration to the people that are actually paying their salary and to create work in a state agency, designed to build public housing.

As for the creation of jobs, Shirey insists California Redevelopment has created hundreds of thousands jobs. Yes, to be sure. Hundreds of thousands of jobs to pay the salaries to redevelopment freeloaders. Yet, nothing has been said about the creation of private sector jobs in the State of California.

Maybe Mr. Shirey doesn't realize that California is fundamentally bankrupt and has a $25 billion budget deficit and our unemployment is 12.4%. Governor Brown has called for cuts in discretionary spending. I wonder if that would have included this outrageous junket by redevelopment workers of misusing tax money to pay themselves.

I'd be curious to know why Mr. Shirey believes these entitlements are okay for public workers to misuse tax money while the State continues to suffer everyday from budget and unemployment problems.

Time to defund public broadcasting?

There has been much talk in Washington about defunding public broadcasting and today, National Public Radio had its own shakeup with the removal of its CEO Vivian Schiller.

The discussion to strip away funding to NPR and PBS came to light last year after liberal news contributor Juan Williams appeared on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and made a comment about how he fells "uncomfortable" when he is in an airport and sees people in Muslim garb.

Williams, who at the time was serving as a contributor for NPR ended up getting terminated altogether by public radio network and in the days following was subjected to numerous attacks by its CEO Vivian Schiller.

The recent event to involve Ms. Schiller occurred after an undercover sting, conducted by Republican filmmaker James O'Keefe, in which an NPR executive was videotaped making statements such as the Tea Party being "racist". You may recall that Mr. O'Keefe was responsible for conducting similar stings on ACORN, which ultimately culminated into the Federal Government stripping away its public funding after controversial video tapes were uncovered in 2009.

However, the double standard of the news media seems to apply to public works as well. NPR is primarily known as a left-leaning organization and it is interesting that they would criticize Tea Party members, yet refuse to call out the same hate and rhetoric of union protesters in Wisconsin.

Hotsheet estimates that NPR receives roughly 10% of its income from tax payers. PBS on the other hand actually receives around 50% to 60% of its television revenues from private donations and grants.

Yet is it fair and honest that public radio or a public network should take tax payer money and only report the one side of the political spectrum?

Since the termination of Juan Williams, Republican Lawmakers in Washington have proposed taking away all public funding, whether it is NPR or PBS. If you ask me, I think there are far more important programs to defund, like benefits to illegal aliens and outrageous pensions to federal and state workers and all of the nonsense that tax payers have to pay for, instead of putting Sesame Street on the chopping block.

There is no question that it seems rational to apply reform to our country's public broadcasting, but it would require striking a balance between viewers and listeners of those works and obtaining news, without the controversy.

Mexico: All talk, still no walk

Yesterday, President Obama had a meeting with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico to discuss that country's growing drug cartel violence and the issues on the U.S. border. The problem is not going away anytime soon.

Since 2006, President Calderon has attempted to crack down on drug cartel violence throughout Mexico and it is apparent that he is loosing. Over the last four and a half years, some 30,000 people in Mexico have been killed in drug cartel related violence, and the Mexican Military and Police Force have been largely outnumbered.

Stories of drug cartel violence continues to escalate. In various cities across Mexico, the mutilated remains of people are showing up all over the streets.

Now, the violence is pouring onto U.S. soil, and the U.S., by the way, happens to be a primary financier and buyer of drugs, not to mention a supplier of weapons to Mexican drug cartel organizations. 

In Phoenix, the city happens to be the second "kidnapping" capitol of the world thanks to criminal illegal aliens.
Back in October, a married couple on Falcon Lake, Texas which also lies on Mexico's border, were ambushed by drug cartel members. The husband was killed and the wife was able to get away. A Mexican police commander investigating the case was decapitated and his head later turned up at a Mexican Army base.

That same month in Chandler, Arizona, an illegal alien was arrested for beheading a man who had an association with drug smuggling.

And, more recently, a U.S. ICE Agent was ambushed and killed on a Mexican highway.

It is arguably the worst that Mexico and the U.S. has ever seen.

Despite all of this, President Calderon and President Obama continue to just talk about the drug cartel violence in Mexico, the gang members and the illegal alien population in the United States. Yet both of them continue to offer no solution to stop and prevent Mexico's drug cartel problems from continuing, nor expressing any solution to our own country's border security.

Honestly, it does not take rocket science. Secure the border, work on a rational and humane solution on our illegal immigration problem and work jointly with Mexico to remove the drug cartels.

But unfortunately, our Congress and this Administration, just like every Administration in the last twenty years, still cannot figure it out.

How pathetic.

Libya considering Chavez plan for resolving unrest

Hugo Chavez, the self important clown of Venezuela, says that he has proposed a plan to the Arab League which detailed "resolving the unrest" in Libya.

Just what we need in this world, another dictator reaching out to help another dictator.

Reuters reported today that Chavez's plan was to work with an international commission on working with Moammar Gaddafi on restoring Libya.  Like Iran, Libya has had a productive working relationship with Chavez. But the details of Chavez's so-called "turnaround plan" offered no precise details as to what would be proposed. It seems apparent that Chavez is wanting to work with Gaddafi perhaps due to oil. Anyone with a triple digit IQ knows that Chavez has no real commitment to restoring peace in any country, he is just about as brutal as Gaddafi.

Critics are already calling Chavez's plan as nothing more than offering Gaddafi "an easy way out of power". Meanwhile Chavez has been criticizing Washington as "exaggerating reports of repression" of his pal Gaddafi, simply as a way for the U.S. to possibly invade that country.

Noting Chavez's participation with Iran on uranium enrichment, it seems logical to conclude that Chavez probably wants some kind of consideration from Libya. Again, could it be oil? Working in the future to develop nuclear programs? Offering subsidies for terrorist groups?

At this point, Chavez's plan is simply under consideration, but at this point Gaddafi is in dire need of any support he can muster. Even if it is from another horrible individual. Sort of like evil meets evil.

Truth behind Gaddafi's claim that al-Qaeda is responsible for Libyan unrest?

The usual delusional world of Muammar Gaddafi continued today as he once again singled out the terrorist network al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, as the reason why the unrest in Libya is happening.

We could go one step further and blame Charlie Sheen for the unrest as well... but we won't. Charlie Sheen is not worth anyone's time.

Gaddafi however, is somewhat correct about al-Qaeda having a presence in his country which he is loosing control of. Recently, al-Qaeda set up an Islamic emirate in Libya near Tripoli. However there has been no evidence of al-Qaeda influencing the people of Libya to rise up against Gaddafi's reign. On another note, the Muslim Brotherhood has had an influence on the unrest across the Middle East. Deciphering some of Gaddafi's rather strange and bizarre comments, there are some credible ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups throughout the region including al-Qaeda and Hamas.

It wouldn't hurt to say that such terrorist related groups in general, particularly Hamas and Hezbollah are primary reasons as to why the region is collapsing. Hamas notably has participated with al-Qaeda on a number of occasions, and Hamas' own charter identifies itself as associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Really? You might ask.

You may recall just last month, the clerical leader of the Muslim Brotherhood issued a fatwa calling for the assassination of Gaddafi. So from the standpoint that Hamas has worked with al-Qaeda and is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Gaddafi may have some legitimate points about al-Qaeda bearing some responsibility for the uprising in his country.

And Gaddafi is showing no signs of giving up power. While the United Nations imposed sanctions against Libya and declared a "no-fly" zone,  it is an estimated that at least a thousand or more people in Libya have been killed since the uprising, which Gaddafi is blamed for.

This is not to say that he is 100% correct with his allegations on al-Qaeda and there is no doubt that he is an insane and irrational individual, but the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood seemingly is committed to destabilizing the Middle East, one has to look at the frightening possibilities.  

Actually Gaddafi and Charlie Sheen, two insane individuals, may get along well...