"No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan

It appears that the White House is ignoring the law and the Constitution as is reported in today's Washington Times, that the Obama people are spying on Americans that use the Internet!
And Democrats and the ACLU thought the Patriot Act was bad!!
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.

The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House. Big Brother looms ever larger now that Obama controls the reigns of power!!

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don't work for the White House.
"It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President," the law says.

This despite the fact that Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be "unprecedented" and "ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration."

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.

"Given the administration's disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy," Mr. Buttar said.

According to the law, the term "presidential records" means documentary materials "created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."

The Cato institute has reported that President Obama has imposed a tariff on Chinese made tires of 35%. This after he encouraged the G-20 members at their last meeting to not do anything to inhibit free trade!
One of the more interesting spectacles in all of this,would be watching President Obama explain his decision to impose tire duties on China at the G-20 meeting he is hosting in Pittsburgh in 12 days. Recall the president’s pledge (along with the other G-20 leaders) at the last G-20 meeting in London to avoid new protectionist measures.Source:Cato Institute

President Obama’s decision to impose a 35 percent tariff on imported tires from China was not an act of statesmanship. The White House admitted as much by announcing its decision at 10 p.m. on Friday evening in order to minimize news coverage.

A few union leaders are cheering, but in just about every other way our country is worse off. Among the biggest losers will be low-income American families. The tariffs apply to lower-end tires that sell for $50 or $60 each, compared to $200 for higher-end tires. As The Wall Street Journal reported this morning:

The low end of the market will feel the impact of the tariff most, as U.S. manufacturers, who joined the Chinese in opposing the tariffs, have said it isn’t profitable to produce inexpensive tires in domestic plants.Because Union wages and contributions to Union benefits make tire producers unable to produce cheap tires and still make a profit.

“I think within the next 60 days you’ll see some pretty significant price increases,” said Jim Mayfield, president of Del-Nat Tire Corp. of Memphis, Tenn., a large importer and distributor of Chinese tires. He estimates prices for “entry-level” tires could increase 20% to 30%.This will impact the lower middle class worker and the entry level wage earner whom Obama pledged to defend against big Business when he campaigned for the Presidency.

With his decision Friday, President Obama has revealed himself to be a friend of the status quo.He has already signaled that he would be a partner with the Unions before he was elected and with the Chrysler and General Motors debacle.

While he is doing the bidding of Unions, Obama is planning to stick it to the middle class. Those whom he promised during his campaign not to increase their taxes to pay for his welfare state programs.
Obama is raising taxes on households at the top while providing refundable giveaways to households at the bottom, such as the Making Work Pay tax credit and expansions in the child and earned income tax credits. But the top fifth of households already pay an effective federal tax rate of 26 percent, while the bottom fifth pay just 4 percent, on average. The tax code is already far too graduated, and Obama is exacerbating this inequity.
And remember he promised not to raise taxes on families with incomes of less than $250,000. But the president already broke that promise with a cigarette tax increase in February, and his cap-and-trade energy plan is effectively a large tax increase on all families. Health care reform might also include a significant tax increase on average families. Thus, it wouldn't be surprising if the Obama tax task force also decided to raise taxes on the middle class.

What has this to do with tariffs on Chinese tire imports. Well, if we do not want to get into a trade war because as surely as night follows day there will be more union requests for tariffs on other products that are made in Country's that do not have punitive regulations or high union wages to make products that are exported to the USA.
The Obama administration should rethink its devotion to tax increases as the solution to seemingly every policy issue. Tax increases make no sense in the competitive global economy, and they imply that there are no savings left to be made on the spending side of the federal budget.This is the thinking of the tax and spend Liberals to control the Congress and the White House for now, and that is why over one half million protesters gathered in Washington to send a message to Congress to stop the spending!!

Fox News is reporting a continuing disturbing pattern of the Obama administration treating Terrorists as criminals not as what they really are, terrorists!
I believe as do most Americans that terrorists do not deserve any Constitutional civil or judicial rights that are granted to our citizens.
The ACLU and too many leftist ruling Federal judges have the opinion that the rights granted to all USA citizens are applicable to people who advocate death and destruction to Americans. I think they are dead wrong! But unfortunately Law schools like Yale and City University of New York have some professors and too many students who are willing to step up to the Bar of Justice to defend these terrorists!

Human rights campaigners have argued that the prisoners in Afghanistan should be given the same rights as those at Guantanamo, but the U.S. military argues that Bagram detainees should be treated differently because they are being held in an active theater of war.

Their status is the subject of lawsuits in the United States. A federal judge ruled in April that several Bagram detainees have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at City University of New York and some of his Law students are presently representing one of the Bagram detainees, and are anxious to participate in the defense of those Taliban terrorists who will now challenge their detention as outlined by the Obama administration. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

What tools and fools these jihadi-enablers be. Civil liberties opportunism is literally a part of the al-Qaida handbook. A terrorist manual seized in a Manchester, England, raid in 2005 advised operatives: “At the beginning of the trial,the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.” Jihadi commanders rehearsed the lines with their foot soldiers “to ensure that they have assimilated it.”

Since 9/11, the selective champions of privacy have recklessly blabbed about counterterrorism operations, endangered the lives of military and intelligence officials at Gitmo, and undermined national security through endless litigation. They accused Bush immigration officials of xenophobia for pursuing visa overstayers from jihadi-friendly countries. They accused local law enforcement, FBI and other homeland security officials of “racial profiling” for placing heightened scrutiny on mosques and jihadi-linked charities.

Now, caught red-handed blowing the cover of CIA operatives, they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as “normal” research on behalf of “our clients.”

But don’t you dare question their love of country. Spying to stop the next 9/11 is treason, you see. Spying to stop enhanced interrogation of Gitmo detainees is patriotic. And endangering America on behalf of international human rights is the ultimate form of leftist dissent.Source:Michelle Malkin

I do not understand the reasoning of those who think they can bargain with the Devil.For do not confuse these prisoners as similar to those who occupy our prisons. The terrorists have been capture on the field of battle without uniform or flag. Their main objective is to kill and maim American troops and any of their fellow citizens who get in the way.

You cannot dance with the Devil and make everything safe for Americans in the field of battle or here at home!

And we must always remember that Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38] So how can anyone allow these people the right to lie to facilitate there release from military prison to return to killing our brave troops, and still be called an American?

We all know that Iran has a megalomaniac leader and the puppet of the Mullahs who are sworn haters of America and Israel. What we o not no is when they get the BOMB will they use it on Israel or will they fashion a suitcase type bomb that they will give to terrorists to inflict serious damage on whom they call "the great Satan"--the USA!!
Iran is in a race to acquire a nuclear weapon, a political game changer for the Mid-East.

What we also should know is revealed in this statement."America’s Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based watchdog group, correctly set the tone by stating that Iran now has sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon. Glyn Davies added that Iran’s “ongoing enrichment activities moves Iran closer to a dangerously and destabilizing breakout capacity” These were the toughest remarks so far during the Obama Administration concerning Iran’s technical capacity to build a atomic bomb, and added to the anxiety that Teheran is really not negotiating seriously but instead buying time while playing the international community for a patsy".

We have dithered around with UN resolutions and threats of embargoes for eight years, but the Iranian's keep making their nuclear killer bomb!

Will we wait until we have another 9/11 only worse??
It is as my grandfather said to me "it is time to fish or cut bait"!

We have the capability to take out the known sites where thy are enriching the nuclear materials, and we should strike before they do!
Obama and his minions seem to be concentrated on socializing the USA more than he is concerned with his main job as President. To protect the citizens and be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces who reacts appropriately to a threat to OUR safety!

But there are fascinating twists in the storyline since last year. President Barack Obama has offered to negotiate with Tehran without preconditions and earlier in the year set a September deadline for Iran to negotiate seriously or face renewed calls for economic sanctions. Obama’s Springtime offer essentially allowed Tehran’s scientists a further six months of uninterrupted work on their nuclear program. Yet, since that time, Ahmadinejad’s own authority has been challenged in the bitter aftermath of Iran’s fraudulent Presidential elections.

Now come September we confront our own arbitrary deadline but with some definite changes in the political landscape. The Obama Administration, despite initial optimism in dealing with this Charter member of Axis of Evil, feels it may be getting scammed by Ahmadinejad. The West Europeans, while decidedly nervous over a nuclear Iran, would just like to squeeze in a few more lucrative business deals before the next slap on the wrist. And neighboring Arab states are just plain scared.This is all being done with the threat of a nuclear attack on us by Iran never being mentioned .

If we are more concerned with what the rest of the World thinks of us then we are about protecting our citizens from a nuclear disaster that will make the Twin Towers pale in comparison.
Then we should give the green light to the Israelis to take out the threat. Each day we hesitate and talk they are building air defense systems that will cost more lives of the pilots who eventually have to do the air strike. And we risk the nuclear disaster that hangs over the heads of every major city in the USA unless this madman is stopped!
Source: World Tribune. com

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Talk about regulation of people's lives. The Wall Street Journal reports that hidden within the over 1000 pages of HB 3200 is the biggest pay off and pay back to Unions for their over 500 million dollars that helped sweep Republicans out of Congress and elect Obama.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues.

Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.

The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers "under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing federal health-care policy affecting hundreds of thousands of doctors, surgeons and nurses.

Consider Kaiser Permanente, the giant, managed-care organization that has since 1997 proudly touted its labor-management "partnership" in scores of workplaces. Union officials play an essentially co-equal role in running many Kaiser facilities. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called the Kaiser plan "a framework for what every health care delivery system should do" at a July 24 health-care forum outside of Washington, D.C.

The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion medical facilities from participation. The training funds in this program must be administered jointly with a labor organization—a scenario not unlike the U.S. Department of Labor's grants for construction apprenticeship programs, which have turned into a cash cow for construction industry union officials on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers' existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus's scheme, the government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion businesses already struggling to afford health care plans.
Baucus is a Democrat from Montana( chairman of the Senate who has served in the Senate since 1978, and is the seventh longest-serving senator as of 2009.
It is no wonder the Union Lobbyists have got their hooks in him!

Mr. Baucus's proposal would give union officials another tool to pressure employers into turning over their employees to Big Labor. Rather than provide the lavish benefits required by Obamacare, employers could allow a union to come in and negotiate less costly benefits than would otherwise be required. Such plans could be continuously exempted.Source:The Wall Street Journal

U.S. Senator Max Baucus finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Monday night (8/17/09), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option. While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, "I want a public option too!" source:Gossip Rocks.com

This means that any proposal from a Democrat will probably open the door to the so called Public Option. This is a semantic euphemism for Socialized Medicine! And the main beneficiaries will not be the patients but the Unions!

And while Americans are distracted by the Health Insurance rancor the Democratic controlled Senate committee strikes a blow to our defense capabilities, and allows the USA to share valuable technology with foreign buyers.

A Senate panel urged the Air Force on Thursday to start developing an export model of its F-22 Raptor, the most advanced U.S. fighter jet, even as it voted to end U.S. purchases.

Japan, Israel and Australia have shown interest in buying the supersonic, radar-evading F-22 Raptor, designed to destroy enemy air defenses in the first days of any conflict and clear the way for other missions.

Foreign sales were banned by a 1998 law aimed at protecting the "stealth" technology and other high-tech features said to have made the F-22 too good for money to buy.The bill, adopted 30 to 0 in 15 minutes without debate, largely backed program cuts sought by President Barack Obama. Overall, it provided $636.3 billion for defense in fiscal 2010, which starts October 1.

If enacted, the measure adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee would let the Defense Department prepare a modified F-22 that protects classified and sensitive information, technologies and U.S. war fighting capabilities.Source:

Both this bill and the Democrats Public Option health plan should be soundly opposed!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.

The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."

Attendees included Congress' two Muslim members -- Reps. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson as well as ambassadors from Islamic nations and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

And yet when Obama spoke to the graduating class of the Catholic University, Notre Dame, he never mentioned that Catholicism was one of the great religions. Essentially he spoke about secular co-operation.
" Many of you at Notre Dame - by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible".

It appears Obama is more concerned with the message that has been a hallmark of his administration. Doing thing for he "common good" not the freedom to personal success!

And it appears that Obama has forgotten the fact that our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by Christians. There were no Muslims at the drafting or signing of the Constitution.History documents that there were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. The majority of the signers were Episcopalian and all were Christian!

Sharia law of the Koran does not allow democracy or the republican form of government even if strict Christian principles are not taken into account.
Although the Koran’s attitude toward Christians in certain early passages of the Koran was to respect Christians and their Book, those passages were abrogated or superceded by later passages which called for Christians and Jews to be subjugated or killed. Under Sharia law (religious law applied to everyday life as specified in the Koran) Christians may not practice their religion!

If you doubt me, just digest these quotes from the Koran:
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

What was the reason for Obama's salute to a religion that is based on a book that denies the rights and freedoms that the Country he leads as president is based upon?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

INSIDERS WHO ARE PRIVY TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PITCH TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TONIGHT SAY THAT HE WILL PUSH HARD FOR THE "GOVERNMENT OPTION".
And in his proposal he will include a fine for those families that do not have health insurance that reportedly is as follows.

Democratic plans call for requiring most Americans to carry health insurance. Failure to comply could cost families as much as $3,800 a year, according to a new Senate proposal.

The president is likely to say tonight that a government-run insurance plan, known as the "public option," will not provide a level of subsidies that give it an unfair advantage over private insurers, according to aides familiar with the speech preparations.
This of course is a bold faced lie. When the government runs a health plan as they have done with Medicare for decades. They do not have to worry about deficit spending! The tax payer is always there! Private insures cannot compete with a deficit spender health care scheme. To exist private insurance companies, and there are 1300 company's that sell health insurance, must pay taxes and make a profit, unlike the Federal govt.


Under a new Senate plan, people who earn between 100% and 300% of the poverty level (or between about $22,000 a year and $66,000 a year for a family of four) would face fees ranging from $750 to $1,500 a year.

For taxpayers with incomes above 300% of poverty, the penalty starts at $950 a year and reaches as high as $3,800 for families. Nearly 12 million people fit in this category, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management.

The idea behind the penalty is that those who can afford insurance but don't buy it are imposing costs on the entire health system. Under the proposal, nearly 12 million people who currently have no insurance could be subject to such fines, according to figures compiled by the National Institute for Health Care Management.

Starting next year, the plan also calls for annual fees of $6 billion on health-insurance providers, $4 billion for medical-device makers, $2.3 billion on drug makers and $750 million on clinical laboratories. The fees would be levied on individual companies based on market share. Insurers also face an excise tax of 35% for any health plan worth more than $8,000 a year for individuals and $21,000 a year for families.If this is not undermining the private insurers nothing is!!

Karen Ignagni, chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry lobbying group, said the new fees would make it more difficult for health insurers to contain rising costs. "Our members are talking about that being at odds with the goal of cost containment," she said.

Congressional leaders, meanwhile, breathed new life into a proposal for a legislative mechanism to trigger a public plan if private insurers fail to reduce health-care inflation or cover the uninsured.This in my opinion is a trigger aimed at private insurers that is intended to clear the competition for single payer health insurance--SOCIALISM!!

There is little doubt that if the government expands the pool of covered people with the present number of doctors and nurses. There will eventually be a need to ration care.
Obama talks about people and families going bankrupt because of large uncovered catastrophic illness or accident. What he does not address is the number of people who will die because of the rationing of care to the elderly and infirmed because of cost containment.

The United States had over 17,000 people killed by drunk drivers in 2008, and many of those drunk drivers had no automobile insurance.
But the striking difference between the fine for a first time drunk driver averages $250 -$500 in the State of Florida.Yet the Democrats in Congress and Obama plan to fine a family or person for not having health insurance from each year from an estimated $700 to $22,000!

This is the beginning of taxation disguised as fines for failing to confirm to the "common good". This is an other example of the attitude of totalitarian rule that Obamamaniacs have in store for the American public in their CHANGE That We Can Believe In!

I do not think that intimidation and fines for non-conforming to government mandates is the path our founders put us on when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights? It sounds more like the road to tyrannical control over the average American that the elite politicians and their wealthy supporters will never have to be forced to participate!

The headlines in the China News Talk announce to the World that the Chinese Communist flag will fly on the South lawn of the Whit House on September 20th.
The national flag of the People's Republic of China (PRC) will be hoisted at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on September 20, media reported Sunday.

Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President’s residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC.

Chen Ronghua, chairman of Fujian Association of the United States, told reporters that their application was approved not only because of the sound Sino-US relations but also because China is a responsible country.

"Many Americans admire China due to the success of last year’s Beijing Olympics," said Chen.( only those who admire tyrants and despotic oppressors of the people!)

More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.( Will the ceremony be held by Obama in the White House?)

Zhao said the performances will demonstrate the friendship, magnanimous spirit and kindness of modern Chinese people.( Tell this to the Tibetans, the Taiwanese and those who were at the Tienanmen Square massacre)
And as a Korean war veteran who served on an aircraft carrier that lost too many pilots to Chinese Communist MIGs. I am appauled! And China is still supplying weapons to our enemies along with the Russians whom we also call our friends.

This the same State Department that declared the action in Honduras an illegal "military coups" and cut off aid to them?

Flying the Chinese flag anywhere in America to celebrate the Communist takeover of China is beyond belief. China should have this celebration on Chinese soil. It is an insult to freedom-loving people in America, and would be so in any other country. Obama doesn't appreciate the price of freedom because he doesn't know the meaning of it. Apparently the Democrats have totally derailed, not only their party, but, in the process, they are trying to destroy this nation.This is an insult on par with appointing an avowed Communist as one of Obama's Czars, and must be protested, if not stopped!

President Obama has announced that he will give a major speech on Health Care next Wednesday. With his approval ratings plummeting and the wreckage of the Health Care Town Hall meeting ringing in his mind. Obama realizes that his grasp on the ability to socialize 1/6 the of the gross national product is slipping away.
Thus, he will address the nation and the Congress next Wednesday evening at prime time to try and salvage his "prize" piece of legislation that he promised the Left wing of the Democrat party during his campaign for the Oval Office.

I expect as usual he will try to confuse and confound the public about what he is trying to do. He will once again demonize the industry and say it is time to have real competition in the Health Insurance Industry, This is a canard that any one who looks at what he is saying is the exact opposite of the facts. There are 1300 Health Insurance Companies that sell Health Insurance in this country.
The problem is not that there are not enough companies offering health insurance, but some State laws prohibit Insurance companies domiciled in another state from selling in their state. This is part protectionism for the Insurance companies in their state and part because they want the license fee to allow a company to sell in their state. This is a simple matter that can be resolved by passing a Federal law to allow all Health Insurance Companies to sell in all states provided they are properly capitalized.

The President will probably throw a bone to the people and Congress by saying he will abandon the Federal government option in favor of the scheme that includes Co-operatives.

This word co-operative is a semantic example of slipping in a word that appears to abandon the govt. option, but in fact does not!
In the first place the legislation that includes co-operatives also includes "seed money" of five billion dollars from the Federal government. And lest you forget, he who pays the piper calls the tune!

The following excerpt from CSNNews.com shows just how involved the Federal government will be involved in any co-operative scheme for health care reform, so do not be fooled by the man behind the curtain!
"The health care bill under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have sweeping power to govern the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.

These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which companies can participate, which states can run their own exchange, and enrolling individuals into the public exchange.

Though the bill, House Resolution 3200, faces many political hurdles, it has passed three House committees and could be ready for a floor vote after Congress returns from recess. The overhaul package calls for establishing a health insurance exchange where people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level will be able to purchase health insurance with the help of federal subsidies. This exchange would include a "public option" government-run health care plan as well as private plans that provide a minimum benefits package dictated by the government.

The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange.

The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange, and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.

Further, the commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange.

“The Commissioner shall provide a process under which individuals who are Exchange-eligible individuals described in subparagraph (B) are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange participating health benefits plan,” the legislation says, beginning on page 97. “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”

The exchange eligible individuals [determined by subparagraph (B)] include someone who “has not opted out from receiving such affordability credit,” someone who “does not otherwise enroll in another exchange participating health benefits plan,” and someone “enrolled in an Exchange-participating plan that is terminated (during or at the end of the plan year) and who does not otherwise enroll in another Exchange participating health benefits plan.”

The next thing he will do is try to scare the public by saying that if they do not pass the government option, the Heath Insurance Industry will continue to raise their premiums and more people will go bankrupt. The fact is that if we get the govt. option they will force the private health insurers out of business by offering such low premiums to begin with that private insurers cannot compete. But once they have control of the health care market the taxes and fees will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and will bring senior citizens and the infirmed rationing, as every other nation has experienced who have government controlled health care!

Leopard does not change it's spots, and a radical community organizer will not abandon his determination to change our country from a free enterprise system that is the American dream, to a Marxist socialist country where the government tells you how to live and regulates every portion of our Industry and commerce. He has a good start by taking over the General Motors company and essentially dictating how bankers and investment houses can pay their executives.

Please do not allow smooth talk and promises of reducing the debt by nationalising our health care system. No major government program has ever reduced costs to taxpayers. Good examples are social security, medicare and the rail and postal service. All of these plans started small with little impact on taxpayers.
The best example is Medicare which now takes 7.65 cents out of every dollar that taxpayers make up to $107,000. This amounts to $8,185/year!

In 2008, we had 45 million people on Medicare. It cost $11,000 per year per person. In 2018, the Medicare trustees project that number to rise to 59 million as the baby-boomers retire. An average cost per person at $17,000 a year. Are we looking at higher taxes, co-pays, deductibles? Is health care for seniors going to cost a lot more than what it’s costing right now?

Therefore, if we continue to tax an average 18 percent or 19 percent of GDP--as we have since World War II--almost all of that federal revenue would have to go to funding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Put another way, we would have to eliminate the rest of the federal government as we know it, including the Defense Department.Source:The Heritage Foundation.com

Of course, we could try to borrow our way out of this shortfall, but it would mean essentially trying to borrow the equivalent of $1 trillion per year in current dollars. That amount would grow dramatically simply because of interest costs and would quickly outpace savings here and abroad.And Obama is going to lie to the American public when he talks to a joint session of Congress by saying we must have the Government controlling health care costs in one form or another. This will be getting the socialist "camels nose under the tent", and expect amendments to follow.

No matter what he proposes, to accomplish his radical objectives--Socialism!!
It might be $13 trillion in promised, but unfunded, benefits over the long term. Whatever the total might be, it is an unlimited amount because this is an entitlement.

Do not be confused by semantics and smooth talk!!

Harold D. Laswell, one of the outstanding political theorists of the last century said: "The sine qua non of Chicago politics is power, getting it and keeping it. Everything else is incidental. Even corruption is a byproduct of power and is functional only if it enables you to stay in power. In Chicago politics, you don't make waves, you don't back losers, and you 'don't talk to nobody nobody sent.' Chicago politics is always about hierarchy and centralization".

The most famous and in some circles, notorious politician to occupy a position of power in Washington is President Obama. He came into the Oval Office on a wave of promises to run an honest and open government that would reduce the profligate spending that the incumbent Republicans were doing. He also said he would get us out of Iraq and win the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, and many more unfulfilled promises.
So now his approval rating according to the Rasmussen poll is in the vicinity of 46%.Much lower than Clinton or Bush had at this time in office!

As a result there is a lot of talk about the resurgence of the Republican party in 2010. This is because of the dissatisfaction of not only Republicans, but Independents and many Democrats. There is great discontent in our nation, and many say the next election could be a "house cleaning" of Democrats who presently control both Houses of Congress.
I say it will be very difficult if not impossible for the following reasons.

The United States Congress particularly the House of Representatives and its members appointed in proportion to state population was designed as the branch of government that answered directly to the people. The federal judiciary, appointed for life to positions of great power, are largely beyond reach of the electorate, barring misconduct or malfeasance; similarly, the executive branch the President was created to wield executive authority, to be a leader and a figurehead, less influenced by changes in popular opinion. But the Congress was supposed to be different: the House of Representatives and eventually the Senate, after 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution is elected directly by the popular vote of the people, and was designed as a check on both judicial and executive power (Mayhew, 1974).

Unfortunately, one simple electoral reality has significantly limited the U.S. Congress as a true "voice of the people": specifically, the fact that incumbents are almost universally re-elected. The factual truth is that once an individual is elected to Congress especially to the U.S. Senate he or she will generally retain that seat as long as they wish to continue occupying the office.
Going back at least a century, the single greatest advantage in any Congressional election was being an incumbent; that is, having already been elected once previously. In the 2004 election cycle, for example, the re-election rate for sitting members of Congress was a stunning 98.8%; as one writer noted, such an undemocratic, iron-fisted hold on the power of the status quo might have "made even Soviet politicians blush"
In fact, ironically enough even though the British House of Lords one of the Houses of Parliament consists entirely of members appointed for life, it nevertheless "has more turnover than the U.S. Congress" (Gear, 2000). In short, the power of Congressional incumbency functions to undermine the American system of democracy; it is simple common sense to point out that, if the sitting legislator is almost guaranteed to be re-elected, the election is de facto invalid.

A Congressman can gerrymander his district to make it even more likely that he'll win the election in the next cycle. In other words, "the parties get to draw the districts, which lets them choose precisely which voters will be allowed to choose candidates in November" (Gear, 2000). This "nearly universal gerrymandering of congressional districts to provide safe seats for members of both parties" is a particularly pernicious practice, because once the district is gerrymandered, it becomes politically meaningless; unless there are major shifts in demographics, the electoral outcome is virtually certain for that district.

These are the realities of the current electoral situation in American Congressional elections: because of financial issues, media saturation, and rampant gerrymandering of districts, incumbents almost always win re-election, with the elections themselves thus rendered almost meaningless. Solving the problem will not be easy, since any attempt at reform can potentially run into Constitutional protections of free speech.

It is,(OR SHOULD BE) for example, impossible to bar local media from extensively covering local politicians; for that reason, eliminating the incumbency advantage will never occur. However, reforms could be instituted, particularly in terms of campaign financing laws and fairness in media coverage, that could make some headway into returning Congressional elections to what they were designed to be the voice of the people as they chose their representative leaders.But there is little chance of this happening wuth the Democrats in power.

With the vast majority of races either non-competitive or barely competitive with so many races barely even being contested by the opposition party a significant number of the House elections simply don't matter in terms of which side controls the legislature. "The struggle for control of the House centers on 20 to 30 competitive districts such as Lansing, Mich.; Montgomery County, Pa.; suburban Chicago; and a district around Muskogee, Oklahoma. The 200 million Americans who live outside the battleground districts are just spectators" (Weiser, 2000).

The attitude of both major parties the willingness to abandon most districts and states as non-competitive raises an immediate question: is their basic premise supported by factual data? The unfortunate answer is clearly yes. Since at least the 1970s, re-election rates for members of the House of Representatives has never fallen below 90%; the figure has been the same for the Senate since the early 1980s (Merriner & Senter, 1999, p. xxi). The more recent statistics can only be described as stunning: in the 2004 elections, 401 incumbent members of the House of Representatives ran for re-election; of those 401 that sought to return to office for another term, 396 were successful. A mere five failed to win re-election. The picture is even bleaker in the Senate: in 2004, of 26 Senators up for re-election, 25were successful!Source: Nico Macase of Helium.com

Despite the lengthy explanation of how members of Congress have the power to be re-elected. I hope and pray that despite their power and influence.And they are very powerful with unions like SEIU and ACORN able and ready to do their intimidation at the polls. Despite this with the polls showing a less than 30% favorable rating of Congress, it is possible the electorate will throw many Congressman and Senators out at the nwxt election.
This is because the majority of Americans velieve they have betrayed the trust of those who elected them! The "nanny state" is not what America needs or wants!
The projected deficit of $13 trillion and the slush fund of taxpayers money that has gone to Obamas friends, is enough reason to "throw the bums out"!

While the Secretary of Defense Gates, said when asked if the U.S. would send more troops to Afghanistan, He would have to evaluate the COST! A Cato report exposes the fact that the bureaucracy that Obama is rapidly expanding within the Federal government has received continuous raises to the point where the pay exceeds the Private sector.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on compensation levels by industry. The data show that the pay advantage enjoyed by federal civilian workers over private-sector workers continues to expand.

The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector.

In 2008, the average wage for 1.9 million federal civilian workers was $79,197, which compared to an average $49,935 for the nation’s 108 million private sector workers (measured in full-time equivalents). The federal pay advantage (the gap between the lines) is steadily increasing.

The federal advantage is even more pronounced when worker benefits are included. In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909.

What is going on here? Members of Congress who have large numbers of federal workers in their districts relentlessly push for expanding federal worker compensation. Also, the Bush administration had little interest in fiscal restraint, and it usually got rolled by the federal unions. The result has been an increasingly overpaid elite of government workers, who are insulated from the economic reality of recessions and from the tough competitive climate of the private sector.

It’s time to put a stop to this. Federal wages should be frozen for a period of years, at least until the private-sector economy has recovered and average workers start seeing some wage gains of their own. At the same time, gold-plated federal benefit packages should be scaled back as unaffordable given today’s massive budget deficits. There are many qualitative benefits of government work—such as extremely high job security—so taxpayers should not have to pay for such lavish government pay packages.Source: Cato Institute

So it is more important to our Congressman and Senators to pay their bureaucracy then to provide the troops and weapons to fight in Afghanistan it appears to me!
Gates was quoted as follows in the Atlantic Council web site:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "any recommendation for more forces would have to address his concerns that the foreign military presence in Afghanistan could become too large and be seen by Afghans as a hostile occupying force.

"Clearly, I want to address those issues and we will have to look at the availability of forces, we'll have to look at costs. There are a lot of different things that we'll have to look at," he told reporters.

"While there's a lot of gloom and doom going around ... I think we have some assets in place and some developments that hold promise," Gates said on a visit to a Lockheed Martin factory building F-35 fighter jets in Fort Worth, Texas.

Many people who are daily contributed to blogs are young people who have no knowledge or recollection of the disaster that occurred in the Philippines during the first months of World War II.
On Corregior and Bataan the Army defenders ran out of ammunition and were forced to surrender to the attacking Japanese, who took their prisoners on the Bataan Death March!
The Bataan Death March (also known as The Death March of Bataan) took place in the Philippines in 1942 and was later accounted as a Japanese war crime. The 60-mile (97 km) march occurred after the three-month Battle of Bataan, part of the Battle of the Philippines (1941–42), during World War II.

The march, involving the forcible transfer of 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war[1] captured by the Japanese in the Philippines from the Bataan peninsula to prison camps, was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon the prisoners and civilians along the route by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan. Beheadings, cut throats and casual shootings were the more common actions — compared to bayonet stabbings, rapes, disembowelments, numerous rifle butt beatings and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week in tropical heat. Falling down or inability to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure.20,000people died during the march! Source:Wikapedia

My purpose of including the preceding narrative of what occurred over 60 years ago, is that if Obama and Congress continue on their path to establish the welfare State of America and ignoring the brave troops who are in Afghanistan, We,in my opinion will have the equivalent of the death march by attrition.Our troops are dying because they are charged with such obtuse orders as giving captured Taliban forces their Amanda rights on the field of battle, and the objective of the Commander of Chief and the Generals in the field are directed to wage a counterinsurgency that protects the population in Afghanistan! Politically correct pieties instead of the command to kill or be killed,and given the troops and munitions are necessary to accomplish the mission in Afghanistan. Or as George Will said in his Post today:"we should withdraw"!
will result in a modern day equivalent of Corregidor and Bataan.

"To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence." --James Madison

The corner stone of our Republic is the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to our Constitution includes the right that most of us have taken for granted for the last two hundred years. But now the Freedom of Speech is endangered by the radicals who have taken over the reigns of power in Washington D.C.

The Congress and the FCC led by a radical Black activist want to change the way we can speak and the way our medium of communication via radio and TV are controlled. They want to let diversity put its grasp on the free enterprise way of communicating news and ideas to satisfy what they believe is unfair to minorities because of Republican regulations that they claim inhibit minority ownership or radio and television stations.

A 2007 report commissioned by the FCC and conducted by researchers from Duke University found that while minority ownership had increased slightly, the reasons for the disparity between minority and white ownership remained.

“Since the observed ownership asymmetries are economy-wide, they are undoubtedly linked to broad systemic factors,” the report said. “The most direct explanation lies in unequal access to capital. Many businesses require individuals to sink substantial financial investments upon entry. This is likely to be especially true in media enterprises.”

The only way to change this, the 2007 report said, was to redistribute wealth or increase minorities’ access to capital markets. The report did not mention license terms, renewal procedures, or ascertainment.

“In order to change ownership patterns we need to either change the aggregate distribution of wealth or otherwise increase access to capital markets,” said the report.(sounds socialistic to me, and right in line with what Obama and his czars are fomenting)
Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claimed that communications policies enacted by Republicans negatively impacted the civil rights of minorities.Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. He is a frightening guy to have having any power at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). And yet that is exactly where he currently stands, astride
the private radio industry he loathes like a Socialist Colossus.

It does not bode well for free speech on the radio airwaves, but as Seton Motley, the Media Research Center's Director of Communications, says to Glenn during his TV appearance, "That's irrelevent to these people."

And he is not alone in the drive for government intrusion in the airways. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” source:CNSNEWS.com
This despite the fact that all who have attempted to do a Left Wing talk radio or TV show have failed miserably. This is because the nation is with the exception of the East and West Coast predominantly Conservative!

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this past spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. (what happened to the right of privacy in your own home?)

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. SOURCE:DRUDGE REPORT

And Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.

Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press.

Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.(this would bankrupt the private sector broadcasters)

Not only does he want to redistribute private profits, he wants to regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focus on “diverse views” (Progressive Views) and government activities. I am all for that when I see on PBS a conservative voice next to Bill Moyers. And when I hear a conservative voice on NPR!!

And across the Atlantic in England where they have had Socialism since Clement Attlee replaced Winston Churchill as Prime Minister.
Mr Murdoch, chief executive of the European and Asian operations of News Corporation, parent company of The Times, said: “In the regulated world of public service broadcasting, the customer does not exist: he or she is a passive creature — a viewer in need of protection".
He said that the “chilling” expansionism of the BBC meant that commercial rivals and consumer choice were struggling. In particular the “expansion of state-sponsored journalism” in the form of BBC News online was “a threat to plurality and the independence of news provision, which are so important to our democracy”.

Mr Murdoch criticised Radio 2’s effort to woo younger listeners by hiring presenters such as Jonathan Ross on “salaries no commercial competitor could afford”. Sound familiar?

“No doubt the BBC celebrates the fact that it now has well over half of all radio listening. But the consequent impoverishment of the once-successful commercial sector is testament to the corporation’s inability to distinguish between what is good for it and what is good for the country.”

“The consensus appears to be that creationism — the belief in a managed process with an omniscient authority — is the only way to achieve successful outcomes. There is general agreement that the natural operation of the market is inadequate, and that a better outcome can be achieved through the wisdom and activity of governments and regulators. This creationist approach is similar to the industrial planning which went out of fashion in other sectors in the 1970s. It failed then. It’s failing now.” source:London Daily Mail.com

To my knowledge there is no Law or FCC regulation that denies a person of color access to the radio or television. If there were there would have been no Bill Cosby, Oprah, and the myriad of Black Judges on TV shows.
The problem is the Left is the purveyor of hate and dissension, that spent the last eight years comparing President Bush to Hitler, and people are tired of hearing the character assassination and lies from the Leftist.
And if you doubt my charge of hate just ask the Black man, Kenneth Gladney,who was passing out flags outside the St. Louis, Missouri Townhall meeting that was beaten and kicked by union thugs of the Left!

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." —Thomas Paine · "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" —Samuel Adams

I only spent four years in the regular Navy, so my interaction with Admirals was limited to a brief visit to 50 Fell Street in San Francisco to submit my resignation to the Admiral Ryan, the chief of the division of the 7th Fleet that I was a part of, at his office in the heart of the San Francisco Civic Center.
Since I was a lowly lieutenant, I entered his office with great trepidation, but after I told him my "sad" personal story, he allowed me to resign with a stern lecture about what I was giving up and what the Navy had invested in me!
What has this got to do with anything that would interest some one who bothers to read this post, you say?

Well, even though it was not a pleasant experience for me. I noticed the zeal and dedication to the service that this Admiral had for the Naval service and the men whom he commanded that he felt I was letting down because of my resignation. WE did not have women in the Navy Fleet in those long gone days!

Fast forward to today, and I find a difference in attitude that Admiral Mullen, the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has than the Flag officers of the "old" Navy
Admiral Mullen serves as the principal military advisor to the president, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.A military bureaucrat! A product of the new military high command who seem to me to be more politically correct than Flag Rank officers were in the days of my service and both of my brothers who served in the Army and Marines.

Why, You ask do you feel this way. Well,not only the CJCS but the General in Charge of "winning"( that's a dirty word to our president) the war in Afghanistan seem to be preoccupied with winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. A people who hate us because we invaded their country! They hated and defated a Russian force of over 100,000 troops, and are dedicated to drive us out!Yet our Flag leaders appear to be more interested in their attitude towardus than winning the war!

To back up my charge that Admiral Mullen is politically correct. I include an excerpt from a speech he gave to the media today. A speech he gave regarding our mission in Afghanistan.
"No amount of public relations will establish credibility of the United States if American behaviour overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has said in a critique of the government’s efforts at ‘strategic communication with the Muslim world’.

‘To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,’ Admiral Mullen wrote in an essay published on Friday by the Joint Force Quarterly, a military journal.

According to the New York Times, the admiral’s views were significant as they coincided with the Obama administration’s fresh efforts to counter militant propaganda as part of its strategy to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
How about winning the war and then worrying about rebuilding the Country. Or are were just there to destroy the military by attrition?

Fortunately we have not heard that our men lack clothing and "KIT" as some British mothers have told the London Times as recently as yesterday. One poor women said she had spent over a thousand pounds( their version of dollars) during the past year buying boots, socks,a thermal sleeping bag and t-shirts for her son who is serving in the British Army in Afghanistan. She had to buy these items from a military surplus store, because the Army only issued one pair of boots,a non-thermal sleeping bag and two t-shirts, and had no replacements!

Yet, as Oliver North reports in today's Patriot Post that "On Capitol Hill, members of Congress have threatened to cut the budgets of federal agencies that use security contractors instead of government employees to protect key personnel and sensitive installations.

At the Pentagon -- which uses more civilian contractors in the war effort than any other U.S. government entity -- the response to the criticism was capitulation.

In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 additional DoD employees to cut the percentage of work being done by contractors. The fiscal year 2010 defense budget request replaces nearly 14,000 contractor personnel with government employees -- even though the "lifetime cost," counting government benefits and retirement, will more than double the expense to American taxpayers.

The numbers don't mesh, but when it comes to getting the press and politicians off the backs of Pentagon poo-bahs, cutting contractors loose is apparently a small price to pay".
Maybe this is how Obama plans to get more people off unemployment by enlarging the Federal government workforce!

Across the Atlantic,the British politicians are ignoring the fact that they are in a war more than our politicians and media are here at home. This story from London should remind us where we are leading our troops if our politicians don't start concentrating on the war we are involved in, and give less attention to socializing our health care industry!

In a column in The London Times newspaper, Lord Guthrie wrote: "And muddle is the word, as was manifest in a scathing report into defence procurement leaked this week.

General Lord Charles Guthrie,"Its author, the former Labour adviser Bernard Gray, an experienced observer of the defence scene, blamed incompetence and "political fudge" for £35 billion of defence project overspending.

"Moreover, The Times revealed that poor decisions about software have kept eight Chinook helicopters, costing a total of £259 million, in climate-controlled hangars during the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.

"Such an error would never happen in the private sector without dismissals and a plain identification of where the buck stopped. (Socialism raises it's ugly head)

"The revelation is all the more appalling because Chinooks are lifesavers. They are the safest way to evacuate injured soldiers from the battlefield - and a brilliant tactical device to get behind Taliban lines to confuse and mystify the enemy.

"Chinooks also help resupply and reinforcement where land movement is dangerous.

The Afghanistan dilemma is best explained by the size and structure of the Ministry of Defence. The department employs 87,000 civilian staff for 175,000 servicemen and women.

"At the head of this unwieldy edifice are six ministers, each enjoying a private office and their own staff - six private empires, with their own turf to be jealously guarded. Sadly, bigger does not mean more efficient; usually quite the opposite.

"Ministers change, but permanent staff ought to be there to provide continuity and experience. Unfortunately, too many senior civil servants in today's MoD lack a defence background.

"Instead, they are parachuted in to lead this complex department with little idea of how it works."

Meanwhile figures showed the Armed Forces are thousands of personnel short of requirements. (maybe it is because little old ladies have to buy "KIT" for their sons and grandsons who are fighting a war that no one wants to recognize), and to top it off their government officials made a deal apparently, to release the plotter of the Lockerbie airplane disaster so he can be back in Lybia with his fellow Britt and American haters!