New Jersey Transit should have suspended him for a certain amount of time and then after the the suspension make him apologize for his actions. Because by burning the Quran he is attacking all Muslims. Society needs to understand that it was terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 not Muslims.

Sure,.. why not trample the first amendment rights of an American just to pacify muslims who have neither freedom of speech or of a religion other than islam.

The Transit employee shouldn't be fired, suspended, fined or made to apologize. Are you 'progressives' suffering from mass psychosis? Perhaps you just like to be contrary for the extra attention it gets you?

Maybe somebody can help me out with this: Progressive liberals are super critical of conservative Christians,and most times downright hateful..but somehow you staunchly defend tyrannical fanatic muslims? Please explain to me just how that all works, and what kind of mental games must you play with yourselves to balance that all out??

It must be tiring,to just be a liberal.

transportation agency said that Fenton’s actions violated his trust as a state employee

What kind of bull shit it this?????
If he was off the clock then how could he be fired for his actions-

THIS IS MY COUNTRY! IF YOU LOVE THE MOSLIM'S SO MUCH--GO TO THE MOSLIM'S COUNTRY--AND GET OUT OF THE UNITED STATES! AN AMERICAN HAS HIS HANDS TIED BEHIND HIS BACK TODAY AND CANNOT EVEN STAND UP FOR HIS OWN COUNTRY.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday backed the controversial firing of Fenton FOR BURNING THE KORAN ON HIS TIME, NOT HIS EMPLOYER'S. Does the Governor back the Muslim's burning of Christiine shrines and using the BIBLE AS TOILET PAPER iin 2002 in Jerusalem?

Fenton did not ssell his sole to the New Jersey transit and their ethics and corruption and the politicians who are selliing out American property to the foreigners for not-for-profit church status AND TAXES for possible war motives in the future, while an American can barely pay their taxes and hold on to their property in theeir country.

THIS IS MY COUNTRY! !!!!! those Muslims! IF YOU LOVE THE MOSLIM'S SO MUCH--GO TO THE MOSLIM'S COUNTRY--AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THE UNITED STATES! AN AMERICAN HAS HIS HANDS TIED BEHIND HIS BACK TODAY AND CANNOT EVEN STAND UP FOR HIS OWN COUNTRY.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday backed the controversial firing of Fenton FOR BURNING THE KORAN ON HIS TIME, NOT HIS EMPLOYER'S. Does the Governor back the Muslim's burning of Christiine shrines and using the BIBLE AS TOILET PAPER iin 2002 in Jerusalem?

Fenton did not ssell his sole to the New Jersey transit and their ethics and corruption and the politicians who are selliing out American property to the foreigners for not-for-profit church status AND TAXES for possible war motives in the future, while an American can barely pay their taxes and hold on to their property in theeir country. One out of 7 Americans live in poverty today (ABC)

"...the first amendment rights of an American..."

The first amendment only precludes Congress from making laws that interfere with expression by citizens. New Jersey Transit is- what, a semi-public, semi-private body that is not legislating any restrictions on expression. A restaurant can eject a customer who shouts profanity -or recites poetry, if the owners object.

"liberals are super critical of conservative Christians,and most times downright hateful..but somehow you staunchly defend tyrannical fanatic muslims?"

Liberals criticize unseemly behavior by anyone or any group. They can favor Park 51, and then be critical of any ugly activity that some individuals there engage in. Do you know for sure that the Muslims who will congregate at Park 51 will be "tyrannical" and "fanatic"? If not, then liberals defending the existance of the site are not sanctioning terrorism.

And if he would have burned pages from the bible instead,think he would have been fired??I think NOT!!

All this whoop-la about a man burning pages of a book. Symbolic jester/ symbolic book. George Bush started a "Crusade" against Muslim countries and Obama quietly follows his lead. I believe in accountability, but let's push for it when it matters.

p.S. FRANCE JUST MADE IT LAW TO FORBID WEARING THOSE TENTS, MOSLEM VEILS IN PUBLIC IN FRANCE. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

THIS IS MY COUNTRY! SCREW THOSE MOSLEMS! GO HOME IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!

GET OUT OF FRANCE, AND GET OUT OF THE UNOITED STATES IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!

FENTON IS A STAND UP AMERICAN. I WISH I HAD THE BALLS!

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the infringing on the freedom of speech!

p.S. The Jews defend the Christian's right to have shrine(s) in Israel. How many and/or maybe in the next century there will be churches and synogogues in Moslem countries if we are lucky.

THIS IS MY COUNTRY! !!!!! those Muslims! IF YOU LOVE THE MOSLIM'S SO MUCH--GO TO THE MOSLIM'S COUNTRY--AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THE UNITED STATES! AN AMERICAN HAS HIS HANDS TIED BEHIND HIS BACK TODAY AND CANNOT EVEN STAND UP FOR HIS OWN COUNTRY.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday backed the controversial firing of Fenton FOR BURNING THE KORAN ON HIS TIME, NOT HIS EMPLOYER'S. Does the Governor back the Muslim's burning of Christiine shrines and using the BIBLE AS TOILET PAPER iin 2002 in Jerusalem?

The Jews defend the Christian's right to have shrine(s) in Israel. How many and/or maybe in the next century there will be churches and synogogues in Moslem countries if we are lucky.

Fenton did not ssell his sole to the New Jersey transit and their ethics and corruption and the politicians who are selliing out American property to the foreigners for not-for-profit church AND TAX-EXEMPT STATUS for possible war motives in the future, while an American can barely pay their taxes and hold on to their property in theeir country. One out of 7 Americans live in poverty today (ABC)

FRANCE JUST MADE IT LAW TO FORBID WEARING THOSE TENTS, MOSLEM VEILS IN PUBLIC IN FRANCE. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT FFRANCE?

THIS IS MY COUNTRY! SCREW THOSE MOSLEMS! GO HOME IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!

GET OUT OF FRANCE, AND GET OUT OF THE UNOITED STATES IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!


FENTON IS A STAND UP AMERICAN. I WISH I HAD THE BALLS(HUTZPAH?)!

The poverty rate increased for all racial groups except Asians.Census Bureau reports new spike in poverty

Ya done one hell of a job Obama you worthless piece of crap

Burning pages from the Quran--though protected by the first amendment-is it the right thing to do??IMO NO
Putting a mosque this near to ground zero-protected by the same right,right to do,IMO also No

Now the pastor that started this Quran burning thing will have so many people also getting the minute of fame.Fenton is the first,but IMO not the last.

And does anyone in the right mind think there won't be trouble at the new mosque by people that are just a little out of mental control

ALL AMERICANS ARE NOT NUTS! E.G., FENTON, A STANDUP AMERICAN. The Moslems burn Christian shrines in Israel, and come to the United States for religious freedom under our Constitution, building TAX-EXEMPT, NOT FOR PROFIT MOSQUES, NEW YORK CITY, AND ALL AROUOND THE COUNTRY, WHILE AMERICANS CANNOT PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES AND THEIR HOMES ARE FORECLOSED.

ALL AMERICANS ARE NOT NUTS! E.G., FENTON, A STANDUP AMERICAN. The Moslems burn Christian shrines in Israel, and come to the United States for religious freedom under our Constitution, building TAX-EXEMPT, NOT FOR PROFIT MOSQUES, NEW YORK CITY, AND ALL AROUOND THE COUNTRY, WHILE AMERICANS CANNOT PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES AND THEIR HOMES ARE FORECLOSED.

ONE IN SEVEN AMERICANS LIVE IN POVERTY TODAY IN AMERICA--(ABC).

ALL AMERICANS ARE NOT NUTS! E.G., FENTON, A STANDUP AMERICAN. The Moslems burn Christian shrines in Israel, and come to the United States for religious freedom under our Constitution, building TAX-EXEMPT, NOT FOR PROFIT MOSQUES, NEW YORK CITY, AND ALL AROUOND THE COUNTRY, WHILE AMERICANS CANNOT PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES AND THEIR HOMES ARE FORECLOSED.

ONE IN SEVEN AMERICANS LIVE IN POVERTY TODAY IN AMERICA--(ABC).

AND, SIMILAR TO THE FORT HOOD MASSACRE, KILLING SEVERAL AMERICANS, AMERICANS DO NOT KNOW WHEN A MOSLEM WILL DECLARE WAR IN THEIR MIDSTS.

Yes he deserves to be fired. The commander and chief and a general warned not to burn it. He is a transit worker, he is suppose make sure people are safe at transit, how stupid. Fire him.

HE DESERVED TO GET FIRED! He is a bigot. Try burning a Torah or a bible and see what happens. You can't compare flag burning to a Quran. It shows how ignorant everyone that makes that comparison is. Burn every muslam countries flags. The Quran is so sacred to Muslims that when they walk out of a room, they don't turn there backs to it.

I wonder how the American Indians feel when people rant "This is my country". This country belongs to them. We are all here because we believe in freedoms expressed in the constitution. Muslims did not attack us, terrorists did. 32 Muslims died in the attacks. You cannot condemn an entire religion based on the actions of a handful. You must educate yourself first before you rant. Read about the crusades and what was done in the name of religion. We are all equal under God and worship him in our own way. The terrorist did not follow Islam, so how can you call them muslims? If you stray and change interpretations do you not change the religion? Muslims do not consider the terrorists Muslims, only you do. When you burn a holy book, it goes to show your true character, which cannot be left home when you enter the work place. N.J. Transit had every right to fire Fenton.

he is suppose make sure people are safe at transit

WOW--how much does a transit worker make a year-being on duty 24/7x365

A man is responcible for his own actions, as well as for what his actions may cause.
Does any sane man dare to provoke the criminally unbalanced that reside in close proximity of himself or his family and sleep well and secure that the act won't set off that deranged person at any time in the future after doing so?
Of course not.
Does an otherwise sane man act foolishly in the anominity a mob setting, attempt to infuriate and inflame others thinking that he may bring about a riotous situation and get away with it, unscathed.
Well, ... you are looking at it first hand.

Infuriate, ...and damn the consequences.
What if, "the deranged" attached "the burner" to his occupation- and then lumped all transit workers and all who use it into the same neat little package as you did Gail.
Would "it's my country" validate your cavalier attitude for what was caused stemming from the burning? Wouldn't you expect to be held to the same statutes- as the man, who yelled fire in a crowded theatre, to be held totally liable for inappropriate and inconsiderate actions.

Anyone who deliberately invites terror, is a maniac and is deterimental to society. Anyone who thinks that he speaks for another persons safety and cannot defend that position with 100% certainty- once any retaliation takes place- is himself or herself the party in the 1st as catalyst to mayhem, murder, mass murder and possibly even genocide to your friends, neighbors, and family. Leaving no one else to blamein the end, ...but, yourselves.

In the end, stupid is, as stupid does. Especially in this day of high tech, instant access, flash news, surveillance data compiling in-tell counter-intell constructs.

Gee, I betcha Mr Transit didn't think about any of the possible consequences, and ways that he could be found out, before he endangered the whole country with his zippo.

Pfffffft! Just like that. He got erased.
End of story.

First responder: "There's a bomb in the building."

What???

Who can begin to fathom or figure out how the 19 hijackers managed to hop out of two 500mph blazing infernos unscathed enough, to set bombs throughout the entire two flaming towers, and just as inconspicuously without breaking a sweat or being noticed, proceed to drop a pristine ID photo through all the debris directly into intell hands, in less than an hours time have it delivered passing all the congestion, in timely fashion for MSM to impart the following misnomers...

1. ... to preclude that 7WTC had collapsed 27minutes before it actually did fall.
SEE: THE "ACTUAL" BBC FOOTAGE ALONG WITH THE TIME STAMP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj9nkr0SFqk

2. See actual first responder and first hand "earshot" witnesses relate hearing several "timed" bomb explosions within the towers after the planes hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

Bundespres-
SEE Nazi Germany WWII-

MSM DISINFORMATION AT IT'S WORST. CAN YOU STILL DISBELIEVE WHAT YOUR OWN LYING EYES AND EARS CAN NOW OBSERVE WITH THE FULL BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT ABOUT AN ADMINISTRATION THAT QUESTED FOR A CATACLISMIC EVENT TO SURPASS PEARL HARBOR, AND WHICH FALSIFIED EVIDENCE TO START "PREEMPTION" AND THE WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF MILLIONS OF LIVES.

Fire!!! or Bring 'em on. What's the difference?

Look over here! Follow the brave and magnificent strategy of Grab the duct tape! ...while me and Cheney head to the bunkers. heh heh
Shock and Awe!!! heh heh
Abu Ghereb- heh heh
Don't worry Bin Laden's he's safe.
--> Osama not important- anymore... We can't cross Pakistans borders. Iraqthat was ok, predestined so to speak. Oooops nobody was supposed to read the PNAC agenda set to print 1997.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm! Did somebody take the time to wonder when the line was crossed between defending America and its values, into what undeniably sounds and reads like an insatiable quest for jackboot fame and a thirst for premeditated murder regardless of cost or inevitability?

Bring 'em on, I dare you. heh heh
We employ ...Rogue arms dealers, hiring sado masochistic mercks, labeling fellow Americans as Hitler did with WWII's Jews as the reason why an inept ponzi scheme military do nothing strategy doesn't work... PRICELESS!
Exporting terrorism never factors into the mindset of those who will not think.

Education, Airwaves, Disinformation... Wake up America
...the tide is turning.
KEEP WATCHING THE TUBE BELOW PERHAPS THIS WILL FINALLY BEGIN TO ERODE THE MSM CONTROL HAS OVER YOUR OWN ABILITY TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THEIR NEAT LITTLE PRISTINE BLACK/WHITE BOXES.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66nqhVtq6xo

Gail: Is this too intense for you. Stop and get a firm grip on yourself before becoming that living breathing caricature display for the repeal of Reality TV.

"Few Americans really understood back in 1993 what would happen under GATT because few ever heard of it – too many simply bought the propaganda from politicians and the rest were more interested in sports, porn, drugs, booze or fun times. Guess how many members of the entire Congress read GATT? One – former Sen. Hank Brown. He's the only senator who read this 28,000 page treaty and stated emphatically that no way would he vote for it. Yet, the rest of the Senate ratified this insidious treaty without ever reading it. Sadly, the American people continue electing these same sellouts back into office.

During the hearings on this monster, French financier, the late Sir James Goldsmith, testified in front of Ernest Hollings committee. He demonstrated that GATT would gut the American textile market. The following are some quotes from the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 1993, which accurately reflect Sir Goldsmith's statements during the hearings:


Global free trade will force the poor of the rich countries to subsidize the rich in poor countries. What GATT means is that our national wealth, accumulated over centuries, will be transferred from a developed country like Britain to developing countries like Communist China, now building its first oceangoing navy in 500 years. China, with its 1.2 billion people, three Indochinese states with 900 million, the former Soviet republics with some 300 million, and many more can supply skilled labor for a fraction of Western costs. Five dollars in Communist China is the equivalent of a $100 wage in Europe.



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

It is quite amazing that GATT is sowing the seeds for global social upheaval and that it is not even the subject of debate in America ... If the masses understood the truth about GATT, there would be blood in the streets of many capitals. A healthy national economy has to produce a large part of its own needs. It cannot simply import what it needs and use its labor force to provide services for other countries. We have to rethink from top to bottom why we have elevated global free trade to the status of sacred cow, or moral dogma. It is a fatally flawed concept that will impoverish and destabilize the industrialized world while cruelly ravaging the Third World.


On June 9, 2005, the House voted 338-86 to reject a motion to withdraw congressional approval of the 1994 agreement establishing the Geneva-based trading body (GATT-WTO). Every Congress-critter who voted to stay in this anti-American, new world order operation must be thrown out of office in November 2006 for continuing to abrogate our sovereignty to foreign countries.

The Trilateral Commission is another little known entity that is diligently and methodically working to destroy the sovereignty of this nation and put the United States under foreign rule – it is the twin monster of the CFR. Barry Goldwater was one of the lone voices decades ago trying to warn the American people about this operation. He said of the Trilateral Commission:


The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.


A list of past and present members of the Trilateral Commission can be viewed here. It is imperative to look at the companies and institutions these individuals belong to and then one can begin to connect the dots as to why Congress refuses to abolish the unconstitutional, privately owned Federal Reserve, immediately withdraw from the United Nations and the continuing passage of these devastating trade treaties.

Our Republic is perilously close to being destroyed. This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat or any of these other distractions – it's an American issue. Without question, this factual information is very disturbing to Americans, however, this is about remaining a free and sovereign nation and not falling to communist domination under a world government. William Wallace was depicted saying in the movie, "Braveheart": "What will you do without freedom?" I ask you the same."

SORRY GUYS, I LOST THE WEB HANDLE ATTACHED TO THIS PASSAGE. WILL POST IT IF AND WHEN I CAN GET LUCKY ENOUGH TO RECOVER IT.

When is Obama going to make his next - "Islam is a religion of peace" speech??

5 Algerian muslims plot to harm the Pope in London, and the media plays it down?? However, when some pastor 'threatens' to burn a quran - there's 'round the clock global coverage???

Do you get it yet? They ARE at war with US, our lifestyles and Judeo/Christian religion and values.

The progressive liberals are naive and stupid to think we can bargain with these barbarians.

Getting back to the Tea Party topic;

Chris Hayes, of THE NATION magazine, says that what the O’Donnels and the Angles these past months show is that the Tea Party is still that same phenomenon of the cultural warriors that has always been there, just repackaged so that participants and pundits think it’s something new. I know, it’s supposed to be about wasteful and overarching government, as you see it. But Tea Party Central rather consistently pushes candidates for office that say that the government should force rape victims to carry to term their rapists’ babies. This is odd for a group that says it wants government off our backs instead having our backs. These candidates may also add something like “Oh yeah, and control government spending, too. But mostly government should punish those scarlet hussies who had sex outside of holy matrimony with their fathers at age 13 or so.” (Is there a difference between how these Christians punish women and how other, “inferior” cultures treat their women? Genital mutilation at puberty so that sex is forever a horror; stoning women adulterers in a culture in which men are never deemed adulterers, only women; “honor killings” of rape victims,-fathers, with their own hands, killing their own living daughters for being victims? But we’re Americans, and Christians. We would never punish women for being raped.) Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, talking about people in misery becoming fervently religious as a way of dealing with their misery, connected her point nicely with the culture war’s O’Donnels and Angles by saying “The point of government is not to make life so hard for half our citizens that the only force left to help them is God.”

Yes, Doug, the poverty rate today is the highest since the census bureau has been compiling figures on poverty rates (1959). But Obama did not bring this about, as you said. Poverty rates have been climbing for a long time. The two big drops in poverty levels occurred during the Kennedy and then Johnson era, and during the Clinton era. Poverty rates stagnated or rose during the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush. Republican policies tend to widen the gap between rich and poor, while Democratic stewardship has over the past forty years created more jobs than Republicans and has increased prosperity more evenly. White poverty rates are about half the rates for blacks. Since blacks are only 13% of the population this means that there are more poor whites than poor blacks, but one race is more profoundly affected than another, creating the suspicion of racism affecting policy decisions. (Add to this such suggestive statistics as these: 64% of crack users are white, yet 85% of crack cases pursued are against blacks, when blacks are 13% of the population, and the law bars claims of bias without incontrovertible proof. What are people to think? That the only racists left today are fringe elements, and there is no institutional racism? As nice as it would be to believe these things, figures make that hard to do.)

"But Tea Party Central rather consistently pushes candidates for office that say that the government should force rape victims to carry to term their rapists’ babies." Mike Q

Do I sense the typical left wing spin going on here? Always trying to vilify anyone with conservative Christian beliefs, which is what this country was founded on.

According to your post, if someone is pro-life, protecting the life of the unborn at all costs, that is the same as stoning adulterers, mutilation and honor killings. Making the case there should be exceptions is one thing but equating it this way, shows how hard the left goes to try to smear anyone with traditional values. Despite these exaggerated assaults, O’Donnel still won over a 9 term left leaning Republican. I expect more of the same come November.

This should also put to rest that the tea party is run and controlled by the Republicans. The big government Republicans are revealing themselves. They will be swallowed up with this movement, along with left wing Democrats. The people are starting to take their country back from the crooks of both party's. Let me shout out a traditional Christian, Alleluia!

Mike, five of these Tea Party nominees say there should be no exceptions, which means that it would be illegal to abort, and there would have to be penalties to make the law effective. Therefore, no spin needed, quite literally the government would be forcing the victim of rape to bear her rapist's child. I know, there is some question about a non-viable blastosphere being a human baby, and that makes abortion certainly not a no-brainer topic. But these five nominees make it hard to see their position as only a reasonable extension of the blastosphere-is-a-giggling child argument.

It's clear, surely, that the Tea Party is separate from epublicans.

"They will be swallowed up with this movement, along with left wing Democrats."

Primaries can see extreme candidates win nominations, sure. But half the country votes Republican, half votes Democratic. The left isn't going to disappear, and moderates righties can be alarmed by the extremism of their nominee and vote Democrat. Some seats will go to the Republicans, but I don't think it will be the rout you're expecting.

Right to life? For Whom?

Not long ago, before abortions were legalized doctors consulted with their patients when complications of abnormalities were present and some offered the "still born" or defined the termination as miscarriage.
Who is to say that the pragmatic alternative to a lifetime sentence for the would be parent shouldn't be a consideration?

Back then we had a much more gential and less profane approach toward the matter and sex between partners required both the males and females outside the marriage contract to approach the act with much more consternation then we have today in this HIV culture despite all of the advances in medicine. Go figure.

Never, say never.... and you can't give a "blank check" to everyone because, there will always be abuses that violate good reasoning.

True "freedom" of choice is god given from the moment of birth. LET YOUR "CONSCIENCE" BE YOUR GUIDE!

"Who is to say that the pragmatic alternative to a lifetime sentence for the would be parent shouldn't be a consideration?" - John

God perhaps? In reference to the case Mike Q presented, the baby could always be put up for adoption. Who's to say that, that baby might not grow up to be another Eiensten or Ghandi? What right do we have to terminate that life? Life of the mother is a much more reasonable argument.

"Some seats will go to the Republicans, but I don't think it will be the rout you're expecting." -Mike Q

I think the Democrats lost the deciding Independent vote by moving too far to the left. I think it will be a rout. We will find out very soon.

I'd like to see more independents wipe out those CFR houseplants from both parties that presently are just hired frontmen for lobbyists inside and chairing our Committees.
A pox on both of these shady parties.
By the way MikeG, Obama hasn't looked to what is more defined as the "insightful" left until now, and he isn't going to get off that easily.
We like the rest of the nation want clearly defined answers to the situations that he has allowed to develope.
Along with the ability to insert meaningful change that hurts the fewest while uplifting this great nation of diverse and wonderful peoples.
Good gov't does not seek to appease the fringes, at the expense and hardships upon the many.

I'll get back to you later on the other remark.

"Good gov't does not seek to appease the fringes, at the expense and hardships upon the many." - John

I can give anyone a pass for making a mistake but these culprits in government know what they are doing. They have a clear self centered agenda or one of ideology, without sincere concern for the people they serve. Most of the new anti-establishment candidates, however crude they may be, are refreshing, if only for one reason. That they are sincere. I support honesty over the lies weve been fed, for way too long.

BE AFRAID! BE VERY VERY AFRAID! (Lying Democrats - Just as Predicted)
----------------------------------------
YAHOO NEWS

Expiring tax cuts hit taxpayers at every level:

Thu Sep 16, 7:09

WASHINGTON – Here's some pressure for lawmakers: If they don't reach agreement on extending soon-to-expire Bush-era tax cuts, nearly all their constituents back home will get big tax increases.

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $52,300.

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.

Democrats have been arguing for much of the past decade that tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former President George W. Bush provided a windfall for the wealthy. That's true, but they also reduced taxes for the working poor, the middle class, and just about everyone in between.

Those tax cuts expire at the end of the year, setting the stage for a high-stakes debate just before congressional elections in November. If Congress fails to act, families at every income level will see more taxes being withheld from their paychecks come January.

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 reduced marginal income tax rates at every level. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only for this year.

President Barack Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and joint filers making less than $250,000 in adjusted gross income. That's income from wages, capital gains and dividends, before standard deductions and exemptions are subtracted.

Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts, at least temporarily.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said he wants an up-or-down vote on extending all the tax cuts before congressional elections in November.

"Raising taxes on anyone, especially small businesses, is the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy," Boehner said. "On the issue of job killing tax hikes the American people are not going to accept anything less than the vote that they deserve."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn't commit to vote on any tax proposals before the election. She did, however, pledge to address them by the end of the year.

"The only thing I can tell you is that the tax cuts for the middle class will be extended this Congress," Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

More than half the country backs raising taxes on the richest Americans, according to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The survey showed that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most people support raising taxes on the highest earners.

In a breakdown of the numbers, 39 percent agree with Obama, while 15 percent favor raising taxes on everyone by allowing the cuts to expire at year's end. Still, 44 percent say the existing tax cuts should remain in place for everyone, including the wealthy.

While Obama's plan would spare about 97 percent of tax filers, it would mean big tax increases for the wealthy.

Under Obama's plan, a family of four making $325,000 a year would get a tax increase of $5,400, while the same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $56,300, according to the analysis by Deloitte Tax.

A family of four making $5 million a year would get a tax increase of $325,600.

Pelosi said the nation cannot afford to extend tax cuts for top earners.

"I see no justification for going into debt to foreign countries to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America," Pelosi said.

Making all the tax cuts permanent would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to congressional estimates. Obama's plan would cost a little more than $3 trillion over the same period.

Capitalism vs Socialism, the clip is only 2 minutes and more then 30 years old,
yet it presents a brilliant argument in favor of free economic principles.

Mike Q, John, any comments? I would be interested in your take on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5d2UqEfaaI

Once again the choices are being limited to and polarized by giving worst case scenerios of polar opposite ideologies. Communism vs Capitalism with nowhere inbetween.

The answer apparently lies somewhere in between in "trusting" the guidance of true believing individuals and the free and loving spirit of "angels". That about sums it up.
Individuals who are true believers in mind and spirit and leading by example in the building with noble effort the kingdom of heaven right here on earth.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this convoluted hypocrisy lies, detente and full participatory harmonized socialism- measured in part for purposes of barter, exchange and trade by "capital".

Once again the choices are being limited to and polarized by giving worst case scenerios of polar opposite ideologies. Communism vs Capitalism with nowhere inbetween.

The answer apparently lies somewhere in between in "trusting" the guidance of true believing individuals and the free and loving spirit of "angels". That about sums it up.
Individuals who are true believers in mind and spirit and leading by example in the building with noble effort the kingdom of heaven right here on earth.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this convoluted hypocrisy lies, detente and full participatory harmonized socialism- measured in part for purposes of barter, exchange and trade by "capital".

With a whole of investment in advanced education, medical, mechancial and scientific research, and recycling technologys to clean up the waters and food supply.
Then a reduction in the current work week that maintains economic stability, which broadens employment and participation opportunities for those who have been idled- and adds as a benefit oodles of leisure, recreational and family time.

Gee, I can see it happening already.
And all it would take to get it all started is the the super elites around the world across the board to be "willing" to comply, forsaking "hubris and greed" to have faith and donate a mere 3% from the 39% that they have schemed and stolen, from "We the people" over the past decade. Hmmmmmmmmm!

Work hard, work smart, work together for for common purposes- to help others to help themselves, and the work load, stress and animosities can begin to dissipate. We could take the time to explore and examine different lands and cultures and learn to appreciate each others contributions riddling ourselves of the negativities that breed inertia, and war. Hmmmmmmm! That's another $900b freed up.

Who else wants to dare to dream?

Ronald Reagan quotes on Socialism:


“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there
is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old
dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant
heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those
who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.
Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads
among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” —October 27, 1964

‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads
among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” —October 27, 1964

WHAT A HUMANITARIAN. I DRAW THE LINE ON THE PERCEPTION OF REAGANS GENIUS. DID THE MAN HAVE A SINGLE CLUE WHEN HE SENT THE US ECONOMY INTO A BLINDING TAILSPIN WITH HIS "TRICKLE DOWN"? AND IT DOESN'T END THERE.
SEE: (SADDAM, WMDS, IRAN-CONTRA, GATT...)




Let's consider the source. Ronald Reagan TRILATERAL and CFR member within the triumveriat construct that has triangulated and been strangling the US economy for the purposes of themselves heading a one world government for decades. Whether or not he was also a Bilderberger does not need to be questioned since we all know that these entities work together in concert and convene to work out their deviant plots at their numberous and various Summits. Be they G-8, G-20 or what have you these snide covens place themselves above the law, and above the principals of common decency.

Here is but one illustration about how they have plotted to control and deceive.
----
BILDERBERG- SourceWatch
Founding & history

...."Queen Juliana was reported to be the richest woman in the world as a result of her partnership with Baron Victor Rothschild in the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. She also held stock in Exxon. [9] However, he was forced to resign in August of 1976 over his involvement in the Lockheed Aircraft bribery scandal as well as his extramarital affairs. According to Prince Bernhard:


---> "Here comes our greatest difficulty. For the governments of the "free nations" are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like they are thrown out.

--->"It is difficult to reeducate the people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supernational body..."
SOUNDS LIKE "TREASON" TO ME.

ATTEMPTS AT CRASHING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM, BILLING US FOR A$2TRILLION WAR BASED ON LIES, BANKRUPTING SSI, BLOCKING MUCH NEEDED INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF "TERRORISM" IN MY BOOK.

The undermining of America is tantamount in their ultimate plan to rule.- Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford, Sarkozy, and Belluscioni follow in the long line of "untrustworthy knaves" who have been found out. To date this scum has not been removed from office, nor been indicted for their crimes. One even abandoned his government post and placed his entire state in jeopardy as well as compromising the security of this nation.

THE BUSH DIVISION OF THE TRILATS invites torture, ultra surveillance, invasions of privacy, combined wit hthe veiled threats of "with us, or against us."
Taxing America to death with wars everlasting, subsidies to NO BID CONTRACTORS, and funding private armies.
Not to mention the other great FOLLOW UPS by the Bush Jr MBA- ECONOMICS ponzi schemes of the GO BUST ECONOMY.

Word to the elitists: YOU BROKE IT! YOU OWE IT!

‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads
among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” —October 27, 1964

WHAT A HUMANITARIAN. I DRAW THE LINE ON THE PERCEPTION OF REAGANS GENIUS. DID THE MAN HAVE A SINGLE CLUE WHEN HE SENT THE US ECONOMY INTO A BLINDING TAILSPIN WITH HIS "TRICKLE DOWN"? AND IT DOESN'T END THERE.
SEE: (SADDAM, WMDS, IRAN-CONTRA, GATT...)




Let's consider the source. Ronald Reagan TRILATERAL and CFR member within the triumveriat construct that has triangulated and been strangling the US economy for the purposes of themselves heading a one world government for decades. Whether or not he was also a Bilderberger does not need to be questioned since we all know that these entities work together in concert and convene to work out their deviant plots at their numberous and various Summits. Be they G-8, G-20 or what have you these snide covens place themselves above the law, and above the principals of common decency.

Here is but one illustration about how they have plotted to control and deceive.
----
BILDERBERG- SourceWatch
Founding & history

...."Queen Juliana was reported to be the richest woman in the world as a result of her partnership with Baron Victor Rothschild in the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. She also held stock in Exxon. [9] However, he was forced to resign in August of 1976 over his involvement in the Lockheed Aircraft bribery scandal as well as his extramarital affairs. According to Prince Bernhard:


---> "Here comes our greatest difficulty. For the governments of the "free nations" are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like they are thrown out.

--->"It is difficult to reeducate the people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supernational body..."
SOUNDS LIKE "TREASON" TO ME.

ATTEMPTS AT CRASHING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM, BILLING US FOR A$2TRILLION WAR BASED ON LIES, BANKRUPTING SSI, BLOCKING MUCH NEEDED INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF "TERRORISM" IN MY BOOK.

The undermining of America is tantamount in their ultimate plan to rule.- Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford, Sarkozy, and Belluscioni follow in the long line of "untrustworthy knaves" who have been found out. To date this scum has not been removed from office, nor been indicted for their crimes. One even abandoned his government post and placed his entire state in jeopardy as well as compromising the security of this nation.

THE BUSH DIVISION OF THE TRILATS invites torture, ultra surveillance, invasions of privacy, combined wit hthe veiled threats of "with us, or against us."
Taxing America to death with wars everlasting, subsidies to NO BID CONTRACTORS, and funding private armies.
Not to mention the other great FOLLOW UPS by the Bush Jr MBA- ECONOMICS ponzi schemes of the GO BUST ECONOMY.

Word to the elitists: YOU BROKE IT! YOU OWE IT!

‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads
among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” —October 27, 1964

WHAT A HUMANITARIAN. I DRAW THE LINE ON THE PERCEPTION OF REAGANS GENIUS. DID THE MAN HAVE A SINGLE CLUE WHEN HE SENT THE US ECONOMY INTO A BLINDING TAILSPIN WITH HIS "TRICKLE DOWN"? AND IT DOESN'T END THERE.
SEE: (SADDAM, WMDS, IRAN-CONTRA, GATT...)




Let's consider the source. Ronald Reagan TRILATERAL and CFR member within the triumveriat construct that has triangulated and been strangling the US economy for the purposes of themselves heading a one world government for decades. Whether or not he was also a Bilderberger does not need to be questioned since we all know that these entities work together in concert and convene to work out their deviant plots at their numberous and various Summits. Be they G-8, G-20 or what have you these snide covens place themselves above the law, and above the principals of common decency.

Here is but one illustration about how they have plotted to control and deceive.
----
BILDERBERG- SourceWatch
Founding & history

...."Queen Juliana was reported to be the richest woman in the world as a result of her partnership with Baron Victor Rothschild in the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. She also held stock in Exxon. [9] However, he was forced to resign in August of 1976 over his involvement in the Lockheed Aircraft bribery scandal as well as his extramarital affairs. According to Prince Bernhard:


---> "Here comes our greatest difficulty. For the governments of the "free nations" are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like they are thrown out.

--->"It is difficult to reeducate the people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supernational body..."
SOUNDS LIKE "TREASON" TO ME.

ATTEMPTS AT CRASHING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM, BILLING US FOR A$2TRILLION WAR BASED ON LIES, BANKRUPTING SSI, BLOCKING MUCH NEEDED INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF "TERRORISM" IN MY BOOK.

The undermining of America is tantamount in their ultimate plan to rule.- Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford, Sarkozy, and Belluscioni follow in the long line of "untrustworthy knaves" who have been found out. To date this scum has not been removed from office, nor been indicted for their crimes. One even abandoned his government post and placed his entire state in jeopardy as well as compromising the security of this nation.

THE BUSH DIVISION OF THE TRILATS invites torture, ultra surveillance, invasions of privacy, combined wit hthe veiled threats of "with us, or against us."
Taxing America to death with wars everlasting, subsidies to NO BID CONTRACTORS, and funding private armies.
Not to mention the other great FOLLOW UPS by the Bush Jr MBA- ECONOMICS ponzi schemes of the GO BUST ECONOMY.

Word to the elitists: YOU BROKE IT! YOU OWE IT!

Republicans: Enlist, but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution[THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY SELLOUTS TO NWO]

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: September 18, 2010

"So you’re a Republican candidate and you want to take advantage of the Tea Party energy that jolted once-sleepy primaries. But you aren’t sure whether that means you have to take a stand against masturbation or urge your supporters to gather their bayonets — tactics that seem to have worked for a few Tea Party candidates so far. You’re not certain most Americans share the Tea Party enthusiasm for repealing the 17th Amendment (or even know that it established direct election of United States senators by popular vote). You don’t have Sarah Palin’s phone number.

There’s no doubt that the Tea Party is a double-edged sword: a New York Times/CBS poll last week found that while most Americans had not formed a view of the Tea Party, the percentage of independent voters who view it negatively had increased.

But the Tea Party has brought a swell of new participants to the political process, and historical and economic trends are working in favor of the party out of power — that would be you, G.O.P. The trick is to take advantage of the Tea Party passion and stay away from its extremes. Celebrate the genius of the Constitution, but don’t get into the particulars. Tea Party activists, Republican moderates and independent handicappers all agree that the road for Republican candidates is to talk about the debt and concerns about the new health care legislation — areas where Tea Party sentiment is more aligned with the views of most Americans.

“The Tea Party and the 9/12 groups, their overall agenda is fiscal in nature, and I think that’s consistent with the majority of Colorado voters and the majority of Americans,” said Dick Wadhams, the chairman of the Republican Party in Colorado, who has tussled with the groups, particularly in the race for Senate and governor, where Tea Party candidates beat those backed by the establishment.

****The Republican brand is damaged — maybe even more so than the Democrats’. An overwhelming 72 percent of respondents to the New York Times/CBS poll said they did not think Republicans in Congress had a clear plan for solving the nation’s problems.

But one place where the Republicans hold the advantage in polls is in their potential to reduce the federal budget deficit — 42 percent of voters polled said they trusted Republicans to do so, compared with 34 percent who said they trusted Democrats.

Thirty-four percent of respondents — a plurality — “strongly disapprove” of the health care law that was enacted in March, and 15 percent somewhat disapprove, according to the Times poll, compared with 15 percent who strongly approve (and 22 percent who “somewhat” approve.)

*****Tea Party activists — and their candidates — pose a problem when they move the discussion into a broader one about the role of government.

---> “You see these rallies and the signs are all about the Constitution,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. “They want it to be about these big ideological ideas, when I don’t think most voters think that way.

It’s very clear that what’s best for the election is to make it about Obama, Pelosi, health care, the deficit.”

Rand Paul, for instance, the Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, has enraged local law enforcement officials — and provided advertising fodder for his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway — by opposing federal funding for drug enforcement in a state plagued by methamphetamines. (Mr. Paul might have learned, given the controversy after he went on national television the day after his primary and said that he disagreed on principle with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that required businesses to serve blacks.)

****The best thing you can do to make the Tea Party work for you is to literally make it work for you.
---> "Tea Party supporters may not admire President Obama’s policies, but they do admire the community-organizing operation that got him elected in 2008, and they are out knocking on doors and making phone calls in the hopes of repeating his success."

It was without irony that Christine O’Donnell’s Tea Party supporters were chanting “Yes we can! Yes we can!” when she stunned the political world by winning the Republican Senate primary in Delaware last week.

“Give them a title and get them involved,” said Brendan Steinhauser, the director of campaigns for FreedomWorks, which has helped train Tea Party groups in getting voters to the polls.

In Colorado, Mr. Wadhams credits Tea Party organizing with creating record turnout at the state’s precinct caucuses and getting more Republicans than Democrats to show up to vote on primary day. In a Wisconsin Republican Senate primary last week, Ron Johnson won with 500,821 votes — in 2006, the last midterm primary, only 195,163 Republicans came out to vote.

Endorsements, on the other hand, have not mattered much. Not all of Sarah Palin’s or Senator Jim DeMint’s conservative candidates have won (some, like Chuck DeVore, a Republican Senate candidate in California, lost badly). (On the other hand, if you could get on “Glenn Beck,” Tea Partiers are huge fans. Be prepared to discuss Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.”)

Whatever you do, do not take the Tea Party for granted. In Indiana, former Senator Dan Coats beat several Tea Party candidates for the Republican nomination for Senate. And he impressed Tea Party groups by meeting with them.

But now some activists are feeling ignored, and say they may simply stay home on Election Day.

“I sat next to him on a stage and he said, ‘I want to talk to you,’ but there’s no phone call,” said Greg Fettig, a local Tea Party leader. “I hope he doesn’t think he’s got us in the bag.”

Just remember, come November: Historically, Democratic administrations have averaged more than twice the percent increase in net job creation over Republicans. (Google it.)

Remember, too: Democratic economic theory says that during recessions you lower taxes on the consumer classes so they have more to consume with, and make up for that revenue loss by raising taxes on the investor class because they won't be investing during a recession anyway, when factories are idle and stock is stockpiled, so no harm done. When good times return, then adjust consumer class taxes upward as needed to keep the economy from overheating and creating inflation.

Republican theory says that supply creates its own demand (voodoo economics), so always give the investor class everything it wants, without any oversight, without any mechanism to regulate excesses.

10 Reasons Why Obama’s Is The Most Failed Presidency In Modern Times:

September 19, 2010

On November 2008, Barack Obama was elected 44th President of the United States. His election was a truly historic moment, not only because he was the first African-American elected to the nation’s highest office, but also because Obama promised so much during the campaign.

Obama promised to be a post-partisan, post racial president. He promised hope, change, and a new era of transparency. Obama and his supporters insisted that he was entirely qualified to lead the country, despite his lack of leadership experience and the vague substance of his campaign promises. His entire campaign was based on the idea that he was completely different from anyone who served in the Oval Office before.

The reality is that the Obama presidency has fallen far short of the high expectations. In generally every area, the new administration has failed to deliver on its lofty promises. Obama has proven himself to be quite tone deaf to the needs — and will — of the American electorate. Never before have arrogance and inexperience converged in such a way as they have in the White House since January 2009.

With that said, here are 10 reasons why Obama’s is the most failed presidency in modern times.

Associations With Less-Than-Savory People

Barack Obama has had a long history of associating himself with people on the wrong side of either the law or ethics. Among those are his associations with radicals of different eras. He has maintained a friendship with unrepentant domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn for many years. He was a disciple of radical Saul Alinsky – so much so that Obama chose his college friends to fit the Alinsky model. Another radical, this time Muslim activist Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour, helped Obama get into Harvard Law School. And let’s not forget his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in whose church Barack and Michelle Obama sat for over two decades. The president’s associations with radicals such as these do little to help Obama paint himself as a moderate member of the Left.

President Obama’s poor choice of associates extends to the choice of some scandal-plagued people for key positions in his administration. Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was Obama’s choice for Secretary of Commerce until he resigned in the midst of a scandal involving his alleged exchange of state government contracts for contributions to his re-election campaign. Obama picked former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle for Secretary of Health and Human Services until a tax scandal derailed his chances. Another alleged tax cheat, Timothy Geithner, was confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury.

If a man’s associations are indicative of his character, what are we to think about Obama’s?

Too Many Vacations & Parties And Too Much Golf

In an economy in which many people are out of work, while others are forced to live on less money and forgo extras and luxuries, the Obamas have shown an utter disregard for the plight of the American people. The president and First Lady have enjoyed lavish vacations and thrown tony parties, and President Obama hasn’t skimped on his golf game.

I couldn’t find an exact count or list of the vacations the Obama family have taken since taking office, but this summer, the press coverage was wall-to-wall, with them taking trips to Panama City Beach, Bar Harbor, and Martha’s Vineyard. Oh, and then there was, of course, Michelle Obama’s infamous trip to Spain. Needless to say, many of the Right have been critical of Obama’s vacation habits. One clever nickname given to Obama’s tenure is the “Clark Griswold Presidency.” (An interesting side note: while researching for this post, I had a difficult time finding lists of vacations, but I found plenty of leftist blogs and opinion pieces attempting to compare Obama’s pricey trips to Bush’s quiet vacations to his Texas ranch.)

In addition to their heavy vacation schedule, the Obamas have not let up on their White House entertaining in this economy. They have hosted elaborate Super Bowl Parties and events for lawmakers. For the first few months, the President and First Lady held an event every week on the White House grounds. One of the most notorious Obama parties was the state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderón, which included a four course meal, an exquisite night-club-style tent on the South Lawn, and a performance by Beyoncé. Another glitzy party honoring Sir Paul McCartney came complete with performances by musical heavy-hitters and cheap shots at the expense of President Bush. All of this while Americans struggle to make ends meet.

Obama’s fascination with golf has been come an issue of both consternation and derision. As of July, the president had played 41 rounds of golf, which averages out to more than one round two weeks. He took much heat for playing golf the day of the funeral for Polish President Lech Kaczynski. (To be fair, the Iceland volcano prevented him from flying to Europe to attend, yet Obama never visited or signed the guestbook at the Polish embassy.) Obama has also endured criticism for his multiple golf outings during the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. No word on whether his handicap has dropped along with his approval ratings.

Dependence On The Teleprompter

Much has been made about President Obama’s rhetorical skills. Sympathetic media outlets have hailed him as an exemplary communicator, but, while he is a good speaker, he doesn’t quite possess the silver tongue the mainstream media claims he has.

Obama is notorious for using a teleprompter during his speeches. Obviously this isn’t unusual at all, as presidents have used teleprompters as long as they’ve been available. However, this particular president may rely too much on his teleprompter, and it has become a source of ridicule across the country.

One clever blogger has set up a blog from the point of view of the President’s teleprompter. Another blog seeks to monitor Obama’s teleprompter bloopers, going so far as to call him the “Teleprompter President.” Less than hostile media outlets like The Onion, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, and even Hardball With Chris Matthews have either made fun of or chastised Obama for his teleprompter overuse.

Is Obama not the orator we’re supposed to believe he is? Is he too dependent on the teleprompter? I’ll let the videos speak for themselves:

Too Many Apologies

President Obama seems obsessed with what he thinks of as repairing the image of the United States on the world stage. He has gone out of his way to try to make amends for past American foreign policy, especially throughout 2009 when he seemed regularly to make speeches apologizing for America’s sins. Bloggers, pundits, and members of the media on the Right have come to dub this Obama’s Apology Tour. Of course, the folks at Media Matters for America have balked at the notion that their secular messiah is apologizing, but here’s just a sample:

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy” — as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

Obama infamously bowed in deference to Japan’s Emperor Akihito. He refused to allow the U.S. flag to fly over sites in Haiti during early relief efforts there. He made a famous speech in Egypt in which he promised a “new beginning…based on mutual interest and mutual respect…”

Statesmen in the past have demurred from criticizing past American policy, even when they disagreed with it. Obama has taken a much different course, and it’s part of the changes that have helped lead to his unpopularity and failure as president.

Placing Blame Instead Of Taking Responsibility

One recurring theme of the Obama administration is “blame Bush,” or as Obama likes to put it, “the last eight years.” Obama loves to lay the blame for the current economic crisis at the feet of the Bush administration, as if he’s in some sort of perpetual campaign mode and Bush is the opponent. It’s an odd strategy for a president who, in his inaugural address, promised:

…an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Of course, the reason for the mess the economy is in is a complex one, and if anyone is to blame, it’s an array of people on both sides of the political spectrum. Yet Obama continually sees fit to play a blame game, as though attributing the blame will make the crisis go away. His rhetoric is a smokescreen to obscure his administration’s clueless economic policy and inaction beyond massive spending bills.

Another area in which President Obama has famously blamed Bush for calamity is the Gulf Coast oil spill. Ironically, in one speech he indirectly blamed Bush right after condemning BP and others involved in the catastrophe for pointing fingers at each other. Obama fired shots at the Bush administration while dragging his feet on an active response to the spill, a lackadaisical response even the New York Times noticed.

The American people expect their president to take responsibility for the problems and issues the country faces. Obama has instead chosen to blame President Bush for some key issues during his time in office, a course of action that smacks of both disrespect and desperation.

The Czars

President Obama has an abnormally large circle of “czars,” or appointed advisors, in his administration. Appointing czars isn’t unusual, as past presidents have had czars of their own. Obama, however, outdoes all his predecessors. He has not one, not two, but 35 of them, 24 of whom are in positions created specifically by the Obama administration. Obama’s czars cover a wide range of areas, including executive pay, the California water crisis, “climate change,” and sexual assault and domestic violence issues.

Because the czars are appointed directly by the president, they do not require congressional approval, and they are not accountable to anyone put the president. Many of them also report directly to the president. Again, Obama isn’t doing anything unusual in principle, but the sheer number and scope of his czars is unprecedented. Many of Obama’s czars are from the academic ranks and have little practical experience. What’s worse is that many of Obama’s czars have some seriously scary Leftist credentials, including:

• Van Jones, “Green Jobs Czar” from March-September 2009, a communist who produced an album by cop killer and leftist cause célèbre Mumia Abu Jamal.
• Cass Sunstein, Regulatory Czar, who believes in devoting greater powers to the presidency and devoting government funding for abortions.
• John Holdren, Science Czar, whose views go hand in hand with his former colleague, the population and ecological alarmist Paul Ehrlich.
• Elizabeth Warren, upcoming Consumer Czar, who is called the “left-wing patron saint of so-called consumer protection.”
• Donald Berwick, Health Czar, who said:

“Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” He used this favorite Obama term in the context of praising Britain’s socialized medicine system as “a global treasure” and “I love it.”

Obama has been under fire from both sides of the aisle for having too many czars. The late Robert Byrd (yes, the senator for whom half of West Virginia is named) said of the czars, “[t]he accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances.” The American people should take care to learn about Obama’s czars and the frightening views some of them hold. Their ideas and policies could lead to more than the failure of Obama’s presidency.

Obama’s Obsession With Islam

President Obama has had a strange habit of seeming to placate Muslims. It’s been an issue since the 2008 campaign, in which Obama’s Islamic heritage was discussed heavily. For what it’s worth, Obama claims he has never been a Muslim and that he is a Christian. Nevertheless, his seeming obsession with Islam is discomfiting to many Americans.

Obama has gone out of his way to revise history, painting Islam as a peaceful, mainstream religion that is concerned with human dignity and rights. His infamous Egypt speech was full of references to the supposed benign nature of Islam. In his 2010 Ramadan message, Obama said that “Islam has always been part of America,” rewriting history in a bizarre way.

Some of Obama’s actions have engendered reactions ranging from outrage to ridicule. In April 2009, the president bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, causing a firestorm of controversy and speculation of his motives. In 2010, NASA chief Charles Bolden reported that Obama asked him

…to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering…

Needless to say, Bolden’s statement elicited laughter among the outrage.

Most recently, Obama’s handling of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy has left him looking flat-footed and awkward as well. The president came under fire for seeming to voice support for the mosque while speaking at a Ramadan dinner. In clarifying his remarks, Obama seemed to turn toward a more philosophical discussion of rights while apparently ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans oppose building the mosque.

Out-Of-Control Spending

President Obama has revealed his true colors in his approach to this economy. He is a clear cut devotee of Keynesian economics – most specifically the notion that governments should engage in deficit spending during a slow economy in efforts to stabilize it. The fact that the economy has improved little to none despite the government’s spending hand over fist proves the myth of Keynesian economics and another failure of the Obama presidency.

Under Obama’s watch, federal spending has increased to nearly a quarter of GDP for the United States. That’s right: nearly one fourth of our economy is government spending! The federal budget deficit alone was nearly 10% of GDP in 2009, a post-World War II record. Obama shows no sign of letting up.

The Obama spending era began in earnest with the $862 billion dollar economic stimulus package, which was loaded with pork and contained some questionable expenditures. Congress passed a nearly $1 trillion dollar health care bill under Obama’s watch, and the spending has kept going since. The president has proposed bank bailouts, “cash for clunkers,” infrastructure spending, and even a new jobs bill that has been viewed as the equivalent of a second stimulus package.

With all this spending, the unemployment rate has hovered near 10%, and it seems like every sign of good economic news is balanced by bad news. In August, one poll showed that 61% of respondents thought that the economy has either stayed the same or gotten worse under Obama. Senate Democrats have even rebelled against some of their own party’s leader’s spending wishes.

So, why does Obama keep spending? I think the answer is that he doesn’t have any other economic policy. Clearly, the economy has faltered, if not failed, under Obama.

The Gulf Coast Oil Spill: “Obama’s Katrina”

On April 20, British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank into the Gulf of Mexico, causing a large oil leak into the Gulf. The incident created a situation that was an environmental catastrophe, a public relations nightmare for BP, and an unspeakably horrific tragedy for the families of the 11 employees who died in the explosion. President Obama’s response was a delayed and characteristically tone deaf one. The disaster has come to be called “Obama’s Katrina,” though naturally there have plenty of efforts on the Left to debunk that appellation.

Obama waited over a week from the time of the explosion to begin to address it. In response to the spill, Obama has done some strange things, some of which have added to the criticism he has received. Obama declared a moratorium on offshore deepwater oil drilling, a move which could potentially cost tens of thousands of jobs and damage the economy of the Gulf Coast. Obama demanded that BP set up a $20 billion escrow account to cover the costs of damages from the spill, rather than allowing BP to respond their own way (which could have repaired some of BP’s public relations damage).

Even Obama’s attempts as public relations in the wake of the oil spill have fallen flat. In June, the president appeared on The Today Show, telling Matt Lauer he talked with fishermen and oil spill experts “so I know whose ass to kick.” The statement was intended to make Obama appear tough and decisive, but it wound up causing him to look unpresidential and totally laughable. In August, the Obama family took a vacation to Panama City Beach, declaring the Gulf’s beaches “open for business.” The trouble is, despite Obama’s well-intentioned effort to boost Gulf tourism, Panama City Beach is far from the area hardest hit by the oil spill.

The Gulf oil spill has been a shining example of Obama’s inability to craft decisive, meaningful responses to issues. It has also been an example of what can go wrong when Obama attempts to rev up the public relations engine.

Obamacare

What many people will see as Obama’s greatest failure as president, and what will certainly go down as his largest legacy, is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Certainly, the blame falls equally on Democrats in both houses of Congress, but Obama made universal health care a focus of the first year of his presidency.

Obama began talking about health care reform as early as January 2007. In a speech to a health care advocacy group, he declare the following:

I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.

The focus on a health care bill continued through the campaign and into 2009. Throughout 2009, opponents of universal health care became increasingly vocal. Town hall meetings were filled with impassioned voters, eager to express their opposition, and the Tea Party Movement really started to coalesce. The weekend the final bill was passed, a CNN poll showed 54% of those surveyed were opposed to the bill.

Despite the opposition, Obama and Congressional Democrats pressed on with the massive bills. They were so proud of their work that they convened special Sunday and Christmas Eve sessions to pass the bill when fewer people would be paying attention to current events.

Obama touted the bill as landmark legislation worth celebrating, but the true centerpiece of his first term is a $940 billion dollar package foisted on an electorate who largely do not want it. If that’s not the epitome of failure, I don’t know what is.

Barack Obama promised change. He offered a message of hope that resonated with millions, and that message swept him into office. It’s been painfully clear that the actual change he has brought forth has been a drastic lurch to the Left that has resulted in economic, domestic, and foreign policy wrecks and nightmares of public perception. If Obama’s presidency continues to fail as it has thus far, one can expect a different and welcome kind of change in 2012.

Cuba Disses Socialism:

September 16, 2010


“Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls (and) losses that hurt our economy. Job options will be increased and broadened with new forms of non-state employment, among them leasing land, cooperatives and self-employment, absorbing hundreds of thousands of workers in the coming years.”

Did the Obama administration and our Democratically-controlled Congress suddenly come to their senses? Did Republicans finally come up with a concrete agenda for the upcoming November election? Did some Tea Party candidate burnish his conservative credentials?

No, no, and no. Unbelievable as it may seem, the above statement was released by the official labor federation–of Cuba. The Communist regime has announced plans to “downsize” their public sector workforce by more than 500,000 employees, and then attempt to reemploy those workers into the private sector. And that’s just the beginning. Cuba announced that more than one million government jobs would eventually be cut, and that there will be fewer state-sector openings in the future.

The reason cited for such massive cuts? To “increase efficiency in the state sector.” In other words, the most steadfast Communist nation in the western hemisphere has embraced one of the most decidedly un-Communist philosophies of all: limited government.

Such a development in and of itself is stunning enough. But in August, Cuban leader Raul Castro pushed the stake even deeper into the heart of progressive thinking. Speaking before the Cuban National Assembly, he revealed an attitude remarkably similar to the one held by a substantial number of Americans regarding our own welfare state:

“We have to erase forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world in which people can live without working.”

Raul Castro has very little to worry about in that regard. Ninety miles to his north, there is a country where millions of people can live without working. It is a country where “efficiency in the public sector” is an oxymoron. It is a country which, despite a nagging recession, has increased public sector payrolls at every level of government, even as its private sector has hemorrhaged millions of jobs. It is a country being pushed to the brink of insolvency by the very same ideological bankruptcy that Cuba is now rejecting.

The latest announcement follows a curious remark made by the former leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro. At a recent lunch with Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent with Atlantic magazine, Goldberg asked the 84-year-old ex-president if he still thought Cuba’s economic system was worth exporting. ”The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us any more,” said the former Maximum Leader.

A day later, he recanted: ”My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system no long works–neither for the United States nor the world, which it steers from crisis to crisis, which are ever more serious, global and repetitive, and from which there is no escape. How could such a system work for a socialist country like Cuba?” he asked.

Apparently we’re going to find out, and with good reason: despite all propaganda to the contrary, much of which emanates from the American Left, Cuba’s economy is abysmal. Its infrastructure is in tatters, and the average monthly salary of $25 keeps most of the nation in enduring poverty. The agricultural sector is even worse, producing chronic food shortages, and a revealing joke about centrally-planned, state-run enterprises: the Communist revolution’s three biggest failings are breakfast, lunch and dinner.


Cuba currently employs 85% of its workforce in the public sector, which the official labor federation now characterizes as “ultimately counterproductive, creating bad habits and distorting worker conduct.” The basis of their reasoning? Providing Cubans with a minimal salary, a ration book and “free” healthcare and education has produced national torpor. And once again, Cubans have found the dark humor connected to their plight: ”they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

What is Raul Castro really introducing to the Cuban economy? The very same thing the Democrat Party and the Obama administration are doing their best to undermine here in America: incentive. It is an incentive completely at odds with progressivism’s worship of “social justice,” which is nothing more than the attempt to equate equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. For our progressive true-believers, economics is a zero-sum game in which every winner invariably produces a loser–one with a “just” claim to a substantial part of the winner’s largesse. A largesse which must be “re-distributed” by a ruling class which has self-anointed itself as the official arbiters of “fairness.”

Yet as Cuba is belatedly discovering, when no distinction is made between people with ambition and talent, and those who are lazy and unproductive, sloth and inefficiency triumphs. Absent incentive, the prevailing attitude can be reduced to two words: Why bother?

Americans are becoming quite familiar with sloth and inefficiency. Such has become the hallmark of government at every level. Perhaps at this particular moment, so close to the tragic anniversary of 9/11, the most glaring example of such is the failure that surrounds the rebuilding of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. And not just with regard to the rebuilding of the towers. The Deutsche Bank building, slated for demolition due to irreparable damage sustained in the same attack, is still standing three years after two firefighters were killed battling a blaze at the abandoned building.

Nine years after the attacks of 9/11, the site remains a testament to what we have become: the same city which planned and built the Empire State Building in fourteen months is incapable of putting up–or knocking down–a building in less than nine years.

This November, Americans will get an opportunity to reject the very same ideology the most dedicated proponents of that ideology are themselves rejecting. Much like their Eastern European counterparts, Cubans are finally discovering that a theoretical view of human nature cannot compete with the reality that most human beings travel the path of least resistance. Absent incentive, that path leads directly to the bottom of the economic barrel.

It took Eastern Europe seventy years to learn this lesson, after which the Berlin Wall was torn down–from the inside. Cubans have endured sixty years of misery masquerading itself as social justice.

Americans? With any luck, the November elections will demonstrate that we’re far quicker learners.

"The answer apparently lies somewhere in between in "trusting" the guidance of true believing individuals and the free and loving spirit of "angels". That about sums it up."-John

John, that's a fair assessment but the problem is we have corrupt, self centered, elitists in charge and trying to get MORE control over the individual "angels." This is actually doing more harm to a loving spirit and cooperation. Unless government shows they can be trusted, then we the people, the individual angels, are much better off with less government.

"Just remember, come November: Historically, Democratic administrations have averaged more than twice the percent increase in net job creation over Republicans. (Google it.)"- Mike Q

These Democrats are different. They are not the historical middle of the road type but have a radical agenda. Remember the change they ran on? They want to change alright, including the traditional Democrat policies.

The majority in this country are centrists. We reject far left or far right policies but these Democrats forced us to take a hard left turn that many Americans did not want. The only way to go straight again is to make a hard right, then govern in the middle. Repeal Obamacare and dump all the big government lefty's from both parties. After that we can sway a little left or right with no problem.

"These Democrats are different. They are not the historical middle of the road type but have a radical agenda."

!!I cannot imagine what you're seeing. Consider how Nixon tried to bring about a guaranteed minimum income via a negative tax rate below a certain income level, and he was a Republican. He was not called a communist for that. No one menaced discourse by a show of guns. What has changed in recent times is how far the right is going, certainly not what the anemic left is doing.

Now that the good readers of this site have had a chance to google job creation statistics by party, you have to ask what Republicans or Tea Partiers have to offer except culture war.

Mike Q, read carefully your statement and perhaps and you will see what the difference is: Keywords are "Nixon TRIED" but congress overruled.

Let's go back to Clinton with universal healthcare: Keywords are "Clinton TRIED" but congress overruled.

Lets go back to Bush Dubai ports deal: Key words are "Bush TRIED". It took protests by many people to get Congress to act but they finally overruled and in 2006 before the meltdown the Republicans got thrown out.

Lets go back to last year, Obamcare. Good enough for us, not good enough for congress and special interests. Town halls, Tea party protests, polls all against but Obama still tried and congress agreed with Obama and NOT the people. If we threw them out in 2006 for being hard of hearing, what do you think will happen when they are totally deaf? Obama and these Democrats are not the same, they have gone against the people on everything from healthcare, to bailouts to Arizona. A government by the people and for the people needs representatives to provide checks and balances. Otherwise, we are no longer free.

Mike G: Take the healthcare bill. Polls first were heavily for it before they were against it. At what point should the government have made law entirely on the results of polls, the changing whim of the people? Before or after the opinion switch?

When Republican Mitt Romney passed statewide universal healthcare in Massachussetts with a requirement to buy insurance, we didn't see mobs screaming about it. When Republican congresspeople insisted on a purchase mandate in the national bill there were no mob riots. But when Democrats, compromising again, inserted that purchase mandate into the bill, then the same Republican Party that was vowing to hold up the bill until the purchase requirement was inserted set up a roar of protest and said America was taken over by communists. It was always a game for Republicans and an idealistic dream for Democrats. Passing the bill by so few votes, when in earlier years it had failed by so few, is not a steamroller machine of fanatical commies bringing down the country. It's a handful more congresspeople voting in favor of what, by the way, had a few months earlier been the commanding consensus of the populace.

You have said that people get to like safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare, and that you are against people getting comfortable with such things. So you and other conservative-leaning people want to repeal these things for the good of the people. At that point the will of the people would be the enemy and you would defy it. What YOU believe in is worth angering majorities, but not what others believe in. Which people feel free depends on which bills pass and which don't. You may feel imperiled more now, but the other half of the country feels better than it has in a long time, at least about those things that have passed into law. We're still waiting for so many more things to pass.

Mike Q, the will of the majority is not Republican or Democrat it is centrist. In order to achieve that, their must be checks and balances and peoples opinion must be represented and considered. The majority in this country does not want a government that ignores the people.

To explain some of the points you made:

Yes, the majority of people want health care reform but the majority made it clear, by the polls that they did NOT want THIS health care reform. The partisan nature of the votes should also have been considered, now they must face the consequences. The Democrats ignored the people and sided with Obama, now to try and get re-elected they are distancing themselves from Obama. It's too late for that.

Statewide healthcare allows people more choices then federal but that was not considered because this was a federal power grab. It was ONLY the Democrats that passed mandated health care, the Republicans did not vote for it, if they did, they would face the same consequences.

At this point if SS or medicare were repealed, only a minority would be for it. If I was among that minority, I would respect the fact that this country feels differently and not hold our representatives responsible.

Here is the bottom-line. This is not what I or what you want. It is not governing by the polls. It is not Republican against Democrat. It is about an administration that has complete power to implement their policies and one policy after another is going against, not half the country but the MAJORITY of the country. At what point does that equate to our government becoming rulers instead of representatives that serve the people?
This election for me, is about restoring the balance of power to prevent that.

Mike Q: I readily agree with and side Mike Q on the points he has made. Whereas Obama has been ostracized by the ultra right, it has been the doings and the urging of the global elite that has silently condoned the practices for their own ulterior purposes.
Bill Clinton whom I consider to be above the ordinary, said it best recently when he openly observed that the Dems have gotten it all wrong when it comes to who is in opposition of their half-baked programs.
Many Dems will stand aside rather than reelct the likes of those who played politics with the bait and stall game on healthcare while jobs, jobs, jobs was and always has been the principal issue since 2002.
Obama did himself little good and caused great harm in casting aside the guidance of great Dems like Kucinich, Feingold and Howard Dean. His constant and consistant fawning and allegiance to banking shill Geithner and Bernanke the librarian lessens his credentials as a pragmatist.
And all this crap about how we need to embrace those "illegals" who have broken the backs of labor and wages is totally unconstitutional. They are not entitled to anything, since any action or adverse situation they might incur in this country, would be as it would be addressed to a citizen, comes during the ongoing commission of a crime. As long as they remain here without documented legal papers to work here, they are still committing the crime.
One in seven Americans now resides in this country at or below the poverty level and this government is facilitating the commission of these aggregious crimes of intent.
NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW AND PROFIT FROM IT. NOBODY!!!
THE DEMS HAVE OPENLY SUPPORTED THIS INVASIONARY FORCE FOR FAR TOO LONG. WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD IT NOR DO WE WANT OUR CHILDREN RETARDED ANY FURTHER BY THIS BILINGUAL DOUBLESPEAK.

Hillary can go scratch with her agendas that taunt us, and cripple us at the expense of her calculating appeasements for power.
Bill Clinton is "the man" who builds bridges by alwaysoffering both sides practical and profitable solutions.

Harry Reid needs a permanent demotion. Pelosi needs to got off the lithium. Geithner can go to hell and if there is a deeper darker place- find it, quick because this economy under his direction is going to self destruct.
Neither Wall St, nor America can withstand the free hand that Dodd has dealt to the NWO globalists. No small business is immune to the mega bankers. And those enjoying government jobs with salaries mostly paid by individual and small business taxpayers will soon get their come uppence when the shrinking private sector sinks below the 50% level.

Obama had better hurry up and wake up and lay out concrete plans without budging away from ending those taxbreaks for the megas. I don't care if he raises level to a more practical $500,000 but the ultra rich have got to make up the slack.

CORRECTION TO OPENING SENTENCE.
Mike Q: I readily agree with and side Mike G on the points he has made. Whereas Obama has been ostracized by the ultra right, it has been the doings and the urging of the global elite that has silently condoned the practices for their own ulterior purposes.

Why should someone be fired for burning any book ? If he did it on company time or property the correct procedure shold have been followed, not the typical kneejerk reaction from a politician,

Petreaus: "You are in this war, for the rest of our lives..."
Petreaus??? Not a Clue, how to win... just wants to occupy and hold on - says journalist insider Bob Woodward.

This solidifies my assessment that he is nothing more than the PR poster boy, and bagman for the DOD/IMC and Rocky's well known NWO agenda, for a permanent welfare state, and the war everlasting component for the IMC as it has been structured and established in Afghanistan and Iraq, for which our nation and our people have been held hostage to for the past decade.

Woodward if you read carefully includes CFR houseplant Holbrook and other military chiefs part and parcel to other CFR central figures in the duping of this President for their "war without end" purposes.

Much more... THE WOODWARD BOOK IS A MUST READ FOR EVERYONE IN AMERICA IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE OUR NATION, ITS MORAL HIGH GROUND, THAT TRANSCENDS AS LEGACY TO OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES TO MAINTAIN THE ETHICAL MORAL HIGH GROUND, AND TRADITIONS OF OUR FOREFATHERS.
Bob Woodward is one of the last investigative journalists we have left that still remains unaffected in the sell out culture that pervades mass media.
Caspian, you should have seen the disgust on Joe Scarboroughs[R] face this morning.
A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR DOD BIGWIGS TO PLAY WITH FOR maintaining the status quo CONTINUED MILITARY INERTIA, AND STALEMATE AND CROOKED POLITICS IN AFGHANISTAN.
While our sons and daughters and millions of citizens remain jobless, under educated and without the means to attain the American dream or pay for their own healthcare. Oh what a bright future the Bush monkeys have left us.

Another untold fact revealed by Woodward. Daddy Bush's CIA now has a 3,000 man private army that has been put on our tab.

ADD THAT TO- Private armies, mercks paid at the rate of 10x that of enlisted personnel, NO BID CONTRACTS, subsidized mega corporations, $3.1 trillion in loans to banks, the Bush pharmeceuticals healthcare bill $534B, the sale of US ports, the sale of NASDAQ, Dubai controlling our Energy, Khadafy our globalist CFR's politicians newest best friend, selling our shorelines to BP, et tu Petreaus, Rocky & Friends... THANKS FOR NOTHING! PRESIDENT BUSH

THIS NATION IS BEING DRAWN AND QUARTERED BY WELL POSITIONED bilderberg, IMC, trilateral, and CFR INSIDERS.

Petreaus??? Not a Clue, how to win... just wants to occupy and hold on - says journalist insider Bob Woodward."


Maybe if he had a no holds barred, fully suportive Commander in Chief, the way Petreaus had during the Iraq War he could and would get things accomplished in a grand scale. Sadly you see, hopeless and failed community Organizers don't know squat about the military, national defense or necessary pre-emptive warfare.

Try to win it, Bam:

A'stan is truly your war now...

September 22, 2010

Hoping to see significant progress in Afghanistan? Senior US military officials say it won't happen any time soon. Their current task, apparently -- with a November NATO meeting looming and the Obama administration's next strategy review a month after that -- is to lower expectations.

Indeed, with the war not going well, some have concluded that victory must be impossible. And as surely as the sun rises, these same people claim it's mainly George W. Bush's fault. "Distracted" by Iraq, he "neglected" Afghanistan. President Obama "inherited" an unwinnable mess.

Could President Bush have done a better job in Afghanistan? Sure. But most of the major problems confronting us there today have little to do with his policies. In fact, many result directly from decisions made by the current occupant of the Oval Office.

First, there's President Obama's insistence on a public timeline for withdrawal. By promising, at the same time that he announced he would increase US troop strength, that he would start withdrawing those troops 18 months later -- regardless of the situation on the ground -- he undermined his own strategy for victory before it could be implemented.

Last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told a US congressional delegation that the promise to begin withdrawing US forces next July gave the Taliban a "morale boost." And Marine Gen. James Conway said the withdrawal date is "giving our enemy sustenance" -- leading them to believe they can simply wait out NATO forces.

Second, there was Obama's prolonged review of Afghanistan policy, which devolved into months of hand-wringing and equivocation. A leaked cable from the US ambassador to Afghanistan questioned Karzai's reliability. That sent mixed signals to friends and foes alike and caused key allies, including Karzai, to doubt our commitment.

Former Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh recently said Karzai now lacks faith in America's commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban. That lack of confidence, Saleh reported, has led Karzai to believe he must cut deals with Taliban leaders to protect himself.

Third, there's the administration's meek stance toward Pakistan. It has never given Islamabad an ultimatum to stop playing a double game with the United States and the Taliban. Yes, dealing with Pakistan is hard, but the White House could have handled matters differently.

While Obama deserves credit for expanding the US drone campaign in tribal border areas and helping to degrade al Qaeda's operational capabilities, he has yet to convince Pakistan's military leaders to crack down consistently and comprehensively on Taliban sanctuaries.

The administration has trumpeted its Pakistan policy as a success because Pakistan's military ousted pro-Taliban militants from the Swat Valley last summer and conducted military operations in South Waziristan last fall. That's all certainly welcome -- but not enough. Until Pakistan cracks down decisively on the Afghan Taliban leadership and groups like the Haqqani network, US goals to stabilize and secure Afghanistan will remain elusive.

Finally, the administration's highly publicized campaign to eliminate corruption in Afghanistan has backfired. Gen. David Petraeus' policies in Iraq were far more subtle and successful. The administration's recent decision to back off its high-profile anti-corruption strategy is a sign he may be exerting greater influence over overall Afghanistan policy.

There needs to be balance between our military and political strategy -- a principle Petraeus recognized and implemented in Iraq. We can hope his strategy works in Afghanistan, as well, particularly now that he has the added 30,000 troops in place. But coming on the heels of the administration's bungled anti-corruption campaign and saddled with the ill-considered withdrawal timeline, the general's job is going to be much harder.

The president, perhaps sensing his strategy is not working, now seems to be "defining down" the threat and, consequently, the mission. It's mainly about al Qaeda, he says -- and not the Taliban which gives them sanctuary.

In lowering the bar for victory in this way, Obama appears to be looking for the exit. Perhaps he's opening the door to a claim the war will be successful even if the Taliban were to return to power.

But that wouldn't be success. Should the Taliban regain dominance in Afghanistan, it would be a defeat for American arms, a setback for American leadership and an invitation to more terror threats to Americans.

Let us hope President Obama will turn things around in Afghanistan. But if he doesn't, it will be the direct consequence of decisions he has made -- not Bush's fault.

Critics of the former president said defeat was inevitable in Iraq, too, but Bush refused to accept it. Instead, he took bold action, often to his political disadvantage -- and proved the defeatists wrong.

President Obama would do well to show similar vision and courage.