ideology; The republican corporate lackeys are now out to wreck medicare and social security and not try to fix it for the boomer retirement years. For medicare they will try to privatize it as in the bush generation . the republicans have allready stated that future incrases will have to be offset by spending cuts which is not a bad idea but when it comes to their tax cuts for the needy gready wealthy or wars there will be no offset. Also rep Issa who is looking to impeach president obama send notice to corporations as to what laws they would like to see repealed that are not friendly to business. This gop in the house wants to overturn consumer credit card law and financial regulation laws. By defeating the health care bill many seniors will have to pay full cost for prescription drugs. Hopefully the senate will not pass these bills or the president will veto them. But the gop wants to have a candidate for 2012. In their deficit reduction no mention is made of farm. eneregy. research subsidies or corporate welfare. Lets hope the electorate will stop listening to fox news and vote intelligently in the future

The Republicans have no cover now,they talked a good game now its time to produce.Reading of the constitution today put you in the mind of "kids" in a school play.

Democrats HATE the Constitution. It gets in their way to dictate to the rest of the American people how to live, where to live and how much of their own money they can keep. The Democrats HATE it with a passion. Like showing the Cross to Dracula.... I am so happy that we now have a party in power 1/2 of Congress that can follow the rule of law and is reading it so everyone knows what is in it, unlike Nancy Pelosi and her ilk who have no idea what was in the Health Care bill.

In 1789 America was about being a FREEE COUNTRY vs. TODAY, America is all about MONEY, GREED, individual or corporation.

E.g., The park was a park. The parks were relatively freee, operating on a very modest budget in 1789 and thereafter, and until recent vs. TODAY--the parks apply for GRANT AFTER GRANT, VIS-A-VIS MORE TAXPAYER MONEY, FROM BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL TO COVER ACTIVITIES IN THE PARKS THAT COMPETTE WITH LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES, AND THE PARKS COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THIS GRANT MONEY (the parks do not take in enough money in admission fees to cover costs of these added events).

Two years and billions of dollars wasted with Democrat initiatives that fueled the Tea Party, Town Hall debates and a divided America. The Republicans are in for two days and the Democrats are complaining about wasting time and money reading the constitution? Some Democrats are hypocrites who only look for fault when it goes against their ideology or political party. The truth teller is slow to judge and exposes the good and the bad that exists on both sides.

I am shocked and appalled that after I said that the constitution was what this very country was founded on, you disconnected my call. No, you didn't lose me. You very simply disconnected. The constitution was what this country is all about. Them coming together and reading it as they go forward to make changed for this country, was both a statement and an inspiration. Your lack of tolerance for someone else's opposing votes is frustrating, but not surprising. Don't open up phone lines to hear what people think to then shut them off because it's not what you wanted to hear. This was the first time I watched this news channel today, and it will be the very last. To all those who are fighting on a daily basis for our freedom and for what this country stands for, thank you so very much. You are appreciated. And do those who'd rather talk then listen, I hope someday your minds will be opened up. This country will only ever thrive and flourish when it is brought back to what it used to stand for, what it was meant to stand for, and what it needs to stand for. And that, is the Constitution of The United States of America.

The republicans are stating they will not raise the debt limit and want to sincerely cut spending. IF they are so sincere how come they would have held up all legislation in the last congress if the there tax cuts for the wealthy did not pass. This will cost about a trillion dollars before it is done. If they were so concerned and sincere 2 weeks ago how come they are complaining now. They could have refused the tax cuts and brought the deficit down but no they had to please there real constitutuents the wealthy and corporations.; what a bunch of hyprocites

'Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo
After campaigning against D.C.'s ways, new Republican lawmakers quickly turn to lobbyists and fundraisers. / January 04, 2011 / Reporting from Washington — ?The new class of Republican lawmakers who charged into office promising to shun the ways of Washington officially arrives on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. ?But even as they publicly bash the capital's culture, many have quietly begun to embrace it.
Several freshmen have hired lobbyists — the ultimate Washington insiders — to lead their congressional staffs. In the weeks leading up to Wednesday's swearing-in, dozens of the newcomers joined other lawmakers in turning to lobbyists for campaign cash.? And on Wednesday, congressional offices will be packed with lawmakers' relatives, friends, constituents and lobbyists, all invited to celebrate the new Congress. ?
This picture of business-as-usual Washington clashes with the campaign rhetoric of many newcomers, some who were propelled by support from the anti-Washington "tea party" movement. It also muddles the image House Republicans hoped to project as they took the helm this week. In contrast to the public celebration thrown by Democrat Nancy Pelosi when she became speaker four years ago, incoming House Speaker John A. Boehner has tried to strike a subdued and earnest note as he takes up the gavel.

Cas:
By now we all know that the more things change the more they stay the same.

"This picture of business-as-usual Washington clashes with the campaign rhetoric of many newcomers, some who were propelled by support from the anti-Washington "tea party" movement. It also muddles the image House Republicans hoped to project as they took the helm this week. "

Bingo with a capital B.

rob, The liberals were fooled by Obama and the Tea Bags will be fooled by the Republicans.


Ecclesiastes 1:9

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

"This picture of business-as-usual Washington clashes with the campaign rhetoric of many newcomers, some who were propelled by support from the anti-Washington "tea party" movement."

A couple years ago the Democrats ran on the platform of "change". Those who trusted in them were utterly disappointed, because for them it was business as usual. Others, who were non-partisan and without much expectations experienced a change but not a good one. Over zealous jamming of bills down our throats against the majority, a divided America, people joining tea party's and expressing anger at town halls, escalated spending, while the party in power simply ignored the people.

So during the mid-term elections many got a well deserved boot and immediately during the lame duck session compromise took place and things got done, without tea party protests or town hall screaming because it was according to the will of most Americans, though certainly not perfect. So in my opinion, having a more balanced government is a whole lot better then all Democrats or all Republicans.

Now in reference to Republicans hiring lobbyists? Who cares? Only the idealists care. Only those expecting major change or believing that government does everything in our best interest really care. I'll settle for an improvement for now, which I think we have.

Surge or Retreat?

The military Obama wants us to have.

January 7

In the past four years, administrations of both parties have had to surge ground troops to war theaters in order to make success possible in missions central to the national security of the United States. Just last week, the Obama administration announced an additional 1,400 Marines would be deployed to southern Afghanistan to help secure the progress the surge has achieved there.

But now President Obama, to save $6 billion a year—one-half of one percent of the federal budget deficit—has announced a cut of some 47,000 troops from the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps. We paid a big price for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s obdurate refusal to increase the size of the armed forces after 9/11. Finally, Congress insisted on such an increase, and Rumsfeld’s replacement, Robert Gates, agreed—and the surges in forces were possible (though still dependent on tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops—the fact is that, if anything, the size of the regular ground forces remains too small). Now we’re going back to the future, to a truly undermanned armed forces. What’s next? Get rid of the armor on the Humvees? We’ll just have to go to war in the future—or try to deter war—with the military the Obama White House has decided we can have?

And make no mistake: This was a White House decision. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen announced the cuts yesterday. But these cuts were imposed by President Obama. Gates and Mullen fought to minimize the damage. And then they were trotted out to make the announcement. You might think President Obama would at least have the courage to bite the bullet himself on an announcement of such national importance. But the president isn’t a bite-the-bullet kind of guy.

Luckily, there are Republicans in the Congress—and, I dare say, some Democrats—who understand these cuts are dangerous. They should move to reject them, and the other reckless cuts in a military budget that’s already stretched awfully thin.

Don’t Cut Defense:

Security is the first priority of the federal government.

January 7

‘We shrink from our global responsibilities at our peril, as retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later — indeed as they always have in the past.”

That’s how Defense Secretary Robert Gates concluded his presentation about why the Obama administration would cut $78 billion from the Pentagon’s five-year budget. Not the most effective sales pitch: After 30 minutes of explaining the need for relatively small near-term savings, in 15 seconds he made it clear that the long-term price was unacceptably large.

These reductions were direct orders from the White House. While Gates managed to limit the damage, perhaps by as much as $50 billion, this is simply a continuation of the pattern begun in 2009. Obama’s defense cuts will have a compound, long-term effect on the overall purchasing power of the military. We won’t know the total extent of this year’s cuts for some time, including whether the “two-year probation” given to the Marine version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is simply a stay of execution. Nonetheless, the Obama years have seen more than $350 billion in weapons modernization alone eliminated from the defense budget.

The collective cuts have taken a huge toll on the military. Killing the Army’s Future Combat Systems program not only deprived the service of a new generation of ground combat vehicles — for the fifth time since the end of the Cold War — but threw a monkey wrench in an innovative plan to “network” the force (which means, roughly, bringing it from the age of the Atari to the age of the iPhone). The shrinking of the Navy to fewer than 280 ships means the smallest fleet since World War I, when it shared the ruling of the world’s waves with the British Royal Navy.

The “Age of American Air Power” of the 1990s crashed with the 2009 termination of the F-22 Raptor. The Raptor had been the ultimate don’t-even-think-about-it message to potential adversaries; indeed, reports recently surfaced that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il hid underground for over a week last year when the U.S. was hosting exercises in the region out of fear of attack from an F-22. And with the fate of the short-take-off version of the F-35 uncertain and the killing of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Marine Corps’s future as a “forcible-entry” amphibious force — that is, the Marines as they’ve existed since World War II — is in serious doubt. In sum, Donald Rumsfeld’s idea to “skip a generation” of weapons modernization is being realized.

But more shocking than the weapons cuts was Gates’s announcement that the active-duty strength of the Army and Marine Corps will be trimmed by 47,000. This is especially jarring in light of the simultaneous announcement of an additional “surge” of 1,400 Marines into Afghanistan this month. Indeed, if the post-9/11 wars have proved one thing, it is that the land forces of the United States are too small. The Bush administration refused to expand the Army and Marine Corps until the 2007 Iraq surge, arguing that by the time new units could be organized and trained, the fighting would be over. Obama seems determined to repeat the folly of strategy-by-end-strength, again limiting combat commanders’ choices by constraining the resources available. The troop cuts aren’t supposed to take effect until 2015 — by which time the president has promised to be “out” of Iraq and all but out of Afghanistan — but they will begin to shape recruiting and retention almost immediately. Gates once led the charge to “win the wars we’re in,” yet he works for a commander-in-chief who’s interested only in ending the war he’s in. Our armies were too small before 9/11. They’ve been too small to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously — we have a “one surge at a time” force. Cutting land forces now can only make the “Long War” longer.

Some things have changed since 2009, however: There’s a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a strengthened minority in the Senate. And these proposed defense cuts pose an early test of character for the House leadership in particular.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who will write the alternative Republican budget — without question the most important political document of 2011 — has it right. “Everybody wants to have a peace-dividend budget, but we’re not at peace,” he says. “You can’t have a peace-dividend budget when we have two wars.” Rep. “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is committed to restoring conservative support for strong national defense, and he emerged from a briefing by Gates stating, “I will not stand idly by and watch the White House gut defense when Americans are deployed in harm’s way.”

But there will be a temptation, particularly for a party struggling to meet is campaign “Pledge to America” to cut $100 billion in domestic discretionary spending, to look on the defense cuts — which amount to about $17 to $18 billion in the next year alone — as too good to refuse. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has repeatedly suggested that defense should be “on the table” in deficit-cutting talks, and the wheeler-dealer Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, appears to agree.

Further, the White House has wrapped the deal in a shiny package of budget gimmickry. The administration is proposing a 2012 budget of $553 billion, nominally an increase from last year’s budget — although a decrease in Pentagon purchasing power and substantially less than the $570 billion projected in the Obama 2011 request. And it will take courage for House Republicans to confront Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

Gates’s argument is that defense dollars are not “sacred.” That is true, but that is also to trivialize the fact that national defense is different — a qualitatively different obligation of government than providing social services, health care, “internal improvements,” or economic development. And there is a moral dimension to defense spending, especially when only a few do the fighting and dying for the many.

It is ironic that the White House chose to announce defense spending cuts just as the House, by its public reading of the U.S. Constitution, tried to call the federal government back to its first principles. If there was one thing the Framers understood, it was that security was the first priority of the national government. We shall see if Republicans still share that priority.

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor has repeatedly suggested that defense should be “on the table” in deficit-cutting talks, and the wheeler-dealer Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, appears to agree"

I think they are right. While our National Defense is most important. EVERYTHING should be on the table. That's principled and responsible. In addition, we need to determine whether our efforts are really worthwhile. Some think at this point, bringing our troops home and concentrating on defending our borders would be a better way to defend this nation. I tend to agree.

U.S Federal Spending 2009
Defense Spending = 782 billion.
Medicare / Medicaid = 676 billion.
Other Mandatory = 607 billion.
Other Discretionary = 437 billion.
Interest = 187 billion.
TARP = 151 billion.

What's weird is the fact that anyone still reads the National Review
Published: Friday, January 07, 2011, 3:32 PM
Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

What's weird is the fact that anyone still reads the National Review

==========

Great video robert.

I agree with everything except Joe Lieberman being liberal.

He is a corporate conservative Democrat.

lol

'UNSPEAKABLE TRAGEDY'
Dem Congresswoman Shot.. Federal Judge Killed.. LIVE UPDATES: Second Suspect Sought.. At Least Six Dead.. Aide Killed.. Alleged Shooter In Custody.. President Orders FBI Director To Arizona.. Semi-Automatic Weapon Used

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Rage on the Radio | Full Segment | PBS
http://tinyurl.com/4373r5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3ap-BK0e0&feature=related

Cas:
This upcoming week should be very revealing on who stands where on this issue of violenece.
And what is being said over the airways,and here is demonstration of no morals or respect by and isolated group of the low information voter.

Robert,

I am glad you cleaned that statement up,

"here is demonstration of no morals or respect by and isolated group".

One group's lack of respect for the victims, has nothing to do with the vast majority of Bible believing Christians.

Mike G.

Its too bad that a lot of people can not differentiate,whats right and whats wrong and just lump people in a heap without understanding whats really going on.

"One group's lack of respect for the victims, has nothing to do with the vast majority of Bible believing Christians."

So Right with a capital (R).

This upcoming week should be very revealing on who stands where on this issue of violenece.

=============

rob, My guess is the corporations will still continue to support Rush "From Drugs" Lying Corporatist Limbaugh and the rightwing nuts on Fox News Republican Propaganda Channel.


Glenn Beck EXPOSED - Crying On Cue Using Vicks under His Eyes.
http://tinyurl.com/23ztgc6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuG9TdtEbu8

The Cloudy Logic of 'Political' Shootings:

After this horrible news from Tucson....

... let me amplify something I said half-coherently in a live conversation with Guy Raz on All Things Considered a little while ago. My intended point was:

Shootings of political figures are by definition "political." That's how the target came to public notice; it is why we say "assassination" rather than plain murder.

But it is striking how rarely the "politics" of an assassination (or attempt) match up cleanly with the main issues for which a public figure has stood. Some killings reflect "pure" politics: John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln, the German officers who tried to kill Hitler and derail his war plans. We don't know exactly why James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King, but it must have had a lot to do with civil rights.

There is a longer list of odder or murkier motives:
- Leo Ryan, the first (and, we hope, still the only) Representative to be killed in the line of duty, was gunned down in Guyana in 1978 for an investigation of the Jim Jones/Jonestown cult, not any "normal" political issue.

- Sirhan Sirhan horribly transformed American politics by killing Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but Sirhan's political causes had little or nothing to do with what RFK stood for to most Americans.

- So too with Arthur Bremer, who tried to kill George C. Wallace in 1972 and left him paralyzed.

- The only known reason for John Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan involves Jodie Foster.

- It's not often remembered now, but Manson family member Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford, again for reasons that would mean nothing to most Americans of that time.

- When Harry Truman was shot at (and a policeman was killed) on the sidewalk outside the White Blair House, the attackers were concerned not about Cold War policies or Truman's strategy in Korea but about Puerto Rican independence.

- The assassinations of William McKinley and James Garfield were also "political" but not in a way that matched the main politics of that time. The list could go on.

So the train of logic is:
1) anything that can be called an "assassination" is inherently political;
2) very often the "politics" are obscure, personal, or reflecting mental disorders rather than "normal" political disagreements. But now a further step,
3) the political tone of an era can have some bearing on violent events. The Jonestown/Ryan and Fromme/Ford shootings had no detectable source in deeper political disagreements of that era. But the anti-JFK hate-rhetoric in Dallas before his visit was so intense that for decades people debated whether the city was somehow "responsible" for the killing. (Even given that Lee Harvey Oswald was an outlier in all ways.)

That's the further political ramification here. We don't know why the Tucson killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never "understand." But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."

Meanwhile condolences on this tragedy, and deepest hopes for the recovery of all who still have a chance.