A new website has been created that is the most amazing site to do with our White House I have ever seen.

A STRONG MIDDLE CLASS

They are starting a with VP Biden in charge:

America’s middle class is the economic engine of this nation. Our road to economic recovery begins with restoring the prosperity of working families and small business owners. That is why today, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum creating a task force dedicated to raising the living standards of middle class families – and he put the nation’s number two guy in charge, Vice President Joe Biden:

“America’s middle class is hurting. Trillions of dollars in home equity and retirement savings and college savings are gone. And every day, more and more Americans are losing their jobs. President Obama and I are determined to change this. Quite simply, a strong middle class equals a strong America. We can’t have one without the other. This Task Force will be an important vehicle to assess new and existing policies across the board and determine if they are helping or hurting the middle class. It is our charge to get the middle class – the backbone of this country – up and running again.”

After going to the web site you will find an area to submit your task force ideas, again we are being called upon to help our government to make our US a better place to live.

The missiles destroyed a house in a remote village, they said.

The attack took place in North Waziristan which is known to be a hub of al-Qaeda and Taleban militants.

In recent weeks, more than 100 people – among them suspected militants and many civilians – have been killed in the tribal areas in attacks by US missiles.

The issue has become extremely sensitive in Pakistan where anti-American sentiment is rising.

Pakistan’s government says such unilateral American operations undermine its own counter-insurgency strategy.

Meanwhile, an Afghan and a Japanese journalist have been shot and wounded in the city of Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province. Earlier this week, an American aid worker was shot dead in Peshawar and an Iranian diplomat was kidnapped.

‘Hearts and minds’

The latest drone attack took place in the early hours of Friday morning in a village near the town of Razmak in North Waziristan not far from the Afghan border.

Archive image of a US “hunter-killer” drone, the MQ-9 Reaper, which has been deployed in Afghanistan
It is the second drone attack reported in the area in recent days

Two missiles fired from a drone struck a house in the village, destroying it completely, reports said.

Local officials say all those killed were militants.

They say they cannot confirm whether any foreigners were among the dead.

The BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says this area is part of territory under the control of local Taleban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur. It was the target of a similar drone attack last Friday, in which 11 militants were reported killed.

The latest attack comes days after Pakistan’s President Asif Zardari’s appeal to US president-elect Barack Obama to review the strategy of attacking targets in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

“It’s undermining my sovereignty and it’s not helping win the… hearts and minds of people,” Mr Zardari told CBS News.

North Waziristan is known as a haven for Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters who enter Afghanistan and the US administration suspects that senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding there.

The United States has stepped up missile attacks from drones in the region in recent weeks.

There have been nearly 20 strikes in the past three months and, while US officials say al-Qaeda leaders are being successfully targeted, local tribesmen say scores of civilians have been killed.

Most of the missile strikes have taken place in the Waziristan region, where no Pakistani military operation is in progress.

Last week, Pakistan told the visiting head of US Central Command General David Petraeus that the missile strikes were “counter-productive” and detrimental to the so-called “war on terror”.

Scores of Republicans — who saw their numbers shrink in Congress and lost their eight-year reign in the White House — have chosen alternative events such as dinners, vacations and NFL playoff games to the swearing-in ceremony Jan. 20, Politico reported Friday.

Republican fundraiser Charlie Spies invited GOP-ers to dinner, saying in an e-mail, “What better way to mark the Obama Inauguration (and his millions of adoring fans that will be in D.C.) than to get out of town to fabulous Las Vegas!” Fifteen people have taken him up on his offer.

Other Republican insiders said they’ll stick around for the quadrennial rite of government, the Washington publication said.

“I’m chasing ball tickets, swearing-in tickets, hotel rooms, reservations, invites — what’s new?” said Robbie Aiken, a GOP lobbyist who has participated in every inauguration since he was on former President Ronald Reagan’s staff in 1981. “That’s what Washington people are supposed to do, and I’m glad to help, with a smile, as usual.”
“

His ‘That one’ statement directed towards Senator Obama. Now, I know when MY Grandpa would refer to me as “that one’ he was about to give me a thrashing! Again, McCain is showing his uncontrollable temper.

Can you just imagine him as our president and one of our various world leaders made him madder than a wet hornet as its said in the sticks, and he refers to them as ‘that one’?  It is a statement created to make another feel demeaned and threatened, we cant have that, for crisis sake!

Senator John McCain has become a babbling old fool and needs to step out of the heroes light, go home, sit down, surrounded by his war medals, and remember the good ole days. We do not need GWBushes, little  Napoleon being our next commander in chief.

One the job training – Now if you were to be able to ask any of the past presidents, they would tell you that NOBODY, oh, including ole Jonny, Nobody knows the job until they sit in that seat. There is no college prep course for that position, too many need to knows, to actually know what your getting into. SO, if Jonny wants to talk the ‘No time for on the job training’ to the mix, then we are all out of luck, as that is what the job perquisite is for all past and present applicants, On the job training.

Again, he makes a fool out of himself.

Well, my curiosity got the best of me and I began to have a look.

I found a website that was organized by Jerry Kiley called ‘Vietnam veterans against John McCain. There I found quite a few answers to my questions. Now, of course this is like most full of hype, but I believe there is some truth in there if you read between the lines.

This is an excerpt from Jerry Kiley’s page:

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain was formed to dispel the myth of “Straight talkin’, principled, maverick war hero” John McCain. Through more than two decades of investigation of his behavior, through open-source documents, public statements of his colleagues, and personal conversations with other Vietnam POWs, we have come to the unavoidable conclusion that he is unfit by virtue of his temperament, character, dishonesty, and emotional instability to serve as President of the United States or in any other position of public trust.   This article was suspended…hmm wonder by whom…

Here is another interesting thought from the US Veteran Dispatch

McCain was subjected to 5 ½ years of Soviet driven “brain perversion techniques.”
Is he fit to be President and Commander in Chief of the military?

U.S. Veteran Dispatch

McCain said the communists were so effective with their interrogation techniques that he broke on the fourth day after being captured and began cooperating. “Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship’s name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant.” Pages 193-194, Faith of My Fathers, by John McCain.

U.S. intelligence agents concluded in the early 1950s that Soviet intelligence (KGB) agents were experimenting on their prisoners with “mind control” techniques and behavior modification drugs

Allen W. Dulles, the newly confirmed CIA director acknowledged the dilemma in April 1953, when he told a gathering of Princeton alumni that “a sinister battle for men’s minds” was underway. The Soviets, Dulles explained “have developed brain perversion techniques, some of which are so subtle and so abhorrent to our way of life that we have recoiled from facing up to them.” article by Ted Sampley.      

I found this all to be very interesting. My brother a two year Vietnam Vet had a few tasks of rescuing POW’s. Although he doesn’t say much about it, he will laugh when McCain stands unscathed by his POW experience. I personally don’t know what happened, but I do believe a human being can not go through such a hanis experience and come out a healthy mind and body to run for the President of the United States.

THERE have been many painful crises since the impatient vanity of
South Carolina hurried ten prosperous Commonwealths into a
crime whose assured retribution was to leave them either at the
mercy of the nation they had wronged, or of the anarchy they had
summoned but could not control, when no thoughtful American
opened his morning paper without dreading to find that he had no
longer a country to love and honor.  Whatever the result of the
convulsion whose first shocks were beginning to be felt, there
would still be enough square miles of earth for elbow-room; but
that ineffable sentiment made up of memory and hope, of instinct
and tradition, which swells every man's heart and shapes his
thought, though perhaps never present to his consciousness, would
be gone from it, leaving it common earth and nothing more.  Men
might gather rich crops from it, but that ideal harvest of priceless
associations would be reaped no longer; that fine virtue which sent
up messages of courage and security from every sod of it would
have evaporated beyond recall.  We should be irrevocably cut off
from our past, and be forced to splice the ragged ends of our lives
upon whatever new conditions chance might leave dangling for us.

We confess that we had our doubts at first whether the patriotism
of our people were not too narrowly provincial to embrace the
proportions of national peril.  We felt an only too natural distrust of
immense public meetings and enthusiastic cheers.

                                                                            READ MORE... 

The Democratic Indiana primary looks like it’s going to be closer than anything of the races we’ve seen so far.

A new poll by the Indianapolis Star-WTHR shows that Sen. Barack Obama has a three-point lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton — 41% to 38% — with a week and a half to go before the May 6th primary. But with a margin of error of 4%, it’s basically a dead heat.

But here’s the real news — 21% of those poll said they are still undecided. That’s enormous block of people who have yet to make up their minds. You can bet that Indiana residents will get tired of seeing political ads on TV in the next 10 days

There is good news for Obama in the poll that may hint that the undecideds could break his way. In a match up with Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama beats him 49% to 41%. But Clinton and McCain are in a tie 46%-46%. And, by 49 percent to 35 percent, Democratic primary voters said Obama is the candidate best able to win in the general election.

The poll found that voters age 18 to 35 favor Obama over Clinton 48 percent to 34 percent, while the oldest voters, age 55 and older, prefer Clinton 43 percent to 32 percent.Obama is winning urban and suburban voters, 47 percent to 33 percent, while Clinton wins the rural areas by more than 2-to-1: 55 percent to 20 percent. Clinton is doing well among white women, who back her 48 percent to 29 percent. Among all women, though, Obama is slightly edging her out 41 percent to 40 percent.

So why isn’t McCain doing better in what has been a state that has long been in the GOP safe column. The answer may hint at problems that have plagued McCain since his campaign for the White House began?

Pollster J. Ann Selzer says many Hoosiers are not happy with the Bush administration’s track record. And she said McCain’s lack of strength also may reflect that he “doesn’t have a consistent track record on the issues conservatives care most about” and may not be a good fit for conservative Republicans in Indiana.
—-
UPDATE: The South-Bend Tribune’s new poll shows Obama with a one-point lead 48% to 47% (5% margin of error. But the poll continues to show that Clinton’s negatives are much higher than Obama’s. More than twice as many people — 48% to 235 — think Clinton is running the more negative campaign.

By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services

It’s hard out there for a surrogate. Especially for a Clinton surrogate being asked why Hillary Clinton has not released the last eight years of her tax returns. As congresswoman and Clinton surrogate Nita Lowey made clear on “Meet The Press” last weekend, the reason it’s so hard to give a good answer to “Why hasn’t Clinton released her returns?” is because there is no good answer.

Lowey gave it a shot, but it wasn’t pretty — or particularly intelligible. When Tim Russert asked about the returns, she opened with the main talking point the Clinton campaign has been using for weeks: “It’s my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

And she’s exactly right. There are 20 years worth of returns that have been released. What’s missing are the last eight years — years in which Bill Clinton has been making money hand over fist, and involving himself in all kinds of interesting financial deals (see Ron Burkle, Yucaipa, and the ruler of Dubai).

Lowey then quickly pivoted away from tax returns (clearly the 20-year line, as lame as it is, was the only arrow in her quiver) to make points about earmarks and the terrific work Bill Clinton’s foundation has done on HIV/AIDS in Africa — neither of which Russert had asked her about or have anything to do with tax returns.

Now, Nita Lowey is no slouch. She’s smart and accomplished. But when you are sent into battle armed with little more than nonsensical blather, you are not going to end up looking very good. And Lowey didn’t. And she seemed to know it — her eyes belied a classic case of surrogatancholy.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly paired herself with John McCain as of late, making the case that they are candidates with a “lifetime of experience,” so it seems appropriate that her refusal to release her tax returns is another thing they have in common.

While Clinton has been tossing verbal bouquets to McCain and attacking Obama for not being “vetted,” Obama has been living up to his promises about making government more transparent. Not only did he release his latest tax returns in April 2007 , he also just made public his list of earmarks, and sat down at the end of last week with the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times to answer all their questions about Tony Rezko. The conclusion of the Tribune?

“When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27 , we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict. . . . Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.”

It’s a standard not being met by either McCain or Clinton.

As Sheila Krumholz of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics said of Clinton’s not releasing her tax returns: “What is the holdup? She hasn’t exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them.”

Or as John Aravosis summed it up: “People with nothing to hide don’t usually hide.”

The main excuse we’ve gotten so far is that Hillary Clinton just has too much on her plate. “I’m a little busy right now,” she said during the Ohio debate. “I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public domain.”

That was three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, Howard Wolfson promised that the returns would be released “on or around April 15 .” But weren’t the returns completed and filed a long time ago? Doesn’t Clinton’s accountant have time to print them out and make some copies. (Note to Clinton’s accountant: Many Kinko’s are open 24 hours.)

As Andrew Sullivan notes, “Did they file an extension for the past few years? If they didn’t, the forms are available now.”

And it’s not as if the Clintons have attempted to make a reasoned argument as to why the returns shouldn’t be released — something about there being too much scrutiny of public officials. Instead, they’ve gone with Classic Clintonism: Envelope themselves in lofty, good-guy rhetoric while utterly failing to follow through. And then smearing their opponents, such as their absurd attack on Obama’s campaign for “imitating Ken Starr.”

The Clintons have obviously done very well during the Bush years — well enough that she was able to loan her campaign $5 million at a critical moment. Is it really Ken Starr-like to want to know where that money came from? Or to ask for a list of the donors who have contributed $500 million to her husband’s library? Or to ask what her policy as president would be regarding the transparency of huge donations from foreign interests to her husband’s charitable fund? (See the $31.3 million donation and additional $100 million pledge to Bill Clinton’s foundation after he helped a Canadian mining mogul secure a massive uranium deal with Kazakhstan.)

As a New York Times editorial put it: “As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is unencumbered by hidden entanglements.”

In short, it’s well past time for Hillary Clinton to be as “vetted” as she claims to already be — and to have this vetting done now by Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads. She needs to live up to the standard she laid out for Rick Lazio, the opponent in her 2000 Senate race. At that time, she said it was “frankly disturbing” that Lazio was holding back on releasing his tax returns.

What a difference eight years — and tens of millions of dollars (some of them from questionable deals) — can make.

Richard Cohen

By official count, The Washington Post’s 10th most e-mailed column of 2007 was published last June under the headline “How the GOP Could Win.” It said that the Republican Party would promote national security as the salient issue of the campaign, making a silk purse (victory in November) out of a sow’s ear (the quagmire in Iraq), and keep the White House for another four years. Increasingly, I think I might have been right.

It was Mitt Romney, the Harvard MBA, who left John McCain with what could be the winning business plan. In his campaign swan song, Romney used the two words you will repeatedly hear in the fall: retreat and defeat. Referring to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Romney said, “They would retreat, declare defeat, and the consequence of that would be devastating.”

In my 2007 column, I compared this presidential campaign to that of 1972, when George McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon. The parallels are in some ways obvious — the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq, above all. What I could not have foreseen a year ago was how much more obvious the parallels would become. Back in ’72, the Democratic Party was split between doves and hawks, reformers and stogie smokers — even men and women. The result was a national convention that was boisterous, unruly and ugly to look at. It might, however, look like a tea party compared to what could happen in Denver this August.

At the moment, no one can figure how the Democrats are going to get a nominee. What the party needs is someone like George Mitchell, a senior figure of trusted wisdom who might be able to do what Howard Dean, the party chairman, clearly cannot — avoid the train wreck everyone can see coming. But barring either Mitchell or a miracle, neither Clinton nor Obama can garner sufficient delegates on their own. It might take a combination of superdelegates and a revote in Michigan and Florida — punished for holding unauthorized primaries — to come up with a nominee. By the time that happens, the Democratic Party will be one, huge, dysfunctional family.

In that 2007 column, I did not take the surge into account. Putting an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq has indeed made a difference. It has not won the war and it has not enabled American soldiers to come home, but it has dampened the violence there — notwithstanding the carnage on Monday. Overall, civilian deaths are down. Overall, military deaths are down. To that (limited but important) extent, the surge has worked.

When I mentioned 1972 and Vietnam to an important Clinton adviser, he pointed out that Nixon initially won in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war. That nonexistent plan was still apparently unfolding four years later. In addition, Nixon made opposition to war seem unpatriotic and defeatist. He exploited the war, exacerbating cultural divisions.

John McCain lacks Nixon’s raw talent for hypocrisy, so I don’t think he’ll go that far. But he will make his stand on the surge and it will be, for him, the functional equivalent of Nixon’s secret plan. McCain’s plan, he will say, is to win. The Democrats’ is to surrender. The issue, if he frames it right, will not be the wisdom of the war, but how to get out with pride.

McCain, of course, owns the surge. He advocated putting additional troops in Iraq way back when President Bush, deep into denial, was proclaiming ultimate faith in Rummy and his merry band of incompetents. McCain, in fact, oozes national security. His weakness is that he has too often advocated using — or bluffing — force (North Korea, Iran, the former Yugoslavia). With the deft application of just a little demagoguery, he can be made to look like Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), the deranged Air Force commander in Stanley Kubrick’s always instructional “Dr. Strangelove.”

You can see it all happening again: a Republican charging that the Democrats are defeatist, soft on national security and not to be trusted with the White House. And you can see the Democratic Party heading toward Denver for yet another crackup. This time, instead of McGovern, a genuine war hero (the Distinguished Flying Cross) caricatured as a sissy, the party will put up either a candidate who has been inconsistent on the war or one with almost no foreign policy or military experience. A year ago, it looked like the party could not lose. This year, it seems determined to try.

Following is the full length text of presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s comprehensive reform package which he believes will revive the US economy: Introduction:America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in human history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. We need to return to these principles so our economy can thrive again. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures for years as a member of Congress and will make them a top priority as president.

Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas’s 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers’ Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics.

The Four-Point Plan

1. Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

2. Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

3. Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

4. Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

1. Tax Reform

- Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings. The basis of capitalism is savings, and Americans who do so should be rewarded.

Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption.

- Repeal the Death Tax. Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.

Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

- Cut Taxes for Working Seniors. Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.

Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.

- Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.

Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

- Accelerate Depreciation on Investment. We need to help companies grow and create jobs.

Pass H.R. 4995 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates.

- Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains. Investment should be embraced and rewarded.

Pass H.J. Res 23 (The “Liberty Amendment”), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

- Eliminate Taxes on Tips. The single parents and working students who earn their income chiefly through tips deserve to keep all of their money. This tax on “estimated income” is unfair and should be ended.

Pass H.R. 3664 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

- Support the Mortgage Cancellation Relief Act. Working families who lost their homes should not be punished a second time with a big IRS bill.

Pass H.R. 1876 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the gross income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.

2. Spending Reform

- Reduce Overseas Military Commitments. Our bases and troops should be on our soil. It’s time to stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

- Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels. I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president.

3. Monetary Policy Reform

- Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

- Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve.

Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

- Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.

Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

4. Regulatory Reform

- Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has seriously wounded our capital markets and helped make the UK a financial center at our expense. Ending these misguided regulations would bring jobs flooding back to the United States.

Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

- Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations. Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors. We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.

Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.

MD/AA

Too radical? You tell me. ]]> http://manfredeye.com/ron-pauls-tax-reform-proposal/feed/ 2 http://manfredeye.com/change/ http://manfredeye.com/change/#comments Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:31:11 +0000 Manfred http://manfredeye.com/?p=339

Thursday, however, Clinton said that she would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works,” she said.

Obama responded on Friday, “So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this–when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.”

Chris Kofinis, communications director of the Edwards campaign added, “You can’t have it both ways–on this or any other issue. Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans.”

For her part, Clinton said her comments Thursday were consistent with past statements. The difference between her stance and that of Obama, she insisted, was that she would open negotiations through the use of aides, rather than meeting such leaders face-to-face.

Democrats must give up the belief that they “can’t win elections unless they talk, act, and vote like Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and national security,” remarked Obama.

Yet for some reason, Democrats have fallen in love with the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. A presidency that looks very much like a probable continuation of current foreign policy coupled with a smoke-and-mirrors domestic agenda.

Why?    

1. Hillary Clinton–The top Democratic contender and media darling has seperated herself so far from the pack in the national polls that she has virtually been nominated already. At least that is the common wisdom. She continues to have many second-guessers, though, and the race may not be so cut-and-dried as the pundits would have us believe. The frontrunner is an advocate for several disturbing policies, although her quick-witted responses and carefully crafted strategy have deflected most of them. She is pro-special interest, in favor of Executive power, and not convincingly anti-war. Her healthcare plan is a sham. Her power to attract independant voters is questionable, and Republicans hate her.

2. Rudolph Giuliani–Has cemented his position at the top of the Republican leaderboard, although somewhat tenuously. The challengers also have problems. Rudy is too far to the left for the most socially conservative members of his party, but at least he comes across as the most intelligent candidate. He could seriously challenge Hillary Clinton were she the Democratic nominee, which seems likely. Others in his party would have more difficulty beating her in a general election.

3. Barack Obama–Although his star power has slipped in recent months, he is still the best bet to overtake Hillary in the Democratic primary process. He is more progressive, more flexible, and represents a new beginning to many voters. He is also an inspirational public speaker.

4. Mitt Romney–The best shot to overtake Rudy at this time, although his Mormon religion works against him with the Evangelical types who see their grip on the GOP slipping away. He also has a “finger in the wind” reputation, and I, for one, see him as an empty suit.

5. John Edwards–Candidate continues to plug along even as his stock continues to fall. A lack of funding, because of his refusal to accept corporate contributions, has hurt him, and his recognizability has suffered. Nevertheless, Edwards has some of the most progressive ideas of any candidate, and his views on healthcare and the elimination of special-interest culture in Washington should only benefit the struggling middle class. As such, he has been vilified by the MSM as a far-left radical.

Conclusions–The Democrats should still win this election, but it would be foolish to count the Republican electoral machine out. If Rudy and Hillary are the nominees, it will be a very close-run contest.

Manfred’s Best Bet–Hillary Clinton

Manfred’s Best Recomendation–John Edwards

“You know,” she says, “I’ve heard these flights go much more quickly if you strike up a conversation with a fellow passenger. So, let’s talk.”

The cowboy looks at her wryly and says, “Well I s’pose that’d be all right ma’am. What’d ya like to discuss?”

“Oh, I don’t know,” says Hillary with a slight hint of sarcasm. “How about Iraq?”

“Hmm,” says the cowboy, sensing an attempt to perhaps belittle him, “That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first: Horses, cows and deer all eat the same stuff–grass. Yet a deer passes little pellets, a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse makes muffins of dried poop. Why do you suppose that is?”

Dumbfounded, Senator Clinton replies, “I haven’t the slightest idea.”

“So tell me, then” says the cowboy with a smile. “How is it that you feel qualified to discuss Iraq when you don’t know shit?”

THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

While US citizens remain hypnotized by events in the Middle East, and by Islamic terror in general, the creeping terror is already upon us. Nothing less than the eradication of the United States as we have known it for the past 231 years.

Global economists would have us believe that due to the dollar’s recent slide, and possible collapse, a drastic solution is needed; the incorporation of Mexico and Canada, along with the US into a single soveriegn state. Canadian and US dollars, along with the peso would be abolished and replaced with something called the ‘Amero.’

Borders would become irrelevant, and internal immigration between the three countries commonplace. This, they argue, would stabilize and augment the economies of all three previously independent nations.

It would also effectively replace current US laws, override Congressional oversight and remove the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority. In effect, this is an executive decision to dismantle the United States in order to allow multinational conglomorates free reign to squeeze as much profit as possible from their goods and services.

But it screws the common people. US workers would literally be forced to compete with third-world immigrants (who would be free to vie for jobs under this plan). Wages would drop dramatically.

This is not a joke, nor is it some pipe-dream of world business; it has already been set in motion.

Unfortunately, nearly every major presidential hopeful in the upcoming election supports this change in our government. Why shouldn’t they, it gives nearly dictatorial powers to the president, and renders the other branches irrelevant.

My recommendation is to vote Democratic because of their opposition to the Iraq war. The Republican plan for continuation of that war only helps drive us deeper into debt and closer to the NAU.

You may want to contact your congressperson, too. It’s their job that is in danger of being outsourced to Mexico.

Although nobody outside of Bush’s inner circle is truly sure of their plan, it is believed that Cheney favors a gradual escalation of hostilities to be followed by massive air strikes using tactical nuclear weapons.

Their only problem may be getting Congress to go along with the plan. Even if they don’t, expect it to be set in motion unless funding is completely cut off.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security anaylist, said: “The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions.”

The president has obviously made a comittment to support Sunnis over Shias. This begs the question, why did we oust Saddam Hussein in the first place?  

Although the al-Maliki government is thought to be rudderless and ultimately untenable, Crocker will report that replacement is inadvisable at this time. Neither he nor Petraeus will recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troops.

Petraeus has hopes for elected office once his military career is over, so it is incumbant on him to make the President’s plan work.

Neither the General nor the Ambassador plan to meet with Bush again before their Congressional appearances, in order to preserve the “independence and the integrity of their testimony.”

The question now is whether Congress will continue to support the conflict out of fears of job security, or whether they will say “enough!”, and begin to end George Bush’s folly.

Chesney indicated that there were questions of the legality of the Bush administration’s plan, as well as whether or not it could be easily determined that those who failed to match their social security numbers were truly illegal immigrants.

The Bush plan has been put forth as a means of toughening a 1986 law that subjects employers to criminal or civil prosecution for knowingly hiring illegals.

Unfortunately, this plan does nothing to enforce that law. Instead, it allows non-complying employers to get off scot-free simply by discharging the workers. The undocumented employee bears the entire onus of the new rule. There is nothing about deportation of violaters, only a law that says they have no right to work in this country. Does the government think that they will voluntarily migrate back to their homelands?

Of course not. They will stay here and swell the ranks of American criminal society. Then, when they are caught, they will be deported, since they are illegals. After that, they will return across our porous border.

And what happens to the employers? Nothing but a slap on the wrist. These are the people that we should be cracking down on. The workers come to the US looking for employment. So long as it remains open to them–even under the table–they will continue to come in droves.

“Iran…is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. …Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. …Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. …Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have comitted no crimes. …Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

“Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere.   We will confront this danger before it is too late.

“I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

Wow. Sounds just like the run-up to war before the Iraqi conflict, doesn’t it? From the sound of this rhetoric, we’re already engaging Iranian forces on the field of battle.

In a resolution passed by the Senate just before the August recess, Bush recieved a 97-0 vote of confidence that will allow him to expand the War on Terror whenever he chooses.

Yesterday, he asked for a further $50 billion to prosecute the war.