It always amazes me to read or hear someone talk about the need for the era of big government to be over; yet when something goes wrong in our nation or someone needs relief in some way -- government is the first place they go to ask for help.

 

I wonder how many of those citizens whose homes were destroyed by Katrina or that latest tornado, the last hurricane or wide spread flooding are believers of ending the era of big government? 

 

How many of those demanding medicine, health care, safe toys or food be made available to anyone are believers of ending the era of big government?

 

How many of those demanding that we help the homeless, the starving or the abused in some other nation are believers of ending the era of big government?

 

How many of those demanding college grants for their kids, tax cuts for their businesses or special attention for being disabled are believers of ending the era of big government?

 

How many men, women, blacks, Latinos' or gays demanding equal rights and pay are believers of ending the era of big government?

 

How many businesses or homeowners that are having financial problems demanding relief from paying bills are believers of ending the era of big government?

 

Who would most of us turn to if a wide spread killer disease or bugs (like the killer bees from Africa) were to take over our nation?  Would we consider ourselves to be 'on our own' or would we demand government step in?

 

Our constitution says,

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

I guess most Americans believe the meaning of "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" means that the government should be like a parent.  "Don't tell me how to live; but if I need help - Be there!"

 

Once again our nation is in deep domestic and foreign policy trouble.  Mom, Dad - help us.

 

Government has been and always will be our backup system.  Without it, we'd be lost.

 

So to those of you demanding the era of big government be over; be careful what you wish for.  You may be the next person in need of help.

 

 

NAJAF, Iraq - The Shia radical movement of Moqtada al-Sadr, which fought two wars with US troops in 2004, threatened on Wednesday to resume attacks on American targets inside Iraq over Washington's support for the Israeli assault on Gaza.

'I ask the Iraqi resistance to engage in revenge operations against the United States, the biggest parter of the Zionist enemy,'  Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the central shrine city of Najaf.

He called on 'all countries which host Israeli embassies on their territory to close down those missions which are the source of terrorism in Arab and Islamic countries as a sign of support for the Palestinian people.'

He called on Iraqis to 'place Palestinian flags on the roofs of all buildings, mosques and churches in a show of support for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) in Gaza.

Don't you just quiver with excitement when you hear President Bush talk about our victory in Iraq and them being our new Democratic led ally?

Isn't it wonderful that they feel safe enough to say things like this while we still have soldiers over there protecting them; just imagine how they will support the U.S. once we leave their great country.

I hear that Senator Harry Reid has vowed to stay in power till 2015.  Well, this is one area I wish Democrats would 'stand up' against.

Instead of fighting over whether to accept a good man as a Senator, they should be demanding for a vote of confidence of Senator Harry Reid and the same goes for Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the House.

All these two people have accomplished during the past 2 years is to make Democrats appear even more weak than they use to appear to voters.  They've played 'chicken' with the Bush admin and the GOP so many times and back away just as many that they've done nothing but make Democrats a joke.

Somebody needs to take away their powers.  And do it immediately.

My opinions:

Feinstein and Rockafeller are worried that Leon Panetta as CIA director will leak out what they've allowed to happen with regards to torture and illegal wiretapping, etc..  They don't want Americans to know what they allowed Bush to get away with.

Now Fienstein is pushing for seating Burris.  I think maybe she's got future political plans.

In the beginning when Blagojevich was arrested, Democrats decided they'd look on the up and up by refusing to accept ANY choice Blago made for Senator.  Blago got them back by choosing a well liked man, Burris, a trusted ex-Illinois attorney general and yes, a black man.  He's pushed the leadership in the corner.  Now they HAVE to accept him or look bad.  Blago still is governor, even if we don't like or trust him.  I think they were hoping for time to impeach him then have the lieutenant gov choose the new senator.  Their only way out now is to ask for a special election...even that may be too late....or allow Burris to come in.  They can't tell him he can't run for the seat in 2010 - that's not legal.

It's sad that Democrats always seem to blow every chance they get by being SELFISH politically.  Republicans, you got to hand it to them, they stick together thru thick and thin - at least till the very end of a term.  Blagojevich, Burris, Richardson, Feinstein, Rockafeller are taking AWAY, each day they make the news, a piece of that political power Obama would have had on Jan 20^th.

I also think that the so-called truce between Isreal and Hamas that ENDED conveniently in Dec of 2008, a month before any new president were to take office, allows Bush to say they had relative peace during his last years in office, it was only after Obama was elected they started fighting again.....therefore putting the blame for no peace deal on Obama's shoulders.  Why was the truce end date set for Dec 08 to begin with?  Why not Dec 07 or Dec 09 or even May 08?  Having it end just before a new admin is to take office is kind of fishy to me.

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes reports that the president cited his push to privatize Social Security as his biggest domestic accomplishment:

On domestic policy, Bush was asked if he made progress in some areas for which he hasn't and probably won't get credit. Topping his list was his unsuccessful drive in 2005 to reform Social Security. Bush said his effort showed it's politically safe to campaign on changing Social Security and then actually seek to change it.

He also said it was important to have raised private investment accounts as an attractive option in reforming Social Security.

According to Washington Post,

 

"The stock market's prolonged tumble has wiped out about $2 trillion in Americans' retirement savings in the past 15 months, a blow that could force workers to stay on the job longer than planned...

 

For many Americans, pensions and 401(k) plans are their only form of savings. The dwindling of these assets -- about a 20 percent decline overall -- is another setback just as many people are grappling with higher gas and food prices, more credit card debt, declining home values and less access to loans."

 

 

Where are all Bush's supporters of his privatizing of Social Security now that the economy has tanked? I'd sure like to hear them answer questions about the losses many would have taken if they had had private accounts instead of Social Security to rely on, as they and the Bush administration pushed Americans to support back in 2005.

Why do I have a gut feeling that some of these supporters of social security privatization were also some of the CEO's and Bank Directors that helped their companies and banks go bankrupt and ask for bailouts this past year?

I'm sure there's been discussion about this idea but just in case there hasn't been; has anybody ever thought of creating movies that 'could' influence the 'thinking' of the enemy?

It's a well known fact that movies 'influence' people.  For years now, our movie's content have been controlled by some group or another claiming they are harming our children.

For years we could see a man and woman in the same bed, for years smoking was allowed, cursing was not.  For years actor's nude bodies could not be shown, gays could not be discussed, sexual content was shunned and violence had to be limited.  People even claim that the old superman and batman movies caused children to be violent.

We currently have television and movie ratings.  Giving parents the choice of what their children see.

There use to be a day when an unmarried pregnant woman was shunned or sent away, a bi-racial couple were hated, blacks hung, a gay person was laughed at or beaten.  Not to say this still doesn't happen; but by watching movies they have helped to teach us not to 'think' that way anymore.  With the right actors and story line, anything can influence a human being.

For example, during the first 5 years of the Bush administration we saw how they manipulated American's, the media and Congress into going to war with Iraq.  A movie was played before our eyes and most of us were mesmerized by it.  We believed what we saw and heard.

So, as I said in the beginning, movies (stories) 'influence' human beings.  It's apparently been proven, so why don't we create movies as "Weapons of Mass Deception" (WMD).

Remember that movie that made you cringe to imagine what it was like to be a black person a century ago?  Remember that movie that made you laugh or cry 'with' a gay person?  Remember the movies about war and how terrible it really is?  Well, is it time to create some new movies to 'influence' the minds of our enemies, such as those in the Middle East (Hamas, Al Qaeda)?

I'm sure they watch movies in the cities at least, but perhaps we should start up a massive cable or dish network system over there.  Offer it free for a year.  Then start allowing free movies to those interested.  Those movies would be about 'their lives', the way 'they' live and learn; but in a 'better way'.

Perhaps a movie about a nice neighbor that is trying to talk their sister or brother into joining a group by giving them money or something of value - only to be backstabbing them when they turn away.

Right this minute, Al Qaeda is trying to 'influence' their fellow Arabs into violence against Isreal and the U.S.:

 An audio message reportedly from al Qaeda's deputy chief vows revenge for Israel's air and ground assault on Gaza and calls the Jewish state's actions against Hamas militants "a gift" from U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

  The speaker, identified as Ayman al-Zawahiri, addresses Muslims in Gaza. He said the violence "is one part of a series of a crusade war against Islam and these air strikes are a gift from Obama before he takes office, and (Egyptian President) Hosni Mubarak, that traitor, is the main partner in your siege and killing."

The message, posted Tuesday on various Islamist Web sites with a picture of al-Zawahiri next to an image of a wounded child, urges militants to rally against Israel.

"My Muslim brothers and mujahedeens in Gaza and all over Palestine, with the help of God we are with you in the battle, we will direct our strikes against the crusader Jewish coalition wherever we can."

Is it time to produce our own WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception)?   Or in this case, weapons of mass 'INFLUENCE'.

News networks are reporting that Leon Panetta, former congressman and White House chief of staff, will be President-elect Barack Obama's CIA Director.

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

Incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is not happy with this choice.

"My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

An aide to outgoing intel committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller echoed Feinstein: he "has tremendous respect for Leon Panetta [but] he believes the CIA director should go to someone who has significant intelligence experience and someone from outside the political world of Washington D.C."

Panetta is an even-tempered and highly regarded Washington player--kind of a Mr. Fixit in a nice suit. He is also a zero-tolerance critic of the use of torture, and he considers waterboarding--a tactic used by the CIA--to be torture.

Feinstein voted to give the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve international surveillance of the communications of Americans entirely within the executive branch, rather than through the special intelligence court established by FISA. Many privacy advocates have decried this law and Senator Feinstein's vote in favor of it.^[21] In February 2008, Feinstein joined Republicans in the Senate in voting "Nay" to strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (3) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)

President George W Bush is reportedly moving close to where his Presidential library will be built:

The Bushes will move to their new $2 million, 8,500-square-foot Dallas home -- not paid for by taxpayers -- on Jan. 20, and there Bush will be close to his future presidential library at Southern Methodist University.

"We're working on a conceptual design for the building," said Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Foundation. The president will help develop the $300 million structure, which will include a library, museum and policy institute.

Fund raising is just beginning, Langdale said. Once the project is finished in 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration will take over the operation of the library and museum, at federal expense. Construction will be paid for with private funds, and Bush is expected to be involved in organizing the fund raising drive.

"He is enthusiastic about spending a lot of his time and effort working on the programs of the institute," Langdale said.

I was just wondering exactly what will be on display at his library?  Anytime somebody needed access to anything pertaining to his administration's dealings or actions -- he would claim "executive privilege" or "It's classified information".

One can only assume this information would continue to be 'classified'?  And they surely don't want Americans to know what they 'really' did while in office -- would they?

So, Mr President -- why bother?  Will it be an PHOTO ONLY library?

I hate to say it but I think the Democrats are harming President-elect Obama's future administration and their chances to get the 'American people' behind them on other issues during the upcoming year - with them fighting against Gov. Blagojevich's pick to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

The longer this Illinois story is in the news the more harm it does to all of us, not just Illinoisans.

I think American's would look more respectful toward a Party that was willing to let the 'people' decide who will replace Obama in the Senate in this situation.  Even if they were to lose the seat, they would be showing that they 'support' the Democratic process, rather than just their Party's interest.

If Roland Burris wants the seat, let him run for it in a special election.  Let the people decide if he is suited for the position.

This would be the quickest solution to the problem.   We have way too  many other problems to worry about, our economy for one and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than to spend a year arguing over one man's position in the Senate.

Senator Reid and Senator Durbin, along with many other Democrats have all praised Roland Burris as a man of integrity.  If they truly believe this, than let him be their candidate in a special election.

I say let Roland Burris take Obama's seat this week; but only until a special election can be held some time in March or April.  This way Illinois will represented at least temporarily until the election can be held.

Meanwhile, I call upon Illinois Senators and Representatives to pass a bill forcing any new seats to be selected by special election and not just one man or woman Governor.