WASHINGTON -- Car shoppers could take advantage of government incentives worth up to $4,500 this summer to send their old gas guzzler to the scrap heap in favor of a more fuel-efficient new vehicle.

President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the "cash for clunkers" program, which was approved by the Senate on Thursday. For owners of low-mileage models such as the 1994 Ford Bronco, 1998 Nissan Pathfinder or the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer, the plan could give them a reason to visit their local car dealer during an economic downturn.

"I've been sitting on the fence for about a year," said Jim Seegraves, 44, of East Lansing, Mich., who has been looking to replace his 2000 GMC Sierra pickup truck. "This legislation will help me get over the hump and get the car that I want."

Question: If your car current gets 21 mpg and you trade it in for one that gets 24 mpg -- do you get a voucher too?  How much?

I keep hearing the car must only get 18 or less mpg.  What if it gets 19-22mpg, do these cars qualify too?

Be sure to go and watch the video showing how Fox News, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove all get caught with their pants down.

ABC is getting special access into the White House coming soon.  Fox News as usual is crying 'foul' and claiming "Journalism in America is Dead".

ABC News plans to air a news special entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," which will afford President Barack Obama the opportunity to field questions on his plan for health care reform. This has given the good folks at Fox News a big old sad, because of ABC's "unprecedented access" and the very limited opportunity available for Griff Jenkins to dress up like the ghost of Thomas Paine, "ambush" the participants, and blame ACORN for rationing health care, like we were from Saskatoon or something. Karl Rove says that what ABC is doing has never been done before! Sean Hannity claims journalism is dead! Gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, vows to run counterprogramming, loud noises!

BAGHDAD - A special committee set up by Iraq's prime minister on Thursday began an investigation into allegations of widespread abuse and torture in Iraq's prisons, which is threatening to become a major issue ahead of Jan. 30 national elections...

 

Al-Maliki made the decision late Wednesday to form the eight-member committee, composed of representatives from the government's security ministries as well as human rights and judicial agencies, according to a spokesman.

The panel has two weeks to report back to him with its conclusion, Iraqi military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said.

Two weeks???  Wow, we can't even get our leader to set up a panel of investigators and we KNOW there was illegal abuse.  It's been 5 months already and yet the AG report is not finished.

 

Perhaps the Obama administration should take a lesson from Iraq?

WASHINGTON - The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

For the most part I support what PETA tries to do by advocating more humane ways of handling animals; however they've gone a bit too far now.  Protect the fly?

The ONLY reason I might consider using one of these devices to trap a fly is because....I can't get him to land long enough for me to swat him dead!  The same goes for those gnats, horse flies, bees and wasps. 

Sorry if that offends anybody.

First it was former VP Dick Cheney speaking out, now former President George W Bush is out criticizing President Obama's administration policies:

Bush broke his vow in all but word.

"I told you I'm not going to criticize my successor," he said. "I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that persuasion isn't going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."

ABC News has pointed out that it was the Bush administration that sent terrorists to therapy -- a Saudi jihadi rehabilitation camp -- with "decidedly mixed success."

Bush's critique extended to Obama's domestic policy...

"Government does not create wealth," Bush said. "The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States."

Asked during a question-and-answer session if he thought his successor's policies were "socialist," Bush began saying "depends on..." then stopped and concluded, "We'll see."

That's one thing you can say about these two men; they sure know how to "create an environment  where people take risks......"!

Apparently Mr. Bush thinks Americans CARE about what he thinks pertaining to the economy and the treatment of prisoners?  What a laugh!

President Obama, will you now take your gloves off with respects to the Bush administration and it's policies during the past 8 years -- all of them?  I sincerely hope so.

This crew is out for blood and unless you fight back immediately, they will bury you.

WASHINGTON - The political unrest in Iran presents the Obama administration with a dilemma: keep quiet to pursue a nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, or heed calls to respond more supportively to the protesters there -- and risk alienating the Shiite cleric.

President Obama and his advisers have struggled to strike the right tone, carefully calibrating positive messages about the protests in an effort to avoid giving the government in Tehran an excuse to portray the demonstrators as pro-American. Nevertheless, the Iranian Foreign Ministry yesterday summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents American interests in Tehran, to complain of "interventionist" comments by U.S. officials, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

 

 

Perhaps President Obama should do to Ahmadinejad what he did to President Bush and what Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did to the USSR leader Gorbachev - write a letter to them.

 

He should preface his remarks by mentioning that he was an American professor of the U.S. Constitution.

 

He should then mention the words from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to U.S. President George Bush sent on May 7, 2006:

 

 "You must know that there is only one way to solve the problems of the world - and that is turning to the truth."

 

Obama should explain to Khamenei what a true Republic is.  It's a state or country that is not led by a monarch, in which the people have an impact on its government.  The people rule the land, not one man or woman.  We (leaders), are but representatives of our nation's people.

 

 

Then he should go into subject of what he hopes happens in Iran for the sake of all Iranians and their current leadership.

 

He should say something like; because the people of Iran are showing their distrust in the government of Iran and because of that unrest, perhaps Khamenei should, in the interest of justice and fairness, offer to hold a new election with U.N. representatives watching over the election at various voting booths.

 

President Obama could then admit that he and the American people were not involved in the election process so he doesn't know the facts of whether or not anything was done illegally or not; but the people of Iran seem to think the election was a sham, so for the sake of the nation as a whole, perhaps it's time to listen to the people.  Obama could than quote something Ahmadinejad' said to President Bush in a letter in 2006:

 

""The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious..."

 

While this quote may be taken out of context, it could also be used during this crisis in Iran don't you think sir?

 

Obama can then say something like; meanwhile, I anxiously am waiting to have meaningful and productive discussions with whomever wins the support of the Iranian people as their leader.

 

The Obama administration would then LEAK the letter to the press.

 

That way the administration can prove they are speaking out against any illegal actions, standing by the people of Iran, and yet ready and willing to start up negotiations with the Iranian leadership.

This is an update to my post called Obama: Change Your Tune and Fast

Someone asked for proof of Obama saying he would go after anybody that committed crimes in the past administration.  Here you go, different comments over the past couple of years:

Crimes: Statements by Obama

 

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House.

****************************************************************

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN (moderator/CNN anchor): The president talks a lot, as you know, about sort of good versus evil in war. Do you agree with that?

OBAMA: Well, I do think there's evil in the world. I think that, when planes crash into buildings and kill innocents, there's evil there. I think violence and cruelty, wherever it's perpetrated, expresses evil in the world. And I think that all of us have an obligation to speak to that and act against that forcefully.

Now, there have been times in our history where that requires that we take up arms. I think that the Civil War was a just war. I believe that defeating fascism and ensuring that Europe was liberated was the right thing to do.

What was also interesting about Lincoln, though, during the course of the Civil War, was his recognition that simply because we've engaged in something just doesn't mean that there aren't times where we may act unjustly. Abu Ghraib obviously is something that all of us should be ashamed for, even if you were supportive of a war. I believe Guantanamo, the decision to detain people without charges, is unjust.

**************************************************************************

"History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight," he told the Turkish parliament just a few weeks ago. "Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future."

**************************************************************************

It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism.

And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America's standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago.

And this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made -- and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.

******************************************************************

In the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantánamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again ... As President, I will close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists ... The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example to the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

• Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

_________________________________________________________________________

So, my friends, when will President Obama do as he PREACHES and investigate the Bush admin for possible crimes?  So far -- he's LOOKING FORWARD instead and ignoring his own beliefs.

It's beginning to look like President Barack Obama won't be brought down from that pedestal that Americans put him on by the Republican Right winged party; but instead by his very own base.

 

More and more people, myself included, are unhappy with some things he's doing or not doing; promises that he ran his campaign on.

 

He's got people like me angry that he's apparently going to ignore War Crimes committed during the past 8 years.  Their angry with the people he's chosen to command the military in Afghanistan. 

 

Under Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Special Forces personnel helped operate prisoner camps in Iraq that generated some of the most serious allegations of detainee abuse of the post-9/11 era, including severe beatings with rifle butts, burning and more. But during his Senate confirmation hearing last week, McChrystal characterized himself as "uncomfortable" with harsh interrogation methods, and said he worked to end their use.

 

Harsh and sometimes-abusive treatment of prisoners was reportedly widespread among Special Forces personnel in Iraq at the time McChrystal became their chief, and reports indicate things changed little after he took the helm.

 

He's also flip flopping on his promise to have transparent administration; like not releasing the prison photos that he said he'd release, and more recently, the idea that he won't allow Americans access to who visits him in the White House (Our House).

 

 

He's got the gays and lesbians angry because he's back tracking on his claims to stop the 'Don't ask, Don't Tell' policy for the military and giving them equal civil union rights.  And more recently, the DOJ brief, which argued that states should not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, just as states don't have to recognize incestuous marriages or unions involving underage girls.

 

 

 

Obama's Environmental Protection Agency has gotten rural Democrat's angry.

 

Last but not least, many Democrats are angry with the way Obama is helping big corporations and banks but seemingly ignoring the consumers (common citizens).

 

President Obama seems to be following in the footsteps of President George W Bush in many ways recently.  One huge reason Obama was elected was because Americans didn't want another 4 years of a Bush 'like' administration.  They wanted 'change'.

 

Unless the President can find his way back to those major things he promised he'd do or change, he will most likely lose millions of those supporters who came to stand by his side during the campaign - without any help from the opposition.

 

In the President's defense, he has taken on the worse economy since the Great Depression.  He's got companies going bankrupt almost on a weekly basis, he's got banks shutting down, the world economy is in shambles and the nation's unemployment is almost at 10%.  He passed a Recovery and Reinvestment bill and funding for the troops without any or very little help from the Republican Party.  He's trying to shut down Guantanamo prison as he promised he would do with very little help for either Party or any other nation.  He's currently trying to pass sweeping health care reform but is facing opposition on all sides (including from me). 

 

He's got two major wars that may never really end, one of which was basically 'set aside' for a war that was more 'wanted' then needed.  He's been left with a North Korea that was relatively nuke free until 2006 and is currently threatening to start a nuclear war over sanctions.  Iran has gained even more power since 2000 because of the War in Iraq, and is on the verge of getting nukes. 

The president's foreign policy is being tested right now with the Iran's election event and North Korea's saber rattling

 

With all that said, he still appears calm, cool and collected.

 

The honeymoon isn't over yet, but soon will be Mr President.  Unless you want to lose control of Congress 2010 and your place in 2012, you'd best be 'changing' your tune...and fast.

Sen. John Ensign admits late Tuesday that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer over the course of nine months in 2007-2008.

During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president's conduct as "an embarrassing moment for the country."

'I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,' he said.

Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. "I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it's because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through," he was quoted saying at the time. "He has no credibility left," he added...

"It could have a dramatic effect on Democrats like (President Nixon's resignation after the Watergate scandal) had on Republicans in 1974," he said, according to a local AP article from September 14, 1998...

In 2007, he called fellow Republican Sen. Larry Craig a disgrace and urged the Idaho Republican to resign after Craig was arrested for disorderly conduct after allegedly soliciting sex in a men's airport...

In June 2006, Ensign voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman.

What a hypocrite!  ONE man and ONE woman?

I wish we could put each and every politician (Dem or Repub) under the SAME scrutiny as media and Republicans (some Democrats) did during the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.  PAYBACK TIME!

How come we're not hearing all about the lady friend like we did Monica?  Fair is fair isn't it?

Looks the Senator has written his own epitaph....at least I sincerely HOPE so.

Attorney General Eric Holder offered his most forceful condemnation to date of the murder of George Tiller, a Wichita, Kansas doctor who ran a women's clinic that provided late-term abortions, using the occasion to issue a broad warning about the rise of violent extremism.

Speaking at the Washington Lawyers' Committee conference on Tuesday, Holder pledged that the Department of Justice would do all it could to "deter violence against reproductive health care providers" and prosecute those who committed such acts.

"Neither our respect for the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech nor our clearest hope for common ground can justify the violence that we saw in Kansas," Holder said. "We will not tolerate murder or the threat of violence masquerading as political activism. Let me be clear, the Justice Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect the rights ensured under our constitution and we will do all that we can to deter violence against reproductive health care providers and prosecute those who use such violence to the fullest extent of the law."

While I applaud the Attorney General's pledge to prosecute those that commit violence, it's too bad his office won't do the same to those that in the name of America, committed War Crimes by torturing (committing violence) prisoners during the past 8 years.

Obama said Monday an inquiry into the disputed presidential election should go ahead without violence and said he didn't know who rightfully won the Iranian balloting, but that Iranians have a right to feel their votes mattered. McCain, who lost to Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election, called on the president to turn up his rhetoric.

"He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights," the Arizona Republican said Tuesday on a network news show.

But the leading Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee thinks the Obama administration's arms-length stance is just right.

"I think for the moment our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation," said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. "When popular revolutions occur, they come right from the people." He said he did not think it would be wise for the United States "to become heavily involved in the election at this point."

At this point most are saying that this comment by Senator McCain proves why he shouldn't have been president of U.S.

I am going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt.  Ever since President Obama took office he has worked with Senator McCain on budget cuts and military issues.  Perhaps this is a PLANNED attack by Obama with McCain coming from behind.

President Obama wants to be able to 'talk' to whomever ends up being the leader of Iran, if he goes on the attack now, his chances are slim that he'd get anywhere with negotiations in the future.  So, Obama must limit his comments.  He must appear "Presidential" and not 'stir the pot'.

However, Senator McCain on the other hand, being very well known and a previous Bush foreign policy (bully)' supporter , if he says the true feeling of America, "this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights", the Obama administration is protected and at the same time Americans are expressing their true opinion about the election in Iran.

McCain is not only expressing our views, he's letting Obama off the hook where he can continue to say -- Unclench Your Fist and Talk.

And Republican Senator Dick Lugar's comments help President Obama's foreign policy response, politically, by standing up for Obama in how he is handling the event.

This keeps both sides in Iran happy and helps the Obama administration and Americans -- all at the same time.

If it was PLANNED -- Great Job!

President Obama on Health Care:

The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.

It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions.

Does this mean that if we don't do these things we pay more?

Answer:

OBAMA:

It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you're one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their "Healthy Measures" program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It's a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13 percent and workers save over 20 percent on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.

OBAMA:

Despite what some have suggested, the reason we have these costs is not simply because we have an aging population. Demographics do account for part of rising costs because older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones. But what accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of our health care system itself - a system where we spend vast amounts of money on things that aren't making our people any healthier; a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care.

A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County - not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments - treatments they don't really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error.

Does this mean the government or so called experts will decide (instead of our doctor) what treatments are done?

Answer:

OBAMA

That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren't paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease.

OBAMA:

The second structural reform we need to make is to improve the quality of medical information making its way to doctors and patients. We have the best medical schools, the most sophisticated labs, and the most advanced training of any nation on the globe. Yet we are not doing a very good job harnessing our collective knowledge and experience on behalf of better medicine.

Does this mean Doctors will be told what they should do instead of making that decision on their own?

My Answer:

OBAMA:

 As a result, too many doctors and patients are making decisions without the benefit of the latest research. A recent study, for example, found that only half of all cardiac guidelines are based on scientific evidence. Half. That means doctors may be doing a bypass operation when placing a stent is equally effective, or placing a stent when adjusting a patient's drugs and medical management is equally effective - driving up costs without improving a patient's health.

After all that, Obama says....

Let me be clear: identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided. It's about providing patients and doctors with the information they need to make the best medical decisions.

Hate to say it but I think he just flipped flopped.


OBAMA

Replicating best practices. Incentivizing excellence. Closing cost disparities. Any legislation sent to my desk that does not achieve these goals does not earn the title of reform.

Actually Mr President, the only thing I see being REFORMED is the patient's actions, and their cost of premiums because of more patients getting given some coverage.  We either 'get healthy' or spend more on our health care.

Otherwise sir, you would be telling me that Joe Smith will be paying the same amount for his health care as Susie Smith does. 

I don't see anything that is hurting the doctors, nurses, hospitals or clinics or insurance companies.  In fact I see the opposite being done.  According to your plan, they will be doing less procedures, less work(paper to computer), for more money (more insured).

President Obama, this idea that we will be able to keep our current policy and pay less -- where are YOUR facts to back this up sir?  How will you force companies to continue offering the same insurance - for less cost to their employee?


OBAMA

That's why we need to introduce competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage program, a program under which private insurance companies offer Medicare coverage. That will save $177 billion over the next decade.

Isn't that called Privatizing Medicare?

Lastly sir, you say by cutting what is paid to hospitals and doctors for medicare patients will actually save seniors money.  In what way sir?  Every time Medicare decides to lower what they will pay the hospital or doctor, seniors either pay the difference out of their own pockets or pay more on their monthly supplemental insurance.

Sorry President Obama, you've not convinced me ( I voted for you), so how will you conviince others that didn't?

CIA Director Leon Panetta made a statement the other day that I must disagree with,

During an interview in the current issue of the New Yorker, Panetta says Cheney's wide range of recent criticisms of Obama -- including the decision to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba -- show the ex-vice president "smells some blood in the water on the national security issue."

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics," said Panetta. "When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

While I grant you the idea that what former VP Dick Cheney is saying about President Obama making the country less safe is purely politics, it is not, in my view, Dick Cheney or the GOP  "wishing" we'd get hit again to prove a point.

Instead, Dick Cheney and his fellow Republicans are 'setting the stage' for political gain -- IF such an event should ever happen again.

That is also what the GOP did by voting 'no' to the Recovery and Reinvestment package that Obama and the Democrats voted for.  They are aware that the economy being the worst since the Great Depression may not being showing many signs of improvements by election day in 2010 -- giving them something to campaign with.  They hope to be able to blame Obama and the Democrats for their FAILED stimulas package and deficit spending.

Of course they are ignoring the fact that if not for that stimulus package the economy would have been a great deal worse.  They also ignore the fact that over 73% of the deficit was created under the Bush administration.

They are also setting the stage for more deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan by claiming that Obama's rush to leave Iraq will create more danger for the troops.  Being fully aware that 'any' withdraw at 'any' time would cause a spike in deaths.

Lastly, some in the GOP Party are now claiming that Obama's foreign policy of "unclenching one's fists" didn't work -- that Ahmadinejad's reported win is proof of that.  Ari Fleischer is even claiming the massive reform movement demonstration in Tehran is due to the Bush administrations "tough policies" .

But again, do I think they WISH for another attack on U.S. soil or WISH for the economy to fail or WISH for the deficit to get worse or they WISH for more deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan or WISH for Ahmadinejad to control Iran--- NO I do not.

Hospitals: No More Recording Please

I just want to make a short statement about hospitals using recordings for their telephone answering services.  STOP IT!

Have you ever had to call the hospital for an emergency or about an emergency only to put on hold or asked to listen to several options (EMERGENCY being last option of course) before finally being able to get through to a human being?

This is NUTS!

You would think that hospitals and/or clinics would know the definition of an emergency: an urgent need for assistance or relief

Emergency does NOT mean, "If you have the time could you please put me on hold or make me wait a few minutes to finally talk to someone about my problem."

Having to listen to a recording when calling a business or corporation is one thing; but having to wait to report an emergency or ask for help is ludicrious and should be made illegal.

I haven't ever had to use 911, perhaps you have.  Do they too have a recording to listen to before talking to a human being?  I pray not.

The woman, from the village of Jablonowo in central Poland, was pronounced dead by a doctor from the emergency medical services after her husband called an ambulance...

"A funeral company took the body to the morgue," a police spokesman told the Telegraph. "Several hours later, a worker there noticed the bag containing the body was moving," he said. "He called a doctor who noted the woman's vital functions had returned."...

This reminds me of a story I saw years ago on "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" when a man is paralyzed in a car accident and pronounced dead, despite being very much alive. To his horror, he's taken to the autopsy room to be hacked into, but he manages to 'almost' save himself by crying a single tear to show he's still alive.

All through the show, the man continues talking and trying to convince those looking after his body --that he is 'still alive'.

That one episode (along with a couple of others about being buried alive) during my younger years caused me to forever fear what happens when you die or can't respond to medical professionals.

I know.....That's just plain silly.....but it's true!

I was watching television late last night when CNN announced a Breaking News story about a rowdy crowd celebrating in the streets outside Staples Center after the Los Angeles Lakers' NBA title win.

The crowd was damaging police cruisers, throwing rocks and bottles at officers and setting bonfires in the street.

Officer Karen Rayner said one or two police cruisers were damaged and reinforcement officers were called in from throughout the city to help disperse the crowd.

Aerial television footage showed people jumping on a police car, rocking vehicles attempting to pass through the crowd, setting small trees on fire and throwing fireworks and flares set up by police. No injuries were reported.

A gas station was looted and several cars and a news van were vandalized, police chief William Bratton told KTTV-TV.

CNN broke away from that story in Los Angeles to Tehran, Iran where thousands of Iranians stood in the streets protesting their election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Moussavi.

Opposition groups launched protests after Ahmadinejad's claim he had won 62 percent of the vote, despite predictions the election would be closely fought amid growing disquiet over the president's economic and foreign policies.

Hundreds of Moussavi supporters Monday defied a government ban on their rallies, gathering for a demonstration at Tehran University. The government had earlier in the day rejected a request by Moussavi to hold a nationwide march.

"They are chanting slogans: 'Death to the dictator,'" said a witness who CNN will not identify for safety reasons. "We are here. We will not leave the scene until our presence is known."

I was ashamed to see such a wide disparity between my fellow Americans and the Iranian people.

The Iranian people are willing to stand up and fight for their right to a fair vote and their right to be heard; we on the other hand ignore war crimes and infringement of our civil rights -- and instead -- riot over a ball game - even one we're happy about.

Whatever happened to the people in America that stood up against the government over the Vietnam War?  They're not all dead yet,  the "baby boomers" for the most part are still alive.  Where did they go?

Whether or not you agreed with their cause they were brave Americans standing up against or for something they felt was wrong or right.

Where are the young people in America today?  How do 'they' feel about America?  I think a bit of that 'feeling' was shown during our last presidential election; however, they've been kicked in the guts recently by the man and his team they all stood up and voted for.  They and I voted for 'change', for justice to served, and to have our 'rights' returned to us.  So far it seems, we're back to square one on some of those issues.

Where did the spirit for America's values go?  Where did our patriotism go?

You know, patriotism isn't always about attacking another nation because they've done us harm or plan to.  It's about standing up for the values that made America what it is today -- no matter how small the issue.

While I do not advocate violence, I do support peaceful protests and the demanding that answers be given and justice be served.  I support standing up for America's values.

ABC's "This Week,"

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said on Sunday that the Obama administration's approach to Iran was "entirely wrong-headed" and made the case that the contested results of that country's elections proved that the president's policy of apologizing for America was "not working."...

"It's very clear that the president's policy of going around the world and apologizing for America is not working," said Romney. "North Korea is not just saber rattling. They've taken the saber out of the sheath.  Iran is moving head alone towards nuclearization.  Russia is on the same course they were on. And all the apologies he provided to the Europeans have not led any of the European nations to provide any additional support for us in Afghanistan. Look, just sweet talk and criticizing America is not go doing enhance freedom in the world."

First off, President Obama is not going around "apologizing" for 'anything'.  He's 'talking' to our friends and enemies instead of being a bully as the past administration was.  He's trying to mend broken alliances that the GOP helped to break.

Secondly, if Obama's policy (which has only had 5 months to  convert 8 years of the Bush admin's policies) isn't working, why then did millions in Iran vote for CHANGE this past election there?  Why then are there thousands in the streets of Iran today protesting the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Iranians want to 'stay the course'?  Why is the newly elected administration in Iran having to arrest members of the other candidate's group:

At least 10 leaders of two reformist groups who had backed opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi were under arrest last night as police used tear gas and clubs to quell mass street protests.

A total of 170 people were arrested over the big post-election protests and street riots in Tehran.

As for North Korea moving towards nuclearization; they've been doing that ever since the Bush administration and the GOP started saber rattling back in 2001.  Check the stories back in 2001 forward, you'll see where NK made the very same threats.

When President Bush declared that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were the "axis of evil",

"a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman described Mr Bush's State of the Union address as "little short of a declaration of war".

In a statement from the foreign ministry, Pyongyang said Washington's recent problems were "entirely attributable to the unilateral and self-opinionated foreign policy, political immaturity and moral leprosy of the Bush administration".

The US Central Intelligence Agency has released a report saying that North Korea sold numerous missiles to the Middle East and other areas of tension last year (2001 a Bush year).

*****************************************************************************************

In February of 2003, North Korea threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean war, accusing the United States of plotting a pre-emptive attack on the communist state.

North Korea's rhetoric has been escalating since the crisis flared up late last year, and warnings of an impending US attack are broadcast almost daily in Pyongyang's official media. It was not clear whether last night's statement broke that pattern or represented more of the same.

North Korea conducted their first nuclear test in 2006 - during the Bush so-called "get tough" years.

Fourthly, I believe it is former governor Mitt Romney that is hurting our relations with Iranians by making those statements today on This Week's ABC show.  It is Romney that is being "wrong headed" here.

If reports are correct and if half of Iranians supported someone other than Ahmadinejad, than Romney just gave half of Iran the 'finger'!  He's said to those that are fighting the STATUS QUO in Iran -- "You Failed! So give up"

I'm sure that those same Iranians will definitely bother listening to what Mitt Romney says from here on out. 

Romney is IGNORING their efforts to "unclench their fists" by removing the current leadership.