The mainstream German media (newspapers, radio, and motion pictures) had, by 1936, been forcibly intimidated by the Nazi government into publishing and broadcasting only Nazi propaganda to the German people. The publishers of the smaller newspapers and magazines in various German cities, who refused to go along with the fascist Nazi agenda, were harshly seized by the brown-shirted SA and, eventually, the SS, and shipped-off to concentration camps. Yet, despite the attempts of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, to indoctrinate the entire German populace with Nazi lies, approximately 18 percent of all the adult Germans had, and maintained, a silent but adamant assurance that Adolf Hitler was not the Christian that he had claimed to be, but, rather, an atheistic megalomaniac. From 1933 until 1945, around 43 percent of the adult Germans remained unsure about Hitler’s Christian principles, while fully supporting the Nazi regime politically and militarily. It was actually the 39 percent of the adult German citizens, and 99 percent of the German soldiers, sailors, airmen, and the Gestapo, who fully believed in Adolf Hitler, that constituted the means of monitoring and controlling the behaviors of the German dissidents and eventual doubters throughout the course of the 2nd World War.

Do these percentages from the past sound recently familiar? In the Friday, August 20, 2010, edition of the “Washington Post,” a Pew Research Center poll was published showing that 18 percent of the American poll-sample firmly believed that Barack Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim. A surprising 43 percent of those polled reported that they were unsure whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, and only 34 percent of the respondents reported a firm belief that Obama is Christian. Interestingly, in 1936, the dissident 18 percent of the population were absolutely correct in their belief about Hitler not being a Christian, despite what the controlling majority proclaimed. Beneath the current Pew poll results was the article written by Jon Cohen and Michael D. Shear, which seemed to reflect the words of Joseph Goebbels strongly worded 1934 German press release, “Adolf Hitler is, without a doubt, the Christian ambassador for God.” Cohen and Shear disputed the unbelieving 18 percent of the recent Pew poll by saying, “Americans increasingly are convinced – incorrectly – that President Obama is a Muslim, and a growing number are thoroughly confused about his religion.” If, perhaps, the “Washington Post,” the “Los Angeles Times,” the “Chicago Tribune,” “The New York Times,” “The Wall Street Journal” and other major U.S. newspapers readily dispute the growing belief among adult members of the American electorate that Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim, there will be a desperate clamor in the Democratic Party leadership to assert that the voters are absolutely wrong. This might also be the case if CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and even PBS weigh into the controversy by calling the voters ignorant of the facts.

Nonetheless, if the American voters go to the polls in November 2010, with an increasing number of them saying, “If Obama looks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim, and acts like a Muslim, he must be a Muslim,” the Democratic Party is in for a big shock, when Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority of the infamous Democrats who voted for fascist Obamacare, and the economically disparaging Stimulus Bill, are voted out of Congress. But it’s much more of a crying shame when a standing U.S. President has gone to the unscrupulous lengths that Obama has gone to keep his long form birth certificate and educational records away from public disclosure, in order to keep from being exposed as a person basically ineligible to be President. A good point to remember, and ponder, about Barack Hussain Obama is that when he was under Islamic instruction as a young person in Indonesia, he had a different name and had taken upon himself a Muslim bond and obligation that, according to the “Koran” and Islamic tradition, cannot be broken. And a noted scripture in the “Koran,” endorsed by Mohammed himself, is that Muslims are allowed, and encouraged, to deceive the infidel by lying, in order to subdue and control that infidel. This fact, in and of itself, is enough to create reasonable doubt about Barack Obama’s Christian faith in the minds of reasonable

-
About the Author:
Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California.  He also holds an ABA-approved paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, is a 1985 graduate of the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, and worked professionally as a California peace officer. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal, free-lance writer, and political commentator/journalist. He is a published op-ed essayist for the “Seattle Times,” while also a freelance fiction writer and published poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, the renown math and science tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats, in Northern Virginia.`
Article Source

During the so called Jihad era Russia knew very well the hideouts of Mujahadeens. But she tried to avoid blaming those countries that were providing safe heavens. Even today studding Russian newspapers we hardly find allegations about those countries that supported Mujadahadeen.

But when we see our politicians, establishment and media, it gives a very gloomy picture of their understanding the current situation. By pointing our fingers at others what we have achieved in six decades. Does the world believe us? If yes, so is there any one who can point out any achievement by blaming India, Israel and America? But rather we have isolated ourselves in the world. The recent statement issued by Chinese leadership after Prime Minister Gillani visit to China, must open our eyes. They have promised to help us fighting terrorism only if Pakistan is serious in this matter.

Recently our media and establishment threw their harpoons of fear and doubt in all directions. The world will surely laugh at us. Let me tell you one example of this foolishness. Just after attack on GHQ, we targeted India and even some ex-army defense experts threatened India to be ready for division of India in dozens parts. But the very next moment we ask India to open the doors for negotiations and find out the solution to curb terrorism. What we are going to discuss with India? The people who attacked hotels in Mumbai are still at large. And last day court has settled some cases in their favor.

Not alone India is targeted but triangle of India, Israel and America is considered to be the nexus of all evils. The question is why we ask America to settle our issues with India. If America is India’s friend in destabilizing Pakistan so why they will bother to solve problem for us? If America is enemy, why we are prayerful for American aid? We even don’t feel shy to ask for help the same America that we blame for supporting some Taliban groups and India.

This is not the way to get attention of the world. Have any one paid attention to our allegations? Even China passed normal comments on GHQ episode. If it would be the joint effort of India, Israel and America to attack GHQ and destabilize Pakistan, surely we would receive serious comments from countries like China, Iran and Russia. Our Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has asked a strange question from Indian leadership that why India has so large embassy in Kabul? What are their interests In Afghanistan as they have no common borders with Afghanistan?  He raised this issue in the USA. For his kind information the USA too has no common borders with Afghanistan, why she is deploying more troops in Afghanistan? Can he ask the same question from American Leadership? He must not. Because even the neighboring superpowers are not asking this question. If he thinks that American presence in Afghanistan is for the eradication of the root cause of terrorism so the India also claims the same. If we will always ask India to provide more evidence surely India will try itself to get to the root causes of terrorism. The money we are waiting for in the shape of Kerri Lugar Bill (per year), India has invested more than that in Afghanistan. And India is invited by the Afghanis. How we can ask a self-governing nation to expel some one out of their country? Is this fair and logical?

If we would have done any good for Afghanistan, Afghanis would love us. But they don’t. And we all know this fact. Why Afghani hate us? We must think over this question. And we must plan our propaganda in such a way that the world should give it preference.

The author is a column writer. His Articles can be seen at www.thefrontierpost.com . He supports democracy and human rights.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/illogical-blame-game-1339317.html

This $100 gift limit is currently more than most people make in a days work. And since lobbyists outnumber legislators 5 to 1 why even bother paying legislators a salary at all. Why not just have the lobbyists pool their payola money and pay all of the legislators salaries in the form of payola and legalized graft. It must get very difficult cashing in all those $100 legalized graft gift payouts for legislators from big business interests.

The big winners in this new legislative reform bill if it passes will be the non-profit organizations in Indiana which lobby for the regular citizen’s viewpoints but can not afford to pay out any payola to legislators for their time. But big business will benefit the most when they are able to cut in half their legalized graft payments to legislators from the $100 limit to the new $50 limit per incidence. The non-profit groups who can not afford to buy access to legislators with payola might now be heard more often and big businesses can stretch their payola dollars to legislators twice as far.

The current Indiana payola system of a $100 limit on reportable legalized graft in Indiana is just not working well for the big businesses. The 23 newspapers proposing this limited graft reform bill are mostly owned and controlled by big businesses and so this reform movement is probably just a means by big business to limit their own lobbying payola expenses to legislators. These big businesses spend millions of dollars every year lobbying Indiana legislators to pass laws favorable to them.

My main concern about this new proposed Indiana ethic reformbill is that legislators who retire or are voted out of office must wait one year before they could start working as a lobbyist in Indiana. Would out of work legislators then be eligible for unemployment benefits for 6 months time? It seems unfair and a waste of taxpayer money to pay out of work legislator 6 month unemployment pay for just sitting around doing nothing. And their incomes will be non-existent for the remaining 6 months wait not to mention the 100% loss of their lobby payola income from lobbyists for an entire year. So I vote to drop this unfair and drastic provision from the proposed ethics reforms as much too harsh and unfair for legislators.

The current system of Indiana legislative payola is just too expensive for big businesses to continue to support in these hard economic times. Indiana need legislative payola reform now and we need to cut in half the current $100 limit of reportable payola payouts to legislators. Legislators should be able to live comfortably on their own salaries and $50 per day from any lobbyist who wants to bribe them for their time and their vote. And there are over 500 lobbyists out there who want to give them payola for their time and votes every day the Indiana legislature is in session. So why do we even pay legislators at all today. I say end the minor salaries of legislators today and end this major expense of government. Make big businesses pay openly for the favorable laws they buy from our Indiana legislators and Indiana taxpayers can save big by ending salaries paid to legislators in Indiana. This kind of privatization of government might even be extended to other government employees to further reduce the cost of government to taxpayers.

So in the coming months in Indiana support the new ethics reforms of our Indiana legalized payola laws for legislators. This is a first step in reforming our Indiana’s F grade of government ethics to an A grade. Let Indiana lead the way for big businesses to reform all the states in the nation who have nearly identical laws. Let other states of the nation reform their own payola laws to state legislators today. And soon maybe we can go all the way and completely end expensive taxpayer support for legislator salaries. With a nationwide 100% big business lobbyist supported payola system of government in America we can be great again and lead the world with our own brand of ethical capitalism and big businesses.

J.E. Ante, Graduate University of Indianapolis BA 1972, Head of the Life Science Institute Health Library, original organizer of first Earth Day in 1970 and local ZPG chapter in Indiana, Population and Environment Editor with Reflector at Indianapolis University, 12yr organic gardener with fruit, nuts, and berries, lifelong student of Out-of-Body spiritual techniques.( http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/joseph-ante/201241.htm )

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/indiana-seeks-to-limit-legalized-graft-and-payola-to-state-legislature-by-je-ante-1489413.html

      Afghani media was optimistic about this new policy. Afghan media welcomed this new change of policy. Here are the main points that afghan media emphasized.  

• It is perhaps the clearest and closest heed and care given to the long suffering of Afghan people as the war enters into its ninth year. Even with the presence of 43 nations, Afghan people have been going through racking sufferings- from seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered by Taliban militants to the horrible and appalling explosions, roadside bombings almost on day to day basis- counting on the promises of international community for a better life in the wake of intervention in late 2001.
• Yet, the concerns of the people have grown as the Taliban have got momentum and now maneuver skillfully in different parts of the country, creating fear that the ruthless militants might take over. More importantly, due to lackluster performance of the government and international community, the Taliban appears to be also winning on another front -that is to say- the battle for hearts and minds. As well, there has been growing concern that Afghanistan might stumble into chaos or fall into the hands of extremists that include Al-Qaeda and other fanatic fringes.
• Beating back the Taliban from major population centers in Afghanistan is one of the objectives highlighted in president Obama’s speech on Afghanistan. This is clearly promising upbeat for Afghan people who are not feeling safe and secure as soon as they get out of their homes even in the capital of the country.
• President Obama also said that “a safe haven for those high-level terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear, cannot be tolerated.” This goes in line with Afghan expectations as they continue to endure sufferings posed by the fanatic fringes that find safe havens in tribal areas. The same extremists have inflicted too much on Pakistan. So what is important is the sincere cooperation of Pakistani government and military to dislodge those high-level terrorists that orchestrate attacks inside Afghanistan as well Pakistan.
• It also became clear that Obama’s administration is not going for any compromise with extremists that attempt to take over, threaten global security and deny education for women.
• In fact there are clearly new opportunities for Afghanistan and the government to seize to move towards ensuring its security independently. The country is not lost. And there are new focuses and new resources to be rendered available for reconstruction of the country.

Indian media opposed the new policy but their main concern was Pakistan’s backing of the terrorists.  

• Looked at from the vantage point of India, the announcement has as its first and fundamental shortcoming, the fact that Obama is sending two opposing messages to two different audiences and neither message can reconcile with the other. His announcement that by mid-2011, the US will begin pulling out of Afghanistan may make his Democrat party constituency happier, but for Taliban-al-Qaida-Pakistan, it’s the timeline for a new waiting game until the drawdown.
• According to Indian officials and analysts, Afghani-stan is manageable, Pakistan is the real problem because both al-Qaida and Taliban originate from and are nurtured there.
• In addition, the Punjabi terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which have been created by Pakistan are now working in concert with the al-Qaida, which makes the cocktail doubly dangerous. This has not been addressed, even if this may have been discussed. But the gloss in the speech means Pakistan can continue to believe it can run with the hares and hunt with the hounds again.
• The strategy was disappointing in its absence of fresh thinking. The Pakistani military operations in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan are meant to counter a threat to Pakistan’s internal security from indigenous elements. They are not directed against the external activities of al-Qaida. Nor are they directed towards facilitating the military operations of the NATO forces and the Afghan national army in Afghan territory. The safe havens of organizations, which are seen as an asset and not as a threat to Pakistan, are being shifted from place to place to escape detection and action by the US.
• The US strategy remains showering incentives on Pakistan to do the right thing, without taking into account the fact that Pakistan has repeatedly refused to do just that. Having said that, it’s important for India to hold the US to its demand from Pakistan that it winds down its terror factory. Obama was clear in naming all of them including LeT in a letter to Pakistan president Asif Zardari earlier this month.
• The most disquieting aspect of the strategy is what was left unsaid: According to sources privy to the unannounced details, the US is also planning an initiative to arm certain “friendly” shuras or groups against the Taliban inside Afghanistan. This is counter-productive because not only would it serve to undermine the authority of the Kabul government, it could spell another side of the war, where the US would be arming both sides.
• The planned civilian surge cannot possibly happen in the absence of security, particularly in the population centres that Obama promises to secure. Indian officials say the troop surge is too little to enable them to “clear and hold” crucial areas inside Afghanistan.
• The 30,000 additional troops President Barack Obama is sending to Afghanistan may provide tactical relief to American commanders on the ground but whether this surge will help guarantee victory against terrorism and extremism in America’s war there is an open question.
• The American campaign against the Taliban and the al-Qaida suffers from four deficits — political attention, military doctrine, Afghan capability, and a Pakistani commitment.
• Over the past few years, American military doctrine has leaned too heavily on the deployment of overwhelming firepower, deployed from afar, rather than on the granulated application of force. Thereby, U.S. casualties have been low but an unconscionably large number of Afghan civilians have died in what the Pentagon euphemistically calls “collateral damage.” If the Taliban are to be defeated, the U.S. and its allies will have to be far more intelligent in their military methods than they have been so far.
• The Obama package is supposed to address a part of the third deficit — Afghan national capabilities in the security field — but the kind of emphasis we have seen so far does not inspire much confidence.
• By far the biggest weakness of the new Af-Pak policy is Mr. Obama’s inability to craft an effective strategy to deal with the Pakistani side of the equation.
• With very little indication that the Pakistani military is ready to jettison its strategic patronage of terrorist groups, there is the possibility that Rawalpindi might well be tempted to instruct the Taliban to lie low till the appointed hour only to emerge triumphant once U.S. troops begin to leave.

   Pakistani media strongly opposed the new afghan policy. Following are the some basic points discussed in various Pakistani newspapers.  

• US President Barack Obama’s much-awaited announcement of his new Afghan strategy has evoked alarm and disappointment in equal measure.
• The thrust of his message is that the US cannot fight an unending war in Afghanistan and therefore must seek an honourable exit.
• The West as a whole then, led by the US, seems inclined once again to turn its face away from benighted Afghanistan.
• Additional troops will train an Afghan army and police force capable of holding its own against the tough Taliban. Based on the track record in this respect of the last eight years, this seems unattainable.
• The Pakistani military establishment, which has been working towards some such outcome since 9/11 by attacking al Qaeda and saving the Afghan Taliban for a rainy day (one has just arrived, courtesy Obama), must be laughing all the way to the bank, followed closely by the Afghan Taliban. All Mullah Omar and his fighters now have to do is wait out the US and Nato, and Karzai’s regime will fall to them like an overripe plum.
• The antediluvian regime of the extremists would once again be foisted by force of arms and with the backing of the Pakistani military establishment on the long-suffering Afghan people.
• Such a rejuvenated regime that hosts al Qaeda once again would threaten US and Western interests globally. It may prove too wild a horse for our military establishment to ride, let alone control.
• Even more worryingly, the restored Taliban rulers in Kabul may find the temptation irresistible to fish in the troubled waters Pakistan finds itself in by backing the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. After all, in comparison with ruined Afghanistan, control over a nuclear-armed Pakistan may be too mouth-watering to ignore.
• Afghanistan is about to be left to its own devices once again.
• America is to send an extra 30,000 troops to fight a war that some military analysts see as unwinnable in conventional terms against an enemy that has never suffered a decisive defeat by force of arms.
• The extra forces that will be deployed are not expected to defeat the Taliban but only try to reverse their momentum and create a space for the Afghan forces to take over.
• The totally unnecessary reference to Pakistani nukes and its control was in bad taste and could have been avoided. It was like rubbing salt on open wounds. This is not how hearts and minds can be won.
• The Taliban will now sit on the sidelines, waiting for the US will and determination to exhaust, because as the Taliban are fond of saying… ‘You may have the watches, but we have the time’.
• It is but certain that Washington and Obama will have to revisit this strategy a few months down the line.
• Can Afghanistan be ‘saved’ after eight years of a war that by all accounts is going very badly, when the US is thinking both of hunkering down and exiting?
• “The three core elements of our strategy [are]: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan”. But experience suggests that the war zone in Afghanistan does not lend itself to a ‘civilian surge’ in quick order.
• Nothing in Tuesday’s speech explained how the US intends to resolve that conundrum and at the moment the second prong of the new strategy seems little more than a triumph of hope over experience.

   Regional media concentrated on the different aspects of the policy but there are some common points like a wish for the defeat of terrorists and peace in the region. But still there are some questions which are not raised by the regional media. For example in the new policy there is space for negotiations with Taliban but what will be the effects of this on regional powers? Why America brought its new policy at the time when Taliban are almost defeated by the Pakistan Army and people has rejected these extremists and there was a hope for new liberal Pakistan to emerge? Why Saudi Arabia is playing a major part in these negotiations with Taliban because Saudi Arabia did not play its role when Taliban were capturing Kabul in mid of 90’s and when America attacked Afghanistan in the beginning of 21st centaury? The media is not explaining the reasons of exit strategy of America. When occupying forces exit any area so three are three reasons. The occupied nation may rebel against the imperialist power or the policy of imperialist power is changed or the objectives are achieved and a puppet government is installed. In case of Afghanistan the third option can be applied if Taliban are adjusted somehow in Kabul government. Obama administration has made it sure that American interests will not be at stake if Taliban are again empowered.

The author is a column writer. His Articles can be seen at The Frontier Post, Statesman and Daily outlook Afghanistan . He supports democracy and human rights.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obamas-afghan-policy-and-regional-media-1593656.html

And this is all the more surprising as at the same moment, Nicolas did not hesitate to kiss Michelle on her two cheeks. Some American tabloids have spoken about the anecdote tonight, and are going a little further, as New York Daily News, qui va jusqu’à poser la question qui tue : “Did Obama dodge a friendly kiss from French First Lady Carla Bruni ?” 

Forget NATO, world peace or the global recession – it’s a kiss, or the lack of one, that is the talk of Europe. The international incident unfolded Friday morning when Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, met French President Nicholas Sarkozy and his supermodel wife, Carla Bruni, in Strasbourg, France. 

All seemed to be going swimmingly, in a French kind of way. Michelle and Carla shared a warm embrace and a European-style peck on each cheek. President Obama and the prime minister shook hands heartily and even two-stepped through a kind of French man-hug. Sarkozy then planted a double-kiss on Michelle.But when Bruni finally leaned in to kiss President Obama, something happened. Maybe he balked. Maybe she pulled back. Whatever. 

There was no kiss, sending the British press in particular into a spasm of forensic investigation that included a frame-by-frame analysis of the Kiss That Wasn’t. “It is usual in France to greet one another with a kiss,” noted London’s Daily Mail. “But the best Mr. Obama could get out of a suddenly flustered Carla Bruni was a handshake.” 

So, who stepped back ? To refuse a kiss from the French first lady is simply shocking ! 

I am all the more intrigued as the French news magazine l’Express has just revealed that Obama kissed a French student only a few minutes after, encouraged to do so by Sarkozy himself, who apparently did not resent the American president for refusing his wife’s kiss ! 

How do I know if I am a good kisser

Jennifer Garner graces the January 2010

Copyright reserved by go4uggboots.com

golf clubs |
Discount UGG Boots | UGG Classic Cardy Boots | UGG Classic Tall Boots | UGG Classic Short Boots

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-refuse-to-kiss-the-french-first-lady-why-1642560.html

“With unemployment numbers hovering around 10 percent in the 14th District, and with families losing their homes and their health insurance far too often, Congress cannot in good conscience give itself a raise,” said Foster. “I was pleased to see that by working together with my colleagues in the House, we were able to block the Fiscal Year 2010 pay raise, and I hope we can continue this success by blocking the Fiscal Year 2011 pay raise as well.”

H.R. 4255, the Stop the Automatic Pay Raise for Members of Congress in FY2011 Act, would block the automatic pay raise Members of Congress are scheduled to receive in Fiscal Year 2011, which begins on October 1, 2010.

“Not only is blocking the Congressional pay raise the right thing to do, it is the fiscally responsible thing to do, as it will save taxpayers millions of dollars – money that could be put to better use elsewhere,” said Foster. “It also makes the important symbolic statement that Congress is not going to reward itself when so many Americans are suffering.”

In 1989, Congress approved a process that provides lawmakers with an automatic pay raise every January unless they vote specifically to reject the salary increase. In 2008, Foster donated his Fiscal Year 2009 pay raise of $4,700, which was enacted before his election to Congress, to the Northern Illinois Food Bank.

Earlier this year, Foster was a co-sponsor of legislation that would block the Fiscal Year 2010 pay raise, and attention garnered by Foster and other members who also oppose the pay raise led to the blocking of the Fiscal Year 2010 salary increase. As a result, Members of Congress did not receive their anticipated raise this year. According to The Hill, one of the newspapers covering Capitol Hill, this action saved taxpayers approximately $2.5 million.

Quoting & Saving just got easier…Easy To Insure ME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds

Alabama Health Insurance
Mississippi Health Insurance

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/rep-foster-continues-to-reject-automatic-pay-raise-for-members-of-congress-1686947.html

I don’t think most people are amnesiac when it comes to the biggest attack ever to have occurred on US soil.  I do believe Giuliani was trying to capitalize on the false idea that most people have that conservatives are strong on national security – and by extension the war on terrorism – and that liberals are weak.  However, it wasn’t the strange omission of 9/11 that most struck me about Rudy’s statement; it was the recommendation that Obama should somehow follow Bush’s example on fighting terrorism.  I decided to examine what some of those right things G.W. Bush and his conservative cohorts did or did not do prior to and after the most calamitous act of terrorism ever to have occurred on American soil.  These are my top ten reasons why Rudy and company should pipe down when trying to portray the failed underwear bomber incident as a sign of Obama’s weakness on terror.  Paul Schaeffer play some delusional background music for us.

1.    The Bush Administration failed to act upon the (PDB) presidential daily briefing of August 6, 2001 which warned of an eminent attack by Al Qaeda upon the US.  Seventeen days later George Tenet, former director of the CIA, was briefed on the report by the FBI that Zacarias Moussaoui had been taking flying lessons – in a 747 trainer.

2.    The Bush Administration ignored warnings in January 2001 from the outgoing Clinton national security team that Al Qaeda and its sleeper cells in the U.S. were the major security threat facing the U.S.

3.    Bush ignored the Hart-Rudman Commission set up by Clinton by Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Gary Hart (D-CO0 and Warren Rudman (R-NH).  The commission’s final report issued in January 2001 warned of large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil, and specifically of “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.”

4.    The Bush Administration failed to take action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan even after determining in February 2001 that Al Qaeda was responsible for the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

5.    Bush announced a New Office of National Preparedness for Terrorism within FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) but cut FEMA’s Budget by $200 million.

6.    The Bush Administration continued to oppose for more than a year any independent investigation of the intelligence failures that preceded 9/11.  President Obama, being “Mr. The Buck Stops Here” that he is, not only ordered such a review, but has accepted full responsibility for security weaknesses that may have lead up to this attempt at a terrorist attack.

7.    In the summer of 2002, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved by 19-0 a bill to tough security standards at chemical plants.  The chemical industry lobbied Republicans to reject it, and the White House let the bill die.

8.    In March 2002 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham asked the Bush Administration for $380 million to protect nuclear weapons facilities.  The White House approved $26 million of Abraham’s request.

9.    During the Bush Administration, The Coast Guard estimated it would cost $4.5 billion to secure U.S. seaports.  In the year and half following 9/11, they received just $318 million.

10.    The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) a year and a half after 9/11 had 14 agents to track down 1,200 illegal immigrants from countries were Al Qaeda was active.  Bush turned down $52 million request to hire more agents.

I wondered as I watched Rudy, and listened to other conservatives, if any of these facts rang a bell.  I wondered where this chorus of conservative voices was in opposing these actions which frustrated the war on terrorism and weakened American’s security under G.W. Bush.  I wonder if they really want Obama to be more Bushian in the strategies he employs in war on terror.  I wonder if they will continue on in defiance of Abraham Lincoln’s aphorism.  They are always boasting that Lincoln was a Republican.  Perhaps they should heed that great Republican’s words about the uselessness of trying to continue to misshape people’s perceptions about reality.

I am a native Missourian with a B.A. in English and minors in creative writing and Journalism. I attended the University of Missouri and edited have several newspapers and newsletters. I have worked in several fields but lately have worked in the legal field (not an attorney). My site is www.myhumbleopinion.org

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/top-10-reasons-why-conservatives-are-weaker-on-national-security-1692601.html

The current mechanism we are thinking of is a music event. Why music?

Simply, music appeals to the youths of today.  But the event is a one-moment-in-time thing. The sharing of values takes months and years. Who does that?

SABM needs all the manpower it can get. To illustrate once again, we need support from all quarters to lend a helping hand.

Everyone has the potential to shape thoughts and change mindsets.

There can be other mechanisms – like being a leader in your own neighborhood, taking up the challenge to network with neighbors and lead them to embrace the SABM vision.

If youth outreach is going to be a long term effort by SABM, then this music contest will not just be a single event to achieve that. There must be year round activities and a working strategy already in place.

A recent survey was recently done in talking to a university student yesterday whose friends included students from other colleges in Subang Jaya, Kuala Lumpur. These students were of generally the same   middle-class homes, driving to college or university, having money to spend, having mobile phones, etc. Of course this is just one person being spoken to but some of the things said are quite revealing.

1. Would a music event interest youths? “Perhaps, if famous overseas singers were brought in.”

2. Would youths take part in a competition where they compose their own songs and melodies? “Yes, but how big is the prize? The money must be big.”

3. You’re going to be 21 years old next year. If we organized a workshop during your term holidays this year for you to learn about your rights as a voter, would you attend? “Er.. I think I will attend it after I am 21.”

4. What they do outside of studying? “Surf the net, hang out with one another, talk about studies, the latest news (not usually politics), gadgets, games and movies, listen to music.”

5. Their values? To begin with, words like ‘ethnic’ and ‘ethics’ were not understood. This student’s answer to what his core values were:

a) Core value? Like moral values? “I think it would be er.. I’m not sure also…”

b) Integrity was something new to him. Honesty he understood.

c) So began an informal lesson about the meaning of ‘values’. He suggested that youths be taught this.  Yes, he has heard his friends say if they were stopped by cops for speeding, just pay them off.

6. Hopes and dreams for Malaysia in the next 5 years: “I hope this nation will treat everyone equally, more truth about things happening in Malaysia instead of fairytales being printed out in the newspaper (unlike internet where we can get some true information too.)”

7.  Regarding the role of youths and young adults in nation-building: “They do have a role as they might be the future leaders, but I can see that most of the students now do not really care about the events going on in the nation as compared to the older generation.”

8. If you were a youth leader in the SABM movement, what would you do to involve other youths?  “First, I think I would need some training. I will first talk to them, but not give a talk as it will bore them – maybe a normal casual conversation with friends. Friends who are interested will talk to other friends and it will spread fast, and they will understand better.”

Its just not college kids but the same trend can be found amongst our junior colleagues, where shockingly, one of them read no newspapers, had no clue as to any of the current issues and was just not bothered. Probably, these people liked to hang out at karaoke joints.

There was a personal opinion that the type of youths who were typically apathetic self-centered should not be our immediate priority because they:

1)  had been severely conditioned to care only for themselves.

2)  were not interested in current events outside of their immediate interests.

3)  (like in any other segment of society) would rather not get involved in “big” issues/causes

4)  (like in any other strata of society) formed a large majority

It is going to take a huge effort to even convince them why they should be concerned, much less be involved. To focus on them with the limited resources available to SABM would be like trying to pull an elephant up a tree alone.

A better suggestion would be to find and involve the small number of youths who ARE ALREADY interested or curious. Get them together; give them an avenue and a voice and a direction. Then we can all reach out together to the larger group. There’ll be more people to pull the elephant then.

Peter Wong, BUMblogger, Infopreneur, citizen journalist, is a full time affiliate marketer helping others succeed online.
Malaysian Connexion : <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href=" “>http://anakbangsamalaysia.com/”> http://anakbangsamalaysia.com/

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-lowdown-on-our-youths-1383438.html

According to some in the news media, I might pass for an “extreme right-wing racist”. Well, when I attended a local tea party here in the nearly bankrupt state of New Jersey, I saw men and women, young and old, black and white, middle class and rich, along with Democrats and Republicans.

Our purpose in gathering was to show the nation’s leaders that we, the owners of this democracy, object to unstrained spending, tyrannical government intrusion into our lives, and massive taxes.

We cannot let others fight our battles for us anymore. The stakes for our children and grandchildren in unsustainable debt are too high for us not to act. 

I call on the “silent majority”, those Americans who make this country work and have sacrificed to keep us safe, to be a part of this movement to reclaim the principles of the founding fathers. These concepts are as old but timeless in their application from colonial times to the present. Fundamentally, Government should live within its means and spend only what it takes from the people. Aside from national defense, public safety, such as enforcement of the borders, health safety concerns and such common “promotion of the general welfare”, the  federal government should not interfere in our everyday lives. Lastly, taxes are a legal method of taking of the fruit of someone’s labor and giving it to another who has not earned it. While necessary to provide for basic services, it should not deter intiative and the free exchange of goods and services.

  The American we know and love must be preserved above all else. It is time to LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD.

Sincerely,
James Wolbert

The autor describes himself as “a conservative man of 51 years born and raised in the sleepy town of Garfield, NJ. As my daughter says, ‘Nothing happens in Garfield.’ I have strong religious and political views. I have written some articles for newspapers and thought I would try here.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/tea-parties-1264165.html

President Obama made a great point in a speech to students. He pointed out that some suggest government is trying to take over the healthcare system.  He further pointed out that we have private universities and we have public universities but no one has suggested government wants to take over the university system. Here are some of the GOP leaders who have opposed government health care, making accusations that the program is a move toward socialism.  Yet, they attened public universities.

 Rush Limbaugh – This talk show commentator is constantly accusing the Obama administration of leading us toward socialism. Yet he, himself, got his education from a public program. He attended college at Southeast Missouri State University.

Mitch McConnell – Attended two public universities, the University of Louisville, and the University of Kentucky.

Virginia Foxx – She not only attended a public university, but she attended the oldest public university in the U.S. She attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And to further demonstrate that, in spite of what she says, she does believe in some public programs, she was a professor at Appalachian State University.

John McCain – Senator McCain got his education from a government run University as well. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.

Sarah Palin – One of the most critical of the Obama healthcare plan, calling it “socialism”. This former governor attended the University of Idaho, Idaho’s oldest public university.

This certainly brings up an interesting question. If we think public universities are okay for educating our citizens, why would we feel a public health option would be socialism? Do we have some hypocricy rearing it’s ugly head in this discussion?

Sincerely, Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman has been a freelance cartoonist and writer for over 40 years. His work has appeared in hundreds of magazines, newspapers, books and on the internet. Samples of his work can be seen at his website:
http://www.colemantoons.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/gop-politicians-who-oppose-public-programs-but-attended-public-universities-1243204.html