American1966's Blog

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size  

 

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.

 

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.

 

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

 

“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”

 

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”

 

Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.

 

The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.

 

“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”

 

The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation’s critical infrastructure.

 

"If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned.

 

While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.

 

“The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies,” Graham said.

 

As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be “truly massive traffic jams,” Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.

 

“So you would be walking. You wouldn’t be driving at that point,” Graham said. “And it wouldn’t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn’t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.”

 

The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because “we wouldn’t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,” Graham said.

 

The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.

 

“Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said.

 

America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory.

 

In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care.

 

Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Graham says.

 

“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”

 

Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply.

 

“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.

 

“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.

 

America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain.

 

The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.

 

In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the CIA at his commission’s request, “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.”

 

Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East coast — a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests — U.S. investigators might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology, it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship that had been used to launch it, Graham said.

 

Several participants in last weekend’s conference in Dearborn, Mich., hosted by the conservative Claremont Institute argued that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was thinking about an EMP attack when he opined that “a world without America is conceivable.”

 

In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.

 

But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then.

 

The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.

 

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.

 

While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that “one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”

 

Iran’s first test of a ship-launched Scud missile occurred in spring 1998, and was mentioned several months later in veiled terms by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a blue-ribbon panel also known as the Rumsfeld Commission.

 

I was the first reporter to mention the Iran sea-launched missile test in an article appearing in the Washington Times in May 1999.

 

Intelligence reports on the launch were “well known to the White House but have not been disseminated to the appropriate congressional committees,” I wrote. Such a missile “could be used in a devastating stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned defense.”

 

Few experts believe that Iran can be deterred from launching such an attack by the threat of massive retaliation against Iran. They point to a December 2001 statement by former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who mulled the possibility of Israeli retaliation after an Iranian nuclear strike.

 

“The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the Islamic only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” Rafsanjani said at the time.

 

Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and EMP capability.

 

“An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” he told the Claremont Institute conference on Saturday. “If you’re a terrorist, this is your ultimate goal, your ultimate asymmetric weapon.”

 

Noting Iran’s recent sea-launched and mid-flight warhead detonation tests, Rep. Franks concluded, “They could do it — either directly or anonymously by putting some freighter out there on the ocean.”

 

The only possible deterrent against Iran is the prospect of failure, Dr. Graham and other experts agreed. And the only way the United States could credibly threaten an Iranian missile strike would be to deploy effective national missile defenses.

 

“It’s well known that people don’t go on a diet until they’ve had a heart attack,” said Claremont Institute president Brian T. Kennedy. “And we as a nation are having a heart attack” when it comes to the threat of an EMP attack from Iran.

 

“As of today, we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses to protect against an EMP attack,” he told Newsmax.

 

Rep. Franks said he remains surprised at how partisan the subject of space-based missile defenses remain. “Nuclear missiles don’t discriminate on party lines when they land,” he said.

 

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a long-standing champion of missile defense, told the Claremont conference on Friday that Sen. Obama has opposed missile defense tooth and nail and as president would cut funding for these programs dramatically.

 

“Senator Obama has been quoted as saying, ‘I don’t agree with a missile defense system,’ and that we can cut $10 billion of the research out — never mind, as I say, that the entire budget is $9.6 billion, or $9.3 billion,” Kyl said.

 

Like Franks, Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors.

 

The United States “needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to defend against . . . that countries will decide it’s not worth coming up against us,” Kyl said.

 

“That’s one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That’s one of the ways we can deal with these rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us. “

The post below is a return reply in an email that I recently sent to the GAO. Whether or not it makes a difference will be if I choose to not follow it through, which I will follow it through until I have made a difference or run out of resources from trying. You all have good ideas and things that need to be addressed. Make them be heard.

 

Dear Mr. Duff,       
 Thank you for your e-mail regarding the trucking industry. I will be sure to share your comments with the team that did our work.

Chuck Young
GAO Public Affairs

>>> "The Duffs"  7/23/2008 4:39 PM >>>
I know my email may have no realivents to the GAO, but as a private citizen and a career truck driver by trade. I do not understand why the media, the gao as well as the ATA continue to drive to make the trucking industry complicated and unrealistic with the so called sick drivers, deaths by accidents, etc. publicity that every one keeps putting on this industry.
         You have more people involved in non-commercial accidents and deaths by accidents then the trucking industry could ever produce. Yet the only concern anyone seams to publish is the one that keeps feeding this nation by moving your food and merchandise from coast to coast. No the trucking industry is not perfect and it will probably never will be in our life time. But as for the reasons you all wish to keep making it more complicated and driving up the expense to ship by making it complicated.
         This country needs to find a new excuse and stop riding the dead horse that the accidents and fatalities on our highways can be majorly reduced by screwing with the trucking industry. That horse is dead tell the lobbist and anybody else that thinks they have a good idea for this industry to clean the skeletons out of their own closet, before they come to make the skeletons in the trucking industry homeless. Lets be realistic your organization as well as the rest that think they know whats best in regulating this industry has already made the industry so bad now you can't make a living at it anymore.
          If this country would bother to enforce the laws and regulations that you already have in place for the privledge to drive a non-commercial and a commercial vehicle. I do believe you would find a reduction in all accidents and deaths on or roadways as well as find a serious increase in local, county and state revenues by the tickets and fines that would be issued for keeping our laws enforced.

Best Regards





http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2008/Jul08/
072108_GAO_study_critical.htm

He didn't want the American flag shown at his speech in Germany and at his press conference in Paris. He canceled a trip to visit wounded soldiers when he was told the press couldn't take pictures of him. And the American public thought the press coverage of his trip was simply "excessive."

Obama: Healthcare for Illegals
Monday, July 21, 2008 9:06 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size  

 

Democrats' single most important domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

 

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

 

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

 

 

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

 

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

 

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

 

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

 

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

 

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

 

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

 

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

 

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

 

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it hard.

 

 

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

The Coming War with Iran: 6 Days in Hell!

Newsmax Magazine's blockbuster issue has major cover stories, including an exclusive special report by Newsmax contributing editor and Iran expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, "Six Days to War," which lays out the scenario likely to unfold if the U.S. and Iran go to war.

In Timmerman's report you'll find out why "Six Days to War" could happen sooner than you think — as many American assets are already "in position" for an attack.

Timmerman also details the deadliness and unintended consequences of a U.S. attack against an increasingly militant Iran.

That attack could come sooner than you think.

As the Bush administration ratchets up the pressure, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs says the military option is still on the table and warns Iran that the U.S. can launch massive strikes using Navy and Air power.

The new American commander in the region, Gen. David Petraeus, has also told Congress that Iran is supporting Iraqi insurgents killing Americans. President Bush said in a White House address that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are "two of the greatest threats to America."

Timmerman's report on the looming war with Iran is based on sources including top Israeli intelligence officers, military and political leaders interviewed in Israel and Washington, D.C., and a key planning document — obtained exclusively by Newsmax — developed by the Iranian navy.

Timmerman is the bestselling author of "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. His "Six Days to War" report in Newsmax Magazine offers a scenario that represents one likely course a conflict with Iran might take, and explores:

• Iran's arsenal, including ballistic missiles, Silkworm anti-ship missiles — and chemical weapons facilities.
• The first target of a U.S. strike
• How Iran would launch its counterattack
• America's military plan, Operation Clean Slate
• Hezbollah's response to the war's outbreak — a rain of missiles on Israel
• America's secret war power and technology
• The "nightmare scenario" — what if Iran already has nuclear weapons?
• How the U.S. would use its huge air superiority
• Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney's "Big George" scenario to disarm Iran
• The war's shocking effect on oil supplies — and oil prices
• The repercussions in Iraq
• How American strikes could cripple the Iranian navy
• The U.S. commando raids that target Iran's missiles
• U.S. bunker busters' devastating effect on Iranian nuclear sites
• The scenario's surprising end to hostilities
• And much more.

More: Newsmax details Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's comments that the a nuclear terror threat on U.S. soil is real.

Newsmax magazine

Also featured in this special edition of Newsmax magazine is an exclusive in-depth look at Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. In our story, Newsmax's chief Washington correspondent Ron Kessler interviews and profiles the former Massachusetts governor and reveals the real Mitt Romney — the one the media has been hiding.

You can also check out our FREE offer by Going Here.

This edition of Newsmax magazine is not to be missed. Bonus: Get this special edition of Newsmax magazine PLUS a FREE Emergency Radio — this is a total value of $34.95 FREE — Go Here Now.

In addition to hard-hitting investigative reports and special commentary from Ben Stein, Dick Morris, John Stossel, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Reagan, Edward Koch, David Limbaugh and others, you get much more in Newsmax magazine, including:

• Student-visa terror plot foiled.
• Sen. Al Franken - it could happen.
• Hollywood goes wild for Obama.
• Children's book causes climate "hysteria."
• Russia says "nyet" to space race with China.
• Haditha: What really happened.
• Michael Savage mulls candidacy.
• States rebel against national ID.
• NRA fires warning shot on gun control.
• Celebrity rehab: The healing game.
• Muslims accuse Glenn Beck of bias.
• Jim Cramer: Media guilty of "fakery."
• Michael Jackson may convert to Islam.
• Reverse mortgages are often a smart choice.
• Chertoff: Nuke terror threat will "get worse."
• Lawmakers seek pardon for border patrol agents.
• Ohio may draft poll workers.
• New plug-in Wi-Fi device is affordable.
• China bans adoptions to the obese.
• Are you a "trysumer"?
• Rich Little: Don't knock Bush.
• IRS change brings capital-gains cut.
• Life-saving foods.
• Dr. Laura: A great marriage isn't hard work.

PLUS: Ronald Kessler's Washington.

Again, there is so much more in Newsmax magazine, which won a Silver Eddie award in the News/Commentary category of Folio magazine's prestigious journalism awards, the Eddies.

Find out why more than half a million people read Newsmax magazine each month.

Get our report with this FREE Offer  Go Here Now.

Remember, this is a No-Risk Offer PLUS get a FREE Emergency Radio — a $30 value — Go here now!

 

McCain Slaps Obama: He's Acting Like He's Already President
Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:44 PM

Article Font Size  

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Republican John McCain said on Thursday he would like to give a speech in Germany as U.S. president not as a White House candidate, taking a swipe at rival Barack Obama while the Democrat gave a major address in Berlin.

 

"I'd love to give a speech in Germany ... a political speech or a speech that maybe the German people would be interested in, but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a candidate ... for the office of presidency," McCain told reporters in Ohio.

 

Standing in front of a store in a neighbourhood known as German Village, McCain -- for whom foreign policy is considered a strength -- said he would focus on issues at home while his opponent travelled abroad.

 

"We're going to be campaigning across the heartland of America and talking about the issues that are challenging America today," he said.

 

Obama drew a crowd estimated by one local official at 200,000 in Berlin's Tiergarten Park, where he urged Europe to stand by the United States in bringing stability to Afghanistan and confronting other threats from climate change to nuclear proliferation.

 

Republicans have scoffed at Obama's high profile speech, which German media has compared to President John Kennedy's famous 1963 "Ich bin ein Berliner" address.

 

"Ich bin ein Hypocrite," the Republican party chided in a statement, criticizing Obama for what it called a lack of leadership on Afghanistan in a congressional committee he chairs. "Ich bin" means "I am" in German.

 

McCain, who had a bratwurst for lunch, said he already knew many of the European leaders with whom Obama was scheduled to hold talks on a trip designed to bolster the Illinois senator's foreign policy credentials.

 

"I have very good relations with Europe, many of the European leaders," McCain said, noting he had met several times with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and had visited with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

 

"I know them well. It's not my first meeting with them or with the leaders in Israel and the Palestinians," he said.

 

"I'm very happy that a lot of these new leaders in Europe, particularly in France and Germany, are much more pro-American than their predecessors were," he said, adding they had "common cause" in trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

The Arizona senator also confirmed he would meet with the Dalai Lama in Aspen, Colorado, on Friday and he called the exiled Tibetan leader a "transcendent" international role model.

 

"I have admired him and respected him for the efforts he's made for on behalf of freedom of the people of Tibet but also all over the world," McCain said.

 

 

 

© 2008 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

Click here to view this email as a web page

Insider Report from Newsmax.com

Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Rev. Wright Seeks Revenge for Obama’s ‘Betrayal’
2. Al Gore Remaining on Sidelines — or Maybe Not
3. Poll: Papal Visit to Boost Voter Turnout
4. Bob Schieffer Replacing Katie Couric?
5. Jewish Voters Could Cost Obama in November
6. We Heard: Hillary, McCain

---

1. Rev. Wright Seeks Revenge for Obama’s ‘Betrayal’

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright wouldn’t mind seeing Barack Obama’s presidential campaign derailed — that's how angry he is over his former parishioner’s “betrayal” of their long relationship, the New York Post reports.

“After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” a source with ties to Wright told the Post’s Fredric Dicker.

“Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying” and “doesn’t care if he derails Obama’s candidacy or not.”

Obama’s relationship with Wright has been under fire ever since videos were made public earlier this year in which Wright claimed that the United States brought 9/11 on itself and people should say “God damn America” instead of “God bless America.”

Obama has recently sought to distance himself from Wright, calling his remarks “divisive and destructive” on April 29 — which angered the minister. But according to the source, Wright first became disillusioned with Obama last year when Obama unexpectedly barred him from participation in the public announcement of his presidential campaign.

After Obama was “embraced by this congregation as a brother in Christ, after his pastor was a father figure to him and gave him credibility in a city he had not grown up in, and in a black community that was suspect of someone from Hawaii and Harvard, he thanks him by not allowing him to speak publicly at his announcement last year?” the source told Dicker.

“Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship.”

 

For everyone that thinks your OBAMA is the right choice

Below you will find where supposibly Reverand Moss is taking over for Reverand Wright. I ask that while you read this, read between the lines. Someone has to drop out of the race by June 3rd.

    Reverand Moss is due to take over the first of June. HUMMMMMMMMMM

I will beat anyone a weeks salary that if Obama wins the nomination that Reverand Wright will still be the head of Trinity .

Barack Obama has finally distanced himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary remarks, but he has no plans to leave Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ.

After Obama called Wright’s comments “divisive and destructive” during a press conference this past week, a questioner noted that the new Trinity pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, had defended Wright and asked if Obama would continue attending the church.

“Well, the new pastor, the young pastor, Reverend Otis Moss, is a wonderful young pastor,” Obama responded, according to CQ Transcripts Wire.

“And as I said, I still very much value the Trinity community. I'll be honest. This obviously has put strains on that relationship, not because of the members or because of Reverend Moss but because this has become such a spectacle.

“And when I go to church, it's not for spectacle. It's to pray and to find a stronger sense of faith. It's not to posture politically. It's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs. And I certainly don't want to provide a distraction for those who are worshipping at Trinity.

“So as of this point, I'm a member of Trinity. I haven't had a discussion with Reverend Moss about it, so I can't tell you how he's reacting and how he's responding.”

Moss, the 37-year-old “hip-hop pastor” as he’s called by congregants, will become the head of Trinity in June. A Yale Divinity School graduate, he has been an assistant pastor at the church for two years.

In his Easter sermon at Trinity, he recited lyrics from Tupac Shakur’s “Thugz Mansion,” and called the late rapper “neither a saint nor demon, but all human.”

He also said rappers shouldn’t be overlooked because of a “proclivity for ghetto-istic conduct.”

 

Quote: I still have not heard anyone ask the ultimate question to both race. Are you as a black voter supporting Obama because you believe he would be the best for the job? If you do what do you base that on and why. Or are you supporting him because he is black? The same should be ask of the white voters for Clinton. As for the article and media felling the reason to point out the fact that other politicians and delegates that are supporting Obama is black. We as citizens do not give a fat rats ass to their race because when you point that out then it looks like they are wanting to show the fact that they are running scared that they may lose their black man in the white house if CLINTON does not drop out.       

          Let me tell you clueless dumb a**es something if it goes Clinton vs McCain your party has a chance of taking the white house, If it goes Obama vs McCain you don't have a chance in hell of taking the white house. (My basis: I have voted democrat all my life, but due to the lack of experience and major incompetence, if Obama wins the nominee I will be going REPUBLICAN this election) For those of you that are mad as hell and wanting to go racist on my comments think about this. I am not BLACK nor WHITE so play your racist BLEEP some where else

 

Dems fear racial divide - Washington Post- msnbc.com

I FOUND THIS BLOG ON ANOTHER SPACE. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH ALOT OF THE POINTS THE PERSON MADE IN THE BLOG!!!

     To those who I have enjoyed so much, debating with, I bid you farewell. I have enjoyed the open opinion of everyone, as well as the debate over all issue's and not just one or two subjects. This will be my last blog.

      To those I offended I apologize, because that was not my intentions. I like yourself, am human and get caught up in some subjects more then I should. On that thought please remember all actions have reactions.

(THANKS FOX 4, YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST)

As of April 8th, I will no longer be here on fox blogs take care everybody. Have fun and remember,

(STAND FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE)

 

   

       I posted the ad below, because in recent past I have made comments to people who I felt had made some ridiculous assumtions on behalf of our current president as to why fuel prices are so high. My ad below is not the reason either, but it is a part of a long chain as to why the prices are where they are.

             I am a business owner and if you put in the media ALL THE TIME that my merchandise prices will be hitting record high. Guess what, I am going to look at that and say, hey I can start raising my prices and make the media look good on their reports. Oh and by the way, because my merchandise has so much media hype and presictions on pricing. I'm taking an extra week in Paris this year. Thanks to all the media hype and prediction BLEEP that has already prepared the public for rising prices. And the fact they can not go with out my merchandise to manage their everyday lives.

         My point being to the ad below I have heard the same media hype BLEEP about $4 and 5 dollar a gallon fuel for the past 2 years. THIS YEAR BEING THE FIRST TIME IT HAS ACTUALLY GOT CLOSE. (BUT STILL NOT THERE YET) You keep telling the public that my fuels is going to cost them, these outragious prices. I am not going to disappoint you all and raise my prices to what you expect and buy me another vacation home on some exiotic beach to add to my already collection of 4 in the past 3 years.

(THANKS AMERICA and MEDIA)

What $4 gas would mean to you

Rising pump prices demand sacrifice elsewhere. A survey of new-car shoppers finds 44% eating out less and 40% cutting back on entertainment. Incumbent politicians may also be forsaken.

By U.S. News & World Report

Now that oil prices have crested another heady threshold -- trading above $110 per barrel -- it's time for motorists to start contemplating another once-implausible scenario: pump prices of $4 a gallon.

Just a few years ago, auto-industry futurists thought $3 gas would be a game-changer, unnerving consumers and forcing dramatic changes in their choice of cars and driving behavior. Since then, gas prices have spiked above $3 several times, but they've usually drifted back down. Until now.

• MSN Autos: Fuel-economy tips

Since last summer, gas prices have steadily ticked upward, to about $3.20. And with the spring and summer driving seasons approaching, many analysts think increased demand and other factors could drive pump prices higher still.

"Four-dollar gas is possible, maybe even probable," says Bill Reinert, national manager for advanced technology at Toyota. "We could even see $5 gas."

If gas does hit $4, here's what's likely to happen:

           Everybody has heard all the media hype as to how we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and so forth. One of the things that keeps the issue hot is the use of E10, E15, or even E85. As we all are aware, ethanol burns hotter and cleaner then gasoline. BRAVO everybody is hooked on the idea because of that one phrase.

           Now for the rest of the story. Has anyone bothered to stop and ask the more detailed questions evolving around ethanol. Can it reduce your consumer cost per gallon if we use it ? (Sure it can, if like gasoline, we produce more then the demand requires us to produce. Instead of only what the demand needs to get by)

          Is it actually reducing our dependency on fossil fuels ?

(1) Only if somebody invents a vehicle that will get a better MPG on ethanol mix then a gallon of gas right now.

(2) As it stands right now, current vehicles on the road get less MPG on E10 then they do on pure gasoline. Which in return actually causes you to return to the fuel pump to buy more fuel sooner then it would have if you were running a pure blend of gasoline as to running an ethanol blend.

(3) End result you commute 500 miles a week back and forth to your job with an average cost of $60.00 a week on pure gasolines. You then are requires to use ethanol blend and after a couple of weeks, you have noticed it has started costing you $66.00 a week for the same amount  driving and distance, your consumtion has increased. Which has made your dependency more on the same fossil fuel then it was before they rquired you to buy a 10% blend.

So I ask you: (GOOD IDEA or another result of GORE HYPE)

                 As for those that seam to be so irritated when you see people not having to work as hard as yourself and I stand with you. There is a young lady I know that blogs in here, She is not of US back ground. You should take in a little consideration for all people when you are not happy with day to day situations. I being a decendant of German, Dutch, Scottish and native american indian would proudly stand and work with the lady I speak of any day of the year.

       (When it is all said and done ask yourself if you are a 100% pure blood native born american indian and if your answer is NO. Then guess what ? You to are a decendant of an IMMIGRANT)
           So PLEASE stand for what you believe in, speak that of what you know and believe in, But when looking down to another ethnic group. Have a little consideration in the words that you chose to express

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Gore to Rake in IPO Millions

Former Vice President and global warming crusader Al Gore stands to make close to $50 million when the TV channel he co-founded goes public with an Initial Public Offering.

Current TV, which debuted in August 2005, has been billed as “television for the Internet generation" of tech-savvy 18-to-34-year-olds, and allows viewers to contribute much of its content.

Story continues below . . .

But it currently is available in only about 19 million U.S. homes, and has lost $31.5 million over the last three years, Ron Grover discloses in BusinessWeek.

Current Media, Current TV’s parent company, hopes to raise $100 million in a public offering it filed on Jan. 28. Some of the money raised will go to lenders, who include a few major Democratic Party fundraisers.

“Something about this deal just doesn’t sit right with me,” Grover observes.

He notes that Gore and co-founder Joel Hyatt not only will take “piles of cash,” but they also collect “hefty salaries for a company that hasn’t shown a profit in three years — taking down $491,677 apiece last year in cash.”

Gore and Hyatt also collected $550,000 bonuses for, in Gore’s case, helping get the company new affiliate agreements and putting together a management team. The two currently receive $600,000 a year in salary and can collect additional bonuses.

“What really sticks out to me,” Grover writes, is that Gore and Hyatt, “who jumpstarted the company with a broken-down Newsworld International channel they bought for $70.9 million, will have the kind of hammer-lock control over the company decried by shareholder rights activists and many of the same unions that supported Gore for years.”

Gore and Hyatt will control all of the company’s B shares, which give them 10 votes for every vote of a common shareholder with a Class A share, according to the filing.

The company hasn’t yet set a price per share for its IPO, but Grover cites one estimate of between $13 and $15 per share, making Gore’s 3.7 million shares worth more than $48 million.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Editor's Notes:

• Al Gore's Convenient Lie Exposed — See It!
• President Bush Takes Miracle Supplement to Protect Heart.
• Prevent the Serial Killer of Women: Breast Cancer.
  Fight Fear With Facts.
• The Baby Boomers Will Wreak Havoc — Protect Your Wealth!
  Click Here Now.

WAKE UP AMERICA !!!

       McCain has got the Republican Nomination with out question. Now it looks like there will be a race for the Democrat Nomination. And now to rub anybody the wrong way, but honestly. One of these 2 nominee's are the only one that will even have a remote chance of being in the Oval Office.

        On with my prediction, (McCain vs Clinton) or (McCain vs Obama) I honestly think as the Democratic race winds down to the end, the powers that be will make it to where Clinton barely beats Obama for the Nomination. As good as Obama makes it sound, lets face it he does not have the resume to back it up, which makes him unpredictiable and a liability. So their only controlling option is to insure that Clinton gets the nominee.

            (As for those that think Obama can part the red sea, if you own a multi million dollar company and your company's future depends on who you put at the helm. You are not about to hire me to run it when you have someone else that has applied that has a renoun history of making the right choices or the capabilities to fix the bad choices and it is a proven track record)

           So you have (McCain vs Clinton) I predict that McCain would be victorious

           (McCain vs Obama) McCain is victorious, because as Obama said the words coming out of his mouth are just words. (my definition: empty promises as in past elections)

            (McCain vs Obama) Obama is victourious: before his term is up the USA is faced with one of the worst riots seen in years history and followed by a civil war between its own people

(These are just my opinions and prediction in which I hope none of them come true)