December 4, 2010
The UN Climate talks in Cancun are now focusing on geoengineering, using it as a tool to extort a binding UN treaty to reduce phony global warming. The AP reported today that "we may need geoengineering as a 'Plan B,' if nations fail to forge agreement on a binding treaty to rein in greenhouse gases", per a British House of Commons report.
Geoengineering and contrived global warming lies are facets of Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for control and depopulation. The article states that geoengineering can cause rain precipitation and other weather changes.
The AP article revealed that the primary forces behind geoengineering are the UN, the US and the UK. The US and the UK governments urged the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study geoengineering, with the US in the research forefront. The article says that "specialists regard the stratospheric sulfates proposal as among the most feasible"- this means chemtrails. But instead of sulfates, patents and evidence indicate that aluminum and barium are currently being sprayed. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will do the unreliable computer modeling tests for the US research. Watch this video to understand that this is a depopulation program and this NOAA scientist advocates "doing whatever we can to reduce population".
The new willingness of the UN to consider geoengineering comes just weeks after the UN's Biodiversity conference in Japan wherein they imposed a moratorium on it until the implications could be fully studied. The UN used the 'moratorium' for support to gain global control over geoengineering and weather. Notably, the US did not sign the UN Biodiversity Convention (another word for 'treaty') in favor of the moratorium and UN control.
The UK government hosts the Hadley Center at East Anglia University, the home-base of the UN IPCC and is known for the 'Climategate' scandal and manipulated science. Margaret Thatcher established Hadley Center to usher in globalism and to weaken US power. The UN IPCC will pay off hundreds of scientists to study geoengineering for the IPCC's next assessment report. The UK supports UN control over geoengineering.
Sylvia Ribeiro of ETC was responsible for the UN short-lived moratorium promise on geoengineering at the Biodiversity Convention. She said that the UN must control geoengineering. Her 501(c)3 organization, ETC, has been funded by the likes of the Ford Foundation (known for supporting depopulation) and the HKH Foundation that funds other extreme environmental groups (Tides Foundation, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc) with ties to the UN.
Foundations and depopulation policy makers are deeply intertwined; the UN IPCC sets public policy directly and indirectly. An example of this is UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri who is married to Saroj Pachauri, a director of the Rockefeller founded Population Council and she also worked for the Ford Foundation. While Rajendra may be concerned about the effects of geoengineering, his wife works to limit population.
The article reports that scientists say warming is being caused by greenhouse gases emitted by industry, vehicles and agriculture. The truth is that only a fraction of 1% of carbon emissions comes from these sources and agriculture, industry and transportation are targets for control. Food production is a depopulation focal point and changes in precipitation affects food.
Ocean acidification is another global warming lie. Geoengineering iron seeding or fertilization in the oceans can produce toxic algae blooms and would have little effect on carbon reduction.
Britain's national science academy said that the greatest challenges to geoengineering may not be science and engineering, but social ethical, legal and political issues. It is a problem for the depopulation ghouls that many people are aware of the potential effects of chemtrails and are angry about being sprayed like bugs.
Visit MorphCity.com for more information on food as a weapon and other Agenda 21 issues.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
No Amnesty, No Dream Act
No Amnesty, No DREAM Act The upcoming debate over the DREAM Act’s passage is beginning to look more like a con man’s shell game, of sorts. With two new versions of the original DREAM Act now on the table, it will be easier to perpetrate a great fraud on the American public. Players in the game -- the American people -- will be tantalized with accepting changes in the law via legislation, substituting amnesty applied to current law breakers for the legitimate and honest legal immigration process already in place.The White House, unaccountable agency czars, and congressmen, some of whom compromised integrity for votes in the pre-mid-term election cycle, are creating confusion over the details with the political goal of passing it without much objection. Congressmen who never read bills, won’t know which version they are voting on. However, this is one measure where the devil is NOT in the details of the two bills, but in principle.The truth of the DREAM Act's goals, S. 3827, were best exposed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) in his “Ten Things You Need to Know About S. 3827, The DREAM Act." Here are a few of the low-lights he enumerated:
The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans
The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty.
Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree
The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial AidDreamy buyers need to beware, both versions are on the Senate calendar. From Congressional Quarterly comes the minute differences between the two versions:One version (S 3962) keeps an eligibility age of younger than 35 for the program, but a second version (S 3963) lowers that age to younger than 30....If no other eligibility criteria are changed, the potential number of people eligible would drop slightly, from roughly 2.1 million to slightly more than 2 million, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.Besides the usual Democrats who support the measure, Republicans Richard Lugar from Indiana and Robert Bennett of Utah are already vocalizing their support. Senator Orrin Hatch may be on board if the cut off point is lowered somewhat; after all he authored the original legislation, nine years ago. Senators Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Brownback and McCain either have not yet made up their minds, or haven’t made public statements on how they will vote.If your elected representatives are out of sync with you, your family, friends and neighbors on this issue, contact them immediately as time is of the essence in this lame duck session, and let them know you are not in favor of limited or conditional amnesty for illegals. Remind them that the front door of the United States, the one our forebears came through, is always open for those seeking application for a new life in a new land. True justice requires that a nation and those from outside respect the established laws of that nation. Breaking those laws and then rewriting them after the fact is no justice at all.Thanks,Your friends at The John Birch Society
The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans
The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty.
Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree
The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial AidDreamy buyers need to beware, both versions are on the Senate calendar. From Congressional Quarterly comes the minute differences between the two versions:One version (S 3962) keeps an eligibility age of younger than 35 for the program, but a second version (S 3963) lowers that age to younger than 30....If no other eligibility criteria are changed, the potential number of people eligible would drop slightly, from roughly 2.1 million to slightly more than 2 million, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.Besides the usual Democrats who support the measure, Republicans Richard Lugar from Indiana and Robert Bennett of Utah are already vocalizing their support. Senator Orrin Hatch may be on board if the cut off point is lowered somewhat; after all he authored the original legislation, nine years ago. Senators Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Brownback and McCain either have not yet made up their minds, or haven’t made public statements on how they will vote.If your elected representatives are out of sync with you, your family, friends and neighbors on this issue, contact them immediately as time is of the essence in this lame duck session, and let them know you are not in favor of limited or conditional amnesty for illegals. Remind them that the front door of the United States, the one our forebears came through, is always open for those seeking application for a new life in a new land. True justice requires that a nation and those from outside respect the established laws of that nation. Breaking those laws and then rewriting them after the fact is no justice at all.Thanks,Your friends at The John Birch Society
The Economic Collapse get ready
America’s Message To The Rest Of The World: You Send Us Oil And Cheap Plastic Gadgets And We’ll Send You Our Wealth And Prosperity
The Economic Collapse Dec 9, 2010
Have you ever seen pictures of extravagant wealth from places such as Dubai or Abu Dhabi and wondered where in the world they got all that money from? Have you ever read news stories that talk about China lending us hundreds of billions of dollars and wondered how they could possibly have so much wealth? Well, it is actually quite simple. They got much of it from us. Every month, the United States buys much more from the rest of the world then they buy from us. It is called a “trade deficit” and the United States has been running one for decades. In essence, what is happening each month is that we are transferring somewhere between 40 to 50 billion dollars of our national wealth to the rest of the globe and they are sending us oil and cheap plastic gadgets that Americans greedily consume. By the end of the year we have usually transferred somewhere around a half trillion dollars of our national wealth out of the country for good.
In order to maintain our standard of living, the U.S. government has been going to the countries we have been sending our wealth to and has been begging them to loan us massive amounts of their dollars. At this point the U.S. government literally owes trillions of dollars to the rest of the world.
Scoffers say that it is just a bunch of “paper money” that we are sending them, but the truth is that it is hundreds of billions of dollars of “paper money” that is not in the hands of average Americans. We have sent massive amounts of our wealth and prosperity overseas and it isn’t coming back unless we borrow it.
Today there are dozens and dozens of U.S. cities such as Detroit, Michigan and Camden, New Jersey that are turning into post-industrial hellholes while thousands of gleaming new modern factories are going up all over China. 42.9 million Americans are now on food stamps (a 16 percent increase in just one year) while the oil sheiks of the Middle East build opulent palaces that are extravagant beyond belief.
Most Americans do not realize how serious the U.S. addiction to foreign oil really is. We are constantly being drained of our wealth by the oil powers of the Middle East.
So what are they doing with all of this money? Well, let’s take a look at just a couple of examples.
Have you ever heard of the Emirates Palace? It is located in the United Arab Emirates and it cost approximately 3.8 billion dollars to build. The following is how one writer for a major UK newspaper described it after a visit….
The Emirates Palace has so many biggest and best boasts, it could have its own chapter in the Guinness Book of Records, but the atrium is the whistles and bells, the jaw-dropping big daddy of them all — 60 metres high, 42 metres wide and topped with the largest dome in the world. Staff need golf carts to negotiate their way around it. It is decorated with 13 colours of marble, ranging from sunrise yellow to sunset red (to reflect the many hues of the desert), and lots and lots and lots of gold: 6,040 square metres of gold leaf cover the largest gilded expanse ever created in one building. It’s even in the food. I ate gold leaf on my chocolate cake. Apparently, it aids digestion.
In Dubai, there is so much wealth that they pretty much build whatever they can dream up. For example, in Dubai you will find the largest “indoor ski resort” in the world. One travel site describes it this way….
When one thinks of Arabia, let alone Dubai, one likely pictures an arid desert of heat and sun. One does not think of snow skiing. Yet, that is what one can do at Ski Dubai, arguably the largest indoor ski resort in the world. The resort features 22,500 square meters of ski area. The heavily insulated building is kept at 30.2 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 21.2 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the night, which is when the snow is generated. The resort features five ski runs and is open year round.
But it is not just the Middle East that is getting incredibly wealthy off of the United States. In a recent article entitled “China #1, United States #2? 25 Facts That Prove The Transition Is Really Happening” I detailed how China is in the process of surpassing the United States economically.
Over the past 25 years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has soared into the stratosphere. In 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 6 million dollars for the entire year. In the month of August alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was over 28 billion dollars.
For many Americans this can be difficult to comprehend. For a moment, imagine a giant map of the world and that there is a gigantic pile of money in China and a gigantic pile of money in the United States. Then start taking 20 billion dollars from the pile of the United States and give it to China every single month.
After a while, what is going to happen?
Well, the United States is going to be a lot poorer and China is going to be a lot wealthier.
As we have become poorer, it has been harder and harder to maintain our very high standard of living.
The U.S. government has been borrowing larger and larger sums of money from the rest of the world in order to “stimulate” our economy, but in the process we are piling up horrific amounts of debt.
The national debt of the United States is now 13 times larger than it was just 30 years ago.
If we did that again over the next 30 years, we would have a national debt of approximately $170 trillion by the year 2040.
Of course that will never happen.
Why?
Well, because the entire financial system would collapse and we would be forced into national bankruptcy long before we ever got into that much debt.
The truth is that we are already on the verge of total economic collapse. In fact, CNS News is reporting that retiring U.S. Senator George Voinovich believes that the collapse could happen at any time now….
“I think we are on the edge of it right now. I really do,” said Voinovitch. “If we don’t do something about dealing with the debt and the budgets that aren’t being balanced for as far as your eye can see, we are over the cliff. We are on thin ice right now. And I don’t think that we can wait. We need to move forward. We need to move forward for our own benefit, but we also need to move forward because the world is watching us right now.”
Indeed, the world is watching us, and they are getting tired of financing our runaway debt.
Just this week there have been some very troubling signs. For example, U.S. Treasuries just experienced their biggest two-day sell-off since the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The rest of the world was deeply troubled when the Federal Reserve announced another round of quantitative easing. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had promised that the Fed would not monetize U.S. government debt, but now that is exactly what is happening. The rest of the world is less than thrilled by this.
In addition, many economists are warning that the tax cut deal that Barack Obama and the Republicans have agreed to will increase U.S. government debt even more. In reaction to the deal, economist Nouriel Roubini recently posted the following message on his Twitter account….
“Obama-GOP tax deal costs $900 billion over two years. US kicking the can further down the road. Are bond vigilantes starting to wake up?”
A recent article on CNBC described what these “bond vigilantes” are….
Bond vigilantes – the term was coined by economist Ed Yardeni in the 1980s to describe major investors who demand higher yields to compensate for the perceived risks resulting from large deficits – could derail the country’s precarious recovery, some economists say.
The truth is that the U.S. government is not going to be able to borrow endless amounts of very cheap money forever.
At some point the U.S. is either going to face much higher interest rates on government debt or the Federal Reserve is going to have to step in and monetize the vast majority of all new government debt.
Either alternative will be absolutely disastrous.
Most Americans just assume that the wealth and prosperity that we have enjoyed for so many decades will always be with us. But that is not the case. We have been exporting our national wealth and our national prosperity so that we could fill up our shopping carts with cheap foreign-made plastic crap and so that we could fill up our cars with foreign oil. It has been a fun ride while it lasted, but with each passing day a national financial implosion draws ever closer.
An economic nightmare is coming.
You better get ready.
The Economic Collapse Dec 9, 2010
Have you ever seen pictures of extravagant wealth from places such as Dubai or Abu Dhabi and wondered where in the world they got all that money from? Have you ever read news stories that talk about China lending us hundreds of billions of dollars and wondered how they could possibly have so much wealth? Well, it is actually quite simple. They got much of it from us. Every month, the United States buys much more from the rest of the world then they buy from us. It is called a “trade deficit” and the United States has been running one for decades. In essence, what is happening each month is that we are transferring somewhere between 40 to 50 billion dollars of our national wealth to the rest of the globe and they are sending us oil and cheap plastic gadgets that Americans greedily consume. By the end of the year we have usually transferred somewhere around a half trillion dollars of our national wealth out of the country for good.
In order to maintain our standard of living, the U.S. government has been going to the countries we have been sending our wealth to and has been begging them to loan us massive amounts of their dollars. At this point the U.S. government literally owes trillions of dollars to the rest of the world.
Scoffers say that it is just a bunch of “paper money” that we are sending them, but the truth is that it is hundreds of billions of dollars of “paper money” that is not in the hands of average Americans. We have sent massive amounts of our wealth and prosperity overseas and it isn’t coming back unless we borrow it.
Today there are dozens and dozens of U.S. cities such as Detroit, Michigan and Camden, New Jersey that are turning into post-industrial hellholes while thousands of gleaming new modern factories are going up all over China. 42.9 million Americans are now on food stamps (a 16 percent increase in just one year) while the oil sheiks of the Middle East build opulent palaces that are extravagant beyond belief.
Most Americans do not realize how serious the U.S. addiction to foreign oil really is. We are constantly being drained of our wealth by the oil powers of the Middle East.
So what are they doing with all of this money? Well, let’s take a look at just a couple of examples.
Have you ever heard of the Emirates Palace? It is located in the United Arab Emirates and it cost approximately 3.8 billion dollars to build. The following is how one writer for a major UK newspaper described it after a visit….
The Emirates Palace has so many biggest and best boasts, it could have its own chapter in the Guinness Book of Records, but the atrium is the whistles and bells, the jaw-dropping big daddy of them all — 60 metres high, 42 metres wide and topped with the largest dome in the world. Staff need golf carts to negotiate their way around it. It is decorated with 13 colours of marble, ranging from sunrise yellow to sunset red (to reflect the many hues of the desert), and lots and lots and lots of gold: 6,040 square metres of gold leaf cover the largest gilded expanse ever created in one building. It’s even in the food. I ate gold leaf on my chocolate cake. Apparently, it aids digestion.
In Dubai, there is so much wealth that they pretty much build whatever they can dream up. For example, in Dubai you will find the largest “indoor ski resort” in the world. One travel site describes it this way….
When one thinks of Arabia, let alone Dubai, one likely pictures an arid desert of heat and sun. One does not think of snow skiing. Yet, that is what one can do at Ski Dubai, arguably the largest indoor ski resort in the world. The resort features 22,500 square meters of ski area. The heavily insulated building is kept at 30.2 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 21.2 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the night, which is when the snow is generated. The resort features five ski runs and is open year round.
But it is not just the Middle East that is getting incredibly wealthy off of the United States. In a recent article entitled “China #1, United States #2? 25 Facts That Prove The Transition Is Really Happening” I detailed how China is in the process of surpassing the United States economically.
Over the past 25 years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has soared into the stratosphere. In 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 6 million dollars for the entire year. In the month of August alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was over 28 billion dollars.
For many Americans this can be difficult to comprehend. For a moment, imagine a giant map of the world and that there is a gigantic pile of money in China and a gigantic pile of money in the United States. Then start taking 20 billion dollars from the pile of the United States and give it to China every single month.
After a while, what is going to happen?
Well, the United States is going to be a lot poorer and China is going to be a lot wealthier.
As we have become poorer, it has been harder and harder to maintain our very high standard of living.
The U.S. government has been borrowing larger and larger sums of money from the rest of the world in order to “stimulate” our economy, but in the process we are piling up horrific amounts of debt.
The national debt of the United States is now 13 times larger than it was just 30 years ago.
If we did that again over the next 30 years, we would have a national debt of approximately $170 trillion by the year 2040.
Of course that will never happen.
Why?
Well, because the entire financial system would collapse and we would be forced into national bankruptcy long before we ever got into that much debt.
The truth is that we are already on the verge of total economic collapse. In fact, CNS News is reporting that retiring U.S. Senator George Voinovich believes that the collapse could happen at any time now….
“I think we are on the edge of it right now. I really do,” said Voinovitch. “If we don’t do something about dealing with the debt and the budgets that aren’t being balanced for as far as your eye can see, we are over the cliff. We are on thin ice right now. And I don’t think that we can wait. We need to move forward. We need to move forward for our own benefit, but we also need to move forward because the world is watching us right now.”
Indeed, the world is watching us, and they are getting tired of financing our runaway debt.
Just this week there have been some very troubling signs. For example, U.S. Treasuries just experienced their biggest two-day sell-off since the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The rest of the world was deeply troubled when the Federal Reserve announced another round of quantitative easing. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had promised that the Fed would not monetize U.S. government debt, but now that is exactly what is happening. The rest of the world is less than thrilled by this.
In addition, many economists are warning that the tax cut deal that Barack Obama and the Republicans have agreed to will increase U.S. government debt even more. In reaction to the deal, economist Nouriel Roubini recently posted the following message on his Twitter account….
“Obama-GOP tax deal costs $900 billion over two years. US kicking the can further down the road. Are bond vigilantes starting to wake up?”
A recent article on CNBC described what these “bond vigilantes” are….
Bond vigilantes – the term was coined by economist Ed Yardeni in the 1980s to describe major investors who demand higher yields to compensate for the perceived risks resulting from large deficits – could derail the country’s precarious recovery, some economists say.
The truth is that the U.S. government is not going to be able to borrow endless amounts of very cheap money forever.
At some point the U.S. is either going to face much higher interest rates on government debt or the Federal Reserve is going to have to step in and monetize the vast majority of all new government debt.
Either alternative will be absolutely disastrous.
Most Americans just assume that the wealth and prosperity that we have enjoyed for so many decades will always be with us. But that is not the case. We have been exporting our national wealth and our national prosperity so that we could fill up our shopping carts with cheap foreign-made plastic crap and so that we could fill up our cars with foreign oil. It has been a fun ride while it lasted, but with each passing day a national financial implosion draws ever closer.
An economic nightmare is coming.
You better get ready.
George Soros and his types
The plan of the george soros types is to lead the US down the road to a 3rd world nation status at a rapid pace. We have abundant natural resources (oil, natural gas, coal, etc) that would last us a few hundred years at least but we cannot develop them because of the One World government types in cahoots with the environmental wackos. So, we send about $1.0 BILLION per DAY to countries like Saudi Arabia to provide us with oil. And alternatively, we cannot build nuclear power stations because of resistance from the same groups. And islamobama and his band of cut-throat communist buffoons want us to build ineffective wind mills and solar panels which, at most, can provide about 4 to 5 percent of our power requirements. Add this to the fact we have the highest cooperate income tax structure in the western world and the cost of doing business in the US forces profit motivated businesses overseas so that we continue to de-industrialize (send jobs overseas) which is the plan of the same group. Any successful business has to seek the lowest cost labor so don't blame it on the cooperations. Blame it squarely on our pea brained "leaders" in the district of corruption. Believe me, if they really wanted to do something to actually help the US instead of destroy it, they could. "The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things". And it is about time for the people in the US to start talking about taking our country back from the misguided elites who are attempting to lead us down the road to oblivion. Start by forcing the idiots in the district of corruption to balance the budget. Eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. Eliminate the federal reserve and force congress to assume their CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility of regulating our money supply which should be based on a gold standard. Get all our military troops home NOW and put them on the border with mexico and stop the influx of illegal immigrants and dope. REDUCE the size of the federal government to perform ONLY the Constitutional dictated responsibilities (it should be about 10% of what it now is). And force the U.S. congress and senate together with the supreme court to accept TERM LIMITS without a lifetime of benefits like they are now receiving after 5 years in office. We should not wait until the system fails completely to do something about it. We should have learned something from what happened in germany after WW1. Don't think it can't happen here.
America is doomed
As you read this keep in mind it is all by design. It is just part of the plan started in early 1900's with the federal reserve and the FIT amendment and is all about wealth redistribution and control by the banking elite (One World Govt). The ultimate goal is to make the US a 3rd world type govt and destroy the Constitutional govt and our freedoms guaranteed by this document. Look at the state of our de-industrialization, our dumbed down education system, our 10% soon to be 25% unemployment, and our continued march to socialization and big government (soon to be One World Government).God Bless the USA.
.ExternalClass DIV
From: Jim Hedderly
from a friend who worked on the South Texas Nuclear Project with me (1973-1987)
Good Morning------Having been involved in and around the electric industry since 1974 I believe this report should be mandatory reading for every politician in Washington. I am sending it to friends because I think they will appreciate “what is being said” and the effect it can have on the future of the United States. Cecil O.Friends, this forwarding is from RADM Mike Barr, former COMSUBPAC, who has been managing portions of the Los Alamos Nuclear Test Lab/Site off and on for a number of years. He is a "Nuc' of high stature, and when he says he doesn't forward much, he means it! Yes, this will "severely impact our future generations" for sure. Unfortunately we are not heading in this direction at all! We will be sorry, or should I say, our kids and grand-kids will be sorry. US Fed News, September 22, 2009 Tuesday 9:57 PM ESTWASHINGTON, Sept. 21 -- The office of Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., issued the following news release:Communications experts say that fear is the best way to get attention when you're trying to win an argument. Groups who oppose nuclear power have certainly mastered that technique by playing to economic, environmental, and safety fears.So I'd like to introduce a little element of fear into my argument here. I want to suggest what could happen if we don't adopt nuclear power as a more important part of our energy future- if Russia and China and a lot of other countries go ahead with nuclear - as they are now - while we get left behind. Are we going to be able to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while we're stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or, more likely, not much energy at all? The whole prospect of the United States ignoring this problem-solving technology that we invented is what I fear most about nuclear power.Let me give you an idea of what I'm talking about. A few years ago, in January 2006, the Chinese sent a delegation of nuclear scientists and administrators to the United States on a fact-finding mission. They toured the Idaho National Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory and visited GE and Westinghouse trying to decide which technology to choose for their nuclear program.Now you might wonder why anyone would be seeking our advice when we haven't issued a construction permit to build a new reactor in the past thirty years. But as Kathryn McCarthy, deputy director of the Idaho National Laboratory, said at the time, "The world still looks to us for leadership in this technology. They'd prefer to copy what we've already done. They don't like being on the cutting edge."Well that may have been true in 2006 but it's not anymore. The Chinese eventually chose Westinghouse technology for their first reactors. At the time Westinghouse was an American company. In 2007, Toshiba bought Westinghouse so it is now a Japanese company. Then when the Chinese got their Westinghouse reactor, they insisted on having all the specs so they could see how it was put together. That's what we call "reverse engineering." As you might have guessed, China 's next wave of reactors is going to be built with Chinese technology.By 2008 the Chinese had shovels in the ground. The first four Westinghouse reactors are scheduled for completion by 2011. They also bought a pair of Russian reactors, which should be finished around the same time. They started talking about building 60 reactors over the next 20 years and just recently raised it to 132. They're in the nuclear business.What have we accomplished in the meantime? Well, people have been talking about a "nuclear renaissance" in this country since the turn of the century. In 2007, NRG, a New Jersey company, filed the first application to build a new reactor in 30 years. They're still at the beginning of what promises to be at least a five-year licensing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No one really knows how long it will take, since as soon as the licenses are issued opponents will file lawsuits and the whole thing will move to the courts. If they're lucky, they might have a reactor up-and-running by 2020. Other companies have followed suit and there are now 34 proposals before the NRC, but nobody has yet broken ground. So it isn't likely the Chinese will be coming to us any time soon for more tips on how to build reactors. In fact we'll probably be going to them.That's one aspect of what's going on in the world today. Here's another. As countries began constructing new reactors, it quickly became clear that the bottleneck would be in forging the steel reactor vessels. These are the huge, three-story-high, forged steel units that hold the fuel assembly - the reactor core. That means forging steel parts that may weigh as much as 500 tons.In 2007 the only place you could order a reactor vessel was at the Japan Steel Works and they were backed up for four years. Everyone started saying, "This is going to be what holds up the world's nuclear renaissance. They'll never be able to produce enough of those pressure vessels."So what happened? Well, first Japan Steel Works invested $800 million to triple its capacity. They're going to be turning out 12 pressure vessels a year by 2012. Then the Chinese decided to build their own forge. In less than two years, they put up a furnace that can handle 320-ton parts. They turned out their first components in June. Now they're building two more forges. So you won't see the Chinese standing in line in Japan any time soon. The Russians are doing the same thing. They're in the midst of a big revival, planning to double the production of electricity from nuclear power by 2020. They're also building a forge and just cast their first 600-ton ingot in June. France , Britain , South Korea and India are all following suit. Very soon, every major nuclear country in the world is going to be able to forge its own reactor vessels - except one. And that's us.No steel company in America is capable of forging ingots of more than 270 tons. We're still stuck in the 1960s. That means when it comes to building reactors we'll have to stand in line in Japan or somewhere else. In fact, just about everything in our first new reactors is going to be imported. The nuclear industry tells us that at least 70 percent of the materials and equipment that go into those first few reactors will come from abroad. That's because we've let our nuclear supply industry wither on the vine. In 1990 there were 150 domestic suppliers making parts for nuclear reactors. Today there are only 40 and most of them do their business overseas. Of the 34 proposals before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 are designed by Westinghouse, now a Japanese company and, nine are from Areva, the French giant. General Electric, the only American company left on the field, has partnered with Hitachi . They sold five reactors to American utilities but fared poorly in the competition for federal loan guarantees. Two utilities have now cancelled those projects and there are rumors that GE may quit the field entirely. They don't seem very enthusiastic about nuclear anyway. Have you seen those GE ads for windmills? They're all over the place. Have you seen their ad for the smart grid, where the little girl says, "The sun is still shining in Arizona ?" That was pretty good, too. Now, have you seen any GE ads, in this day of concern about climate change, that 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear power? I certainly haven't.Babcock & Wilcox is the one American company that stirred some interest recently when it announced plans for a new "mini-reactor." This is a 125-megawatt unit that can be manufactured at the factory and shipped by rail to the site, where several units can be fit together like Lego blocks. This left the impression that America might be innovating again, forging back into the lead. But the complete prototype for the Babcock & Wilcox reactor is still two years away and then it may take another five years to get the NRC's design approval. Meanwhile, the Russians are already building a mini-reactor that will be floated into a Siberian village on a barge to produce power. They've already got orders for mini-reactors from 12 countries. In spite of Babcock & Wilcox's fine effort - and I'm certainly proud of them - the Russians are considerably ahead of us.So let's take stock. There are 40 reactors now under construction in 11 countries around the world, none of them in the United States . In fact, only two are in Western Europe - one in Finland and the other in France, both built by Areva. All the rest are in Asia . Although we haven't gotten used to it, Asia may soon be leading the world in nuclear technology.Japan has 55 reactors and gets 35 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, almost double the 19 percent we get here. The Japanese have two reactors under construction and plans for ten more by 2018. They are finding they can build a reactor, start to finish, in less than four years. That's less time than it is taking to get one American reactor through licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.South Korea gets nearly 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is planning another eight reactors by 2015. So far they've bought their reactors from the Japanese but now they have their own Korean Next-Generation Reactor, a 1400-megawatt giant evolved from an American design. They plan to bring two of these online by 2016. Taiwan also gets 18 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is building two new reactors.In September, Bloomberg News reported that Japan Steel Works' stock had risen 8 percent on the Tokyo Stock Exchange because of China 's decision to double future construction from 60 to 132 new reactors. They figure they'll get some of the action. Much of China 's $586 billion stimulus package is going toward developing nuclear power. "While China had been focusing on building new coal plants, it has now shifted its focus to nuclear because of the environmental issue," said Ikuo Sato, president of Japan Steel Works, in Bloomberg.Meanwhile, India is embracing thorium; a technology a lot of people think may eventually replace uranium as nuclear fuel. Thorium is twice as abundant as uranium and it doesn't produce the plutonium that everybody worries will be used to make a bomb. There's a lot of enthusiasm for thorium among scientists in this country. But it's India that's going ahead, with six reactors under construction and ten more planned. They began with a Russian design but are also trying some American technology they acquired in signing their 2005 agreement with the Bush Administration.What about Chernobyl ? Well, just like everybody else, Russia stopped all construction of new reactors after that horrible accident. But they learned their lesson and started constructing much safer reactors in the 1990s, completing the first in 2001. Now they have plans to expand along the lines of France , building two reactors every year from now through 2030. They have a very good reason. Russia has huge natural gas supplies but is wasting them by using one-third of it to produce electricity. They could get six times the price by selling it to Western Europe . So they're replacing gas generation with nuclear - which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing here. Since 1990 every major power plant built in this country has burned natural gas. We now get 20 percent of our electricity from natural gas - more than nuclear's 19 percent - and the natural gas percent is still going up.And be aware, all these countries that are developing nuclear aren't just building for themselves. They're selling to the rest of the world as well. Areva is building reactors in Finland , China , India , Italy , Brazil and Abu Dhabi . The Russians have signed deals with China , Iran , India , Nigeria and Venezuela . They are even selling to us! In July, Tenex , Russia 's uranium enrichment corporation signed a long-term contract to supply fuel to Constellation Energy, which has reactors in Maryland and upstate New York . It was the sixth contract Tenex signed with an American utility in the past two months.How did the Russians end up supplying us with uranium? It's an interesting story. In 1996, Senators Sam Nunn, Pete Domenici and Richard Lugar pioneered a remarkable deal with the post-Soviet government where we would buy highly enriched uranium from old Soviet bomb stocks. The uranium would be sent to France , where it would be "blended down" from 90 percent fissionable material to three percent to be used in American reactors. For the last two decades, old Soviet stockpiles have supplied half our nuclear fuel. One out of every ten light bulbs in America is now powered by a former Soviet weapon - one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in history, although few people seem to know about it. Now the Russians have learned to do de-enrichment themselves. They've decided they don't need France . They say, "Hey, we don't have to import this stuff anymore. We'll just produce it here." Of course, producing things is one way countries get rich and raise their standard of living.Once upon a time we were pioneers in nuclear technology. Forty years ago we were the only people in the world who knew how to deal with the atom. That's not true anymore. We've shied away from the technology while everyone else has forged ahead. Even Europe is coming back. The British have announced they're going to go nuclear -they just hired the French national electric company to help. Italy closed all its reactors right after Chernobyl but ended up importing 80 percent of its electricity at a huge cost. Now they've announced they're going back to nuclear as well. France already gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear and has the cheapest electricity in Europe - not to mention the second-lowest carbon emissions (behind Sweden , which is half nuclear). France also sells $80 billion worth of electricity to the rest of Europe each year. Notice how well France did in the latest downturn - it barely went into recession at all. That's not because the French spend less on government bureaucracy or work harder than us and take fewer vacations. It's because nuclear power is helping to keep their whole economy afloat.So does that mean we've fallen completely behind? Not at all. In fact there's a great irony to all this. We still know how to run reactors better than anyone else. Our fleet of 104 plants is up and running 90 percent of the time. No one else even comes close. France , for all its experience, is still at 80 percent. Other countries are even lower. We still understand the technology better than anyone else in the world. But because we've placed so many obstacles in our path, we aren't allowed to build reactors anymore. And that's what scares me. We're gradually losing our economic place in the world.Now a lot of people say, "Well, what's the difference? So what if we fall behind on nuclear technology? We'll just forge ahead with something else." Well, there are several reasons to be concerned:1) First there's energy security. America already spends $ 300 billion a year importing 2/3rds of our oil from other countries. If we remain on the current path of no new nuclear power or start depending on other countries to build our reactors and supply us with fuel, we're going to be even more vulnerable than we are now. The best way to reduce imported oil, aside from ramping up domestic production, will be to use electricity to power cars and trucks. At first we can plug our electric vehicles in at night, when there is much unused electricity. After that, we should be using nuclear. We can't have Americans going to bed every night hoping the wind will blow so they can start their cars in the morning.2) Second, there's technological leadership. Americans produce year in and year out 25 percent of all the wealth in the world. Most of that wealth has been driven by new technologies. We were the birthplace of the telephone, the electric light, the automobile, the assembly line, radio, television and the computer. But nuclear energy - perhaps the greatest scientific advance of the 20th century - is passing us by. The 21st century is going to run on clean, cheap greenhouse-gas-free nuclear power. And, how can we criticize India and China for not reducing their carbon emissions when we refuse to adopt the best technology ourselves?3) Then there's weapons proliferation. In the 1970s we gave up on nuclear reprocessing in the hope that by not dealing with plutonium we would prevent nuclear weapons from spreading around the world. That has turned out to be an unwise decision. France , Britain , Russia , Canada and Japan went right on reprocessing and no one has stolen plutonium from them. Instead, rogue countries such as North Korea and Pakistan have found their own ways to develop nuclear weapons. The technology of bomb-making is no big secret anymore. The real problem is that, by reneging on world leadership we have left the field to others. For instance, right now the Russians are building a commercial reactor for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela . He's not exactly friendly toward the United States . Just to make things more interesting, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that his office has uncovered evidence Iran may be providing Venezuela with missile technology.But what really worries me are these two things:* First, if we move toward a nuclear-based economy and we have to import 70 percent of the technology and equipment, how are any better off than when we're importing two thirds of our oil? We'll just be creating jobs for steel workers in Japan and China instead of in the United States .* Second, it we don't move toward a nuclear powered economy but try to do everything with conservation and wind and solar, we're going to be sending American jobs overseas looking for cheap energy.So to insure we have enough cheap, clean, reliable electricity in this country to create good high-quality, high-tech jobs, here's what we have to do. The United States should double its production of nuclear power by building 100 nuclear reactors in 20 years.* Nuclear today provides 70 percent of our carbon free electricity. Wind and solar provide 4 percent.* Nuclear plants operate 90 percent of the time. Wind and solar operate about one third of the time.* The Obama Administration's Nobel prize-winning Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, says nuclear plants are safe and that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored on site for 40-60 years while we figure out the best way to recycle it.* Producing 20 percent of electricity from wind, as the Obama Administration proposes, will require building 186,000 fifty story turbines, enough to cover an area the size of West Virginia - plus 19,000 miles of new transmission lines to carry electricity from remote to populated areas. 100 new nuclear plants could be built mostly on existing sites.* To produce 3-6 percent of our electricity, taxpayers will subsidize wind to the tune of $29 billion over the next ten years. The 104 nuclear reactors we have today were built basically without taxpayer subsides.* It will cost roughly the same to build 100 new nuclear plants (which will last 60 to 80 years) as it would to build 186,000 wind turbines (lasting 20 to 25 years). And this does not count the cost of transmission lines for wind.* There will be twice as many "green jobs" created building 100 reactors as there would be building 186,000 wind turbines.An America stumbling along on expensive, unreliable renewable energy, trying to import most of our energy from abroad, is going to be an America with fewer jobs and a lower standard of living.Nuclear opponents continue to prey on fear of nuclear power. The truth is that if we want safe, cost-effective, reliable, no-carbon electricity we can no longer ignore the wisdom of the rest of the world. The real fear is that we Americans are going to wake up one cloudy, windless day when the light switch doesn't work and discover we've forfeited our capacity to lead the world because we ignored nuclear power, a problem-solving technology that we ourselves invented.
.ExternalClass DIV
From: Jim Hedderly
from a friend who worked on the South Texas Nuclear Project with me (1973-1987)
Good Morning------Having been involved in and around the electric industry since 1974 I believe this report should be mandatory reading for every politician in Washington. I am sending it to friends because I think they will appreciate “what is being said” and the effect it can have on the future of the United States. Cecil O.Friends, this forwarding is from RADM Mike Barr, former COMSUBPAC, who has been managing portions of the Los Alamos Nuclear Test Lab/Site off and on for a number of years. He is a "Nuc' of high stature, and when he says he doesn't forward much, he means it! Yes, this will "severely impact our future generations" for sure. Unfortunately we are not heading in this direction at all! We will be sorry, or should I say, our kids and grand-kids will be sorry. US Fed News, September 22, 2009 Tuesday 9:57 PM ESTWASHINGTON, Sept. 21 -- The office of Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., issued the following news release:Communications experts say that fear is the best way to get attention when you're trying to win an argument. Groups who oppose nuclear power have certainly mastered that technique by playing to economic, environmental, and safety fears.So I'd like to introduce a little element of fear into my argument here. I want to suggest what could happen if we don't adopt nuclear power as a more important part of our energy future- if Russia and China and a lot of other countries go ahead with nuclear - as they are now - while we get left behind. Are we going to be able to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while we're stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or, more likely, not much energy at all? The whole prospect of the United States ignoring this problem-solving technology that we invented is what I fear most about nuclear power.Let me give you an idea of what I'm talking about. A few years ago, in January 2006, the Chinese sent a delegation of nuclear scientists and administrators to the United States on a fact-finding mission. They toured the Idaho National Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory and visited GE and Westinghouse trying to decide which technology to choose for their nuclear program.Now you might wonder why anyone would be seeking our advice when we haven't issued a construction permit to build a new reactor in the past thirty years. But as Kathryn McCarthy, deputy director of the Idaho National Laboratory, said at the time, "The world still looks to us for leadership in this technology. They'd prefer to copy what we've already done. They don't like being on the cutting edge."Well that may have been true in 2006 but it's not anymore. The Chinese eventually chose Westinghouse technology for their first reactors. At the time Westinghouse was an American company. In 2007, Toshiba bought Westinghouse so it is now a Japanese company. Then when the Chinese got their Westinghouse reactor, they insisted on having all the specs so they could see how it was put together. That's what we call "reverse engineering." As you might have guessed, China 's next wave of reactors is going to be built with Chinese technology.By 2008 the Chinese had shovels in the ground. The first four Westinghouse reactors are scheduled for completion by 2011. They also bought a pair of Russian reactors, which should be finished around the same time. They started talking about building 60 reactors over the next 20 years and just recently raised it to 132. They're in the nuclear business.What have we accomplished in the meantime? Well, people have been talking about a "nuclear renaissance" in this country since the turn of the century. In 2007, NRG, a New Jersey company, filed the first application to build a new reactor in 30 years. They're still at the beginning of what promises to be at least a five-year licensing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No one really knows how long it will take, since as soon as the licenses are issued opponents will file lawsuits and the whole thing will move to the courts. If they're lucky, they might have a reactor up-and-running by 2020. Other companies have followed suit and there are now 34 proposals before the NRC, but nobody has yet broken ground. So it isn't likely the Chinese will be coming to us any time soon for more tips on how to build reactors. In fact we'll probably be going to them.That's one aspect of what's going on in the world today. Here's another. As countries began constructing new reactors, it quickly became clear that the bottleneck would be in forging the steel reactor vessels. These are the huge, three-story-high, forged steel units that hold the fuel assembly - the reactor core. That means forging steel parts that may weigh as much as 500 tons.In 2007 the only place you could order a reactor vessel was at the Japan Steel Works and they were backed up for four years. Everyone started saying, "This is going to be what holds up the world's nuclear renaissance. They'll never be able to produce enough of those pressure vessels."So what happened? Well, first Japan Steel Works invested $800 million to triple its capacity. They're going to be turning out 12 pressure vessels a year by 2012. Then the Chinese decided to build their own forge. In less than two years, they put up a furnace that can handle 320-ton parts. They turned out their first components in June. Now they're building two more forges. So you won't see the Chinese standing in line in Japan any time soon. The Russians are doing the same thing. They're in the midst of a big revival, planning to double the production of electricity from nuclear power by 2020. They're also building a forge and just cast their first 600-ton ingot in June. France , Britain , South Korea and India are all following suit. Very soon, every major nuclear country in the world is going to be able to forge its own reactor vessels - except one. And that's us.No steel company in America is capable of forging ingots of more than 270 tons. We're still stuck in the 1960s. That means when it comes to building reactors we'll have to stand in line in Japan or somewhere else. In fact, just about everything in our first new reactors is going to be imported. The nuclear industry tells us that at least 70 percent of the materials and equipment that go into those first few reactors will come from abroad. That's because we've let our nuclear supply industry wither on the vine. In 1990 there were 150 domestic suppliers making parts for nuclear reactors. Today there are only 40 and most of them do their business overseas. Of the 34 proposals before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 are designed by Westinghouse, now a Japanese company and, nine are from Areva, the French giant. General Electric, the only American company left on the field, has partnered with Hitachi . They sold five reactors to American utilities but fared poorly in the competition for federal loan guarantees. Two utilities have now cancelled those projects and there are rumors that GE may quit the field entirely. They don't seem very enthusiastic about nuclear anyway. Have you seen those GE ads for windmills? They're all over the place. Have you seen their ad for the smart grid, where the little girl says, "The sun is still shining in Arizona ?" That was pretty good, too. Now, have you seen any GE ads, in this day of concern about climate change, that 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear power? I certainly haven't.Babcock & Wilcox is the one American company that stirred some interest recently when it announced plans for a new "mini-reactor." This is a 125-megawatt unit that can be manufactured at the factory and shipped by rail to the site, where several units can be fit together like Lego blocks. This left the impression that America might be innovating again, forging back into the lead. But the complete prototype for the Babcock & Wilcox reactor is still two years away and then it may take another five years to get the NRC's design approval. Meanwhile, the Russians are already building a mini-reactor that will be floated into a Siberian village on a barge to produce power. They've already got orders for mini-reactors from 12 countries. In spite of Babcock & Wilcox's fine effort - and I'm certainly proud of them - the Russians are considerably ahead of us.So let's take stock. There are 40 reactors now under construction in 11 countries around the world, none of them in the United States . In fact, only two are in Western Europe - one in Finland and the other in France, both built by Areva. All the rest are in Asia . Although we haven't gotten used to it, Asia may soon be leading the world in nuclear technology.Japan has 55 reactors and gets 35 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, almost double the 19 percent we get here. The Japanese have two reactors under construction and plans for ten more by 2018. They are finding they can build a reactor, start to finish, in less than four years. That's less time than it is taking to get one American reactor through licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.South Korea gets nearly 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is planning another eight reactors by 2015. So far they've bought their reactors from the Japanese but now they have their own Korean Next-Generation Reactor, a 1400-megawatt giant evolved from an American design. They plan to bring two of these online by 2016. Taiwan also gets 18 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is building two new reactors.In September, Bloomberg News reported that Japan Steel Works' stock had risen 8 percent on the Tokyo Stock Exchange because of China 's decision to double future construction from 60 to 132 new reactors. They figure they'll get some of the action. Much of China 's $586 billion stimulus package is going toward developing nuclear power. "While China had been focusing on building new coal plants, it has now shifted its focus to nuclear because of the environmental issue," said Ikuo Sato, president of Japan Steel Works, in Bloomberg.Meanwhile, India is embracing thorium; a technology a lot of people think may eventually replace uranium as nuclear fuel. Thorium is twice as abundant as uranium and it doesn't produce the plutonium that everybody worries will be used to make a bomb. There's a lot of enthusiasm for thorium among scientists in this country. But it's India that's going ahead, with six reactors under construction and ten more planned. They began with a Russian design but are also trying some American technology they acquired in signing their 2005 agreement with the Bush Administration.What about Chernobyl ? Well, just like everybody else, Russia stopped all construction of new reactors after that horrible accident. But they learned their lesson and started constructing much safer reactors in the 1990s, completing the first in 2001. Now they have plans to expand along the lines of France , building two reactors every year from now through 2030. They have a very good reason. Russia has huge natural gas supplies but is wasting them by using one-third of it to produce electricity. They could get six times the price by selling it to Western Europe . So they're replacing gas generation with nuclear - which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing here. Since 1990 every major power plant built in this country has burned natural gas. We now get 20 percent of our electricity from natural gas - more than nuclear's 19 percent - and the natural gas percent is still going up.And be aware, all these countries that are developing nuclear aren't just building for themselves. They're selling to the rest of the world as well. Areva is building reactors in Finland , China , India , Italy , Brazil and Abu Dhabi . The Russians have signed deals with China , Iran , India , Nigeria and Venezuela . They are even selling to us! In July, Tenex , Russia 's uranium enrichment corporation signed a long-term contract to supply fuel to Constellation Energy, which has reactors in Maryland and upstate New York . It was the sixth contract Tenex signed with an American utility in the past two months.How did the Russians end up supplying us with uranium? It's an interesting story. In 1996, Senators Sam Nunn, Pete Domenici and Richard Lugar pioneered a remarkable deal with the post-Soviet government where we would buy highly enriched uranium from old Soviet bomb stocks. The uranium would be sent to France , where it would be "blended down" from 90 percent fissionable material to three percent to be used in American reactors. For the last two decades, old Soviet stockpiles have supplied half our nuclear fuel. One out of every ten light bulbs in America is now powered by a former Soviet weapon - one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in history, although few people seem to know about it. Now the Russians have learned to do de-enrichment themselves. They've decided they don't need France . They say, "Hey, we don't have to import this stuff anymore. We'll just produce it here." Of course, producing things is one way countries get rich and raise their standard of living.Once upon a time we were pioneers in nuclear technology. Forty years ago we were the only people in the world who knew how to deal with the atom. That's not true anymore. We've shied away from the technology while everyone else has forged ahead. Even Europe is coming back. The British have announced they're going to go nuclear -they just hired the French national electric company to help. Italy closed all its reactors right after Chernobyl but ended up importing 80 percent of its electricity at a huge cost. Now they've announced they're going back to nuclear as well. France already gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear and has the cheapest electricity in Europe - not to mention the second-lowest carbon emissions (behind Sweden , which is half nuclear). France also sells $80 billion worth of electricity to the rest of Europe each year. Notice how well France did in the latest downturn - it barely went into recession at all. That's not because the French spend less on government bureaucracy or work harder than us and take fewer vacations. It's because nuclear power is helping to keep their whole economy afloat.So does that mean we've fallen completely behind? Not at all. In fact there's a great irony to all this. We still know how to run reactors better than anyone else. Our fleet of 104 plants is up and running 90 percent of the time. No one else even comes close. France , for all its experience, is still at 80 percent. Other countries are even lower. We still understand the technology better than anyone else in the world. But because we've placed so many obstacles in our path, we aren't allowed to build reactors anymore. And that's what scares me. We're gradually losing our economic place in the world.Now a lot of people say, "Well, what's the difference? So what if we fall behind on nuclear technology? We'll just forge ahead with something else." Well, there are several reasons to be concerned:1) First there's energy security. America already spends $ 300 billion a year importing 2/3rds of our oil from other countries. If we remain on the current path of no new nuclear power or start depending on other countries to build our reactors and supply us with fuel, we're going to be even more vulnerable than we are now. The best way to reduce imported oil, aside from ramping up domestic production, will be to use electricity to power cars and trucks. At first we can plug our electric vehicles in at night, when there is much unused electricity. After that, we should be using nuclear. We can't have Americans going to bed every night hoping the wind will blow so they can start their cars in the morning.2) Second, there's technological leadership. Americans produce year in and year out 25 percent of all the wealth in the world. Most of that wealth has been driven by new technologies. We were the birthplace of the telephone, the electric light, the automobile, the assembly line, radio, television and the computer. But nuclear energy - perhaps the greatest scientific advance of the 20th century - is passing us by. The 21st century is going to run on clean, cheap greenhouse-gas-free nuclear power. And, how can we criticize India and China for not reducing their carbon emissions when we refuse to adopt the best technology ourselves?3) Then there's weapons proliferation. In the 1970s we gave up on nuclear reprocessing in the hope that by not dealing with plutonium we would prevent nuclear weapons from spreading around the world. That has turned out to be an unwise decision. France , Britain , Russia , Canada and Japan went right on reprocessing and no one has stolen plutonium from them. Instead, rogue countries such as North Korea and Pakistan have found their own ways to develop nuclear weapons. The technology of bomb-making is no big secret anymore. The real problem is that, by reneging on world leadership we have left the field to others. For instance, right now the Russians are building a commercial reactor for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela . He's not exactly friendly toward the United States . Just to make things more interesting, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that his office has uncovered evidence Iran may be providing Venezuela with missile technology.But what really worries me are these two things:* First, if we move toward a nuclear-based economy and we have to import 70 percent of the technology and equipment, how are any better off than when we're importing two thirds of our oil? We'll just be creating jobs for steel workers in Japan and China instead of in the United States .* Second, it we don't move toward a nuclear powered economy but try to do everything with conservation and wind and solar, we're going to be sending American jobs overseas looking for cheap energy.So to insure we have enough cheap, clean, reliable electricity in this country to create good high-quality, high-tech jobs, here's what we have to do. The United States should double its production of nuclear power by building 100 nuclear reactors in 20 years.* Nuclear today provides 70 percent of our carbon free electricity. Wind and solar provide 4 percent.* Nuclear plants operate 90 percent of the time. Wind and solar operate about one third of the time.* The Obama Administration's Nobel prize-winning Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, says nuclear plants are safe and that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored on site for 40-60 years while we figure out the best way to recycle it.* Producing 20 percent of electricity from wind, as the Obama Administration proposes, will require building 186,000 fifty story turbines, enough to cover an area the size of West Virginia - plus 19,000 miles of new transmission lines to carry electricity from remote to populated areas. 100 new nuclear plants could be built mostly on existing sites.* To produce 3-6 percent of our electricity, taxpayers will subsidize wind to the tune of $29 billion over the next ten years. The 104 nuclear reactors we have today were built basically without taxpayer subsides.* It will cost roughly the same to build 100 new nuclear plants (which will last 60 to 80 years) as it would to build 186,000 wind turbines (lasting 20 to 25 years). And this does not count the cost of transmission lines for wind.* There will be twice as many "green jobs" created building 100 reactors as there would be building 186,000 wind turbines.An America stumbling along on expensive, unreliable renewable energy, trying to import most of our energy from abroad, is going to be an America with fewer jobs and a lower standard of living.Nuclear opponents continue to prey on fear of nuclear power. The truth is that if we want safe, cost-effective, reliable, no-carbon electricity we can no longer ignore the wisdom of the rest of the world. The real fear is that we Americans are going to wake up one cloudy, windless day when the light switch doesn't work and discover we've forfeited our capacity to lead the world because we ignored nuclear power, a problem-solving technology that we ourselves invented.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Freedom's Discpicles is working with the DAR
Freedom's Discpicles is working with the DAR in supporting our veterans in the VA hospital in Big Springs, TX.
The project, spearheaded by the Comanche Springs chapter of Daughters of> the American Revolution, DAR, is coordinating with the VA hospital to provide Christmas Care Packages to insure the Vets receive much needed items during this special holiday.
Many of the vets there are long term> patients, and have no family in the area.
The VA hospital in Big Springs provides care for vets in a 33 county area in West Texas. All donations go directly to the Veterans no administraion fees,no over head or any other fees are taken out of your donation
Send donations to DAR, in care of Lindy Stumberg P.O.Box 580 Sanderson Texas 79848
The Daughters of the American Revolution is a patriotic society committed to perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and women who achieved American Independence; to promote the development of an enlightened public opinion; and to foster patriotic citizenship.
The project, spearheaded by the Comanche Springs chapter of Daughters of> the American Revolution, DAR, is coordinating with the VA hospital to provide Christmas Care Packages to insure the Vets receive much needed items during this special holiday.
Many of the vets there are long term> patients, and have no family in the area.
The VA hospital in Big Springs provides care for vets in a 33 county area in West Texas. All donations go directly to the Veterans no administraion fees,no over head or any other fees are taken out of your donation
Send donations to DAR, in care of Lindy Stumberg P.O.Box 580 Sanderson Texas 79848
The Daughters of the American Revolution is a patriotic society committed to perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and women who achieved American Independence; to promote the development of an enlightened public opinion; and to foster patriotic citizenship.
I believe this is called a silver lining.
One 82-year-old lady loves Obama and she may have a very good point. She says that Obama is amazing, and is rebuilding the American dream!
She gives us an entirely new slant on the "amazing" job Obama is doing, and she says that she will thank God for the President.
Keep reading for her additional comments and an explanation. When discussing Obama, she says:
1. Obama destroyed the Clinton Political Machine, driving a stake through the heart of Hillary's presidential aspirations - something no Republican was ever able to do.
2. Obama killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - no more Kennedys trollingWashington looking for booze and women wanting rides home.
3. Obama is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race. Evan Bayh had never lost a race. Byron Dorgan had never lost a race. Harry Reid - soon to be GONE! These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed. By the end of 2010, dozens more will be gone. Just think, in December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles, they had picked up 14 Senate seats and 52 House seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. However, in just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the House - if not the Senate - back to the Republicans.
4. Obama has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Sadly, every generation seems to need to re-learn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. Obama is bringing home the lesson very well: Liberals tax, borrow and spend. Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America. Liberals want to take over the economy. Liberals think they know what is best for everyone. Liberals are not happy until they are running YOUR life.
5. Obama has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year, he has rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and broughtout to the streets millions of freedom loving Americans. Name one other time when you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!
6. Obama, with his "amazing leadership," has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a "stimulus" to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded, or moved off-shore.
7. In all honesty, one year ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not afraid of the economy, but afraid of the direction our country was going. I thought, Americans have forgotten what this country is all about. My neighbors and friends, even strangers, have proved to me that my lack of confidence in the greatness and wisdom of the American people has been flat wrong.
8. When the American people wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama has served to wake up these great Americans! After all, this is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed!!
Again, I want to say: "Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama!”
IN GOD WE TRUST!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
She gives us an entirely new slant on the "amazing" job Obama is doing, and she says that she will thank God for the President.
Keep reading for her additional comments and an explanation. When discussing Obama, she says:
1. Obama destroyed the Clinton Political Machine, driving a stake through the heart of Hillary's presidential aspirations - something no Republican was ever able to do.
2. Obama killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - no more Kennedys trollingWashington looking for booze and women wanting rides home.
3. Obama is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race. Evan Bayh had never lost a race. Byron Dorgan had never lost a race. Harry Reid - soon to be GONE! These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed. By the end of 2010, dozens more will be gone. Just think, in December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles, they had picked up 14 Senate seats and 52 House seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. However, in just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the House - if not the Senate - back to the Republicans.
4. Obama has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Sadly, every generation seems to need to re-learn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. Obama is bringing home the lesson very well: Liberals tax, borrow and spend. Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America. Liberals want to take over the economy. Liberals think they know what is best for everyone. Liberals are not happy until they are running YOUR life.
5. Obama has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year, he has rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and broughtout to the streets millions of freedom loving Americans. Name one other time when you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!
6. Obama, with his "amazing leadership," has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a "stimulus" to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded, or moved off-shore.
7. In all honesty, one year ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not afraid of the economy, but afraid of the direction our country was going. I thought, Americans have forgotten what this country is all about. My neighbors and friends, even strangers, have proved to me that my lack of confidence in the greatness and wisdom of the American people has been flat wrong.
8. When the American people wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama has served to wake up these great Americans! After all, this is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed!!
Again, I want to say: "Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama!”
IN GOD WE TRUST!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
In the 10th Year of War,
The U.S. Army now begins its 10th continuous year in combat, the first time in its
history the United States has excused the vast majority of its citizens from service and
engaged in a major, decade-long conflict instead with an Army manned entirely by
professional warriors.
This is an Army that, under the pressure of combat, has turned inward, leaving
civilian America behind, reduced to the role of a well-wishing but impatient spectator.
A decade of fighting has hardened soldiers in ways that civilians can't share. America
respects its warriors, but from a distance.
"They don't know what we do,'' said Col. Dan Williams, who commands an Army
aviation brigade in Afghanistan.
The consequences of this unique milestone in American history are many -- the rise of
a new warrior class, the declining number of Americans in public life with the
sobering experience of war, the fading ideal of public service as a civic responsibility.
But above all, I think, is a
perilous shrinking of common
ground, the shared values and
knowledge and beliefs that
have shaped the way
Americans think about war.
Without it, how will soldiers
and civilians ever see this war
and its outcome in the same
way? Are those faded "Support
the Troops'' magnets enough
to guide us through what is likely to be the murky and unsatisfactory conclusions and
aftermaths of this era's conflicts?
I saw the problem clearly when I got home from my most recent reporting trip in
Afghanistan, where I was embedded with soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division's 1st
Brigade. Many of them were on their second or third combat deployment, a few on
their fourth or fifth. Almost without exception they were excited about what they were
doing, proud of the progress they could see, confident in their piece of the mission.
'I Don't Have Anything Else to Talk About'
At home, I found few people could understand the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many
say it's just too complicated, and are convinced that America is losing. In polls, twothirds
now say they oppose the war. As these polls were being taken in July, I was in
Kabul, where Army Lt. Col. Michael J. Loos, on his fourth deployment, told me: "I
know we are making effective progress. I see it every day. This may be the most
important thing I've ever done in the military.''
It's even becoming more difficult for soldier and civilian to converse. Army Capt.
Stefan Hutnik, a company commander in Afghanistan, recalls being home from a
combat tour and being told by his wife, as they were headed out to a family dinner,
please don't talk about the Army or the war.
"But,'' he said sadly, "I don't have anything else to talk about.''
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
My experience, gathered in 30 years of covering the Army as an embedded
correspondent in peace and war, suggests that it's already late to fill the gap between
today's soldiers and civilians. It might have been easier a decade ago, when the Army
was a sleepy garrison force sent abroad on occasional forays as peacekeepers. What
most soldiers knew of combat was learned at the Army's grueling (but safe) training
centers at Fort Irwin, near Death Valley, Calif., and at Fort Polk's sweltering pine
woods and swamps in Louisiana.
'We Know War Now'
All that changed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"They came and said, 'Get in uniform. Grab your weapons and your ruck[sacks]. No
showers. Move!' We went straight from the gym to the airfield.'' That's how Derek
Sheffer of the 10th Mountain Division went to war 10 years ago. When I met the lanky
staff sergeant in Afghanistan weeks later, his uniform was filthy, and he'd still had no
shower.
Now, more than half a million (665,663, in the Army's latest count) active-duty
soldiers have deployed for a year of combat at least once; 292,800 active-duty
soldiers have deployed twice or more.
"Before 2001 we were largely a garrison-based army,'' said Gen. George Casey, Army
chief of staff. "We lived to train. I grew up training to fight a war I never fought.''
Since 9/11, Casey has spent 32 months in Iraq, as have many others. "We know war,
now,'' he said.
The change has been startling -- and unique in American history. Unlike the draftees
of the Civil War or even the Greatest Generation of World War II, these soldiers do
not become farmers or businessmen or schoolteachers when their tour is over. They
reenlist. They are proud, lean and hard. If they have families, their wives and children
are battered but tough. The soldiers of this generation are arguably the best fighters in
the world.
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
Few civilians can grasp the searing experiences of multiple combat tours. How could
civilians comprehend the skill, the stress and the pride of a platoon sergeant who
keeps his men alive under fire for a year and brings them home safe?
For their part, soldiers whose daily lives depend on self-discipline and sacrifice
disdain what they perceive as the loose values, sloppy discipline and quick-buck selfcenteredness
of civilian society. And each combat deployment drives the two further
apart.
The rhythms of soldiers' lives are not the familiar ones marked by five-day
workweeks, children's birthdays and school vacations, but by repeated 12-month
combat tours separated by short months at home, sequestered on sprawling military
bases fenced off to outsiders. For many troops, the concept of a "normal'' civilian-like
life has faded away.
By 2007, Sgt. 1st Class Michael Pore of Findlay, Ohio, had been deployed three times,
and was finding he was more comfortable in combat than at home. "As soon as you
get back it's a countdown until you go again,'' he said, explaining why he had no
civilian friends, no steady girl and no home of his own. "It's just too hard to let down.''
Fewer soldiers are married than a decade ago, as a consequence both of a high
divorce rate and soldiers like Pore deciding he couldn't put a wife and child through
the wrenching experience of multiple deployments. "I'm scared to even think about a
family now,'' he said.
Until he got married recently, Capt. Dan Gregory, who commands an infantry
company in Afghanistan, found it easiest to "hot bunk'' between year-long
deployments, using whatever bed was empty in an apartment he shared with other
deploying officers. His real home, he said, is the company operations center, whether
at Fort Drum or deployed in combat. "I live my life in 12-month increments,'' he told
me.
'Nobody Knows Our Pain More Than Each Other'
What binds soldiers to this austere life, and separates them from civilians, is the
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
intensity of combat and the love that glows among soldiers dependent on each other
for life. Army Pfc. Robert Bartlett, an Army scout-sniper, was riding in a Humvee near
Baghdad when an IED exploded, ripping away his left eye along with bone and tissue
from his cheek, nose, lip and jaw. The blast collapsed a lung, perforated internal
organs, fractured facial bone and burned away flesh from his face and hands. The
soldier beside him was killed instantly. The turret gunner above Bartlett collapsed on
his own shredded and charred legs.
A bear of a man, Bartlett was dragged out of the kill zone, dead. Frantic medics slit
his throat to insert a breathing tube, massaged his chest, punched in an IV. His heart
fluttered and began pumping weakly. He and the gunner were medevacked away to
years of surgery and rehabilitation.
Looking back on that horror four years later, Bartlett told me his Army experience
was so rewarding, so important, that he'd do it all over again. "It was, hands down,
the best thing I have ever done in my life,'' he said. Today he is devoted to helping
other veterans live full lives. "It's important that we look after one another,'' he said.
"Nobody knows our pain more than each other.''
"War does change you, I believe in a better way, a noble way,'' said Col. Williams, the
helicopter brigade commander whose daughter is an Army second lieutenant and
whose wife is a retired officer. "A decade of combat has made us very hard. It has
made us an incredibly strong Army. I believe we do have a warrior class in this
country.''
"We look at life differently," he said. "For a lot of soldiers, there are two kinds of
people: those who serve, and those who expect to be served, and those who serve are
pretty noble.''
In his cramped plywood office at the edge of an airstrip near Mazar-e-Sharif, he
paused while reflecting on his experiences in combat and back home at Fort Hood,
Tex. "I believe there is a tremendous amount of guilt in civilian society for not having
participated in this war,'' he said. "This is not a criticism. People thank us for our
service, but it rings hollow. There's an awkwardness there that has increased over
time.''
The rate of desertions, even in the thick of two hot wars, has been essentially
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
unchanged. In fiscal year 2000, the Army recorded 3,687 deserters from its activeduty
strength of 482,000 soldiers. In fiscal year 2008, it recorded 3,600 deserters
from a force of 543,000 troops. The Army is more than meeting its recruiting
goals.
Many soldiers, of course, enlist in the Army for economic reasons. "I couldn't find a
job in two years of looking,'' Pvt. Michael Freeman, a 19-year-old from Sacramento,
Calif., told me during a break from basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C. "There are no
jobs at home. I had to make my own path in life and this'' -- he nodded toward the
manicured parade grounds and formations of drilling recruits – "this is it.''
That's not new. But the war has accelerated a significant change in the Army,
annealing it into a profession rather than just a peacetime job. "I am proud to be in
the profession of arms,'' Sgt. Robert Wright told me as he waited for an airlift to
Afghanistan. "When I came in I looked at it like a job, but now? I love saying the NCO
Creed. It speaks for us, it's the standard we live by, what binds us as brothers and
sisters in arms that you just can't get anywhere else.''
'In a Combat Zone . . . Every Decision Has Consequences'
The Army, like the other services, has always demanded that its youngest take on
heavier and heavier responsibilities. In his or her second year, a new soldier is likely
to be in charge of a small fire team; inside of four years a soldier may be leading a
dozen men in combat.
Soldiers thrive on that kind of responsibility. Lt. Col. Kevin Petit, who has served
multiple combat tours, spoke of watching a scene in the film "The Hurt Locker,''
where the soldier comes home from dismantling IEDs in Iraq and at the supermarket
with his wife is stunned by a gigantic display of cereal. To me, this spoke of America's
consumer appetite. To Petit, though, it carried a different meaning: "See, it didn't
matter what cereal he chose -- Froot Loops or Rice Krispies -- no difference! No
consequences to what he decided. But in a combat zone, everything, every decision,
has consequences, some enormous. That's thrilling! That's why we keep going back!''
None of this was foreseen in 1968 when presidential candidate Richard Nixon,
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
desperate for a foothold against the rising tide of anti-war anger sweeping the
country, proposed doing away with the draft. The Pentagon was horrified; so was
much of Congress. Their fear: Who would volunteer in wartime?
When Nixon finally made good on his idea in 1974, the Pentagon was certain the allvolunteer
Army was a good idea -- for peacetime. But a draft would be needed in case
of "mobilization for war,'' insisted Gen. David C. Jones, then chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in a memo cited by Beth Bailey in her history of the volunteer Army,
"America's Army.''
But the all-volunteer Army has performed so well that civilian manpower has become
superfluous. Today, demands for a return to the draft are taken seriously only by a
few. Among them is the New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who is making
his fifth attempt to restore the military draft. The reason, he said this summer, is
America's "total indifference to the suffering and loss of life'' of soldiers. "So few
families have a stake in the war,'' he said, "which is being fought by other people's
children.'' Previous attempts failed in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007.
At a remote outpost in Afghanistan, I listened one evening to a 37-year-old enlisted
soldier on guard duty. He talked softly about a misspent youth, about finding his true
"family'' in the Army. He said he was proud to have learned to survive and excel in
this environment. He said he would without hesitation take a bullet to save a buddy
and that any of them would do the same for him. He said "love'' was not too strong a
word to use to describe the responsibility and gratitude he felt in this relationship to
his squad and platoon.
But he said he also felt as if, having found a home in the Army, he had given up a
place in the civilian world, that the distance of the civilian world from his precarious
existence out in the dangerous Afghan wasteland was simply too far to ever travel.
"A lot of us are here because society has no further use for us,'' he said. "The Army has
become home for a lot of restless souls who can never really go back.''
history the United States has excused the vast majority of its citizens from service and
engaged in a major, decade-long conflict instead with an Army manned entirely by
professional warriors.
This is an Army that, under the pressure of combat, has turned inward, leaving
civilian America behind, reduced to the role of a well-wishing but impatient spectator.
A decade of fighting has hardened soldiers in ways that civilians can't share. America
respects its warriors, but from a distance.
"They don't know what we do,'' said Col. Dan Williams, who commands an Army
aviation brigade in Afghanistan.
The consequences of this unique milestone in American history are many -- the rise of
a new warrior class, the declining number of Americans in public life with the
sobering experience of war, the fading ideal of public service as a civic responsibility.
But above all, I think, is a
perilous shrinking of common
ground, the shared values and
knowledge and beliefs that
have shaped the way
Americans think about war.
Without it, how will soldiers
and civilians ever see this war
and its outcome in the same
way? Are those faded "Support
the Troops'' magnets enough
to guide us through what is likely to be the murky and unsatisfactory conclusions and
aftermaths of this era's conflicts?
I saw the problem clearly when I got home from my most recent reporting trip in
Afghanistan, where I was embedded with soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division's 1st
Brigade. Many of them were on their second or third combat deployment, a few on
their fourth or fifth. Almost without exception they were excited about what they were
doing, proud of the progress they could see, confident in their piece of the mission.
'I Don't Have Anything Else to Talk About'
At home, I found few people could understand the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many
say it's just too complicated, and are convinced that America is losing. In polls, twothirds
now say they oppose the war. As these polls were being taken in July, I was in
Kabul, where Army Lt. Col. Michael J. Loos, on his fourth deployment, told me: "I
know we are making effective progress. I see it every day. This may be the most
important thing I've ever done in the military.''
It's even becoming more difficult for soldier and civilian to converse. Army Capt.
Stefan Hutnik, a company commander in Afghanistan, recalls being home from a
combat tour and being told by his wife, as they were headed out to a family dinner,
please don't talk about the Army or the war.
"But,'' he said sadly, "I don't have anything else to talk about.''
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
My experience, gathered in 30 years of covering the Army as an embedded
correspondent in peace and war, suggests that it's already late to fill the gap between
today's soldiers and civilians. It might have been easier a decade ago, when the Army
was a sleepy garrison force sent abroad on occasional forays as peacekeepers. What
most soldiers knew of combat was learned at the Army's grueling (but safe) training
centers at Fort Irwin, near Death Valley, Calif., and at Fort Polk's sweltering pine
woods and swamps in Louisiana.
'We Know War Now'
All that changed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"They came and said, 'Get in uniform. Grab your weapons and your ruck[sacks]. No
showers. Move!' We went straight from the gym to the airfield.'' That's how Derek
Sheffer of the 10th Mountain Division went to war 10 years ago. When I met the lanky
staff sergeant in Afghanistan weeks later, his uniform was filthy, and he'd still had no
shower.
Now, more than half a million (665,663, in the Army's latest count) active-duty
soldiers have deployed for a year of combat at least once; 292,800 active-duty
soldiers have deployed twice or more.
"Before 2001 we were largely a garrison-based army,'' said Gen. George Casey, Army
chief of staff. "We lived to train. I grew up training to fight a war I never fought.''
Since 9/11, Casey has spent 32 months in Iraq, as have many others. "We know war,
now,'' he said.
The change has been startling -- and unique in American history. Unlike the draftees
of the Civil War or even the Greatest Generation of World War II, these soldiers do
not become farmers or businessmen or schoolteachers when their tour is over. They
reenlist. They are proud, lean and hard. If they have families, their wives and children
are battered but tough. The soldiers of this generation are arguably the best fighters in
the world.
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
Few civilians can grasp the searing experiences of multiple combat tours. How could
civilians comprehend the skill, the stress and the pride of a platoon sergeant who
keeps his men alive under fire for a year and brings them home safe?
For their part, soldiers whose daily lives depend on self-discipline and sacrifice
disdain what they perceive as the loose values, sloppy discipline and quick-buck selfcenteredness
of civilian society. And each combat deployment drives the two further
apart.
The rhythms of soldiers' lives are not the familiar ones marked by five-day
workweeks, children's birthdays and school vacations, but by repeated 12-month
combat tours separated by short months at home, sequestered on sprawling military
bases fenced off to outsiders. For many troops, the concept of a "normal'' civilian-like
life has faded away.
By 2007, Sgt. 1st Class Michael Pore of Findlay, Ohio, had been deployed three times,
and was finding he was more comfortable in combat than at home. "As soon as you
get back it's a countdown until you go again,'' he said, explaining why he had no
civilian friends, no steady girl and no home of his own. "It's just too hard to let down.''
Fewer soldiers are married than a decade ago, as a consequence both of a high
divorce rate and soldiers like Pore deciding he couldn't put a wife and child through
the wrenching experience of multiple deployments. "I'm scared to even think about a
family now,'' he said.
Until he got married recently, Capt. Dan Gregory, who commands an infantry
company in Afghanistan, found it easiest to "hot bunk'' between year-long
deployments, using whatever bed was empty in an apartment he shared with other
deploying officers. His real home, he said, is the company operations center, whether
at Fort Drum or deployed in combat. "I live my life in 12-month increments,'' he told
me.
'Nobody Knows Our Pain More Than Each Other'
What binds soldiers to this austere life, and separates them from civilians, is the
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
intensity of combat and the love that glows among soldiers dependent on each other
for life. Army Pfc. Robert Bartlett, an Army scout-sniper, was riding in a Humvee near
Baghdad when an IED exploded, ripping away his left eye along with bone and tissue
from his cheek, nose, lip and jaw. The blast collapsed a lung, perforated internal
organs, fractured facial bone and burned away flesh from his face and hands. The
soldier beside him was killed instantly. The turret gunner above Bartlett collapsed on
his own shredded and charred legs.
A bear of a man, Bartlett was dragged out of the kill zone, dead. Frantic medics slit
his throat to insert a breathing tube, massaged his chest, punched in an IV. His heart
fluttered and began pumping weakly. He and the gunner were medevacked away to
years of surgery and rehabilitation.
Looking back on that horror four years later, Bartlett told me his Army experience
was so rewarding, so important, that he'd do it all over again. "It was, hands down,
the best thing I have ever done in my life,'' he said. Today he is devoted to helping
other veterans live full lives. "It's important that we look after one another,'' he said.
"Nobody knows our pain more than each other.''
"War does change you, I believe in a better way, a noble way,'' said Col. Williams, the
helicopter brigade commander whose daughter is an Army second lieutenant and
whose wife is a retired officer. "A decade of combat has made us very hard. It has
made us an incredibly strong Army. I believe we do have a warrior class in this
country.''
"We look at life differently," he said. "For a lot of soldiers, there are two kinds of
people: those who serve, and those who expect to be served, and those who serve are
pretty noble.''
In his cramped plywood office at the edge of an airstrip near Mazar-e-Sharif, he
paused while reflecting on his experiences in combat and back home at Fort Hood,
Tex. "I believe there is a tremendous amount of guilt in civilian society for not having
participated in this war,'' he said. "This is not a criticism. People thank us for our
service, but it rings hollow. There's an awkwardness there that has increased over
time.''
The rate of desertions, even in the thick of two hot wars, has been essentially
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
unchanged. In fiscal year 2000, the Army recorded 3,687 deserters from its activeduty
strength of 482,000 soldiers. In fiscal year 2008, it recorded 3,600 deserters
from a force of 543,000 troops. The Army is more than meeting its recruiting
goals.
Many soldiers, of course, enlist in the Army for economic reasons. "I couldn't find a
job in two years of looking,'' Pvt. Michael Freeman, a 19-year-old from Sacramento,
Calif., told me during a break from basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C. "There are no
jobs at home. I had to make my own path in life and this'' -- he nodded toward the
manicured parade grounds and formations of drilling recruits – "this is it.''
That's not new. But the war has accelerated a significant change in the Army,
annealing it into a profession rather than just a peacetime job. "I am proud to be in
the profession of arms,'' Sgt. Robert Wright told me as he waited for an airlift to
Afghanistan. "When I came in I looked at it like a job, but now? I love saying the NCO
Creed. It speaks for us, it's the standard we live by, what binds us as brothers and
sisters in arms that you just can't get anywhere else.''
'In a Combat Zone . . . Every Decision Has Consequences'
The Army, like the other services, has always demanded that its youngest take on
heavier and heavier responsibilities. In his or her second year, a new soldier is likely
to be in charge of a small fire team; inside of four years a soldier may be leading a
dozen men in combat.
Soldiers thrive on that kind of responsibility. Lt. Col. Kevin Petit, who has served
multiple combat tours, spoke of watching a scene in the film "The Hurt Locker,''
where the soldier comes home from dismantling IEDs in Iraq and at the supermarket
with his wife is stunned by a gigantic display of cereal. To me, this spoke of America's
consumer appetite. To Petit, though, it carried a different meaning: "See, it didn't
matter what cereal he chose -- Froot Loops or Rice Krispies -- no difference! No
consequences to what he decided. But in a combat zone, everything, every decision,
has consequences, some enormous. That's thrilling! That's why we keep going back!''
None of this was foreseen in 1968 when presidential candidate Richard Nixon,
AddThis utility frame
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/print/[9/17/2010 8:25:20]
desperate for a foothold against the rising tide of anti-war anger sweeping the
country, proposed doing away with the draft. The Pentagon was horrified; so was
much of Congress. Their fear: Who would volunteer in wartime?
When Nixon finally made good on his idea in 1974, the Pentagon was certain the allvolunteer
Army was a good idea -- for peacetime. But a draft would be needed in case
of "mobilization for war,'' insisted Gen. David C. Jones, then chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in a memo cited by Beth Bailey in her history of the volunteer Army,
"America's Army.''
But the all-volunteer Army has performed so well that civilian manpower has become
superfluous. Today, demands for a return to the draft are taken seriously only by a
few. Among them is the New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who is making
his fifth attempt to restore the military draft. The reason, he said this summer, is
America's "total indifference to the suffering and loss of life'' of soldiers. "So few
families have a stake in the war,'' he said, "which is being fought by other people's
children.'' Previous attempts failed in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007.
At a remote outpost in Afghanistan, I listened one evening to a 37-year-old enlisted
soldier on guard duty. He talked softly about a misspent youth, about finding his true
"family'' in the Army. He said he was proud to have learned to survive and excel in
this environment. He said he would without hesitation take a bullet to save a buddy
and that any of them would do the same for him. He said "love'' was not too strong a
word to use to describe the responsibility and gratitude he felt in this relationship to
his squad and platoon.
But he said he also felt as if, having found a home in the Army, he had given up a
place in the civilian world, that the distance of the civilian world from his precarious
existence out in the dangerous Afghan wasteland was simply too far to ever travel.
"A lot of us are here because society has no further use for us,'' he said. "The Army has
become home for a lot of restless souls who can never really go back.''
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Daddy's Poem
Her hair was up in a pony tail,
her favorite dress tied with a bow.
Today was Daddy's Day at school,
and she couldn't wait to go.
But her mommy tried to tell her,
that she probably should stay home
Why the kids might not understand,
if she went to school alone.
But she was not afraid;
she knew just what to say.
What to tell her classmates
of why he wasn't there today.
But still her mother worried,
for her to face this day alone.
And that was why once again,
she tried to keep her daughter home.
But the little girl went to school
eager to tell them all.
About a dad she never sees a dad
who never calls.
There were daddies along the wall in back, for everyone to meet.
Children squirming impatiently,
anxious in their seats
One by one the teacher called
a student from the class.
To introduce their daddy,
as seconds slowly passed.
At last the teacher called her name,
every child turned to stare.
Each of them was searching,
a man who wasn't there.
"Where's her daddy at?"
She heard a boy call out.
"She probably doesn't have one,"
another student dared to shout.
And from somewhere near the back,
she heard a daddy say,
"Looks like another deadbeat dad,
too busy to waste his day."
The words did not offend her,
as she smiled up at her Mom.
And looked back at her teacher,
who told her to go on.
And with hands behind her back,
slowly she began to speak.
And out from the mouth of a child,
came words incredibly unique.
"My Daddy couldn't be here,
because he lives so far away.
But I know he wishes he could be,
since this is such a special day.
And though you cannot meet him,
I wanted you to know.
All about my daddy,
and how much he loves me so.
He loved to tell me stories
he taught me to ride my bike.
He surprised me with pink roses,
and taught me to fly a kite.
We used to share fudge sundaes,
and ice cream in a cone..
And though you cannot see him.
I'm not standing here alone.
"Cause my daddy's always with me,
even though we are apart
I know because he told me,
he'll forever be in my heart"
With that, her little hand reached up,
and lay across her chest..
Feeling her own heartbeat,
beneath her favorite dress.
And from somewhere there in the crowd of dads, her mother stood in tears.
Proudly watching her daughter,
who was wise beyond her years.
For she stood up for the love
of a man not in her life.
Doing what was best for her,
doing what was a right.
And when she dropped her hand back down, staring straight into the crowd.
She finished with a voice so soft,
but its message clear and loud.
"I love my daddy very much,
he's my shining star.
And if he could, he'd be here,
but heaven's just too far.
You see he is an American Soldier and died just this past year
When a roadside bomb hit his convoy and taught Americans to fear.
But sometimes when I close my eyes,
it's like he never went away."
And then she closed her eyes,
and saw him there that day.
And to her mother's amazement,
she witnessed with surprise.
A room full of daddies and children,
all starting to close their eyes.
Who knows what they saw before them,
who knows what they felt inside.
Perhaps for merely a second,
they saw him at her side.
"I know you're with me Daddy,"
to the silence she called out.
And what happened next made believers,
of those once filled with doubt..
Not one in that room could explain it,
for each of their eyes had been closed.
But there on the desk beside her,
was a fragrant long-stemmed pink rose.
And a child was blessed, if only for a moment, by the love of her shining star.
And given the gift of believing,
that heaven is never too far.
They say it takes a minute to find a special person,
an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them,
but then an entire life to forget them.
Send this to the people you'll never forget and
remember to send it also to the person that sent it to you.
It's a short message to let them know that you'll never forget them.
If you don't send it to anyone, it means you're in a hurry
and that you've forgotten your friends.
Take the time...to live and love.
Until eternity.
God Bless
There must be many children in the same boat as this little girl,
thanks to our servicemen and their families for the sacrifice they
are making to keep our country Free.
No, Freedom ISN'T free!!
Her hair was up in a pony tail,
her favorite dress tied with a bow.
Today was Daddy's Day at school,
and she couldn't wait to go.
But her mommy tried to tell her,
that she probably should stay home
Why the kids might not understand,
if she went to school alone.
But she was not afraid;
she knew just what to say.
What to tell her classmates
of why he wasn't there today.
But still her mother worried,
for her to face this day alone.
And that was why once again,
she tried to keep her daughter home.
But the little girl went to school
eager to tell them all.
About a dad she never sees a dad
who never calls.
There were daddies along the wall in back, for everyone to meet.
Children squirming impatiently,
anxious in their seats
One by one the teacher called
a student from the class.
To introduce their daddy,
as seconds slowly passed.
At last the teacher called her name,
every child turned to stare.
Each of them was searching,
a man who wasn't there.
"Where's her daddy at?"
She heard a boy call out.
"She probably doesn't have one,"
another student dared to shout.
And from somewhere near the back,
she heard a daddy say,
"Looks like another deadbeat dad,
too busy to waste his day."
The words did not offend her,
as she smiled up at her Mom.
And looked back at her teacher,
who told her to go on.
And with hands behind her back,
slowly she began to speak.
And out from the mouth of a child,
came words incredibly unique.
"My Daddy couldn't be here,
because he lives so far away.
But I know he wishes he could be,
since this is such a special day.
And though you cannot meet him,
I wanted you to know.
All about my daddy,
and how much he loves me so.
He loved to tell me stories
he taught me to ride my bike.
He surprised me with pink roses,
and taught me to fly a kite.
We used to share fudge sundaes,
and ice cream in a cone..
And though you cannot see him.
I'm not standing here alone.
"Cause my daddy's always with me,
even though we are apart
I know because he told me,
he'll forever be in my heart"
With that, her little hand reached up,
and lay across her chest..
Feeling her own heartbeat,
beneath her favorite dress.
And from somewhere there in the crowd of dads, her mother stood in tears.
Proudly watching her daughter,
who was wise beyond her years.
For she stood up for the love
of a man not in her life.
Doing what was best for her,
doing what was a right.
And when she dropped her hand back down, staring straight into the crowd.
She finished with a voice so soft,
but its message clear and loud.
"I love my daddy very much,
he's my shining star.
And if he could, he'd be here,
but heaven's just too far.
You see he is an American Soldier and died just this past year
When a roadside bomb hit his convoy and taught Americans to fear.
But sometimes when I close my eyes,
it's like he never went away."
And then she closed her eyes,
and saw him there that day.
And to her mother's amazement,
she witnessed with surprise.
A room full of daddies and children,
all starting to close their eyes.
Who knows what they saw before them,
who knows what they felt inside.
Perhaps for merely a second,
they saw him at her side.
"I know you're with me Daddy,"
to the silence she called out.
And what happened next made believers,
of those once filled with doubt..
Not one in that room could explain it,
for each of their eyes had been closed.
But there on the desk beside her,
was a fragrant long-stemmed pink rose.
And a child was blessed, if only for a moment, by the love of her shining star.
And given the gift of believing,
that heaven is never too far.
They say it takes a minute to find a special person,
an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them,
but then an entire life to forget them.
Send this to the people you'll never forget and
remember to send it also to the person that sent it to you.
It's a short message to let them know that you'll never forget them.
If you don't send it to anyone, it means you're in a hurry
and that you've forgotten your friends.
Take the time...to live and love.
Until eternity.
God Bless
There must be many children in the same boat as this little girl,
thanks to our servicemen and their families for the sacrifice they
are making to keep our country Free.
No, Freedom ISN'T free!!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
H.R. 4646 your money gone
Please read this. H. R. 4646 I have gone into THOMAS (Library of Congress) and printed out and read all 15 pages of this bill which has been given the "Short Title" of "Debt Free America Act." It is the most socialistic thing I have ever read. Just think, if you deposit $5,000.00 into your checking account or savings account the bank has to take out 1% or $50.00 of that money and send it to Washington. Then, any checks or cash you take out of your bank they will deduct 1% from what is still in the bank and send it to Washington. Total put in the Bank $5,000.00. $100.00 of that you give to Washington.This bill, spells it out that everyone will pay the Government 1% of their gross income. Page 9 states the House and Senate shall convene not later than November 23, 2010 and Page 11 states the vote on passage shall occur not later than December 23, 2010.SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTACT THEIR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL. If you don't know who your Congressman or Senator is, go to Goggle, type in "(your state) Congressman email address". When it comes up, click on "Complete E-mail address for Congress/House, Senate, Governors and get both e-mail and FAX info. The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter DeFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections. Suggest that you pass this along and also to your state senator and representative and US Congressman and Senators. One percent transaction tax is proposedPresident Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the Novemberelection to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged.If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. Some will say aw it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.http://www.standard.net/node/44797
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Texans Unite against the cancer of socialism! You may have to hold your nose to vote for Perry, but consider the alternative. More insanity from the
I thought you might find this interesting...
I've wondered about Bill White. Just received this from a friend.
To all my friends around Texas :
Please forward this to everyone you know who lives and/or votes in Texas .
Bill White is bad news. He handcuffed our police and decimated our fire dept. He is a straight running progressive/liberal, he will not close our borders, and he will ruin our state economically YOU must vote in the upcoming elections. Rick Perry is not the best choice we ever had, but of the two options, he is far superior. The Houston , inner city is almost all Black, Latino, and Asian. There is a huge gay community, and many of the white voters work for the city and or county and are union. They say that Texas will go as Houston goes. If that happens, we are screwed. Many of the options that Texas may have at this time will be lost under White's hand. Please get off your duff and work to defeat Bill White in the up-coming election for Governor of our great State of Texas . Shelia Jackson Lee and Gene Green are both congressmen, and their districts are Houston proper. Both support Obama and his agenda and both support Bill White. We are working to defeat Green and Lee, and we already got rid of White in Houston . Do not be fooled, White does not represent the Republicans or Independents of Houston .
Liberal Democrat Bill White might beat Rick Perry in the general election; so for you guys outside of Houston , you may be interested in knowing that White is a strong supporter of President Obama and his programs. White turned Houston into the biggest "sanctuary city" east of Los Angeles by refusing to let the Houston Police or ICE ask a criminal or even a suspect if they were in this country legally. So now we have the largest illegal alien population in the country outside of LA. White, just recently the Mayor of Houston, left the city's financial cabinet bare. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina a few years ago, Dallas and San Antonio took in 5-10 thousand refugees each. White brought in 250,000, put them up in his "buddies" empty apartment buildings, and let the federal government pay their rents for over two years.Time reports that White won landslide victories in the last two elections for Mayor. What you may not know is that the City of Houston does not have much more than 35% whites in their population. White is counting on Houston and his hometown of San Antonio to pull him through this election. He often bills himself as a conservative businessman, and that is likely how he will present himself in Dallas and west Texas . White did serve in the Clinton Administration, was formerly chairman of the Texas Democratic party, and has a strong Democratic political base throughout Texas . He also has plenty of money.
We conservative folks are going to have to get serious about this stuff and do our best to keep the country together. My expertise is non-existent, but here is my theory, Obama and the liberals will push hard for immigrant amnesty, thereby giving him another fifteen million votes. So whether or not everyone is upset with Obamacare, he will get reelected unless we support a good candidate. That means we must help here in our own state, with a few dollars to boot.
God Bless America ! And God Bless Texas !
I've wondered about Bill White. Just received this from a friend.
To all my friends around Texas :
Please forward this to everyone you know who lives and/or votes in Texas .
Bill White is bad news. He handcuffed our police and decimated our fire dept. He is a straight running progressive/liberal, he will not close our borders, and he will ruin our state economically YOU must vote in the upcoming elections. Rick Perry is not the best choice we ever had, but of the two options, he is far superior. The Houston , inner city is almost all Black, Latino, and Asian. There is a huge gay community, and many of the white voters work for the city and or county and are union. They say that Texas will go as Houston goes. If that happens, we are screwed. Many of the options that Texas may have at this time will be lost under White's hand. Please get off your duff and work to defeat Bill White in the up-coming election for Governor of our great State of Texas . Shelia Jackson Lee and Gene Green are both congressmen, and their districts are Houston proper. Both support Obama and his agenda and both support Bill White. We are working to defeat Green and Lee, and we already got rid of White in Houston . Do not be fooled, White does not represent the Republicans or Independents of Houston .
Liberal Democrat Bill White might beat Rick Perry in the general election; so for you guys outside of Houston , you may be interested in knowing that White is a strong supporter of President Obama and his programs. White turned Houston into the biggest "sanctuary city" east of Los Angeles by refusing to let the Houston Police or ICE ask a criminal or even a suspect if they were in this country legally. So now we have the largest illegal alien population in the country outside of LA. White, just recently the Mayor of Houston, left the city's financial cabinet bare. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina a few years ago, Dallas and San Antonio took in 5-10 thousand refugees each. White brought in 250,000, put them up in his "buddies" empty apartment buildings, and let the federal government pay their rents for over two years.Time reports that White won landslide victories in the last two elections for Mayor. What you may not know is that the City of Houston does not have much more than 35% whites in their population. White is counting on Houston and his hometown of San Antonio to pull him through this election. He often bills himself as a conservative businessman, and that is likely how he will present himself in Dallas and west Texas . White did serve in the Clinton Administration, was formerly chairman of the Texas Democratic party, and has a strong Democratic political base throughout Texas . He also has plenty of money.
We conservative folks are going to have to get serious about this stuff and do our best to keep the country together. My expertise is non-existent, but here is my theory, Obama and the liberals will push hard for immigrant amnesty, thereby giving him another fifteen million votes. So whether or not everyone is upset with Obamacare, he will get reelected unless we support a good candidate. That means we must help here in our own state, with a few dollars to boot.
God Bless America ! And God Bless Texas !
Monday, August 23, 2010
outsourced to India
Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States
of America will be outsourced to India as of September 1‚ 2009.
The move is being made in order to save the president's $500‚000 yearly salary‚ and also a result of his record $750 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 3 months.
It is anticipated that $7 trillion can be saved to the end of the president's term. "We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge‚" stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). "We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay‚" Reynolds noted.
President Obama was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time.
Gurvinder Singh‚ a tele-technician for Indus Teleservices‚ Mumbai India‚ will assume the office of President as of September 1‚ 2009. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls‚ NY‚ thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month‚ but no healthcoverage or other benefits.
It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India ‚ he will be working primarily at night. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center‚" stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President."
A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President‚ this should not be a problem as President Obama had never been familiar with the issues either.
Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses‚ he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. "We know these scripting tools work‚" stated the spokesperson.
"President Obama has used them successfully for years‚ with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about."
President Obama
will receive health coverage‚ expenses‚ and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two-week waiting period‚ he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment payments for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid‚ as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.
President Obama has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower‚ Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower‚ Obama may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime.
A greeter position at Wal-Mart was suggested due to President Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands‚ as well as his special smile. (Actually‚ K-Mart would be a better choice because he could use a teleprompter to announce Blue Light Specials‚ too.)
of America will be outsourced to India as of September 1‚ 2009.
The move is being made in order to save the president's $500‚000 yearly salary‚ and also a result of his record $750 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 3 months.
It is anticipated that $7 trillion can be saved to the end of the president's term. "We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge‚" stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). "We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay‚" Reynolds noted.
President Obama was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time.
Gurvinder Singh‚ a tele-technician for Indus Teleservices‚ Mumbai India‚ will assume the office of President as of September 1‚ 2009. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls‚ NY‚ thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month‚ but no healthcoverage or other benefits.
It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India ‚ he will be working primarily at night. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center‚" stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President."
A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President‚ this should not be a problem as President Obama had never been familiar with the issues either.
Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses‚ he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. "We know these scripting tools work‚" stated the spokesperson.
"President Obama has used them successfully for years‚ with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about."
President Obama
will receive health coverage‚ expenses‚ and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two-week waiting period‚ he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment payments for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid‚ as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.
President Obama has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower‚ Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower‚ Obama may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime.
A greeter position at Wal-Mart was suggested due to President Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands‚ as well as his special smile. (Actually‚ K-Mart would be a better choice because he could use a teleprompter to announce Blue Light Specials‚ too.)
So take it with a grain or two of salt.
Like most stuff on the web, you have to wonder about the accuracy, but this is not too hard to believe. But when you see the arguments against Israel by the Palestinians, the argument laid out below is not too far-fetched. So take it with a grain or two of salt.
Snopes found it to be False, but their bias has also been pointed out. http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/interview.asp
Snopes found it to be False, but their bias has also been pointed out. http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/interview.asp
Subject: Interview with an undocumented (illegal) Mexican, at a protest march in Texas
Here is a REAL INTERVIEW with an “undocumented” illegal Mexican at a protest march in Houston, Texas. This is good! Below is a good example of a discussion with a master of circular logic. Don't be logical, don't respect the truth or your adversary, just say what you think that makes a new case when the previous case gets too difficult to defend.
Jim Moore, reporting for a Houston TV station on the streets of downtown Houston
Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching in the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and what do you expect to accomplish by this protest?
Juan: We want our rights. We will show you how powerful we are. We will bring Houston to its knees!
Jim: What rights?
Juan: Our right to live here...legally. Our rights to get all the benefits you get.
Jim: When did you come to the United States?
Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven other friends.
Jim: Why did you come?
Juan: For work I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in Mexico. Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to school free, if I lose my job I will get Welfare, and someday I will have the Social Security. Nothing like that in Mexico!
Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you came?
Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a right to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards.
Jim: How did you acquire those documents?
Juan: From a guy in Dallas. He charged me a lot of money too.
Jim: Did you know that those documents were forged?
Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work.
Jim: What is the "right" you speak of?
Juan: The right of all Aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it!
Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about rights for Aliens.
Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have Alien rights, like the right to pursue happiness. I wasn't happy in Mexico, so I came here.
Jim: I think you are referring to the declaration of Independence and that document speaks to unalienable rights. Not Alien rights.
Juan: Whatever.
Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are you carrying a Mexican Flag?
Juan: Because I am Mexican.
Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty ... to become a US citizen.
Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico that you Gringos stole from us. We want it returned to its rightful owner.
Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas. After winning the war with Mexico, Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA. It was not stolen from Mexico.
Juan: That is a Gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So was California, New Mexico and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you Gringos steal, like oil and babies. You are a country of thieves.
Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies?
Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China. I see them all over the place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out How is this fair?
Jim: So, you really don't want to become an American citizen then.
Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and speak their native language wherever and whenever they please. That's another thing we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish. Teachers must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak Spanish than English. It is our right!
Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper documentation, what rights would I have there?
Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that's different.
Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live wherever they please.
Juan: You Gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want Mexico too? Mexico has its rights. You Gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why would you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools, or welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my country. Stay in the country of your birth.
Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue. Thank you for your comments.
Juan: Viva Mexico!
Pass this along to every American citizen in your address books and to every representative in the state and federal government. If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be "redistributed" to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the "fray". Check history, it is full of nations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values.
One person CAN make a difference. One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one........ The battle for our secure borders and immigration laws that actually mean something, however, hasn't even begun.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Here is a REAL INTERVIEW with an “undocumented” illegal Mexican at a protest march in Houston, Texas. This is good! Below is a good example of a discussion with a master of circular logic. Don't be logical, don't respect the truth or your adversary, just say what you think that makes a new case when the previous case gets too difficult to defend.
Jim Moore, reporting for a Houston TV station on the streets of downtown Houston
Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching in the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and what do you expect to accomplish by this protest?
Juan: We want our rights. We will show you how powerful we are. We will bring Houston to its knees!
Jim: What rights?
Juan: Our right to live here...legally. Our rights to get all the benefits you get.
Jim: When did you come to the United States?
Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven other friends.
Jim: Why did you come?
Juan: For work I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in Mexico. Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to school free, if I lose my job I will get Welfare, and someday I will have the Social Security. Nothing like that in Mexico!
Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you came?
Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a right to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards.
Jim: How did you acquire those documents?
Juan: From a guy in Dallas. He charged me a lot of money too.
Jim: Did you know that those documents were forged?
Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work.
Jim: What is the "right" you speak of?
Juan: The right of all Aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it!
Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about rights for Aliens.
Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have Alien rights, like the right to pursue happiness. I wasn't happy in Mexico, so I came here.
Jim: I think you are referring to the declaration of Independence and that document speaks to unalienable rights. Not Alien rights.
Juan: Whatever.
Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are you carrying a Mexican Flag?
Juan: Because I am Mexican.
Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty ... to become a US citizen.
Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico that you Gringos stole from us. We want it returned to its rightful owner.
Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas. After winning the war with Mexico, Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA. It was not stolen from Mexico.
Juan: That is a Gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So was California, New Mexico and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you Gringos steal, like oil and babies. You are a country of thieves.
Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies?
Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China. I see them all over the place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out How is this fair?
Jim: So, you really don't want to become an American citizen then.
Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and speak their native language wherever and whenever they please. That's another thing we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish. Teachers must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak Spanish than English. It is our right!
Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper documentation, what rights would I have there?
Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that's different.
Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live wherever they please.
Juan: You Gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want Mexico too? Mexico has its rights. You Gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why would you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools, or welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my country. Stay in the country of your birth.
Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue. Thank you for your comments.
Juan: Viva Mexico!
Pass this along to every American citizen in your address books and to every representative in the state and federal government. If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have a nation to call your own nor anything you have worked for left since it will be "redistributed" to the activists while you are so peacefully staying out of the "fray". Check history, it is full of nations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values.
One person CAN make a difference. One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one........ The battle for our secure borders and immigration laws that actually mean something, however, hasn't even begun.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, August 21, 2010
What to Expect if Bush Tax Cuts Expire
This column was written by William R. Bischoff, a certified public accountant in Colorado Springs, Colorado for PPC, which is part of the tax and accounting business at Thomson Reuters. The opinions expressed here are his own.
The so-called Bush tax cuts (from legislation enacted in 2001 and 2003) are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. But you may not understand the full extent of what is in store if Congress simply sits back and allows the expirations to occur without making any changes.
Here are some highlights:
Higher income tax rates
Some of you may believe that only individuals in the top two federal income tax
brackets will face higher rates when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will automatically go up for everyone who pays taxes — not just “the rich.”
Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest “new” bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 36 % bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 39.6% bracket.
My take: The Administration has pledged to keep the three lowest brackets (the 10%, 15%, and 25% brackets) in place. The 28% bracket would be expanded to accommodate unmarried taxpayers with income (whatever that is determined to mean) below $200,000 and joint filers with income below $250,000. Only taxpayers with income above those levels would be affected by the new 36% and 39.6% rates. However, Congress must make changes, and the president must go along for these things to happen.
Right now, that’s looking more problematic than a few months ago, and it now appears that Congress won’t even bring up the subject until sometime after returning from its summer recess in August. The only thing we know for sure is that tax rates will go up for everyone if Congress sits on its hands.
The marriage penalty will get worse
The Bush tax cuts put a relatively favorable framework for married individuals in place to reduce the so-called marriage penalty, which can cause a married couple to pay more federal income tax than if they were single. Note that the marriage penalty still exists for many married couples, but it’s not as harsh as before the Bush tax cuts. However, unless Congress makes changes and the president goes along, the marriage penalty will automatically get worse when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Currently, the standard deduction for some married couples is as much as 200% of the amount for singles. Starting next year, the new lowest bracket of 15% for married filing joint (MFJ) couples will be only 167% as wide as the 15% bracket for singles and the new standard deduction for married couples in other brackets – as well as those who file taxes separately — isn’t as generous.
My take: Presumably, the Administration’s pledge to keep things the same for lower and middle-income taxpayers includes extending the Bush tax cut elements that reduce the impact of the marriage penalty. However, extending those elements would require Congress to make changes and the president to go along. Will it happen? We don’t know, and neither does anyone else.
Higher capital gains and dividends taxes for all
Right now, the maximum federal rate on garden-variety long-term capital gains and qualified dividends is 15 percent. Starting next year, the maximum long-term capital gains rate will increase to 20 % (or 18 % on gains from assets held for over five years). Dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary income rates. So, the maximum rate on dividends will balloon to a whopping 39.6 %.
My take: The Administration has repeatedly said the current 0% and 15% rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends will be left in place except for married couples with income above $250,000 and unmarried individuals with income above $200,000.
For that to happen, however, Congress must take action and the president must go along. A few months ago that looked likely, but now it looks more problematic. In particular, we think the odds are rising that dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary rates (of up to 39.6 %), starting next year. We hope we are wrong.
In addition to these changes, both the itemized deduction and personal exemption phase-out rules will return with a vengeance. But current versions of the child tax credit, earned income credit, dependent care credit, and adoption credit are also likely to be continued.
Stay tuned for developments, but don’t hold your breath.
Our Washington politicians don’t seem to be in a big hurry to resolve the many tax uncertainties that we have summarized here. Even worse, it appears the odds are increasing that we may not see resolution until after the November election. Good grief!
The so-called Bush tax cuts (from legislation enacted in 2001 and 2003) are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. But you may not understand the full extent of what is in store if Congress simply sits back and allows the expirations to occur without making any changes.
Here are some highlights:
Higher income tax rates
Some of you may believe that only individuals in the top two federal income tax
brackets will face higher rates when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will automatically go up for everyone who pays taxes — not just “the rich.”
Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest “new” bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 36 % bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 39.6% bracket.
My take: The Administration has pledged to keep the three lowest brackets (the 10%, 15%, and 25% brackets) in place. The 28% bracket would be expanded to accommodate unmarried taxpayers with income (whatever that is determined to mean) below $200,000 and joint filers with income below $250,000. Only taxpayers with income above those levels would be affected by the new 36% and 39.6% rates. However, Congress must make changes, and the president must go along for these things to happen.
Right now, that’s looking more problematic than a few months ago, and it now appears that Congress won’t even bring up the subject until sometime after returning from its summer recess in August. The only thing we know for sure is that tax rates will go up for everyone if Congress sits on its hands.
The marriage penalty will get worse
The Bush tax cuts put a relatively favorable framework for married individuals in place to reduce the so-called marriage penalty, which can cause a married couple to pay more federal income tax than if they were single. Note that the marriage penalty still exists for many married couples, but it’s not as harsh as before the Bush tax cuts. However, unless Congress makes changes and the president goes along, the marriage penalty will automatically get worse when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Currently, the standard deduction for some married couples is as much as 200% of the amount for singles. Starting next year, the new lowest bracket of 15% for married filing joint (MFJ) couples will be only 167% as wide as the 15% bracket for singles and the new standard deduction for married couples in other brackets – as well as those who file taxes separately — isn’t as generous.
My take: Presumably, the Administration’s pledge to keep things the same for lower and middle-income taxpayers includes extending the Bush tax cut elements that reduce the impact of the marriage penalty. However, extending those elements would require Congress to make changes and the president to go along. Will it happen? We don’t know, and neither does anyone else.
Higher capital gains and dividends taxes for all
Right now, the maximum federal rate on garden-variety long-term capital gains and qualified dividends is 15 percent. Starting next year, the maximum long-term capital gains rate will increase to 20 % (or 18 % on gains from assets held for over five years). Dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary income rates. So, the maximum rate on dividends will balloon to a whopping 39.6 %.
My take: The Administration has repeatedly said the current 0% and 15% rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends will be left in place except for married couples with income above $250,000 and unmarried individuals with income above $200,000.
For that to happen, however, Congress must take action and the president must go along. A few months ago that looked likely, but now it looks more problematic. In particular, we think the odds are rising that dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary rates (of up to 39.6 %), starting next year. We hope we are wrong.
In addition to these changes, both the itemized deduction and personal exemption phase-out rules will return with a vengeance. But current versions of the child tax credit, earned income credit, dependent care credit, and adoption credit are also likely to be continued.
Stay tuned for developments, but don’t hold your breath.
Our Washington politicians don’t seem to be in a big hurry to resolve the many tax uncertainties that we have summarized here. Even worse, it appears the odds are increasing that we may not see resolution until after the November election. Good grief!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Fort Bliss Says It Will Examine Its Handling of Brain Injuries
Medical commanders at one of America's largest military bases have ordered a review into the care provided to soldiers suffering from traumatic brain injury, in response to an investigation by NPR and ProPublica.
Col. James Baunchalk, the commander of William Beaumont Army Medical Center at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, told members of Congress that he was concerned by our report [2], which found that soldiers there struggled to receive adequate care for mild traumatic brain injuries.
The hospital is "committed to delivering the very highest quality care and support to our soldiers and their families, including those who may be affected by traumatic brain injuries," Baunchalk wrote in a June 21 letter to Rep. Harry Teague [3], D-N.M., a copy of which was obtained by NPR and ProPublica [4].
The Pentagon's official figures show that more than 115,000 troops have suffered mild traumatic brain injuries, also called concussions, since the wars began in Iraq and Afghanistan. But our story said those figures likely understate the true toll, with some studies suggesting that the injuries go undiagnosed in tens of thousands of troops [5]. While most recover quickly, some grapple with lasting mental and physical problems from exposure to explosions.
Our story focused on several soldiers at Fort Bliss, the third-largest American military base by troop population. The soldiers told us they endured long waits to see specialists and met with frustrating skepticism from doctors over the severity of their conditions. All had ongoing problems with memory, concentration and other cognitive functions.
We also wrote about Building 805, a small clinic at the base that was supposed to screen soldiers with traumatic brain injuries. Although the base has recently added billions of dollars of barracks and other facilities to accommodate newly arriving troops, Building 805 has remained shuttered for almost a year, for want of computer wiring, commanders told us.
Teague, who visited the base [6] on Sunday and met with soldiers mentioned in our story, said he would continue to press the hospital to make sure that adequate care was being delivered.
"I would like to further examine how the overall quality of TBI care at Fort Bliss serves our soldiers compared to what they may have access to in civilian medicine," Teague wrote in a June 25 letter [7] to Baunchalk. "I would like to ensure that the system of TBI care, in general, adequately addresses the needs of our service members and is adequately resourced."
Base officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on their letter to Teague. The letter listed a series of programs in place to treat soldiers and catch problems in care, but some of the information appeared to contradict material that base officials provided to us.
Fort Bliss told Teague it had 10 medical staff members "assigned full time" to the traumatic brain injury program. But in a letter responding to our questions [8] in April, officials listed only four employees providing such care full-time. They listed seven other clinicians who worked part-time with brain-injured patients.
Fort Bliss also told Teague that Building 805 was "completed at the end of January 2010." But in interviews with us and in their written response to our questions, base officials told us that Building 805 "was completed in July 2009," though utilities were not installed until February 2010.
Fort Bliss officials also told us during our visit there in April that Building 805 would be open at the end of May. In their letter to Teague, they said that they had not even issued a contract to install the computer wiring until June 17 — nine days after our stories ran.
Sgt. Victor Medina and his wife, Roxana Delgado, who were featured in our stories, said they were pleased that Teague and others have paid attention to soldiers' concerns about treatment for brain injuries. Medina had to fight to get referred off base to a private medical facility specializing in cognitive rehabilitation.
But, they said, more work remains to be done.
"We're seeing a lot of progress in terms of attention and interest," Delgado said. "But we want to see more. We want to see real reform."
Update: Fort Bliss got back to us on Thursday to respond to our questions with this letter [9]. They reiterated that the Fort Bliss program has 10 "full time" clinicians devoted to traumatic brain injury, though one slot is vacant.
They also said that Building 805, a clinic for screening soldiers with traumatic brain injury, was completed for occupancy earlier this week. The process to move in clinical staff has begun, according to the written responses.
Finally, Fort Bliss acknowledged for the first time that the base has not yet received full validation under Defense Department guidelines for its traumatic brain injury treatment program. Fort Bliss is designated a "Level 2" facility, meaning it is supposed to have one of the top 10 treatment programs in the U.S. to address mild and moderate brain damage. Fort Bliss officials said Thursday that the base passed an initial round of examination, but does not expect to receive full validation of its program until Fall 2010.
Col. James Baunchalk, the commander of William Beaumont Army Medical Center at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, told members of Congress that he was concerned by our report [2], which found that soldiers there struggled to receive adequate care for mild traumatic brain injuries.
The hospital is "committed to delivering the very highest quality care and support to our soldiers and their families, including those who may be affected by traumatic brain injuries," Baunchalk wrote in a June 21 letter to Rep. Harry Teague [3], D-N.M., a copy of which was obtained by NPR and ProPublica [4].
The Pentagon's official figures show that more than 115,000 troops have suffered mild traumatic brain injuries, also called concussions, since the wars began in Iraq and Afghanistan. But our story said those figures likely understate the true toll, with some studies suggesting that the injuries go undiagnosed in tens of thousands of troops [5]. While most recover quickly, some grapple with lasting mental and physical problems from exposure to explosions.
Our story focused on several soldiers at Fort Bliss, the third-largest American military base by troop population. The soldiers told us they endured long waits to see specialists and met with frustrating skepticism from doctors over the severity of their conditions. All had ongoing problems with memory, concentration and other cognitive functions.
We also wrote about Building 805, a small clinic at the base that was supposed to screen soldiers with traumatic brain injuries. Although the base has recently added billions of dollars of barracks and other facilities to accommodate newly arriving troops, Building 805 has remained shuttered for almost a year, for want of computer wiring, commanders told us.
Teague, who visited the base [6] on Sunday and met with soldiers mentioned in our story, said he would continue to press the hospital to make sure that adequate care was being delivered.
"I would like to further examine how the overall quality of TBI care at Fort Bliss serves our soldiers compared to what they may have access to in civilian medicine," Teague wrote in a June 25 letter [7] to Baunchalk. "I would like to ensure that the system of TBI care, in general, adequately addresses the needs of our service members and is adequately resourced."
Base officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on their letter to Teague. The letter listed a series of programs in place to treat soldiers and catch problems in care, but some of the information appeared to contradict material that base officials provided to us.
Fort Bliss told Teague it had 10 medical staff members "assigned full time" to the traumatic brain injury program. But in a letter responding to our questions [8] in April, officials listed only four employees providing such care full-time. They listed seven other clinicians who worked part-time with brain-injured patients.
Fort Bliss also told Teague that Building 805 was "completed at the end of January 2010." But in interviews with us and in their written response to our questions, base officials told us that Building 805 "was completed in July 2009," though utilities were not installed until February 2010.
Fort Bliss officials also told us during our visit there in April that Building 805 would be open at the end of May. In their letter to Teague, they said that they had not even issued a contract to install the computer wiring until June 17 — nine days after our stories ran.
Sgt. Victor Medina and his wife, Roxana Delgado, who were featured in our stories, said they were pleased that Teague and others have paid attention to soldiers' concerns about treatment for brain injuries. Medina had to fight to get referred off base to a private medical facility specializing in cognitive rehabilitation.
But, they said, more work remains to be done.
"We're seeing a lot of progress in terms of attention and interest," Delgado said. "But we want to see more. We want to see real reform."
Update: Fort Bliss got back to us on Thursday to respond to our questions with this letter [9]. They reiterated that the Fort Bliss program has 10 "full time" clinicians devoted to traumatic brain injury, though one slot is vacant.
They also said that Building 805, a clinic for screening soldiers with traumatic brain injury, was completed for occupancy earlier this week. The process to move in clinical staff has begun, according to the written responses.
Finally, Fort Bliss acknowledged for the first time that the base has not yet received full validation under Defense Department guidelines for its traumatic brain injury treatment program. Fort Bliss is designated a "Level 2" facility, meaning it is supposed to have one of the top 10 treatment programs in the U.S. to address mild and moderate brain damage. Fort Bliss officials said Thursday that the base passed an initial round of examination, but does not expect to receive full validation of its program until Fall 2010.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Liberal Money Trail
Received this from a fairly reliable source. I have not verified any of the following, as my source generally does a pretty good job of that before sending along this type of information.
This will make you spit nails! I knew PARTS of this, but not all. A MUST READ if you want to understand the specific liberal (monetary!) agenda of these greedy socialists! Please forward to all your friends. When you get to the "Kicker" of the email, you better be sitting down... -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Liberal Money Trail
This makes Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.
This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It's not hope and change... it is money. I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It's definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below), but ad lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US . It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.ShoreBank survived and invested in many "green" businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama's White House transition team.(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled" thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it, the brother of Bill Ayers the terrorist.Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends). Interesting? And now the closing... Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will "sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket. But, here's the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 $TRILLION$ each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 $billion$ to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 $billion$ each year.But don't forget SHOREBANK. With 10 $trillion$ flowing through its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 $billion$ in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 $billion$ just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year.
Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"The two main enemies of the PEOPLE are criminals and government, so let us tie the second one down with the chains of the CONSTITUTION so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson
LIVE FREE... or DIE FIGHTING!!
This will make you spit nails! I knew PARTS of this, but not all. A MUST READ if you want to understand the specific liberal (monetary!) agenda of these greedy socialists! Please forward to all your friends. When you get to the "Kicker" of the email, you better be sitting down... -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Liberal Money Trail
This makes Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.
This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It's not hope and change... it is money. I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It's definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below), but ad lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US . It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.ShoreBank survived and invested in many "green" businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama's White House transition team.(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled" thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it, the brother of Bill Ayers the terrorist.Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends). Interesting? And now the closing... Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will "sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket. But, here's the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 $TRILLION$ each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 $billion$ to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 $billion$ each year.But don't forget SHOREBANK. With 10 $trillion$ flowing through its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 $billion$ in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 $billion$ just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year.
Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"The two main enemies of the PEOPLE are criminals and government, so let us tie the second one down with the chains of the CONSTITUTION so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson
LIVE FREE... or DIE FIGHTING!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
