« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
January 30, 2007
The State of the Union Stinks
Tonight, our guest is Dr. Robert Swansborough, is joining us in a discussion of the State of the Union and the President's State of the Union address. We will discuss the President's domestic agenda, including the renewal of the unfunded No Child Left Behind act, and the President's foreign agenda including his plans for a troop surge and to hold Iran responsible for supporting insurgent activity in Iraq.
Join us this evening on WGOW 102.3 and on http://freespeechamerica.us at 7 p.m. for our discussion of the State of the Union and whether our State of the Union stinks.
Free Speech America-- Voicing America's Opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System
Posted by sjames at 09:51 AM | Comments (2)
READ THE FINE PRINT: Is BUSH serious about decreasing gas consumption?
President Bush said in his seventh SOTU (State of the Union speech) that he wanted to lower gas consumption by creating new mandates for oil companies and new standards for automakers. Smartly, at least, he suggested such mandates in this direction would enhance our energy security and address climate change.
But an oil man by dynasty and trade, Bush may have a hard time selling his sincerity of purpose on reducing our gas consumption in the U.S. Consider his critics, as published in the Washington Post.
Twenty in 10:
Bush said he has a "goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years." However, the fine print is this: Administration officials said that the goal is 20 percent below projected annual gasoline usage, not off today's levels. That's very significant for oil markets, where analysts look at the balance of rising supplies and rising demand. "If you made this type of reduction . . . U.S. petroleum consumption wouldn't be flat, but it would not grow meaningfully," said Frederick W. Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp., who said he applauds Bush's "balanced" approach.
Raising fuel-economy standards:
Bush advisers said that the president supports raising fuel-efficiency standards to take effect in model year 2010 for cars and model year 2012 for trucks. He also wants to change the way the standards are applied. Currently the fuel standards apply to the average of all the cars each carmaker sells in a year. Bush would make new standards for cars "attribute-based" -- creating many different standards based on, for example, size. And he would give carmakers some flexibility in how they meet targets. (These standards are scheduled to go into effect for light trucks starting in 2008.) And the fine print is this: The new system promotes efficiency advances for every kind of vehicle, not just for one model. The president does not want Congress to set a new miles-per-gallon standard, but the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that Bush's proposal could raise the fleet average to 34 miles per gallon by 2017.
New renewable-fuel target:
Bush said he will ask Congress to require oil companies to use 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. The administration said this would replace 15 percent of the projected annual gasoline consumption. The questions: How will that target be met? This year the ethanol industry will produce more than 7.5 billion gallons, almost all of it corn-based, passing the current target that had been set for 2012. But it would take more than last year's entire U.S. corn harvest to make enough ethanol to meet the target. Most industry experts say that there is not enough evidence that producing biofuels from other sources can be done on anything close to that scale. And the fine print is this: Bush changed the language on the mandate to say that "alternative," not just "renewable," fuels could be part of that volume. The only difference that makes by federal definitions is to add what are called coal-to-liquids fuels. One company has a proposal before the Energy Department for a $2 billion plant.
Doubling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 2027:
The president's proposal calls for resuming the purchase of 100,000 barrels a day for the reserve, a practice suspended after Hurricane Katrina. The reserve has 691 million barrels; it has room for 727 million barrels. But the fine print is this: The plan calls for spending $10 billion to add storage facilities, including the expansion of sites in Louisiana and Texas, and addition of a new site at a salt cavern in Mississippi. An additional $55 billion would be spent buying the fuel over 20 years -- at a price of just less than $69 a barrel, a hefty premium over the current price of $54.77 a barrel.
Posted by wjbailes at 06:14 AM | Comments (1)
January 29, 2007
Can Clinton win?
On Sunday, January 28, 2007 the Associated Press reported "Clinton takes responsibility for Iraq vote." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did two things. First, she blamed President Bush for his misuse of authority given to him by Congress to act on Iraq. Second, as the Associated Press reports that Clinton states "I take responsibility" for [my] role in allowing that to happen."
Mrs. Clinton, making a "presidential" campaign swing in Iowa this weekend, met with Democratic activists making the statement “I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the President misused his authority...he misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."
As the first woman running for president, Clinton is obviously taking responsibility for her vote on Iraq while throwing a rock at the president for his misuse of power. Clinton wants to be President, and it appears by her statements on Iraq she is willing to fight to win.
The question is will Clinton taking responsibility for her vote on Iraq help her win the election. Is Senator Clinton offering a sufficient explanation to rank and file Democrats regarding her support for going to war in Iraq? Perhaps, even more important, can she win as a woman? If Senator Clinton was a man, would her path to the White House be easier?
In its article, the Associated Press reports that Clinton also expressed confidence that voters were ready to elect a woman president. "It's one of these issues that evolves over time... I am very confident I can see it unfold."
Senator Clinton will see it unfold, as a woman her greatest challenge may be the fact she is a woman—Clinton’s greatest obstacle is her sex—
With her bold statement on Iraq, one thing is for sure-Clinton is serious about her run for the White House; she now must be serious on overcoming her greatest obstacle—
She is a woman.
http://freespeechamerica.us
Posted by sjames at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)
January 28, 2007
Let's Make a Deal
In Tennessee, the Lt. Governor serves as speaker of the Senate. The Lt. Governor is elected by the members of the State Senate. Democratic State Senator Rosalind Kurita ended Democratic Lt. Governor Wilder's term. State Senator Kurita voted with Republicans to end Lt. Governor Wilder’s term as the nation’s longest serving Lt. Governor. State Senator Kurita says she voted her conscience in voting for a Republican to replace the Democratic Lt. Governor.
With her vote, Senator Kurita gave politics in Tennessee another black eye. Her vote and subsequent appointment to Speaker Pro Tem of the State Senate shows voters back room deals are alive and well in Nashville, Tennessee. Senator Kurita’s vote for Republican Ron Ramsey is obviously a “Let’s Make a Deal” vote—Ron Ramsey is now the most powerful State Senator and Rosalind Kurita is now his number two.
Senator Kurita states she voted her conscience; she states she is a Democrat, and her vote is good for Democrats and the people of Tennessee. Senator Kurita leaves the impression that this change in leadership is a wake-up call for everyone to put politics aside by casting votes for the best interests of the people of Tennessee. Senator Kurita proclaims no deals were made, no promises were given, she claims her vote is a vote of conscience—after her vote of conscience the man she votes for appoints her to Speaker Pro Tem of the State Senate. Can anyone say “Let’s Make a Deal?”
By appointing Senator Kurita to “the number two position,” Senator Ramsey shows he is no better than Senator Kurita-both made deals for positions of power. In this Let's Make a Deal move, Senator Kurita obviously jockeyed for a position of power in the Senate. In return, Senator Ramsey obviously made a deal for a position of power in the Senate.
Did Senator Kurita vote her conscience or did she vote for power? The answer is obviously that she voted for power. If Senator Kurita’s vote is a vote of conscience, she would have turned down any position of power offered to her by State Senator Ron Ramsey. Instead, within days of her vote she accepted a position of power.
Senator Kurita had an opportunity to prove she voted her conscience by turning Senator Ramsey’s offer of power down. Instead, she made a deal.
Stuart James
info@freespeechamerica.net
Posted by sjames at 09:46 AM | Comments (1)
January 27, 2007
Bush the Decision Maker
The Washington Post, in an article titled “Bush Defies Lawmakers to Solve Iraq" reports:
"Declaring "I'm the decision maker," President Bush yesterday challenged congressional efforts to formally condemn his Iraq plan, while Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned that a proposed Senate resolution criticizing the deployment of additional troops would embolden the enemy.”
Mr President, you have been the decision maker for over six years now—where are you, as the decision maker, taking us as a Nation, globally and domestically? Despite your calls for cooperation with Democrats your arrogance continues—you may be a decision maker, but the decisions you are making require modification, and require cooperation with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Your attitude, your Vice President’s attitude and the attitude of your advisors show all of us the spirit of cooperation you proclaimed as part of your State of the Union has no meaning. You continue to have a "my way or the highway" approach to governing this nation.
Continue reading "Bush the Decision Maker"
Posted by sjames at 09:46 AM | Comments (1)
Half & Half ~ SOTU Breakdown
With Democrats in control of Congress, President Bush chose to divide his State of the Union (SOTU) address evenly between domestic issues and foreign/military issues. Each of these broad issues received about 20+ minutes in a 49-minute speech last Tuesday night, Jan. 23, 2007.
Below is a breakdown of his SOTU in minutes and issues. Notice that domestic policy is addressed in the first twenty or so minutes, obviously nodding to Democratic power. But why no mention of Katrina progress? Too obviously a disaster for this administration? Too painful a domestic issue for this president? Too tragic.
Minutes Devoted to Issues in President Bush's SOTU
· 1 of 49 to Introduction
· 8 of 49 to Economy
· 2 of 49 to Education
· 4 of 49 to Health Care
· 2 of 49 to Immigration
· 4 of 49 to Energy
· 1 of 49 to Judicial Nominees
· 6 of 49 to Terrorism
· 4 of 49 to Middle East
· 8 of 49 to Iraq
· 4 of 49 to Diplomacy
· 6 of 49 to Heroes
· 1 of 49 to Conclusion
Posted by wjbailes at 06:16 AM | Comments (0)
January 25, 2007
Iraq an Enourmous Success
Vice President Cheney defends the strategy in Iraq after the President's State of the Union. From the Washington Post.
Defending Iraq War, Defiant Cheney Cites 'Enormous Successes'
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 25, 2007; A01
Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the administration has achieved "enormous successes" in Iraq but complained that critics and the media "are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure" that they are undermining U.S. troops in a war zone, striking a far more combative tone than President Bush did in his State of the Union address the night before.
In a television interview that turned increasingly contentious as it wore on, Cheney rejected the gloomy portrayal of Iraq that has become commonly accepted even among Bush supporters. "There's problems" in Iraq, he said, but it is not a "terrible situation." And congressional opposition "won't stop us" from sending 21,500 more troops, he said, it will only "validate the terrorists' strategy."
The defiant tenor contrasted sharply with Bush's speech Tuesday night, when the president congratulated Democrats on their election victory, offered to work with them on a variety of domestic policies, and told skeptics of his latest Iraq plan that he respects their arguments even as he asked them to give him one more chance to win the war. Bush acknowledged deep troubles in Iraq and made little effort to paint it a success. In a recent interview, Bush said his old policy was heading for "slow failure."
Continue reading "Iraq an Enourmous Success"
Posted by sjames at 06:09 AM | Comments (2)
January 24, 2007
Bruce Plante's Last Word on the State of the Union
Bruce Plante told us on Free Speech America he was working on a cartoon commentary on the State of the Union. We could not leave the subject without posting his work on this subject. Next week we will address the State of the Union on Free Speech America-Voicing America's Opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System.
Posted by sjames at 07:15 PM | Comments (0)
January 23, 2007
Bruce Plant Cartoon Commentary A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words
Editorial cartoonists serve a valuable purpose in giving comment on the news of the day. These cartoons are sometimes poignant and at other times controversial. Many are humorous, making a humorous comment on the day's news.
There is an apparent trend in the United States where newspapers are no longer employing full-time editorial cartoonists. If this trend continues, most cartoonists will become freelance, with newspapers not having a full-time staff cartoonist to use art in commenting on the issues facing us.
Continue reading "Bruce Plant Cartoon Commentary A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words"
Posted by sjames at 09:58 AM | Comments (0)
Clinton for President
Tonight on Free Speech America--Bruce Plante, Editorial Cartoonist for the Chattanooga Times Free Press. 7pm on WGOW 102.3 and at http://www.freespeechamerica.us
CARTOON COMMENTARY: AN EDITORIAL CARTOON IS WORTH A MILLION WORDS
Free Speech America--Voicing America's Opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System
Posted by sjames at 05:49 AM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2007
Bruce Plante: Mr. Corker Goes to Washington
Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker were in a tight race for the United State Senate. The race was expensive and brutal. During the campaign Bob Corker, a multimillionaire, put his money in the race. Here is a clever cartoon regarding Corker's wealth and the influence of money in Washington. Mr. Plante will be our guest Tuesday at 7pm on Free Speech America on WGOW 102.3 and http://freespeechamerica.us
Free Speech America--Voicing America's opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System
Posted by sjames at 10:47 AM | Comments (0)
January 19, 2007
Plante: A New Day in Washington?
Here is another Plante cartoon on the change in majority in Washington from Republican to Democrat:
Posted by sjames at 01:38 PM | Comments (0)
Overturning Roe v. Wade
Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? Here is an article from Slate Magazine on the subject. The artilce is found at http://www.slate.com
jurisprudence
Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade
On the ruling's anniversary, its fans should celebrate another case, too.
By Kenji Yoshino
Posted Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007, at 12:10 PM ET
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade next week, any celebration of that 1973 opinion must include a celebration of the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the Supreme Court upheld the legal right to abortion. Along the way, the justices articulated a systematic test for when they could overrule their own precedents—and in applying it, found that Roe did not present such an instance.
Continue reading "Overturning Roe v. Wade"
Posted by sjames at 05:54 AM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2007
Plante Cartoons on the Blog
In preparing for next week's guest, we are putting up several cartoons on the blog so you can get an idea of Bruce Plante's work. This cartoon deals with the issue of Hussein's execution and his past relationship with Donald Rumsfeld. Feel free to comment on these cartoons, we may read your comments when Bruce Plante is our guest Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 7 p.m. on WGOW 102.3 and at http://freespeechamerica.us
Free Speech America-voicing opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System
Posted by sjames at 06:01 PM | Comments (0)
David Fowler's Pro-Family Agenda
David Fowler's Pro-Family Agenda
David Fowler is actively writing opinions on the Chattanoogan.com, the last being titled "The Prospect for Family-Friendly Legislation." David Fowler artfully hides behind two things-diplomacy and history. He is using his experience in the State Senate, and the recent news of the election of a new Lieutenant Governor, to support a religious right agenda-using diplomacy and history to advance his family friendly legislation. His agenda is political, not moral. His agenda is political, not religious. His agenda is not in the best interests of the people of the state.
A close reading of Mr. Fowler's pieces clearly show the readers that Mr. Fowler has one purpose; the purpose is to advance a right wing agenda relating to "family friendly legislation." Simply put, Mr. Fowler has an antiabortion agenda in the Legislature, and he is using his editorial pieces to advance that antiabortion agenda. More important, it is clear that Mr. Fowler has an agenda to advance a religious right view of morals and, a religious right view of how we should believe in God.
Mr. Fowler has his right to express his views, and to advance the agenda of the organization for which he works. However, Mr. Fowler should directly state his purpose-passing family-friendly legislation that comports with the values of right wing conservatives-he needs to openly admit that his agenda is based upon a conservative religious philosophy, a philosophy designed to impose a certain view of religion on the rest of us through the political process.
In viewing Mr. Fowler's positions, the reading public must ask several questions. First, Mr. Fowler since when did we start legislating family friendly legislation instead of letting our religious leaders talk about it in our churches? Mr. Fowler, are our churches failing us, creating a need for political leaders to pass a family-friendly legislation? Mr. Fowler, since when did we stop allowing our families to dictate family friendly values, and start letting people in Nashville dictate our family values? Mr. Fowler, since when did family-friendly legislation take priority over having our religious leaders, in our local communities, help us in defining our values? Mr. Fowler, since when did we want our leaders in Nashville, or even in Washington, DC, to pass legislation on our morals? Mr. Fowler, why would we, as a diverse society, want elected leaders in Nashville to dictate our religious beliefs by passing "family friendly legislation?" Mr. Fowler, why is religion becoming so intertwined with government that we are forgetting that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom without government interference or influence? Mr. Fowler, isn't family-friendly legislation on our moral values a Christian mission in the political world? Mr. Fowler, why would we want politicians passing family-friendly legislation when family friendly legislation starts with the family, in our communities, and in our churches? Finally, Mr. Fowler is your mission a religious one, imposing a conservative view of religion by using the term "family friendly legislation?"
Mr. Fowler, you have forgotten that we live in a diverse nation made up of the diverse people from diverse cultures and diverse religious backgrounds. Having your family-friendly legislation ignores that diversity, imposing the will of the few on the will of the many.
I think it is time for all of us to recognize what Mr. Fowler means by "family friendly legislation." Family-friendly legislation is a mask, a mask for a right wing conservative movement imposing a conservative view upon a diverse world, using the political process to obtain that goal.
Stuart James
Posted by sjames at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)
Plante: State of the Union
On Tuesday January 23, 2007 Bruce Plante joins Free Speech America (7pm on http://www.freespeechamerica.us and WGOW 102.3) to discuss his work as an editorial cartoonist. This week we are posting various cartoons by Mr. Plante. Today's deals with the President's State of the Union Address. Tell us what you think of Mr. Plante's commentary.
FreeSpeech America-voice your opinions through the Interactive Broadcasting System.
Posted by sjames at 06:00 AM | Comments (0)
January 17, 2007
Cartoon Commentary: A Cartoon Is Worth a Million Words
Bruce Plante will join us on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 7 p.m. on Free Speech America at http://www.freespeeechamerica.us and WGOW 102.3. Bruce is an editorial cartoonist for the Chattanooga Times Free Press. His cartoons are poignant and always thought-provoking. Bruce knows humor, and his use of "cartoon commentary" always keeps his "readers" smiling.
On Tuesday, January 23, 2007 please join us to discuss his work, and learn how Cartoon Commentary is an art form that is worth a million words.
Join us on Free Speech America-voicing your opinions on the interactive broadcasting system
Posted by sjames at 06:04 PM | Comments (0)
Bruce Plante: A Cartoon is Worth a Thousand Words
Posted by sjames at 06:16 AM | Comments (0)
Clinton, Obama & Edwards
Clinton, Obama & Edwards--No, this is not the name of a law firm but the names of three high profile candidates "exploring" a run for President. We know it is hard to believe, but the race for President is on, with three of the highest profile Democrats putting their names out in the public, starting a new political season. With the 2006 elections hardly "cold" Presidential politics are heating up--can we make it through the political rhetoric for two years? Are Clinton, Obama and Edwards starting too early? Will Democrats blow this election before it even starts? Will the public grow so tired of all this stuff that in the end voter turnout will be low?
No one knows the answers, but one thing is for sure...
The race for the White House is on.
From Free Speech America--Voicing your opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System
From the Washington Post:
Continue reading "Clinton, Obama & Edwards"
Posted by sjames at 06:00 AM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2007
The Middle Way ~ How Democrats Will Lead
I believe that Democrats will only lead as well as they stop and listen to and speak for the majority of Americans. That means adopting the MIDDLE WAY of doing politics. Between extremists of all kinds, is the majority who start businesses or work hard, raise and care for families, and keep our communities going.
By finding common ground with all Americans Democrats will bring more success to America, as the New York Times reports today in an article titled "Democrats Seek the Middle on Social Issues."
Here's an excerpt:In the past 12 years, Democratic strategists say they have learned some hard lessons. Many said they were dismayed to see the religion gap after the 2004 election, with the Republicans’ overwhelming strength among churchgoers and the widespread perception that Democrats were a secular party insensitive to issues of values.
Since then, party leaders say, they have tried hard to connect with those voters, to convince them that, as Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said, “We are not a bunch of libertines who want to see the superego of society disappear.” Some of the new, prominent Democrats in Congress, like Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, are social conservatives, recruited and cited by Democratic leaders as evidence of the party’s diversity.
Posted by wjbailes at 07:24 AM | Comments (0)
A New Day?
Posted by sjames at 06:09 AM | Comments (0)
January 15, 2007
I have a dream....
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal... I have a dream that our little four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today...." Martin Luther King was a man of vision, a man of hope, a man of courage.
In 2006 we saw significant changes in the political climate in the United States. We saw significant changes in the political climate in Chattanooga and Hamilton County Tennessee. In effectuating this change, black voters came together, showing strength by exercising their right to vote. Blacks banded together to elect new leaders to our County Commission, to reelect our Governor, and giving Harold Ford Jr. over 59% of the vote in the City of Chattanooga—defeating Senator Bob Corker in his home town. The unity demonstrated by the black community was strong, and this vote showed that significant changes can be made if we come together to exercise our free-speech rights--by voting.
Today is Martin Luther King Day, and we celebrate the birth of one of the greatest civil rights leaders in history. Martin Luther King Jr. not only stood for the rights of all minorities, he stood for the rights of all people. Martin Luther King understood the power of free-speech; he used his free speech rights to advance equality, and to stand up for the rights of all people. He was a pioneer believing in equality for all human beings.
In honor of Martin Luther King's birthday, I am proud to say that I believe in the vote, and that the people of the City of Chattanooga represent the values of Hamilton County, of Tennessee, and of this great nation. The power of the vote demonstrated in 2006 represent the values of Martin Luther King, and his message-there must be equality for all. So, in celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday, I want to say that I have a dream...A dream where all votes, all voices, and all people, regardless of race or creed, will be heard.
Today I hope we can share in the dream….
Stuart James
Posted by sjames at 08:48 AM | Comments (0)
Excerpt from Martin Luther King Free at Last Speech
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, though even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow. I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up... live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will they be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
Posted by sjames at 06:00 AM | Comments (0)
January 14, 2007
186 Years of a Democrat as Lt Governor Ends
Bruce Plante says it all in this cartoon:
Post your comments here and participate in Free Speech America's Interactive Broadcast System.
Posted by sjames at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)
The Colonial War--Mission Accomplished?
From Free Speech America--Voicing your opinions on the Interactive Broadcasting System
Here is the text of the President's speech on Iraq. Instead of mission accomplished, it appears the mission is just beginning...Read for yourself what he said, and draw your own conclusions.
[As Prepared for Delivery]
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
Continue reading "The Colonial War--Mission Accomplished?"
Posted by sjames at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)
January 12, 2007
What Americans Feel ~ Shouldn't It Matter, Mr. Bush?
Just in case you were wondering too~here's how Americans feel about Bush and the Iraq War (from the Polling Report):
Posted by wjbailes at 06:57 AM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2007
Chuck Hagel--The Worst Foreign Policy Blunder Since Viet Nam
Last night the President called for a troop increase in Iraq. In reponse Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, called the President's plan the worst foreign policy blunder since Viet Nam. Today, on NPR Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called it the biggest foreign policy blunder in American History.
The President continues with a "head in the sand" mentality. The new plan is evidence of his stay the course/we have to win mentality.
Today, the President called for a bipartisan group to study the new strategy, and make recommendations on Iraq--he continues to ignore the careful work of the Iraq Study Group. The President continues to ignore the bipartisan work of the Iraq Study Group because it does not meet with his "we gotta win" mentality. It is growing more obvious every day, we may be in a no win situation. The current strategy is going to prove to be disasterous.
We live in historic times, and what occurs in Iraq may define our history--a history that may lead many to agree that Iraq is the worst foriegn policy blunder in American History
Free Speech America
http://www.freespeechamerica.us
Posted by sjames at 07:22 PM | Comments (0)
January 09, 2007
URGENT: Surge Protection Needed Against Non-Realists!
If you increase your troop levels in a war, you will increase casualties and fatalities--unless the other side flees or surrenders. This fact of war makes the Iraq problem worse because we're talking about troop surges in a country torn to bits by civil warriors and insurgents that won't stop ambushing, fighting, and killing U.S. troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians.
At least John McCain admits that a troop surge (which he supports in greater numbers than Bush is proposing for Iraq) will bring more death to Americans: "Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties." What McCain does not seem to recognize (despite his Vietnam experience) is that in this case Iraqi insurgent attacks also raise the number of Iraqi military and civilian deaths. Meaning: An escalation of war.
It is a fact that any troop surges will escalate bloodshed of U.S. troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians--as was true after the U.S. troop surge in August 2006. At that time, Bush sent another 12,000 U.S. troops into Iraq. Here are the results on U.S. forces serving in Iraq after a surge in August 2006:
Listen tonight to FreeSpeechAmerica radio on WGOW 102.3 FM as we discuss Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq, its obstacles constitutionally and militarily, and its consequences if funding is approved or not approved by Congress.
Posted by wjbailes at 05:25 AM | Comments (2)
January 08, 2007
NO FUNDS FOR SURGE?
Tomorrow night join us at 7pm on Free Speech America for "Troop Surge to Victory or No Funds for Surge, a Politcal War on Iraq." Our guests will include Dr. Robert Swansborough a political commentator and Political Science Professor. We will also be joined by Terry Lee, Executive Director of the Hamilton County Democratic Party and Political Analyst. We will discuss the President's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.
Here is food for thought on our Interactive Broadcasting Network at WGOW 102.3 FM and live on the internet at http://www.freespeechamerica.us
Democrats May Deny Funds for Iraq Surge
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
58 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - In a blunt warning to the White House, congressional Democrats said Monday they may seek to deny funds for the type of short-term troop buildup that President Bush is expected to announce for Iraq Wednesday night.
As Democrats began their first full week in the congressional majority, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would "look at everything" to wind down the war effort, short of cutting off support for troops already deployed.
He said Bush's expected call for an additional $100 billion for the war would receive close scrutiny.
Continue reading "NO FUNDS FOR SURGE?"
Posted by sjames at 07:58 PM | Comments (0)
January 07, 2007
Troop Surge for Victory?
Democrats Vow to Challenge Bush's Iraq Proposal
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 7, 2007; 2:38 PM
Democratic leaders of Congress vowed today to use their powers of spending and policy oversight to challenge President Bush's expected proposal this week for boosting U.S. military forces in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops.
Calling Iraq a nation in "complete chaos," new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democrats cast the anticipated Bush plan as an escalation of the Iraq war rather than the significant change of course sought by American voters, and said as a result they would treat the plan -- and new funding requests -- with strong skepticism.
"If the president wants to add to this mission, he's going to have to justify it," Pelosi said on CBS's "Face the Nation," emphasizing that while Congress will not cut off funding for troops now in Iraq, the White House will no longer have a "blank check" for expanding the war effort.
Posted by sjames at 07:31 PM | Comments (2)
January 05, 2007
A New Direction or the Same Ole Bickering
Congress convened yesterday with the Democrats having a majority in both the House and the Senate. As the Congress opens, Republicans complain they are left out of the legislative process. Republicans claim Democrats are excluding them from the 100 hour plan. Democrats respond that it is not necessary to include Republicans in implementing legislation as no debate nor amendments are needed--legislation such as increasing the minimum wage have been debated and need to be passed.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, will Democrats exclude Republicans from the process just as Republicans did Democrats for 12 years?
Has a new day dawned in Washington DC or is it more of the same?
Join the debate here, let us have your thoughts on A New Direction or the Same Ole Bickering
Posted by sjames at 06:16 AM | Comments (0)
Top Story for 2007--Bush Victory Plan?
We will see a Plan for Victory, a Plan for Hope? Will Bush give us a plan to help change the direction in the war? Check out the article below:
Bush Puts Finishing Touches on Iraq Plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush is putting the finishing touches on his new Iraq plan, reshuffling his national security team and scheduling private briefings with lawmakers.
The president also planned to replace his two top generals in Iraq, according media reports.
Bush next week will unveil his strategy, which is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military approach, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. forces, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to the Baghdad capital alone.
"One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished," Bush said Thursday.
More at http://www.comcast.net
Posted by sjames at 06:05 AM | Comments (0)
January 04, 2007
Compromise and Cooperation?
Is it possible? Will President Bush support the Democrats this year? Will he acutally work with the new leadership in the Senate and the house? Read the article below from the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com and ask, is this one of the big stories of 2006--Bush working with Democrats to get things done? Stuart James sjames139@comcast.net
Bush Signals Budget Accord
New Plan to Mirror Democrats' Goals
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 4, 2007; Page A01
President Bush promised yesterday to produce a plan to balance the federal budget in five years and challenged lawmakers to slash their special pet projects in half next year, embracing priorities of the new Democratic leadership that will assume control of Congress today.
Appearing in the Rose Garden with his Cabinet, Bush said he has been encouraged by meetings with Democrats and thinks they can reach common ground on spending issues that have bitterly divided them for six years. He said that the budget proposal he will make Feb. 5 will erase the deficit by 2012, and he called on Congress "to end the dead-of-the-night" process in which earmarks are slipped into spending bills.
Posted by sjames at 06:06 AM | Comments (0)
January 02, 2007
What is Your Religious Faith?
What is your religious faith from birth and how important is your faith as an American?
Posted by wjbailes at 07:25 PM | Comments (0)
January 01, 2007
Is America a Christian Nation?
I have always been curious of those who really believe that we live in a "Christian" nation, or that we should, or that we once did. It is clear to me that we do not, should not, and have not~for obvious reasons that I will speak to momentarily. But it is also clear to me that many American citizens are not finished with this issue. And they feel strongly about it. And so debate will continue.
As a Christian myself, I am concerned about tying faith with nation and am grateful to our founders for separating religion and state so that coercion by one or the other would remain difficult. It is a weak expression of faith, in my opinion, to tie Christianity to a nation or a state, but for some people it may be necessary until a more developed or deeper religious faith emerges. Some folks are simply, perhaps irrationally, afraid to accept any differences outside their own religion. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution protects all of us from being put upon by one religious group.
So if America is a Christian nation, then . . .
1. . . . why isn't God or Christianity mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? [The words "under God" do not appear in the "Pledge of Allegiance" until 1954, when Congress inserted them because of the political pressure of McCarthyism. And it was not until 1956 that Congress decided to put "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. Of course, the original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), a motto about plurality, not theocracy.]
2. . . . why does the First Amendment of the Consitution read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? [For those who would argue that states have the right to set up their own religion, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution deals with such matters by providing a "due process" clause that says the entire Bill of Rights applies to every state. In a word, there is no governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official who can violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. And, in fact, most state constitutions are even stricter than the First Amendment in prohibiting the establishment of a ministry, the use of tax dollars to promote religion, or the interference with freedom of conscience.]
3. . . . why does our presidential oath of office, detailed in the Constitution, not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8)?
4. . . . why did America sign a treaty in 1797 with Tripoli that declared "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?
5. . . . what did Justice John Paul Stevens mean when he wrote this: "When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"?
Posted by wjbailes at 08:41 AM | Comments (7)