1101st Signal

UTA = Unreliable Service

ThomP45 — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:58:00 GMT

It has been a while since I posted anything, but something has really gotten to the point where I have to say something about it. The metropolitan area of Salt Lake City has a mass transit system named Utah Transit Authority (UTA). I have used the system for the last seven years commuting between Ogden and Salt Lake City every day.

Last Monday, December 14, 2009, was what they call “Change Day”. This is the day that they implement any route changes that they feel would improve service. Well, this time they got it WRONG!

They have an express bus route from Ogden to Salt Lake City that has been quite successful in transporting its passengers on time. Well, UTA decided to cut several runs of that route to “encourage” passengers to use the newer, “better” FrontRunner. This is the new commuter heavy rail service between those two cities with plans to expand further south to Provo.

They changed the major routes in the downtown Salt Lake area to confuse even the longest time riders beyond belief, and the timetable is ridiculous.

OK, about the FrontRunner. For the last few months they had three passenger cars that were pretty full both northbound and southbound. Well this last Monday, they cut the trains to only two cars. Remember earlier that they also cut a good portion of express busses to encourage passengers to ride the FrontRunner? Well, now the FrontRunner is pretty much jam packed and usually passengers left standing. Standing on a train traveling up to 80 mph with NO hand holds. Hmmmm, I wonder what happens when the train operator puts the breaks on……I smell lawsuit!

UTA has had many years of providing adequate service, but at $162.00 a month for their “premium” pass, they are leaving MUCH to be desired.

American Legion commander “angered” after meeting Obama

ThomP45 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:45:00 GMT

From: Hot Air

posted at 7:00 pm on March 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Apparently, the Obama administration hasn’t backed away from its plans to start offloading costs for wounded veterans to third-party insurance, which will make acquiring such insurance nearly impossible. The commander of the American Legion emerged from a meeting with President Obama “angered” at Obama’s insistence on generating revenue from those who sacrificed for American security:

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.
“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”
The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”
Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group’s early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, ” There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

The Obama administration explains that it wants private insurers who sell coverage to vets to pay their fair share, but there are two things wrong with that argument. First, the United States has a moral obligation to provide treatment for those wounded in the service of their country. That’s a commitment we make to the people who enlist in military, and should not get outsourced.

Second, vets with service-related injuries and illnesses can only get third-party insurance because insurers know the US will cover all service-related medical treatment through the VA. If the government reneges on that commitment, it will put insurers on the hook for veterans already enrolled — but it will make it a lot harder for the next set of veterans to get insured. It will also raise costs to the rest of the insured by those companies, when the burden should fall on all Americans equally.

If the country needs more revenue streams, it should find some other way to find them than the backs of our wounded veterans. They’ve sacrificed enough. Shame on the Obama administration for attempting to weasel out of our commitment.

Update: This Ain’t Hell wonders when General Eric Shinseki will resign in protest.

Conservatives Search Their Souls for Return to Principles

ThomP45 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:11:00 GMT

From: Fox News

WASHINGTON -- Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for sending Republicans to Washington who not only lost their way, but also lost majorities in the House and Senate and ultimately the White House, said several conservatives attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in the nation's capital.

Politicians, pundits and policy-makers attending the first day at CPAC on Thursday said it's hard to know whether conservatives who get elected to Congress will retain their core principles once they're inside the Beltway.

The problem is the corrupting influence of power, said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who ran for president under the anti-illegal immigration banner and has been hailed by supporters as an unwavering conservative. He told FOXNews.com in an interview at CPAC that Republicans who swept into the majority in 1994 went from revolutionaries to entrenched politicians because of the temptations of their offices.

"There are no two ways about it -- the party has been more concerned about simply staying in power. That is the real lure," Tancredo said.

He said power caused many Republicans to abandon their conservative impulses for what they thought would get them re-elected, and that was "to spend more money."

Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union, which sponsors the annual CPAC event, agreed that many Republicans who came up from the ranks of CPAC and the conservative movement lost their way on Capitol Hill.

"I've seen a lot of this -- 'the Beltway phenomenon," Hart said, adding that it's why "conservatives for many years supported term limits."

Up-and-comers like 27-year-old freshman Rep. Aaron Schock of Illinois said he believes he can help reverse the destructive trend. As the youngest member of Congress, he made national headlines when he rode on Air Force One with President Obama to the Caterpillar plant in his East Peoria district earlier this month. Schock ignored direct pressure by Obama to vote for the Democratic stimulus bill and joined his Republican colleagues in unanimously voting against it, twice.

Schock said Thursday that the first order of business for Republicans is to get better at being ambassadors of conservatism, whether it be in Washington or throughout the country, particularly in places where they have typically not succeeded before.

"We need to be troubadours of the Reagan message," he said. Conservatives need to "show a little heart" and bring the values of the party down to a practical level.

"That doesn't mean watering down our positions," he added.

Schock and others say Republicans can overcome what they say is the media's "party of no" label, be the loyal opposition and accomplish what they were sent to do in Washington.

Saul Anuzis, former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party who lost a bid to run the Republican National Committee, said public perception of Republicans isn't pretty, and rightfully so.

"There is probably nothing more troubling to the American public ... than our hypocrisy," he told an audience Thursday. "A lot of people lost their faith with us, it's that simple. Republicans went to Washington and lost their way."

How do they gain it back? Some CPAC attendees said GOP and conservative voters are not the same animal, and Republicans shouldn't take them for granted.

Others said that it's just a matter of taking time to heal.

"I'm not suffering a lack of confidence right now," said Colleen Holmes, executive director of the anti-abortion Eagle Forum. "The liberals seem to be really far out to the left and that seems to be emboldening the Republican leadership these days. It helps when you don't have a lot to lose. Maybe that's what it took."

Casualty assistance officers say HBO film realistic

ThomP45 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:41:00 GMT

Having served in the US Army and having the opportunity and honor of escorting a friend's body to his hometown to be buried, I thought I would share this story

From: The Official US Army Homepage

By Carol Davis

FORT BELVOIR, Va. (Army News Service, Feb. 20, 2009) -- "Taking Chance," an emotional Home Box Office movie that will air Saturday evening, starring Kevin Bacon, premiered Thursday at Fort Belvoir for an audience who could personally and professionally relate to the characters portrayed.

The movie chronicles one of the silent, virtually unseen journeys that takes place every day across the country when military escorts bring the fallen from the war zone to home.

Based on the real-life experiences of retired Marine Lt. Col. Michael Strobl, the movie pays tribute to the men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice, as well as to the uniformed servicemembers who literally and figuratively carry the fallen home.

Strobl, played by Bacon, came across the name of 19-year-old Lance Cpl. Chance Phelps, a young Marine who had been killed by hostile fire in Al Anbar Province, Iraq in 2004. Strobl, a Desert Storm veteran, requested to be assigned for military escort duty to accompany Phelps' remains to his family in Dubois, Wyo.

"I actually worked overseas. I did the dignified transfers in Germany and at Dover and it captured exactly what we did over there and it was a very moving film," said Sgt.Crystal Seymore, Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operation Center. "It's really an honor to actually do this and now everyone can see what we do on a daily basis."

Lt. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., director of the Army Staff, opened the premier by saying what an honor it was to be in the great company of the men and women who do this mission with the highest professional standards.

"At a time of great stress, you comfort the families and honor the fallen. What you do every day deserves our highest praise," Huntoon said. "You are the unsung heroes."

Although this film is about a Marines' journey home, officials said it is a testimony to the daily work of the CMAOC and everyone who has helped a fallen Soldier find his or her way home.

"This is a unique opportunity for the American public to see the dignity, honor and respect that we treat our fallen with... to see that we do that whether we are in the public eye or not," said Col. Carl Johnson, director of CMAOC. "This was a great portrayal. It was really pretty accurate portrayal of what goes on behind the scenes."

Watching this film in the dark with this audience of casualty assistance personnel, only the occasional sniff could be heard. At the end there was silence from possible wet eyes and heavy spirits as if they too were honoring Phelps one last time.

Obama’s Pentagon review: Gitmo meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions

ThomP45 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:41:00 GMT

From Hot Air

When does the military’s compliance with international law qualify as bad news?
When you’re a new president desperate for excuses to follow through on a dopey campaign promise that’ll please your nutroots base and no one else.

Oh well. Back to the “it just looks bad” argument.

A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Convention but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction with each other, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.
The report, which was ordered by President Obama, was prepared by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, and has been delivered to the White House. Obama requested the review as part of an executive order on the planned closure of the prison at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base on the southeastern tip of Cuba…
Walsh concluded that … force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners to feeding chairs and forcing tubes down one nostril and into their stomachs, is in compliance the Geneva Convention’s mandate that the lives of prisoners must be preserved, the government official said.
Actually, insofar as this gives The One a handy alternative to expanding our renditions program, it does mean good news for him — or rather, it would if the left still cared about renditions, which they haven’t since January 20th. Exit question: With opposition to closing Gitmo already near majority levels, the media had better keep this as quiet as possible, huh?

Hope and Change: Police pull over man for anti-Obama sign

ThomP45 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:44:00 GMT

From Hot Air

In the good old days of America, one could express dissent without fear of arrest. In the fascistic regime of George Bush, though, having a bumper sticker that expressed opposition meant getting pulled over by the police and having the Secret Service search your house for signs of “hate”. Thank goodness the Thought Police days are over!

What’s that? That didn’t happen during the Bush administration? Actually, it happened last week:

Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police car followed him for several miles and then signaled for him to pull over.
”I pulled over, knowing I hadn’t done anything wrong,” Harrison said in a recent phone interview.
When the officer asked Harrison if he knew why he had been pulled over, Harrison said he did not.
”They said, ‘It’s because of the sign in your window,’” Harrison said.
”It’s not meant to be a threat, it’s a statement about abortion,” Harrison said.

What did the sign say? “Abort Obama, not the unborn.” The police officer took that as a threat of assassination instead of its obvious meaning, which was opposition to abortion and to Obama’s support for it. The report filed by the police officer prompted their Internal Investigations group to apologize and offer to return the sign. They told Harrison that they informed the Secret Service that no threat was involved, but that didn’t cut much ice with the Treasury. They sent a pair of agents to ask for a voluntary search of the premises and an interview to make sure Harrison didn’t belong to any hate groups.

What’s next — a Fairness Doctrine for bumper stickers?

Captain Steve McCool of the Oklahoma City PD agrees now that the actions violated Harrison’s First Amendment right to free political speech, but that it was “made right” in the end by returning his sign. Unfortunately, that’s not so. The OCPD made it clear that expressions of dissent, even an obviously political one in which Harrison engaged, will be closely scrutinized to see that it passes muster with law enforcement. For that matter, the Secret Service did the same by “requesting” that Harrison account for his thought processes for publishing his critique of Obama’s policies on abortion. That does damage to the First Amendment to everyone, not just Harrison.

So much for Hope and Change.

A Firsthand Look at the Real Guantanamo

ThomP45 — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:25:00 GMT

Found this link off of VetsForFreedom.org - Pajamas Media

A Firsthand Look at the Real Guantanamo

Posted By Gabe Ledeen On January 15, 2009 @ 6:35 am

I recently visited the detention facilities at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was dismayed at what I saw. The place was nothing like what I expected, and I was struck by how little we Americans actually know about these facilities and the conduct of our personnel there. With every new interview and every new area walk-through I hoped to find some validation of the certainties I brought with me from the hundreds of articles, documentaries, and speeches presented to the American people by our intellectual superiors.

Instead, my experiences at Guantanamo Bay illustrate the thoroughness of the miseducation of the American people and our willingness to assume the worst about our men and women in uniform. Furthermore, the visit clearly demonstrated that there is a widespread ignorance of the complexity of the situation that we face in the current war against our terrorist enemies. This ignorance results in a focus on superficial issues instead of core questions, and a naive trust in false stories and an astonishing proclivity to be misled.

Our willingness to believe the worst about our servicemen and women is evident in the popular beliefs about Guantanamo Bay, despite the facts. There are quite literally too many examples to choose from to represent the overwhelmingly negative and sensational views on what occurs at the hands of American citizens under direct supervision. Here’s one attempt: “Guantanamo Bay, in addition to Abu Ghraib, is a national disgrace and international embarrassment to us, to our country’s ideals, and a festering threat to our security. It is a legal black hole that dishonors the principles of a great nation.” These inaccurate and deliberately misleading comments made by Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) illustrate the point nicely. Never mind that the incident at Abu Ghraib was never excused by a single military or civilian leader, and that it stands out as an extreme and isolated example of the unfortunate effects that a few anomalous individuals can produce. Instead, he deliberately links Abu Ghraib with Guantanamo in an effort to demonstrate to his audience that there is a pattern of immoral behavior perpetrated by members of our military.

What I found at Guantanamo Bay was that the American servicemen and women there are committed to standards well above those of the average citizen. For twelve hours a day, four days a week, for at least a year, these soldiers with a median age of 22 demonstrate inspiring discipline and dedication to duty. There are multiple assaults on guards every day, mostly verbal and sometimes physical. At least once a week, every week, at least one soldier is doused with a “body fluid cocktail” of *** and urine as they attempt to perform their daily routine. I asked one young female non-commissioned officer what happens after such an event. She explained that the soldier washes off and changes into a clean uniform, and after a medical evaluation is permitted to choose whether or not to return to the cell block.

The option is given so the soldier has the opportunity to calm down, process what happened, and seek out a chaplain or mental health professional if desired. Without my prompting, the NCO added that in the year that she had worked there, not one soldier had decided to take the rest of the day off. Instead, they return to the cell block to show the detainee that no level of provocation will be sufficient to break the soldier’s will or provoke a reaction. Indeed, every soldier is obsessed with performing their duty in a manner worthy of America’s praise and support. As the Joint Task Force commander, Rear Admiral David Thomas, put it, “Of course we’re doing it this way; we’re Americans, and we want Americans to be proud of their military and the way we conduct ourselves.” In order to confirm that the nasal feeding tubes were humane and effective, Rear Admiral Thomas instructed the medical staff to feed him with the device — for a week.

During a brief, Rear Admiral Thomas made a point that all Americans should understand. He said, “The debate about the right policy and the right legal framework for handling unlawful enemy combatants is extremely important and complicated, and should absolutely continue to take place. But Americans do not have to worry about the treatment of these detainees. We are committed to the safe and humane, legal and transparent care and custody of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and we do so in a manner that Americans can be proud of.” These soldiers are dedicated to upholding our highest values in their daily conduct, and are committed to their mission because they know that it helps to protect our nation.

As an Iraq veteran who led convoys transporting detainees, I know firsthand that these men and women represent the norm in our armed forces, not those involved in the Abu Ghraib incident. Due to time limitations on holding detainees at the battalion level, we would brave the roads of Anbar province in the summer of 2006 at all hours to make sure we met these expectations. Despite the frustrations of detaining the same individuals multiple times because of the slowly maturing Iraqi justice system, our Marines showed tremendous integrity and discipline and set an inspiring example. When faced with impossible split-second decisions, Marines would put themselves at incredible personal risk to avoid potential civilian casualties and collateral damage. These men and women volunteered to serve our country at a time of war, and all but a tiny minority are performing admirably in the most challenging of circumstances. They have proven themselves in the face of overwhelming adversity. They deserve our support and respect, not more doubt and disbelief.

Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution - UPDATE!!!!!!

ThomP45 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:33:00 GMT

*** UPDATE *** From: ATLAS SHRUGS

I have discovered that the Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution post I placed on this blog is FALSE and INACCURATE!! The following to the ten "*" is quoted from Atlas Shrugs. I am sorry for posting this before I was sure it was accurate!

ThomP45

UPDATE: MILITARY: Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution (story here)

Blackfive tells me they talked to higher ups at the pentagon about this military rumor and it is false. If they receive official responses from General Cartwright's office, they'll post them as well.

**********

From: BREAK THE MATRIX

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.

A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.

"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."

The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.

"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."

Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.

"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."

"We expect a lot of flak over this," ! the clas sified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."

The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.

Obama: Building a Monument to Tolerance on the Rubble of Religious Freedom

ThomP45 — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:00:00 GMT

From Town Hall - Alan Sears

Well, that didn’t take long.

To many, it may seem premature to confront head-on the agenda of the new president, in the initial days dedicated to celebrating his political success and the peaceful transition of power in our republic.

But, sad to say, in the marriage of President Obama’s political destiny to that of these United States, it’s Mr. Obama who chose to cut short the honeymoon.

No sooner had he finished speaking of his fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior.

It is the swiftness of the onslaught, not the scope of the agenda, which surprises. Repeatedly, during the campaign, Mr. Obama affirmed in speeches and on his Web site his wholehearted support for the homosexual legal and political agenda. Now, that agenda has moved en masse to the front and center of the new president’s parade of “change.”

As posted, the agenda includes:

Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, “hate” crimes.

On its face, that may sound reasonable…except that punishing “hate” requires the creation of second-class victims. Every violent crime is rooted in hate, and every victim deserves equal justice. “Hate crimes” laws create a two-tiered justice system where some victims are “more equal” than others. What elevates these victims above others? The mere broadcast of a preference for certain sexual acts.

Violence is an action; hate is an emotion. “Hate” crimes laws erase that distinction. How do you defend yourself against charges that you “hate” someone? Who gets to decide what “hate” is? How long before simply reading a passage from the Bible is a “hate crime”? Indeed, the passage of “hate crimes” laws inevitably leads to persecution for ideas that favored “victims” abhor. Yes, even in America.

Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Bottom line: this is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those who whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see “Hate Crimes” above.

Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples.

The president is calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the enactment of extensive legislation elevating same-sex relationships to the level of marriage. In the name of “equality,” these new laws would eradicate thousands of years of moral, social, and legal precedent, open a wide door for the legalization of polygamy and other counterfeits of matrimony, and effectively destroy all meaning of marriage – the expressed wish of many of those promoting same-sex unions.

Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples.

This effectively rewrites all natural definitions of family, since it denies the fundamental need of every child for the parental influence of both a mother and a father. By eliminating the legal requirement for either one, the courts will basically eliminate the need for both. Parenting will become legally irrelevant, and birth parents will increasingly find their traditional legal protections trumped by the “emotional” prerogatives of legal strangers.

Many Americans, in their zeal to elect Mr. Obama for other reasons, chose to ignore these promises and their implications when he made them on the campaign trail. Many, indeed, want even now to persuade themselves that rewriting the laws and reshaping the culture of this country to embrace and promote homosexual behavior will prove harmless to our society and our children’s future.

But it won’t. One can’t take a sledgehammer to the foundation of the house and expect the house to stand. Marriage, family, and religious faith are the irreplaceable cornerstones on which this extraordinary nation was erected. It is the outspoken intent of many of those promoting the homosexual agenda to destroy that foundation. And President Obama has launched his brave new world of hope and change with a pledge to be not just an accessory to, but the instrument of, that destruction.

“Know,” he warned Muslim leaders of other nations in his inaugural address, “that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

President Obama undoubtedly believes that he himself is building a monument to tolerance and equality. But the nihilistic architects of his agenda have designed that monument to stand on the rubble of religious freedom, recognized by this nation’s founders as our “first freedom.” And if he proceeds, his legacy will be the incalculable cost of destroying it.

Obama’s Folly

ThomP45 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:30:00 GMT

From: Hot Air

Barack Obama ran on a platform of post-partisanship, of healing and uniting a divided nation. Yet it didn’t even take him a week to enter into the partisan fray, taking on the Right’s biggest megaphone — and making it even bigger. Instead of marginalizing Rush Limbaugh, Obama managed to make him the most credible voice of opposition:

> President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

> “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

> One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

One doesn’t make points at all about bipartisanship by explicitly attacking another partisan voice, no matter how much one disagrees with it. By naming Rush and attempting to sideline him, Obama lifted Rush’s profile and practically anointed him his opposition. It demonstrates that Obama still has no sense of his office, nor of “post-partisanship”, regardless of his endlessly empty rhetoric on the subject.

George Bush never attacked Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, or other voices of the rabid Left by name. If he ever went on the attack against the left-wing media, he kept the attack general and broad, rather than specific. Bush may not have been the most media-savvy of our modern presidents — in fact, he may have been the worst at it since Nixon — but he knew enough about his office to understand that part of its strength would keep him somewhat above the partisan-pundit fray. Obama hasn’t figured that much out yet.

Thanks to this attack, Rush not only has his own megaphone, but he gained everyone else’s for a brief time. He became a national story, gained national coverage, and in general got a million dollars’ worth of free publicity. And Rush knows how to use it to his advantage, as he showed:

> To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Not only could Rush underscore the fact that Obama got petty, Rush also had an opportunity to blast away at Obama’s economic plans on a larger platform than usual. Thanks to Obama, Rush just doubled his effectiveness. And also thanks to Obama, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill might do something that they haven’t done in years, whatever Obama’s paranoia might tell him: they might take Rush’s advice.

Anytime a man in a position of great power attacks someone with significantly less power, it lessens the greater man and raises up his opponent. The American President is, thanks to the office, the most powerful man in the free world. If he’s worried about any political pundit so much that he has to attack him personally, it shows weakness, which is exactly what Obama cannot afford.

Tom Hanks, Idiot

ThomP45 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:51:00 GMT

From Mormon Politics

Tom Hanks thinks Mormons who voted for proposition 8 are "un-American." Hanks, an actor who started his career playing a woman on television, made the statement at the premier party for his latest fictional show "Big Love." He did not say whether he thought non-Mormons who voted for Proposition 8 were un-American as well, but said this about LDS supporters of the succesful California constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

The truth is this (his show Big Love) takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

Hanks is just another actor who seems to think that acting school infuses some political superiority and grants a right to be heard. His lack of knowledge on the subject shows in his false statement that members gave to the Church to support proposition 8. All LDS donations for Proposition 8 came from individual donors and not the Church. His bias against the LDS church may come from his belief that his mother and father separated over her conversion to Mormonism. Time magazine recounted the fact that Hank's mother brought in missionaries. LDSfilm.com attributes information from the book by David Gardner, Tom Hanks: The Unauthorized Biography:

Winifred [Tom Hanks' stepmother] had become a Mormon while married to Amos and that soon became a source of conflict with her new husband, who was suspicious of religion in most forms. 'When we met his kids were Catholic and mine were Protestant and that had its difficulties,' said Winifred. 'Then I became enamoured of the Mormon Church and Mr Hanks [Amos Hanks -- Tom Hanks' father] didn't. 'It was funny because the kids enjoyed going to church. But after we had split up, Mr Hanks and I were at a friend's wedding and Tom ran up to me and said, "Mum, mum, guess what? I'm not a Mormon any more. Now I am a darned old Catholic!"'

By including in his defacto statement that anyone who voted for Proposition 8 is included in his list, here are those who Tom Hanks also believes are un-American:

The majority of African American voters in California

The majority of Christians in California

The majority of voters in California

The majority of muslims in California

Cardinal Mahoney, another "darned old Catholic."

It seems to us that that group is pretty much the majority of the movie watching public, who may not really like being called un-American by some actor with a personal agenda. Maybe Hanks ought to stop and think about who Americans really are.

His personal issues aside, Hanks blanket condemnation of Latter-day Saints who exercised their freedom to vote is uncalled for and demands an apology. That would be the American thing to do.

Caught My Eye/Ear

ThomP45 — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:16:00 GMT

From: The Jawa Report

From Mr. Obama's Inaugural Speech:

Original Obamanease: And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

TRANSLATION: We're sorry we have created wealth for ourselves, and we will now proceed to lower our standard of living and stop producing and consuming so much. We consume too much of X, and we're having some kind of nebulous, nameless effect on the world/planet/climate due to our consumption of X (where X=energy/oil/natural resources/food/consumer goods/everything and anything).

We'll just be what you all want us to be, because being all free and prosperous is just, like, too hard and stuff.

Prove me wrong, Your Holiness!

One positive thing we can get from this - there is now a great demand and need for Obama translators in the blogosphere, and I happily volunteer my services.

Try this chunk of gabbledegook:

Original Obamanease: What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

TRANSLATION: I know I only several months ago told you to "get in their faces" and argue about politics at every and any opportunity, but now I'm asking you to pretend that doing that is really reprehensible. Once you win an election, my children, you become free of all of these trivialities. The real question here is not, "shouldn't we encourage a little more personal responsibility among ourselves and institutions;" the question is rather, "is the government sufficiently grafted into every portion of your life yet, and if not, where are we coming up short?" Worthless government programs and entitlements will be continued and expanded, so worry not. We will only release and promote statistics, outcomes and results as they are convenient for us to use politically, and all other assessments of our governance shall be buried.

Ahhh, I can feel the hope and change already :-)

Our Wish For President Obama

ThomP45 — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:42:00 GMT

From http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/090120obama.html

It is Inauguration Day here in Washington DC . The kids are home from school, the bridges have been blocked going into the city, crowds have filled up hotels as far south as Williamsburg more than two hours away, and, of course, across the nation we will all be glued to our television sets to participate in this historic event as the first black man is sworn in as president with the promise that race will not be a barrier to high office or to any achievement in the future.

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency, and Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will be on hand for the swearing-in ceremonies today and for the National Prayer Service at Washington 's National Cathedral on January 21.

“It is always an honor for the Church to be represented at the inauguration of a new president,” said President Monson. “We send our best wishes to President-elect Obama and pray for the blessings of a loving Father in Heaven to be upon him and his administration.”

That is sound counsel. This is one of the most daunting times for anyone to become the President as the nation is in economic turmoil and the market continues to plummet. Terrorists seek our demise and Americans are divided with rancor and name calling between parties, ideas and philosophies. We will pray for President Obama to have enlightenment, insight and judgment from heaven as he tackles issues that will ultimately determine the destiny of this nation. He will need it.

We hope that he will have inspiration and guidance in solving these knottiest of problems, that the change he calls for will not veer us from America 's founding ideals.

We appreciate what he said at the 2004 Democratic convention, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America . There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America ."

Whether we voted for him or not, Barack Obama is now our President. We tire of the mean-spiritedness that has been dividing our nation for too long, and hope that his call for a united people, which is what ever new President hopes for, will be fulfilled.

Most of us are just Moms and Dads who hope that our children will grow up in a country based on the principles we enjoyed. We are Americans who want to continue to enjoy the blessings our founders bequeathed to us.

While he was volunteering at a teenage crisis center yesterday, he said, "don't underestimate the power of people who join together to accomplish amazing things.

“When all of our people are engaged and involved in making their community better, then we can do anything."

He said this is not a time for “idle hands.” Nor is it a time to stand back and cynically watch the nation falter.

"Everybody's going to have to pitch in," he said, adding that Americans are "ready to do that."

On Sunday, The Washington Times ran an article co-written by Mark DeMoss, and Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, called “Civility Makes Strange Bedfellows” in which they call for a new civility in our public life.

They said, “Ours is a most unlikely friendship. In fact, conventional wisdom would not have us speaking to each other, let alone being friends. One of us is a Republican; a political conservative was a staunch supporter of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the primaries, and an evangelical Southern Baptist. The other is a Democrat, a political liberal who worked for President Bill Clinton and was an ardent supporter of Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton during the recent presidential primaries, and is of the Jewish faith. The first opposes the right to an abortion and believes in the right to life. The second supports the right to choose and think the abortion decision should be a private one between a woman and her physician.”

In fact, they say they would have never met had not the conservative written the liberal to thank him for his courteous treatment of those with whom he disagreed on several television appearances representing Senator Clinton.

Six months later they found themselves meeting for lunch in Washington DC “an increasingly uncivil town” to discuss the Civility Project ( www.civilityproject.org ). As dissimilar as our religious and political beliefs and opinions are, we found ourselves drawn to each other's love for this country and a conviction about the importance to its future of trying to change the polarizing, attack-oriented political culture that has become all too common in recent years and, instead, to bring civility back as the staple of American politics and life.

“In addition to our desire to promote a more civil society, we also share disgust for the incivility we see every day in this country, on the radio and TV, and around the world. For example, while one of us opposed Proposition 8 in California , which legally defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, the other would have supported it.

“However we both condemn the vandalism by some who opposed the proposition directed at those such as the Mormon Church members who supported the measure. We also oppose the often blind hatred, violence and discrimination against gay people by certain individuals, who claim they act in the name of religious beliefs while violating other religious tenets.”

In launching this project, they call on people from all walks of lives and all religious and political persuasions to “graciousness, kindness, common decency and respect—civility—toward all people, and particularly those with whom we disagree.”

They are asking for everyone to embrace three simple commitments: 1) I will be civil in public discourse and behavior; 2) I will be respectful of others, whether or not I agree with them; and 3) I will stand up and call out incivility whenever I see it.

They say, however, that this does not mean, that people should surrender personal beliefs, convictions or ideology, nor to overlook the real differences between us. It does not mean that we do not stand up for important ideas, in fact, pitching in to recover America means that we must.

We must stand civilly and ardently for our convictions if we want to have the America we all hope for.

We have our list of hopes and dreams for President Obama.

We hope that he will take seriously his pledge to honor the Constitution and not be tempted to look at is as an elastic document that changes to mean whatever is currently in philosophic fashion.

We hope that he will be able to lead the way to an economic recovery that does not create a larger government, but motivates and fires the competence and vision of individual Americans, incentivizes business, and maintains our capitalist system.

We hope that though he has promised special interest groups to roll back abortion restrictions with the Freedom of Choice Act, that he will respect the life of the unborn.

We hope that he will foster a culture of intact families where children have the best possible chance to grow up with their own mother and father.

We look to him to instruct his Justice Department to make the prosecution of Internet obscenity a top priority, as it has not been through the past two administrations.

We hope that he will respect parents' rights to direct the upbringing of their children.

We look to him to uphold the free exercise clause of the Constitution and not approve laws which put people or churches in the position of violating their conscience or restricting religious freedom.

Some might say to this wish list for President Obama—in your dreams, but we look to him to take seriously the pledge that every voice in America matters.

Suspicious envelope with powder found in SLC Temple

ThomP45 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:21:00 GMT

Oh boy! From: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4787495

Suspicious envelope with powder found in SLC Temple November 13th, 2008 @ 4:07pm A suspicious envelope containing an unknown white powder was found this afternoon at Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. It was found inside the doors of the Salt Lake Temple in an office area open to the public. Both Salt Lake City police and fire departments are on the scene and are closing the area including West Temple, North Temple and Main Street. They are not evacuating the temple, but are not allowing anybody inside. HAZMAT crews are responding.

Veteran's Day 2008

ThomP45 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:20:00 GMT

Today is Veteran's Day!

Thank you to all who have served this, the greatest country in the world.

I salute you all, my brothers and sisters of the United States Armed Forces.

Thomas Pedersen

1101st Signal Brigade

US Army 1986-1990

I don't know how to get this to embed on this blog. Maybe some one can help?

Veteran's Day Tribute

"Trickle-Up" Poverty - The New Economics of Barack Obama

ThomP45 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:50:00 GMT

"Trickle-Up" Poverty - The New Economics of Barack Obama

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=2154

The liberal media talking heads are already proclaiming that a Barack Obama victory will be revolutionary. Revolutionary is right. The last great revolution took place in Russia. Within a year of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communist leader Lenin brought the Russians change they could believe in. He created an economic system in which:

* All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.

* Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto "non-working classes" or people who had money. Food was rationed and centrally distributed.

* Military-like control of railroads was introduced.

* Private enterprise became illegal.

After Stalin took over the Soviet Union, he:

* Imposed a state-run system of socialized medicine

* Formed a strict, centralized cultural administration and ideological control system – in other words, reeducation.

There is every reason to believe that some kind of socialist revolution will occur under B.O. Bush has already imposed socialism on the banks, and Obama promises to do more of the same. The Soviets put people with money to work in factories.

Under Obama, the business owners in this country who drive the economy will be put to work by being forced to pay crushing taxes that will fund gold-plated healthcare for illegal aliens and welfare cases. Private enterprise may not actually be made illegal, but so many businesses will die under an Obama administration that the same goal will be accomplished. Instead of trickle-down economics, we’ll have trickle-up poverty.

We already know Obama will impose socialized medicine – that is a given. And reeducation will come in the form of the Fairness Doctrine, which Nancy Pelosi will push through the Congress by stressing the need to foster unity and avoid destabilizing the markets with hurtful and unbalanced commentary. This is what the future holds under B.O.

The Sack Lunches

ThomP45 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:31:00 GMT

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail that made me think. I’m calling it my “Thought for the day”.

Thank You to those who have given so much to those of us who have so much!!

Subject: The Sack Lunches (Author: Unknown)

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.

Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation. 'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me. "Chicago - to Great Lakes Base. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Iraq"

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached Chicago, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time. As I reached for my wallet, I overheard soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to Chicago ' His friend agreed.

I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq; it's almost like you are doing it for him.'

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?' 'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. 'This is your thanks.'

After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, 'I want to shake your hand.' Quickly unfastening my seat belt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.

When we landed in Chicago I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!

Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country.

I could only give them a couple of meals. It seemed like so little...

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his or her life wrote a blank check Made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

You Gotta Be Kidding Me...

ThomP45 — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:30:00 GMT

Published Wednesday October 15, 2008

Chambers' may appeal after his suit against God is tossed out

BY CHRISTOPHER BURBACH

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge has ruled in Omaha.

Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served. What's more, Polk found "there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant."

Chambers had sued God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and tornadoes.

The senator said today that he is considering an appeal of Polk's ruling.

"It is a thoughtful, well-written opinion," Chambers said. "However, like any prudent litigator, I want to study it in detail before I determine what my next course of action will be."

Polk dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, which means it can't be refiled. But his ruling can be appealed.

Although the case may seem superfluous and even scandalous to others, Chambers has said his point is to focus on the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited.

"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts," he said. "My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God."

Chambers, a political independent who has served in the Nebraska Legislature for 38 years, said he decided to make that point after at least two attempts by other senators in the Legislature to limit "frivolous lawsuits."

"I was able to fend them off," Chambers said. "A lawsuit is not frivolous until a court declares it so."

The senator did have a day in court on the case. In August, he argued that Polk should take judicial notice of the existence of God. The senator cited the facts that U.S. currency says "In God We Trust," God is invoked during oaths in court hearings, and chaplains offer prayers before legislative bodies.

"If God is omnipresent," Chambers said in that August hearing, "then he is here in Douglas County and in this courtroom."

Polk was not persuaded.

His Tuesday ruling said Chambers' motion to take judicial notice of God "is denied as moot."

• Contact the writer: 444-1057, christopher.burbach@owh.com

Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom

Copyright ©2008 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.

Something to think about . . .

ThomP45 — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:50:00 GMT

There is much frustration in the world, country these days. The financial crisis, the energy crisis, the war on terror and the looming presidential election in less than a month. It is easy to get caught up in the spirits of contention, but I caution you to resist. Instead, I suggest you turn inward. Get down on your knees and pray to He who has creates all things. Ask Him for help to withstand the buffing winds. It really does not matter, these worls problems, as long as you try to keep the proper eternal perspective on these events. With prayer and study of the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, you may be guided by the Holy Spirit to a calmer state. I am a mortal being. My life on this earth is short when compaired to the life left to live when I leave this place. I wish to see all of you there on the other side. Where we WILL have peace.

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

ThomP45 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:17:00 GMT

I know this is a little old, I just wanted all of your thoughts on it. I think it puts Barrak in a scary light.

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

YouTube Video
Text (by: Gerard Baker):

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Biden: Wealthy America Be Patriotic, Pay Higher Taxes

ThomP45 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:20:00 GMT

Found this on 570 AM - KNRS's web site this morning..

>Under the Obama economic plan, up to 95% of Americans would allegedly received a tax cut.
>Thursday, September 18, 2008
>Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.
>On ABC's Good Morning America Biden said, "it's time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
>Biden says that the Obama strategy includes raising taxes on people who make more than $250,000 annually, and "put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."
>Under the Obama economic plan, up to 95% of Americans would allegedly received a tax cut.
>Copyright © 2003-2008 Clear Channel. All rights reserved.

Too bad they don't understand that it's the "rich" who keep America moving by providing jobs for the economy to grow. History has shown when you "tighten the belt of the rich", you only hurt the middle and lower classes because they are the ones in the unemployment lines.

What do you think?

Legacy Parkway!!!!! Yeah!!!!

ThomP45 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:08:00 GMT

Well this past weekend the Legacy Parkway has FINALLY opened up for traffic between the Lagoon and the Salt Lake Valley. This was a long time in coming (No thanks to the Sierra Club and the pompous wind-bag Rocky "the rocket scientist, squirrel, whatever..." Anderson). Thanks to the lawsuits and delays the traffic flow between Layton and Salt Lake City at most times was bumper-to-bumper. It took, most of the time, from Salt Lake City to the HWY-89 exit North of Lagoon an average of 35-40 minutes. I don’t really want to talk about the pompous wind-bag or the little animals above humans club. Well yesterday came and WOW!!!!! The commute in on Monday was less than 20 minutes from Lagoon to 400 South in Salt Lake City. On the way home, I left my office near 200 East 200 South in Salt Lake at 5:00 p.m. and got to Harrison and 5700 South in Ogden by 5:55 p.m. AAHHHH! What a breath of fresh air… About time Northern Utah residents have a real alternate route to go home on. (Without having to move to Salt Lake like the pompous wind-bag would have wanted.)