Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Has the Iraq war suddenly disappeared?

Did the Iraq war suddenly disappear? It would seem so if you get your news solely from the mainstream media. Hardly a mention of the 5 American soldiers who lost their lives in Northern Iraq by a roadside bomb, the other day.

The anchors are all whooping it up over the presidential race. When they do get serious, the talk turns to how the economy is taking a dive. Anything to take the American viewer away from the illegal war. But for the ones who are still losing loved ones. It will never vanish for them. And also for those Iraqi unfortunates who haven't the means to escape from the Bush/Neocon created HELLHOLE they call home. It will take at least a 100 years, if ever, for the nightmare to fade. Oh, there are articles of the pain and suffering because of this Illegal-War but you have to hunt for them. In case you're still interested, read this sad tale for starters: thinkingblue

PS: Now let's get back to Bush's base, we should never forget about them.
They are all indirectly responsible for Bush and all the horror he has
perpetrated upon us. Never should we ignore, how they, in all their ignorance, betrayed America.

Read this: The Base isn't interested in Iraq, the base is for Bush.

‘The base isn’t interested in Iraq; the base is for Bush’

This quote was making the rounds a bit yesterday, but I think it’s an
important bit of insight into conservative ideology right now. Tapped’s
Garance Franke-Ruta, who’s obviously quite a trooper, stopped by by R. Emmett
Tyrrell Jr.’s book party on Monday, celebrating the launch of Tyrrell’s latest
anti-Clinton screed. Garance

chatted with Grover Norquist
about reports that Republicans are nearly fed
up with the war in Iraq and might “pull the plug” in August.

“The base isn’t interested in Iraq. The base is for Bush,” Norquist said.
“If Bush said tomorrow, we’re leaving in two months, there would be no

At a certain level, most of the reality-based community might think this
sounds ludicrous. The entire GOP apparatus and the vast majority of the
conservative movement have spent the last several years insisting that
withdrawal is not only wrong, it’s literally life-threatening. Anyone who even
considers the policy hates America. If Bush were to suddenly reverse course
and co-opt the Dems’ message, how can Norquist or anyone else expect the
president’s loyal backers to automatically reverse course with him?

The question is premised on a mistaken assumption about the conservative
movement. Norquist is almost certainly right; the base takes marching orders
surprisingly well.

Indeed, they already have. In 2004, John Kerry said it was time to increase
the size of the Armed Forces; Bush disagreed. The GOP base went right along,
emphasizing how wrong Kerry was. Last year, when Bush embraced Kerry’s policy,
the base had no problem switching gears. “Of course we need to increase
the size of the military,” they said.

Bush was against sending more troops, and the base said he was right. Then
Bush was for sending more troops, and the base agreed with that, too. Bush
said he’d listen to the commanders on the ground in Iraq, and the base
cheered. Bush then fired the commanders on the ground who disagreed with him,
and the base cheered some more.

Anyone looking for intellectual consistency is likely to be very

Atrios flags this nice Grover Norquist quote from Garance Franke-Ruta
and, correctly I think, notes that it doesn’t mean the base wants to leave
Iraq. It just means they will go along with whatever Bush wants to do. In
other words, Bush isn’t being obstinate about Iraq because he’s afraid that
his base will desert him. He’s not running, neither is Cheney, and neither
one of them appear to particularly care about the fortunes of the Republican
party. He’s obstinate about Iraq for purely personal, philosophical reasons
that have little to do with politics at this point.

So he is not subject to normal political pressure. As Norquist says, the
base will stick with him come hell or high water. (I believe it’s a mistake,
however, to think it has anything to do with him personally — the base of
the Republican party are authoritarians who will blindly follow their leader
no matter who he is, which is why they need to be kept away from the brown
shirt section of Macy’s.)

It creates an interesting political dynamic. Congressional Dems have a
principled stand, but they’re also considering public opinion and where voters
want the nation to go. Bush and Cheney aren’t constrained by anything but
their own imaginations. There isn’t a soul in the West Wing who feels
compelled to say, “If we don’t make a change, there will be hell to pay.”

The only audience the president needs to keep passively in his corner are
congressional Republicans, who could wreak havoc if they completely abandon
the president and give up on the fiasco in Iraq.

But it seems unlikely. Like their base, GOP lawmakers are too accustomed to
taking orders.

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Republicans Plan To Kill Off Government


Save this picture and pass it around or post it on your website:
Click here to go to site of chart.

When gazing upon the chart above you will notice that in the past 30 years or so, the Republicans have been pushing us down into a deep financial hole. I wonder why that is? I can only come up with the conclusion that the red side of our government is really out to kill off the governing system, as we know it, altogether. Thus, enabling them free reign on privatizing EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD. This will allow their dream of a World Global Market in which they become the rulers of, to come true. But those damn pesky Dems keep getting elected in interims and then bring the NAT'L DEBT down to a manageable size.

Just imagine if they had ruled straight through this 30 year period, their fantasies of total control would be actualized by now. I know this is a simple analogy of what the hell they are up to but maybe that's how they get away with so much. Just act as though their plans are SO COMPLICATED, too difficult for the average American cretin to understand.Waddayathink? thinkingblue

Do stimulus packages work?

NOW WATCH: Is this a global recession?

NOW WATCH: US recession fueled by low wages and consumer debt.


by: Elizabeth Spiro Clark

With four alarm fire bells ringing that the US is headed for a bad recession, and agreement that quick stimulus is needed, it seems slightly loony that the President and Republican leaders find it so hard to back away from their market fundamentalist nostrums
(secret, quack remedies). Candidate John McCain is even willing to prescribe cutting federal spending, i.e. pursue an anti stimulus approach to our economic problems, and for the rest of the leadership, they have settled on tax rebates for those who can afford to sit on them. The economic stimulus measure experts say would work the fastest is getting money in the hands of the poor who will spend it. Republicans treat that approach as some sort of deal with the devil, and maybe a deal with the devil is precisely what it is for the Republicans. Read with an eye to implications, Republican statements on religion have a lot to say about where they are coming from on economics.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s December speech on “Faith in America” may have its brief moment in the campaign limelight but it is also a timeless source text. It opens a door on a religious ideology that explains why its true believers see government as their enemy. In this ideological universe wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a misbegotten war in Iraq is a good thing, not just because it promises "victory", but because it denies the "other enemy", our own government, billions of dollars for health care, disaster relief, infrastructure maintenance, education, and even much needed economic stimulus to ward off recession.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." This was the central theme of Romney's speech, using "freedom requires religion" to point up the threat of secularism to Americans. "Freedom requires religion,” means opposition to what Romney calls the "religion" of secularism. Government is secular and so off bounds as a “window for the soul”.

The second clause – "religion requires freedom" - links directly to the dogma of small government. The reasoning goes something like this: government stands in the way of the perfect liberty that is the condition for the individual to choose virtue. Decisions on social welfare issues are private matters between the individual and God. In the private sphere the individual is to be free to take personal responsibility for becoming rich and famous, or a good churchgoer or mentor, or failing to become these things. That is what Romney means when he says “Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Romney’s short three sentences cover a third dogma: government must be smaller (except in defense) but religion bigger. "I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from the 'the God who gave us liberty.'" This, he says, is because despite differences in theology between churches "we share a common creed of moral convictions." "We acknowledge the Creator," including, as Romney enumerates, "with religious displays in public places.”

It is hardly a “eureka moment” that Romney approves of nativity scenes in courthouse courtyards. This is a familiar political issue as is the Republican attack on “tax and spend” big government liberals. Everyone knows Republicans want to kill off government. However, the ideas that define these Republican anti government battles as a religious and moral duty not well understood, and are breathtaking in the scope of their ambitions.

The ideas get spelled out on web sites like that of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
( The Acton Institute's leader, the Rev Robert Siroco, who writes extensively in sectarian and mainstream publications, recently wrote praising Romney’s speech – while urging him to acknowledge the supremacy of religious authority. He earlier praised President Bush's first veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in an article entitled "How the Faithful can oppose children's health plan expansion in good conscience" (Detroit Times, 10/16). According to Siroco, "state programs" like SCHIP undermine the creation of a "flourishing and free economy, which is the essential condition for universal coverage." The real solution to the lack of universal healthcare coverage is "eliminating taxes." Until resulting prosperity brings about universal coverage there are private efforts that can address health problems, i.e. charity.

Another contributor on the Acton Institute website had this to say about charity: "The charity worker of a century ago did not press for government programs but instead showed poor people how to move up while resisting enslavement to governmental masters." Government stands in the way of the perfect liberty that is the condition for the individual to choose virtue (“opening the windows of the soul”). Given the specter of “enslavement”, no wonder the Republicans aren’t keen to extend unemployment insurance, expand food stamp programs or help out “non-taxpayers” to stimulate the economy. Bush is right in sync with the 19th century charity worker, and has been since he took office in his first term, fencing off social programs from government through faith-based initiatives and other private sector approaches.

It is not an illegitimate injection of religion into the campaign to oppose this ideology directly. The idea that secular government is opposed to moral value is not only a danger to rational policy making to head off recessions, it is itself morally corrosive. If we want to act on our moral values on large social issues, shutting off government means shutting off our (collective) power to act morally. Individuals develop their moral natures in many spheres of action, among them working together through government for the betterment of our common life. The small government doctrine means a shrinking not just of the public space but
also of the moral space inside the individual. Elizabeth Spiro Clark

A Letter From Congressman Robert Wexler

Dear Fellow Americans,

Click here to go to REP. WEXLER SITE: Tonight,
(January 28, 2008) President Bush
will issue what will thankfully be his final State of the Union address; but, little of what he says can be trusted.

For the past seven years, we have watched as America has moved steadily backwards. We have become a nation that is less free and less fair. We have become a nation that no longer values the right to privacy and has tragically retreated from our cherished foundations.

Nothing George W. Bush says tonight will change the sad reality of the America he has given us: Read More Here:

thinkingBlue blogspot


Thursday, January 24, 2008

Why Would Anyone Vote For An "R" Guy?

Except those who are well off!! These people invariably, vote for the "R" guy to keep money flowing for the wealthiest and then so arrogantly call this flow, TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS. If you ask me, any phrase with the word TRICK in it, should make you outright suspicious! thinkingblue

PS: Please watch the video below. Which will tell you that some "D" guys are "R" guys in disguise. Also, read the articles below and judge for yourself.


Deal for economic rescue package closer By ANDREW TAYLOR,

WASHINGTON - House Democratic and Republican leaders are looking for imminent
agreement with the White House on an emergency package to jolt the economy out
of its slump after negotiators on all sides made significant concessions at a
late-night bargaining session.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to drop increases in food stamp and
unemployment benefits during the Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining a
rebates of at least $300 for each person earning a paycheck, including
low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an
overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the
deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole

Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, had yet to
reach agreement on a package of tax breaks for businesses after estimates showed
a tentative business tax agreement could exceed $70 billion, far more than had
been expected, the aide and a Democratic lobbyist said.

Pelosi and Boehner appeared optimistic as they left their third extended
negotiating session of the day with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "We'll
have more to say tomorrow," Boehner said. "We're hopeful."

However, Pelosi's spokesman said another negotiating session tentatively
scheduled for Thursday morning was postponed because the speaker first needed to
brief fellow Democrats on the emerging but plan.

Democratic aides said greater GOP flexibility over giving relief to poor
families with children — who would not have been eligible under President Bush's
original tax rebate proposal — was the catalyst that moved the talks forward.

Asked whether agreement was near, Pelosi said, "We're moving toward that, but
all the issues are not resolved."

The business tax portion still being negotiated would give businesses incentives
to invest in plants and equipment, give small businesses more generous expensing
rules and allow businesses suffering losses now to reclaim taxes previously
paid. The last item on spreading operating losses was proving to be unexpectedly

Pelosi pressed to make sure tax relief would find its way into the hands of
lower-income earners while Boehner pushed to include upper middle-class couples
with incomes of up to $130,000 or so, according to congressional aides.Bush
backs larger rebates of $800-$1,600, but his plan would have left out 30 million
working households who earn paychecks but don't make enough to pay income tax,
according to calculations by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax
Policy Center. An additional 19 million households would have received only
partial rebates under Bush's initial proposal.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said negotiators also were near an agreement on an
overhaul of the Federal Housing Administration that would make it easier for
thousands of homeowners with ballooning interest rates to refinance into
federally insured loans. That measure might advance separately of the tax relief
package, however.

Both sides agreed to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — government-sponsored
companies that are the two biggest U.S. financers and guarantors of home loans —
to buy loans much larger than the current $417,000 limit, aides and lobbyists
said. Frank said that lending cap might reach as high as $700,000 in areas with
the highest home prices.

Pelosi's decision to drop expanding unemployment payments and more money for
food stamps — which many lawmakers had assumed would be included in the package
— could prove very controversial with Democratic constituencies such as unions,
who were already stung by a decision to deny states more money for their
Medicaid programs.

Many Democrats had pressed to extend unemployment benefits for people whose 26
weeks of benefits have run out, but Republicans resisted.


"Trickle Down" economics was a "Trojan Horse"

David Stockman

David Stockman

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he
cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In
order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians,
a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget
director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was
simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top
tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant
giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was
the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side
is 'trickle-down' theory."

"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric
emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new
clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."

"…the Reagan coalition prevailed again in the House and Congress passed the
tax-cut legislation with a final frenzy of trading and bargaining. Again,
Stockman was not exhilarated by the victory. On the contrary, it seemed to
leave a bad taste in his mouth, as though the democratic process had finally
succeeded in shocking him by its intensity and its greed. Once again, Stockman
participated in the trading -- special tax concessions for oil -- lease
holders and real-estate tax shelters, and generous loopholes that virtually
eliminated the corporate income tax. Stockman sat in the room and saw it

"'Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront?' Stockman asked with
wonder. 'The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of
opportunism, just got out of control.'"

Reagan's policies did more than simply cut income taxes. A large number of
tax loopholes were written into the tax code that catered to special corporate
interests. In fact many of the current scandals involving companies such as
Enron are rooted in laws that were passed during the Reagan administration that
gave these companies more legal legroom to work with and less oversight.

In addition, the small “income-tax cuts” that were given to the middle and
lower income tax brackets were countered with new taxes that were directed at
middle and low income individuals, as former House Speaker Jim Wright said:

Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income
people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes. They were, in
his euphemistic lexicon, "user fees" and "revenue-enhancers."

The most important issue though is that even if you take the Reagan
“Trickle-Down” policy at face value it’s still horribly flawed as a policy that
will provide economic growth that benefits all Americans.

There is no realistic way for "Trickle-Down" economics to work to increase
the income of the working classes of America. In fact I am certain that the
developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this
and that "Trickle-Down" has in fact worked as intended. This means that the
intent behind implementing "Trickle-Down" was to benefit the wealthiest
Americans at the expense of working class Americans. "Trickle-Down" hasn't
failed, as many modern economists have suggested, it has succeeded in its goals,
which is the increase of economic inequality and the shift of a greater portion
of America's wealth into the hands of the wealthiest Americans.

I'll show you exactly why "Trickle-Down" can never really trickle down, and
I'll expose the logic that was used to trick Americans into supporting the idea
that freeing up money for the wealthy could somehow benefit the poor and middle class.

I'm going to use a very simplistic example to demonstrate the principles of
"Trickle-Down" economics. No, this is not a 100% accurate model of our economic
system, and it assumes that "all other aspects of the economy are equal," but
the major principles are represented. I will give "Trickle-Down" the benefit of
the doubt and assume that it actually does create jobs in my example.

We have a room with 5 people in it. The total value of all the money in the
room is $10. 00. The money is apportioned as in the table below.

Sam enters the room and says that he has $10. 00 that he wants to give to
Jim. This makes everyone else unhappy of course and everyone says that they will
beat Jim up if he takes the money. Sam then proposes a solution. He says that if
everyone allows him to give Jim $6. 00 he will give $1. 00 to everyone else in
the room. This sounds pretty good to everyone so they agree to let Jim receive
the money. So, after Jim gets the money and everyone gets a dollar this is what
the monetary breakdown of the room looks like:

As you can see, due to inflation most of the other people in the room either
lost value or saw no real gain. As you can also see the size of the "economy"
did in fact grow as the theory of "Trickle-Down" proposes, but the growth only
benefited one person, Jim, and arguably Bill. Even though the economy grew
overall most of the people in the room saw a loss of value. This is because the
value of money is relative. It's relative to many factors, but one is how much
money is in the system. If you have 1 dollar out of 10 then its worth more than
1 dollar out of 1,000. How wealthy you are in terms of dollars is not measured
by the number of dollars you have, it is measured by the share of
dollars that you have out of the total number of dollars in the system.

Now, your opinion of Sam and Jim can be one of only two options.

1) Jim and Sam were naive and actually thought that they were going to be
helping everyone with their actions; the fact that the actions had a negative
effect on everyone else was an accident.

2) Jim and Sam knew that taking the $10. 00, keeping $6. 00 of it, and giving
$1. 00 to everyone else wasn't going to help anyone but Jim, and they tricked
everyone for the purpose of self gain using the $1. 00 "gift" to the
under-classes as a "Trojan Horse" to support the action.

As in the example above there are three basic possibilities for economic
growth (and many variations in between): Either the growth of the economy can be
spread equally among everyone, the growth of the economy can be shifted towards
the bottom of the population in which case the poor see a rise in relative
value, becoming "less poor," or the growth can be shifted toward the top in
which case the rich see a rise in relative value, becoming "more rich. "

The general economic policy of "Trickle-Down" that was put in place by Reagan
has gone fundamentally unchanged since it was adopted by the country in the
1980s. The claim of Reagan was that "all boats would rise" by giving huge tax
cuts for the wealthy. This did not happen. The majority of boats stayed the same
or sank, while only between 5% and 1% of the boats actually rose.

The effects of "Trickle-Down" policy are evident. As would be expected from
the policy, the largest beneficiaries of the "Trickle-Down" system have been the

PHONY SOLDIERS by Rush Limbaugh

comments on youtube PHONY SOLDIERS



CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Why Does Hate Sell?


Please ask Michael Savage why hate sells. I sent him the email below,
will you send one too?

I'm asking You Michael Savage, can you tell me why does hate sell? You
must know the answer because you make loads of money selling your hate.
Hasn't there been too much death and ruination due to hatred, already? I
don't listen to you because, unlike you, I refuse to go through my life
hating those who don't agree with my idea of how people should act! And
also, You Michael Savage, taint your advertisers and make all believe
they must share your despicable, bigoted, loathing! Why else would they
allow their products to be a part of your hateful show.



Michael Savage spews vicious anti-Muslim hate speech on his national radio show.

Tell him what you think about his hate-filled rants.

Below are some of the audio to Savage's show as links... Clicking on these audio links will make your hair stand on end... I can't believe anyone would accept this abominable hatred and obscene bitching about everyone except THE WHITE CHRISTIAN, HETEROSEXUAL MALE... as truth. GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY!!! thinkingblue


"90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child
pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies"

Savage advocating "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims

Savage on immigrant students' hunger strike: "[L]et them fast until
they starve to death. ... Go make a bomb where you came from"

Citing more sex-change operations, increased lesbian fertility clinics,
Savage said of 9-11: "That was God speaking"

On MLK Day, Savage called civil rights a "racket" designed to steal "white males' birthright"

To "save the United States," lawmakers should institute "outright ban on Muslim immigration" and on "the construction of mosques"

U.S. Senate "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into" it

"Jimmy Carter is like Hitler"

"Burn the Mexican Flag!"

Savage on the tsunami: "I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this"

Email him at:

Call his radio show between 6-9PM ET here:


PHONY SOLDIERS by Rush Limbaugh

comments on youtube PHONY SOLDIERS



CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Monday, January 21, 2008

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Martin Luther King Jr. Day - marking the birth date of the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. - The campaign for a fed. holiday in King's honor began soon after his assassination. Ronald Reagan signed the holiday into law in 1983, - was first observed in 1986 - It was officially observed in all 50 states for the first time in 2000.
RELUCTANCE TO OBSERVE THIS DAY Jesse Helms (R-N C led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough.... He criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused King of having communist connections.
Ronald Reagan was also opposed to the holiday. He relented in his opposition only after Congress passed the King Day bill with an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate). MORE HERE:
Some years ago, I made this page to honor this man...
clipped from
What you may not know about MLK
href="" target=_blank

Today we honor Dr.
King's birthday. We all know him because of his historic impact on civil rights,
but many don't realize that later in life he fought just as passionately for the
rights of workers and against the entrenched institutions of injustice.
"Equality means dignity. And dignity demands a job and a paycheck that lasts
through the week."
The War on Greed is exactly this kind of fight. The livelihoods of families have
been directly attacked by the actions of buyout billionaires like Henry Kravis
putting Wall Street's special interests ahead of his 800,000 employees... and
pocketing $51,000 an hour in the process.
The first step must be taxing these buyout billionaires at a fair tax rate.
Please join us at our virtual lunch counter by signing the petition to
presidential candidates demanding they pledge to close the loopholes and tax the
tax dodgers. Buyout billionaires are a menace to our economy.
 blog it

Saturday, January 19, 2008

IS THE COLD WAR BACK? (or did it ever leave?)

Bush strongly suggests that Iraqi style democracy is optimal for Russia. Putin rebuffs el presidente and the press laughs with Putin

The Cold War was the era I grew up in. Russia was bullying the world with a Nuclear threat that made life an every day scary event. Today, our leaders acted as though this peril from Russia was a thing of the past (President Bush’s June 2001 declaration that he had looked Russia’s Vladimir Putin in the eye and “was able to get a sense of his soul”)

So with this threat supposedly long gone the Bush administration became solely occupied with a tiny Middle East country who posed no endangerment and was fully contained by sanctions. But still decided to declare war upon it. While the Real Threat quietly menaced in the background and now Russia is using their nuclear arsenal to bully humanity once again. (How come Bush didn't see that when he looked into The Putin Eye?) thinkingblue

COLD WAR - The global superpower stand-off that brought the world to the brink of destruction.

clipped from

Russia: could use nuclear weapons

By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW - Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes to protect itself and its allies, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities.

We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our
partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces
will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear
weapons," Baluyevsky said
military doctrine adopted in 2000 says Russia may use nuclear weapons to counter
a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally,
Baluyevsky's statement means that, as before, we cannot count on our
conventional forces to counter aggression
It means
containing aggression against Russia is nuclear weapons
stressed the need to maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent
blog it

Friday, January 11, 2008

Who's Being Blamed For 9-11?


We the People, that's who. It must be we-the-people because why then, are we being punished for it? "They", (we all know who the "they" is) haven't caught Bin Laden after 6 years of supposedly hunting him down. "They", sent our young people into an unnecessary war deluding the war they waged on the real 9-11 designers in Afghanistan. "They", depleted our liberties under the guise of The Patriot Act and Homeland Security. "They", took away so much of our National Guard, states were left without a safety net when natural disasters occurred i.e. KATRINA, which we are still being punished for with FEMA's revised Flood Maps. This little doozie is costing Me (A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF, WE THE PEOPLE) 200 hundred dollars a month for flood insurance, added to my mortgage because the new flood maps put my house smack dab in the middle of a flood zone. Lived in a house for almost 13 years and was high and dry through La Niñas, hurricanes and a few torrential rains replete with strong tornadoes. All of a sudden "They" tell me I need flood insurance... Al-Qaeda must be having so much fun... waiting to see what punishment the heretic population in the USA are going to receive next from their own American government. I'll bet they are throwing a congratulatory party for this REAL ID Act. thinkingblue AKA: MAD AS HELL AND NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

New security rules for driver's licenses By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer

Fri Jan 11, 1:33 AM ET

Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964
will have to get more secure
driver's licenses in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules
to be unveiled Friday by federal officials.

The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final regulations
for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal
immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort
once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of
winning over skeptical state officials.

Even with more time, more federal help and technical advances, REAL ID still
faces stiff opposition from civil liberties groups.

To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a secure
ID initiative that Congress passed into law in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key
deadline in 2011 — when federal authorities hope all states will be in
compliance — and then further measures to be enacted three years later,
according to congressional staffers who spoke to The Associated Press on
condition of anonymity because an announcement had not yet been made. DHS
officials briefed legislative aides on the details late Thursday.

Without discussing details, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
promoted the final rules for REAL ID during a meeting Thursday with an advisory

"We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I
think will be inexpensive, reasonable to implement and produce the results," he
said. "This is a win-win. As long as people use driver's licenses to identify
themselves for whatever reason there's no reason for those licenses to be easily
counterfeited or tampered with."

In order to make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious states, federal
authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to $3.9
billion, a 73 percent decline, according to Homeland Security officials familiar
with the plan.

The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort,
particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and
other officials say the only way to make sure an ID is safe is to check it
against secure government data; critics like the ACLU say that creates a system
that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its personal data pilfered.

In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL ID amounts to the
"first-ever national identity card system," which "would irreparably damage the
fabric of American life."

The Sept. 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had a total of four
driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, which was created in
response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: "One driver, one

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would
have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception
of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security officials said.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new
licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a
terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those
over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

Among other details of the REAL ID plan:

_The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the beginning of
the application instead of the end so that should someone be rejected for
failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's photo would be kept
on file and checked in the future if that person attempted to con the system

_The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain
microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu which
security measures they will put in their cards.

Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking both the
Social Security numbers and immigration status of license applicants.

Most states currently check Social Security numbers and about half check
immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and
California, already have implemented many of the security measures envisioned in
REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the only major change to
adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph at the beginning of the
application process instead of the end.

After the Social Security and immigration status checks become nationwide
practice, officials plan to move on to more expansive security checks, including
state DMV offices checking with the State Department to verify those applicants
who use passports to get a driver's license, verifying birth certificates and
checking with other states to ensure an applicant doesn't have more than one

A handful of states have already signed written agreements indicating plans to
comply with REAL ID. Seventeen others, though, have passed legislation or
resolutions objecting to it, often based on concerns about the billions of
dollars such extra security is expected to cost.

PHONY SOLDIERS by Rush Limbaugh

comments on youtube PHONY SOLDIERS



CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Wednesday, January 09, 2008

First Freedom First - Sign This Important Petition

Please View The Video And Sign The Petition.

Dear Friend,

I just signed the First Freedom First petition -- about the importance of safeguarding separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty. The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. It was so important to them that they placed it in the first sentence of the Bill of

I believe that religion is a deeply personal matter and that Americans must be free to practice their religion without coercion. Simply put, there must be a separation of church and state.

I know that we agree about the importance of these issues, so I hope that you will ACT NOW, like I just did. Be a part of First Freedom First.

Sign the petition and encourage others to join you. Together, we will send a powerful and resounding message -- safeguard the first freedom! Please visit the website below and join me in standing up for this fundamental American freedom. thinkingblue

PS: This is a form letter I did not create it, but the words are ones I believe in.

The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the
right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all.
So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it
in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This constitutional guarantee is often known as the "first freedom."

Religion is a deeply personal matter. Americans must be free to practice
their religion without coercion. Government exists to provide for the
general well-being of all people, and its workings must be independent of
specific religious doctrines. Simply put, there must be a separation of
church and state.

If we do not stand together as a nation, we stand to lose this fundamental

Click Here to Sign Petition

We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to
join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a
commitment to the following:

  • Every American should have the right to make personal decisions --
    about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters
    of personal conscience.

  • American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in
    hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious
    faith as a requirement for receiving services.

  • Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of

  • Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the
    promotion of religious preference or belief.

  • Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the
    best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.

We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit
ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Why I'm Proud To Be A Liberal

The Post Below is from:

United We Stand

A clear view on the muddy world of politics. Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Why I’m proud to be a progressive liberal

Liberals stand for Freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of choice. Freedom of religion. Freedom to be who you are, to love who you choose and raise your family the way you want.

Liberals stand for “liberty and justice for all” not just some.

Liberals believe in such radical things as “all men (and women) are created equal.” That was a radical belief, 250 years ago, but the generations of brave American men and women who have died for democracy, have done so to protect those once radical beliefs which are at the core of our beliefs as Americans—our freedoms of speech, choice, and equality.

Those things are worth fighting for, because they are the keystones of what our country was founded on. If you believe in democracy, if you believe in our constitution and bill of rights, then you believe in those things. If you don’t believe in those things, then you can say you love America, but you are confused as to what America is really about.

Liberals believe in an America “of the people, by the people and FOR the people.” Not for corporations like Enron and Exxon, but individuals—like you and me.

Liberals believe in the American dream—where every child can grow up to be what he or she wants, where every immigrant can make a better life for themselves and their children, the way our immigrant ancestors did for us.

In short, Liberals stand for the very things that our forefathers stood for—freedom of speech, religion. Freedom from oppression.

Neo-Conservatives are now Regressives

Yet, strangely, “Regressives” (also called neo-cons or the Right Wing) don’t believe in the most basic tenets of our Republic. They say they do. They wave flags and sing songs and call themselves patriots.

But their actions speak louder than their words. Regressives say one thing, and do another. That’s called hypocrisy. It’s also called lying. Their actions show they don’t believe in freedom of speech. They don’t believe it’s right to criticize your government, unless your government consists of duly elected Democrats. If your government is run by Republicans who didn’t win the popular vote, then you should “shut up” or you are unpatriotic. But that, my friends, is unpatriotic.

I’m not talking about real conservatives—those who believe in less government interference for all. I respect real conservatives. I don’t respect people who call themselves “conservatives” but are really radicals in traditional clothing who are actively trying to undermine civil rights and our very constitution.

Regressives want fewer controls on corporations and more on personal lives. They work to make discrimination a constitutional amendment. Those people are not conservatives. They are radicals, and their very actions show that they do not understand or agree with the most basic tenets of democracy and our Republic.

Regressives don’t believe in freedom of choice. They don’t approve of freedom of expression. They want to restrict what you say, what you hear. They work tirelessly to censor people’s freedom of speech, to intimidate those who try to speak their minds, to punish and fine those who do.

They want to tell you how to live your life. They want to tell you what you can do with your body—even who you can love. They want to control you, personally, just like any communist, fascist, dictator-controlled state.

Regressives don’t even believe in your most basic civil rights—the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. They have already passed laws that let the government arrest you—for no reason. Imprison you, for no reason, without access to your family or legal representation. This is the kind of thing that happens in dictatorships—it’s not supposed to happen here.

And yet it can—and it does—because Regressives have undermined your basic civil rights as an American. While doing so, they’ve repeatedly told you how they’ve made you safer. It’s a lie. You’re not safer from terrorists, and worse, you are in more danger from your own government.

Regressives have learned from oppressive regimes how to say one thing and do another, and as long as they keep repeating the “good stuff” they keep doing the “bad stuff” and people are confused. And scared. They want you to be scared. Not happy. They want you to be angry and unhappy. No happy.

Liberals agree with Thomas Jefferson and what he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness.” Regressives believe in “the pursuit of money and power.”

Regressives don’t even believe in family...

Regressives don’t believe in “America the Beautiful.” They believe only in profit. Now, there’s nothing wrong with profit—America is built on profit. But Regressives believe in profit at other people’s expensive—profit at your expense. For profit, they will despoil your land, pollute your skies, and say it’s OK for your kids to have more poisonous mercury in their milk. This is a fact—this is what they have done in the last four years. They have poisoned your children for their profit.

They have killed your children for their profits. They have sent them to wars they knew were not needed, but wars from which they could make profit. Billions and Billions of dollars of profit. So much profit that it’s costing you, personally, at least $31,000--this year. Oh, you can’t pay that all this year—that’s OK, they’ll keep taking the money from you in the future—and from your children, to pay for their profits.

Regressives are stealing from you. Right now. And what do YOU get from this? Do you get a more secure country? No. Do you get a cleaner environment? No. Do your children get a better education? No. Do you get better health care. No. What do you get out of it? Screwed.

Regressives are immoral.

Let me repeat that, because it’s something people haven’t seemed to notice. Regressives say they are religious. But their actions show them to be immoral hypocrites. A highly religious friend wrote this:

To those people who have studied the Jesus of the Scripture, - we understand that he taught that evil often pretends to be 'righteous' and the hallmark of evil, is hypocrisy. Therefore, if the large factions (denominations) are indeed following a false version of Christianity (anti-Christos), -- then collectively they will be the very thing they claim to abhor. Their primary doctrines will be based on lies, and they will use a superficial 'study' of the Scriptures to allege their doctrines (of demons) are "The Word of the Lawd".

This described regressives, neo-conservatives, the Republicans in power. They start wars. They kill thousands of innocent people. They steal money from you—and worse, your children’s future. They lie about what they do. They say they for education and they cut educational spending. They say they are for the environment, yet they eliminate environmental regulations designed to protect you—and they destroy your world, and your health. They say they are for health care, but they do nothing for you—while actively working to ensure that drug companies make more money. Regressives want to create amendments to the constitution which deny rights to at least 10% of Americans. That’s downright un-American. And it’s immoral. It’s immoral to deny basic human rights, and yet Regressives want to turn their immorality into law—law that runs so counter to the constitution that it would require the constitution be amended. That’s wrong.

So why don’t Regressives “seem” immoral? Because they talk a good game. They talk about freedom and American Values, and all they do is talk. Their actions speak louder than words. Their actions show them to be dangerous revolutionaries, true anti-American radicals who are tirelessly working to undermine democracy as we know it.

They talk about how bad Communists are, then they use their tactics against us. They work to remove our right to vote. They try to not count our vote. They try to postpone and cancel elections. They don’t bother counting votes, and instead have their friends on the Supreme court decide the election. They create presidential powers not in the constitution, upsetting the balance of power, so the perfectly balance system designed by our forefathers, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are out of whack, the executive branch has all the power, unchecked. This is not democracy.

The regressive agenda is not what Washington and Jefferson and Adams gave their lives to create. What the Regressives are doing is sliding our government into a Fascist Dictator state. Instead of “freedom from oppression,” the Regressives are turning our own government into the oppressors.

Neo-conservative regressives stand for “the land of the oppressed, and the home of the bully.”
Liberals stand for the “land of the free and home of the brave.”


Every thought you have written so eloquently on this post is my thought. We have been through so much, it is hard not to become cynical about anything government. They have let us down greatly in the past years of Republican rule. The saddest circumstance of their cunning is that so many have believed their distortions. Even when it is blatantly before them, a lie, they rationalize it into something innocent. If we were a people of enlightenment, none of the events we've experienced could have taken place. Unfortunately, so many people act like frightened little children and instead of choosing strong leadership they rather have a Big Daddy, supposedly looking out for them. Thanks for the post. I will blog it on my



CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it! thinkingBlueblogspot