Olbermann asked Dean whether Obama was violating the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture himself by refusing to prosecute those responsible.

“He is indeed is in violation if the United States does not undertake investigation of this, or ultimately prosecution, if that’s necessary,” Dean asserted. “It’s not only the Geneva Convention, the Convention Against Torture also requires this. There are no exceptions with torture. There are no real things like “torture light.” The world community I think is going to hold the United States responsible, and if we don’t proceed, somebody is going to proceed.”

PAUL: "we may have scared Frank and Sam off. "

They may be trying to prove a point: we go on whether or not someone opens the refrigerator door. LOL

PLM wrote:

"So surprised our blog hosts are not changing their topics."

Eric adds to his, we may have scared Frank and Sam off. LOL

Banksters Win One, Lose One in Congress
Friday 01 May 2009

by: Bernie Horn | Visit article original @ The Campaign for America's Future

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives handed bankers in the credit card industry a defeat. But almost simultaneously, mortgage bankers won big in the Senate. Senator Richard Durbin lamented [1] that the banks "are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

This is a tale of two tallies.

In the U.S. House, H.R.627 [2], the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act passed by the overwhelming margin of 357 to 70. This measure, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), would prevent credit card companies from:

Hiking interest rates any time and for no reason.

Applying newly-increased interest rates to prior existing balances.

Imposing major penalties for minor transgressions.

Imposing late fees even when it is proven that payment was mailed on time.

Imposing finance charges on balances repaid on time.

Marketing and issuing cards to young people who are clearly unable to repay debt.
It should surprise no one that polls show Americans overwhelmingly support this bill. Because they were afraid of a voter backlash, most Republicans supported H.R. 627 on the final vote. But first, almost all of the Republicans voted to kill the bill in a parliamentary maneuver - a motion to recommit that failed 164 to 263.

The bill now moves to the Senate where a similar measure, S. 414 [3] - the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Reform Act (Credit CARD Act) sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) - was approved by the Banking Committee on a straight party-line vote of 12 to 11. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated that he will try to bring the bill to the floor sometime next week.

That will be a much tougher fight. The Dodd bill has no Republican support, it will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and the progressives couldn't even get 50 votes for a different, but equally important, banking bill...

Yesterday in the U.S. Senate, the banks won the key vote [4] on S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, which has already passed the House as H.R. 1106. The vote was on Senator Durbin's amendment that would allow judges to modify residential mortgages in bankruptcy. (This provision is saddled with extremely bad message framing - they call it "cramdown.")

Even though the Durbin amendment was supported by President Obama, it failed 45 to 51 with 11 "centrist" Democrats voting against.

The argument for the Durbin amendment is that we should treat residential mortgages the same way we currently treat business mortgages, vacation home mortgages, and secured loans on boats and cars. The court tries to work out a payment plan designed to prevent the loss of the secured asset. In fact, residential mortgages were treated this way in bankruptcy court until 1978.

Without this bankruptcy provision, President Obama's plan to address the housing foreclosure crisis will essentially be limited to federal subsidies - which can't do a lot of good. There's a reasonable argument that everyone, banks included, would benefit from the bankruptcy provision and Citibank has endorsed it. But all the other banks ganged up to defeat it.

There is a moral to this story. No matter what progressive measure President Obama proposes, and no matter what slightly-compromised but still strong legislation is passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, it won't become law without the support of the so-called "moderate" Democrats in the Senate.

Here are the Democrats who voted against the Durbin amendment: Max Baucus (MT), Michael Bennet (CO), Robert Byrd (WV), Tom Carper (DE), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Arlen Specter (PA), and Jon Tester (MT). The credit card legislation - and all other progressive priorities-are in their hands. We'd better figure out a way to swing them to our side.

--------

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America's Future and author of the recent book, "Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People [5]."

Links:
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html
[2] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.627:
[3] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S414:
[4] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00174
[5] http://www.framingthefuture.org

Mortgaging the White House

Saturday 02 May 2009

by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
President Obama walks alone down the hall leading away from The East Room after his press conference on his 100th day in the White House. (Photo: Getty Images)

Finally, here we are at the end of this week of a hundred days. As everyone in the Western world probably knows by now, this benchmark for assessing presidencies goes back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who arrived at the White House in the depths of the Great Depression.

In his first hundred days, FDR came out swinging. He shut down the banks, threw the money lenders from the temple, cranked out so much legislation so fast he would shout to his secretary, Grace Tully, "Grace, take a law!" Will Rogers said Congress didn't pass bills anymore; it just waved as they went by.

President Obama's been busy, but contrary to many of the pundits, he's no FDR. Our new president got his political education in the world of Chicago ward politics, and seems to have adopted a strategy from the machine of that city's longtime boss, the late Richard J. Daley, father of the current mayor there. "Don't make no waves," one of Daley's henchmen advised, "don't back no losers."

Your opinion of Obama's first 100 days depends, of course, on your own vantage point. But we'd argue that as part of his bending over backwards to support the banks and avoid the losers, he has blundered mightily in his choice of economic advisers.

Last week, at a hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tried to correct AFL-CIO General Counsel Damon Silvers. "I've practiced law and you've been a banker," Silvers said. Never, Geithner replied, "I've only been in public service."

We beg to differ. Read Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson's front-page profile of Secretary Geithner in Monday's New York Times, and you'll see how Robert Rubin protege Geithner, during the five years he was running the New York Federal Reserve, fell under the spell of the big barons of banking to whom he would one day help shovel overly generous sums of money at taxpayer expense.

During "an era of unbridled and ultimately disastrous risk-taking by the financial industry," the Times reported, "... He forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street's giant financial institutions.

"His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry's interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records."

Wined and dined at the Four Seasons, and in corporate dining rooms and fine homes by the very men whose greed and judgment helped bring on the Great Collapse, Geithner became so much a favorite of the Club that former Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill talked with him about becoming the bank's CEO.

According to Becker and Morgenson, "Even as banks complain that the government has attached too many intrusive strings to its financial assistance, a range of critics - lawmakers, economists and even former Federal Reserve colleagues - say that the bailout Mr. Geithner has played such a central role in fashioning is overly generous to the financial industry at taxpayer expense."

The two reporters write that Geithner "repeatedly missed or overlooked signs" that the financial system was self-destructing. "When he did spot trouble, analysts say, his responses were too measured, or too late."

In choosing a man to manage the bailout of the banks who's so cozy with its players, and then installing as his White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who in the Clinton administration took a laissez-faire attitude toward the financial industry which would later enrich him, the president bought into the old fantasy that what's best for Wall Street is best for America.

With these two as his financial gatekeepers, President Obama's now in the position of Louis XVI being advised by Marie Antoinette to have another piece of cake until that rumble in the streets has passed on by.

In fact, other Wall Street insiders - many of them big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, and progressive in their concern for the public interest - privately are expressing serious concerns that Geithner, Summers and their associates are leading the president and America's taxpayers down a path toward further economic disaster.

This week, as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois unsuccessfully fought for a congressional amendment he said would have helped 1.7 million Americans save their homes from foreclosure, the senator told a radio station back home that, "The banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

He could say the same of the White House.

So much happening in the world...

So surprised our blog hosts are not changing their topics.

INSIDE WASHINGTON: Taxpayers to get rude surprise
INSIDE WASHINGTON: Millions of couples, retirees may have to repay some of Obama tax credit

* Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
* On Thursday April 30, 2009, 6:55 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.

The government is going to want some of that money back.

The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.

But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

More at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1

Never did cotton to those preachy, social-conscience cartoons. Saw your 'toon, and I'll raise you another snake oil salesman.

MUSIC MAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI

A Cartoon from 50 years ago..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI

WELCOME ARLEN SPECTER!

NEXT??

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 31 mins ago
WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was partly him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped the latest in a string of precipitously out-of-balance budgets.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

More at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_fact_check_obama

Jared wrote:

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereingty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

Oh here we go with the New World Order bull sh*t.
Roll up your pants boys, it's going to get deep.

Forrest wrote:

"There is nothing in your post worth becoming excited over. Except your jumping to conclusions and trying to get others to do the same."

BINGO!!!!!! Give the man a prize. You hit the nail on the head about Jared.

Forrest

Do you know what the Council on Foreign Relations is?

And that mebership is by invatation only..

Not just anyone can get in the CFR...

The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":

"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the Cfr for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization’s intentions:

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereingty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

wadada

Jarred,
how does being a member of this CFR make you eligible for the bailout funds. where is the nexus the smoking gun. I am an American these Companies are American you are an American and you have a Company does that mean we are part of the alleged conspiracy eluded to here. Your implication is conspiracy. Yet there is no evidence of such conspiracy sited. I m sorry friend but in this post you are full of it. All these listed companies have contributed to Democrats and Republicans as well and have paid taxes to the IRS and probably contributed to Cancer societies as well dos that make all these organizations conspirators and evil?? Get with the real man. There is nothing in your post worth becoming excited over. Except your jumping to conclusions and trying to get others to do the same.

Being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations has its perks..

Under Geithner and his predecessor (former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry “Hank” Paulson), the majority of bailout funds have been awarded to high-level donors to Geithner's former employer: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Here’s a survey of TARP bailout awards to the CFR’s corporate members (there are a total of only a little more than 200 corporate members at all levels):

Among the “Founders,” those who give $100,000 or more to the CFR, can be found:

* American Express Company: $3.389 billion TARP
* Goldman Sachs: $10 billion TARP, plus a separate Federal Reserve bailout and more than $13 billion of the allotment to AIG (below)
* Merrill Lynch: $45 billion through its corporate parent, Bank of America, which is also a CFR Premium corporate member, plus $6.8 billion of AIG’s bailout funds

“President’s Circle” CFR members ($60,000 or more) received the following bailout funds:

* American International Group (AIG): $182 billion in total TARP/TALF funds to date
* Citibank: $50 billion TARP
* Morgan Stanley: $10 billion TARP

Premium members ($30,000 or more to CFR):

* Bank of New York/Mellon Corporation: $3 billion TARP
* Freddie Mac: Sharing with Fannie Mae $1.25 trillion — that’s $1,250 billion — in mortgage securities being purchased from the Federal Reserve Bank
* Chrysler: $4 billion TARP, plus $1.5 billion TARP for Chrysler Financial
* JP Morgan Chase: $25 billion TARP
* CIT Group: $2.33 billion TARP

That’s a total of more than $1 trillion in bailout funds for CFR corporate members, easily the lion’s share of the total bailout funds awarded to date. CFR Membership seems to have its benefits, and then some.

Lets not forget that Michelle Obama sits as a member of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Chapter of the Council on Foreign Relations..

http://ccfr.org/chicago_council_board_directors.php

Dear ACLU Supporter,

You and I can’t let the issue of torture and accountability fade from view.

Tomorrow night at 8 p.m., President Obama will hold a news conference on the 100th day of his presidency. He will be asked roughly 25 questions. We have to make sure at least one of them is about torture.

Here’s how you can help: Urge White House correspondents for the major TV networks to ask the president this question:

The so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” exposed in the torture memos include keeping detainees awake for up to 11 straight days, dousing them with cold water and placing them naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. One prisoner -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- was waterboarded 183 times in a month.

Do you believe that a country - or a president - can afford to look at shocking evidence of illegal torture and simply look away?

Act now. Make sure the president is asked about torture tomorrow night.

As you know, the ACLU forced the release of the Bush torture memos and sparked a nationwide debate about torture and accountability. And we’re keeping the pressure on:

* Today, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the ACLU in an important case against Jeppesen Data Plan -- a subsidiary of Boeing. Jeppesen was responsible for organizing extraordinary rendition flights used repeatedly by the CIA to move detainees to countries where they could be tortured.
* In response to a long-standing ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Department of Defense has agreed to release a substantial number of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel by May 28.
* In another crucial ACLU case, a federal judge has rejected the CIA’s attempt to withhold records related to the agency’s destruction of 92 videotapes that depicted the harsh interrogation of CIA prisoners.

These events are critical to helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse. They are also crucial to holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.

Thanks for standing with us.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

Paul wrote:

"Nice try Forrest, but I think you would have better luck getting milk out of a bull than getting Jared to consider his actions here."

My actions here?

I don't attack others, i don't call others on the list names, i don't talk about other people's mental state as others on this blog have to others and myself, simple because you disagree with what i post..

I think you should call other people's actions to task before you talk about my actions...

wadada

Forrest wrote:

"Now I don't believe any of that and you can't make me think either. much respect to you and your intent."

Nice try Forrest, but I think you would have better luck getting milk out of a bull than getting Jared to consider his actions here.

the first hundred days has added an additional $5.5 billion of federal debt for each day...

Jared, Followers will not change their views .... liberal or conservative ..... they only see what they want to see .... and believe only what makes them right in th belief they have adopted. People here seem to want to believe that Obama is somehow different from all other politicians. And that the democratic party is somehow more ethical and moral then the republicans ... now Jared knowing that HOW IN THE WORLD are you going to change their minds or make them begin to think at all? Now I don't believe any of that and you can't make me think either. much respect to you and your intent.

April 27, 2009
Obama Demands Right to Recruit Minors for Military

Atheo News ~ April 27, 2009

Humboldt County, California voters passed measures F and J last November prohibiting military recruiters from initiating contact with minors. Now the Obama administration is demanding that the law be overturned. A court hearing is scheduled for June 9 in Oakland, California. The measures which passed by a large margin allow recruitment to occur if the minor initiates contact. Federal government lawyers claim "irreparable harm" if the laws stand.

The cities of Eureka and Arcata cite international treaties which prohibit recruitment of children under 17. If the Cities prevail over the Obama administration in court, the legislation could likely be brought before voters in communities across the nation. Enforcement of the laws is on hold pending the court action.

The author of the legislation, Dave Meserve described the ordinances prior to their passage last fall:

These ordinances will protect youth from the intense pressure to enlist exerted by military recruiters. While recruiters may deny that they pressure teens to sign up, many local students and their parents have had to deal with repeated, persistent phone calls and personal contact efforts, even after asking to be left alone. Recruiters target teens at school, at home, at community events, and in public places.

Recruiters are rewarded for meeting enlistment quotas and risk reassignment if quotas are not met. They are trained sales people, referring to our communities as “market areas,” our kids as “prospects,” and a successful enlistment as “closing the sale.” They target teens by glorifying military service and focusing on the high-tech, sexy, action-packed military jobs that few recruits ever experience. Rarely do they mention the horrific truth of modern warfare: Soldiers thrown into battle situations where they must kill or be killed, 18 percent returning from Iraq with traumatic brain injuries, and 20 percent with diagnosed post traumatic stress disorder.

Military recruiters have vast taxpayer resources to fund their efforts, while college and business recruiters lack equivalent resources. Most civilian jobs pose far less risk of death or dismemberment, and one can quit at will. ...

Although minors cannot enlist in the military without parental consent, the military routinely recruits sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, urging kids to sign up for the Delayed Entry Program, where they commit themselves to enlistment after their eighteenth birthdays.

As a society, we believe that people under 18 lack the life experience to make informed choices: they cannot vote, sign contracts, or make medical decisions. Recent studies have shown that the young brain does not fully develop critical thinking abilities until after the age of 20. If we agree that kids lack the experience and maturity necessary for voting, then they should not be subjected to the highly sophisticated sales efforts of military recruiters.

Some have said that the ordinance violates the 1st Amendment rights of recruiters, but 1st Amendment rights apply to people, not to the government, and the efforts of on-duty recruiters are actions of the government.

Others worry that the ordinance violates “No Child Left Behind” and threatens federal school funding. In fact, NCLB authorizes cutting off federal education funds only if a local school board restricts recruiter access to students at school. It does not address an initiative ordinance, enacted by the people, that protects youth under 18 from military recruiting anywhere within a city.

The federal government sets no minimum age limit below which recruiters may not contact kids to promote military enlistment. An official Recruiter Handbook has this advice for recruiters: “You will find that establishing trust and credibility with students, even seventh and eighth graders, has a strong impact on your high school and post-secondary school recruiting efforts.”

[...]

As a community, we have the right to protect the well-being of our youth. We should prohibit recruiters from targeting kids.

Forrest wrote:

"You gotta know you made my day with that last post. HAHAHAHAHA
ROFLMAO"

Glad you got a laugh out of it. But sadly it's true.

Paul,

You gotta know you made my day with that last post. HAHAHAHAHA
ROFLMAO

• You are surviving the recession and you are waiting for the recovery. Now, while you wait for the recovery and the chance to once again make some money, take a look at these marketing recommendations and plan ahead, but also the main key for your small business on www.bizcloud.net
If you are a buyer or seller of small businesses or some expert, you will find great value for your idea, business or maybe some business doubt!

Also check out The Crisis of Credit Visualized on http://blog.bizcloud.net/

Some people consider that they have plenty of good ideas running through their heads, but not always enough cash in the bank to make them all happen. But it isn’t always the case. Sometimes, people have the idea, but they need more information to manage that process well.

And • You are surviving the recession and you are waiting for the recovery. Now, while you wait for the recovery and the chance to once again make some money, take a look at these marketing recommendations and plan ahead, but also the main key for your small business on www.bizcloud.net
If you are a buyer or seller of small businesses or some expert, you will find great value for your idea, business or maybe some business doubt!

Also check out The Crisis of Credit Visualized on http://blog.bizcloud.net/

Rick wrote:

"There is million conspiry theories out there.

Sigh . . . and sadly most of them have been posted here.

This was sent to me in an email and sorry for any typo's , but I think his view is interesting. :)

Economic Lesson: Theses "Bail outs" are NOT about Homeowners defaulting on their Mortgages. These securities which include even 'Good" loans are still in these "Toxic Security Bundles". They repackaged the same securities over and over again, mix and match to create a "new security" to sell and so on and so on. It was like Las Vegas Style Gambling at Wall Street using anything and everything to package and re-sale as a "New" security until it had no choice but to evolve into a basic Ponzi Scheme. Home prices had already peaked, Values going down, interest rates going up which stopped the flow of "New" money injected into pool. Yes there were defaults, but there always is and always will be. Shorts sales started on almost everything because property, cars everything went down in value making these securities lose value. Many securities and peices were insured by various entities..Gov loans, PMI, AIG and so on in which they were paid on and became the asset now of the Insurer....with me so far...AIG..Fannie Mae.. ect


Now....all this "Bail out Money". Where did it go? What about all the toxic assets and bad homeowners? I thought they were to buy the difference of these default mortgages? Why is it NOT EVEN ONE homeowner got bailed out? Yet the entire blame is on Home owners?

Fannie Mae got 200 Billion, Freddy Mac got 200 billion, AIG got 184 Billion(that you know of..ha ha)
Goldman Sac's got 33 billion and every know bank you think of were forced to take at least 18 to 30 Billion.

September 11 2008 there was a run on our banks from FOREIGN banks and investors to convert their American dollars to another currency which would of collapsed our entire economy. The FED's shut the system off for 3 hours and went to work. September 15 2009 is when they annoced this crisis and told you about this bail out. It had already been going on for a while.

Our dollar value had dropped to almost ZERO. This is why all, not some, ALL the banks got bail outs.
Do you really believe home owners crushed our entire economy? They hoped you did. And most do.

Foreign banks owned almost all these assets. China, The EU, The Middle East Oil Investment Groups and on and on.

ALL THE MONEY WENT TO FOREIGN BANKS AND INVESTORS TO "HOLD" while our Government has promised it will fix this and put value back in the dollar.

Every building, home, car everything has some foreign money invested into it via Global Economy. Thanks George Senior. One World Economy(Order). Our other choice would be to just let all these foreign banks just come over here and claim their rightful property and assets and just foreclose on America!

I pray we can get past this...Remember..it's not just houses, it's everything and anything that is tangible that is at stake.
Our Government now "owns" almost every bank PLUS commercial and residential property including manufacturing....
So do we as tax payers own this too? You bet!
Now :"they" have another problem....US.

Lets see what happens next....taxes taxes no write offs anymore taxes taxes capital gain on anything taxes taxes

I don't think it's the end of world and all that but somethings up....China, Russia and the Middle East Banks want a new world currency NOT based on our dollar anymore. Read it yourself in the News. It's no secret.
I'm more worried about how Our Government is going to return to The Republic we once were without going full blown Socialist because of the dollar collapse.

There is million conspiry theories out there. 911, The Fed's broke us on purpose, The World Banks.. Bla Bla Who Knows.

This is just MY opinion. I pray we pull through this and enjoy America the best land in the world.
Rick

OMG! Now that was funny!
I love it when Simon gets totally caught off guard, and he cracks up. It's so funny. It's like the night on Idol that Paula brought out the coloring books with crayons, and he was speechless. Then he drew the mustache on Paula's face with the crayon.
I love seeing the lighter and funnier side of Simon. I also respect 98% of his comments too. The man does know what he's talking about.
Thank you for the laugh early in the morning.

DAN:

This one's especially for you. Britain's definitely Got Talent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bDUvqQkhno

PAUL:
Thanks for the translation.

Jozie wrote:

"PAUL:
Love the toast, now translate that other line you quoted regarding Susan Boyle. What?"

Jozie it translates to:
"She deserves all that is coming to her"

DAN:
Making you laugh makes my day. And about the Stuart Smalley line . . . I was going to steal it out right, but decided to loosely paraphrase.

I adore Al Franken, and I'm afraid he's not going to be funny anymore now that he's a US Senator. Wait a minute, maybe I'm wrong. Roland Burris, Barney Frank, Ted Stevens . . . ya' can't get much funnier than them. LOL

PLM:
LOL

PAUL:
Love the toast, now translate that other line you quoted regarding Susan Boyle. What?

Jozielee said:

"And, doggone it, we look forward to finding each other here day after day as time permits."

I have to say how much I love and look forward to your comments Ms. Jozielee!
That line above brought such a smile to my face because it reminded me of the Al Franken character from SNL, Stuart Smalley.
"You're Good Enough, You're Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You"

Oh Jozielee thank you so much for your always insightful comments.
I'm on heavy duty muscle relaxers, due to throwing my back out severly Tuesday. I've never had pain like this, and it felt so good to smile and even laugh for the first time in 2 days!
Thank you Ms. Jozielee, thank you!

Jozie wrote:

"This group is like "Cheers," the bar where everybody knows your name. We're not a monolith. We each have our own voice. We argue. We agree. We crack each other up. We respect each other. And, doggone it, we look forward to finding each other here day after day as time permits."

I can agree with the above.

And if I may say one of my favorite Irish toasts.

"May you have the hindsight to know where you've been
the foresight to know where you're going
and the insight to know when you're going too far."

Cheers to all.

Here Here!

Wow Jozie you just made me want a beer and I don't even drink beer! LOL.

I agree with what you said.

Jared buddy you are deep! And just in case you have never heard the term ( which I doubt) that is not an insult ....just a fact!

Paul wrote:

Are you asking that with a straight face? LOL

Just pointing out the ridiculous.... Paul.

FORREST: "Jared...Why do you spend so very much time here?"

Here's my 2cents. Jared spends a lot of time here because he admires all of us. He enjoys spending time with us. He looks forward to our posts and responses, usually so he can tear them apart. He appreciates our ability to support our beliefs, especially when they differ from his own . . . which is almost every topic, every day. He enjoys a lively discussion. He thinks he has to teach us to broaden our POV, which IMHO he's complete off base. He's trying to save us from ourselves. LOL

Jared is wrong. He's also abrasive. He's opinionated. He has little grace. He's stubborn and he's a real pain in the kiester 99% of the time.

But I've got to give him props. When he stopped posting those endless articles and offered his own synopsis and analysis, after Paul and Dan told him we don't read those endless reams of data, his entries became approachable. True, most of us still didn't agree with what he had to say, but at least we read.

This group is like "Cheers," the bar where everybody knows your name. We're not a monolith. We each have our own voice. We argue. We agree. We crack each other up. We respect each other. And, doggone it, we look forward to finding each other here day after day as time permits.

Cheers!

Jozie wrote:

"Ms. Boyle is still in the competition. And they've discovered a challenger called Shaheen Jafargholi. He's about 12. Cute as a button. The battle is on. "

My vote is for Ms. Boyle. Not big on kid singers no matter how cute, and at 12, she will have plenty of other chances for a career.

To Ms. Boyle, "She's weill warth sorrow that coffs it wi her ain siller" Good luck.

Jozie wrote:

"About the California State Assembly raises: They've been canceled."

I would think so. They stick us with higher fees and taxes and they have the nerve to give raises? All the lawmakers should take a 40% cut in pay. Since they are the main reason this state is in the shape it is.

On a happy note. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has tossed his hat into the race for governor. I see him as a governor for the 21st Century.

Jared please, you are here to infuriate others. Whether right or wrong (I don't desire to argue the issue) your clearly not influencing anyones beliefs here. So I must think, since you are intelligent, that your intention is to GET IN EVERYONES FACE! Is that true? Am I off base? Do you think you have people changing what they think because of your posts? (if anyone has please post) You have spurned much discussion. You have only opposition that I can locate. Why do you spend so very much time here?

Hey PLM:

Isn't Susan Boyle amazing? Apparently she's been asked to dinner with Piers Morgan, one of the Britain's Got Talent judges. And she's been offered a duet with her girl crush Elaine Paige. Boyle's gone glam. Had a slight makeover. See DailyBeast.com

Ms. Boyle is still in the competition. And they've discovered a challenger called Shaheen Jafargholi. He's about 12. Cute as a button. The battle is on. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-22/how-shaheen-blew-me-away/

Don't think this show is available on US television. Like American Idol, you can watch clips on the web at http://talent.itv.com/

About the California State Assembly raises: They've been canceled.

Karen Bass, Democrat; and Michael Villines, Republican, decided to cancel the raises they were going to give their staffers 80 Dems for a total of $350K and 56 Repubs for $201K.

Dan & Jozie Lee do you know happened on the Britian's got Talent?

How is Susan Boyle doing? She is Bloody fantastic!!!
Did she win already?
What night does this air? What channel?
Is it on air in the US?

If you are one of the 5 people in America who hasn't seen her...you have to see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

WARNING: some have been known to require a box of tissues during the viewing so beware! :)

Thank you, Dan. I'm watching now.

*SPOILER ALERT* for American Idol. (Do not read if you don't want to know who got the boot)

First to go:

Lil

Second to go:

Anoop

Allison was in the bottom 3 but safe! Whew!

Would like to see Final Four
Kris
Allison
Danny
Adam

Final two:

Adam
Allison

PLM wrote:

Are you now comparing Obama to Hitler???

Are you asking that with a straight face? LOL

Gilbert
You are so right! This is outrageous! When I saw on the news that the Assembly had voted a raise for their staff;

5% for Democrats
and
5.5% for Republicans

at this time when exactly what you said SSI cuts are being made.
First those recipients were given a 5.8% increase and now over 2.3% of that is being taken away!
Obama giveth a $250. stimulus due in late May and now Arnold the one people put in as they recalled Gray Davis, Arnold taketh away! Since SSI is State Government they can do that. Fortunately for those on SSDI Arnold can't touch us.
But, this is the most selfish and unthinkable thing the Calif. Assembly has ever done IN MY OPINION!

Gilbert, you are so right.

How can they give raises when people are furloughing and being laid off because there's no money. I understand everyone expects a pay increase for doing good work, but this isn't the time.

I agree with Frank. It is humiliating to have to dig in the garbage to survive. People all over this state are suffering. It's beyond my understanding how the state legislature can raise taxes and the state assembly can give themselves a raise while at the same time they are taking money out of the pockets of the people that really need it by reducing SSI benefits and Social Security, etc. I guess we have just two choices. We can either stand up and fight for our rights or just lay down and take it.

Thank you Forrest. I will also check out Speaker Bass. If what you say about her is true..she sounds like a keeper!

To Jared,

Are you now comparing Obama to Hitler???

Okay...Jared. I'm now getting seriously worried about you, good buddy.