Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution

Barack Obama articulates his socialist vision for the United States. He muses about a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts (Ctrl-Click Image to hear interview). Image Credit: NakedEmperorNews

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution

In a radio interview given in 2001, Barack Obama finally articulates his philosophy on how social engineering (socialism) should come and be established here in the United States.

What the junior Senator from Illinois would like to see is a Supreme Court that would legislate (from the bench) transfer of earned monies from citizens that work to the citizens who do not.

The more one reads these statements of philosophy, one is left to wonder … exactly what about this country and its constitution does Barack Obama like? Judging by the proposed projection of action he had wished the Warren court missed at taking on … not much. He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the document that allowed this country to become the most productive and powerful on Earth – how flawed can this document be?

Personal freedom and the right to one’s earned wealth are two items that Barack Obama would like to have in the total control of the federal government – ALL BRANCHES.

This excerpted and edited from Morningstar –

Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)
Beliavsky - Morningstar - 10-26-2008

Here is a transcript of a 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama where he advocates redistribution as reparations for slavery and other injustices towards "previously disposessed peoples".

MODERATOR:
Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR:
Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN:
Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA:
Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
----
So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Reference Here>>

So, does anyone here think that Barack Obama would restructure the Supreme Court system so that they can legislate changes on how much money we earn can be confiscated for redistribution purposes without the opportunity for a vote by the people in this democracy?

“General WMD” Powell Endorses “Senator Speech” Obama

Colin Powell hailed the Sen. Obama as a "transformational figure" and expressed disappointment in the negative tone of Sen. John McCain's campaign, as well as his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate. Image Credit: Meet The Press – NBC

“General WMD” Powell Endorses “Senator Speech” Obama

Nobody can make this stuff up!

At this very moment with a little more than two weeks before the election, Senator Barack Obama had spent a total of 143 days on the floor of the United States Senate before declaring his intention to become the candidate nominee of the Democrat Party for the office of President of the United States. During the primary process before he was able to secure his political party’s nomination, he had to compete against Senator Hillary Clinton who characterized her opponent as a person who’s only accomplishment was a speech given stating a position as being against the war in Iraq.

Colin Powell is a Free Enterprise citizen making money from speeches he gives on behalf of his long list of accomplishments which include directing and winning the first Gulf War (an action opposed by then Senator and current Vice-Presidential candidate, Joe Biden) under George Bush, President #41, and being the Secretary of State and selling the invasion of Iraq by the United States to the United Nations for George Bush, President #43.

Step back in time with me for a moment and have your brain fire off in a synapse cluster.

After September 11, 2001, our Government was looking to respond and hunt down the forces that were aligned to attack the United States and thereby the free world.

In the run up to our impending invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama and Colin Powell were leading distinctly different lives.

This excerpted and edited from The White House website -

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
This transcript includes the slides that were displayed during the remarks. They are placed in the text approximately where they were displayed in the address. To view the slides, click on the graphic (a pop-up window will appear).
February 5, 2003

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he most hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.
Reference Here>>

Colin Powell said this with having all of his “skin-in-the-game” as Secretary Of State of the United States and delivered his presentation in front of the world representatives gathered at the United Nations.

At this very time of Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations, Barack Obama was gearing up his (eventually unopposed) run for the office of United States Senator from the state of Illinois.

This edited and excerpted from The Black Commentator -

The Black Commentator
Issue Number 45 - June 5, 2003

Barack Obama, [an ACORN community organizer,] a constitutional law professor and state senator from the south side of Chicago, is a leading candidate for the US Senate in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary. It's an open seat with no incumbent. In a crowded field that includes three well-known and better-funded opponents, Obama is definitely a contender. But who is Barack Obama?
----
At an antiwar meeting last October, 2002, Obama was certainly pitching to that Democratic base in the progressive and African American community:

"I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
----
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics .... "
Reference Here>>

Barack Obama said this without having any “skin-in-the-game” to a small crowd of like minded people gathered at an antiwar meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

This weekend with a little more than two weeks left before the election, Free Market citizen and professed Republican (speaking fees estimated at $100,000 per appearance), Colin Powell announced his endorsement for Barack Obama.

This edited and excerpted from Meet The Press, October 19, 2008 –

'Meet the Press' transcript for Oct. 19, 2008
Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Chuck Todd, David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough

[Colin Powell]

I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
----
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
Reference Here>>

So there you have it, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell endorses junior Senator fom Illinois, Barack Obama for President of the United States. He does so by sighting Style and Substance and not one word about his life accomplishments, and possible philosophical ideals that would be good for all of America to embrace.

OUCH!

This is a Republican who sold the world on the fact that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) and was heralded for his prowess as a successful chief warrior when our country was called on by the world to move the invasion army of Iraq out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

This is also a Republican who opposes the right to life for the unborn, opposes the appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Does he also disapprove of his appointments to being a Four-Star General in the Army (President Ronald Reagan, #40), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Military (President George H.W. Bush, #41), and Secretary of State of the United States (President George W. Bush, #43)?

With a Republican like this ... who needs Democrats?

We can only imagine what type of position a Colin Powell has negotiated for himself in a Barack Obama administration. Oh, and do not forget ... this endorsement isn't about race.

Trickle Down Growth Or Trickle Across Poverty

Casting the tax debate as a “values” issue Saturday, Barack Obama said John McCain was "out-of-touch" for equating the Illinois senator's plan to cut taxes for middle class families with welfare. /// “It comes down to values – in America, do we simply value wealth, or do we value the work that creates it?” Obama said at a rally under the Gateway Arch. “I’m not giving tax cuts to folks who don’t work. I’m giving tax cuts to folks who do work. That’s right, Missouri – John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare.’ – Barack Obama in St. Louis Oct. 18, 2008 – Image Credit: Ethiopian Review

Trickle Down Growth Or Trickle Across Poverty

“Joe The Plumber” has really struck a cord with the average American that does not want to loose their hard fought freedoms.

The truth is that most Americans are not opposed to paying taxes to a Government that creates and maintains roads and infrastructure, creates and maintains laws that secure our sovereignty, and gives us protection from forces that want to take over our freedoms that our forefathers envisioned us having here in the United States – Religion, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness!

What most Americans do not want to do is pay taxes for WELFARE knowing full well that this is the cancer that attacks our productivity, creativity, economic health, and the wide variety of choices we have come to expect in our "7-11 society" (access to almost anything at anytime of the day).

One measure of how well people connect with a vision of America that “Joe The Plumber” articulates and its effect on our election process for President ... expect a machine generated “robocall” from the Democrat Party featuring “Bob The Plumber” - That’s right, BOB … THE PLUMBER! The inventive “Bob” is the main character in a phone call people get while they are eating dinner, espousing the virtues of a Barack Obama economic vision that invests in the middleclass.

This Reference (edited) found at The Huffington Post –

Obama Launches Own 'Joe The Plumber' Robocall
Sam Stein – The Huffington Post, October 18, 2008

Barack Obama's campaign is trotting out its own "Joe the Plumber" to counteract efforts by John McCain to make inroads on the white working class vote.

A reader in Colorado sends over word that the state Democratic Party and the Obama camp are blasting out robocalls from "Joe Martinez," a plumber in Colorado who vouches for the Illinois Democrat's tax plan.

A spokesman for the Colorado Democratic Party confirmed the robocall and said he would try to track down audio. The rough script goes like this:

"...During this week's debate, Barack Obama talked about cutting taxes for
middle class families like mine, lowering health care costs for everyone and
bringing the change we need in Washington. John McCain ignored the issues and
used the debate to launch false attacks against Barack Obama. In fact, McCain -
for the third debate in a row - didn't even say the words 'middle class'. So,
take it from Joe the plumber, if you want a president who will put middle class
families first - join me in voting for Barack Obama. Paid for by the Colorado
Democratic Party...."

Reference Here>>

What "Barack The Socialist" says is that 95% of all working taxpayers will receive a tax cut – only about 60% of all Americans actually pay taxes so this means the rest of the taxpayers will receive a “tax credit” in the mail. If a taxpayer did not pay money into a tax system, a tax credit is wealth redistribution, which is WELFARE … or socialism.

This excerpted and edited from the Los Angeles Times -

McCain Compares Obama's Policies To Socialism
By BOB DROGIN and MARK Z. BARABAK Los Angeles Times - October 19, 2008

John McCain sharpened his attack on presidential rival Barack Obama's economic proposals Saturday, accusing the Democrat of seeking to turn the United States into a socialist country and convert the IRS into a giant "welfare agency" that would dole out cash at Washington, D.C.,'s discretion.

----

In recent days, McCain has seized on a comment that Obama made in defending his tax policies to Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, an Ohio man now better known as "Joe the Plumber." Obama, who was canvassing Wurzelbacher's neighborhood last weekend, told him: "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Delivering a national radio address before setting out for stops Saturday in North Carolina and Virginia, McCain said Obama's approach "sounded a lot like socialism."

"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," the Republican nominee said. "They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut. It's just another government giveaway."

Obama has said that his plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans, including Wurzelbacher. McCain has said 40 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes, either because they are elderly or don't make enough money."

In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in his radio remarks.

----

For decades, Republicans have portrayed Democrats as acolytes of big government, top-down solutions. But socialist theory is more radical and arguably more sinister-sounding. It calls for collective ownership of most private enterprise and the creation of an egalitarian society. Karl Marx said that socialism was a transitional phase between capitalism and communism.

Reference Here>>

If one studies the economies of the countries that have embraced socialism as a component of their economic and governmental structure, what one finds with this practice is an average standard of living that becomes reduced. Socialism reduces incentive, investment, growth, and empowerment - the tenants of "Trickle Down Growth."

What Barack Obama aims to achieve with his tax plan besides having the Government be able to make more decisions over how one leads his or her life, is a wealth redistribution which amounts to an economic plan that can be termed as - "Trickle Across Poverty!"

NEWS FLASH – Palin Reads New York Times. Finds Ayers

Gov. Palin and Katie Couric get real and adorable in this Saturday Night Live skit featuring Tina Fey as Palin and Amy Pouler as Couric (Ctrl/Click to launch video). Image Credit: NBC/ Saturday Night Live (screenshot from video)

NEWS FLASH – Palin Reads New York Times. Finds Ayers

Yesterday, on the campaign stump, Gov. Sarah Palin answers her critics on several fronts.

Last week Palin was interviewed by CBS News Anchor Katie Couric and Katie asked Sarah if she read newspapers and/or magazines (yes) and what were the names of some of the newspapers and/or magazines – Sarah did not mention any specific newspaper or magazine feeling that this line of questioning was a trap.

Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey have made a lot of hay from this incident, lampooning Palin’s responses in her televised interview with Couric and gaining ratings points along the way.

Sarah Palin is beginning to gain a few rating points of her own and she is doing it by admitting that she reads the New York Times.

At a campaign rally scheduled for Monday, October 6, 2008, Coachman Park in Clearwater, Florida, the Vice Presidential running mate to Senator John McCain admitted to actually reading the New York Times.

"And according to The New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the US Capitol.' Wow," she said.

She said Obama was "someone who sees America as 'imperfect enough' to work with a former domestic terrorist who targeted his own country."

Obama, she said, was "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

No wonder Sarah did not want to tell Katie Couric what resource newspapers she reads to inform her; it turns out that by reading the New York Times, she would find out that a candidate running for President of the United States is a person who worked along side of and was appointed by William Ayers to become the Chairman of an educational grant fund that promoted the political radicalization of children through the handing out millions of dollars. As Chairman, Barack Obama directed where the monies were to go with the shoulder-to-shoulder collaboration of William Ayers.

"From now and until Election Day, hang onto your hats because, you know, it may get kinda rough here," Sarah Palin said with her signature sass. "Campaigns have to step up and kinda take the gloves off and start telling the truth."

Funny thing … that the truth can sometimes be found through reading the New York Times!

Palin Delivers Hope In Protecting Freedoms For Americans

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden after Thursday's vice presidential debate. Image Credit: Ron Edmonds, Associated Press

Palin Delivers Hope In Protecting Freedoms For Americans

While gaining confidence throughout the evening, Governor Sarah Palin delivered a message of Change and Hope better than the Democrat talking point delivery of Senator Joseph Biden.

Sarah stayed on point while not allowing the thrust and parry of minutia in the questions to divert her from showing the difference between the inbred stance of Washington insiders and a “mainstreet” living Governor from and energy producing state that has a lot to contribute.

Sarah Palin was in a good mood while the Senator of 35 years was stuck in “senate speak”. Palin showed an energy and acted like an everyday person … better than expected.

In a post debate interview conducted on Fox News by Dr. Frank Luntz, several people in the crowd strongly felt that Sarah Palin would be ready to lead if the events came about where she had to step in. They felt that her executive experience and her performance in the debate brought them around to understand that our country needs an outside point of view to help refresh the leadership to run politics in Washington.

Plain talk can not be discounted in our country at this unique time, and it does not come cheaply. In the end, Governor Palin stated that it would be the goal of a McCain administration to help protect the freedoms each preceding generation has fought for and that these freedoms would not be eroded on their watch.

Charles Krauthammer, when interviewed in a post debate segment on Fox News felt Joseph Biden may have won on points but looked very sour in the end.

Note to Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief political observer, who had stated on Morning Joe this morning that the presidential race was over … the race is not over, not just yet!

This excerpted and edited from USA Today –

Fact check: Context of key debate claims
By Ken Dilanian and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

A look at some of the claims made by Sen. Joe Biden and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate Thursday night in St. Louis:

Tax votes

The claim: Palin said Sen. Barack Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes.

The facts: Non-partisan FactCheck.org called that count, which has been cited before by Republicans, "inflated and misleading." Examining the 94 votes at issue, FactCheck.org found that 23 were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals, according to FactCheck.org, which is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

The 94 tally includes two, three and even four votes on the same measure.

Tax rate changes

The claim: Palin said Obama's plan to raise the top income tax rate would affect "millions of small businesses." Biden responded that the vast majority of small businesses do not report more than $250,000 in income.

The facts: The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, citing 2003 data from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, said in a report that 436,000 tax filers with small-business income — 1.3% of the 32.8 million filers with small-business income — were subject to the top income tax rate. Another Tax Policy Center analysis concluded that "roughly 97% of small businesses would not be affected at all by increases in the top two tax rates."

Health care

The claim: Palin said Obama wants a "universal, government-run program" and "health care being taken over by the feds."

The facts: Obama's health-care plan does not call for a government takeover. In fact, it isn't even universal. It would only cover all children. Obama's plan would give Americans the opportunity to have government health insurance, but they also could pick a private plan.

Energy

The claim: Biden said he has "always" supported clean coal. He said "a comment made at a rope line was taken out of context" by John McCain's campaign.

The facts: In the video, recorded at the beginning of Biden's bus trip across Ohio last week, he is seen responding to a question about why the campaign is supporting clean coal. "We're not supporting clean coal," he says. "Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States, it's causing people to die."

As the exchange continues, Biden says: "China's gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up, because it's gonna ruin your lungs, and there's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build 'em, if they're gonna build 'em, over there and make 'em clean because they're killing you."

Mortgage crisis

The claim: Biden said McCain said he was "surprised" by the subprime mortgage crisis.

The facts: McCain's use of the word "surprised" came in response to a leading question in New Hampshire last December. At the time, he compared it to the dot-com collapse of the late 1990s, adding: "I was surprised at other times in our history. I don't know if surprised is the word." Later in the same interview, he said, "When I say 'surprised,' I'm not surprised when in capitalist systems that there's greed and excess."

Troop funding

The claim: Each vice presidential candidate said the opposing presidential candidate voted against funding U.S. troops in Iraq.

The facts: Palin's charge that Obama voted against funding the troops is true. But Obama said at the time that he wanted to fund the troops, but the bill in question didn't include a requirement that President Bush begin bringing troops home. Similarly, Biden's charge that McCain also voted against funding is true — because the bill in question included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and McCain opposes timelines.

Diplomacy

The claim: Biden said Obama did not say he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is simply not true about Barack Obama," he said. "He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad."

The facts: At a news conference in New York City in September 2007, Obama was asked, "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad … would you still meet with him today?" He replied: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries."

Reference Here>>

Mark-To-Market / It’s Time To Gore Sarbanes-Oxley Now

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). [Fox News interview YouTube video links at post end] Image Credit: episcopalifem.wordpress.com

Mark-To-Market / It’s Time To Gore Sarbanes-Oxley Now

In the wake of the ENRON Corporation accounting fiasco, congress rushed in with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to show that they were paying attention to the outrage seen in the voting public to lying from corporate executives.

Definition from Wikipedia:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted 2002-07-30), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, enacted on July 30, 2002 was put forward by Congress in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 334-90 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Tucked into this bill was an accounting practice that is known by the term “Mark-To-Market”. “Mark-To-Market” was designed to have assets of a corporation be valued on a market valuation basis. Simply put … the assets of a corporation would be valued not on the time and intrinsic value of the assets held, but on the confidence level of those assets as shown in the stock market price of the company marked at a particular point in time.

Several recognized leaders have begun to ask the Bush Administration to act against this practice and change it so that the value of corporate assets would be calculated based upon an average taken over a three month period backwards from the time the assessment is required when businesses are applying for swing loans upon which a company takes advantage of an opportunity to expand (leveraging assets).

Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, and Steven Forbes are three of the recognized names calling for this free market change upon which about 70% of our economy’s liquidity crisis can be solved. By making the Executive Order TODAY to suspend the “Mark-To-Market” accounting practice of corporate valuation mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, corporations would be able to show assets valued at a more realistic rate thus banks would have the confidence to lend them money and our economy would gain some liquidity without taxpayer money.

This excerpted and edited from Forbes Magazine -

Suspend Mark-To-Market Now!
Newt Gingrich 09.29.08, 6:05 PM ET

Today, Congress voted against passing the bailout package for Wall Street. The stock market reacted immediately, falling almost 800 points. It is clear that something needs to be done, and in the coming days, a new package must be constructed that has the support of the American people that both deals with the liquidity crisis and sets the stage for long-term economic growth.
----
Today the Treasury secretary released the following statement: "I and my colleagues at the Fed and the SEC continue to address the market challenges we are facing on a daily basis. I am committed to continuing to work with my fellow regulators to use all the tools available to protect our financial system and our economy."

While Congress and the White House consider next steps, the Treasury and its fellow regulators should follow their own counsel and take without delay the one regulatory action within their discretion that can help immediately to calm markets and dramatically reduce the taxpayer risk in any necessary government intervention: suspend mark-to-market.

Chief economist Brian S. Wesbury and his colleague Bob Stein at First Trust Portfolios of Chicago estimate the impact of the "mark-to-market" accounting rule on the current crisis as follows:

"It is true that the root of this crisis is bad mortgage loans, but probably 70% of the real crisis that we face today is caused by mark-to-market accounting in an illiquid market. What's most fascinating is that the Treasury is selling its plan as a way to put a bottom in mortgage pool prices, tipping its hat to the problem of mark-to-market accounting without acknowledging it. It is a real shame that there is so little discussion of this reality." (Emphasis added.)
----
"Mark-to-Market" Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis: Mark-to-market accounting (also known as "fair value" accounting) means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Under such a rule, declining housing prices don't just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages. They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.

Moreover, when a company in financial distress begins fire sales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market-bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market. This has begun a downward death spiral for financial companies large and small.

More foreclosures and home auctions continue to depress housing prices, further reducing the value of all mortgage-related securities. As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation. When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further. Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more.

The credit agencies see declining capital margins, so they downgrade the company's credit ratings. That makes borrowing to meet capital requirements more difficult. Declining capital and credit ratings cause the company's stock prices to decline.

Panic sets in, and no one wants to buy mortgage-related securities, which drives their value under mark-to-market regulations down toward zero. Balance sheets under mark-to-market suddenly start to show insolvency. This downward spiral shuts down lending to these companies, so they lose all liquidity (cash on hand) needed to keep company operations going. Stockholders--realizing that they will be wiped out if the companies go into bankruptcy or get taken over by the government--start panic selling, even when they know the underlying business of the company is fine.

The end result for the company is stock prices driven toward zero and bankruptcy or government takeover. The criminal liabilities imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley have driven accountants to stricter and stricter accounting evaluations and interpretations and have prevented leading executives from resisting them.
----
Reform or Bust: Because existing rules requiring mark-to-market accounting are causing such turmoil on Wall Street, mark-to-market accounting should be suspended immediately so as to relieve the stress on banks and corporations. In the interim, we can use the economic value approach based on a discounted cash flow analysis of anticipated-income streams, as we did for decades before the new mark-to-market began to take hold. We can take the time to evaluate mark-to-market all over again. Perhaps a three-year rolling average to determine mark-to-market prices would be a workable permanent system.
----
For companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH - news - people ) and American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people ), suspending mark-to-market rules will come too late. But for the remaining vulnerable banks and corporations, doing away with the current mark-to-market accounting rules will safeguard against destructive pricing volatility, needless bankruptcies, job loss and huge taxpayer bailouts.

Suspending Mark-to-Market Only the First Step to Economic Recovery: In the wake of today's vote, suspending mark-to-market is an extremely important first step to take, but it is only a first step.
----
Congress should look at the impact of the Irish 12% corporate income tax on attracting investment and jobs to Ireland and consider a dramatic cut in the U.S. corporate income tax (the highest in the world when combined with state taxes) as a step toward attracting high-value productive and desirable jobs back to the United States.

The Congress should look at the Chinese and Singapore growth patterns and match them by zeroing out the capital gains tax to induce massive flows of private capital to rebuild the market and minimize the need for a taxpayer-funded bailout.

The Congress should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, which failed to warn of every single bankruptcy but provides a $3-million-a-year accounting and regulatory expense for every small company wishing to go public.

This is the kind of pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur program that would accelerate the American recovery and lead to the next economic period of real growth.
Reference Here>>

It’s time to gore Sarbanes-Oxley now!

Newt Gingrich lays out the problem and the solutions to this liquidity crisis in three parts - in order HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Just The Facts, Ma’am! – 2008 Debate #1

Image Credit: NPR

Just The Facts, Ma’am! – 2008 Debate #1

In this day and age of twenty-four hour, seven day a week communications, one would think that what politicians say while campaigning would be 100% accurate.

In the first time that the candidates from our two major political parties stood side-by-side, Senator’s Barack Obama and John McCain delivered answers in a debate format that allowed for responses beyond snippets from a typical stump speech. When answers to questions involve responses from a person’s memory, inaccuracies in the facts can … and will occur.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has a website designed specifically to sweep the floor and scrub down the answers from both gentleman to define the facts behind the statements these candidates make.

Image Credit: NPR

This excerpted and edited from Fact Check dot Org –

FactChecking Debate No. 1
Facts muddled in Mississippi McCain-Obama meeting
September 27, 2008 - University of Mississippi at Oxford

Summary

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well.
----
Analysis

The first of three scheduled debates between Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama took place Sept. 26 on the campus of the University of Mississippi at Oxford. It was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It was carried live on national television networks and was moderated by Jim Lehrer, executive editor and anchor of the PBS "NewsHour" program. We noted these factual misstatements:
Did Kissinger Back Obama?

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCain rejected Obama's claim:

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.Obama: We will take a look.McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.Obama: Nobody's talking about that.

So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting:

Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.
----
Image Credit: NPR

Other responses handled in the above detailed manner are summarized as follows:

Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
Reference Here>>

Of Howdy-Doody and WAMU

Now children of all ages can join Howdy, Buffalo Bob, Clarabelle and the lovable Doodyville characters in a good family atmosphere, the way it used to be. You will agree ... GREAT CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING IS ETERNAL. You and your family will love that old fashioned feeling of fun and love that Howdy Doody will bring into your home. Image Credit: Doodyville

Of Howdy-Doody and WAMU

Just WHO does late night television entertainer and talkshow host David Letterman think he is … after all, he is just the Howdy Doody of the evening television airwaves who helps most people promote books, movies, and events as we all try to get some sleep at the end of a long day.

This week, Senator John McCain, the Republican Party nominee running to be the next President of the United States and leader of the free world decided to suspend his activities campaigning so that he could direct his attention on his duties as a senior Senator and presumptive head of the Republican Party on the pending liquidity crisis looming over the housing mortgage industry.

This excerpted and edited from the Associated Press –

Letterman unloads on McCain for not showing up
NEW YORK (AP) - September 25, 2008

"Late Show" host David Letterman treated John McCain's decision to cancel an appearance on his talk show more like a stupid human trick than the act of a statesman.
----
"This doesn't smell right," Letterman said. "This is not the way a tested hero behaves. Somebody's putting something in his Metamucil."

McCain spokeswoman Nicole Wallace said Thursday that the campaign "felt this wasn't a night for comedy."

"We deeply regret offending Mr. Letterman, but our candidate's priority at this moment is to focus on this crisis," Wallace said on NBC's "Today" show.
----
Letterman later asked: "Are we suspending it because there's an economic crisis or because the poll numbers are sliding?"
----
McCain told the CBS show that he was immediately flying back to Washington, Letterman told his audience. Then Letterman showed a TV feed of McCain being made-up for an appearance on news anchor Katie Couric's "CBS Evening News."

"Doesn't seem to be racing to the airport, does he?" Letterman said. "This just gets uglier and uglier."

As McCain spoke to Couric, Letterman shouted at the feed: "Hey, John, I've got a question. Do you need a ride to the airport?"

Letterman later said: "We're told now that the senator has concluded his interview with Katie Couric and he's now on Rachael Ray's show making veal piccata. ... What are you going to do?"
Reference Here>>

Last night, we were greeted with the news that Washington Mutual (WAMU), one of the largest banks that participated in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac social engineering concept which got its start in 1995 during the Clinton administration, FAILED.

President Bill Clinton wanted to try and achieve a potential 70% home ownership by the citizens of our country. He felt that in order to allow people who could not come up with the standard 20% down payment - which was the custom - the federal government could stand behind a looser, eaiser set of qualifying rules with its money (taxpayer money … read that OUR money) and help more people into home ownership.

WAMU commercial where a potential customer shouts "Whoo hoo!" as she imagines herself blistering along in a dragster on the Bonneville saltflats in an illustration as to how fast one could set up an account. Presumably, this also what happened when people applied for a home loan ... the real parachute to slow the dragster down came from JP Morgan. (Ctrl-Click to see video) Image Credit: AdFreakyFan

This Excerpted and edited from the Guardian (UK) –

America's largest banking failure sees JP Morgan pick up Washington Mutual
Julia Kollewe, guardian.co.uk, Friday September 26 2008 11:23 BST

The escalating crisis in the global financial system has claimed its biggest victim yet with the collapse last night of the US savings and loan group, Washington Mutual.

In America's largest-ever banking failure, Federal regulators seized the group's assets in the early hours of this morning and sold them to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9bn (£1.03bn).

Founded in Seattle in 1889 and known as WaMu, the group is the nation's biggest savings and loans company - the US equivalent to a British building society. The deal will make JP Morgan the largest bank in the US, ahead of Bank of America.
----
The face of the global financial industry has changed dramatically in the past fortnight. The US government has taken over mortgage finance giants Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac and bailed out the insurer American International Group for $85bn. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch has been sold to Bank of America. In Britain, Lloyds TSB has agreed the takeover of the troubled mortgage lender HBOS.
----
The move came as the Bush administration's $700bn bailout plan for the financial sector ran into trouble. The package could have helped WaMu, but regulators decided that waiting any longer "was not a responsible decision to make," Bair said.
----
WaMu has seen its share price virtually wiped out after it made thousands of mortgage loans that its borrowers cannot repay, saddling it with billions of dollars in bad debts. The company has posted losses for the last three quarters, including a loss of $3.3bn for the most recent quarter, ending in June. It put itself up for sale last week but could not attract any bidders.
----
JP Morgan's chief executive Jamie Dimon said he was undeterred by WaMu's financial problems. "We're getting franchises of this company for a long period of time," he said. The bank will gain long-desired presence on the west Coast as WaMu's branches are concentrated in California.

In March, WaMu rejected an offer of $8 a share from JP Morgan. The company's then-chief executive was subsequently fired.
Reference Here>>

To make a long story short … WAMU, as many other banks had done, granted loans on houses with little or no collateral by people who had no ability or intention to pay and were now left being responsible for assets that were worth at least 40% less value than they had used to secure additional operating capital. Hence, the liquidity (money) dried up and the operations had to be sold to another organization … the bank FAILED to continue operations.

What John McCain did was to stop the endless promotion of his run for the highest office in the land so that he could do his job as Senator to help negotiate and focus on the interest of taxpayers.

What Howdy Doody-David Letterman did was to whine and throw a hissy fit because John McCain canceled a campaign stop-over to appear on Mr. Doody’s neighborhood due to the fact he really had better, more important things to do.

With his efforts to forge an agreement between both political parties … and to protect taxpayer interests, maybe a few less banks will succumb to the lack of cash in the housing and mortgage banking system which has its additional ripple effects on business in general.

Maybe Howdy Doody should just go to his corner of the peanut gallery and shut his pie hole on the subject … Barack (present!) Obama may not be ready for primetime but John McCain, in this time of our country’s leadership activity, does not need to be taking any “Howdy Doody Time.”

We, at MAXINE, graduated from watching “Howdy Doody Time” a long time ago – Whoo hoo!

Virgin Overload In Yemen

Image Credit: Telegraph (UK)

Virgin Overload In Yemen

Today, we were all met with the news that the United States Embassy in Yemen was attacked with a bomb blast. Sixteen total victims were taken out by the blast … six of the sixteen victims were the terrorist themselves.

A half a dozen members of the Islamic Jihad in Yemen terrorist group wore police uniforms to try to get through the embassy's perimeter security during a morning shift change.

The embassy itself was not damaged because the bomb went off some distance away at a perimeter checkpoint.

Image Credit: Telegraph (UK)

So, at 72 “Virgins” per terrorist, the pay-off for these fools ends up being 432 rewards for accomplishing little else than killing ten innocent people.

One wishes, sometimes, that these folks would short circuit the process and just find a van, fill it with six members of the Islamic Jihad in Yemen (or any other random Islamic Jihadist group), drive it out into the desert, and blow it up there.

The ending of terrorist lives, so that they could reach their reward, would be carried out in a cheaper by the half-dozen process, and no one else would have to suffer … that is except the 432 Virgins that are supposed to greet these people!

This excerpted and edited from the Telegraph -

US embassy blast: 10 die in car bomb attack in Yemen
Islamist militants attacked the heavily-guarded US embassy in Yemen with a car bomb and rockets, killing at least ten people.
By Tim Butcher, Middle East Correspondent - Last Updated: 12:54PM BST 17 Sep 2008

The car exploded some distance from the embassy in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, at a checkpoint manned by security personnel, before gunmen in another car started firing.
----
Four civilians and six members of the police died in the attack, a spokesman for the Yemeni security forces said. The six attackers - one wearing an explosives belt, also died. There were no casualties among US diplomatic staff.

Trevor Mason, a British eye-witness who lives in an apartment block close to the US embassy compound, said the attack began around 8.30 am local time.

"We heard the sounds of a heavy gun battle going on,'' he said.

"I looked out my window, and we saw the first explosion going off -- a massive fireball very close to the US embassy.

"The gun battle went on for a further 10 to 15 minutes, followed by two further loud explosions.
----
Three days ago it issued a warning it was preparing to attack targets in Yemen including the British and US embassies.

The Yemeni regime's close links to the West - allowing US soldiers to train its security forces - has prompted numerous recriminatory attacks from the militant groups that enjoy strong support from the country's deeply conservative, tribal population.

Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia, but his father was born in Yemen and the bin Laden clan still has deep roots in the country's arid, lawless hinterland.

The British embassy was attacked with grenades so many times in the 1990s it was moved to a more secure location on a hillside overlooking Sanaa after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Reference Here>>

CBS’s Fall Movie Preview Slants Largely Left

THE MOVIES: Fall Movies - The fall film season is upon us, the time that many moviegoers eagerly anticipate, when the studios release many of their best films, films they think may be contenders come Oscar time. With Los Angeles Times Film Critic Kenneth Turan as our guide, we look at some of the new films coming soon to a multiplex near you. Image Credit: Saatchi & Saatchi

CBS’s Fall Movie Preview Slants Largely Left

We, at MAXINE, were watching CBS Sunday Morning at about 7:37 AM PT and a review of the new fall films was put together and played with what seemed to be an obvious perspective slant.

We do know it is not just us, people have complained over, and over again that when Hollywood produces a film about military conflicts and/or current political situations, only one side of complex issues is portrayed. That one side, or point of view, is almost always from the political American Left/Progressive/Socialist/Group Rights to the rejection of traditionally American Right/Conservative/Self-Reliant/Individual Rights based perspective.

Therein lays our observation, and it has to do with the knowledge of one film that was blatantly omitted from the presentation.

"American Carol" is being advertised as unabashedly based in making fun of the political Left in our country through a tale told about a mythical situation that centers around Michael Moore.

Moore, who we are familiar with from movies titled Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, SICKO, is a filmmaker who uses a documentarian style to illustrate a point of view he holds about any subject he chooses to highlight. The biggest problem with Michael Moore’s style of filmmaking is that it really isn’t either a documentary, or an issue exploring political tome themed film … it bases itself somewhere in the middle, ending up in the end with just his point of view … which is politically American Left/Progressive/Socialist/Group Rights.

"American Carol" punches large holes of situation-comedy into circumstances the film character of Michael Moore finds himself involved in … through parody from the politically American Right/Conservative/Self-Reliant/Individual Rights based perspective.

CBS Sunday Morning, in it’s presentation, highlighted three of the fall season’s politically themed movies and showed clips of the films, all of which were from an overtly critical viewpoint that stands clearly on the Left. Oliver Stone’s “W.” about a pre-presidential George Bush, "Frost/Nixon" which gives a focus on the interviews that British interviewer, David Frost did with the disgraced President Nixon after he resigned President, and Sean Penn in “Milk” showing Harvey Milk’s life and struggle as a gay rights activist before he was assassinated by one of his fellow city councilmen.

Out of the 23 films previewed (however briefly), why wasn't there room for a movie from a different point of view than these three obviously are?

How about removing any of these other culturally questionable movies while they are at it … and make room for a political comedy from the other side?

Kenneth Turan - The red carpet may be rolled up and every starlet in town may be wearily kicking off her Manolos, but the premiere isn’t really over until Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan serves judgment with breakfast. Even the most mindless summer blockbuster is treated to an inspired, intellectually discerning review by Turan, also a regular commentator for NPR’s “Morning Edition.” … well, duhhhhhh! Image Credit: MovieMaker

This Excerpted and edited from CBS –

The Fall Movies Are Coming
And ... Action! Critic Kenneth Turan Previews Hollywood's Oscar Bait And Box Office Hopefuls
CBS - Sept. 14, 2008

The new movie season has arrived. We'll be bringing you a variety of coming attractions in weeks ahead. To begin, Jerry Bowen with a look at fall movies...

Big names … epic sagas … even a tall tale or two. If you really love the movies, then this is your time of year.

The very best time of year, says Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan:

"You have to be optimistic in the fall," Turan said. "The fall is the season when the studios put all their quality eggs into that basket. So, if you're not optimistic in the fall, you're gonna have a terrible time the rest of the year!"

If its spy craft you crave, there's "Body of Lies," with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe from director Ridley Scott.

"He's really turned into one of the great craftsmen, I think, of modern movies," Turan said. "He always does something interesting."
.
----
"Titanic" stars DiCaprio and Kate Winslet reunite in "Revolutionary Road," suffering together in suburbia.
----
And what of this pair? Oscar-winners Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are nun and priest in the film "Doubt" about accusations of clergy sexual abuse.

"I'm really looking forward to seeing how they interact with each other," Turan said. "These are two of our best actors, with really strong material. It could really ignite."
----
In a year when the longest-running and most riveting political drama has been the still-evolving presidential campaign, it seems appropriate to have a choice of political dramas at the box office, a trio of films to remind us that truth … or what passes for truth … is always stranger than fiction.

Director Oliver Stone bids farewell to President Bush with "W," Stone's version of how the 43rd president made it into office. Josh Brolin stars.

"You know, this could be anything," Turan said. "It certainly won't be boring. That's the one thing you'll say: 'I don't think it's gonna bore anybody.'"

"Frost/Nixon" is based on the real televised interviews David Frost conducted with the disgraced ex-president.

And Sean Penn stars in "Milk," the story of gay politician Harvey Milk who was murdered by a fellow San Francisco supervisor, a performance with Oscar buzz.

"The strength of the film is gonna be in the performances, and especially Sean Penn's," said Turan. "And whenever he gets really into a part, you want to watch."
----
World War II is back in a big way. Daniel Craig leads the Jewish underground against German troops in "Defiance."

"Miracle at St. Anna" is director Spike Lee's story of African American soldiers caught behind the lines in Italy.

And in the epic "Australia," Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman fall in love as war with the Japanese looms.

In an odd way, says critic Turan, Americans find comfort in WWII movies:

"We are in such a quandary now about our place in the world. And I think we have a real nostalgia for the days when it was crystal-clear who the good guys were, the bad guys were, what we should be doing. And also, when we clearly won."
----
So if it's movies you like … this is your time of year.
Reference Here>>

Turan observes that in an odd way we all find comfort from WWII movies – then he goes on to impugn the history we have all lived through here in the War On Terror.

Hey Kenneth (from the LA Times), haven’t you noticed that our country has not had a follow-on attack to the Islamic Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001? That the surge of troops in Iraq has worked to turn the security quotient of this brand new democratic country (three nationwide votes with over 70% participation of 25 million citizens) which includes the recent turnover of one of the formally most violent provinces back to security Iraqi authorities?

What!? There is nothing to dramatize here that would allow Americans to take comfort and know that we do know our place in the world?

If it is largely slanted reporting you want … this (CBS) is only one of about six network channel offerings out of seven available on broadcast and cable/satellite to ones television set.

Thanks for the constant reminder, CBS and Kenneth Turan, to all of us here at MAXINE.

9-11 Tribute: The Price Of Freedom

An Iraq Veteran (Joe Cook) has a personal message for Barack Obama.
(Ctrl-Click to launch YouTube video)

Here at Carter's Second Term, we believe this is the best way to recognize this anniversary of the day Islamic terrorist, in an attempt to reduce the freedoms we enjoy in this country, hijacked passenger jet airplanes, full of innocent people intending on getting to their destination city, and intentionally flew them into the two World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon, and into the ground in an open field in Pennsylvania (one intended for the White House in Washington D.C. but foiled and retaken by passengers).

Over 3,000 innocent souls were taken that day and our effort to right the wrongs that were created by this act perpetrated on September 11, 2001 are embodied in this video about the price of freedom by Iraqi theater veteran Joe Cook.