Mourning In America

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Hat tip to Wake Up America

In 1984, the Reagan reelection campaign set the standard for modern political advertising with its fabled "Morning in America" series, which included one of the greatest political ads of all time -- "Better, Prouder, Stronger." The ad captured the zeitgeist -- America under President Reagan was coming back, full of optimism and confidence in the future.

Today, the zeitgeist is exactly the opposite. Americans are worried about their future, and about a government determined to implement policies that just don't work. But like its predecessor, "Mourning in America" offers a new hope -- if we can just get our government to return to time-tested policies that can spark a rebirth of liberty.

Mourning



The Original Morning

How have times changed!

Fidel Castro Obama Will Avoid Nuclear War

Fidel Castro is back at the podium after four years out of the limelight. Brother Raul Castro sat on the sidelines where he will likely be relegated until Fidel's next hospitalization. The chamber of the National Assembly of People's Power adored him, cheered wildly, and sent kisses his way. The "comandante" took the opportunity to tell the people he is certain Barack Obama is man-enough to avoid a nuclear showdown with Iran, and that a nuclear war rests solely on Obama's shoulders.

Fidel Castro

Since you haven't heard from Fidel for a few years now, let me provide the latest:

`One man alone will have to make the decision: The president of the United States,'' Castro said, because Iran will not bow to U.S. and Israeli demands to halt its nuclear program.

If Obama approves an attack on Iran, he added, he will trigger a war that will spread through the Middle East and Asia and cause ``the instantaneous death of hundreds of millions people, among them an incalculable number of people in his own country.''

The ``established order of the planet ... will inevitably collapse, the reigning social order will disappear abruptly'' and all currencies will be worthless, he added.

Castro noted that ``as luck would have it, ,'' Obama's father was Muslim and his mother was Christian and added he hoped the U.S. president will become conscious of the threat to world peace.

In comparison, he called Richard Nixon a ``cynic,'' branded Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman as ``ignorant'' and called Jimmy Carter ``a decent person.''

How about "The National Assembly of People's Power" in a country where the people have zero power.

John Boehner Gives $1M to NRCC: Battleground Fund: Repubs Still Far Behind Dems

House Majority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) will donate $1 million to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). In an unusual move, the "Battleground" program asks lawmakers to pool their donations to reach a $20 million goal to take back the House of Representatives in November. The Politico article linked below says while Republican have greatly increased their war chest, they still fall far behind Democrats.

One Million Dollars - One for the Gipper

From The Hill:

The money will come from Boehner's campaign account, and will be on top of the $755,000 he's already contributed to the committee, and in addition to the $30,000 from his PAC. 

Boehner's contribution could be seen as setting an example for rank-and-file members to pony up for this fall's midterm efforts. 

The top House Republican has said Republicans could compete in as many as 100 congressional districts this November, and the NRCC's support could be key in converting many of those opportunities.

More from Politico:

Boehner was joined by a number of other Republicans on Wednesday morning in pledging huge transfers of money to the NRCC, the committee charged with helping Republicans take back the House.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) delivered a $250,000 check to the committee, while Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) kicked in another $100,000.

Reps. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), John Fleming (R-La.), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) all committed to delivering anywhere between $60,000 to $100,000 to the NRCC as well.

I applaud these men for kicking-in to take back the House. They have to do this, however, because no one gives to any GOP establishment fund anymore. Unfortunately, we've found our money is best spent when it goes directly to a candidate we support.

Ronald Reagan James Dean GE Theater Video: The Dark Dark Hours James Dean Ronald Reagan

The story is, that this footage has not been seen in 50 years. Ronald Reagan and James Dean in The Dark, Dark Hours.

Ronald Reagan and James Dean in The Dark, Dark Hours (video)

Marco Rubio Gets Rudy Giuliani Endorsement - Disses Crist?

Former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani is endorsing Marco Rubio's candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Florida. Hot Air is speculating about Giuliani - considered a social Liberal and fiscal Conservative, and why he is not endorsing sitting Florida governor, Charlie Crist.

Marco Rubio

The most obvious answer is it's payback time. Crist endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, even though Giuliani asked the Governor for his support.

I think there is more to it than that, and my theory goes to Republican endorsements across the map. For example, we hear that Marco Rubio, now considered a true Conservative, has been not so Conservative at times when he served in the Florida State House of Representatives, including his time as Speaker of the House.

We are in a new day, and some Moderates are not averse to recognizing that straddling the line helps drive up the debt.  Conservatives like Rubio are 'getting the Constitution.' Fiscal Conservatism and Traditional Values are the yardstick by which all will be measured. In fact, I think some Moderates are now 'true believers' and I think Rubio is one of those. Rudy could come close, even though revenge is sweet today for him as he refuses to endorse Charlie Crist, who everyone thought was shoo-in for the Senate.

When in our history, since Reagan, have we talked about Fiscal Conservatism? We haven't. Now it is the talk of the day - and We the People are fueling the talk. Conservatives no longer believe they have to give away the farm for a vote.

Public awareness and the Tea Party movement is giving backbone to our politicians, and most importantly, we are  shining a bright light on our forgotten U.S. Constitution. Republicans and former Moderates are doing it, while Democrats continue to hold the Constitution in disdain. 'We the People' 'get it.' The most important factor in Conservatism is the Constitution, which if adhered to, will create Fiscal Conservatism.

We now have the proper awareness that our Founding documents are the spine and backbone of this country. And Moderates are finding that they like it as much as we do. So, when a former RINO begins to 'get it,' let's welcome them to the club. We will not move Rudy off of some of his social issues, but through his endorsement of Marco Rubio, he has somewhat shed his RINO skin.  It is a new day. People change. People become believers. If Conservatism reigns, freedom rings!

Ronald Reagan on Socialism and Democrats 100-Year Quest for Health Care

Democrats say the health care legislation they just passed has been in the works for 100 years. In this video or in the transcript below, Ronald Reagan, at a time much like today was battling against socialized medicine. He gives us some of this 100 years of history. See a video below.

I was struck by Reagan's urgings to write to our Congress..."demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system." He said "you and I can do this." The fact is, that day is over for America. You and I tried. Congress faced over 100,000 phones calls an hour, for day. We tried and we could not do it.

Ronald Reagan (artist J. Lawrence Lind)

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it...

And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine. In Washington day, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking. ~ Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan - Socialism - Coffee Cup Operation

Transcript - thank you to New Reagan Revolution:

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

 But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. 

 So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the progam after that.” Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicince. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citicizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

 Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.” I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine. 

 James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”  They want to attach this bill to Social Security. And they say here is a great insurance program now instituted, now working. Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end Social Security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

 But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. 

I know how I’d feel, if you my fellow citizens decided that to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband, all of us can see what happens – once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell them where he will go to work and what he will do. In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers - for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities. What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.  In Washington today, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.” So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

End Reagan Transcript

Remembering Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash

Some nostalgia for my friends:

 

Remember when Ronald Reagan was President?

  

We also had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash

 

Now we have Obama and no Hope and no Cash

Thanks to my next-to-the-littlest brother!

Pamela Geller - Atlas Shrugs - On Joy Behar: Geller Pummels Ronnie Reagan

 Pamela Geller, the architect behind Atlas Shrugs was brave enough to sit on a panel with snipe-witch Joy Behar, Liberal radio show host Stephanie Miller, and flaming Leftist Ron Reagan.

 

Pamela Geller - Atlas Shrugs

Behar begins by saying:

I have it on good authority that her entire hand was covered with folksy catch phrases, like: you betchcha, by golly, I'm only here for the money.

Be sure to watch the video below. The following are just a few delightful snippets:

BEHAR to REAGAN: Your father would have loved her [Palin].

RON REAGAN: My father wouldn't love her, actually

BEHAR: Why would your father not love Sarah Palin?

RON REAGAN: Because she [Palin] doesn't have a thought in her head

GELLER: That's what they said about your father.

GELLER: Did you ever meet a thought of your father's?

BEHAR to GELLER: It's really hard for you to argue with the offspring of the father.

GELLER: He doesn't share the epistemology of his father. He doesn't have anything in common with his father.

At the end, Pam says the government of this country has been the most moral in the history of man

BEHAR'S RESPONSE: Yeah, so?

GELLER: I've been sitting here with you, and you have not said anything against Palin with any substance.

BEHAR to GELLER: YOU have not shut up!

Visit Atlas Shrugs.





Pam Geller, Joy Behar, the Liberal Ron Reagan (video)

Ronald Reagan Fiscal Responsibility: Ronald Reagan Cuban Immigrant

Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech, televised on October 27, 1964 in support of Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, speaks of fiscal responsibility, the quest for the implementation of the full power of the government in the lives of the people, and "meeting the needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." He quotes a Cuban immigrant who is grateful that America was here, because it gave him a place to flee to.

Dejavu. Reagan quotes Senator J.W. Fullbright (D-AR) saying that President Lyndon Johnson is "our moral teacher," and the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated document. Listen as he talks about the plight of farmers under government programs, and a proposed program to stamp out juvenile delinquency by placing the delinquents in a "camp," which will cost taxpayers $4,700 per "camper," but "we can send them to Harvard for $2,700.

Reagan talks about Social Security, forced government health insurance and subordinating America's interest to an institution which has become structurally unsound [United Nations], has no interest in democracy and remains silent as millions are enslaved in the Soviet Union and satellite nations.

Eminent Domain was already a threat. And Reagan talks about Socialism in America.

A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger, is prepared for a master and deserves one. ~ Alexander Hamilton

Ronald Reagan Fiscal Responsibility (video)

Ronald Reagan Speaks Against Socialized Medicine (Video): Forand Bill

In this video, Ronald Regan speaks against socialized medicine. If you object to President Obama's bill being characterized as "socialized medicine," watch this video. Have you heard of the Forand Bill, introduced by ex-Congressman Aime Forand? If not, you will want to, and you'll hear about it in this video. When you hear President Ronald Reagan speaking in 1961 in this video, it is as pertinent today as it was then. It is eerily pertinent. It shows us that nothing changes. It shows us that our freedom will always be under assault and in a country that cherishes freedom, and understands freedom, the assault always comes from the soft assault of socializing our way of life - which can sound so comforting and so right, but in truth, thieves the heart of liberty. Nothing changes. We must be ever vigilant. Americans will be fighting this fight when the end of time is upon us.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people that possibly cannot afford it. - Ronald Reagan

Definition of "statism:" the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. Ronald Reagan Speaks Against Socialized Medicine (video)

Related: Megyn Kelly, Bill Burton: Bill Burton, Megyn Kelly White House Email List (video) Major Garrett, Robert Gibbs: White House email List (Video) Vladmir Lenin Quotes Barack Obama (Video) Rahm Emanuel's Brother Has the President's Ear. Hear what Dr. Emanuel has in mind for you. This one for fun: Even Dogs Know Socialism: No Treats from Obama (Video)

Weekend Open Trackbacks and Linkfest

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Az). Ronald Reagan was a Goldwater speechwriter in the 1964 campaign









Welcome to Open Trackback Weekend and Linkfest Haven. I’ll will manually add your trackbacks, with excerpts if available, to this page as they come in. Be patient: some trackbacks mysteriously travel the entire blogosphere before they arrive.

Not familiar with trackbacks? Here's how to do it:

1) Choose the article you want to promote. Copy my permalink URL and my trackback URL (you'll find mine just below these instructions). Add my blog name: Maggie's Notebook linked with my permalink, into the body of your post (just after your completed article). Show it like this: Trackposted to:
Maggie's Notebook, which gives me a live link within your article. Then send a trackback to me (you'll need my trackback URL), which will let me know that you are joining in the fun. I will then add your live link to my article.

2) If you use blogging software that doesn’t have “trackback” ability built in, you can use Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger or Kalsey’s Simpletracks.

3) If you don't have trackbacks yet, just leave a comment and say that you do not have trackbacks, with an excerpt from your post and your permalink, and I will add that too!

4) If you would like to join the Open Trackback Alliance visit The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns.

5) If you would like to host a trackback party, or join another blogger's party, go to Linkfest Haven Deluxe for more information.

6) If you would like to join the Open TrackBack Provider Blogroll visit The Blue State Conservatives for more information.


Posted by Maggie
Article End

Tracked back by Drugs and the Never-ending War from Planck's Constant. Excerpt: I thought Nixon's idea of fighting a war on drugs which started the year before was futile and counter-productive and, after almost a trillion dollars spent, I still do.

A Wise Man Said...SFBert; Military Historian from Take Our Country Back. Excerpt: SFBert is a friend of mine. He is a former Special Forces type and served in Vietnam and other places. On a post at my

The Knucklehead of the Day award from The Florida Masochist. Excerpt: Today's winner is New Republic Editor Franklin Foer.

Barack Obama Supports Sex Education for Kindergart from Blue Star Chronicles. Excerpt: In a speech to a Planned Parenthood audience, Barack Obama (D-Il) said that teaching sex education in kindergarten is ‘the right thing to do’ as long as it’s ‘age appropriate’.

Technorati Tags: Open Trackback, OTA, Open
Trackback Aliance, Open Trackback Provider Alliance, Linkfest Haven Deluxe

The US, UN, Iran and 2008

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The following is certainly an oversimplified appraisal. But the order of the news reports lent itself to an almost automatic response. The events themselves may have played out somewhat differently. At least as far as timing is concerned. But nevertheless there chronological publishing times may be in proper order. The point is this.

We all know that Iran was on President Bush's 'D' list. They were not likely to get invited to any parties. And if you are old enough to remember the dagger in the heart of Jimmy Carter's Administration or had some history classes in school, you are familiar with 444 days worth of agony suffered by Americans at the hands of Iranian hospitality.

Then there was the Reagan Administration basking in the glory of the return of the American hostages and later the Iran-Contra scandal and I'm getting crazy just thinking about it. That is over twenty-five years ago and the process has not improved. It appears more complicated than the simple explanation that every country is looking out for their own agenda and benefit.

With the Memorial Day concluding earlier this week, thoughts of WWII and the greatest generation did not escape most Americans. Citizens of many other countries are sure to have been reminded also. When I think of our country's contribution to winning that war alongside so many other allied nations, another striking reminder enters my thoughts.

At the end of WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations whose stated mission was to intervene in conflicts between nations and avoid future wars. It almost seems as though human beings were finally getting it right. Instead of a period of time of peaceful activity followed by the totally impractical practice of armed conflict, we would solve our differences in an organized group to eliminate the need for death and destruction in enormous quantities.

Let's review the latest success of this noble endeavor. As stated earlier, the sequence of the following reports is assumed to be relatively chronological.

Iraq's Sadr blasts US-Iranian meeting

BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) -- Among those who blasted the meeting is Iranian-backed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad Monday constituted "interference in Iraqi affairs."

So the first thing that happens is the cleric known as Sadr throws his two cents worth in 'dissin' the meeting. One man who has done everything he can to cause more bloodshed in Iraq is complaining about a meeting between the US and Iran. Could be so simple as he doesn't want anything solved for it ups his value as a 'somebody' in Iraq.

Talking With Our Enemies Is Smart Policy

The Moderate Voice - By Jeb Koogler. The recent meeting between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad effectively brings to an end the Bush administration’s use of ‘enforced ...

Then we have another opinion apparently applauding an approach that differs from the typical 'cowboy George' routine that one could characterize as shoot now, ask questions later or the old Teddy Roosevelt adage of walk softly and carry a big stick. This second philosophy has a tendency of provoking more attitude from hostile foes and delay the desired victory outcome.

Iran official rules out halting enrichment ahead of nuclear talks ...

International Herald Tribune, France - In another sign of defiance, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran has become so strong that no adversary can defeat it. ...

Which of course prompted the response above from the Iranians as well as another one bragging about no one would be crazy enough to challenge the great and powerful Iranian military. Ok, where did we here that Mother of all wars speech before. Yo, yo, Prez AJ, over powering the Iraqi forces was not a problem. Keeping the nutcases contained has presented a problem, but foreign armies, not a big deal. Does he have that little man syndrome?

Diplomats: West rejected Iran nuke concession

MSNBC - In another sign of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that his country’s military has become so strong that no adversary would risk an ...

And the tennis ball lands in the other court and we have renewed talk about regime change. So the long delayed question is where the hell is the United Nations, again, and why does it even exist anymore. Not like their weren't plenty of reasons to ask for it to be dissolved before.

Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change

Commentary, NY - To the contrary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected president, announced that the Islamic Republic was reneging on its suspension agreement and ...

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran, Russia and new nukes, India talking more nukes, US shielding EU and the circus just keeps coming to town. Is no other country the least bit interested in taking one more shot at using the UN for what it was designed for? I am sure anyone reading this may feel compelled to complain about my suggestions. Consider that the UN is useless and it probably needs to be dissolved. But now would be a great time to give that 'body' one last chance to actually do something useful. There are major players involved in dealing with the current generation of conflict and resolution. There is no better time to get everyone involved and in a position to make the UN work before it is entirely abandoned. Even a loser is worth one more try. As long as the cards are on the table and every one knows how to play.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, 'get her done'. If it flops, get rid of it.

Thompson on the Run

Town Hall, DC - At an event for the Electronic Data Systems Corp. on April 27, he said he supported helping Iranians overthrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government. ...

Heading into the 2008 elections, it would be nice to resolve some of the world's issues since no one knows who will be in the White House and the example above is not ready for nonsense by his statements. That may apply to one or more other candidates but some would be a definite disadvantage in that regard.