As long as US keeps sticking it's nose into Middle East politics

• I am sooo sick of hearing... - Just the big bad
  • Go and read up on black liberation theology.... - sam
    • Same song, 500th verse. - Rag rhetoric not working.
      • Sorry to hear - Sorry you condone racism
  • Thank you! And anyone who still thinks he's - sm
  • Black? You mean muslim. - middle class
    • Can't get pictures to come in, sorry. - no pictures, you want pictures, email me.
    • I'm assuming you mean.... - Just the big bad
      • Absolutely nothing as long as you do not admire - middle class
      • Communicate - change
        • You want to communicate with the guys before 911? - Good Luck.
          • As long as US keeps sticking it's nose into Middle East politics - and bankrolling nuclear Israel...sm
      • Muslims - biblical viewpoint
        • Well, you know what? - gourdpainter
        • This is an ignorant statement. Islam is a monotheist - religion. Our God? Their God? sm
          • Why are you attacking me? - curious
            • Because I am a Christian, not a bigot, and do not appreciate - someone presuming to speak....sm
        • Now , that's what I call discrimination ... - change
          • I'm just saying what most Christians believe - not me
            • "Muslim is wrong?" "I don't judge anybody or their beliefs?" - You might considering....sm
              • "why people think Muslim is wrong" - pay attention
                • Perversion of any religion is wrong (sm) - MeMT
        • So, by that reasoning.... - Just the big bad
      • Bravo. - nm
  • He chose to be more black - sbMT
    • Really? And what passage would that be? - He chose to explore black identity....sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.

I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.

I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.

May God help us all.

Has anyone else noticed what's going on in the middle east with elections?  I don't think I would credit all this to just Obama's speech in Cairo, but my guess is that his example (and ours by electing him) has been noticed around the world.

The "pro-Western coalition" won in Lebanon, beating out Hezbollah.

"The leader of the largest bloc in the pro-Western coalition, Saad Hariri, said early Monday in a televised speech that he extends his hand to the losing side "to work together and seriously for the sake of Lebanon." He urged supporters to celebrate without provoking opponents."  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/07/lebanon-election-results-_n_212359.html)

And how about Iran?  Check this out.  This looks familiar.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31210578#31210578

Maybe there's something to be said for extending a hand of peace instead of pointing a rifle. 

Israel needs the help of no one.  They will always prevail because they are backed by God -- the one true God.  All those who come against the people of Israel will suffer loss.  It is not out of fear that Israel arms itself, it is out of a deep understanding of their past, present, and future revealed to them by God.  Israel is loved by God and hated by their muslim neighbors because of that fact. 

There is no Palestine.  As I said before, the palestinians are squatters.  Claiming a land that never belong to them and never will be promised to them.  Their name is not on the lease! 

Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM

Bush declines to meet with border officials

Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

San Bernardino County Sun

President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.

In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.

Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.

The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States.

Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.

The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.

In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.

Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.

The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.

Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.

It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.

The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.

Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.

We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.

Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.

The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.

because I was polite to someone, chose to give one of the "nice" ones the benefit of the doubt while finding posts like yours uninformative, childish and a pure waste of keystrokes?

I agree, given the never-ending bitterness and hatefulness you have, it will all come back to bite you in the butt some day.  One usually gets back what they give.

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The full text of the letter follows:

March 15, 2006

The Honorable Andrew Card

Chief of Staff

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Card:

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.

Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]

I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.

I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

Enclosure

[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).

[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).

[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, � 7.

I'm not voting for Hillary but....

know that it scares the heck outta me and others, Obama.......his middle name is hussein.....

one of the bibles say something to the effect of when the *stuff* happens (the bad stuff) - it's going to happen from the *inside out* -

but glad you are ALL so trusting.......i trust nobody 100%. 

i cannot stand ALL of these candidates this time around......

JMHO - no flames please

Then my income will just push us into that bracket.  I wonder if that will negate my entire income?  If so, I guess we may be better off if I just quit? Right now I work because I can't afford to quit.  I won't be able to afford it then either so what will I do?  I wonder how many others will be in my situation? 

FYI, we live in a small older home that we are trying to pay off so that when our two children are college-age, maybe we can afford it. We don't live extravagently by any means.  What will happen to people like us?