© WithComment.com
Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans: “Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities;” (Complete letter)
Noble President Ahmadinejad,
While it is true that our media enjoys covering your events and press releases that attempt to go over the head of President Bush and go directly to the American people. What is most interesting is not your letter but the coverage of the letter by our most important media outlets. On T.V., CNN & Fox News gave a talking point of your letter that you would be most pleased with. On the web CNN had the full text of your letter which could not be good, but others like MSNBC had only their outline of what you had said.
All of them pointed out that you agree that Pres. Bush is not doing well in Iraq, and that his aggressive behaviors have led him to this point ,and that he and others must heed the voice of the American people from this last mid-term election. President Ahmadinejad you have become a pundit for our media.
What all of them failed to do was actually read your letter. Yes you tried to give helpful, if not obvious advice to the Bush administration, but what they failed to talk about was your advice for us to abandon our support for Israel. Your anti-Zionist rhetoric was almost a third of the letter yet got little attention:
“What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?”
What are you saying here? The Jews control the banks and the media? If this were true wouldn’t that have been the lead in the news and not another bashing of this administration?
Your anti-Zionist view point of the world has clouded your reading of this country once again. You have fallen victim of the media bias that with the Democrats controlling congress that Pres. Bush is a toothless lion. You are wrong and if keep following your interpretation of the “Divine Prophets” and believe that only if we repent and follow the Qur’an that we can have dignity and success, you will find your self on the same trash heap of ruined dictators that have come before you, who also had dreams of world domination.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Raise the Min. Wage to $20.00 per hour
© WithComment.com
IA Dems want a Min. Wage increase "Iowashould raise the measly $5.15 per hour to $7.25. That step could help Iowa shed its reputation as a low-wage state."
I say why not raise it to $20.00 per hour. It is typical of the Democrats to offer help but not enough to actually help. The article justifies the $7.25/ hr because that then gives, "Someone working full-time for $7.25 per hour would earn an annual salary of $14,500 - just above the poverty level for a family of two.” But what if they are not part of a family of 2 or what if they have 4 kids. Then they are still way under the poverty level.
So why not just make it $20.00 per hour which would be above the median income in the U.S. (until of course it happens then the median income will go up and thus the dollar amount to be below the poverty level will increase and they will still be below poverty) The unfortunate 1.6 million who are making minimum wage are over half (53%) teenager, 26% are married heads or spouses and 11% are single family heads. Nearly two-thirds move off of min. wage with in a year! Source
It is a feel good issue, of the 6 states voting on an increase in the last election 3 sent new Democrat Senators and Ohio tossed in a new governor and house member too. What we need to do is just get the thing up and make it adjusted to inflation and be done with it. It is a silly idea and counter to the market, but if it will make it a non-issue in 2008 then all the better.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
IA Dems want a Min. Wage increase "Iowashould raise the measly $5.15 per hour to $7.25. That step could help Iowa shed its reputation as a low-wage state."
I say why not raise it to $20.00 per hour. It is typical of the Democrats to offer help but not enough to actually help. The article justifies the $7.25/ hr because that then gives, "Someone working full-time for $7.25 per hour would earn an annual salary of $14,500 - just above the poverty level for a family of two.” But what if they are not part of a family of 2 or what if they have 4 kids. Then they are still way under the poverty level.
So why not just make it $20.00 per hour which would be above the median income in the U.S. (until of course it happens then the median income will go up and thus the dollar amount to be below the poverty level will increase and they will still be below poverty) The unfortunate 1.6 million who are making minimum wage are over half (53%) teenager, 26% are married heads or spouses and 11% are single family heads. Nearly two-thirds move off of min. wage with in a year! Source
It is a feel good issue, of the 6 states voting on an increase in the last election 3 sent new Democrat Senators and Ohio tossed in a new governor and house member too. What we need to do is just get the thing up and make it adjusted to inflation and be done with it. It is a silly idea and counter to the market, but if it will make it a non-issue in 2008 then all the better.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
John Edwards and the PS3
© WithComment.com
John Edwards vs.Walmart and PS3 "Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family.
Sending an unpaid volunteer to do your shopping is the type of leadership I think we can all come to expect from our Democratic friends for the next 2 years.
John Edwards talked about the "2 Americas" in his bid for the nomination of 2004. Maybe the "2 Americas" were those with PlayStation 3's and those without. I know that most of us would use connections to get something we want if we had it. In this case Edwards had no connections and simply thought his name would be enough, guess not. Washington is full of these people both Democrat and Republican. Corruption comes from contempt, contempt of those who put you in power. This is why term limits are a necessary evil in politics, not limits on contributions.
The problem is the number of years we should limit too. Senators have 6-year terms but house members only have 2-year terms. It would be wrong to have different amount of years but then if you say 3 terms that is 18 years for Senators. That seems too long. I believe 2 terms for Senators and 6 terms for House members, that would give 12 years of service and then they must move on or out. Sorry but that would mean that Sen. Charles Grassley would have had to go in 1992 but that would be the bad with the good.
It might be a compromise to limit it to 2 consecutive terms and allow people to rerun again after one or two terms. It is not a simple answer and that is why it has not happened along with the fact that no one in the house or senate wants it or lobbyist who have an investment in him or her.
This shake up in congress, though something I did not want to happen, will make both parties learn lessons and hopefully help them serve us better.
Chris Mendelsohn
Your comments welcomed. reply@withcomment.com
John Edwards vs.Walmart and PS3 "Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family.
Sending an unpaid volunteer to do your shopping is the type of leadership I think we can all come to expect from our Democratic friends for the next 2 years.
John Edwards talked about the "2 Americas" in his bid for the nomination of 2004. Maybe the "2 Americas" were those with PlayStation 3's and those without. I know that most of us would use connections to get something we want if we had it. In this case Edwards had no connections and simply thought his name would be enough, guess not. Washington is full of these people both Democrat and Republican. Corruption comes from contempt, contempt of those who put you in power. This is why term limits are a necessary evil in politics, not limits on contributions.
The problem is the number of years we should limit too. Senators have 6-year terms but house members only have 2-year terms. It would be wrong to have different amount of years but then if you say 3 terms that is 18 years for Senators. That seems too long. I believe 2 terms for Senators and 6 terms for House members, that would give 12 years of service and then they must move on or out. Sorry but that would mean that Sen. Charles Grassley would have had to go in 1992 but that would be the bad with the good.
It might be a compromise to limit it to 2 consecutive terms and allow people to rerun again after one or two terms. It is not a simple answer and that is why it has not happened along with the fact that no one in the house or senate wants it or lobbyist who have an investment in him or her.
This shake up in congress, though something I did not want to happen, will make both parties learn lessons and hopefully help them serve us better.
Chris Mendelsohn
Your comments welcomed. reply@withcomment.com
Unmarried with children
© WithComment.com
Record number born to the unwed "The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married."
It is no surprising that with the decline of marriage that the number of children born out of wedlock would increase. The good news is that the number of children born to children (under 18) has declined.
It is no coincidence that the culture changed in the 60's with the "great society" by LBJ allowing women more independency and a growing number in college (now more then men) and the joining the workforce, all of which are good things. However, it came at the cost of undermining the importance of men in the household and in the lives of the children.
Don't get me wrong, many many men don't deserve to reproduce and when they do, should not be involved except in a financial way. But the liberal agenda has made it so easy to dismiss the father that it is actually a penalty financially to be married to one. The tax code rewards single low-income parents with the (EIC) Earned Income Credit. This is not a bad thing but the way it is structured it rewards underachievement in the workforce and makes it difficult to be married.
They are forced to play a game of cat and mouse with the IRS, a case I read about had a woman who was not claiming head of household but did claim the EIC because she made about 18,000 per year and received around 3,500 from the credit. However, it turned out that the father lived in the house too and made around 40,000 per year but didn't claim the children. So this household of 58,000 was also receiving 3,500 from uncle same.
The last 40 years men have been demoted, metronized & made to feel that the world's evil is their fault. I guess it was our fault that we bit from the apple and not theirs for offering it to us.
Chris Mendelson
reply@withcommen.com
One of the other minor powers: Germany
© WithComment.com
Germany looks for breathing room "WITH more than 80m people and the world's third-biggest economy, Germany squats like a giant in the centre of Europe."
One of the other minor powers: Germany
The fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of the Soviet Union, reunification of Germany. The Post war Germany was split into to two, the west thrived while the east suffered. The laws of West Germany were set up to not allow troops off of their soil even as members of NATO. But things change.
“The Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, was set up to defend the homeland against attacks from the east. It would not have been politically possible, until the 1990s, to deploy soldiers in foreign interventions: most Germans were staunchly pacifist. Only in 1994 did the constitutional court rule that German soldiers could be allowed outside the NATO area, and then only if parliament had given its approval.”
Germany has now elected a chancellor that is less about the German economy and more about its foreign policy. Angela Merkel has spent much of her time outside her country and next year will be the President of the EU and the G-8! What she must help her country decide is if they are going to engage in the world militarily if it is needed, or remain passive as a large percentage of their population wants.
However, Germany has been involved in the middle-east before, during and ever since WWII. The Term “Islamic Fascism” has its bases in Nazi Germany. Wanting an Allie in the middle-east to give Britain trouble, several men from the region were given high rank in the SS. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini developed the Bosnian troops who were still in Berlin when it fell to the Allies.
A follower of the Grand Mufti found their way to Syria and formed the Ba’ath party which was later formed in Iraq. An uncle of Saddam Hussein was among them and recruited Saddam as a strong man.
Today, Germany receives 25% of its natural gas from Russia, and is very involved in the Iranian Nuclear talks. It is hard to see however, how they can force the issue when Russia is the major contractor on the Iranian reactor.
Germany is a powerful country in Europe and is making a play to be more influential in the world. Today they spend 1.4% of their GDP on the Military (3.7% USA) and could be a powerful Allie or potential rival in the future.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Sources:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_nuclear_program
Germany looks for breathing room "WITH more than 80m people and the world's third-biggest economy, Germany squats like a giant in the centre of Europe."
One of the other minor powers: Germany
The fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of the Soviet Union, reunification of Germany. The Post war Germany was split into to two, the west thrived while the east suffered. The laws of West Germany were set up to not allow troops off of their soil even as members of NATO. But things change.
“The Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, was set up to defend the homeland against attacks from the east. It would not have been politically possible, until the 1990s, to deploy soldiers in foreign interventions: most Germans were staunchly pacifist. Only in 1994 did the constitutional court rule that German soldiers could be allowed outside the NATO area, and then only if parliament had given its approval.”
Germany has now elected a chancellor that is less about the German economy and more about its foreign policy. Angela Merkel has spent much of her time outside her country and next year will be the President of the EU and the G-8! What she must help her country decide is if they are going to engage in the world militarily if it is needed, or remain passive as a large percentage of their population wants.
However, Germany has been involved in the middle-east before, during and ever since WWII. The Term “Islamic Fascism” has its bases in Nazi Germany. Wanting an Allie in the middle-east to give Britain trouble, several men from the region were given high rank in the SS. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini developed the Bosnian troops who were still in Berlin when it fell to the Allies.
A follower of the Grand Mufti found their way to Syria and formed the Ba’ath party which was later formed in Iraq. An uncle of Saddam Hussein was among them and recruited Saddam as a strong man.
Today, Germany receives 25% of its natural gas from Russia, and is very involved in the Iranian Nuclear talks. It is hard to see however, how they can force the issue when Russia is the major contractor on the Iranian reactor.
Germany is a powerful country in Europe and is making a play to be more influential in the world. Today they spend 1.4% of their GDP on the Military (3.7% USA) and could be a powerful Allie or potential rival in the future.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Sources:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_nuclear_program
Civil War in L.A.?
© WithComment.com
Civil War? "The network's cable news outlet, MSNBC, drummed the point home repeatedly by using the phrase "Iraq: The Civil War" on the screen."
I am not trying to dispute whether or not the war in Iraq has turned into a “Civil War” or not, but I am interested in the press coverage of the war. In the news account they quote from Webster’s New World College Dictionary, which defines a Civil War as, "war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation." What I am focusing on is that this definition can be used for L.A. Gangs (geographic sections) in the Los Angeles Almanac (http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr03x.htm) in which it shows that between 350 & 450 gang-related homicides occur each year in L.A. County. Is this a “Civil War”?
The media have been wanting to call it this for a long time but now feel the courage to do so, believing this is the last bit of leverage needed to get us out. But as usual they just don’t see the bigger picture.
Sunday, as explained on “Meet the Press”, the war in Iraq had been going on for as long as the U.S. involvement in WWII. Of course they got it wrong. The war in Iraq did end with the fall of Saddam’s government and when Bush made his famous “Mission Accomplished” speech. But like WWII V.E. day was not the end of the war and for almost 3 years after the German army surrendered, violence by insurgents continued in Germany.
The reason the insurgency was not as successful in Germany as it has been in Iraq is very apparent. 1) The war against Germany was a complete war, both the military and civilian populations were targeted and destroyed. By the time Berlin fell, there was no more fight in the Germans and no support internally for the insurgents. 2) Both Iraq and Germany had a neighbor very interested in controlling the post war politics. The Soviet Union simply kept part of Germany (East Germany) and controlled it for 45 years. Iraq has Iran, which can not militarily take control of Iraq (Shi’a region) so they have funded groups to keep the violence up with one goal. That goal is to embarrass the U.S. and its allies so much that they leave the region, and not bother Iran and its nuclear program.
It is just a sad state of affairs that we focus on the here and now so much that we can not see the bigger plan set into motion by those who wish us utterly destroyed.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Civil War? "The network's cable news outlet, MSNBC, drummed the point home repeatedly by using the phrase "Iraq: The Civil War" on the screen."
I am not trying to dispute whether or not the war in Iraq has turned into a “Civil War” or not, but I am interested in the press coverage of the war. In the news account they quote from Webster’s New World College Dictionary, which defines a Civil War as, "war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation." What I am focusing on is that this definition can be used for L.A. Gangs (geographic sections) in the Los Angeles Almanac (http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr03x.htm) in which it shows that between 350 & 450 gang-related homicides occur each year in L.A. County. Is this a “Civil War”?
The media have been wanting to call it this for a long time but now feel the courage to do so, believing this is the last bit of leverage needed to get us out. But as usual they just don’t see the bigger picture.
Sunday, as explained on “Meet the Press”, the war in Iraq had been going on for as long as the U.S. involvement in WWII. Of course they got it wrong. The war in Iraq did end with the fall of Saddam’s government and when Bush made his famous “Mission Accomplished” speech. But like WWII V.E. day was not the end of the war and for almost 3 years after the German army surrendered, violence by insurgents continued in Germany.
The reason the insurgency was not as successful in Germany as it has been in Iraq is very apparent. 1) The war against Germany was a complete war, both the military and civilian populations were targeted and destroyed. By the time Berlin fell, there was no more fight in the Germans and no support internally for the insurgents. 2) Both Iraq and Germany had a neighbor very interested in controlling the post war politics. The Soviet Union simply kept part of Germany (East Germany) and controlled it for 45 years. Iraq has Iran, which can not militarily take control of Iraq (Shi’a region) so they have funded groups to keep the violence up with one goal. That goal is to embarrass the U.S. and its allies so much that they leave the region, and not bother Iran and its nuclear program.
It is just a sad state of affairs that we focus on the here and now so much that we can not see the bigger plan set into motion by those who wish us utterly destroyed.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Monday, November 27, 2006
The Minor Powers: Venezuela & Iran
© WithComment.com
Not so nice “the collapse and crumbling of your devilish rule has started."
The devil and Mr. Chavez "We are confronting the devil, and we will hit a home run off the devil next Sunday,"
The minor powers: Venezuela & Iran
Both the leaders of Iran and Venezuela use the same terminology when describing the west or more specific the United States. Their world media campaign continues from their fall campaign in the U.S. this last fall when they were both at the United Nations and gave rallies after their speeches. It was no accident that they made sure they held the “press conferences” at different times to maximize their live coverage on CNN & Fox News.
Now, Chavez is in an election on Sunday and he is not running against a domestic opponent but the “devil” in Washington D.C. Who could vote against him and vote for the devil? No one obviously, and so he will win and continue to be a pebble in our shoe, nothing threatening just irritating if they are just by themselves.
But I am convinced that something is going on here between these two. They are too well organized and talking off the same page. Iran controls oil and terrorism in the middle-east with its control of Hamas and Hezbollah. Venezuela controls oil and strong ties to Cuba who is well known for their trouble making in Central and South America.
This week Hamas said they were willing to talk peace for the next six months, but then threatened renewed violence in an uprising if there was no Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. A timeline and objective that is impossible to meet, therefore not a real effort to make peace.
I believe all this is to stall the west and ready themselves for something bigger. Iran progressing with Nukes, and violence in the middle-east and Venezuela ,one of our biggest suppliers of Oil could lead to serious trouble. I just hope that Pres. Bush is not too distracted with congress and possible hearings that could lead to impeachment charges, to deal with these important but minor powers, as many have said Clinton was too distracted by his impeachment hearings to deal with Bin-Ladin.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Not so nice “the collapse and crumbling of your devilish rule has started."
The devil and Mr. Chavez "We are confronting the devil, and we will hit a home run off the devil next Sunday,"
The minor powers: Venezuela & Iran
Both the leaders of Iran and Venezuela use the same terminology when describing the west or more specific the United States. Their world media campaign continues from their fall campaign in the U.S. this last fall when they were both at the United Nations and gave rallies after their speeches. It was no accident that they made sure they held the “press conferences” at different times to maximize their live coverage on CNN & Fox News.
Now, Chavez is in an election on Sunday and he is not running against a domestic opponent but the “devil” in Washington D.C. Who could vote against him and vote for the devil? No one obviously, and so he will win and continue to be a pebble in our shoe, nothing threatening just irritating if they are just by themselves.
But I am convinced that something is going on here between these two. They are too well organized and talking off the same page. Iran controls oil and terrorism in the middle-east with its control of Hamas and Hezbollah. Venezuela controls oil and strong ties to Cuba who is well known for their trouble making in Central and South America.
This week Hamas said they were willing to talk peace for the next six months, but then threatened renewed violence in an uprising if there was no Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. A timeline and objective that is impossible to meet, therefore not a real effort to make peace.
I believe all this is to stall the west and ready themselves for something bigger. Iran progressing with Nukes, and violence in the middle-east and Venezuela ,one of our biggest suppliers of Oil could lead to serious trouble. I just hope that Pres. Bush is not too distracted with congress and possible hearings that could lead to impeachment charges, to deal with these important but minor powers, as many have said Clinton was too distracted by his impeachment hearings to deal with Bin-Ladin.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
Saturday, November 25, 2006
One of the major powers: Russia
© WithComment.com
The resurrection of the Soviet Union is underway. Pres. Putin (former KGB) is consolidating power much like Stalin did with the motto: “No man, no problem” Journalist and Industrialist are dropping left and right and now it appears another former KGB man, Alexander Litvinenko has been assassinated but in a much more public way. The radio active poison is so rare that it is obvious and therefore on purpose.
Litvinenko said of Putin:
“(you have) no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value.” and he added,”you have shone yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women.”
Putin shows this lack of respect by continuing to defy world opinion and not only help but advance the Iranian nuclear projects. The latest will happen in December when their head of the Russian nuclear agency will visit Iran. Of course he will feel protected because Russia is deploying Tor-M1 around those nuclear sites. These are air defense missiles that can track 48 targets and fire on 2 at once.
Russia under Putin’s leadership is leading down a road that is not good for anyone, including Russia. The Soviet Union fell because it was not connected to the world; it fell because he brutalized those under its control. The former soviet satellites will not go for this now. Its connection to the world is still needed and this road will lead to its disconnection and ultimately its demise, again.
Chris Mendelsohn
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
No one goes Hungry in my America!
© WithComment.com
You are no longer hungry, just "Food insecure" "According to a report released this month by the US Department of Agriculture, roughly 35 million Americans had difficulty feeding themselves in 2005 and of those some 10.8 million went hungry."
WithComment – Orwell would be sad to see such talk. To change the name of being hungry to “food insecurity with hunger” may put it under homeland security in the future. It is hard to believe that with the number of overweight children and adults in this country that this is much of an issue. Our cities are full of lunch kitchens that haven’t closed since FDR was in charge. I’ve got to believe that a large percentage is homeless people who have a high percentage or the mentally ill. Either that or supermodels that are doing it to keep their jobs.
I think we need to adopt a skinny person. With the other 270 million of us too fat (I among them) we can teach these people how to stop doing meth and how to do Krispy Kreme. They need to learn to start taking their meds and start going to “Old country buffet” America’s know how to eat and we need to teach those how don’t how to do it too.
To paraphrase Pres. Reagan, “America is a shining buffet upon a hill.”
*No donuts were injured in making this observation.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
For more comments visit www.withcomment.com
You are no longer hungry, just "Food insecure" "According to a report released this month by the US Department of Agriculture, roughly 35 million Americans had difficulty feeding themselves in 2005 and of those some 10.8 million went hungry."
WithComment – Orwell would be sad to see such talk. To change the name of being hungry to “food insecurity with hunger” may put it under homeland security in the future. It is hard to believe that with the number of overweight children and adults in this country that this is much of an issue. Our cities are full of lunch kitchens that haven’t closed since FDR was in charge. I’ve got to believe that a large percentage is homeless people who have a high percentage or the mentally ill. Either that or supermodels that are doing it to keep their jobs.
I think we need to adopt a skinny person. With the other 270 million of us too fat (I among them) we can teach these people how to stop doing meth and how to do Krispy Kreme. They need to learn to start taking their meds and start going to “Old country buffet” America’s know how to eat and we need to teach those how don’t how to do it too.
To paraphrase Pres. Reagan, “America is a shining buffet upon a hill.”
*No donuts were injured in making this observation.
Chris Mendelsohn
reply@withcomment.com
For more comments visit www.withcomment.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)