June 28, 2010

Former KKK Clansman Senator Robert Byrd Dies, Age 92

There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861

There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.

There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.

There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."

There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.

There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."

There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.

There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.

There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.

Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

Bernice: There have been many independent studies and they all show that if you take away the rights of the people to own a gun, most won't. Many will. But ALL of the criminal elements will find a gun. They will have them, law abiding citizens won't. Where there are gun control laws, there is an increase in crime.

In some towns in the US you can wear your gun (like in the old West). Safest places to live on the planet. Everybody has a gun and if a dude wants to rob a bank, he may not get to the door without a few holes in his sorry arse. ;)

(V): There wasn't ONE Democrat who voted to abolish slavery. Only Republicans were on the side of abolishing slavery.

(V): I did.

The modern Democratic Party truly arose in the 1830s, with the election of Andrew Jackson.

From Wikipedia: From the end of the Civil War, African Americans almost unanimously favored the Republican Party due to its overwhelming political and more tangible efforts in achieving abolition, particularly through President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. The south had long been a Democratic stronghold, favoring a state's right to legal slavery. In addition, the ranks of the fledgling Ku Klux Klan were composed almost entirely of white Democrats.

(The Republican Party was...)Founded in northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party. It first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency and oversaw the American Civil War and Reconstruction

Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan "free labor, free land, free men.

The Party had the goal of containing the expansion of slavery, which would cause the collapse of the Slave Power and the expansion of freedom.

The party took on the mission of saving the Union and destroying slavery during the American Civil War and over Reconstruction.

So bite me. The answer is that the history of the CURRENT Democratic party is one of pro-slavery, Klu Klux Klan membership and anti-union.

(V): You don't know your US political history

Little Miss "No-Fly List"
Jeannie DeAngelis
It is comforting to know that even though registered sex offenders may show up at your door wearing Census 2010 credentials, at least Americans can rest easy in the knowledge that, if flying, Homeland Security is profiling potential terrorists like six-year old Alyssa Thomas.

Little Miss "no-fly list" Alyssa found out she was under Big Sis and DHS surveillance when she and parents, Doctor and Mrs. Thomas, boarded a Continental Airlines flight from Cleveland to Minneapolis.

The ticket agent at Hopkins Airport alerted the family that Alyssa was on the TSA "no-fly list." The Transportation Security Administration, which has also been known on occasion to hire felons, employs airport security personnel to identify potential terrorists before they board the airplane.

...

A census worker raped and bludgeoned a handicapped woman in Indiana after getting a job working for the same federal government that put a first grader on the terrorist "no-fly" list, and these people want to run national health care?

Yeah, and they will run it into the ground.

Bozos

A study by the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention tracked 4000 juveniles aged 6-15 inDenver (CO), Pittsburgh (PA), and Rochester (NY) from 1993-1995. The investigators found that children who use firearms with parental supervision, as far as hunting and target shooting, are less likely to commit acts of violence and street crimes (14 percent) than children who have no guns in their homes (24 percent); whereas children who obtain guns illegally do so at the whopping rate of 74 percent.(13)

Gun Control Doesn't Work.

The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves," wrote the London Sunday Times (January 11, 1998), which noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of forty. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically

Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?"

Interestingly, the same thing occurred in Great Britain. Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S.

To make matters worse for England --- and this is also true for Canada --- in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.

Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Supreme Court: Second Amendment applies to states and localities, too
Thomas Lifson
A huge civil rights victory today from the Supreme Court, as the Justices voted 5 to 4 that constitutional protections for the right to bear arms apply to state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

This should not have been a difficult case to decide, as the Court has previously held that constitutional restraints on the federal government also apply to states and localities when other civil rights are in question. Nonetheless, the four liberal justices found reason to make exceptions for the civil right they personally disagree with.

(V): The answer Jules, is ZERO. There wasn't ONE Democrat who voted to abolish slavery.

Get a clue.

Q. How many Democrats in Congress voted to abolish slavery?
127
95
34
0

June 26, 2010
Democrat says Arizona isn't on southern border
Greg Halvorson
Friends, if you don't think Liberty is in deep doo, then you're not paying attention. Elected officials - notably Barbara Boxer - have become so patently and publicly thick that you half expect them to pass laws in crayon. The U.S. House, in particular, is packed with members (Hank Johnson, Bob Etheridge, Maxine Waters) who seem incapable of speaking without calling into question whether they're gunning for laughs.

What's troubling isn't their idiocy, however, but its prevalence beyond the Beltway. The failure of citizens to participate in elections has handed nimrods wide powers. Take Peggy West, an elected official from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A graduate of _________ (Har-Harvard?), she recently made her case against Arizona's immigration law, saying:

"If this were Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this, saying they were having an issue with undocumented people flooding the border, I would look twice, but it's Arizona, a state that is a ways removed from the border...."

Shocked? Don't be. Liberals, in a recent survey by Zogby International, scored lower than conservatives on eight of eight questions. Eight routs, the intellectual equivalent of the Pittsburgh Steelers crushing Peafop Middle School. Zogby addressed economics (Where does money come from? Liberal: "trees") but the subject doesn't matter. Liberals are numb on every subject in which they profess knowledge.

Plato, on the other hand, was decidedly brilliant. The Greek philosopher once quipped that, "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

Who in Milwaukee would argue with that?

Bernice:

June 25, 2010
Town Jeopardizes Health of Sexually Active Preschoolers
Peter Wilson
Provincetown, Massachusetts "to rethink condom policy," reports the Boston Globe. After Governor Deval Patrick "expressed concern" the School Committee will revisit its policy of providing free condoms to "the Cape Cod community's elementary school, which serves preschoolers to sixth-graders."

A measure of sanity taken by the town famous for its flamboyant gay parades and S&M shops? Not exactly. The conservative new regulations will limit free condom distribution to the preschool through fourth grade, but will offer protection to all sexually active fifth and sixth graders:

"If parents are that upset, and we have to revise it to fifth- and sixth-graders, then that would be fine with me,'' said [School Committee member Carrie] Notaro, who has a preschooler and a second-grader in the elementary school.

Parents however will have no say in whether their fifth-grader is authorized to get a condom, Notaro noted, since kids aren't "going to ask their parents anyway."

Things sure have changed since the Pilgrims landed in 1620.

Jim Dandy: are you reading it with your left or right brain?

Jim Dandy: That you don't buy her story doesn't mean she's not telling the truth. In this country, we consider people innocent until proven guilty. But it doesn't matter. She's not really a contender for the crown so the media is wasting it's time trying to discredit her. They'll move on to others eventually. But that she is a powerful force is evident. That's why the left wing clown try so hard to discredit her. So much so that one idiot moved in right next door to her.

That's creepy.

No Palin Setback Too Small for Couric Who Skips How Palin 'Acted in Good Faith'
by Brent Baker
Demonstrating that no setback for Sarah Palin which can be portrayed as a rebuke is too insignificant or relevant for Katie Couric, she made time on Thursday's CBS Evening News to inform her viewers about a disputable technical violation of arcane law:
One little word will cost Sarah Palin a small fortune. Today, state investigators in Alaska said a legal defense fund she set up while she was Governor was illegal. They said the use of the word “official” on the fund's Web site implied it was endorsed by the office of the Governor. Palin's lawyer says she will return the fund's nearly $400,000.

Unmentioned by Couric? How Timothy Petumenos, the investigator/counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board which issued the ruling, absolved Palin of blame. “Petumenos found the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee acted in good faith and relied on the advice of lawyers when setting up the fund,” the Anchorage Daily News reported in an afternoon posting.

PDF of the board's report, which noted: “Governor Palin complied fully with AS 39.52.210(a) by declining to take any proceeds from the Trust once the Complaint was filed pending resolution of this matter.”

June 24, 2010
Al Gore’s masseuse
Richard Baehr
After you read through this 70 plus page report of the Portland, Oregon police interview with the licensed massage therapist who claims she was sexually attacked by Al Gore in his hotel room, I think any doubts about whether this story is true or not, will disappear.

The wonderful part of this politically (other than that it will greatly slow any momentum for climate change legislation, and further cheapens all the Nobel Prize winners) is that with Obama not useful as a salesman for Democrats running this year, Clinton was going to be the substitute campaigner. With the Gore story, the Lewinsky/Paula Jones stories will immediately be back in view.

Was Clinton a mentor to al gore on sexual assault and adultery?

Jim Dandy: You're probably right. I don't think we get the straight story from anywhere. I don't think the main stream media reports accurately, nor the left wing blogs, and it would be crazy to believe that right wing blogs are any more credible. I have to admit I do think Fox is the best. The shows I watch ALL have both sides of any issue represented. Still, it's hard to sort out conflicting stories. So many different slants on the news.

But I think it's clear that Obama has botched many things in his reaction to this spill. And I'm very confused with his latest action. Explain this:

"Feds halt work on LA sand berms
Jeannie DeAngelis
Sand berms are an insurance policy meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil spill damage. The Louisiana sand berm venture involves moving "sand from a mile out in the Gulf of Mexico and pumping it closer in to shore to build manmade barrier islands."

Nevertheless, lacking a more formidable idea and one week into the project the federal government decided to shut "down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico."

Louisiana's Republican Governor Bobby Jindal staunchly supports protecting the coastline with a sandy barricade, which may explain why the "berm issue has created its own toxic friction between Louisiana and the Obama Administration."

It seems that ever since Obama took over the reins of reason the government's first-and-foremost effort is directed at implementing the illogical, obstructing progress and public wellbeing and placing the vulnerable at risk."

It's an emergency crisis. Why halt anything that will help? That's a part I don't get.

June 24, 2010
Obama's ally ousted as Aussie PM
Thomas Lifson
President Obama's endorsement is proving to be a political kiss of death overseas as well as at home (ask Arlen Specter about the value of an Obama endorsement).

Barack Obama publicly acknowledged two months ago that Kevin Rudd, just ignominiously ousted by his own party as Prime Minister of Australia, was politically a great match for him.

How many Democrats will lose in the next election due to the Obama factor.

The more the merrier.

Foreign Ships Help in Gulf Clean-up
R.G. Edmonson | Jun 15, 2010 2:33PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story
Washington | Regulation | Maritime | United States
Lawmakers to hold hearing on Jones Act waivers to allow operations
The House Transportation subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation will hold a hearing Thursday on the influx of foreign-flag vessels in the Gulf of Mexico oil clean-up operation.

The Coast Guard Friday "redoubled" efforts to keep the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from impacting Gulf states by calling in more skimming boats and equipment from the Netherlands, Norway, France, and Spain after previously telling one Dutch official "Thanks, but no thanks," to an offer of help.

That revelation comes as Florida lawmakers beg for more skimmers to ward off Gulf spill oil approaching the state's white sand beaches and as the Unified Command – led by Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen – struggles with chain-of-command issues as BP changes its on-scene leadership.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0619/Jones-Act-Maritime-politics-strain-Gulf-oil-spill-cleanup


I can find tons to these kinds of reports but NOTHING to support your scenario.

(V): Hawaii Republican Rep. Charles Djou became the latest member of Congress to publicly criticize President Obama for not allowing foreign ships into the Gulf of Mexico to help with the clean-up effort of the BP oil spill.

Djou called on the administration to temporarily suspend the Jones Act, which bars foreign ships from engaging in transporting goods to and from American ports. According to a clause in the statute, the president can waive the law on an emergency and temporary basis.

(V): Get with it Jules. It's clear that in the beginning (and for a long time) Obama did very little to help curb the spill. And it's also a fact that Obama refused help. As for your claim, I can find NOTHING to support your claim. Not that I don't think it's likely at this point. How long as it been now?

I don't know the nature of the ships helping, the countries they are from, no details. So I'll not take your word or that of Media matters either.

Even if it's true, Obama STILL refused help from countries that were willing to help. They had the proper equipment.

Meanwhile, Obama was stonewalling requests from Louisiana's Governor for needed help/equipment/permits etc.

Jim Dandy: Obama deserves the flack. Do you think he acted in a proper and timely way?

That should put that issue to rest. It's clear that Obama refused help, and sat on an effective response. He's an inept, incompetent rookie and clearly over his head.

Democrats Make the Case for Jones Act Waiver
by Robert Bluey
A congressional hearing on foreign ships in the Gulf of Mexico turned into a full-scale attack on the Obama administration’s response to the crisis — led by the committee’s Democrats.

Thursday’s hearing came as a growing chorus of critics has accused the Obama administration of unwisely turning away international help for the oil spill cleanup and failing to issue a temporary waiver of the protectionist Jones Act. The hearing came as Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) criticized the administration for bureaucratic hurdles.

http://biggovernment.com/rbluey/2010/06/18/democrats-make-the-case-for-jones-act-waiver/

"Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) said it was unacceptable that her state couldn’t utilize foreign vessels for skimming. She held up pictures of skimmers available in Mexico and Norway that could help. 'We are in emergency mode and we need skimmers,' Brown said. “We need the big ones. I understand they’re available in other countries, including Mexico and Norway. What is the process for the state to utilize these vessels from other countries? … We’re talking about protecting Florida’s coast.' . . .Deputy Maritime Administrator David Matsuda confirmed there has been one Jones Act waiver request for a foreign deck barge to operate within three miles of the U.S. coast. That request was denied . . . .Of course, the Obama administration could eliminate the bureaucratic delay entirely by simply following the precedent set by the Bush administration, which waived the Jones Act in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 to transport oil and gasoline throughout the Gulf region. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has the legal authority to suspend the law."

Not from Fox:

U.S. Refused Help on Oil Spill

According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it.

"..While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

Report: Gen. Petraeus will replace Gen. McChrystal
Ed Lasky
AP writes that "sources" tell it that General David Petraeus will replace Gen. McChrystal as commender of US forces in Afghanistan, in the wake of his nbeing relieved from duty by the President. How ironic that "General Betray Us." as Obama's pals in Moveon.Org called him, is coming to Obama's rescue.

Übergeek 바둑이: Obama is the President, not Bush or Palin. This spill happened under his watch. He's responsible to do all he can to get this spill cleaned.

Explain why he does nothing for the first 60 days.

Why does he wait to act on Louisiana's requests and why doesn't he give them exactly what they need to protect the shores?

Why does Obama refuse the help of other nations who, by the way, have proven techniques and the proper equipment for such spills.

This is all on Obama. Not Bush. Not Palin (why you bring her into it is laughable).

Salazar was the one who told Congress that experts backed his plan for a blanket moratorium on further deep-water drilling, when experts had said nearly the opposite. (Salazar later apologized.) Many engineers, in fact, warn that shutting down wells and then restarting drilling -- with the migration of drill rigs, technology and human capital -- would only increase risk in the long run.

(V): You need to learn to read. Never said more than 33 rigs were affected. The CONTEXT was historical: "There have been over 50,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, over 4,000 of them deepwater wells and 700 ultra-deepwater wells; all this with no major incidents until now."

Note: "have been"

Obama did NOTHING (that's zero actions) for two months. Actions that do nothing to contain the spill are worthless.

Oh yeah he attends sports games, played some hoops and golfed a lot. and he gave impressive speeches. But as for anything meaningful to contain the spill

NOTHING

(V): Drilling suspension would likely cost 6000 jobs in Louisiana alone (and could go as high as 10,000). If the rigs leave the gulf, they won't be coming back. And there are interested parties that want those rigs in their waters. Here are some facts:

There have been over 50,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, over 4,000 of them deepwater wells and 700 ultra-deepwater wells; all this with no major incidents until now. That is a 99.998 percent success ratio. But they are going to punish Louisiana anyway. They have invested over $150 million for its fleet of vessels that are now being shut down for six months. When in the history of the country has an entire industry been shut down for six months? Why do it now?

Here's another fact that's not being discussed: With 33 rigs about to be put out of commission, one company that contracts their oil rig vessels (Laborde Marine) received a call. that call came from Petrobras. Yes, that's right, the George Soros heavily-backed Brazilian state run oil company Petrobras wants to lease the unused rigs.

I smell a rat.

It costs at least $10 million to move the rigs, so it's unlikely they'd find their way back if they are leased. The jobs won't ever come back.

Yes the oil spill is bad. And yes BP was negligent. But you don't shut down (and destroy) and entire industry (and the livelihood of thousands) for ONE accident.

This spill could have been less severe if Obama hadn't sat on his hand for 6 months. He's incompetent. The leak is BPs fault. The mess is Obama's fault. He's done NOTHING in a timely way and the actions he does take are minimal. It's like he wants this disaster.

RECENT POLLS:
Gallup: Debt, Terrorism Considered Top Threats to U.S.
CNN: 60% Want Gitmo Kept Open; Up From 47% in Jan. 2009
Quinnipiac: 59% Favor Military Tribunals For 9/11 Terrorists
Washington Post/ABC News: 55% Favor Military Tribunals For 9/11 Terrorists
CBS: Most Americans Want Gitmo Kept Open
Rasmussen: Just 35% Say US Safer Today Than Before 9/11
Zogby: 55% Of Independents Want Gitmo Open
Quinnipiac: 60% Of All Americans Want Gitmo Open
Gallup: 64% Oppose Closing Gitmo & Moving Detainees To U.S.
Rasmussen: 58% Support Waterboarding & Aggressive Interrogation Tactics
Rasmussen: Majority In Illin

(V):  And I hope the Federal gov loses this one as they are totally out in left field.

Gallup: Health Care Overhaul Support Flatlines
In the three months since Congress approved a broad overhaul of the U.S. health care system, the landmark legislation “has not gained significant support” among the American people, according to the latest Gallup poll out today.


And it's only going to get worse.

>Click here for the slideshow.

Last week, Congresswoman Giffords met with General Patraeus on Capitol Hill. This meeting took place after we have lost over thirty American soldiers in Afghanistan this month. The burning question on Ms. Giffords’ mind was: what are we doing to “green” our bases?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ww0ojjhtGc&feature=player_embedded