Think about it! What would have happened in America if the terrorist attack didn't occur on 9/11? Let's review the facts from that time...Election challenges were eminent. The U.S. Supreme Court (most of whom where appointed by and loyal to Republican Presidents) decides G. W. Bush is the President. He didn't win the election in 2000. If something didn't happen and soon, Bush would have been removed from office by the courts. Bush wanted to stay in office and had to do something dramatic to change the attention away from the election. It had to be something BIG. Bush and Osama Bin Laden are in the "Oil Cartel" and know each other, possibily friends. Bush okayed the attacks on America so that American's would forget about the election.
Another possible theory: For reasons unknown to us, George W. Bush clearly wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Maybe Osama Bin Laden and other members of the Oil Cartel did too. How could this be accomplished? How could he/they topple Hussein's reign? Nothing short of a war could make that happen. How do you start a war?
Regardless of why the 9/11 atacks happened, Bush had to get Bin Laden's family out of the United States. Shortly after the attacks, when NO PLANES WERE SUPPOSE TO BE FLYING IN U.S. AIRSPACE, the Bush Administration allowed a jet to fly around the country to gather Bin Laden's family and "some 140 high ranking Saudi officials." and safely get them out of the United States. This is something you would do for a friend, to help him protect people he cared about! (see news article below)
Why do you think Osama Bin Laden wasn't captured during the Bush Administration? Bush didn't want him captured, much less killed. Some people say that President Obama had nothing to do with capturing Bin Laden. The intelligent reports were presented to him and he, the President, signed the order for the mission to capture Bin Laden to take place.
If the terrorist attacks had not taken place on September 11, 2001, Bush wouldn't have lasted more than 4 years in office. He certainly wouldn't have WON HIS FIRST ELECTION in 2004. He would spent his 4 years in office, if he lasted that long, fighting to stay in office.
Here is the article about the Bin Laden family evacuation:
"Bin Laden Family 'Evacuated' From US
9:11am UK, Wednesday September 03, 2003
Members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the US shortly after the September 11 terror attacks, a senior official has said.
'Bush government sanctioned bin Laden family repatriation'
Even though American airspace had been shut down, the Bush administration alloweda jet to fly around the US picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston.
Some 140 high ranking Saudi officials were also on the plane.
The revelations come from former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.
He said the Bush administration sanctioned the repatriation of the family in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
'Repatriation approved'
"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country," he told Vanity Fair magazine.
Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said, 'Fine, let it happen'."
He first asked the bureau to check that no one "inappropriate" was leaving.
"I have no idea if they did a good job. I'm not in any position to second guess the FBI," he said.
But Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said the Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations".
Permission to fly
Federal authorities gave permission for the plane to fly.
Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Boston's Logan airport, said: "We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history and here we were seeing an evacuation of the bin Ladens! ... I wanted to go the highest levels in Washington."
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US who is said to have organised the exodus, met President George Bush on September 13, 2001, two days after the terror attacks.
It is not known if they discussed the repatriation plan.
'No secret flights'
The White House has declined to comment on the claims, but sources told Vanity Fair the Bush administration was confident no secret flights took place.
Mr Clarke, who headed the Counter-terrorism Security Group of the National Security Council, said he did not recall who requested approval for the flights, but believes it was either the FBI or the State Department.
Special Agent John Iannarelli, the FBI's spokesman on counter-terrorism activities, said: "I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights one way or another."
The wealthy bin Laden family broke ties with bin Laden years before the September 11 strikes. "
Even if Bin Laden's family broke ties with him, Osama Bin Laden still wanted his family to be safe and former President George W. Bush made it happen by getting the Bin Laden's out of the United States. Why would anyone do that, especially after the attacks, unless they had something to hide.
Check out this article about a class action lawsuit against Former President George W. Bush and members of his administration. A Government Insider is taking legal action to prove that Frmr President Bush ordered the September 11th attacks.
It is: http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
Monday, September 12, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
It is time to get involved!
If everyone thought that nothing could make a difference then nothing would. However, we have seen that proven wrong when so many American's contacted their Congresspeople about raising the debt ceiling! Some members of the American public got sick and tired of it and spoke out. There was a lot of coverage about this in the National News Programs about how many American's spoke out and what method that they chose to speak out with.
With the invention of the internet, the world is changing. People who live under harsh, brutal and oppressive conditions somhow managed to got on the internet and saw how other people in the world lived and finally decided to fight back! They want their freedom.
Even if it is just a matter of signing or starting a petition (easy to do on the CARE 2 website), writing a blog or some e-mails, or posting ideas on the social network sites(Facebook, My Space, My Lot, to name a few) or send an e-mail to their leaders (easy to do on Congress.org). All of these actions can help to make a difference!
Once, a small group of people decided that they didn't want to be ruled by King George of England anymore and got together and fought and won the American Revolution! Today, we don't need to get out a gun, just get a pen and paper or turn on our computers and get involved! TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We just have to get off the sidelines and into the game!
With the invention of the internet, the world is changing. People who live under harsh, brutal and oppressive conditions somhow managed to got on the internet and saw how other people in the world lived and finally decided to fight back! They want their freedom.
Even if it is just a matter of signing or starting a petition (easy to do on the CARE 2 website), writing a blog or some e-mails, or posting ideas on the social network sites(Facebook, My Space, My Lot, to name a few) or send an e-mail to their leaders (easy to do on Congress.org). All of these actions can help to make a difference!
Once, a small group of people decided that they didn't want to be ruled by King George of England anymore and got together and fought and won the American Revolution! Today, we don't need to get out a gun, just get a pen and paper or turn on our computers and get involved! TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We just have to get off the sidelines and into the game!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Let's start trying to balance the budget! Instant yearly savings of over $9 Million!
There seems to be a lot of discussion about how to reduce Government spending. Of course, everyone has a different idea. I have one idea that is a small step fiscally, but would be a bigger step from a Public Relations stand point. Let's start at the top. According to articles in Wikipedia, I have discovered the earnings of our leaders in the United States Government.
It is well known that many workers in the United States have been asked to take cuts in their earnings during tough times. Somehow, the President, Vice President and members of the United States Congress have been spared from taking salary reductions for the good of our country.
The President of The United States earns $ 400,000 annual salary*
The Vice President 230,700 annual salary**
The Speaker of the House 212,100 annual salary***
President Pro Tempore 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader of the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
97 Remaining Senators @ $169,300 16,422,100 annual salary***
433 Remaining House Reps @ $169,300 73,306,900 annual salary***
Total Salaries: $91,489,300.
"Congressional Leaders" get 183,500.*** But since I don't know how many people are considered to be "Congressional Leaders", I used the salary of Non-Office holding members of Congress of $169,300.
Let's ask our leaders to take a ten percent pay cut, make a sacarifice for the "team". That would be an annual savings of $9,148,930. While that is "small change" compared to the billions and billions of dollars that the U. S. Governement spends every year, it would definately help! When you consider that the medium American Income for Men is $45,113 and for Women it is $35,102, I really don't think that it is too much to ask.
I have heard that while President, John F. Kennedy took a salary of only $1 per year because of his family's wealth. Many of our member of Congress are very wealthly and could afford to volunteer to take a larger reduction. If the heads of the United States Government are expecting us to "tighten our belts", shouldn't they be willing to do the same thing?
References:
* Wikipedia article, "President of the United States".
** Wikipedia article, "Vice-President of the United States".
*** Wikipedia article, "United States Congress".
It is well known that many workers in the United States have been asked to take cuts in their earnings during tough times. Somehow, the President, Vice President and members of the United States Congress have been spared from taking salary reductions for the good of our country.
The President of The United States earns $ 400,000 annual salary*
The Vice President 230,700 annual salary**
The Speaker of the House 212,100 annual salary***
President Pro Tempore 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader of the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Majority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the Senate 183,500 annual salary***
Minority Leader in the House 183,500 annual salary***
97 Remaining Senators @ $169,300 16,422,100 annual salary***
433 Remaining House Reps @ $169,300 73,306,900 annual salary***
Total Salaries: $91,489,300.
"Congressional Leaders" get 183,500.*** But since I don't know how many people are considered to be "Congressional Leaders", I used the salary of Non-Office holding members of Congress of $169,300.
Let's ask our leaders to take a ten percent pay cut, make a sacarifice for the "team". That would be an annual savings of $9,148,930. While that is "small change" compared to the billions and billions of dollars that the U. S. Governement spends every year, it would definately help! When you consider that the medium American Income for Men is $45,113 and for Women it is $35,102, I really don't think that it is too much to ask.
I have heard that while President, John F. Kennedy took a salary of only $1 per year because of his family's wealth. Many of our member of Congress are very wealthly and could afford to volunteer to take a larger reduction. If the heads of the United States Government are expecting us to "tighten our belts", shouldn't they be willing to do the same thing?
References:
* Wikipedia article, "President of the United States".
** Wikipedia article, "Vice-President of the United States".
*** Wikipedia article, "United States Congress".
Sunday, August 7, 2011
"Cut spending/balance the budget" Republican's go on spending spree
I was watching the CBS program, "Up to the Minute" late one night when I saw an interesting piece. It seems that some members of Congress ran on the "cut spending and balance the budget" platform have already gotten the "spending bug" and already have started to add excessive spending to the budget. This, again, shows how our Politicians say one thing to get elected then do a complete reversal once in office. They, however, don't want these things to become public so that they can scream they "are spending cut/balance the budget" Republicans.
The following is from the www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011 /07/26/evening news/main
By Sharyl Attkisson
(CBS News)
Bringing home the bacon is one of Washington's oldest traditions.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress spend considerable time trying to get federal funds for pet projects in their home districts.
So how's that affected some of the newer members who came to Washington vowing to cut federal spending at every turn? CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that in some cases, apparently, not at all.
Everyone agrees the old Stillwater Bridge linking Minnesota and Wisconsin is on its last legs and must go. But the fancy, $700 million replacement in the works costs double the cheaper alternative.
Why is Congress a millionaires club?
Do corporate interests rule Washington?
CBSNews.com special report: The United States of Influence
A bill co-sponsored by Republican freshman Sean Duffy paved the way for the expensive bridge to be built, even though he ran on this platform: "Our national debt has grown sky high thanks to the liberals in D.C. I'll work in Congress to cut spending and balance the budget."
Duffy's office told us his bill doesn't fund the bridge, it simply allows it to move forward and has some Democratic support too.
Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense sees it as a perfect example of excess Congress can't seem to resist, even during a time of fiscal crisis.
"There's an alternative that's hundreds of millions of dollars less, maybe not the signature bridge, maybe not the tourist attraction, but actually could get the job done for far less money," Ellis says.
Freshman Republican Steven Palazzo of Mississippi also ran as a fiscal conservative. Then he added more than $150 million to the defense budget, bound for a shipyard in his own district.
He didn't want to talk to CBS News but has said he's "glad to be able to help ensure the long-term viability of our shipbuilding industry."
Republican Duncan Hunter, now in his second term, added $5 million to the 2012 defense budget destined for Trex Enterprises, where employees are major donors to his campaign. Hunter also asked for $3 million in tax dollars for Trex in 2010.
A spokesman for Hunter told us part of his role in Congress is drawing business to companies in his district.
If Congress really expects to do more with less, it's not evident in their add-ons to the 2012 defense budget. There are fewer of them than in years past, but they add up to just as much as before: about $1.3 billion.
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved."
The following is from the www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011 /07/26/evening news/main
"GOP fiscal hawks embrace pricey pet projects
By Sharyl Attkisson
(CBS News)
Bringing home the bacon is one of Washington's oldest traditions.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress spend considerable time trying to get federal funds for pet projects in their home districts.
So how's that affected some of the newer members who came to Washington vowing to cut federal spending at every turn? CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that in some cases, apparently, not at all.
Everyone agrees the old Stillwater Bridge linking Minnesota and Wisconsin is on its last legs and must go. But the fancy, $700 million replacement in the works costs double the cheaper alternative.
Why is Congress a millionaires club?
Do corporate interests rule Washington?
CBSNews.com special report: The United States of Influence
A bill co-sponsored by Republican freshman Sean Duffy paved the way for the expensive bridge to be built, even though he ran on this platform: "Our national debt has grown sky high thanks to the liberals in D.C. I'll work in Congress to cut spending and balance the budget."
Duffy's office told us his bill doesn't fund the bridge, it simply allows it to move forward and has some Democratic support too.
Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense sees it as a perfect example of excess Congress can't seem to resist, even during a time of fiscal crisis.
"There's an alternative that's hundreds of millions of dollars less, maybe not the signature bridge, maybe not the tourist attraction, but actually could get the job done for far less money," Ellis says.
Freshman Republican Steven Palazzo of Mississippi also ran as a fiscal conservative. Then he added more than $150 million to the defense budget, bound for a shipyard in his own district.
He didn't want to talk to CBS News but has said he's "glad to be able to help ensure the long-term viability of our shipbuilding industry."
Republican Duncan Hunter, now in his second term, added $5 million to the 2012 defense budget destined for Trex Enterprises, where employees are major donors to his campaign. Hunter also asked for $3 million in tax dollars for Trex in 2010.
A spokesman for Hunter told us part of his role in Congress is drawing business to companies in his district.
If Congress really expects to do more with less, it's not evident in their add-ons to the 2012 defense budget. There are fewer of them than in years past, but they add up to just as much as before: about $1.3 billion.
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)