Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?

Posted By: just wonderin on 2008-08-25
In Reply to:

I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye? - just wonderin
- No idea....looked like maybe a broken blood vessel? - sam

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

Other related messages found in our database

Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.

Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm

Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.

Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green

Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book

Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.

Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.

Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:

� Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.

Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:

"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."

He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."

To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]

UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.

The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."

The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.

For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.

- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:

Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.

Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.

� Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).

For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:

"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."

� In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,

"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "

Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):

"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).

Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:

"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"

Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.

� Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.

� The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."

Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.

As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.

� In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.

� Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine�78 percent�to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]

� He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.

� In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."

Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.

� Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.

Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.

Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM

Wow, you are easily amused.

Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.

Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.

I think that it was Jimmy Swaggert that
the poster was referring to. He indeed did seek out prostitutes for awhile there; however, he admitted it and apologized to his congregation which I thought was commendable, even though his personal delivery of **the good news** is a bit too theatrical for me. You can't be forgiven if you show no remorse.

So Jimmy Buffet does a benefit concert for Obama.

How is this a division of the races? There are all different races in this country ya' know.

The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!

Carter and Clinton snooped on you too

I bet you weren't screaming about this..

Drudgereport.com

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Unemployment isnt even down to the Carter
nm

Clinton & Carter DID NOT ORDER any such things.

Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?

Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.

Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Here, Carter refers to electronic surveillance, rather than physical searches like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.

It's called check and balance!

No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm

Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.

Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.

What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.

When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.

What happened?
Oh geez..what happened? Where are all the attack posts?? They are gone!! Or maybe Im just hallucinating this morning, LOL. OMG!! Now we can have soulful, fruitful, progressive and caring debates and ideas and maybe even possibly make a difference, without being attacked on everything we post. Halleluiah!!

What I think happened
I believe the other short, nasty post was deleted and in doing so it automatically deleted the other posts below it, which unfortunately included yours.

Yes, let's. What happened to all that
You used the "little people" reference to illustrate how elitist my concerns are. Those were not Obama's words, they were yours. You are not as good at spin as you think you are. Your choice to skip over the points about what KIND of executive experiences is another casual dismissal of issues far to vital to ignore, as you evidently would have us do. Those concerns will not be repeated here since you are trying to side-step them, as republicans inevitably do when faced with intellectual challenge, except to say that CEOs are executives, but keep themselves far out of touch with the "little people" beneath them. Sarah what's-her-name has also demonstrated a tendency to be a bit out of touch when it comes to using her office to elevate herself from ethics maid to VP.

Be impressed by that December 4, 2006 to now executive title. You obviously cannot cite any substance behind the title and neither can she. Most of us will not be voting for a title or a label, despite your party's best efforts.

Side-stepped everything about the token selection and Stepford Wife delegation, I see. So much for celebrating women's progress in the political arena.

First chair? Hopefully not (God help us if she ever is). Fact: That possibility is considerably more real under McCain (especially over an 8-year term) because of his age. Again, you have side-stepped the difference between the experience of Biden and the absence of same in what's-her-name. So much for being ready to lead the country. No problem. Says all it need to. 80% approval rating unheard of? You got that right. Nobody beyond Alaska has heard about it and it does not mean anything in view of the issue I raised that you are ignoring.

If you want to continue to make an utter fool of yourself by insisting her experience matches Obama's, go for it. I won't need to answer that lunacy again anytime soon. I'll let the media take care of that one for me and besides, rational minds will prevail over this lame claim.

What ever happened to
all those scathing protests over "redistribution of wealth?" How do all these bail-outs factor into that line of thinking?

I don't know how this happened!!! =)
ms - here's my political profile from the test you posted. Yes, I was very surprised! The liberal part must be hold-overs from my college days! =)

Overall: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

and what happened?
did someone put a stop to it???

What happened to sam?

I'm just curious. I can barely stomach the politics board, so I almost never read the political posts due to the O-Love-A-Thon and the pure vitreol, which does nobody any good.

I noticed that sam took off. I don't blame him/her, either. I simply wondered.

As for Ann Coulter, her brilliance and success literally drives the libs nuts. I have her books, too, just short of her latest one, "Guilty."

I'm not here to start a bunch of %(#$*, but I just wondered where sam went. My guess is that he/she got sick of the crap and left. I couldn't figure why he/she continued the fightl I know I won't go there.

I know what happened...LOL..(sm)

You responded to a post that said "what makes you think we don't" when you probably should have, or meant to respond to the comment above that. It went south after that. Been there and done that. I hate it when that happens....LOL.

What happened to us.

You always hear about people in the old days who worked from run rise to run set to make enough money, etc. to support themselves and their kids. They wouldn't take charity or handouts. They took pride in working and earning what they got whether it was enough or not. Now there are just too many people with their hands out asking for a free ride.

As far as I am concerned.....if you are receiving welfare and you refuse to work even if it isn't a great job......you lose your welfare. I have no problem contributing to someone who is at least trying to work. However, I do have a problem with giving money to lazy bums who would rather mooch off other people than to do a days honest work.

This is what happened
Someone posted that the Capt had been freed. Someone replied to that "Thank you President Obama. Job well done". We're all thinking what????? I didn't know that the O was part of the Navy Seal team that went in and rescued the Captain. Why would you be thanking the O but not the Navy Seals, not saying they are hero's that laid down their lives to rescue the Captain. No they attribute it all to the O. And yet on the other side of the coin they wouldn't give GW the same "congrats" when he gave the orders to have the girl from West Virginia rescued, or when he have the orders to have the hostages in Iran rescued, or any of the other orders he gave the okay on for the Navy Seals to rescue the people. But even then, as I don't congratulate the O because he wasn't part of the Navy Seals that risked their life to save the Captain, I would also not congratulate Bush on his orders to rescue other hostages.

The congrats goes to the Navy Seals. The ones who lay their lives down to rescue people they don't even know. When you give your life and are prepared to die to save another human being, they are the real hero's. But the poster that congratulated the O for "a job well done", didn't even mention anything about the ones who actually did the saving.

I don't get you guys...what is it you want. We all know you think he is the messiah, the anointed one, the one who can do no wrong. You will always be the first to praise "oh looky the stock market went up 8.5 points - way to go O, you're just the best president ever", but when the stock market drops something like 150 points you stay silent, and then be the ones to point out that the stock market goes up and down and it's not his fault. I sit and think...uh hellloooooo...you just congratuated him for the stock market going up but it's not his fault it goes down?????? (which by the way I don't believe whether it goes up or down he has anything to do with, but evidently you people do - that is of course only when it goes up).

All you want to see on this board is praises for him and rejoicing and singing hallelujah's to his name. You will never ever say anything when something bad is happening. Just praises.

Yes, I know he will make mistakes, and I know he will do some good. But not admitting when something bad is going on (like tripling our deficit within 90 days - and no, not a fault of Bush's, the O did this all by himself with his pen and paper, and with the help of a crat congress. You won't admit he is breaking his campaign promises. You won't say anything when we hear he is telling other countries that they can have our jobs because we don't want them anyways. You won't say anything when he bows to another countries leader (the American president is suppose to bow to nobody - but on top of that if he is suppose to bow to anyone, certainly not the country like that - I mean for pete's sake, he didn't even bow to the Queen of England). You may say you don't think he's perfect, but you certainly don't speak up when something he has done is wrong.

The "I know he will make mistakes - what man has never made mistakes?", etc, etc. sounds like your trying to get people to feel sorry for him and maybe you think it aids in your cause of the "oh poor O, everyone is picking on him". Well you know what, when people stand up and say "I'm mad as he!! and I'm not going to take it anymore". When you finally will speak up and say "hey, wait a minute, I voted for him but this is not what he said he was going to do" (which is what has happened to me. Yeah, you bet I get pretty ticked off when I have been lied to and I voted for him believing one thing and then realized he suckered us a good one. That's what's the really upsetting thing. Fooled me once shame on you, fool me twice - well there just won't be a twice.

"Why can't ya'll just give him a chance"??????? He has had his chance and he is blowing it.

It disappeared? I wonder how that happened.
nm

More importantly, what ever happened to the USA?

A Chinese bank is opening up in the USA. Bush at one time had wanted to sell "security" of our ports to an Arab country. We have two citizen heroes rotting away in jail because they did their job of protecting our border with Mexico and were forced to kill a criminal in the process of doing that job.

If you open this link, you will see the staggering number of "American" companies that are no longer owned by Americans. http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/10/american-icons-owned-abroad-falling-dollar-cheaper-u-s-assets/

As far as the redistribution of wealth, below I have copied and pasted what I feel is, by far, the most interesting article I've read on that topic. In my opinion, a "trickle up" policy needs to be implemented as soon as possible because the "trickle down" theory has not worked.

Closing Time

Jim Kirwan
12-10-8

Since Reagan we've been trying to make "Trickle-Down economics" work: For those to whom promises were made, Trickle- Down has been, not just a failure but it has been the major vehicle responsible for the most massive redistribution of wealth, from the population that has worked toward something, to those that wanted everything. Never has there been such a near total transfer of wealth in the history of the planet. This criminal-conspiracy has done what it was created to do and it must be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately, if we are to survive.

When 'Trickle-Down' was the political-priority of the day, the high-point in prosperity was to become a 'Millionaire.' Forbes magazine tracked those lucky few very carefully. Today Forbes 500 no longer bothers with 'millionaires' because there are just far too many of them-they have become inconsequential. Thanks to "Trickle-Down economics today the heavy-hitters financially are 'Billionaires' and above: which is all you need to know about how well this hostile-takeover of the American economy has worked.

The problem that this transfer of wealth has created has resulted in the Federalization-of-Privatization: As a result we are all facing another huge round of trickle-down economics, but this time it's being cloaked in a series of stealth-protected measures. These new tactics are commonly called BAILOUT or RESCUE packages, and nothing about their origins or their purposes has been made clear to those of us that will be forced to pay tens of trillions for our own destruction.

What's happening is this: First they used compromised laws to squash diversity and opinion within the entire field of communications, under Clinton and Powell's kid that ran the FCC. Together, competition was eliminated and monstrous empires were created that absorbed their competition outright. Once this happened, the entire edifice for total information management was in-place, using household names to lie to the public every minute of every day, whether on television or in print-with very few exceptions. With that completed effort it was easy to move directly onto the openly fascist path to WAR on a variety of fronts, supported and applauded by the very organs that were supposed to question whatever government does, on behalf of the people, as part of their constitutionally protected-jobs as so-called journalists. With the constitution gone, and the only allegiance worthy of that name having become the private for-profit motives that greed and arrogance breeds; in the sewers of those ruined lives where these so-called leaders "live," the current outcome is all that we should have ever expected from these new-age barbarians. (1)

We're still in the Twilight Zone; where Obama is just another man waiting to start a job, except that he seemingly can't wait to begin so he formulates their plans and then rushes to the nearest podium to expound upon the glories of what these programs (or pogroms) are pointedly designed to do; for them and 'to' us. And the sheep wait patiently to board the trains that will take them to the slaughterhouse.

The larger picture has or course remained hidden from the general public. What continues to go unnoticed is the number of profligate cities and towns, not to mention states that will have to be bailed out by the feds. Once this begins to happen, 'the rights' of states will disappear completely along with any independence from the federal-government. Remember the formula upon which bailouts are based: The crucial money provided is conditioned upon a federal "ownership stake" in everything that needs the money, and when this is applied to the states then all they have left to trade with is their broken-economies and their people who shall both become the property of the federal government that is today a private-corporation that serves only the privately-owned central banks and by extension the multi-national corporations. This is about to happen now to several states, including California; the sixth largest economy in the world. (2)

'BTW the "corporation" mentioned above has been bankrupt since 1933, and the result of that bankruptcy is that the USA went into receivership to the privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Dictator was correct when he said: "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper," he was actually telling the truth. It was probably the only truthful statement he ever made in nearly eight years.
The owners have simply allowed us to believe we have a constitution. Every law, code and statute world wide is based on the Uniform Commercial Code and has been in place since 1950. Of course no one in a position of power ever bothered to mention this to us did they? One must understand the UCC to understand how and why so many have gotten away with so much: And now they are upping the ante, to take it all.'

This explains why every courtroom and every government building has flags hanging that really are not American flags even though they appear to be. Each of them has gold/yellow fringe around them. They give us smoke and mirrors that mask what they created, which allows them to continue to say 'we have a constitution and a democracy.' Of course America was created to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. The rights of the few and the many, can only be protected under a Republic, while under a democracy, the majority rules-absolutely.

There are however a few places that are still holding out against the one-world-order and the New Barbarians. Among these are Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, possibly Iran and certainly Greece.
"Socialist leader George Papandreou called for early elections, saying the conservative government could no longer defend the public from rioters.

The government has a single-seat majority in the 300-member Parliament and opposition parties blame hands-off policing for encouraging the worst rioting the country has seen in decades.

'The government cannot handle this crisis and has lost the trust of the Greek people,' Papandreou said. 'The best thing it can do is resign and let the people find a solution ... we will protect the public.'" (3)

If America is to survive then we must stop this wholesale giveaway of everything that was once part of this society. The relationship between profits and earnings must be freed from the stranglehold that management has created in order to siphon off all the profits and wreck the companies they work for. In addition, the idea that government can function in any capacity as a major stakeholder in any form of private enterprise beggars the imagination far beyond any real possibility for saving anything; except the criminals and their enterprises that created this "crisis" in the first place. The 'economy' must be based on a bottom-up profit motive, based on the real wages of those that create the wealth for those at the top - and not upon the insanity that it is now! People must come first, and the corporations must be controlled at every level by the public!

There is no longer anything like responsibility anywhere in government or the private sector to anything except what can continue to be stolen, either by flawed and fraudulent bailouts, or through the strong-arm tactics that are currently acting "under- cover of law" and that are neither legal nor functional. Obama in this venue is neither a savior, nor a friend to the people that supposedly 'elected' him-he is just the instrument of the new global-government engine designed to finish the job and to close down this nation, once and for all! Americans need to watch what happens in Greece and follow their example, if there is to be an America to fight over in the future.

In the meanwhile, here is some of what's happened here already.

"With the focus on privatization, public-private partnerships, (dismantling local control); anyone with any common sense about them can see that; incrementally the power of the people is being given over to corporate control through various venues. Once upon a time we were subjects, then citizens, and now consumers. Everything is for sale. TV 'programming' is set up to entice "consumers" through the 3000 daily ads to buy, buy, buy! Utilities-waste- nursing homes, and even the people's water (once in local control) is open to the highest bidder or those with the most influence. In "public private partnerships or privatization" (despite the lofty high pitch sales rhetoric) means only one thing, a plundering of the people's money. Profits take precedence over any and all health or environmental concerns. It's pigs at the trough time, locally- state wise and nationally. This is not just happening in one or two isolated places but across the nation. Because we are narrowly focused (many times only one newspaper) parochially; we have little to no idea of the larger picture and what is being set in place.

As I read of various happenings across the nation; I am struck with the usage of terms and language being introduced into the public arena; with no explanation as to their meaning (if any). I asked a state politician a few years back what this terminology we're hearing lately of, "regional or regionalization" meant? He brushed the whole thing aside as inconsequential and told me that is was of no importance. Obviously, for me, that was an unsatisfactory answer. Most especially, since on the local level, I could see that it meant a great deal. It appeared to me, that ever so insidiously, local control was gradually being usurped by "regional" control of unelected officials. Consultants (strangers) were replacing local people in places of city government (at lucrative salaries). The sense of community (calling city hall etc.) was being replaced by various business entities, having little to no attachment to the heartbeat of the people. How could they, being strangers, with no sense of native pride or concern? Words like "regional, stake holder, empowerment zones, enterprise committees, visioning councils, smart growth, sustainable development etc;" had replaced understandable language! I didn't imagine that the usage of these terms across the nation (if you look) meant "nothing"." (4)

It's 'Closing Time' America, because unless you begin to do more than just watch, this place won't even be a footnote to the ruin that is planned for these people and this place that once held so much promise for everyone.

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

More importantly, what ever happened to the USA?

Closing Time

Jim Kirwan
12-10-8

Since Reagan we've been trying to make "Trickle-Down economics" work: For those to whom promises were made, Trickle- Down has been, not just a failure but it has been the major vehicle responsible for the most massive redistribution of wealth, from the population that has worked toward something, to those that wanted everything. Never has there been such a near total transfer of wealth in the history of the planet. This criminal-conspiracy has done what it was created to do and it must be terminated with extreme prejudice, immediately, if we are to survive.

When 'Trickle-Down' was the political-priority of the day, the high-point in prosperity was to become a 'Millionaire.' Forbes magazine tracked those lucky few very carefully. Today Forbes 500 no longer bothers with 'millionaires' because there are just far too many of them-they have become inconsequential. Thanks to "Trickle-Down economics today the heavy-hitters financially are 'Billionaires' and above: which is all you need to know about how well this hostile-takeover of the American economy has worked.

The problem that this transfer of wealth has created has resulted in the Federalization-of-Privatization: As a result we are all facing another huge round of trickle-down economics, but this time it's being cloaked in a series of stealth-protected measures. These new tactics are commonly called BAILOUT or RESCUE packages, and nothing about their origins or their purposes has been made clear to those of us that will be forced to pay tens of trillions for our own destruction.

What's happening is this: First they used compromised laws to squash diversity and opinion within the entire field of communications, under Clinton and Powell's kid that ran the FCC. Together, competition was eliminated and monstrous empires were created that absorbed their competition outright. Once this happened, the entire edifice for total information management was in-place, using household names to lie to the public every minute of every day, whether on television or in print-with very few exceptions. With that completed effort it was easy to move directly onto the openly fascist path to WAR on a variety of fronts, supported and applauded by the very organs that were supposed to question whatever government does, on behalf of the people, as part of their constitutionally protected-jobs as so-called journalists. With the constitution gone, and the only allegiance worthy of that name having become the private for-profit motives that greed and arrogance breeds; in the sewers of those ruined lives where these so-called leaders "live," the current outcome is all that we should have ever expected from these new-age barbarians. (1)

We're still in the Twilight Zone; where Obama is just another man waiting to start a job, except that he seemingly can't wait to begin so he formulates their plans and then rushes to the nearest podium to expound upon the glories of what these programs (or pogroms) are pointedly designed to do; for them and 'to' us. And the sheep wait patiently to board the trains that will take them to the slaughterhouse.

The larger picture has or course remained hidden from the general public. What continues to go unnoticed is the number of profligate cities and towns, not to mention states that will have to be bailed out by the feds. Once this begins to happen, 'the rights' of states will disappear completely along with any independence from the federal-government. Remember the formula upon which bailouts are based: The crucial money provided is conditioned upon a federal "ownership stake" in everything that needs the money, and when this is applied to the states then all they have left to trade with is their broken-economies and their people who shall both become the property of the federal government that is today a private-corporation that serves only the privately-owned central banks and by extension the multi-national corporations. This is about to happen now to several states, including California; the sixth largest economy in the world. (2)

'BTW the "corporation" mentioned above has been bankrupt since 1933, and the result of that bankruptcy is that the USA went into receivership to the privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Dictator was correct when he said: "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper," he was actually telling the truth. It was probably the only truthful statement he ever made in nearly eight years.
The owners have simply allowed us to believe we have a constitution. Every law, code and statute world wide is based on the Uniform Commercial Code and has been in place since 1950. Of course no one in a position of power ever bothered to mention this to us did they? One must understand the UCC to understand how and why so many have gotten away with so much: And now they are upping the ante, to take it all.'

This explains why every courtroom and every government building has flags hanging that really are not American flags even though they appear to be. Each of them has gold/yellow fringe around them. They give us smoke and mirrors that mask what they created, which allows them to continue to say 'we have a constitution and a democracy.' Of course America was created to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. The rights of the few and the many, can only be protected under a Republic, while under a democracy, the majority rules-absolutely.

There are however a few places that are still holding out against the one-world-order and the New Barbarians. Among these are Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, possibly Iran and certainly Greece.
"Socialist leader George Papandreou called for early elections, saying the conservative government could no longer defend the public from rioters.

The government has a single-seat majority in the 300-member Parliament and opposition parties blame hands-off policing for encouraging the worst rioting the country has seen in decades.

'The government cannot handle this crisis and has lost the trust of the Greek people,' Papandreou said. 'The best thing it can do is resign and let the people find a solution ... we will protect the public.'" (3)

If America is to survive then we must stop this wholesale giveaway of everything that was once part of this society. The relationship between profits and earnings must be freed from the stranglehold that management has created in order to siphon off all the profits and wreck the companies they work for. In addition, the idea that government can function in any capacity as a major stakeholder in any form of private enterprise beggars the imagination far beyond any real possibility for saving anything; except the criminals and their enterprises that created this "crisis" in the first place. The 'economy' must be based on a bottom-up profit motive, based on the real wages of those that create the wealth for those at the top - and not upon the insanity that it is now! People must come first, and the corporations must be controlled at every level by the public!

There is no longer anything like responsibility anywhere in government or the private sector to anything except what can continue to be stolen, either by flawed and fraudulent bailouts, or through the strong-arm tactics that are currently acting "under- cover of law" and that are neither legal nor functional. Obama in this venue is neither a savior, nor a friend to the people that supposedly 'elected' him-he is just the instrument of the new global-government engine designed to finish the job and to close down this nation, once and for all! Americans need to watch what happens in Greece and follow their example, if there is to be an America to fight over in the future.

In the meanwhile, here is some of what's happened here already.

"With the focus on privatization, public-private partnerships, (dismantling local control); anyone with any common sense about them can see that; incrementally the power of the people is being given over to corporate control through various venues. Once upon a time we were subjects, then citizens, and now consumers. Everything is for sale. TV 'programming' is set up to entice "consumers" through the 3000 daily ads to buy, buy, buy! Utilities-waste- nursing homes, and even the people's water (once in local control) is open to the highest bidder or those with the most influence. In "public private partnerships or privatization" (despite the lofty high pitch sales rhetoric) means only one thing, a plundering of the people's money. Profits take precedence over any and all health or environmental concerns. It's pigs at the trough time, locally- state wise and nationally. This is not just happening in one or two isolated places but across the nation. Because we are narrowly focused (many times only one newspaper) parochially; we have little to no idea of the larger picture and what is being set in place.

As I read of various happenings across the nation; I am struck with the usage of terms and language being introduced into the public arena; with no explanation as to their meaning (if any). I asked a state politician a few years back what this terminology we're hearing lately of, "regional or regionalization" meant? He brushed the whole thing aside as inconsequential and told me that is was of no importance. Obviously, for me, that was an unsatisfactory answer. Most especially, since on the local level, I could see that it meant a great deal. It appeared to me, that ever so insidiously, local control was gradually being usurped by "regional" control of unelected officials. Consultants (strangers) were replacing local people in places of city government (at lucrative salaries). The sense of community (calling city hall etc.) was being replaced by various business entities, having little to no attachment to the heartbeat of the people. How could they, being strangers, with no sense of native pride or concern? Words like "regional, stake holder, empowerment zones, enterprise committees, visioning councils, smart growth, sustainable development etc;" had replaced understandable language! I didn't imagine that the usage of these terms across the nation (if you look) meant "nothing"." (4)

It's 'Closing Time' America, because unless you begin to do more than just watch, this place won't even be a footnote to the ruin that is planned for these people and this place that once held so much promise for everyone.

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

Well, whatever happened, I am sure glad
nm

and we all know what happened to Rome don't we? sm
The Roman empire rotted from within. They kept absorbing and absorbing immigrants until they were no long able to sustain both them and their own citizens at the same time. The infrastructure finally gave out.

Sounds familiar to me.

I believe, if this happened...and don't know where you read it...
that these were paid McCain staffers, but some misguided McCain supporters. Obama has them too...many of them came out with the nastiness about Palin. They were Obama supporters, but not Obama staffers. Big difference. Obama can't control supporters, neither can McCain.

That happened to me the last recession we had...
and it took a good 6 years to right itself after the economy straightened out. And when it did...money went right into a CD. I don't mind a little in the market but I am not young enough to wait several years for rebounding again. Sigh.

Speak of Sam, what happened to her? nm
x

I wonder what happened to Kaydie?n/m
xx

That happened to me in the last 4 elections but

why, I don't know. It could be that the post office changed our street address 4 times yet lived here since ྈ. I wasn't on the list even though I've been registered since 1988 and voted every election. All of a sudden, I had to fill out a special form to vote. Last local primary, they wouldn't let me vote and I had to re-register. Stupid!

This year I called to make sure I was registered and they said yes. Got a new registration card with the old address on it, but no trouble this year. I was #235 at 7:30 a.m.

So, so true. This is what has happened in many

Phoenix, Arizona is one of them. Greed from Wall Street and greed from Main Street. After all, Phoenix was in a major housing bubble. I sold my home in 2005 by a California investor who not wanted my house and 6 others. My house was in a biding war. I pockted 280,000. Now that house in Phoenix is worth 160,000 less than what I sold it for. In 2005, homes were selling like crazy in Phoenix. Everyone wanted to jump on the band wagon. California investor thought, along with so many others, they could sell in a year or two and make a profit. Some profit, foreclosure. Many other homeowners took out equity to buy their boats and second homes. Now their second homes and their own home are in foreclosure. Not so many took out equity for cars because most lease their cars in Phoenix/Scottsdale. You rarely see a car on the road that is 5 years or older. Country has turned to greed, me-me-me, and gotta have it NOW.

No, this just happened in the last 2 months.
It was WALL STREET, FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC that did it, not Bush. He had nothing to do with this.

What happened to Bin Laden? sm
Watch this Clinton interview by Mike Wallace. Clinton lets him have it with both barrels and defends why he did not get Bin Laden.

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

You would "CARE" if it happened to YOU!
nm

Something else happened in 09/2001........ sm
My 17YO stepson was killed in a motorcycle accident in which a car pulled out in front of him. He had been taught to safely ride a motorcycle, had a helmet on, and was traveling at a safe rate of speed. Was it his fault he was killed? Was it his parents' fault he was killed? Was it the City of Mesquite's fault he was killed?

No.

It was a tragedy, but there is nothing that could have been done to keep that accident from happening from our standpoint. The only person who could have prevented it was the driver of the car who pulled out in front of him.

Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control. Bush could not have stopped the 911 disaster. He was not the pilot of any of the planes. He could not personally marshall each plane and verify each passenger on the manifest. He could not keep those planes from crashing into the Towers or the Pentagon or in the field in Pennsylvania.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the Dems bash Bush from everything from 911 to their own bad hair days. If you are going to blame anyone in the US for 911, blame the airlines who did not have proper security in place in the event that terrorists might try something like this. Blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when he had 3, count 'me, THREE chances to do so. Or better yet, blame AL Quaida for sending their terrorists off in search of their 70 virgins. I'm not the biggest Bush fan in the world, but the man does not deserve to be blamed for things he had no control over. Oh, sure, he may have known that terroist activitis were brewing, but as I said, he could not have done anything to stop what happened.

Nope. I just happened to have a day
off for a change and decided to check the board out. I see now, it was a mistake.

What ever happened to hiring someone...sm
because they were qualified - why should anything else matter, i.e. race, gender, religion, etc.? I would think a job would be done more proficiently if you hired the person best qualified for that job!

This happened not so long ago
To another rancher. I believe that was in Texas. They actually won. They own his land now, a guy and his sister if I remember correctly. Not a small parcel either. I think this was 4 or 5 years ago. Will have to see if I can find it.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

I rarely watch Fox News because I simply don't trust them to be "fair and balanced," after actually watching them a few years ago.

However, they have the same rights as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, etc., and I think that singling them out in order to silence them goes against the First Amendment that this country stands for.

Let them fall or survive on their own merit (or lack of same).

Hey BB, what happened with O and Gitmo?
nm

What happened in 2005............sm
when Israel pulled out of Gaza? They left behind 1000 settler greenhouses to spare the jobs of the Palestinians who worked in them and how did the Palenstinians show their gratitude? By trashing the greenhouses and stealing hoses, plastic sheeting and anything else that wasn't nailed down. They then proceeded to torch 19 synagouges and then began lobing bombs into Israeli cities. Nice....real nice.

Obama is doing what basically the rest of the world is doing and that is walking on eggshells and brown-nosing to keep from upsetting the Islamic faction and he is selling Israel up the river to do it by forcing them to live in 2-state situation with some very rotten neighbors.

Israel is an ally to every nation fighting the war on Islamic terror. Those same allied nations are advancing a policy of granting statehood to terrorists sworn to the destruction of that ally.

This is exactly the scenario outlined by the Hebrew prophets as signs of the soon coming of Israel's Messiah.

The prophet Zechariah predicted the whole world would be united against Israel over the Jerusalem Question (Zechariah 12:1-3); the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:27) predicted an agreement that seemingly settles the Temple Mount Question; and the prophet Ezekiel predicts that, in the end, Israel will still face a massive Islamic invasion reluctantly overseen by Russia and led by Persia (Iran) (Ezekiel 38:5).

Think about this for a second. Since it is absolutely illogical, and yet it is also exactly the situation we find ourselves witnessing, do you really believe it was all just a really good guess?

The wish of death posts happened

however, the moderator deleted them very quickly. Conservatives are being attacked with no mercy on the C-board. These people post nothing that has to do with the subject matter posted but go straight for the jugular. You are incorrect when you say it isn't personal, because it is extremely personal at times. One long term poster was stalked and threatened by e-mail back when posting an e-mail link was an option. I think you are as free as anyone to post your feelings and beliefs on any board, but when those posts become personally hateful, threatening, or wishing someone death or extreme ill will then that poster be it conservative or liberal needs to go. Recently, the most hateful posts have happened on the C-board. The moderator has said over and over "no bashing", but they still continue to do it. What do you expect the moderator/administrator to do?

Not that I wish you to leave, but If you don't feel comfortable posting here you certainly don't have to stay. There might be a forum where you would feel more comfortable and better fits your posting style. Again, this is a privately owned board, and the administrator is free to discern anyway he/she wants. However, I think the administrator would agree EVERYONE needs to play by the rules.

I happened 5 years ago and no one said a word. sm
What does that tell you?