Iacocca's words.

Iacocca's words.



'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me the economy is getting better..'


Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!'


You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.


The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan, Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.

We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. But our soldiers are dying daily.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day!

We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are going to skyrocket again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists.

Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers union


Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare.

The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.

These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point..

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy.. Deal with life.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it!

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving theenergy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America. In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.

Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!


***********************************


LET'S GET THE MUSLIM ROOKIE OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

Obama's War

by Patrick J Buchanan

Just two months after the twin towers fell, the armies of the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul. The Taliban fled.

The triumph was total in the "splendid little war" that had cost one U.S. casualty. Or so it seemed. Yet, last month, the war against the Taliban entered its eighth year, the second longest war in our history, and America and NATO have never been nearer to strategic defeat.

So critical is the situation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates,in Kandahar last week, promised rapid deployment, before anyTaliban spring offensive, of two and perhaps three combat brigades of the 20,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan. The first 4,000, from the 10th Mountain, are expected in January.

With 34,000 U.S. soldiers already in country, half under NATO command, the 20,000 will increase U.S. forces there to 54,000, a 60 percent ratcheting up. Shades of LBJ, 1964-65. Afghanistan is going to be Obama's War. And upon its outcome will hang the fate of his presidency. Has he thought this through?

How do we win this war, if by winning we mean establishing a pro-Western democratic government in control of the country that has the support of the people and loyalty of an Afghan army strong enough to defend the nation from a resurgent Taliban?

We are further from that goal going into 2009 than we were fiveyears ago.

What are the long-term prospects for any such success?

Each year, the supply of opium out of Afghanistan, from which most of the world's heroin comes, sets a new record. Payoffs by narcotics traffickers are corrupting the government. The fanatically devout Taliban had eradicated the drug trade, but is now abetting the drug lords in return for money for weapons to kill the Americans.

Militarily, the Taliban forces are stronger than they have been since 2001, moving out of the south and east and infesting half the country. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan and virtually ring Kabul.

U.S. air strikes have killed so many Afghan civilians that President Karzai, who controls little more than Kabul, has begun to condemn the U.S. attacks. Predator attacks on Taliban and al-Qaidain Pakistan have inflamed the population there.

And can pinprick air strikes win a war of this magnitude?

The supply line for our troops in Afghanistan, which runs from Karachi up to Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul, is now a perilous passage. Four times this month, U.S. transport depots in Pakistan have been attacked, with hundred of vehicles destroyed.

Before arriving in Kandahar, Gates spoke grimly of a "sustained commitment for some protracted period of time. How many years that is, and how many troops that is ... nobody knows."

Gen. McKiernan says it will be at least three or four years before the Afghan army and police can handle the Taliban

.But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god,democracy?

McKiernan says the situation may get worse before it gets better.Gates compares Afghanistan to the Cold War. "(W)e are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists. ...The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years.

"That would truly be, in Donald Rumsfeld's phrase, "a long, hard slog."

America, without debate, is about to invest blood and treasure,indefinitely, in a war to which no end seems remotely in sight, if the commanding general is talking about four years at least and the now-and-future war minister is talking about four decades.

What is there to win in Afghanistan to justify doubling down our investment? If our vital interest is to deny a sanctuary there to al-Qaida, do we have to build a new Afghanistan to accomplish that? Did not al-Qaida depart years ago for a new sanctuary in Pakistan?

What hope is there of creating in this tribal land a democracy committed to freedom, equality and human rights that Afghans have never known? What is the expectation that 54,000 or 75,000 U.S.troops can crush an insurgency that enjoys a privileged sanctuary to which it can return, to rest, recuperate and recruit for next year's offensive?

Of all the lands of the earth, Afghanistan has been among the least hospitable to foreigners who come to rule, or to teach them how they should rule themselves.

Would Dwight D. Eisenhower -- who settled for the status quo ante in Korea, an armistice at the line of scrimmage -- commit his country to such an open-ended war?

Would Richard Nixon? WouldRonald Reagan?

Hard to believe. George W. Bush would. But did not America vote against Bush? Why is America getting seamless continuity when it voted for significant change?

Source: www.buchanan.org

Hey, Hey, BHO ...

Back in the '60s, the chant went "Hey, Hey, LBJ - How many kids did you kill today?" In light of the item below, many the new chant should be "Hey, Hey, BHO - How many kids will have to go?"

Afghanistan could get 30,000 new US troops
By JASON STRAZIUSO

(AP)

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 - the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south. But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan.

Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.

"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," he told a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul. "We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."

Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.

"The Taliban and extremists are more sophisticated and effective," Mullen said. "They haven't won any battles but they certainly have increased the level of violence, and we're very focused on that. That's why the additional forces are so important, to be able to provide security for the Afghan people so these other areas can be developed."

U.S. officials already have plans to send four ground brigades and an aviation brigade to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of the aviation brigade, defense officials told The Associated Press. And 10th Mountain Division forces will deploy next month to two provinces that neighbor Kabul - Wardak and Logar, which have seen an influx of militants over the last year.

Mullen said that after the additional U.S. troops are added over the next eight months, only improvements in Afghanistan's governance and economic situation will affect the strength of the insurgency.

But the chairman conceded that the U.S. may have misjudged the central government's ability "to have the kind of impact that we wanted."

Afghanistan, Mullen said, has never been run by a strong central government, and the U.S. may look to communities and tribes in the country's provinces to take on a greater role in future strategy.
He called U.S. goals in Afghanistan "moderate," and said the long-term U.S. vision is for a country that can govern itself while respecting international law, while providing both material and economic security for its people.

Ron Paul Roars In Lone Star State

By Pat Shannan

Famed journalistic curmudgeon H.L. Mencken wrote in The Baltimore Sun nearly a century ago, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” The current presidential (crooked) election primaries demonstrate that the adage still fits snugly with the American voter.

Speaking of the Elvis-like frenzy at a recent Barack Obama rally, Charlotte Allen of The Washington Post said:

“We scream, we swoon. How dumb can we get?” Her Post colleague, Linda Hirshman, bemoaning the fact that “. . . women are split every way they can be. They’re the only bloc not voting their bloc,” further wrote, “American women still aren’t strategic enough to form a meaningful political movement directed at taking power.”

In other words, vote for the woman simply because she’s a woman. Obama can count on deriving most of the black votes for no other reason than he is at least half black.

That’s certainly enough, to them, for him to be the president. This seems to be the most important determining factor for both groups: ”He/she is one of us.”

That’s enough. Would it make any difference even if the two Democratic candidates were Rosie O’Donnell and O.J. Simpson? Probably not.

Clinton and Obama say they want “change.” Really? What have you two frauds done to bring about change since you became senators? You’ve been sitting up there for 10 years between you.

On the Republican side, John McCain is willing to keep troops in Iraq “for a hundred years,” legalize illegal aliens and generally continue to do whatever the existing agenda directs, in order to sell out American sovereignty to the New World Order.

These three traitors are chronicled, day in and day out, on the evening news and the morning newspapers. Yet, while any of them, prior to their recent elevation to “star status” by the media, would have been jubilant to draw 750 people at any speaking engagement, Ron Paul drew a crowd to the capitol steps in Austin, Texas last week estimated by police to be at 7,500. However, unless you were there, that fact would have been difficult to find out.

Certainly, no other newsman told you. So there’s one more reason why Ron Paul must stay in the race and as a Republican, at least until convention time right after Labor Day. He must stay not only to enlighten the American people about his sensible platform, but also so he may be able to continue to expose the fraudulent news media for what they really are: deceivers.

Without the deceptive news media—or with fair and honest reporting—Ron Paul would have already sent John McCain back to the Senate and would already be the all but elected new president. But the media have created the appearance that the American people don’t want Paul to be president, when it is the Republican planners who don’t want him. As the campaign trail lengthens and the revolution expands, it is becoming more and more obvious that Ron Paul is the people’s choice.

A radio commentator said that when George W. Bush took office, the euro could be bought with 82 American cents—the overnight change on your dresser. Now with the trading price at $1.53, that 2001 figure may be doubled before you read this. The American economy is crashing, and the Federal Reserve Note “dollar” is doomed. For the past quarter century or more, monetary realists have pointed out that no nation in the history of this planet has ever survived a paper money scheme, and this one won’t either.

Now we have reached the end of the line. It is now a crisis. Unless the nation’s constitutional monetary system of circulating gold and/or silver coin is restored—and Ron Paul is the only candidate who will do that—then this generation of Americans will witness a crash and depression that will make 1929 look like a Sunday School picnic.

Now, with that in mind, just how many black Americans or female white Americans would really want to see “one of their own” in the White House, if they knew what they were trading for it? Instead of the first woman or first black president, how about we get the first honest president?

The climate of the times demands it. Even if any of the other candidates, upon being inaugurated, decided that a move to an honest monetary system was indeed the right thing to do, he or she would have to appoint Ron Paul secretary of Treasury to carry out the plans because none of the others has a clue how to do it.

One’s knowledge is only as good as one’s information. If people are not aware of the above facts, then they certainly are justified in making their frivolous complaints all summer long about not having any viable candidates. On the other hand, if the multitudes can be made aware that there is one viable candidate out there—a statesman rather than just another lying politician—then not only would the meaningless debates cease but the voter’s decision would be simplified, and the total vote for Ron Paul would be so overwhelming that a computer vote fraud would need to be massive indeed to prevent his election.

This is what begins to happen when an “unknown” and one who many erroneously think (because of news media deception) has already dropped out of the race, draws 7,500 people at a gathering, while the opposition quietly drools in jealousy.

One fraud, Mike Huckabee (who dropped out), the CFR’s anointed one to thwart the Paul campaign with his phony conservatism, recently announced that, as president, he would “do away with the IRS.” Is that plagiarizing a script from Dr. Paul? But “Fakeabee” hasn’t the slightest intention of doing any sort of thing because he has no idea why it should be done. He still thinks the income tax funds something. His is no more than cheap, hollow rhetoric from a deceptive politician.

How can we know this? Because he didn’t mention dismantling the FED. Ron Paul is the only candidate who knows that an income tax—and this is straight out of the Communist Manifesto—is necessary only to control a fiat currency. When governments (or in this case, private bankers) can turn on the printing presses at will, then something else is necessary to vacuum up the excess paper and credit each year to prevent hyper-inflation.

However, the system still loses a little more ground each year and eventually even the “vacuum cleaner” is not enough to handle the problem.

The income tax has no function in a system of circulating gold and/or silver coin. If you have wondered how and why both of these destructive planks surreptitiously became a part of the American system in the same year, 1913, that is your answer. One is no good without the other. Why did the people allow our government to permit an independent organization to run our economy in the first place? It was corruption from the start.

President Ron Paul would likely destroy the IRS the benign way: by pardoning every person in federal prison who is there because of a phony tax conviction and stopping all future prosecutions by doing the same thing the morning following any other convictions.

Meanwhile, Americans detest tax increases, and 10-term Congressman Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase.

As a physician, he has delivered over 4,000 babies and is yet to meet the first mother whose pregnancy was so endangered that she required an abortion. Is it any wonder that he is “pro life?”

A few American communities are finally passing laws to deport illegal aliens, but Ron Paul would send them all home posthaste and then build a fence across the southern border to keep them out. It would cost far less than the financing of “foreign entanglements”.

Guarding the borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would not present any manpower problem, because President Ron Paul would bring home the thousands of troops now tormenting the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“A nation without secure borders is no nation at all,” says he, who, incidentally, will never support these wars or any other war “declared” by a president instead of the constitutionally mandated Congress.

And if these Bush/Cheney wars are going so well, how come Ron Paul gets more votes and donations from military personnel than all of the other candidates combined? President Paul would do away with government “snoopervision” edicts such as the misnamed “Patriot Act,” which was a giant step toward a police state and had nothing to do with stopping international terrorists.

Who can think of any reason to vote for anyone else? The answer to is: no one, if they know the facts. Ron Paul would be the choice for president in November, if the people were allowed to learn the facts.

Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press.
(Issue # 11, March 17, 2008)