Sunday, February 25, 2007
Five "Alleged" Generals and War with Iran: According to the item and source listed below, there are supposedly five U.S. active duty generals that will step down if President Bush orders an attack against Iran. Excuse me, but that's an utter load of crap. If five such generals are planning this and leaked it for the purpose of "scaring" the president or changing his mind, they they are guilty of trying to substitute their own foreign policy over that of the elected civilian leadership of this country. The word for that is "mutiny". If there really are five involved, that's "conspiracy to commit mutiny during a time of war". Secretary of Defense Gates should find out immediatly if these five alleged generals exist, and then, if so, invite them to retire immediately or face charges- wartime charges.
Source Link: http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq//article1434540.ece?Submitted=true
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.
Source Link: http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq//article1434540.ece?Submitted=true
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Democrat Party- A Political Love Fest: We should, as a nation, be proud the Democrat Party is busily at work, bringing civility back to politics. Today's news just overflowed with civility:
Source Link: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548043
UPDATE: Maureen Dowd Column Incites Hillary-Obama War of Words
By E&P Staff
Published: February 21, 2007 10:40 AM ET
NEW YORK Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times today, in which she quoted former Bill Clinton supporter David Geffen offering a few caustic comments, has incited a strong Hillary Clinton campaign attack on Geffen -- and the candidate he now favors, Sen. Barack Obama.
Then Obama's team fired back. "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,” Geffen had said.Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson released the following statement this morning: "While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.
"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser.
"Obama's team responded a few hours later. Communications director Robert Gibbs just released the following statement:
“We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because he's black."
Geffen protested to Arianna Huffington today that he has no role in the Obama campaign beyond co-sponsoring his giant Hollywood fundraising event this week. Among other things, Hollywood and music mogul Geffen had told Dowd, "God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?" and "Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family.
Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”More from Dowd:-- "I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”-- She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,”
Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”-- Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks.
Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”-- They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier.
“Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
Source Link: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548043
UPDATE: Maureen Dowd Column Incites Hillary-Obama War of Words
By E&P Staff
Published: February 21, 2007 10:40 AM ET
NEW YORK Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times today, in which she quoted former Bill Clinton supporter David Geffen offering a few caustic comments, has incited a strong Hillary Clinton campaign attack on Geffen -- and the candidate he now favors, Sen. Barack Obama.
Then Obama's team fired back. "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,” Geffen had said.Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson released the following statement this morning: "While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.
"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser.
"Obama's team responded a few hours later. Communications director Robert Gibbs just released the following statement:
“We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because he's black."
Geffen protested to Arianna Huffington today that he has no role in the Obama campaign beyond co-sponsoring his giant Hollywood fundraising event this week. Among other things, Hollywood and music mogul Geffen had told Dowd, "God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?" and "Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family.
Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”More from Dowd:-- "I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”-- She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,”
Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”-- Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks.
Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”-- They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier.
“Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
Friday, February 16, 2007
Democrat Party; The Anti-War Resolution: The jihadists in Iraq want American to give up and leave, defeated. Ayman al Zawahiri wants America to give up in Iraq and leave, defeated. Iran wants America to give up in Iraq and leave, defeated. The Democrat Party in America wants America to give up in Iraq and leave, defeated.
There is no difference in the position of the Democrat Party and that of al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, and jihadists all over the world.
There used to be a term when Americans sided with our enemies and assisted them in war against the U.S.- I think it was "treason".
There is no difference in the position of the Democrat Party and that of al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, and jihadists all over the world.
There used to be a term when Americans sided with our enemies and assisted them in war against the U.S.- I think it was "treason".
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Dixie Chicks: I saw where the Dixie Chicks swept Best Album, Best Song, and something else at the Grammy's. I may have even heard they won five awards, not sure though. I think it's nice for them. It's always nice when you don't earn something, but someone (or group) gives you something out of pity. Funny thing is, I heard one of them accepting one of the awards, or maybe it was afterward and she may have been speaking about the "sweep", and I could tell she knew they hadn't actually earned the awards.
It was nice that they appreciated the fact the awards and the award process were corrupted in order to give them some "pity" prizes. It's just a darn shame they couldn't actually earn them.
So is this what the Grammy has become? Oh wait, Jimmy Carter got a pity prize too; guess that sort of answers it.....
It was nice that they appreciated the fact the awards and the award process were corrupted in order to give them some "pity" prizes. It's just a darn shame they couldn't actually earn them.
So is this what the Grammy has become? Oh wait, Jimmy Carter got a pity prize too; guess that sort of answers it.....
Labels: Best Album, Dixie Chicks, Grammy, Jimmy Carter, pity
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Minimum Wage vs. Jobs: Democrats and liberals always tell us that it's a myth that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised. Well, a story out of Arizona sort of shoots that argument down.
Source Link: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html
New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona
Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers
Chad GrahamThe Arizona Republic
Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM
Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power. That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month. Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. And teens are among the first workers to go.
Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support. Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.
"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' " Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high. "We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens."
For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce. The Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which opposed the recent increases, cited 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists showing a 10 percent increase caused a 2 percent to 3 percent decrease in employment. It also cited comments by notedeconomist Milton Friedman, who maintained that high teen unemployment rates were largely the result of minimum-wage laws.
"After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004. Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol' Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, "The new law has impacted us quite a bit."
It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit. Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, "we have to be a lot more efficient" and must increase menu prices, he said.
While most of the state's 124,067 workers between the ages of 16 and 19 made well above $5.15 per hour before the change, the new law has created real-life economic opportunities. Liliana Hernandez brings home noticeably more under the new law. The 18-year-old, who attends Metro Tech High School in Phoenix and works part time at Central High School, is saving the extra money, maybe to put towards buying a used car.
Hernandez said she deserves the raise just like any other Arizona worker even if she still lives with her parents. "I'm doing the best I can and working hard like everyone else," she said. In the months leading up to last November's vote, advocates of the new law maintained that it would help Arizona create a "living wage" for some of the poorest workers. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that 145,000 Arizonans would receive a pay raise. That was how many made $5.15 to $6.74 per hour.
At one press conference, a mother described how she was unable to afford basic school supplies for her son. Opponents, however, said there was little talk about teenage workers. "Everyone wanted to focus on the other aspects of the minimum-wage campaign," said Michelle Bolton, Arizona state director of the National Federation of Independent Business. An Employment Policies Institute study determined that 30.1 percent of affected workers in Arizona fell between the ages of 16 and 19.
"Workers affected by the minimum-wage increase are less likely to be supporting a family than the typical Arizona worker," it stated. "For example, 30.4 percent of the workers are living with their parent or parents, while only 7.6 percent of all Arizona workers are in this category." John Weischedel, a senior at the East Valley Institute of Technology in Mesa, knows he is lucky to be making $8 per hour at an auto dealership and learning technical skills. So are most of his friends who make $9 or more per hour while still attending high school.
After the minimum-wage law went into effect, "a couple of my friends got laid off - they worked in fast food," he said. "They're going to wait until they're out of high school to find other jobs."
Source Link: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html
New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona
Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers
Chad GrahamThe Arizona Republic
Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM
Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power. That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month. Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. And teens are among the first workers to go.
Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support. Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.
"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' " Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high. "We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens."
For years, economists have debated how minimum-wage increases impact the teenage workforce. The Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which opposed the recent increases, cited 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists showing a 10 percent increase caused a 2 percent to 3 percent decrease in employment. It also cited comments by notedeconomist Milton Friedman, who maintained that high teen unemployment rates were largely the result of minimum-wage laws.
"After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004. Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol' Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, "The new law has impacted us quite a bit."
It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit. Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, "we have to be a lot more efficient" and must increase menu prices, he said.
While most of the state's 124,067 workers between the ages of 16 and 19 made well above $5.15 per hour before the change, the new law has created real-life economic opportunities. Liliana Hernandez brings home noticeably more under the new law. The 18-year-old, who attends Metro Tech High School in Phoenix and works part time at Central High School, is saving the extra money, maybe to put towards buying a used car.
Hernandez said she deserves the raise just like any other Arizona worker even if she still lives with her parents. "I'm doing the best I can and working hard like everyone else," she said. In the months leading up to last November's vote, advocates of the new law maintained that it would help Arizona create a "living wage" for some of the poorest workers. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that 145,000 Arizonans would receive a pay raise. That was how many made $5.15 to $6.74 per hour.
At one press conference, a mother described how she was unable to afford basic school supplies for her son. Opponents, however, said there was little talk about teenage workers. "Everyone wanted to focus on the other aspects of the minimum-wage campaign," said Michelle Bolton, Arizona state director of the National Federation of Independent Business. An Employment Policies Institute study determined that 30.1 percent of affected workers in Arizona fell between the ages of 16 and 19.
"Workers affected by the minimum-wage increase are less likely to be supporting a family than the typical Arizona worker," it stated. "For example, 30.4 percent of the workers are living with their parent or parents, while only 7.6 percent of all Arizona workers are in this category." John Weischedel, a senior at the East Valley Institute of Technology in Mesa, knows he is lucky to be making $8 per hour at an auto dealership and learning technical skills. So are most of his friends who make $9 or more per hour while still attending high school.
After the minimum-wage law went into effect, "a couple of my friends got laid off - they worked in fast food," he said. "They're going to wait until they're out of high school to find other jobs."
Labels: Democrats, job loss, Minimum Wage, wages
An Inconvenient Truth- The Democrat Party and The War: Okay, after listening to the Democrat Party- the Demo-quitters- for over a year, I want to present some "Inconvenient Truths" to rebut some of the disinformation and general garbage eminating from their leaders regarding the war.
1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to Ayman al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq.
2. Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of America to take on our civilians (a la 9/11). We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are now fighting our military force instead.
3. There is no one to negotiate with. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.
4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.
6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signal victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.
7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they support the troops.
8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?
9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.
10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.
Here are some relevant quotes:
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.
To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal.
How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?
1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to Ayman al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq.
2. Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of America to take on our civilians (a la 9/11). We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are now fighting our military force instead.
3. There is no one to negotiate with. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.
4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.
6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signal victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.
7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they support the troops.
8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?
9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.
10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.
Here are some relevant quotes:
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.
To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal.
How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?
Labels: Democrats, Inconvenient Truth, Iraq, Terrorism, War
