Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.
“The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That’s the conflict here,” Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.
Haugland is one of 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate because their states and territories don’t hold primaries or caucuses.
Even with Trump’s huge projected delegate haul in four state primaries Tuesday, the odds are increasing the billionaire businessman may not ultimately get the 1,237 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination before the convention.
Confused by this talk about delegates? Read this
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump stands between his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (L) and his son Eric (R) as he speaks about the results of the Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois and Missouri primary elections.
Big wins for Trump but opposition clings to hope
CNBC’s John Harwood sat down with House Speaker Paul Ryan in a “Speakeasy” interview at the Capitol Building in Washington DC on March 15, 2016.
Ryan says he won’t accept GOP nod for president
Republican candidates Donald Trump and John Kasich and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton win big in primaries on March 15, 2016.
Big night for Trump and Clinton; Kasich takes Ohio
President Barack Obama
Obama slams ‘vulgar and divisive’ primaries campaign
This could lead to a brokered convention, in which unbound delegates, like Haugland, could play a significant swing role on the first ballot to choose a nominee.
Most delegates bound by their state’s primary or caucus results are only committed on the first ballot. If subsequent ballots are needed, virtually all of the delegates can vote any way they want, said Gary Emineth, another unbound delegate from North Dakota.
“It could introduce Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, or it could be the other candidates that have already been in the race and are now out of the race [such as] Mike Huckabee [or] Rick Santorum. All those people could eventually become candidates on the floor,” Emineth said.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, who decided not to run for the White House this year, said in a CNBC interview Tuesday he won’t categorically rule out accepting the GOP nomination if a deadlocked convention were to turn to him. But on Wednesday, a Ryan spokeswoman said the speaker would not accept a Republican nomination for president at a divided convention.
Democrats experienced the last true brokered presidential convention to go beyond the first ballot in 1952. Republicans came close at their 1976 convention.
“The rules haven’t kept up,” Haugland said. “The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That’s just the way it is. I can’t help it. Don’t hate me because I love the rules.”
Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he’s proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer’s convention.
If the GOP race continues at the same pace, Trump would likely have a plurality of delegates. So far, he’s more than halfway to the 1,237 magic number.
Trump split Tuesday’s winner-take-all primaries in Florida and Ohio.
The real estate mogul dominated in Florida over Sen. Marco Rubio, who dropped out of the race after losing his home state.
But Trump lost Ohio to the state’s governor, John Kasich. Trump also won Illinois and North Carolina. He held a slim lead over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Missouri early Wednesday.
Emineth, also a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party, told “Squawk Box” in the same interview that he’s concerned about party officials pulling “some shenanigan.”
“You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee,” he warned. “[That] could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated.”
“It’s important that the Republican National Committee has transparency on what they’re doing [on the rules] going into the convention and what happens in the convention,” he continued. That’s because of “all the votes that have been cast in caucuses and primaries. Don’t disenfranchise those voters. Because at the end of the day, our goal is to beat Hillary Clinton or whoever their [Democratic] nominee is in November.”
Emineth said he’s worried that frustration would discourage Americans in the general election from voting Republican.
— CNBC’s Lori Ann LaRocco contributed to this report.
Well maybe not a literal explosion like a bomb. But an explosion of sorts. Make no mistake about it America is on the edge. If you were born well into (I won’t say how far) the last century you would see the dramatic changes this country has gone through.
I would’nt call my self a dooms day prepper but I do have a well stocked pantry and arsonal. I do incourage everyone to do the same. Three days supply of food and water won’t be near enough if the trucks stop running.
The United States is in decline. While not all major shocks to the system will be devastating, when the right one comes along, the outcome may be dramatic.
Not all explosives are the same. We all know you have to be careful with dynamite. Best to handle it gently and not smoke while you’re around it.
Semtex is different. You can drop it. You can throw it. You can put it in the fire. Nothing will happen. Nothing until you put the right detonator in it, that is.
To me, the US – and most of the supposedly free West – increasingly looks like a truck being systematically filled with Semtex.
But it’s easy to counter cries of alarm with the fact that the truck is stable – because it’s true: you can hurl more boxes into the back without any real danger. Absent the right detonator, it is no more dangerous than a truckload of mayonnaise.
But add the right detonator and you’re just one click away from complete devastation.
We can see how fragile the U.S. is now by considering just four tendencies.
1. Destruction of farms and reliable food source
The average American is a long way from food when the shops are closed.
The Washington Post reports that the number of farms in the country has fallen by some 4 million from more than 6 million in 1935 to roughly 2 million in 2012.
And according to the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, only about 2 percent of the US population live on farms.
That means that around 4.6 million people currently have the means to feed themselves.
Food supply logistics are extended, sometimes stretching thousands of miles. The shops have nothing more than a few days’ stock. A simple break in that supply line would clear the shops out in days.
2. Weak economic system
The American economic system is little more than froth.
The US currency came off the gold standard in 1933 and severed any link with gold in 1971. Since then, the currency has been essentially linked to oil, the value of which has been protected and held together by wars.
The whole world has had enough of the US and its hubris – not least the people of the US themselves, which the massive support currently for Putin’s decision to deal with ISIS demonstrates.
Since pro-active war is what keeps the US going, if it loses the monopoly on that front, its decline is inevitable.
Fiat economies always collapse. They last on average for 37 years. By that metric the US should have already run out of gas.
Once people wake up and smell the Yuan, the Exodus out of the dollar will be unstoppable.
3. Americans increasingly on mind-altering drugs
According to the Scientific American, use of antidepressants among the US population was up 400 percent in the late 2000s over the 1990s. Many of these drugs are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
These are the type of FDA-approved narcotics lone gunmen are frequently associated with, and their psychoses often attributed to a forced or sudden withdrawal from such drugs.
Pharmaceuticals are produced at centralized points by companies which themselves rely on extended logistics systems both to produce and to deliver their output. If the logistics system fails, there’s no more supply.
4. Morals in decline
During the objective hardship of the 1930s, there was surprisingly little crime. People were brought up with a conception of morals and right and wrong. Frugality and prudence were prized virtues. Communities were generally fairly cohesive.
Relative to then, society today is undisciplined, unrealistic and selfish.
Around 250 million shoppers participated in the Black Friday sales in 2013 in which around USD 61 billion was spent on consumer items – up roughly 100 percent on 2006 figures.
Stampedes and even murders are not uncommon each year with people openly fighting each other over reduced-price items.
The goods bought in such sales tend to be non-essential and many of them are bought on credit cards which then have to be paid off at interest.
Part of the problem in what I have outlined above is that there is little explicit tension. Sure, it is depressing, vulgar and immoral. But it doesn’t look catastrophic. It looks normal.
My point is that just because US – and many other countries organised after the same template – do not look explosive, doesn’t mean they won’t blow up.
Whereas 80 years ago we could absorb major shocks, today we cannot.
Nowhere to run
In the past, people were in rural communities. They could grow food. They had real communities. They also had self-control and a conception of morality.
Today, if the supply lines go down, you are stuck in a house you can’t heat surrounded by millions of FDA-approved drug addicts who are going psycho because they have run out of juice and people who would murder their own grandmother to get a cut-price iPhone.
I would argue that the right shock event – or combination of shock events – will detonate the explosive.
Potential detonators happen all the time. Either they are contained or they are simply incompatible with the explosive or they don’t go off. But that doesn’t mean it’s never going to happen or that we are not sitting on a mountain of explosives.
There was one such potential detonator – which presently has not gone off – in the UK just last week.
The UK’s Independent reported Friday that experts were ‘staggered’ after Pauline Cafferkey – who had been brought to London of all places – rapidly declined after being declared cured from Ebola.
This woman had been allowed out into the community – still sick with Ebola – and managed to visited Mossneuk Primary School in East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, on Monday to thank children for their fund-raising efforts.
We will assume these events have their origins in incompetence; the fact is: we have a woman dying from Ebola in the UK’s largest population center.
What if there is more incompetence?
Boris Johnson, the current Mayor of London, primed the British public for the possibility of Ebola in London just last week.
Perhaps he knows something we don’t.
What do you think will happen if people start dying from Ebola in London or New York? The natural response will be to get out of the urban centre as quickly as possible.
During the Great Plague of London of 1665, for example, Defoe wrote “Nothing was to be seen but wagons and carts, with goods, women, servants, children, coaches filled with people of the better sort, and horsemen attending them, and all hurrying away”.
Once the better off city people reach the countryside there will be instant resistance from the host population, not least because they will not want potentially infected people entering their communities.
Meanwhile, the poor people who are left in the cities will run out of food in short order as suppliers refuse to enter the city.
Those who fled London in 1665 had somewhere to go: they were returning to the fields that fed them.
Today, the fields which feed us are largely in other countries, and the ones which are in our own are mainly owned by large corporations.
I am not predicting exactly this scenario for the US or for any other country. I am saying that all the ingredients are there for complete breakdown and large-scale deaths given the right initiating incident.
I am saying that volatility is baked into the cake – even into the cake of what today looks and feels normal.
I am saying that while it may be possible to keep loading box upon box of societal Semtex into the truck, given the right detonator the collapse will be swift, unstoppable and devastating.
Sorry i have been absent for so long. I lost my internet for a while.
I will try to keep up with my daily posts again.
If anyone has questions or requests for posts on a particular subject
just put a comment on this post and i will do what ever i can to find out
Thanks for your patience.
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions."Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union. Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it. The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies. that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere. And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it. But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law." Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference. With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution. If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government.
Perry accuses federal government of failing to ‘adequately secure’ zone
|Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks about border security during a news conference on Thursday in Houston.|
|David J. Phillip / AP|
updated 3:29 a.m. MT, Fri., Sept . 11, 2009
HOUSTON – Special teams of Texas Rangers will be deployed to the Texas-Mexico border to deal with increasing violence because the federal government has failed to address growing problems there, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday.
"It is an expansive effort with the Rangers playing a more high-profile role than they’ve ever played before," Perry said of the Department of Public Safety’s elite investigative unit.
The forces, dubbed "Ranger recon" teams, are the latest effort "to fill the gap that’s been left by the federal government’s ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border with Mexico," he said.
From The Sunday Times
The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.
Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.
The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.
The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.
Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: “This is the strongest evidence yet that the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking.”
Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.
In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.
Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.
Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.
The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.
On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.
In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.
“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”
Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.
Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.
“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.
“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”
His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”
Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.”
BP denied that political factors were involved in the deal’s ratification or that it had stalled during negotiations over the prisoner transfer talks.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman denied there had been a U-turn, but said trade considerations had been a factor in negotiating the prisoner exchange deal. He said Straw had unsuccessfully tried to accommodate the wish of the Scottish government to exclude Megrahi from agreement.
The spokesman claimed the deal was ultimately “academic” because Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds: “The negotiations on the [transfer agreement] were part of wider negotiations aimed at the normalisation of relations with Libya, which included a range of areas, including trade.
“The exclusion or inclusion of Megrahi would not serve any practical purpose because the Scottish executive always had a veto on whether to transfer him.”
A spokesman for Lord Mandelson said he had not changed his position that the release of Megrahi was not linked to trade deals.
Thomas W. Bates
Is anyone as outraged as I am? So what’s the big deal you might say. The Government runs the post office and medicare alright doesn’t it? (cough cough choke choke)
Just think about this. GM has announced the closing of many plants. Does anyone really believe that the government won’t put its finger into this pie? You can bet the farm that behind the scenes Congressman X is twisting arms saying “Dont close the plants in my district or state. Do the closings in thoes Republican districts and states.”
Remember the “Blue Ribbon” panels that are used to determin military base closings? Are we going to go there?
What about the other auto makers that are still free? What will the government do to them if they have the gall to outsell their company? Will the sit passively by? Will they meet the new market demands? Will they introduce ledgislation to “even the field” if people dont want to buy their cars?
I vote for field evening. This is a very dangerous situation.
Just drop me a note and it may happen.I will give any thoughtful and reasonable person access to post articles.
I am becoming busy with other things and welcome help.
Unless you couldn’t tell I am back in the saddle again.
I had a great time out west.
Follow this link to see some of my pictures.
This could proove more dangerous than any Islamo-Extreamist-Terrorist group.
It seems like Putan is trying to put the old Soviet Union back together.
By invading an independant nation and annexing part of it, he is showing distain for international law.
He has threatened to use nukes against Poland. Against Poland??? Who is next? Who is safe?
In the language of modern diplomacy you never use words like nukes or war.
Once KGB always KGB.
We need a strong president in these dangerous times. Obama couldn’t even control his own convention. He allowed the Clintons to control it. If he can’t control the Clintons, how will he ever be tough with international thugs?
I am truly alarmed.
The Kremlin moved swiftly to tighten its grip on Georgia’s breakaway regions yesterday as South Ossetia announced that it would soon become part of Russia, which will open military bases in the province under an agreement to be signed on Tuesday.
Tarzan Kokoity, the province’s Deputy Speaker of parliament, announced that South Ossetia would be absorbed into Russia soon so that its people could live in “one united Russian state” with their ethnic kin in North Ossetia.
My recent vacation to the great American Southwest was great. It was so good that I have decided to live there for the nine month long Michigan Winters and come back to Michigan for the Summer.
I am very busy now getting ready to move so my posts will be few and far between until I am settled. I plan to be diligent for the presidential election period with worthy news and commentary. Please be patient.
I am working on a reporting of what I saw and did on my trip.
Read the article here
Did I miss something or did we just become communist Cuba?
Who really thinks that we should trust the same people who mangae Social security with operating refineries?
What will happen to the stock holders?
Do we just tell them “Too bad so sad.”
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling sadi this:
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
October 29, 1993
by Adam Thierer
Executive Memorandum #368
This key research from 1993 has been updated in James Gattuso’s new paper “Back to Muzak? Congress and the “Un-Fairness Doctrine”
Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the “fairness doctrine.” The legislation, entitled the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993,” is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.
Here is what I think
What will this “Doctrine really do?
Here is the skinny on it.
Any and all broadcast stations that carry any political discussion programing will be forced to carry programming of other viewpoints. On the surface this sounds fair, right?
Well this is the way it will work.
Station “A” has Rush Limbaugh. They recieve a single complaint. That will mean they must also offer programing that expresses views other than Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is being carried not because it is right or wrong. It is being carried because they have listeners who support sponsors. The stations can sell advertising to pay for the show. They would have to then carry programming such as is on the defunct liberal network “Air America”. Air America is defunct because they do not have enough listeners to support sponsorship. No one wants to hear their hate filled rantings. I have listened to these types of people and yes they are hateful and intolerant. If they disagree with you they want to shut you up. This is not freedom of speech.
The result would be thus:
1. The station could carry the alternative programing and not be able to sell advertising for it, meaning it would be carried for free.
2. The station would not carry any political disscussion programing because they couldn’t afford to give free air time away.
The net result would be that the only political viewpoints we heard would be from the admittedly left wing liberal press. Other viewpoints would be stiffled.
Freedom of speech would be lost. There are enough radio and TV stations to accomidate all points of view.
Mr. Obamas web page words will be in black while my words will be in red ..
A Record of Results:
The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
I guess Mr. Obama thinks that international terrorists are going to start obeying American laws after he tells them to.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, blueuce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
I see. Wow all we have to do is to say it’s illegal for international terrorists to use nuclear weapons and they won’t do it. He will also order countries like Red China, North Korea, India, Pakastan, Russia and Isreal to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and they will just do it.
And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps,
(I don’t recall any canditates saying this) Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear
weapons, it’s to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.
The best way to keep America safe from international terrorists is to kill them.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists:
Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Let me see now. He is going to force the world to do what he says regarding nuclear materials. Hmmmmm. And if they don’t, then what? More words? What about countries like Iran who say “Up yours we are going to do it anyway”?
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Sure he will. Sanctions won’t work. Can we all say “Iraq oil for food program”? The UN who was suppose to be the watchdog of that program was the biggest flouter of it. Pay corrupt officials enough money and you can get anything you want.
Toward a Nuclear Free World:
Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
While he is at it how about a military free world. Let’s ban crime also while we are at it.
Maybe you could do this Mr. Obama, Get all the world leaders together in a boxing ring and let them duke it out, winner take all.
Am I the only one here who is scared of this guy?
By John McCaslin
January 18, 2007
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ‘stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
10. You ticked him off once and your next phone bill was $20,000.
9. He’s won the Publisher’s Clearing House sweepstakes three years running.
8. When asked for his phone number, he gives it in hex.
7. Seems strangely calm whenever the office LAN goes down.
6. Somehow he/she gets HBO on his PC at work.
5. Mumbled, “Oh, puh-leeez” 95 times during the movie “The Net”
4. Massive RRSP contribution made in half-cent increments.
3. Video dating profile lists “public-key encryption” among turn-ons
2. When his computer starts up, you hear, “Good Morning, Mr. President.”
1. You hear him murmur, “Let’s see you use that Visa card now, jerk.”
Transgender men free to use ALL of MTA’s Bathrooms
BY PETE DONOHUE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Read entire article here
Helena Stone, formerly Henry McGuinness, stands her ground yesterday outside Grand Central Terminal’s ladies’ room, which can now be used by transgender men.
The line for the girls’ room just got longer.
Men who live as women can now legally use women’s rest rooms in New York’s transit system under an unprecedented deal revealed yesterday.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to allow riders to use MTA rest rooms “consistent with their gender expression,” the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund announced yesterday.