Skip navigation

Gmail

DUANE TEWINKEL

Mr. Gorbachev… “Tear Down This Wall!” 1 message The Republican Presidents Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:30

To: supergramps.duane@gmail.com

I think one of the most compelling moments of President Ronald Reagan’s White House was his desire to beat communism. Looks like he succeeded. The old Soviet Union is no longer in existence, China has free markets, so does Vietnam. The Eastern bloc is now capitalistic and well ole Lenin is no longer relevant. Why? It’s simple, President Reagan made the destruction of communism one of his administrations goals. Reagan knew that a communist government couldn’t keep up with the economic power of a capitalistic society. Basically, by outspending the communists on military, they couldn’t compete and they bankrupted themselves. The words Reagan spoke of ‘Tear down this wall.’ Are symbolic of the times. American bravado backed by it’s military might, supported by an economic system that continued to grow. The walls in our lives all need tearing down. In Reagans day it was the Berlin wall, the belief that America was no longer a world power. Or that America had seen it’s better days, Reagan tore down all these walls. The walls are numerous in our country today. We might think to ourselves that our better days of America are behind us. I think not and I’m sure you feel the same way. If you want to be reminded of more when it comes to our best days in our countries history and where we’ll gain our inspiration, just watch this video. To watch the video click here. Have a great day and remember, it won’t take much to take back America. Best, Matt Gillogly To unsubscribe, please go to Unsubscribe Grinder Publishing 7156 W. 127th Street Box 396 Palos Heights, IL 60463 United States

Advertisements

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Soon, I’ll be covering “Into the Mouth of the Cat” in my Colorado Springs Gazette column. Malcolm McConnell’s book is the incredible true story of Lance Sijan, a Medal of Honor recipient. Husband had to read this book as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. I’ve read it a few times. Below is Sijan’s MOH citation.

*SIJAN, LANCE P.

Rank and organization: Captain, U.S. Air Force, 4th Allied POW Wing, Pilot of an F-4C aircraft. Place and Date: North Vietnam, 9 November 1967. Entered service at: Milwaukee, Wis. Born: 13 April 1942, Milwaukee, Wis.

Citation:
While on a flight over North Vietnam, Capt. Sijan ejected from his disabled aircraft and successfully evaded capture for more than 6 weeks. During this time, he was seriously injured and suffered from shock and extreme weight loss due to lack of food. After being captured by North Vietnamese soldiers, Capt. Sijan was taken to a holding point for subsequent transfer to a prisoner of war camp. In his emaciated and crippled condition, he overpowered 1 of his guards and crawled into the jungle, only to be recaptured after several hours. He was then transferred to another prison camp where he was kept in solitary confinement and interrogated at length. During interrogation, he was severely tortured; however, he did not divulge any information to his captors. Capt. Sijan lapsed into delirium and was placed in the care of another prisoner. During his intermittent periods of consciousness until his death, he never complained of his physical condition and, on several occasions, spoke of future escape attempts. Capt. Sijan’s extraordinary heroism and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty at the cost of his life are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Armed Forces.

Posted by Anita at 7:30 AM

http://anitalaydonmiller.blogspot.com/2009/09/sneak-peek-lance-sijans-story.html

There were far more comments than are shown here.  I just picked an arbitrary cut off point and did just that, cut it off

Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Home » Air » U.S. Air Dominance Eroding U.S. Air Dominance Eroding By Greg Grant Tuesday, September 15th, 2009 2:39 pm Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy The U.S. military’s historic dominance of the skies, unchallenged since around spring 1943, is increasingly at risk because of the proliferation of advanced technologies and a buildup of potential adversary arsenals, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the service’s chief for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Speaking today at the Air Force’s annual convention in the Washington area today, he provided a wide ranging assessment of what the QDR team is calling “high-end, asymmetric threats.” Emphasizing the increasing capabilities of “anti-access weapons,” such as long range precision missiles, Deptula said pilots in future wars will not operate in the “permissive” threat environments of current wars inIraq and Afghanistan.Deptula, best known for crafting the Desert Storm air campaign, said potential opponents have learned from U.S. operations and will use precision arsenals to stop a buildup of U.S. airpower near their borders before a war even begins. Without functioning ground bases, aircraft cannot operate; the Air Force is investing heavily in shorter ranged tactical aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35, along with a host of older F-15 and F-16. Overseas bases from which these aircraft operate are now threatened by increasingly accurate ballistic missiles in Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean arsenals, Deptula said. The newest models are road mobile and exceedingly difficult to locate. Enemies will use cyber attacks to target U.S. command and control networks and satellite relays, the smooth functioning of which the military is now completely dependant. “Space is no longer a sanctuary and our satellites are at risk… for five decades the U.S. has led the world in space,” he said, now, “the space domain is perhaps the most likely arena for threats to achieve leveraged effects,” against U.S. operations. The Chinese are developing anti-satellite weapons, as are the Russians, and the number of countries that can launch sensor-loaded satellites into space is increasing. Because of improvements in over the horizon and passive radars, U.S. aircraft will be detected long before they reach their targets. “The area that we operate in free from detection is rapidly shrinking,” Deptula said, “our adversaries are going to have capabilities that we’ve never operated against.” The newest generation surface-to-air missiles, such as the Russian SA-21, have ranges exceeding 300 miles and the ability to target low flying aircraft, and will likely be exported. Speaking to the more traditional realm of air-to-air combat, so dear to his audience’s heart, Deptula contends that the U.S. technological edge there is eroding. While “fourth generation” fighters are no match for the most advanced U.S. fighters, Deptula reminded the audience of the Russian export success with the MIG-21, some 12,000 of which were built, and operated by over 50 countries. Russia and China are both developing “fifth generation” fighters that will be widely exported at prices that will undercut the F-35 price tag. Both nations will thus acquire “near F-22 performance… while attempting to proliferate the [aircraft] to perhaps near F-35 like quantities,” he said. “We may be facing a fighter threat capability in quantities we’ve never experienced before.” Its not just in the technology realm that America’s enemies are seeking advantage. Unable to counter the U.S. dominance in long-range strike, enemies in wars among the people use information operations to influence perceptions about civilian casualties and deny the U.S. ability to leverage its asymmetric advantages. Deptula said media savvy opponents who skillfully manipulate global public perception are an example of successful “Effects Based Operations,” a doctrinal term that has recently fallen into disfavor, except among air power advocates. Email this • Digg This! (2 Diggs) • Share on Facebook • Save to del.icio.us (4 saves) • AddThis! • Subscribe to the DoD Buzz Newsletter • Subscribe to this feed Join the Conversation G-Town Student September 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm All of this explains why a COIN aircraft is extremely vital, right? Daniel September 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm yes it does, so we don’t burn up the flight hours of the aircraft we need doing missions they are over kill for. Charles D Phillips, LtCol, USAF (Ret) September 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm To be expected from the Generals – the audience loves to hear that we are facing new, enormous threats and therefore must spend freely. Still the headline could have easily been “US Air Dominance May Erode One Of These Days” to put the remarks into perspective. You don’t want to underestimate your future opponents – and invite a new Pearl Harbor attack – but we do need to apply some common sense here. The “success” of the MiG 21 really just provided us and our allies such as Israel with lots of targets. When we respect their capabilities, that type of aircraft just gives our future aces some more kills. What I would take out of this speech is that we need to design a new, capable, fighter that we are able to afford! And also a new heavy bomber so we can finally retire the B-52 before too many people fly the same aircraft as their great-grandfather. Solomon September 15th, 2009 at 5:48 pm I’ve heard the F-22 and F-35 called many things but shorter ranged has never been one of them. The Ohio class subs were to be armed with conventional ballistic missiles but the idea was canned because of the risk. Now our enemies are obtaining them. Amusing. A threat F-22 at F-35 numbers???? I just don’t believe it. If this threat is real then is it being made visible at the SecDef level?? I wonder how good the intelligence is on this. elgatoso September 15th, 2009 at 6:20 pm Should be interesting to read all the speech to take conclusions.The big enemy from peers is missiles,not aircraft.(Chinese ASBM, Russian S500) roland September 15th, 2009 at 6:31 pm Speaking of defending the country (USA) and air dominance, I think the answer to that are multiple long range ICBM’s that can travel anywhere around the earth if needed and a number underground launching pad station around United States. jim September 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pm Reduced American dominance is exactly what the traitor Obama wanted. Big surprise, elect an anti-American scumbag President and we find American power waning. Who could have predicted that? dow September 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pm Barry Osbama is the combination of Hate America J Wright and Bill Ayers – America is too powerful and that is the problem in the world. So Barry guts power projection just as he be learned…. Weaponhead September 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm Boy that sure explains why we terminated NGB and F-22. The WSJ had an article on China’s new 5th gen fighter. Based on the article they are planning on using F-22 as the chinning bar. So Lt. Gen. Deptula raises the concern and says nothing about how we are countering the problem. To quote a great Dilbert line, ” Don’t step in the Leadership”. Zach September 15th, 2009 at 8:06 pm Funny how this comes out AFTER the F-22 was canceled. Someone was muzzled. But whats new, that’s politics. Both Republicans and Democrats do it. Stephen September 15th, 2009 at 8:34 pm Doesn’t it say way up there that dominance is being eroded by ‘… the proliferation of advanced technologies and a buildup of potential adversary arsenals.’ Further, “Without functioning ground bases, aircraft cannot operate.” All the F-22’s in anyone’s desires can’t overcome ALL the challenges out there.xxxx The general ” says nothing about how we are countering the problem.” I expect they wanna keep some stuff secret. Total September 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pm “unchallenged since 1943?” For God’s sake, what are you talking about? There was this little thing called “The Cold War” during which the Soviet Union did everything it could to challenge American air dominance. Jesus H. Christ. Drake1 September 15th, 2009 at 8:40 pm The AF leadership has been using this argument to push for more F-22s for a while. The only thing David Deptula isn’t “explicitly” saying is that we need more (320) F-22s, but read between the lines and you know what he is getting at. Daniel Russ September 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm @Col. Phillips, “What I would take out of this speech is that we need to design a new, capable, fighter that we are able to afford! And also a new heavy bomber so we can finally retire the B-52 before too many people fly the same aircraft as their great-grandfather.” Dead on. Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com Chockblock September 15th, 2009 at 9:51 pm And we need the F-15 silent eagle/F-16 block 60 why? Either way newer stealthy aircraft are needed. More, younger tankers, a bigger air force so we can fire the KBR parasites. COIN air craft belong to the Army and Marines. The Air Force needs to focus on air supremacy. elgatoso September 15th, 2009 at 10:56 pm COIN for Army and MArines and the Air force air supremacy and SAC.But focus in new technologies(Ramjet,pulse detonation engine,CHAMP) ReconTeam September 15th, 2009 at 11:23 pm Hmm… If only we had a production line ready to produce an advanced, long range, 5th generation air-superiority fighter… TB September 15th, 2009 at 11:51 pm Recon, the F-22 isn’t a long range fighter, the General just said so… Byron Skinner September 16th, 2009 at 12:12 am Good Evening Folks, Lt. General Deptula is disconnected form reality. Russia nor China will build a fifth Generation fighter in this century. The SA-21 SAM on the S-300 Radar system has been defeated in combat by what general Schwartz calls a “cyber weapon”. As for unchallenged since 1943, how about Korea and Vietnam where the commies in the early stages of these wars gave kicked USAF butts. Is this the quality of intellectual fire power the AF has, please Sec. Gates do some long over due house cleaning. All General Deptula is doing is interviewing for a post retirement job, seven figures, with a defense contractor with sill dumb a** statements like this. Note to defense contractors, this general is just to da** dumb to hire. ALLONS, Byron Skinner bobbymike September 16th, 2009 at 12:18 am Now that the Senate voted to defund those ACORN scumbags there is $8 billion of stimulas money that can go to buy more F-22s!! elgatoso September 16th, 2009 at 1:31 am The problem are not the 5 gen fighter but missiles like the Chinese ASBM and the future s-500,we need to begin to think to renew our strategic force.Speak softly and carry a big stick. al manning September 16th, 2009 at 8:03 am Technology always leap by leap an bound..but how once again how someone take the time to bash the president never seem to amazes me.I ask did you vote???Then vote again when his term come up an leave the forum to what is being discussed. marinepapa September 16th, 2009 at 8:18 am Unless OIL goes back to $150/barrell (and stays there), Russia will never be able to build enough 5th Gen fighters to make a difference, and the Chinese still can’t figure out how to build a 4th Gen plane that is flyable in combat conditions. We’ve got 10 to 15 years to come up with our next air superiority weapon, and hopefully it will be small, affordable and unpiloted. SFC Michael A. Sampsell September 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am Nothing new. Generals close to retirement trying to secure their post service careers with defense contractors. The best way to do that is to make our nation fear and therefore spend trillions on systems that are clearly not needed. Amazing so many people don’t see this. Scrapping the F-22 was a wise decision. We don’t need it. To blame the President is just ignorant. HSLong (COL ret) September 16th, 2009 at 8:22 am Until the administration recognizes that there is no higher priority than having a effective and dominant national defense (long-range in both time and distance) coupled with the leadership to manage it, we will become an evermore attractive target. lordlochwood September 16th, 2009 at 8:27 am WTF…you all are talking to hear(read) yourself speak. Obama this, Obama that…heck, he hasn’t even warmed the chair in the WH yet…how is it that everything is his faujlt already? (Note: I didn’t vote for his sorry as* in the first place…) Fact, we have become so lazy/uncaring, we’re just making all the info anyone needs to design products to kick our own as*ses. ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’…ever heard that before? It meant something during WWII AND during the Cold War…Our media, whether in print or video, gives all the info anyone would need to build a better widget, or defeat us, and even worse, we open our borders to let anyone come study in our hallowed halls of learning, which they then take back to their homeland to design products to use against us…when are we all going to learn that we – as the strongest nation on earth – need to keep our intellectual property secret? Give them all the rifles and cannons they need, just don’t give them the ammo!!!! Let them beat each other to death using the rifle as a club… Tom September 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am OMG! You mean to say that one of these days the Air Force might actually have to fight. Well at least that will give them some better stories to tell while getting drunk at the club each evening before settling down on a comfortable bed in their air conditioned private rooms for a good night’s sleep. Tony Conner September 16th, 2009 at 8:44 am The General made the case for more aircraft carriers and a larger naval air force, no runways required. That’s why the US Navy took the Air Forces funds away in the last budget. TPCAT September 16th, 2009 at 8:44 am Now Jim, remarks like that about the CinC will get you kicked off here real fast. Air Dominance, or lack of, the President’s fault? It’s not something that happened since January this year . ..it’s been happening for awhile under succeeding Administrations. But having read the article, it does appear the Air Force is making a play to get Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer to spend more of their hard earned cash on new toys for the boys . . . And this format is more crappy than the last one. And harder to post on. Do they really want us all to go away? Scott September 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am Another attempt to capture funding for AF programs. Technology development is a continual change and improvement, I agree with the statement that the AF may have to fight in the next conflict as opposed to the cake walk they have had recentely. We (USA) have only dominated recently when operating in the current environment of little or no resistance/opposition however the point of conflicts such as Korea, Viet Nam, and the cold war were not what I would consider a position of “dominance” for air power. General’s should never play into the politics game, they should stay in their own swim lanes, looking for improvements of course but not trying to mask a fishing trip for funding by the veil of intelligence information. TPCAT September 16th, 2009 at 8:56 am And Dow, if you’re not careful, you’ll be joining Jim in the wilderness where there will be “weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth . . .” If you can’t or won’t respect the man, respect the office. TPCAT September 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am I take it back about the format . . .once I sussed it out, it’s not too bad. TPCAT September 16th, 2009 at 9:02 am If we’re going to retain air dominance, then the article makes clear we’re going to have to spend a lot more money on research and development and production of new aircraft. All that takes time, it can’t just happen over night. But, the Airforce might want to seriously forget about development and just take a good look at the new Euro Fighter. It’s up and running and no doubt could be supplied in any number they wanted. All they’d have to do is place an order. aaronl1369 September 16th, 2009 at 9:08 am Didn’t we sell/give away the technologies for this weaponry to “unfriendly” or questionable nations? We did this to ourselves…..no wait, they (Politicians) did this to us……wait, wait, we voted them into office, so….Yes, we did this to ourselves! jake September 16th, 2009 at 9:10 am all of the democrats in the government dont help our situation Freddie September 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am If something, kicks off. The Navy will have no fith generatin aircraft. Navy piolot sees just as much fighting as the ASAF. TPCAT September 16th, 2009 at 9:15 am And anyway, what’s wrong with the Warthog? It may be ugly, but it’ll get the job done. And apart from that, how many fighter jets and other airforce aircraft are sitting out in the Arizona desert in mothballs? Surely if we’re running short, the Air Force could think about bringing some of those back into service. Out of date they may be, but I’d think that as far as Afghanistan goes, they’d get the job done. mike p September 16th, 2009 at 9:17 am If the u.s senate will wake up and get some of the old folks out of there they will see that there is a much needed production for more f-22 with china and russia and india with sukhoi new generation were need to anty up the f-35 cannot go one on one with a sukhoi fighter or a f-18 will suffer the same fate too we need more f-22s or new build silent eagles with canrds and thrust vectoring or f-16 with the same build type or russia china or india will come out the leader one day pennst98 September 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am ugh…… (shakes head in disgust) I love the faceless, nameless, (and often non-existent)THEY that are challenging our “air dominance.” It’s time for me to leave my job where I actually do work and start doing “analysis” for the Air Force. All I’ll need are DVD’s of STEALH and FIREFOX, a box of crayons and some Denny’s placemats…. (BOOM, ZOOOOOoooom, AK “>AK AK AK AK AK…) While I’m unloading on this disgrace to the Uniform, ACCURATE and IRANIAN/N.KOREAN should never go into the same sentence. Chinese and Russian weapon are barely better, and never forget their effectivness varies HIGHLY depending upon maintenance and training…. I’m sorry….I meant to say…WE’RE DEFENSELESS, THE SKY IS FALLING! QUICK, SEND BILLIONS WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY! (to the guys and gals who can’t manage nukes and whose new and innovative solution to a CSAR-X was a frieght helo built in 1962. Go ahead and give these clown shoes more money and they make the mismanagement of the KC-130 replacement look like Harvard Business Case… Mark September 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am What comes to mind when reading about the space scenario, that was left out, is that we do have the ability to directly go into space and disable whatever we have to should the need arise. TPCAT September 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am Calling the President an “anti-American Scumbag” doesn’t count as disrespect to the Commander in Chief? Well, I’ll go to the foot of our stairs, who would have thought it? And don’t see how you can blame any one party for this. And in aircraft like everything else, you get what you pay for. The question has to be asked, are there not enough planes out there to defend the United States, and fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the answer to that is “yes” well, why do we need more? And if we do need more, why pay development costs? Why not just buy them in. The Euro Fighter is available, and I’m sure the Chinese would sell us some of their aircraft as well if we asked them nicely. So, what’s the problem? old corps September 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am sooner or later some arab will reinvent the flying carpet, and a genie with a Tesla Death Ray Bamboo booby traps eventually wore out Billion Dollar Arsenals old corps September 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am If the United States is so smart, Why do we need Indian Poor People to Solve Our Computer Problems ? arista September 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am US airpower will be further eroded by the application of disproportionate response. The use of US assets against terrorists or smaller opponents may well open US to International Criminal Court jurisdiction and prosecution. There has been a move to “level the field” in effect disallow the US from using its advantages and fighting by strict rules of engagement against a foe with no rules. The UNs Goldstone report will set a precedence to be used against the US and NATO.

Massive Conservative D.C. Protest Buried and Dismissed, But Smaller Liberal Rallies Hailed
A conservative protest at the Capitol numbering in the tens of thousands was worth an unfavorable story on page 37. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Posted by: Clay Waters
9/14/2009 3:43:28 PM

There was a huge protest against Obama’s big-government plans at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, but one was hard-pressed to find evidence of it on the Times home page Sunday morning: A small headline tucked under the Political subhead.

The print edition wasn’t much more forthcoming. Although the Washington D.C. Fire Dept. estimated 60,000 to 70,000 people attended the 9/12 protest, and many estimates are higher, the Times made do with one medium-sized story buried on page A37 of the Sunday paper, “Thousands Attend Broad Protest of Government,” teasing it on the front page in a below-the-fold photo from the march. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement in the Times, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Reporter Jeff Zeleny painted protesters as “angry” and “profane” and that the rally contained “no shortage of vitriol,” as if there were never raised voices and obscene signage at left-wing anti-war rallies:

A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.

On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower taxes and a smaller government.

But as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like “God Bless America,” sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress.

….

The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the “parasite in chief.” Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up preprinted signs saying, “Bury Obama Care with Kennedy,” a reference to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two weeks earlier to be memorialized.

Other signs did not focus on Mr. Obama, but rather on the government at large, promoting gun rights, tallying the national deficit and deploring illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Check out this backhanded compliment:

Still, many demonstrators expressed their views without a hint of rage. They said the size of the crowd illustrated that their views were shared by a broader audience.

Zeleny found some unnamed “Republican officials” to fret over a backlash, and downplayed the significance of those who turned out:

Mr. DeMint and a few Republican legislators were the only party leaders on hand for the demonstration. Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians. And most of those who turned out were not likely to have been Obama voters anyway.

Did the Times ever suggest anti-war demonstrators “were not like to have been Bush voters anyway”?

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of protesters in colonial gear wended through the crowd, led by a bell ringer in a tricorn hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers.

Obama’s health-care speech on Saturday actually got slightly better placement. It landed on page A35 under a similar headline, “Thousands Rally in Minnesota Behind Obama’s Call for Health Care Overhaul,” although the attendance at the Target Center in Minneapolis was reliably estimated at around 15,000, making it at least four times smaller than the D.C. rally. Obama and his fans also got more positive coverage from reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

Thousands of roaring supporters turned out Saturday to rally behind President Obama’s call to overhaul the nation’s health care system, packing a basketball arena here as Mr. Obama warned that nearly half of all Americans under 65 could lose their insurance at some point during the next decade….On a day when demonstrators crammed onto the west lawn of the Capitol to protest what they regard as Mr. Obama’s brand of big government, including his health plan, the images of screaming, cheering Obama supporters here provided a welcome visual counterpoint for the White House. The White House estimated that 15,000 people attended the rally here; the applause was thunderous when the president bounded onto the stage, shirtsleeves rolled up, as he revived an old campaign rallying cry: “Are you fired up?”

In fact, the Times’ coverage of the huge anti-government rally in the nation’s capital was on the same level as the coverage of an ACORN-organized left-wing “bus tour” of homes of American International Group executives back in March, a piece of Astroturf so blatant even the Times admitted the media outnumbered the protesters. Yet while 40 left-wing protesters in Connecticut were worth a 724-word Times story back in March, an estimated 70,000 anti-Obama protesters in D.C. garnered a 932-word story on Saturday. A slight anomaly?

There was nothing on the Times’ “Caucus” blog from the actual march, although the blog did preview it Saturday morning with a pessimistic estimate of the crowd size (“as many as 30,000 demonstrators are expected”), in a post marked with suspicion of the protest’s origin and motives. That post also granted top billing to Obama’s speech.

Another telling contrast: The coverage of Saturday’s march (and the previous Tea Party protests) with the fawning coverage of the pro-illegal immigration protests of 2006, when amnesty for illegals was on the agenda. The Times didn’t find much “vitriol” at the massive rallies in support of illegal immigration. Here’s Robert McFadden in the April 10, 2006 Times, describing the largest of the nationwide rallies in Dallas:

The Dallas protesters were young and old. Some were families pushing baby strollers. Some walked with canes, others rolled along in wheelchairs. There were members of unions, churches, civil rights organizations and business groups, but many were strangers to one another. Some spoke passionately about their desire to be Americans, to vote and to hold a job without fea

The “True Identity” Of Van Jones

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  September 10, 2009

The fact is that Jones was nailed by his own associations and statements.

Some people are wondering who is next after Van Jones. But the Van Jones story is not over. And we still don’t know who hired this “obscure” official, as some on the left are now trying to refer to him. Some of these controversies are currently being investigated by the new media. Blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke the story about Jones’ communist background, thinks White House official Valerie Jarrett needs to be seriously scrutinized. She appears to have had a family connection to Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

For the record, this “obscure” official technically worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), established within the Executive Office of the President. It “coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.” Yet, he never went through a Senate confirmation hearing.

Meanwhile, representatives of various George Soros-funded organizations are coming to the defense of the identified communist.

John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, hailed Jones as an “exceptional and inspired leader who has fought to bring economic and environmental justice to communities across our country.”

Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org said Jones had “worked tirelessly to bring jobs and environmental progress to some of the poorest communities in our nation. His dedication and leadership are exactly what we need more of in Washington. And his resignation is a loss to this Administration.”

Josh Silver of the Free Press calls Jones “one of our most visionary and principled young leaders.”

Questions about Van Jones personally are not over, either. It’s been reported that Van Jones is not his real name. He is really Anthony Jones.

By the same token, Barack Obama was once Barry Soetoro. It’s not exactly clear when his name was changed, and when or if it was reflected on official documents.

Jones and Obama put a lot of importance in names. Jones named his son Cabral, after African Marxist Amilcar Cabral. So what happened with “Van?”

In an interview with Ariane Conrad, the person who largely wrote his best-selling book, Jones said, “Well my true identity, of course, is Anthony Jones from Jackson, Tenn. One might be able to use a search engine to figure that out.”

He may have been referring to the fact that his “true identity” had been previously revealed in a New Yorker article, “Greening the Ghetto,” by Elizabeth Kolbert. She noted, “Van Jones, born Anthony Jones, grew up in Jackson, Tennessee, a small town about ninety miles east of Memphis.” Kolbert explained that “After high school, Jones enrolled at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The first day of his freshman year, he decided that he needed a new identity, or, at least, a new name. Anthony Jones was dull. He chose Van because, he told me, ‘it has a little touch of nobility, but at the same time it’s not overboard.'” On another occasion, he said he picked “Van” because it sounded cool.

If he got a new name his freshman year of college, then why is he listed years later as “Anthony Jones” in the 2005 IRS form 990 filed by the organization he ran, the Ella Baker Center? The form is actually signed by “Anthony K. Van Jones” but printed as “Anthony K. ‘Van’ Jones,” with the name “Van” in quotation marks.

By 2006, it is back to “Anthony K. Jones” and by 2007 it has become “Anthony ‘Van’ Jones.”

In his statement, Podesta said that Jones, whatever his real name and true identity, had “chosen to resign because he believed he was serving as a distraction to the President’s agenda. I respect that decision.” Podesta was co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition project and employed Jones before he went to the White House CEQ.

But how could he have been a “distraction” when the major media had been ignoring the story? Jones was forced to resign, as the Marxist “progressives” at the Rag Blog website fully understand, because the investigation of Jones was getting too close for comfort for Obama and his inner circle. Sacking Jones was a way for the White House and the major media, just beginning to take an interest in the story, to move on.

It is apparent that Jones was thrown “under the bus” because too many of Obama’s close associates, including Jarrett, are implicated in his hiring. Jarrett had said that “we” had recruited Jones. Who is “we?”

Obama himself obviously approved the decision to bring him aboard. After all, he is the President. Jones and Obama were photographed together. What is the nature of their relationship?

Rep. Mike Pence was the only member of the House Republican Leadership to call for Jones to go. But the resignation has not resulted in any coherent explanation of how he was hired in the first place.

Just before Jones jumped ship, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri sent a letter asking for congressional hearings into the appointment. Among other things, he noted, “Last year, Mr. Jones in a radio interview stated his goals as a ‘complete revolution’ to ‘transform the whole society’ away from capitalism. These recent comments remove the credibility of his assertions that his past radical statements and actions such as the creation of the group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) rooted in Marxism and Leninism merely reflect youthful sentiments in the distant past.”

In fact, I am not aware of any claims by Jones that his involvement in STORM was just a matter of being too youthful. He never replied to my calls or emails and I was forced to file a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to try to get answers.

His Marxist rhetoric about a “complete revolution” was made to “Uprising Radio” in April of 2008 and brought to light by Breitbart TV. Going beyond “systems of exploitation and oppression is a process,” Jones said, that will take us beyond “eco-capitalism.”

He explained, “So the green economy will start off as a small sub-set and we’re going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

In other words, environmentalism and “green jobs” are the cover for implementing Marxism. Obviously, Jones has not changed. Only his methods have changed.

Bond sent his letter in his capacity as ranking member of the Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. But the chairman of this subcommittee, to whom Bond sent the letter, is socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a booster of Jones! So the chances of any hearings were always zero to begin with.

Are the Republicans serious about getting to the bottom of this scandal?

For his part, Sanders responded that Democrats should have stood by Jones. “To surrender to them is ridiculous, because they’re not going to stop. They’re just going to go after the next guy. We need to be standing up to them more vigorously and exposing their lies.”

He did not identify what “lies” he was talking about. The fact is that Jones was nailed by his own associations and statements. As he told Conrad, all you had to do was use a search engine.

Before going on to the “next guy,” it’s the job of the conservative media which took this story seriously to examine how Jones got his job. Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal blog is still on top of it. Glenn Beck should not let the Jones story drop now. And that means exposing those who are now defending Jones.

Speaking of Jones, Josh Silver of the Soros-funded Free Press says that “progressives” have a responsibility to “defend the public servants and innocent people who are being attacked…”

Their idea of “innocent” is someone who openly associated himself with an international movement that has taken the lives of more than 100 million truly innocent people. International communism is still the biggest “death panel” the world has ever known.

Which raises the question: why do modern “progressives” want to celebrate the work of a communist?

// // // //
<p><img alt=”Clicky” width=”1″ height=”1″ src=”http://static.getclicky.com/110761-db15.gif” mce_src=”http://static.getclicky.com/110761-db15.gif” /></p>
//

<img src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-f3_BaGrSUyW5s.gif” mce_src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-f3_BaGrSUyW5s.gif” style=”display: none;” border=”0″ height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”Quantcast”/>

Gun owners deceived by Obama, as Holder reveals Gun Attack Plan: Gun rights group The National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP) is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit, tax exempt, educational association of command law enforcement officers within the United States, its territories and military forces. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms, officials from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a statement released to the National Association of Chiefs of Police.. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to ongoing remarks by Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama “knew he was lying to the nation because his own website touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent.” “We warned America that Obama’s ‘support’ for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric,” he stated, “and now Holder’s disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying.” Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters “I’m not going to take your guns away.” He said it at rallies in Duryea, Pennsylvania and in Boise, Idaho. He also told a news conference that “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear… I think people can take me at my word.” “Right now,” said Gottlieb, “I wouldn’t take Obama’s word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don’t like. “Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn’t support the Second Amendment at all,” he observed. “American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn’t.” There are also plans to start encoding ammunition with serial numbers in order to maintain records of ammo purchases and track the ownership of ammunition by legal gun owners. Several states have proposed legislation on ammo-control as does the US Congress, claims former police detective Michael Schnipes of New York. “Right now all of the efforts of our political leaders are focused on health care and the economy, but rest assured they will return to one of their primary goals — disarming the American people,” said Schnipes. Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subcription” on the subject line.

SOCIALISTS. or both.  Either way they seem hell bent for leather to destroy this country.  If Senators (and Congresspersons) are elected to represent the best interests of the people who sent them to Congress.  So why do many of them follow the party line and  things that do not represent the people of their home state?


Sunstein headed toward confirmation
By: Alex Isenstadt
September 9, 2009 04:15 PM EST

Democrats succeeded Wednesday in pushing forward the nomination of Cass Sunstein, the controversial Harvard University law professor who has been tapped by President Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In a 63-35 vote Wednesday evening, the Senate voted to end the debate on Sunstein’s nomination, moving Sunstein one step closer to a full vote in the Senate.

Sunstein has been tapped for one of the more wonky jobs in the White House – reviewing the effectiveness of federal regulations. But his nomination has caught fire with conservatives, led by Fox News host Glenn Beck, who have highlighted some of his more liberal positions on animal rights and end of life care. Sunstein has been described by Republicans as one of the many Obama “czars,” but because he requires Senate confirmation, he doesn’t really fit the mold of a “czar” who wield enormous powers with little oversight.

Conservatives are particularly incensed over statements Sunstein has made advocating for greater regulation of hunting rights.

While Republicans will have little ability to stop Sunstein’s nomination, conservatives are feeling energized after their successful push for the resignation of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones, who stepped down from his post this weekend after it was revealed that he had dabbled with 9/11 conspiracy groups and had made inflammatory statements about Republicans.

The heated debate over Sunstein began on the Senate floor just hours before President Obama sets foot in the Capitol to deliver a nationally televised address on health care to Congress.

On his Twitter account Tuesday, Beck blasted Democrats for “rushing” Sunstein’s vote through the Senate.

“Dems likely to vote on Sunstein’s nomination TOMORROW; they are afraid of WatchDogs; every day increases their risk of losing this vote,” Beck wrote.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

The resignation of avowed communist Van Jones has plenty of people feeling that the future of the country is a bit safer. And it is an interesting “coincidence” that the attendees of the Cincinnati Tea Party demanded his resignation on Saturday, and then it was announced on Sunday.

The newest threat to the free market system and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to many conservatives is the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the regulatory czar. LaTimes.com describes him as “left of center, ” and Forbs.com has reported that he is as a, “progressive. ” Some of his academic writings apparently favor animal rights above human rights to the point of arguing the defense of animal rights over human rights in a court of law.

He’s not known for being a supporter of the second amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms, and that disturbs ranchers who want to protect their cattle, those who are interested to have a gun on hand to protect their family, and those who are hunters.

Forbes.com has also stated that, Sunstein has “spent years delving into the obscure issues of regulatory law and behavioral economics,” which is a deep concern for conservatives who are supporters of the free market system, and the fact that he has, “embraced a controversial ‘senior death discount’ ” is of great concern to those who are pro life. Somehow, the words ‘senior death discount’ sounds an awful lot like the death panels in the healthcare bill.

Interestingly, TheHill.com reported on Wednesday that Representative Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), “called for President Obama’s ‘czars,’ or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their ‘authority and responsibilities’ in the executive branch.”

The question of the legitimacy of their authority is a good one. Especially since Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that, “…he (the President) shall nominate, and  by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” (emphasis added). In other words, the czars need to be confirmed by the Senate. And if the Senate doesn’t confirm them, they have no business standing in the positions to which they have been appointed.

To make matters even more interesting, there is a bill named HR 3226, also known as the “Czar Accountability Act of 2009.”  This particular bill states that, “appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position…without the advice and consent of the Senate.”  The bill was introduced in the House on July 15, 2009 by Rep. Jack Kingston and is being supported by many in the House. It would be in the best interest of “We the People” to demand that it be made into a law.

Similar Articles:

Tea Party attendees demand Van Jones resignation, and it happens
Socialism in America is unconstitutional
Congressman says Obama has potential to ‘make himself a dictator’
Senate’s fiscal irresponsibility is scaring the UN
Former communist turned Christian organizes interdenominational group in Prayer for Nation

Websites of possible interest:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3226 (HR 3226: Czar Accountability & Reform)
cincinnatiteaparty.org/
teaparty.org/

Sara Palin in WSJ on Obamacare, Your Money AND Your Life Posted: 08 Sep 2009 07:25 PM PDT There is a Classic Jack Benny routine that reminds me of Obamacare. In the routine Benny is accosted on the street by a robber with a gun, “your money or your life,” threatens the thief. The master comedian takes his classic pose with his open palmed fingers on the side of his face and remains silent. “Well ?” says the gunman. “I’m thinking” says Benny, “I’m thinking” If Obamacare gets passed in its present form that choice will not be open to many Americans, the government will definitely take out money and,in some cases, as heath care gets rationed they will take your life also. That is the message that former Alaska Governor gives in an Op-ed in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal; Obamacare is too expensive, will lead to health care rationing, and will build a massive and inefficient federal bureaucracy. Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care The president’s proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers. By SARAH PALIN Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law. Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us. We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit. How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree. Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.” With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep. Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .” First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .” Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration. Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure. The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times. Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats. Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care. Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.” We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it. Today Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) circulated a draft outline for healthcare reform legislation. The outline does not include a public option, however, it creates Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OP)s- which are nonprofit, member-run health insurance companies. The framework also suggests a few revenue provisions for healthcare reform, including a 35 percent tax on insurance companies and insurance administrators for any health insurance plan that is above $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans. It would also impose an annual fee of $2.3 billion on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector and an annual fee of $6 billion on the health insurance sector, both beginning in 2010. Higher rates would be paid by larger families, older people and smokers. That’s just what people need more taxes. Baucus gave the Republicans on the committee 24 hours to agree with his proposal. I’m not sure what he meant by this maybe after 24 hours he will begin to kill one Senior per hour until they agree. Wednesday Night the President will be making his “revised sales pitch” to Americans, it is almost certain that the President will not substantially address the issues that Palin addresses above. Until then it will be difficult for the POTUS to change very many minds.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Ready to �take up arms to protect my country� September 03, 2009 09:44 pm — Two great-uncles served in World War I, Lacy Kerr killed in action, and Walter severely wounded. My father and one uncle served in World War II, dad a medic and Bob infantry. Uncle Kenneth served during Korea. Big brother, Garry, served in Vietnam as an air traffic controller; at the same time I served in Thailand, Air Force security. My granddaughter and her husband have served three years in the Army. Andrew just returned from 15 months off the coast of Somalia. We all served honorably to support and defend the Constitution. I become very belligerent when anyone treads on my Constitution and government, created and preserved by the �Greatest Generation.� The �Baby Boomers� control our country now, and I�m scared! Those who demonstrated against Vietnam treated us like criminals on our return, fraternized with the enemy, called our pilots and POWs professional killers and the troops �baby killers� [and] are now in the majority of Congress and state legislatures. I will again take up arms to protect my country and Constitution against any enemy, �foreign or domestic,� and I�m not un-American by publicly saying so…. Johnston and McNamara lost our war and cost us thousands of lives by running the war from the oval office. The liberals detest the military, which they obviously escaped, and they�re trying to dismantle the intelligence community that�s saved us from another 9/11. As an �Independent,� I detest the liberal left and conservative right. We need people elected who will honestly represent us and not their weird agendas. I�m tired of them controlling our lives, and I�ll do whatever it takes to defeat them! Ron Kerr Sigourney Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.