Politics News

amsterdam asked:


This is a perfectly respectable and correct headline, but like the famous wartime headline “Monty flies back to front” it conjures up some unexpected images.

Friendly Stranger.. asked:


Please don’t say anything ignorant comments such as “he is a terrorist or muslim” I want intelligent answers please.

snugglebug asked:


Guinea pigs are good pets….thinking its are

Like the legendary gods of old, today’s fictional superheroes have magical powers….maybe have

Lesh Walesa has been the president of Poland since 1990.

Carebear asked:


My mother in law told me that if you trim a lilac bush it wont bloom for seven years. I have some lilac bushes at my new house that are huge. They really need to be trimmed but, I’m afraid to do so now. Anybody know anything about this?

david singer asked:


US President George W. Bush held talks at the White House at a hastily arranged private dinner on Tuesday with Jordan’s King Abdullah II to discuss major regional issues - with no joint public appearances afterwards.

Certainly their discussion over dinner would have included President Bush’s intention - announced last week - to “call together an international meeting of representatives from nations that support a two state solution and that reject violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and commit to all previous agreements between the parties.”

That two state solution involves the creation of a new Arab State in 6% of historic Palestine in addition to the existing Arab state of Jordan which occupies 77% of historic Palestine.

This proposed meeting is a vain attempt by President Bush to stave off acknowledging what should by now be patently obvious to him - the total collapse of his two state solution.

President Bush said the “key participants in this meeting will be the Israelis, the Palestinians and their neighbours in the region.”

The Palestinians’ mindset will be completely the opposite of the others attending the meeting since they have failed to:

1. reject violence - by still remaining committed to armed struggle as set out in the PLO Covenant, the Hamas Charter and the Fatah Constitution

2. recognise the State of Israel - by still retaining the clauses in all of the above documents that call for Israel’s destruction and the liberation of every square inch of Palestine

Pussyfooting around this fundamental schism between Palestinian thinking and what the rest of the world would like to see happening in the West Bank and Gaza remains the stumbling block to the two state solution ever eventuating.

The PLO, Hamas and Fatah remain rejectionist, extremely violent and totally inflexible in changing their hard uncompromising stance against the Jewish State despite the billions of dollars in aid and diplomatic support lavished on the Palestinians by the international community.

It is time to dispel the notion that there is any difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian and to finally accept that there should be only one Arab state - not two - in former Palestine.

In an interview published in the Khaleej Times on 11 October 2006, King Abdullah presciently declared:

“I really think that by the first half of 2007 we might wake up to reality and realise that the two- state solution is no longer attainable, and then what?”

King Abdullah has already made it clear that he is not prepared to consider a confederation between Jordan and the West Bank until an Arab state is created in the West Bank.

With that now very unlikely to occur we may well ask - then what?

Will history repeat itself and King Abdullah find himself in the same position as his late father, King Hussein, whose rule in Jordan was challenged by PLO leader Yasser Arafat in 1970 when thousands died in the ensuing battle and Arafat was forced to flee to Lebanon with his fellow terrorists? Mahmoud Abbas was at the centre of PLO decision making at that time and he still is so now.

King Abdullah is well aware of the words of the late Abu Iyad - one of the highest ranking members in the PLO :

“You cannot make distinctions between a Jordanian and a Palestinian….we indeed constitute one people. When the Palestinian State and unity is established… the Jordanian will be a Palestinian and the Palestinian a Jordanian” [Kuna - 15 December 1989]

This accords with the thinking of King Abdullah’s own great-grandfather King Abdullah 1 expressed at a meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on 12 April 1948 when he declared:

” Palestine and Transjordan [now Jordan - ed.] are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country.”

There are many more similar statements by Arab leaders acknowledging these basic facts.

Denials at various times of these historic, geographic and demographic truths by the late King Hussein were self serving as he faced threats to his rule when they were issued. They were more easily rebuffed then as the Palestinians had no power structures in Gaza or the West Bank.

However throwing the Palestinians a bone and not the whole carcass of former Palestine west of the Jordan River has failed to appease them or satisfy their hunger despite the best efforts of America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - the Quartet - to convince them otherwise.

President Bush’s planned meeting only postpones the curtain being finally pulled down on his two state solution.

Jordan cannot remain passively on the sidelines any longer without planning for this eventuality.

The issue of sovereignty in the West Bank cannot be allowed to fester because 77% of the carcass may be seen by the Palestinians as a more easier option to swallow than part of the 6% that has been offered to them and already rejected.

Jordan needs to return to the West Bank - which it occupied between 1948-1967- and do a deal with Israel. The sooner it takes the plunge the more favourable the conditions for this happening peacefully are likely to eventuate. The split between Hamas and Fatah has now made it a considerably more dangerous undertaking.

King Abdullah will need lots of diplomatic, financial and military support from the Quartet if he is to take this measure - which would reap the Quartet a far greater dividend than the same support currently being poured straight down the drain in propping up Mr. Abbas.

Hopefully neither the President nor the King suffered too much heartburn whilst chewing over the bones of Palestine.

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Guess what today is? It’s SUPER TUESDAY, the day we’ve all been waiting for. Who will get a slight nudge, if anyone, coming out of Super Tuesday? Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton are locked in a very tight race all over the place. What we do know is that the race for the Democratic nomination won’t be settled today, but someone will have the momentum and there seems to be no doubt that is the Barack-Star. But, can he maintain it against the Clinton political machinery? Remember, they don’t play fair!

And then there is the fantasy talk about a “dream ticket”. It sounds terribly exciting and history-making to have a woman and an African-American competing against the Republicans, but there are multiple reasons why this won’t happen. But, it simply isn’t going to happen- either way! Here’s what I see.

Clinton is too arrogant to share the limelight with anyone, even if that person is the Vice President. She will not be overshadowed by anyone! Clinton is popular in Democratic circles, but that pales in comparison to the love and affection showered on Obama. Obama has brought me to tears on a couple of occasions and I’m more of a Republican than a Democrat. He simply has a message of HOPE and that attracts folks on the left, right and the disenfranchised.

Being numero dos is unthinkable for Hillary. She’s not interested in second fiddle and doesn’t want to have to fight to be on the stage.

On the other hand, Obama would not want to carry all the Clinton baggage- can you say Hillary-Gate? He has offered a vision of change, and having to answer to the years of strife under the Clintons would be too much. Further, an Obama run would be about going after Republicans and independents, and Clinton being on the ticket would make that very difficult.

Besides, she’s also 60, and being VP to Obama means that if he wins two terms, she’ll be 68 running for the highest office in the land and she is hearing the “he’s too old” comments aimed at John McCain. Oh yes, and then there’d be the fact that Obama doesn’t really need the constant reminder that the first black president is married to his Vice President, should he choose Hillary, and that he dated more black women that Obama ever did. Who needs the reminders?!

And did I mention that there’s no love lost between the two, not to mention what mutual dis-respect Bubba and Michelle probably have towards each other. I simply can’t image such a dream ticket, which would relationally be a nightmare ticket that would make the Clinton-Gore relationship pale in comparison. Talk abdout the Hatfields and the McCoys!

Way too much bad blood between these two during this campaign. A lot of folks say that George H.W. Bush rankled Ronald Reagan by declaring his economic plan “voodoo economics.” That didn’t keep Reagan from adding Bush to the ticket. But Bush was one of these loyal guys who would have done anything for the party. That’s not Hillary who would do anything for herself only!

No, these two history makers will have to go it alone: and only ONE of them can do that, not both.

J.J. Jackson asked:


Liberals are still out there fighting hard for socialized medicine because it is just one more way for them to get their hands in your pockets and micromanage your life. And what is wrong with a little, itsy bitsy, teeny-weenie white lie along the way to help further their goal right?

Bryan Holman was just trying to do his part for the motherland when he hosted Hillary Clinton at his home in Pomeroy, Ohio. And he had his tale of woe all ready for when she walked through his door and graced him with her presence. His story, which he had heard second hand and which he relayed to Clinton, was a tear jerking tale of a pregnant woman turned away by a cruel hospital for not having insurance, being unable to fork over $100 and who eventually lost her child due to complications after being rushed back in an ambulance. And what is worse, she died herself.

Right now you have to wonder what is really so wrong with this story from a liberal’s point of view. They don’t believe that there is anything wrong with murdering children as they are active proponents of abortion on demand. Many of them also run around talking about how we have too many people on this planet and, like Ted Turner, think we’ll have to turn to cannibalism when the population bomb goes off. So rather than lamenting these losses logically they should be celebrating it and offering the hospital the keys to the city for aiding in the pending population crisis.

Instead however they are up in arms. Rather than rejoicing they are angry because being angry in their mind is a reason to promote the caring, bloated hand of government intruding into our health care system. Consistency be damned. Politics and power are more important.

But there is a problem with the story in that the story was downright false. What’s that you say? A liberal lying for the sake of power? No, you have to be joking! They would never, ever do that!

In the latest tall tale of Hillary Clinton and hot on the heels of her fictitious story about dodging sniper fire, she has been caught once again with a nose longer than Pinocchio after a night of ruckus fun and then trying to deny his whereabouts to Gepetto. Yes, Hillary has been jetting around the campaign trail telling this latest fish story for no other reason than it fits the narrative she wants to tell. Such a narrative is one of an impending disaster, evil HMOs, wicked hospitals and millions of people suffering and even dying left and right because they don’t have health insurance that will cover every booboo they might get.

Steve Brusk of CNN however did a fine job of solidifying his position as a member of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” by daring to defy Clinton, actually tracking down the truth of a story that Hillary Clinton called “so wrong” and, even worse, reporting on it. How prophetic, because indeed the story did in fact turn out to be “so wrong”.

In fact the woman, Trina Bachtel, did indeed have insurance and, according to the hospital, was under care for her pregnancy. It was before she was pregnant that she was denied service at a private clinic because she was not paying her bills which were in the thousands of dollars.

Perish the thought that we don’t live in a socialist workers paradise where you are forced to give someone your ingenuity and time right? Well, when she could not pay at that time she was advised to go to the hospital emergency room since hospitals are not allowed to refuse patients for failure to pay. And of course remember you pay for that “charity” out of your pocket when you, as a responsible person, go to the hospital.

But it is all ok. Because Clinton knows that nearly everyone she has told this story to isn’t paying attention and won’t ever find out that she was weaving a fictitious yarn where a poor, sweet, innocent person died because of what is inarguably the best healthcare system in the world.

These people will go about their merry lives and share this story with their horrified friends who also will not know that it was all a lie. And they will all head off to the polls blissfully ignorant on Election Day actually believing that a woman without insurance and her child died because a hospital refused service to her. They will pull the lever for whomever has the big “D” next to their name actually believing that there is an epidemic of uninsured people being tossed out on their butts by vile, corporate run hospitals.

And just wait. There will be plenty of more stories to crop up over the next couple months that tell this same narrative too. Count on anecdotal accounts hurled at us all left and further left of how people have made choices to go without health insurance only to suffer when they are actually expected to pay out of pocket in a cruel capitalist America. And every one of them will be pitched from a vantage point of how having health insurance is a “right” which the government must provided.

Don’t worry if you missed the enumeration of insurance as an inalienable right and having it paid for by your fellow tax payers as a duty of government during the cursory glossing over of the Constitution and our founding fathers provided in the government funded schools. Just trust and believe that it is really there.

Then open up your wallets because … well because there are plenty of fake cases about people that are dying from not having health insurance to go around. There are also a ton of sob stories about people who decided that they would rather spend their money on something other than health insurance as well only to be shocked when they are told to pay up and settle their bills.

There is however a sad reality in all of this. Yes, there are actually people that fall through the cracks of our current healthcare system. These are, almost to a person, those that are too proud to ask for help and seek out any one of numerous charities and free clinics that aid people who don’t have the means to actually pay their bills. But their folly is no reason for government to get involved, take over such a large part of our economy and give us a healthcare and insurance system as pathetic as those in other countries like Canada, England, or even Cuba.

rainfingers asked:


I know, impeachment is based on “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not approval ratings. But Bush has made plenty of impeachable offenses, including the illegal NSA wiretap program which he flatly admitted. And yet the House of Representatives won’t impeach. What depth of approval rating, or public uproar, do you think it would take?
Some of you are still claiming that Bush has committed no impeachable offenses. However, Bush personally authorized the NSA to conduct wiretaps without warrants, which is plainly illegal. He admitted (bragged?) in public that he did so. There are more offenses; this one is simply the most clear-cut.
OK, I see I need to explain this more. Courts have ruled that the 4th amendment (prohibiting search and seizure without a warrant) applies to wiretaps. Therefore, wiretaps without a warrant are illegal. Know your rights, people!

David Castro asked:


Maintaining a constant cash flow is an essential requirement for any business. Even more running a small business often needs working capital at times of crisis.

The business cash flow can be disrupted due to various unexpected reasons, like: debt payment, purchase of brand new equipment or starting a franchise might cause additional disruption in cash flow especially of a small business.

There are many options for choosing the right lender to gain these funds, and the whole process can be quite confusing. The method of financing is an important element that determines the success of the company and thus a comprehensive understanding of the available funding choices is almost mandatory.

A business cash advance is one of the easiest methods of acquiring essential business funds. It is very similar to a small business loan. However, small business loans require the business owner to provide proof of assets and salary, but instead a business cash advance is great for an entrepreneur to get funds when he lacks great credit or doesn’t have the ability to get funds by the traditional bank loan.

The most important requirement for a business cash advance is that the business accepts credit transactions, i.e. it should allow it’s customers to pay with either visa or master card. It is essentially a cash advance and not a business loan; therefore every time the business collects a payment, a small percentage of it is automatically forwarded to meet the payback of advance.

Business working capital loans are another great way of acquiring funds and are the traditional and most commonly used funding option by most small business owners. However, it is not as easy to get the needed cash flow in this method as compared to a business cash advance. Working capital loans (from banks) are difficult to qualify for if compared with a business cash advance as an alternative source for working capital funding.

The credit score of the business owner, the personal collateral and various other factors are strictly considered before acceptance of capital loan. However, most small businesses owners would easily qualify for a business cash advance.

Applying for a working capital loan requires completing a lot of paperwork and takes quite some time. However, it is the same does not apply for a business cash advance. Business cash advances are processed much faster and it involves relatively no paperwork, thus making the process of working capital funding much easier and faster. Moreover a business cash advance does not have a fixed term for payback schedule as the case is with small business loan.

The repayment is done from future credit card sales receivables and the businesses generally don’t even feel the pinch. But instead in the case of small business loan, if the business owner fails to repay the loan, it will not only affect his personal credit score but also poses a great threat of losing his personal collateral. No matter what’s the business volume on a particular month the business owner will need to pay for the loan according to the pre-determined fixed monthly amount.

If you carefully consider all these, you will end up with the conclusion that a business cash advance is the best option for a smart business owner, and will allow him acquire the much needed working capital.

I1connect asked:


The two were then seen entering the elevator escorted by one of Barack Obama’s secret service guards.

A potential Obama/Imperato collaboration could be a major force to deal with combining the business savvy of Daniel Imperato with the current celebrity of Barack Obama.

Obama began his rise to celebrity when Jack Ryan dropped out the 2004 Illinois Senate Race and Obama became the winner almost by default. He then went on to deliver an inspiring keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention at John Kerry’s request.

Obama has very little to no foreign policy experience and many question his qualifications to lead the country.

Imperato has been embraced by international leaders and has traveled the world learning about US policy and global situations.

Recently, Obama stated to a group of Iowa supporters that he could not handle solving domestic problems while Iraq was still an issue, proving his inability to multitask.

So who was collaborating with whom? Was Obama seeking foreign policy advice from Imperato who is considered one of the foremost experts in foreign policy in the world?

Was Imperato approaching Obama to join the independent movement if he does not win the Democratic nomination?

Ironically, a meeting between Imperato and Obama happened after Obama met with Bill Clinton at a Central Park West fundraiser earlier in the evening before taping his appearance on the David Letterman Show.

Imperato was in New York to attend the Manhattan Libertarian’s meeting at the Ukrainian East Restaurant, as well as meet with several key supporters.

Then at approximately 10 am Tuesday morning, Daniel Imperato and Barack Obama were seen walking in unison, from separate elevators, in the lobby of the W Hotel.

Imperato was dressed in casual clothes while Obama was dressed with his suite and tie and was escorted by his Secret Service agent.

The fact that Obama and Imperato went upstairs in unison last evening, and returned to the lobby this morning begs many questions.

Did Imperato and Obama meet all night? Did Obama try to recruit Imperato’s support in case the Libertarians do not achieve ballot access in all 50 states?

Or could the Democrats be looking to bring the Libertarians into their party?

For Interviews and Media Inquiries Contact

Press Department

I1connect

info@i1connect.com

www.i1connect.com

(561) 515-6177