Home » Posts tagged with » america (Page 188)

As we've noted time and again, “On Faith” — a Washington Post/Newsweek-run religion news and discussion website — is biased against, if not outright hostile to traditional religious belief, particularly traditional Christian theology. This weekend's “Discussion” section topic provided more evidence of that. Examining the controversy over Michigan pastor Rob Bell's book “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived,” editor Sally Quinn asked her panelists, “In this life (and, perhaps, the next) why does what we think about the afterlife matter?” In their answers, all but one panelist attacked the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked, with at least two arguing that a belief in Hell engenders violence and abuse. “Damning people to hell for their religious beliefs, their sexuality, their reproductive choices and even their political views has enormously negative consequences for human life right now,” liberal theologian Susan Brooks Thistlewaite insisted. “When I have done Bible studies with battered women, as I have done for years, many of the most religiously conservative are very nervous about asking for help with abuse because they fear they will go to hell for not being “subject” to their husbands. Often they have put up with the physical and psychological abuse for years, fearing not only the judgment of their husbands, but of God,” the Chicago Theological Seminary professor added. “It’s long past time that Christian conservatives foreclosed on hell. I admire Pastor Rob Bell for having the guts to say that when it comes to God, 'Love Wins,'” Brooks Thistlewaite harumphed. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield upped the ante, suggesting murder and genocide were linked to a belief in Hell, not just verbal and physical abuse: At the end of the day, it is far easier to hurt and even to destroy another human being whom one already believes is cursed by God. After all, the hurt done to them in this life is nothing compared to the suffering they will endure in the next life and, so the argument goes, reflects God’s ultimate will and may even cause them to repent of whatever sins they are supposedly guilty.

Continue reading …
Bill Kristol gets a war boner

enlarge One of the many depressing aspects of Obama’s horrific decision to start a third simultaneous war with a Muslim-majority nation is that it’s providing endless pangs of pleasure to Bill Kristol. After all, America’s Chickenhawk-in-Chief hasn’t been able to watch other people risk their asses invading a sovereign country since 2003 and he’s just as thrilled and excited about this latest adventure as you’d expect him to be: And so, despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him. No, seriously. That’s how Kristol actually starts out his column. Read it again: And so, despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him. It’s hard for most of us to comprehend the sort of vile vampiric scumbag who relishes the thought of having his country go to war in three different countries at the same time, but that’s pretty much how Bill Kristol rolls. I wonder what would happen if America successfully invaded the entire world — whatever would Kristol do to pleasure himself? Perhaps he’d recommend sending our entire army into the depths of the Pacific Ocean to launch a long-overdue war against the lost city of Atlantis. Those shifty Mermen have had it coming for a long time, after all. More: The president didn’t want this. He’s been so unhappy about such a possibility—so fearful of such an eventuality—that first he tied himself in knots trying to do nothing. Then he decided that, if he had to act, it would be good to boast that he was merely following the Arab League and subordinating American action to the U.N. Security Council. After all, nothing—nothing!—could be worse than the perception that the United States was “invading” another Muslim country. Yeah, where the hell did we get this stigma about “invading” Muslim countries from? It’s not like anyone’s ever died from such “invasions” before. Why, you’d think it was as bad as trying to give people health insurance! In all seriousness, Kristol is just happy to be starting another war, since apparently the Afghanistan conflict has gotten so BOE-RING ! The one downer for him is that Obama bothered to get the UN’s permission to attack Libya rather than going all in and giving other countries the finger like Bush did. Kristol is at his absolute happiest when our country is both at war and defying the will of the international community. But he’ll happily take the war all the same. Rubbish. Our “invasions” have in fact been liberations. They have liberated many people from their lives, yes. We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation. It’s amazing that after five glorious wars, the Middle East isn’t yet a mecca of sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and everything that’s wonderful that I feel when we’re together. But of course, there’s always the option of starting a sixth war, which I’m sure will make everything better. [T]he Reagan tradition—indeed, the Reagan-Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain tradition—in foreign policy isn’t a burden to be borne. It’s a tradition to be proud of. It’s rare that a political party gets to stand for more than a partial interest, for more than a limited point of view. It’s rare that a political party gets to stand for the national interest, for national greatness, for the exceptional American role in the liberation of peoples around the globe. I’m amazed that Kristol can’t type this crap without God coming down from the heavens, striking Kristol down with all manner of lightning and saying, “I didst err when I made thee, vile spawn of darkness!” In case Bill hasn’t noticed, we’re facing massive cuts to public education, to social safety net programs and even to services as basic as public street lights . And yet Kristol thinks we should sacrifice all of these things on his bloody altar of permanent warfare. Thanks for aiding his agenda, Obama!

Continue reading …
Media Ignore Anti-Obama Protests In Brazil, Report Him Playing Soccer With Kids In Rio

Union protests against a Republican governor as well as mass demonstrations aimed at an Egyptian President have been the central focus of our news media the past two months. But as Big Government's Susan Swift reported Sunday, Brazilians protesting the imminent arrival of Barack Obama hours after he launched missiles at a country that didn't attack America is not considered newsworthy to his many fans in the press here: In 2007 the MSNBC headline screamed “Protests greet Bush upon arrival in Brazil” and The Guardian one-upped it with “Angry crowds hunt Bush as protests mark start of Latin America tour”.

Continue reading …
Does Rep. Don Young need to repeat his oath to the Constitution?

Click here to view this media We know Rep. Don Young of Alaska was not one of the two Republicans who forgot to take the oath of office on Jan. 6 . But the question bears asking anyway: Does Young need to reaffirm his oath to the Constitution? We’ve been wondering because Young actually signed a revolutionary oath concocted by militia organizer Schaeffer Cox — the Alaska militiaman arrested last week for plotting to kill cops and a couple of judges — declaring that the signers would refuse to recognize any new federal taxes or gun laws: “[T]he duty of us good and faithful people will not be to obey them but to alter or abolish them and institute new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to us shall seem most likely to effect our safety and happiness.” David Holthouse at Media Matters’ Political Correction has the rundown: A video posted online in June 2009 shows Alaska Congressman Don Young signing a revolutionary “Letter of Declaration” written by Alaska militia leader Schaeffer Cox, who was arrested yesterday along with four compatriots for allegedly plotting to kidnap and murder Alaska State Troopers and a Fairbanks judge. “Let it be known that should our government seek to further tax, restrict or register firearms … thus impairing our ability to exercise the God-given right to self-defense that precedes all human legislation and is superior to it, that the duty of us good and faithful people will not be to obey them but to alter or abolish them,” reads the declaration that Rep. Young signed. So the folks at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is putting together a petition demanding that Young clarify his position vis a vis his oath to uphold the Constitution and the federal office he holds. As CSGV’s Josh Horowitz puts it: “It is simply unacceptable for a sitting member of Congress to sign a document calling for violence against the government of the United States. We call on Rep. Don Young to do the right thing and repudiate this repugnant document. ” You can sign here. As Holthouse explained : Cox describes how he wrote his “Letter of Declaration” the night before the initial meeting of the Second Amendment Task Force at a Denny’s restaurant in Fairbanks. In the video, Cox claims that 150 people attended the meeting, saying, “It was standing room only.” “Everybody there signed this letter,” he adds. As Cox begins to recite his declaration, the video cuts to footage of Rep. Young signing the very same letter (it is unclear whether this occurs at the same meeting). The video shows Cox standing next to Rep. Young, addressing a crowd. “We have no obligation to submit to a government that refuses to submit to their governing document,” Cox says. A man in the crowd asks Rep. Young, “If any government should decide that we have to register certain of our arms or turn them in, what would your recommendation be?” Rep. Young responds, “Don’t do it…I sincerely mean that. Don’t turn them in.” Young’s office eventually did provide an explanation of sorts as to what we see on the, which essentially came down to: Yeah, he was there, he signed the letter, he palled around with Cox. So what? Rep. Young’s communications director, Meredith Kenny, said the video shows Rep. Young signing the letter at an “open-carry day” in Fairbanks in the spring of 2009. At the open carry day, gun rights activists appeared in public openly wearing handgun in holsters. “Rep. Young attended not because of anything having to do with Cox — nor is he in any way affiliated with Cox — but because he has always been a vocal and staunch defender of the Second Amendment,” Kenny said. “Congressman Young stands strong with gun owners of America, and will always defend the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.” Of course, we got a taste of http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/schaeffer-cox-and-his-alaska-militia Click here to view this media COX: If there came a time where they were endangering my family, you bet I would kill those federal agents. And what kind of a father and husband would I be if I wouldn’t? Would I sacrifice my family on the altar of submission to the wicked state? No, that would be despicable, we would highly criticize anybody who did that, stood by and watched in history. And we’ve got to reckon with the fact that that’s our time right now. Now, we have those agents — with 3500 guys we have tremendous resources at our disposal. And we had those guys under 24-hour surveillance — the six trouble-causers that came up from the federal government. And we could have had them killed within 20 minutes of giving the order. But we didn’t because they had not yet done it.

Continue reading …
Att Buying T Mobile

AT&T Buying T-Mobile USA For $39 Billion: Look For Big Telco To … AT&T announced the deal ahead of a major wireless conference in Orlando tomorrow. The new entity would be the biggest in the U.S. with 130 million subscribers. The result is that America’s national mobile carrier choices will decrease … AT&T Buying T-Mobile for $39 Billion AT&T has just announced its intention to buy T-Mobile USA from parent company Deutsche Telekom in a cash-and-stock transaction valued at approximately $39 billion. Both boards of directors have approved the deal, which would make AT&T … ATT buying T-Mobile , Expands network considerably – Apple iPad Forum ATT and T-Mobile have agreed to join. Adds 30 million customers and really improves ATT coverage. This could be a game changer for new iPad2 customers. ATT buying T-mobile ATT buying T-mobile News. … Go Back, This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > News · Reload this Page ATT buying T-mobile . User Name, Remember Me? Password … ATT buying T-Mobile means less competition and higher prices … Share and Enjoy:Related posts:A look at the competition – Samsung Captivate and Vibrant reviewed As BlackBerry users, we’re on the edge of our…All T-Mobile Phones Free on February 11 and 12 T Mobile is celebrating Valentine’s Day with … AhrelF says: AT&T-Mobile? Wonder how you converts are takin it… http://www.cringely.com/2011/03/will- att-buying-t-mobile -make-jailbroken-iphones-legal

Continue reading …

If you’ve got HBO, set your recording devices for this show if you’re not going to be home Monday night. It premiers at 9pm eastern time March 21st. Laura Clawson did a very good write up on this at Daily KOS — Triangle: Remembering the Fire : This is the week of the 100th anniversary of the Triangle fire, and tomorrow (Monday) night at 9:00, HBO is airing a new documentary. Triangle: Remembering the Fire is relatively brief, but it adds a great deal to the sketch, on several levels. The documentary first places the Triangle fire in context: Less than two years earlier, garment workers had gone on strike in the Uprising of 20,000 , making outrageous demands like a 52-hour work week and overtime pay. Meanwhile, the fiercely anti-union owners of the Triangle factory met with owners of the 20 largest factories to form a manufacturing association. Many of the strike leaders worked there, and the Triangle owners wanted to make sure other factory owners were committed to doing whatever it took—from using physical force (by hiring thugs to beat up strikers) to political pressure (which got the police on their side)—to not back down. Soon after, police officers began arresting strikers, and judges fined them and sentenced some to labor camps. One judge, while sentencing a picketer for “incitement,” explained, “You are striking against God and Nature, whose law is that man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. You are on strike against God!” The Triangle company held out, the workers went back, and the safety concerns they raised went unaddressed. That New York’s garment workers had been fighting for better treatment, and that many of the fire’s deaths might have been prevented had they succeeded, is a central part of the context Triangle: Remembering the Fire provides. That context of struggle is crucial to understanding the fire’s aftermath, in which New York instituted a range of workplace protections. Frances Perkins would later famously call March 25, 1911 “the day the New Deal began.” Much more there on the documentary so go read the rest. I also wanted to share this with everyone here. I transcribed part of a book I bought some years back titled Labor’s Untold Story, written by the United Radio, Electrical and Machine Workers of America back in 1955. It’s out of print but you can still buy a copy at Amazon here . We don’t teach this history in our schools, so I’m glad to see HBO doing this sort of documentary. It’s important that we understand what it took to get so many of the things we take for granted right now and now easily we could go back to these days if we don’t understand that the ultra-rich basically consider most of us a commodity that’s expendable. And before you read the excerpt from the book below, a warning that some of it is not safe for work due to a few curse words. It’s pages 186-191 of the book and recounts the incident at Triangle and the other strikes and the lifestyles of the Robber Barons around the time of the fire at the Triangle factory. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The rich are using the same playbook now that they did back in the early 1900′s. Control the press so you propagandize the public, go after public education, use religious leaders to help your cause and trash unions. In addition, the commission found, the Morgans, Rockefellers, and their allies were controlling the thoughts of Americans as well as their lives. Through monopoly ownership of influence, the press expressed monopoly’s policies. Moreover, Wall Street was increasingly controlling public education, as well as colleges, universities, professors, and preachers through gifts, endowments, and foundations. The report continued: The domination by the men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and “social service” of the Nation. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereinafter designated as “foundations” by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities as well as through controlling or influencing the public press… Apart from these foundations, there is developing a degree of control over the teachings of professors in our colleges and universities, which constitutes a serious menace. In June of this year [1915] two professors were dropped… [one] professor of law in a state university, who had acted as counsel for the strikers in Colorado; the other, a professor of economics active in the fights in behalf of child labor legislation and other progressive measures. Turning to women workers, the commission declared that nearly one-half of them earned less than $6 weekly and asked: Six dollars a week—what does it mean to many? Three theater tickets, gasoline for the week, or the price of a dinner for two; a pair of shoes, three pairs of gloves, or the cost of an evening at bridge. To the [working] girl it means that every penny must be counted, every normal desire stifled, and every basic necessity of life barely satisfied by the sacrifice of some other necessity. The conditions under which most women worked were described by Louise Marion Bosworth in 1911: In one factory of a well-known hat company the women stitch all day in a gloomy room with bare and dirty brick walls, the floor cluttered with crumbs, crusts and dirty cups from the brief lunch on the work tables. They work ten hours a day, only stopping long enough to heat some cold tea at noon… In a box factory the girls take off their street suits and put on old skirts and waists matted with glue and dirt, in which they spend ten hours a day “scoring,” cutting and snipping, wetting great sheets of paper with paste… lifting the heavy finished boxes back and forth, or deftly covering little ones and throwing them rapidly into a basket, at a few cents a day. In an overall factory, the light is so poor, and soot-caked windows make it so dim, that some of the women who work there say they cannot stand the eye strain and will have to work elsewhere. In one shoe factory town many complaints are heard about the ventilators; in winter the windows are kept closed until the girls’ shirt waists are wet with perspiration. Then at five the suddenly emerge into the winter air and consequently have perpetual coughs. Thirty-seven percent of working class mothers, according to the Industrial Commission were forced to work for wages in addition to caring for their families. On New York’s East Side, where the sweatshops were filled with thousands of working women, the intolerable conditions under which they worked were brought to the attention of the public by the tragedy of the Triangle fire, when one hundred and forty-six women were burned to death in a crowded, packed loft from which there was no effective escape. Militant Jewish workers, most of them fresh from Czarist Russia and possessed of a rich tradition of struggle on behalf of labor organizations and against anti-Semitic programs, rose in revolt against sweatshop conditions in the needle trades at about this time. Herded together in broken-down tenements or in basements, the air saturated with dust and stench, they worked as many as fourteen hours a day at wages not enough to support themselves, much less their families, the helpless victims of a speed-up system that added to the wrecking of their health and vitality. Ill-ventilated and disease-breeding, the shops in which these workers toiled were more often firetraps, as illustrated by the tragic Triangle Waist Company fire. It was against these sweatshop conditions with their low wages, killing speed-up and hazardous working set-up that tens of thousands of Jewish needle workers from New York’s East Side revolted in a series of great strikes. In 1909 twenty thousand shirt-waist makers, four-fifths of whom were women, went out on strike. Their bravery and unity on the picket lines led the then not too militant Sam Gompers, AFL president, to make the following observation: “The girls were willing to go hungry and many of them did so; they braved the ruffianly police while peacefully picketing, went to imprisonment as part of their duty to their comrades when sentenced by unsympathetic magistrates, skillfully and energetically aroused a sentiment in their favor in the community, and finally convinced their employers that they had learned the merits of combination for their plainly just purposes. The following year, 1910, saw over sixty thousand cloakmakers, the vast majority of them Jewish, go out on strike and after a courageous and militant struggle win a collective bargaining agreement. The signing of this “Protocal of Peace” established the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, founded ten years before, on a solid basis. From 1910 to 1920 the union spread to Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and other cities and by 1920 had a membership of over 100,000. The uprisings of 1909-1910 in the women’s clothing industries had their union repercussions in the men’s clothing field. In 1910 the workers of Hart, Schaffner & Marz, the largest clothing manufacturing company in the country, went out in a city-wide strike in Chicago, the strike ending with the company recognizing the United Garment Workers Union. As more and more of the industry was organized, chiefly as a result of the militant strikes of tens of thousands of Jewish workers, a rank-and-file movement developed against the Rickert clique that dominated the Garment workers. When in 1914 these rank-and-filers were refused seats at the Garment Workers Convention and their request for recognition was denied by the conservative AFL officialdom, they founded the amalgamated Clothing Workers Union in 1915. Within fours years the militant leadership of the new union was able to organize a majority of the leading clothing manufacturers in the country. Meanwhile unions were organizing women’s auxiliaries. Annie Clemence, a Slav girl of about twenty-four, was the president of the ladies’ auxiliary of the Western Federation of Miners in Michigan’s copper country. There, 15,000 copper miners with an average pay of $1 a day were on strike against the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company. The officials of the company had announced a 400 percent stockholders’ dividend a short time before the strike was called, not long before Christmas of 1913. Annie Clemence had organized a Christmas party for the children of the strikers in a hall with only one exit and that at the foot of a long and narrow stairway. A deputy, intent on breaking up the party, shouted “Fire!” when there was no fire. Ella Reeve Bloor (“Mother Bloor”), then a Socialist organizer, was a witness. She writes: On Christmas eve the children gathered in a hall where Annie had fixed up a Christmas tree. First the children sang, and then the presents were given out. A little towheaded Finnish girl of about 13, with long braids down her back got up and said, “Don’t be scared, many had gone through one door, as the room was still crowded. We tried to keep the entertainment going. The little girl kept on playing. In about five minutes the door at the back of the room opened, and a man came into the room with a little limp figure in his arms. Another man followed, carrying another child. Then another, and another, and another. They laid the little bodies in a row on the platform beneath the Christmas tree. The children were dead… There were some seventy three of them. I can hardly tell about it or even think about it even today. The people in the hall were deadly silent, frozen with horror. Then Annie screamed, “Are there any more children dead?” And one of the deputies said “What’s the matter with you? None of these children are yours, are they?” She cried out, tears streaming down her face, “They are all mine—all my children… They kept bringing the children up the stairs, into the hall, as the people rushed forward in agony and fear to look for their own. Priests arrived and began to pray for the dead. Then Annie went wild and started pummeling the priests and pushed them away from the children, because the same priests had been preaching against the strike. “Don’t let these scab priests touch these children!” she cried. The deputies took her away and locked her up in the courthouse. Then they came for the bodies of the children, took them to the courthouse, and kept them there at night, until they could get undertakers. The Morgans, Rockefellers, and their ilk who had not gone to war in 1861 were old men now. Their sons were overseeing their mammoth empires that they had acquired as the ruthless Robber Barons while, uncertain and sometimes not quite clear as to exactly what was happening, they doddered around, enjoying their simple hobbies. Old John D, who had shrunk until he resembled a mummy with bright bird-like eyes, had fastened on the innocent enjoyment of giving a single new dime to every person he met. Morgan, his imperial mein now vanquished by illness, his black eyes rheumy with age, fumbled through the long lines of treasures he had collected from all the earth, a solitary figure moving through medieval armor, Chinese porcelains, rare old books and manuscripts, jewels, and paintings stretching into the distance in the vast white marble palace he had built for them. He died in Rome on the last day of March in 1913. Carnegie, now “a rosy, twinkling old man,” had apparently forgotten the massacre at Homestead, so great was his delight in his baronial castle at Skibo on the coast of Scotland. He liked to have a bagpiper wake him at eight in the morning by skirling, first from a far distance and then nearer and nearer and nearer the castle. He had his private organist play for him each morning at breakfast and had constructed a miniature waterfall to tinkle outside of his bedroom window. He died in his castle in 1919. Old John D. outlived them all. Each day he was propped up and taken out to the golf course where a servant was posted to periodically shout at the man whose very glance had once made rivals of quail, “Keep your head down! Keep your head down!” His son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. liked to think that the old man’s understanding was as mighty as ever, taking pleasure in telling him about the strike of Colorado coal miners in 1914 against the Rockefeller-dominated Colorado Fuel & Iron company. “I know,” he wrote. L.M. Bowers, chairman of the company’s board of directors, “that my father has followed the events of the last few months in connection with the fuel company with unusual interest and satisfaction.” The events that the old man was following with such unusual interest and satisfaction included the eviction of the strikers, members of the United Mine Workers of America, from their company-owned houses. The miners were living in tents in Ludlow, their colony surrounded by the National Guard. The militiamen occasionally shot into the colony, particularly at night. The women were terribly afraid that some of their children would be killed. They decided to dig a cave inside the largest tent. There they put thirteen children and a pregnant woman. That night, it was in Easter, 1914, company-employed gunmen and members of the National Guard drenched the strikers’ tents with oil. They ignited them after the miners and their families were asleep. When the miners, their wives, and children ran from the burning tents, they were machine-gunned. Most escaped in the darkness, many were wounded, but the thirteen children and the woman in the cave were killed, some shot to death, others suffocated. One of the Ludlow strikers, William Snyder, testified at the coroner’s inquest. His eleven-year-old son had been killed, shot through the head. They set fire to the tent?” Snyder was asked. Yes, sir. My wife then said, “For God’s sake save my children.” What did they say to you? They said, ‘What in the hell are you doing here?’ I told them I was trying to save my children, and they said, “You son of a bitch get out of there and get out damn quick at that.” My wife was out by that time… I told them to hold on, I had a boy killed in there, and they told me to get out damn quick. I picked up the boy and laid him down outside so I could get better hold of him. I asked some of these fellows to help me carry him to the depot, and he said “God damn you, aren’t you big enough?” I said, “I can do it.” I took him on my shoulder, and sister on the other arm, and just then one of these militiamen stopped me and said, “God damn you, you son of a bitch, I have a notion to kill you right now.” He said “You red-neck son of a bitch, I have a notion to kill you right now. Another woman, and five men, all of them strikers, were killed that night in addition to the thirteen children. Perhaps old John D. was never told about it. The son took full responsibility for it, saying it was the unfortunate outcome of a principled fight he was bound to make for the protection of the workingman against the trade unions. The Robber Barons were gone but their sons were following in their footsteps. J.P. Morgan’s son and namesake, who later took a similar stand for the open shop, also proved himself worthy of his father. But the miners felt differently about the Ludlow Massacre. They erected a monument to it which still stands. Carved in stone are the figures of a miner and his wife. At their feet lies a slain child. The inscription reads: Erected by the United Mine Workers of America, to the memory of the men, women and little children who died in freedom’s cause, April 20, 1914.

Continue reading …
Miley Cyrus And Bret Michaels Duet

WATCH NOW- Miley Cyrus and Bret Michaels Duet to Be Finally Released Miley Cyrus and Bret Michaels duet Every Rose HasMorning America + Ringtone Download Miley Cyrus and Bret Michaels duet – Every Rose Has Its Thorn Good Morning America – GMA Miley Cyrus And Bret Michaels Duet Released Miley Cyrus Bret Michaels. Miley Cyrus is back on course with a duet with Bret Michaels, which will soon be released. Disney TV Stars » Miley Cyrus' duet with Bret Michaels may finally … Miley Cyrus and Bret Michaels Duet to Be Finally Released ‘Every Rose Has Its Thorn’ was slated to be released … Miley Cyrus & Bret Michaels Duet To Be Released As A Single … Miley Cyrus and Bret Michaels’ version of Poison hit . … Crush Links: Can Things Get Any More Complicated for Miley … Most awkward arrangement ever: the Miley Cyrus and Bret Michaels duet will finally be released. (TMZ) Tom Cruise gave Katie Holmes a sewing machine for her birthday. To me, that’s one step away from aávacuumácleaner. … Egypt Votes Freely For New Democratic Party Unicyclist Lawsuit Against NYC Filed ($3 Million) · Staples Center Standoff Involving Man With Knife · GM Cuts Travel, Reduces Workforce · Miley Cyrus And Bret Michaels Duet Released · Holmes and Yang Unite For Debut … Staples Center Standoff Involving Man With Knife Unicyclist Lawsuit Against NYC Filed ($3 Million) · Egypt Votes Freely For New Democratic Party · GM Cuts Travel, Reduces Workforce · Miley Cyrus And Bret Michaels Duet Released · Holmes and Yang Unite For Debut · Final Potter Trailer … ReadyMiley says: Miley Cyrus And Bret Michaels Duet Released – Newsoxy.com

Continue reading …
Robert Gates: Libya Mission Handoff In Days, U.S. Will Not Have ‘Preeminent Role’

ON BOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition — probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO — “in a matter of days.” In his first public remarks since the start of the bombings, Gates said President Barack Obama felt very strongly about limiting America’s role in the operation, adding that the president is “more aware than almost anybody of the stress on the military.” (SCROLL DOWN FOR LIVE UPDATES) “We agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of those capabilities at the front of this process, and then we expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others,” Gates told reporters traveling with him to Russia. “We will continue to support the coalition, we will be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role.” The two key possibilities, he said, are a combined British-French command or the use of a NATO command. He acknowledged there is “some sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella.” Gates’ comments came as American ships and aircraft continued to pound Libya, taking out key radar, communications and surface-to-air missile sites along its Mediterranean coast. Even as his military was under siege, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi vowed to endure through a long war against what he called colonial crusader aggression by the international coalition. The Pentagon chief had cautioned early on about getting involved in Libya’s civil war, telling Congress that taking out Libya’s air defenses was tantamount to war. Others have worried that the mission could put the U.S. on a path to deeper military involvement in yet another Muslim country — even as nearly 150,000 troops continue to battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gates said that in the discussions leading up to the launch of attacks, he tried to provide “a realistic appreciation” of the complexities involved in setting up a no-fly zone, and noted it would require an attack on Libya — which is what happened. Asked about working with the rebels, and whether the coalition knows enough about them to forge a partnership, Gates said Libyans must ultimately resolve matters themselves — though it remains to be seen what additional outside help will be provided. Still, he added, “We certainly know a lot about Gadhafi, and that’s good enough for me.” Asked if the bombings should target Gadhafi, Gates said the coalition should stick to the objectives in the U.N. Security Council resolution, and adding new ones would create a problem. “It is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve,” he added. He said most nations want to see Libya remain a unified state. “Having states in the region begin to break up because of internal differences, I think, is a formula for real instability in the future.” The military assault on Libya began Saturday with the launch of about 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. and British ships, followed by a coordinated air assault by U.S. warplanes — including Air Force B-2 stealth bombers and Marine attack jets in the pre-dawn hours. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, described the campaign’s aims as “limited,” saying it “isn’t about seeing him (Gadhafi) go.” Gadhafi has vowed to fight on, promising a “long war,” and his troops have lashed back, bombarding the rebel-held city of Misrata with artillery and tanks on Sunday, the opposition reported.

Continue reading …
US won’t have dominant role in Libya action: Gates

ON BOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that the US expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition — probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO — “in a matter of days.” In his first public remarks since the start of the bombings, Gates said President Barack Obama felt very strongly about limiting America’s role in the operation, adding that the president is “more aware than almost anybody of the stress on the military.” “We agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of…

Continue reading …
BBC’s Katty Kay: Obama Doesn’t Want Media To Report Bahrain Rebellion

Despite our air attacks in Libya this weekend, most Middle East experts view the growing rebellion in Bahrain as being far more important to America. Yet according to the BBC's Katty Kay, who was a guest on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the Obama administration doesn't want the press reporting what's going on there (video follows with transcript and commentary): KATTY KAY, BBC: Chris, we spend a lot of time on the program talking about Libya, but what’s happening in Bahrain is more violent and of much more strategic interest to the United States. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Because of oil. KAY: Because of oil, and because of the 5th Fleet is stationed there. What happens in Bahrain is really critical to America, but it’s in Washington’s interest and the White House’s interest that we don’t report this story very much. They would like that one to go away because there’s no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shiites. MATTHEWS: And not reporting it helps how? How does not reporting it help? KAY: Because they just don’t want too much attention focused on what’s happening there because they don’t want to be having to be pushed into a position of helping the Shiite rebels there. So what's so important about protecting the rebels in Libya, especially as we're really not sure who they are or what they stand for? The Jerusalem Post reporte d last Sunday that an al Qaeda commander is backing the Libyan rebels. The perilously liberal Huffington Post reported Saturday that some of these rebels are radical Islamists with strong anti-American sympathies. But the Obama administration wants the news media to ignore what's going on in Bahrain because they don't want to help Shiite rebels there? Now, in fairness, there has been no media blackout of the Bahrain rebellion up to this point. However, it's fascinating that a British Washington correspondent is aware that the White House wishes there was one, and it will be very interesting to see if they get their wish now that we've begun fighting in Libya. Stay tuned.

Continue reading …