The Republican candidate for President Obama’s old Senate seat has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy’s Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO’s conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.

Rep. Mark Kirk, a Navy reservist who was elected to Congress in 2001, acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually…

Kirk, whose campaign has emphasized his military service as a reservist, similarly misstated the award during a House committee hearing in March 2002. In a remark recorded by C-Span, he said, “I was the Navy’s Intelligence Officer of the Year,” an achievement he depicted as providing special qualifications to discuss national security spending.

Dan Bare of Cincinnati.com wrote the following about  Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal:

I think Blumenthal should be totally embarrassed and humiliated while stepping aside for some other candidate.

Unfortunately, he is not and will do everything in his power to be elected. As a Vietnam combat veteran who actually knew some of those men whose names are listed on the memorial wall in Washington, I find myself sickened to the core to think that someone who has lied about this matter for years could actually be elected to high office in the United States.

If you are also sickened by this matter, I would urge you to contact a representative of any of the local veterans organizations (VFW, American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, DAV and AM Vets) and ask them to pass a resolution indicating their displeasure at the disgraceful behavior of this individual.

I wonder if Mark Kirk will end up getting the same treatment that was accorded Senator John Kerry a few years back and now Blumenthal.  Where are the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth now and people like Dan Bare now?

What will happen during the 2010 election cycle?  Americans will be reminded of…

Who was in charge of the executive branch when we had billions of dollars in surplus – The Democratic Party

Who was in charge while the deficit grew to its highest amount ever in history because they didn’t include the cost of two wars in their budgets – The Republican Party

Who gave them the largest tax cut in history – The Democratic Party

Who was in charge during the worst attack against our homeland on 9/11 –the Republican Party

Who was in charge when our allies turned against us for our actions toward them – The Republican Party

Who decided to put on nations economy and our precious loved ones lives at risk by sending troops to Iraq as a pre-emptive attack against that nation that had not attacked us – The Republican Party

Who finally got combat troops out of Iraq and who finally took control and started getting control in Afghanistan of which they were told we already had victory in – The Democratic Party

Who was in charge and refused to close down the Guantánamo  Bay prison – The Republican Party

Who was in charge and wanted to bomb Iran and North Korea – The Republican Party

Who took their privacy and in some cases their freedom from them with the Patriot Act – The Republican Party

Who allowed the torturing of prisoners of war going against the Geneva Convention of which former President Ronald Reagan signed and agreed upon – The Republican Party

Who was in charge when a CIA agent’s name was leaked to the media not only risking her life and others, but ruining her career for political gain – The Republican Party

Who was in charge during the worst recession since the Great Depression and a near global economic disaster – The Republican Party

Who put more regulations on Wall Street and banks so that another economic disaster could be avoided – The Democratic Party

Who put into play a Recovery and Reinvestment package when it came to saving the country and world from economic disaster – The Democratic Party

Who by passing the Recovery and Reinvestment package saved or created over 3 million jobs – The Democratic Party

Who by approving the Recovery and Reinvestment package provided for the largest amount of investment for our infrastructure across this nation in years – The Democratic Party

Who by approving the Recovery and Reinvestment package started Americans into upgrading their homes and businesses with more new energy efficient cars, refrigeration, heating and electrical systems – The Democratic Party

Who invested more money for grade school and higher education and improved the system’s way of doing business – The Democratic Party

Who gave them more control over their health insurance policies and in about 30 million cases – affordable health insurance – The Democratic Party

Who was finally able to beat down the special interests and those opposing any sort of reform – and passed health insurance reform – The Democratic Party

Who by passing that Health Insurance reform act actually cut the deficit according to the CBO figures by billions of dollars in future years – The Democratic Party

Who was ‘for’ mandating insurance premiums be paid for by all Americans, ‘before’ they were ‘against it’ – The Republican Party

Who stood back and voted ‘yes’ to nearly everything the Bush administration wanted; but when the Obama administration came into power voted ‘no’ on everything the Democrats supported for political gain – the Republican Party

Americans have short memories but once the Democratic Party and friends remind them of all these things over the next 7 months – the Republican Party name will be avoided like many today avoid the use of the name ‘liberal’.

Mr. Paul had a very interesting discussion with Rachel Maddow on her show tonight on MSNBC over the tenth item (as he called it) of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 where government can tell private owners what they can and cannot do with their place of business.  He’s also apparently against the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with these words, “Requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argued, isn’t “fair to the business owner.”

The media and talk show hosts are jumping all over the man for his thoughts.  For once I agree with their attacks.  The man has stated he thinks government should stay out of private ownership and just let the market (people) control bad behavior.

Most are zeroing in on the civil rights act and the disabilities act; while both are very important they are forgetting the whole premise of government intervention; Public safety.  Whether that be providing safety for our citizens from foreign nation attacks, safety from other State’s laws, safety from being poisoned by bad food or medicines or chemicals, safety from rebellions and violence among our neighborhoods, etc…

Remember what the spirit of the preamble says in our Constitution?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While I realize it’s not the part of the Constitution that courts usually look to for answers, it is a very well made statement and if it were the only statement to our constitution I believe it would solve most of our problems.  It’s the amendments that cause the conflicts in my judgment.

If Rand Paul and perhaps other Republicans and Tea Party members like him had their way, we wouldn’t have food, medicine, and chemical or toy safety regulations.  We wouldn’t have building, roads, bridges, and apartment or home codes.  We wouldn’t have restroom, bathing or swimming pool regulations.  We wouldn’t have private school regulations.  We’d have no health regulations what so ever.  We’d have no car or truck regulations.  Drivers could do what they wish with their automobiles. Homeowners could do what they wanted on their own property, including raising chickens or pigs, having drugs or walking naked on their own lawns or having sex with children.

Dr. Paul tried to use the analogy of ‘gun owners saying that private companies like bars are really public entities and therefore should be made to allow customers to carry guns’.  Should bars be made to do this, he says?  Do you really want government telling bars they must allow guns?

Well sir that is why we have a Congress and State legislatures.  When instances of public/community safety are involved – the government should (in my view) and always has, intervened and made a law to protect the “general welfare” of its citizens.  In this instance, I believe most would agree to outlawing this requirement for public, as a whole, safety reasons.

No my friends, the questions shouldn’t be just about what Rand Paul thinks about the Civil Rights Act or the Disability Act and just about ‘his’ campaign.  He is just one man in the sand.

No instead, the media and talk show hosts should be asking all Republicans or Tea Party members that support Rand Paul or people like him – what do ‘you’ think about the Civil Rights and Disabilities Acts?  Do you think government should control anything a private owner does or doesn’t do with his property?

Perhaps their most recent votes would tell us the answers?  How did they vote on the health care bill?  Did they side with business or the people?

On a more personal note, I would love to ask this question of Illinois State Senator Dale Righter and Illinois State Representative Chapin Rose and our Illinois State Senator, Timothy Johnson.

President Obama will announce his first State of the Union speech Wednesday night.  He is reportedly going to announce his new middle class initiatives and a limited spending freeze (instead of a hatchet as Senator John McCain wanted, he’s using a scalpel).

I just listened to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC describing the Obama/Biden administrations successes over the past year.  She used a lot of charts and graphs, showing the growth of our economy, the way loss of jobs have declined, etc…  She did this of course as a lead in to her story of Obama’s “giving in to the Republicans” with his spending freeze idea.  I hope to have that segment of her show on my site tomorrow.

In my view, she may have given President Obama a means to get the facts out there to the American people — without the need for the media being willing to report all the facts about his administrations actions this past year.

Mr. President, it’s time to play Ross Perot.  Remember when Mr. Perot introduced the charts during speeches and talk shows to explain his point of views on issues?  Well, instead of taking time to introduce people that most Americans don’t know, make history and introduce the chart/graph segment of the State of the Union speech.

Like any presenter or speaker, you should provide charts and graphs showing where our nation stands today economically and how much better that is compared to a year or two ago.  Make them simple enough, just like Rachel Maddow’s show did, for anybody to understand.  While the graphs and charts are being shown, explain them in detail.

Americans will finally get to see actual facts instead of hearing spin words.

Yes, of course the Republican Party will try and show their own charts later; but by then it will have been too late.  Americans watch the person in power.

You will not only be making history showing charts and graphs during a State of the Union speech (which in itself will force the media to ‘repeat’ for several days), you will finally be showing Americans what you and your administration and the Democratic Party has be doing for the past year.

Go for it sir!  We need you to be bold — make history!

http://www.jg-tc.com/

Look on left side of home page.

State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the special U.S. Senate election Tuesday, voted against a bill to provide financial assistance to 9/11 rescue workers who had volunteered to rush to the site of the twin towers after the terrorist attack in 2001. The measure, which was opposed by only two other legislators in addition to Brown, provided paid “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.”…

Asked yesterday by ThinkProgress why he opposed the 2001 measure for rescue workers, Brown stated that he had his “own priorities first” at the time.

Isn’t it funny how the Republican’s claim to support something when it’s working or helping someone but when it came time to vote for such assistance, they are whole 100% against voting for it?

Just as Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois voted against the stimulus bill in 2009, but now wants to claim credit for helping get the FutureGen project to Mattoon, Illinois.  The same goes for State Rep. Chapin Rose who was against the stimulus bill from ever being passed; he’s now claiming it could have saved jobs at the University of Illinois.

It would be interesting to see a listing of sorts, of just how many Muslims have been killed (along with so called infidels) by Al Qaeda.

For example, the list should show how many Muslims were on those airplanes that were attacked or nearly attacked over the past 9 years.  How many Muslims were in those buildings on 9/11.

How many of the attacks made by Al Qaeda in all nations, have killed Muslims (not just infidels)? Give some names, show the ages, were their children?

If I were President Obama I would be contacting all nations and asking them to come up with approximate figures of Muslims being killed or used by Al Qaeda.

Yes, they should include the number of Muslims that have been suicide bombers that were Muslims.  They too were victims of Al Qaeda, that group knowing lied or bought off those Muslims to kill themselves for Allah.

These listings should be sent to every known mosque in the world.  They should be broadcast in detail (even with perhaps Muslim experts explaining/discussing the story) on televisions across the world.  Over the radio and on major Internet sites.

Perhaps someone should also create a YouTube video to be spread around the world as well.

The message should be what Obama said — The enemy (Al Qaeda) has no boundaries, they will kill Muslims (non infidels) as well innocent citizens across the world.

****************************************************************

Lastly, I commend the so-called Liberal, Rachel Maddow for her outstanding work on MSNBC.  I’ve yet to hear anyone point out something she’s reported as being a lie.  If mistakes were ever made (rare), she’s always made a point to correct them on her next segment.

Personally, if I were President Obama, I would grab her as at least an advisor to the President.  Rachel’s able to decipher the issue at hand and come up with the most interesting questions, some that most wouldn’t even think of asking.  At times she’s even able to come up with the simplest of solution to the problem.

Great work Rachel!

“What has the republican party done for us in the last 10-20 years, Matthews asks?”

Hardball with Chris Matthews (Video)

The GOP strategists has it wrong — it’s not the Bush record Democrats will go after in 2010, it’s the Republican Party’s record.

Former President George W Bush was just the ’sign on the dotted line’ guy.  It was the Party’s political views that got us where we were by January 20th, 2009.  You are darn tooten the Democrats will remind folks of who got us in this mess in the first place.

They controlled Congress from 1994 through 2006.  They controlled the White House from 2000 – January 20th, 2009.

What did we end up with?  Two wars, possibly three, rogue nations even more threatening, the worst economy since the Great Depression, companies going bankrupt, families going bankrupt, homes being foreclosed, health care costs sky rocketing, credit card interest sky rocketing, scare loans, and a world that no longer trusts us to keep our word because of our actions toward them over the past 8 years and our war crimes.

“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

So, when Obama agreed with President Bush that we must pull out most of our combat troops from Iraq as per a deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government in 2008, that’s was ignoring the fact that we are at war?

So, when Obama sent over 21,000 troops to Afghanistan less than 2 months of taking office, as requested by the commanders on the field while former President Bush and Vice President Cheney were in office in 2008, that means Obama was ignoring the fact that we are at war?

So, when Obama ordered another another 30,000 troops to war in Afghanistan to “finish the job”, that the Bush/Cheney administration had previously claimed a “victory” (several times), that means Obama was ignoring the fact that we are at war?

So, when Rudy Giuliani praised our system of law for convicting Zacarias Moussaoui (so-called 20th highjacker on 9/11) in trial within theses United States, Giuliani was denying we were at war?

“At the same time, I was in awe of our system,” the former mayor continued. “It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he’s going to be a symbol of American justice.”

When former President George W Bush said the following,

The White House spokesman Tony Snow said the trial showed “absolute proof” that the judiciary in Iraq are independent.^[50] President George W. Bush in a statement said, “Saddam Hussein’s trial is a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law”, and “today, the victims of this regime have received a measure of the justice which many thought would never come.”

That means Bush was denying we were at war? Apparently the “rule of law” only applies to OTHER nations and that having a fair trial is ignoring that we are at war?

The following is a repeat of something I said back on Oct. 28th:

Didn’t we just hear about the U.S. Justice Department arresting two men in the city of Chicago for plotting a terrorist attack against a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Didn’t we also just hear about an American convert to Islam that charged with a plot to blow up the court building in Springfield in Illinois state and trigger mass murder.

And didn’t we just read about a 19-year-old Jordanian man living in Texas that was arrested  on charges he intended to bomb a downtown Dallas skyscraper.

What about the physicist that recently accused of providing a list of strategic terrorist targets to North African Islamic radicals.

There’s also the Sudbury man who was planning to obtain automatic weapons and use these to attack shopping malls.

And there was the three suspects that were arrested in the United States on charges of plotting to set off explosive devices in public places in several U.S. states, the CNN reported. Couldn’t terrorists also be right here in the U.S. plotting to kill others outside the U.S.?  Didn’t we just hear about Federal agents arresting seven men in North Carolina for plotting to wage “violent jihad” outside the United States.

This is just a small sampling that were arrested this year in these United States of America.

Cheney the so called war expert say that all these actions by the Obama administration means Obama doesn’t know we are at war and is hoping to ignore it?

Mr Cheney, you are the one in denial.  You need to get off your “war path” to destroy the Obama administration politically at any cost and realize you are hurting your nation by using such words.

UPDATE:

More good points made against GOP and the Bush admin’s actions in the past 8 years.

Letting the GOP rant and rave about Obama’s security actions should NOT be allowed.  Points like I made and points like these two Democrats made need to be told to Americans.

We should also remind them that the 9/11 commission’s suggestions for security weren’t even implemented, for the most part, by the Bush admin after having them in their hands nearly 4 years.

UPDATE #2:

Be sure to read what Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director had to say about Dick Cheney and other GOP member’s attackes on the President…for example:

Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.