Saturday, October 26, 2013

Having Launched PEPFAR, George W. Bush Is ‘Greatest Humanitarian’ To Serve U.S. Presidency | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Having Launched PEPFAR, George W. Bush Is ‘Greatest Humanitarian’ To Serve U.S. Presidency | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

And now President Barack Hussein Obama is undermining and slowly defunding The successful Life Saving Program launched by George W. Bush.  What would that make him?  The "Greatest Enemy to the Humanitarian Efforts" made by the Greater Man/men preceding him..    (among other things along the same lines of disservice to the United States, Americans, and people worldwide) ...   God willing, he will be halted in his tracks before his path of destruction continues to leave the unthinkable magnitude of human suffering in its wake.  If it's up to the American People to take it in their hands, all Hell will break and it will be the final day for this fake.

There are some voices emerging, in droves, with a heavy weight behind them...  FEMA will need relief when it breaks.  It's the force of nature, and like gravity, it's energy is far greater than any group of mortals with an agenda.  What's Right will prevail..The Plight for what's Good in this World always wins the Fight.

Having Launched PEPFAR, George W. Bush Is ‘Greatest Humanitarian’ To Serve U.S. Presidency

In a post in Foreign Policy’s “Democracy Lab” blog, Christian Caryl, a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute and the blog’s editor, asks, “Which United States president will go down in history as the greatest humanitarian to have served in the office?” He writes, “I’d suggest that there’s one president whose contribution dwarfs all the others” — George W. Bush. “[O]nly a few Americans have ever heard of PEPFAR, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which President Bush announced in his State of the Union address in 2003,” he continues, noting since PEPFAR’s creation, the U.S. government has invested more than $44 billion through its bilateral programs and the multilateral Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
“It’s impossible to tell exactly how many lives the program has saved, though Secretary of State John Kerry recently claimed that five million people are alive today because of it. That’s probably as good an estimate as any,” Caryl writes, adding, “So it’s safe to say this one program has been a titanic force for good over the past decade.” He continues, “Bush paved the way for an era in which global health assistance has become a prominent new instrument of U.S. statecraft. After all, spending so much money hasn’t just boosted America’s image among Africans; rolling back the widespread scourge of AIDS has protected social institutions in these countries from degradation and collapse, thus contributing to security and effective governance” (2/14).

What George W. Bush did right

February 21, 2013|By Christian Caryl
    •  185
WASHINGTON — — Which United States president will go down in history as the greatest humanitarian to have served in the office? The Republican Herbert Hoover is often known as the "Great Humanitarian" for his work administering famine relief in post-World War I Europe (and Bolshevik Russia) in the 1920s — but he did all that before he actually became president. Others might make the case for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democrat who succeeded Hoover in the White House, whose New Deal initiatives relieved poverty and sickness on a grand scale within the United States.
But I'd suggest that there's one president whose contribution dwarfs all the others. Unlike Hoover, he launched his program while he was in office, and unlike FDR, he received virtually no votes in return, since most of the people who have benefited aren't U.S. citizens. In fact, there are very few Americans around who even associate him with his achievement. Who's this great humanitarian? The name might surprise you: It's George W. Bush.
I should say that I do not belong to the former president's political camp. I strongly disapproved of many of his policies. At the same time, I think it's a tragedy that the foreign policy shortcomings of the Bush administration have conspired to obscure his most positive legacy — not least because it saved so many lives, but because there's so much that Americans and the rest of the world can learn from it. Both his detractors and supporters tend to view his time in office through the lens of the "war on terror" and the policies that grew out of it. By contrast, only a few Americans have ever heard of PEPFAR, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which President Bush announced in his State of the Union address in 2003.
Fast forward a decade, and in his own State of the Union address last week, President Barack Obama only briefly mentioned the goal of "realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation" — an allusion to the long-term aim of PEPFAR. Yet Obama's most recent budget proposals actually propose to cut spending on the program. That's a pity. This might have been a good moment to celebrate 10 years of an unprecedented American success in fighting one of the world's most pernicious and destructive diseases.
In his 2003 speech, Bush called upon Congress to sponsor an ambitious program to supply antiretroviral drugs and other treatments to HIV sufferers in Africa. Since then, the U.S. government has spent some $44 billion on the project (a figure that includes $7 billion contributed to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, a multilateral organization). By way of comparison, America's most recent aircraft carrier — which will join the 10 we have in service — is set to cost $26.8 billion. One medical expert calls PEPFAR the "largest financial commitment of any country to global health and to treatment of any specific disease worldwide."
It's impossible to tell exactly how many lives the program has saved, though Secretary of State John Kerry recently claimed that 5 million people are alive today because of it. That's probably as good an estimate as any.
Just to give you an idea of the scale, here are some headline figures from a recent op-ed by U.S. Global AIDS coordinator Eric Goosby:

"In 2012 alone, PEPFAR directly supported nearly 5.1 million people on antiretroviral treatment — a threefold increase in only four years; provided antiretroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV to nearly 750,000 pregnant women living with the disease (which allowed approximately 230,000 infants to be born without HIV); and enabled more than 46.5 million people to receive testing and counseling."
So it's safe to say this one program has been a titanic force for good over the past decade. The number of deaths from AIDS has been steadily declining over the past few years, and PEPFAR has certainly been a big help. But ask an American — or a Western European — if they've ever heard of the program, and they're almost certain to draw a blank. That's partly because the United States has done very little to publicize the success of PEPFAR, and partly because the Bush presidency was overshadowed by much more high-profile aspects of his foreign policy (such as the invasion of Iraq).
Indeed, Bush still enjoys high popularity ratings in Africa, where he's widely regarded as one of the continent's great benefactors. (Meanwhile, the Obama administration's proposed PEPFAR cuts have triggered protests around Africa — even in Kenya, where the president's family ties have ensured him plenty of favorable coverage.)

Why cutting PEPFAR is bad policy

By Chris Collins, amfAR,The Foundation for AIDS Research 03/13/12 10:55 AM ET
Last week a new analysis of adult mortality rates in African countries was released. The study authors found that between 2004 and 2008, in those nations where the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was most active, the odds of death were about 20 percent lower than in other countries in the region. It was one more piece in the growing collection of evidence that PEPFAR has been a tremendously successful program, advancing U.S. humanitarian and diplomatic priorities and saving millions of lives. 
That is why the proposal in President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget to cut bi-lateral HIV programming through PEPFAR by nearly $550 million, or 11 percent, has stunned so many on Capitol Hill and in the global health community. Here are six reasons why this proposal should be rejected by Congress:

1. It undermines the goal of an “AIDS-free generation.” Last December, President Obama pledged that we can “end this pandemic,” echoing Secretary of State Clinton’s earlier statement that achieving an “AIDS-free generation” is a policy priority for the U.S. But the budget request isn’t consistent with this stated ambition. Though the White House insists the U.S. can still achieve the AIDS treatment and other targets set by the president last year, it is inevitable that PEPFAR program managers, faced with seriously diminished resources and ambitious targets in a few areas, will slash services for which there are no specific goals. That might include, for example, the PEPFAR program providing food and education to millions of children orphaned by AIDS.

2. It proposes worse than a zero sum game for global health. The president’s budget wisely calls for a needed increase for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, but seeks to reduce funding for PEPFAR by $200 million more than the amount added to the Global Fund. PEPFAR and the Global Fund are increasingly synergistic and depend on each other for success in many countries. A reduction of the magnitude proposed for PEPFAR endangers bothprograms.
4. It is bad fiscal policy. Global health represents one quarter of one percent of the federal budget, so even a major reduction in this area won’t solve the debt crisis. PEPFAR is increasingly efficient, with per-person treatment costs plummeting since the program’s inception. And stepping back from our commitment to an AIDS-free generation means the crushing burden of the pandemic in terms of lives and productivity lost, as well as major health care costs, will continue to weigh us down for decades to come.

5. It is bad politics. In a time of partisan strife, PEPFAR is one of the few programs with sustained 
bipartisan support. First proposed by President George W. Bush in 2003, PEPFAR has consistently been praised by Republican and Democratic leaders. The most recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll on global health spending found that in 2010, in the middle of a bad recession, 65 percent of Americans said U.S. spending on global health was “too little” or “about right.”

6. It is bad diplomacy. PEPFAR has boosted support for the U.S. overseas, winning praise from political leaders and demonstrating America’s commitment to advancing the wellbeing of people around the world. The program is emblematic of the “smart power” approach advocated by Secretary of State Clinton. As she testified before a Senate committee last month, PEPFAR “buys us so much good will . . . if you go to sub-Saharan Africa, it’s one of the reasons why people have a positive view of the United States.”

The U.S. faces tough fiscal choices in the years ahead, but slashing PEPFAR when America is on the verge of leading the world toward the beginning of the end of the AIDS epidemic doesn’t make sense. By funding the program at least at its current level, Congress can advance U.S. humanitarian and diplomatic interests, and change the course of the epidemic.  

Collins is the vice president and director of public policy for amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

GOP governors get results despite Washington dysfunction | The Daily Caller

GOP governors get results despite Washington dysfunction | The Daily Caller

GOP governors get results despite Washington dysfunction

Gov. Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Governor

To the American people, the drama in Washington is getting old. It was interesting the first forty times, but it’s not interesting anymore, it just points to failure.
What do leaders do? What do chief executives do? They lead their allies in unity, and they reach out to their opponents in search of consensus and converts.
The president has completely failed to do this, and the dysfunction in Washington is primarily his dysfunction. The buck stops at the president’s desk. What you are seeing is President Obama’s Washington. Washington dysfunction is the failure of leadership in the Oval Office.
Leaders don’t paint themselves as victims, as President Obama does routinely. They lead — and that includes working with members of both parties. That includes negotiating and looking for common ground.
President Obama made drastic changes to our health care system, without a single supporter from the other party, and without the support of the American people. He is now reaping the rewards of this failed strategy, and he’s trying to blame others for it.
The president likes to note that he was elected by the American people just last year. Fair enough. But he might also note that every single member of the House of Representatives was also elected by the American people just last year. Additionally, as a constitutional law professor he should realize that the power of the purse resides with the House of Representatives.
Whether every Republican agrees with the House’s latest offer, which moves off full repeal, and instead delays the employer mandate for a year and removes the exemption from Obamacare for members of Congress and their staffs, we can all agree the president needs to show leadership. Rather than considering this offer, the president remains stubborn and partisan.
With all this dysfunction, Republican governors are not going to take a back seat to anyone in Washington anymore.

Read more:

Monday, October 14, 2013

Unlawful Arrest Caught on Camera ~

No Rights Read, Just an arrest made by an angry ego tripping a-hole

We The People .......

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Order to Stand Down Could Only Have Come from Obama - A Former Ambassador on Benghazi

Former Ambassador: Benghazi “Stand Down” Order Came from Obama

bastardAnn Wagner, a former US ambassador and current congresswoman from Missouri, was interviewed about what the protocol would be for a “stand down” order in the event of a consulate being under attack, and she answered what many have suspected already: that’s an order that would come from Obama himself.
This is one of the reasons that the Obama administration has essentially refused to provide details about where Obama was at or what he was doing during the attack. This is because we know exactly what he was doing — ignoring the cries for help for political reasons.
Being wrong about policy is one thing. But ignoring the screams of those who work for you because you’d rather them die than accept that your foreign policy is creating more terrorists is a level of treason rare, even for the most despotic tyrants.
Here’s a summary of the important part of the interview, courtesy of Special Operations Speaks:
Congresswoman and former United States Ambassador to Luxembourg Ann Wagner (R-MO) appeared on The Dana Loesch show and placed the blame, of the stand down order to those that could have offered assistance to Americans under attack, on none other than Barack Obama.
Loesch asked Wagner, ‘Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?’
‘The President of the United States,’ the Missouri congresswoman affirmed.
As top diplomat in Libya Gregory Hicks testified to on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee, ‘The Libyans that I talked to, and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also, that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory.’
‘They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them,” Hicks continued. “And so, in my personal opinion, a fast moverflying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.’
Here’s the specific line itself from the radio interview:
MeanwhileGeneral Ham has come forward saying the official story after the attack wasn’t true.
Obama’s response to everything? He promoted one of the women who helped craft the fake story. They know what they’re doing and they’re getting away with it.
This isn’t a “phony” scandal. This is abandonment, betrayal, and treason. All for what? To hide the fact that our foreign policy doesn’t work, it creates more of the enemy, and we need to change course. Pathetic and wrong.

Read This Next:
  1. Obama “Accidentally” Armed Terrorists Who Attacked Benghazi

  2. Obama Permanently Withdraws Team Tracking the Benghazi Terrorists

  3. Report: Hillary Knew Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack “Within Minutes”

  4. CNN Bombshell: Dozens of CIA Agents at Benghazi, Massive Coverup

  5. Whistle Blower: Benghazi Could Have Been Defended

  6. Obama Forced 5 Benghazi Survivors to Sign “Nondisclosure” Agreements

  7. Whistleblower: Terrorists Stole 400 Missiles in Benghazi

  8. Former Judge: Obama Attacking Syria Would Be Unconstitutional

  9. Hillary Screamed at Congressman for Saying “Terrorists” Attacked Benghazi

  10. Obama Wants to Free the Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood

  11. Obama Just Promoted Official Who Lied About Benghazi

  12. Hillary Ordered Benghazi Security Reduced Before Attack

  13. General Admits: We Knew Benghazi “YouTube” Story Wasn’t True

  14. Obama Celebrates Islamic Holiday by Dumping $195 Million on Syrians

  15. Surreal: Hillary Hired Islamic Radical Group to “Defend” Benghazi

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Two Choices: Unconditional Surrender or Default - From your President.

Power Mad Obama Offers Two Choices: Unconditional Surrender Or Default


  • 171
If the Republicans do not give him that, he is willing to plunge us into financial oblivion.
(The Economic Collapse) – Barack Obama is warning that if he does not get everything that he wants that he will force the U.S. government into a devastating debt default which will cripple the entire global economy.  In essence, Obama has become so power mad that he is actually willing to take the entire planet hostage in order to achieve his goals.
A lot of people are blaming the government shutdown on the Republicans, but they have already voted to fund the entire government except for Obamacare.  The U.S. Constitution requires that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and the House did their duty by passing a spending bill.  If the Senate or the President do not like the bill that the House has passed, then negotiations need to take place.  That is how our system works.  And the weak-kneed Republicans have already indicated that they are willing to give up virtually all of their prior demands.
In fact, if Obama offered all of them 20 dollar gift certificates to Denny’s to end this crisis they would probably jump at that deal.  But that is not good enough for Obama.  He has made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than the complete and unconditional surrender of the Republican Party.
Why is Obama doing this?  Why is Obama willing to bring the country to the brink of financial disaster? It isn’t hard to figure out.  Just check out what one senior Obama administration official said last week…
“We are winning…. It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result,” a senior Obama Administration official told the Wall Street Journal last week.
This is all about a political victory and crushing the Republicans.  Obama doesn’t really care how long this crisis lasts because he believes that he is getting the end result that he wants. According to Obama, the Republican Party is just supposed to roll over and give him the exact spending bill that he wants and also give him another trillion dollar increase in the debt limit.
If the Republicans do not give him that, he is willing to plunge us into financial oblivion.
The funny thing is that most Americans do not want the debt limit increased.  According to one new poll, 58 percent of all Americans do not even want the debt ceiling to be increased by a single penny.
And recent polls show that Americans are against Obamacare by an average margin of about 10 percent.
But the pathetic Republican Party is actually willing to hand Obama a trillion dollar debt ceiling increase and fully fund Obamacare if Obama will at least give them something.
Unfortunately, Obama won’t even give them the time of day.
So don’t blame the Republicans for what is happening.  The Republicans have already compromised themselves to the point of utter disgrace.  If Obama had been willing to even compromise a couple of inches this entire crisis would already be over.
And nobody should be claiming that the Republicans won’t vote to end this shutdown.  They have already voted to end it.  The following is from a recent article by Thomas Sowell…
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
Once again, the Republicans have already indicated that they are willing to fund Obamacare.  They just want Obama to throw them a bone.
And Obama will not do it.
So either the Republicans are going to cave in completely (a very real possibility) or we are going to pass the “debt ceiling deadline”.
What happens then?
Well, we would have more of a “real government shutdown” than the fake shutdown that we are having right now.
Once the federal government cannot borrow any more money, it will only be able to spend what it actually has on hand.  That means that a lot more government functions will have to shut down.
Money will still be coming in to the government, but it won’t be enough to fund everything.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the federal government will still have enough money to pay interest on the debt, make Social Security payments, make Medicare payments, make Medicaid payments, provide food stamp benefits and pay the military if they cut almost everything else out.
The other day, I suggested that the federal government could potentially start defaulting on interest payments on the debt as early as November.  But that would only happen if the federal government manages their money foolishly.
If the federal government managed their money smartly and saved cash for the interest payments as they came due, they would not have to miss any.
But when was the last time the federal government ever did anything “smartly”?
For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that the federal government can manage money wisely and can save up enough cash ahead of time for large interest payments as they come due.
If that could somehow be managed, then according to Paul Mampilly the government would never need to actually default…
The U.S. Treasury always has money coming into its accounts. So its always got some amount of cash that it can use to pay interest on bonds. That’s especially true right now because the government is partially shutdown and there’s no cash going out from its accounts.
In fact, when you look at it the U.S. Treasury should simply have no trouble making interest payments on bonds that it has issued.
And there’s no restriction on the U.S. Treasury prioritizing interest payments. Why?
The obligation to pay interest is set by the 1917 Second Liberty Bond Act and laws that commanded the Treasury to pay interest on the debt. You can look this up in section 3123 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code and section 4 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and in Supreme Court precedent (Perry v. United States). It’s all there in black and white.
So the only possible way the U.S. defaults on its debt is if Barack Obama, President of the United States, instructs his Treasury secretary Jack Lew to default on the debt.
And according to the Washington Post, Moody’s has just issued a memo that also indicates that the federal government should be able to make all interest payments even if the debt limit is not increased…
In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.
Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.
“We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.”
Of course the federal government would have to stop throwing money around like a drunk gambler at a casino in Las Vegas in order for this to work.
On the very first day of the government shutdown, the feds gave $445 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Apparently Elmo is considered to be “essential personnel” by the Obama administration.
And according to CNS News, the U.S. Army has committed more than $47,000 to buy a mechanical bull during this “shutdown”…
The government shutdown may be keeping furloughed federal workers at home, but on Monday the U.S. Army contracted to buy a mechanical bull.
The $47,174 contract was awarded on Oct. 7 to Mechanical Bull Sales Inc. of State College, Penn.
So needless to say, there is some serious doubt about whether the federal government would be able to manage their money effectively in the event that the debt ceiling deadline passes.
And if the U.S. did start defaulting on debt payments, it would be absolutely disastrous for the global economy as I discussed in a previous article…
“A U.S. debt default would cause stocks to crash, would cause bonds to crash, would cause interest rates to soar wildly out of control, would cause a massive credit crunch, and would cause a derivatives panic that would be absolutely unprecedented.  And that would just be for starters.”
Other nations that we depend upon to lend us money would stop lending to us and would start dumping U.S. debt instead.
Could you imagine what would happen if China started dumping a large portion of the 1.3 trillion dollars in U.S. debt that they are holding?
It would be a total nightmare.  The collapse of Lehman Brothers would pale in comparison.
And already some banks are stuffing their ATM machines with extra cash just in case the general public starts to panic.
But none of this has to happen.
If Obama decides to negotiate with the Republicans, this crisis will likely end very rapidly.
If not, and we pass the “debt ceiling deadline”, the federal government will still have enough money to make interest payments on the debt as long as they manage their money correctly.
Unfortunately, Obama seems far more interested in playing political games than he is in solving our problems.
In fact, Park Service rangers have been ordered to “make life as difficult for people as we can” during this government shutdown.  Obama has apparently decided to punish the American people in order to get leverage on the Republicans.  Just check out the following example from a new Weekly Standard article…
There’s a cute little historic site just outside of the capital in McLean, Virginia, called the Claude Moore Colonial Farm. They do historical reenactments, and once upon a time the National Park Service helped run the place. But in 1980, the NPS cut the farm out of its budget. A group of private citizens set up an endowment to take care of the farm’s expenses. Ever since, the site has operated independently through a combination of private donations and volunteer workers.
The Park Service told Claude Moore Colonial Farm to shut down.
The farm’s administrators appealed this directive​—​they explained that the Park Service doesn’t actually do anything for the historic site. The folks at the NPS were unmoved. And so, last week, the National Park Service found the scratch to send officers to the park to forcibly remove both volunteer workers and visitors.
Think about that for a minute. The Park Service, which is supposed to serve the public by administering parks, is now in the business of forcing parks they don’t administer to close. As Homer Simpson famously asked, did we lose a war?
The hypocrisy that Obama has demonstrated during this “government shutdown” has been astounding.
He has barricaded open air war memorials to keep military veterans from visiting them, but he temporarily reopened the National Mall so that a huge pro-immigration rally that would benefit him politically could be held.
He has continued to fund al-Qaeda rebels in Syria that are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, but he has been withholding death benefits from families of fallen U.S. soldiers.
The conduct of the Obama administration during this shutdown has been so egregious that is hard to put into words.  Obama has chosen to purposely harm the American people in order to score political points.
But this is how our politicians view us these days.  As Monty Pelerin recently explained, most of our politicians have absolutely no problem with exploiting us for their own purposes…
The concept of political service has been replaced by that of masked exploitation. The public is no longer viewed as clients or constituents to be served. Instead they have become political prey. Politicians see the public as a collection of wallets and votes, fair game to be hunted as the means to expand power and wealth. Constituents are now the Soylent Green of the political food chain.
The political class assumes the public exists to serve them, not the other way around. Public participation beyond the lightening of wallets or the provision of votes is unwelcome. It is considered “interference” that must be deterred by the ruling class.
The political class is now a huge, voracious parasite. Like the plant in the Little Shop of Horrors, its needs have grown to the point where it threatens anything productive. Its needs now exceed the willingness for continued sacrifice on the part of the productive. The parasite threatens the very existence of the host.
The political Ponzi scheme of tax, borrow and spend has reached its limit. Either it will die when citizens turn on it or it will kill the productive, ensuring its own destruction.
It perishes in the end. Whether it takes civilization with it is the bigger question.
Is there anyone out there that still does not believe that our system is broken?
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and power mad Obama will decide to toss the Republicans a few crumbs and this crisis will be resolved.
Because if this crisis is not resolved soon, it could have consequences that are far beyond what any of us could possibly imagine.
Enhanced by Zemanta