Saturday, 09 January 2010

GLOBAL RESORTS NETWORK

Ken Berwitz

Now that we are in high season, I thought I would mention that I am an affiliate of Global Resorts Network, which offers genuinely first-rate vacation sites around the country, and the world, for prices dramatically lower than what you will find at Travelocity, Expedia, Orbitz, hotels.com, Priceline, etc.

(Yes, this is a shameless advertisement, but one I think you'll wind up thanking me for!)

After searching the internet for almost a year, and rejecting dozens upon dozens of get-rich-quick scams -- you know, the "buy my book for $39.95 and become a millionaire by Tuesday" kind of garbage - I found GRN to be the one and only online business I'm proud to put my name to.  It is a real company (20 years in business) with a real product that gives remarkable value - as well as a chance to earn a serious amount of home-based income.

The premise of Global Resorts Network is that, instead of buying a time share - which costs a lot of money, an annual maintenance charge, and locks you into a specific week of the year - you buy access to thousands of time shares that you can pick and choose from at will, all at far lower prices.

With GRN, you pay a one-time fee of $3,000.  Then you can book time shares (and luxury hotels) pretty much anywhere you'd like, at any time of the year, as many times in a year as you care to, and save a ton of money whenever you do. 

Plus, that $3,000 also makes you a GRN affiliate, just like I am, who is able to sell memberships and make money every time someone joins under your name.

If this interests you, please go to www.globalresortsnetwork.com/kenberwitz and see for yourself.  When you get there, click on "Browse the Global Resorts Registry.  The login is RESORTS and the password is LOOKFOR. 

Just look at the properties available through GRN, see where they are, how desirable they are, and you'll understand what an extraordinary program this really is. 

Then,I strongly suspect, you'll be as enthusiastic about it as I am.

Enjoy!


"20 MORE IN TRAINING"

Ken Berwitz

Question:  What do you do with a terrorist who, during initial interrogations, tells you he knows of 20 other terrorists waiting in the wings who intend to harm your country?

Answer: You put him into the civil court system rather than a military tribunal and have the taxpayers foot the bill for his lawyer, which enables him to shut up and not give you any more information.

Huh? What?  No, that can't be.  It doesn't make any sense at all.  Right?

Well, before you come to that conclusion, I suggest you read this, from Agence France Presse:

Christmas terror suspect says '20 more in training'

Last Updated: 7:08 AM, January 9, 2010

A young Nigerian charged with trying to blow up a US airliner boasted during his interrogation that some 20 others were being trained to carry out similar attacks, CBS reported on Friday.

British intelligence officials said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, had "boasted that close to 20 other young Muslim men were being prepared in Yemen to use the same technique to blow up airliners," AFP reported from a CBS report.

Abdulmutallab earlier pleaded not guilty to six charges arising out of the botched Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit.

He allegedly stitched two highly explosive substances into his clothes, and tried to detonate them as the plane carrying 290 people approached Detroit.

But the device failed, and instead Abdulmutallab was arrested after being overpowered by passengers and crew.

He has since been interrogated by FBI and US agents who are leading the investigation. US officials have said he is providing useful leads.

Let's understand that, by putting abdulmutallab into the civil court system, whatever he knows about these terrorists-to-be, including who they are, where they are being trained, who is training them and what specific flights from what countries they are hoping to blow up can now be withheld.  Any lawyer's first advice to this kind of "client" obviously would be to shut up and give no more information.

Why is this "man" not being put in front of a military tribunal?  He is not a US citizen.  He did not start his terror act from US soil.  And he is clearly, by his own boastful admission, an enemy combatant. 

The answer, in two words (names, actually) is eric holder.  Our disgraceful friend-to-terrorists-and-thugs who currently runs the Department of Justice.

Of all the appointments President Obama has made (and some have been appalling), eric holder is the single worst - because he is in charge of DOJ. 

I have written that holder is the most dangerous man in the United States.  Putting umar farouk abdulmutallab into the civil court system - after putting khalid sheikh mohammed of 9/11 "fame" into it last year - is proof of it.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: WAIT AND HURRY UP

Ken Berwitz

You can't say the Obama administration isn't interesting to watch.

In August, the commanding general of our forces in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, told us he needed 40,000 more troops.  He said that without this significant surge in troop strength we stood a very good chance of losing the war.

For the next three months, President Obama dithered, and dawdled without making any decision on what to do, while his mouthpiece, "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs, mumbled and grumbled and stumbled in trying to explain why.

Finally, those several months later, President Obama decided on a plan -- which he then held up announcing for almost another week, because he wanted to do it on national television and that is when they allotted the air time.  So we waited some more.

Mr. Obama made his speech and, after all this time, gave General McChrystal 30,000 troops to work with, not the 40,000 he wanted.  McChrystal gulped hard (I would think) and said ok, that would do fine.  It is hard to think that he really felt that way, since he asked for so many more troops, but  I suppose that is the definition of being a good soldier. 

Personally I somewhat expected Gen. McChrystal to resign during the three month dithering/dawdling period.  The fact that he did not do so was a pretty good indication that he was willing to accept whatever came his way.

So now how does the Obama administration feel about the way things are going?  Read this excerpt from an article in today's New York Times and see:

White House Aides Said to Chafe at Slow Pace of Afghan Surge

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and HELENE COOPER

Published: January 8, 2010

 

WASHINGTON Senior White House advisers are frustrated by what they say is the Pentagons slow pace in deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and its inability to live up to an initial promise to have all of the forces in the country by next summer, senior administration officials said Friday.

 

A rapid deployment is central to President Obamas strategy, to have a jolt of American forces pound the Taliban enough for Afghan security forces to take over the fight. Administration officials said that part of the White House frustration stemmed from the view that the longer the American military presence in Afghanistan continued, the more of a political liability it would become for Mr. Obama. But beyond the politics, the speeded up deployment which Mr. Obama paired with a promise to begin troop withdrawals by July 2011 is part of Mr. Obamas so-called bell curve Afghanistan strategy, whereby American troops would increase their force in Afghanistan and step up attacks meant to quickly take out insurgents.

 

One administration official said that the White House believed that top Pentagon and military officials misled them by promising to deploy the 30,000 additional troops by the summer. General McChrystal and some of his top aides have privately expressed anger at that accusation, saying that they are being held responsible for a pace of deployments they never thought was realistic, the official said.

 

On a visit to Afghanistan last month, Admiral Mullen pressed military logisticians on how they would be able to meet the schedule. But even Admiral Mullen, who said he was reasonably confident that the logistics would work out, acknowledged the tall order before the military, saying, I want a plan B because life doesnt always work out.

 

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Friday that the military was moving as rapidly as it could and that reports of tension with the White House amounted to a fabricated and contrived controversy. Mr. Morrell said that the preponderance of the forces will be there by the middle of the summer and we are moving heaven and earth to get all of them there by the end of the summer. He added that the Pentagon anticipated that 92 percent of them will be there by the end of August and we hope to even improve upon that.

 

But military officials acknowledged that they were taken aback by the presidents initial insistence that the troops be in place within six months. Last fall, military officials repeatedly said that it would take as long as a year to 18 months for all the troops to be in place.

 So what we have here is a President who waited over a quarter of a year to send the troops, now demanding that they be implemented far faster than is feasible. 

Why?  Because "a rapid deployment is central to President Obama's strategy...".

That's right:  President Obama, who held the troop surge up for all that time is now telling us that rapid deployment is an imperative and can't happen fast enough. 

Will Barack Obama please introduce himself to Barack Obama?  There appear to be two of him.  And, evidently, the two have not met.


A DAILY KOS FOR ALARM

Ken Berwitz

As leftward web sites go, www.dailykos.com is pretty much the king.  I believe it gets more traffic than any other, and has for some time now.

Daily kos does polling, using the company Research 2000 -- which I will assume to be a legitimate, credible outfit. 

One of the questions being tracked over time is "Would you like to see more Democrats or Republicans elected to congress in 2010?"

Let me show you how responses have moved in the past half year:

 

 

 

 

 

Democrats

Republicans

Unsure

 

%

%

%

1/4-7/10

39

36

25


12/27-31/09

38

35

27

12/20-24/09

37

34

29

12/14-17/09

36

34

30

12/7-10/09

37

33

30

11/30 - 12/3/09

36

32

32

11/22-25/09

37

32

31

11/16-19/09

37

31

32

11/9-12/09

36

30

34

11/2-5/09

35

30

35

10/26-29/09

36

28

36

10/19-22/09

37

28

35

10/12-15/09

35

29

36

10/5-8/09

34

28

38

9/28 - 10/1/09

35

29

36

9/21-24/09

33

27

40

9/14-17/09

34

28

38

9/7-10/09

33

28

39

8/31 - 9/3/09

32

29

39

8/24-27/09

34

28

38

8/17-20/09

35

29

36

8/10-13/09

36

28

36

8/3-6/09

37

29

34

7/27-30/09

39

29

32

7/20-23/09

40

29

31

7/13-16/09

42

28

30

7/6-9/09

41

28

31

6/29 - 7/2/09

42

29

29

6/22-25/09

43

29

28

6/15-18/09

44

30

26

6/8-11/09

43

28

29

5/31 - 6/4/09

41

27

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a bit of an eye-opener, wouldn't you say?

If you believe these data, in one half year Democrats have gone from a 14% advantage in generic preference over Republicans, to just 3%.  And let's remember again that the data are being provided by www.dailykos.com, which ain't exactly a charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

I doubt that Marcos Moulitsas Zuniga, the man behind the curtain at dailykos, is happy to see this trend.  But, to his credit, he is showing the results anyway.

Since this study is being conducted every week, let's continue to monitor it and see how things move, as well as comparing the data to generic congressional polling from other sources.

Sounds like fun......

Zeke to repeat: ... ... ... Stalin said: "It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes". ... ... and, it looks like Al Franken's 'victory' was only the test run of the forthcoming elections ... ... ... americanthinker-dot-com/2010/01/understanding_the_democrats_sc.html ... ... (01/09/10)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!