My computer guru, Paul LaFlamme, has arranged for my booklet to be available in hard copy format in several weeks @$10.99. It is currently available in PDF format @ $5.99 (see below.)
Testimonials:
Dick, I read your book this weekend. I hardly know where to start. You did an excellent job of putting into one short book a compendium of the virtues which only a relatively short time ago all Americans believed. It’s a measure of how far we have fallen that many Americans, perhaps a majority of Americans, no longer believe in what we once considered truisms. I think your father would have agreed with every word, but the party he supported no longer has such beliefs.
I would like to buy multiple copies of your booklet..
You did a great job. I know your parents would have been proud and that your family today is proud.
Mike
You wrote a great book. The brevity is one of its strong points and I know it was hard to include that in and still keep it brief. Your father in haste once wrote an overly long letter to our client, then said in the last sentence, “I’m sorry I wrote such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a short one.”
"Dick, I indeed marvel at how much wisdom you have been able to share with so few words. Not too unlike the experience in reading the Bible. I feel that with each read of "A Conservative Capitalist Offers:…." one will gain additional knowledge and new insights…
Regards, Larry"
"A Conservative Capitalist Offers: Eleven Lessons and a Bonus Lesson for Raising America's Youth Born and Yet To Be Born"
By Dick Berkowitz - Non Expert
I wrote this booklet because I believe a strong country must rest on a solid family unit.Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "A Confused, Dependent and Compromised Generation."
I hope this booklet will provide a guide to alter this trend.
Please Buy My Booklet - Half The Proceeds Go To "The Wounded Warrior Project!"
You can now order a .pdf version from www.brokerberko.com/book that you can download and read on your computer, or even print out if you want.
Cost $5.99!
---
There is a concerted effort to retain the Jewish vote by Obamaites! There is an equally growing effort to loosen Obama and the Democrat's grip on that same vote. This is particularly so in two key swing states.
It is obvious from the above, Obama and his wife are trying their best to continue their appeal to the slavish vote among Jewish liberals!
Noonan continues to offer Romney advice. (See 1 below.)
More commentary on the debate. (See 1a, 1b and 1c below.)
--
Iranian photographer's defection reveals a treasure trove of evidence. (See 2 below.)
---
Previously reported possible deal with Iran now reported to have been rejected. (See 3 below.)
---
Daniel Pipes to speak at JEA, October 10, at 7:30PM.
---
It is pretty evident Obama blew the first debate. His performance came as a shock to many media and press folk because they believe what each other regurgitates. They have been protecting Obama from the git go. Has this served him and the nation well? Probably not, because when Obama was under attack he faded, he came across as limp spaghetti. He revealed himself to be what he always has been and Eastwood had it right - a lazy empty suit sitting in an empty chair.
Yes, Obama was a loser but the biggest loser was the media and press and this is not the first time. No wonder they have sunk so low in public esteem and are no longer considered trustworthy.
This is not healthy, however, because the 'fourth estate' is critical to the survival of our Republic. A free unbiased press, capable of objective investigative reporting, is essential and they not only do themselves a disservice by their bias but the nation and our very freedom as well.
The sad part is, I doubt they can change soon enough to do themselves any good as well as America.
Eventually they will modify because free market revenue declines will dictate such.
---
Michael Berry a bit over the top but his angst is really worth listening to .Certainly the NAACP has every right to exist but Berry is right on in attacking it for what it has become, what it perpetuates and how it under serves the very people it professes to want to help.
This is what someone like Meg Heap, the most qualified candidate for District Attorney in Chatham County, is up against. The current dysfunction of the office hurts blacks because of the black on black crime yet, most blacks will vote for the current D.A. not because he has done a good job, not because he has been effective but simply because he is black.
Our black mayor just fired a black woman who was City Manager because of incompetence. She was selected because she was black and never should have been given the opportunity to serve. She is being replaced, for the time being, by her second in command, another black women.
Until we get back to competency being the criteria, getting the best to serve we are fooling ourselves, we are lowering our standards and we are continuing to shoot ourselves in the feet!
I am Jewish. Jews were discriminated against. What did we do? We strove to become better, to do better and, eventually, could not be ignored. At the same time America began to recognize the immorality of blatant prejudice and its cost.That is the greatness of our nation.
Do we want four more years of Obama's b--- s--- or do we want four, and maybe eight years, of problem solving? That's what it is all about and we had better wake up and smell the roses. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Noonan: Romney Deflates the President
The first debate was a surprise. Now the challenger has to prepare for more surprises
Out on a limb, where the breeze is best:
The impact of the first debate is going to be bigger than we know. It's going to affect thinking more than we know, and it's going to start showing up in the polls, including in the battlegrounds, more dramatically than we guess.
It wasn't just Mitt Romney's strong performance. It was President Obama's amazingly weak one. He's never been punctured before. But by debate's end Wednesday night, if you opened the window this is what you could hear: Ssssssss. The soft hiss of air departing from a balloon.
And—amazingly again—he did it to himself. He didn't fight, he didn't show, he wasn't awake and hungry. He just said the same-old-same-old and let it go. He couldn't even meet Mr. Romney's gaze, never mind his arguments.
Is all this dispositive? Has it changed everything? No.
Balloons can get patched. Opportunities can be squandered. Luck can turn.
But this whole race is on the move again, it's in play again, and it's going to get fun.
But it's going to get hot, too. And probably dirty
America got its first, sustained look at the good and competent Mr. Romney. And it really was a first. He wasted his convention but showed up for his debate, and an estimated 58 million people were watching. Many of them were taking his measure for the first time. What did they see? He was confident, gracious, in command of the facts. He looked like a president, acted like one. He was easily the incumbent's equal and maybe more than that, so he became for the first time a real alternative to the incumbent, a living one, not just a name on a ballot.
He has been painted as Richie Rich, a too-tightly-wound reject from the Republican Animatronic Presidential Candidate Factory. But again, that's not who he was. He was a normal, smart adult, and he knew things both about America and about public policy. He's supposed to be extreme, but he was not in the least extreme. He spent his time talking not just to Republicans or conservatives but to the American people, a huge and varied lot. He reminded many of them of something they'd perhaps forgotten along the way: We don't like the Obama economy! We don't like ObamaCare! We don't like not having jobs! Nothing personal, but this didn't work!
Forced by time constraints to be clear and concise in his statements, he was both. Here we must stop and note: The way Mr. Romney spoke in the debate was the real Romney. The faux-flowery "prairie fire of debt" one we hear on the stump is the not-real Romney. He flowers himself up on the stump because he thinks it makes him sound better. It doesn't. The real Romney is the one who can communicate. He's straight and direct and not fancy, forgivably jargony, but worried about America and sincere. That's the Romney who showed up for the debate. Stay that guy!
All the books being written about the 2012 race will tell us the background and circumstances of Mr. Obama's surprising and deeply unimpressive performance. For now what can be said is this is how journalists described it in real time: passive, listless, effete, detached, flaccid, dull-brained, disengaged, professorial. The last is unjust. Professors are often interesting. When Mr. Romney gave him the sweet-faced "You're a cute little shrimp" look, and he gave it to him all night, Mr. Obama couldn't even look at him. When Mr. Obama stared down and nodded at his notes it looked, as someone observed in an email, like his impersonation of a bored wife. Everything he said—everything—was something you'd heard too many times. Mr. Romney gave the president some openings. The president didn't take them. Why? It crossed my mind he was playing possum. But possums wake up at some point.
Mr. Obama's likability numbers are about to go down. It's going to be a reverse Sally Field: You don't like me, you really don't like me.
Jim Lehrer has been criticized as an inadequate moderator. He was old-school and a pro. He didn't think it was about him. How quaint. He asked questions, allowed a certain amount of leeway to both candidates, which allowed each to reveal himself, and kept things moving. Most of the criticism seems to have come from those who hoped Mr. Obama would emerge triumphant. Mr. Lehrer should not take it personally. Every shot at him was actually a warning shot aimed at the next moderator, Martha Raddatz. She's being told certain outcomes are desirable.
***
The next Obama-Romney debate will be different. The same Obama will not show up. He's been embarrassed. He'll bring his LeBron. He'll be tough, competitive, and he'll go at Mr. Romney professionally and personally: "We know you love cars, you've even got an elevator for them!" This is where Sen. Rob Portman, in future debate prep, has to go. He has to play a newly energized and focused Chicago pol. But then he knows that.
Advice to the Romney campaign:
1. There's no way to know if the debate changed everything but for the next few weeks Pretend it has. Underscore the gain in stature your candidate now enjoys. Makes things new, dress it up
2. Everyone at podiums. Stop with the rambling man with the cordless mic on the empty stage. Forget the bales of hay and the tired local GOP activists in the background. Keep the candidate looking like a president. Weeks ago you threw together a stage with a podium, flags and deep blue curtains. It was for Mr. Romney's Libya statement, which flopped. But the setting was good. Get it back.
3. Everyone in suits and ties. Enough with the high-thread-count, open-collar shirts with the sleeves rolled up. The presidency is not a TED conference. Especially for Paul Ryan. You know what we like to see in a 42-year-old man who wants to change a 45-year-old program? Grown-up clothes.
4. Maintain the rhetorical tone and tenor of the debate—sharp but respectful—Debate Romney, not Prairie Fire Romney.
5. Watch out for Big Bird. Putting the merits and realities of overall PBS funding aside, Mr Romney here gave a small gift to the incumbent. Democrats will merrily exploit it. Big Birds will start showing up outside Romney rallies, holding up signs saying "Don't Kill Me!" Think this through.
6. As things tighten up, they will probably get dirty. It is a matter of conviction in both parties that the other side is more ruthless and brutal in its use of underhanded tactics. Both campaigns have probably been sitting on potentially damaging opposition research. Why? Because they don't want to win that way. Political operatives say they hate oppo because they hate to lower the tone of the national discourse. The truth is, oppo is bad for business. The press goes into full Lascivious Puritan mode, spreads the dirt and then tries to nail the provider. When everyone knows a strategist won dirty, he becomes controversial, future clients shy away, and the mortgage on the house in Umbria goes unpaid. But losing is even worse for business.
Chicago won't go quietly. Be ready for trouble and able of rapid response.
1a)Do We Want Mr. Nice Guy as President?
By Selwyn Duke
Watching the debate on Wednesday, I truly can't imagine Barack Obama having come off as the more likeable candidate. Continuously glancing downwards, perhaps looking for inspiration (I glance upwards, myself), and often displaying an angry countenance, he seemed stiff, detached, and petulant. In contrast, Mitt Romney appeared energetic, nimble-minded, affable, engaged, and engaging. It was the Mind vs. the Unkind.
Nonetheless, the left is still pushing the narrative of Mitt the Mean. CNN disseminated a poll showing that only 46 percent of debate viewers thought Romney was likeable (of course, we have to consider the source), and the Democrat National Committee just cooked up an ad -- showing Romney interrupting moderator Jim Lehrer -- whose thrust is that the governor was pushy and bullying. Let's understand, however, that as it was, Romney was given four fewer minutes to speak; if he'd been a "nicer" guy, it would have been ten. This brings me to my point.
Years ago, a reader e-mailed me regarding a piece I wrote on Obama's predecessor and called him "George the Nice." It was not a compliment. The idea was that President Bush often seemed more interested in getting along than getting things right. And whether you agree with this assessment or not isn't the issue. It is, rather, as I recently asked, what's "like" got to do with it?
Oh, I understand that "likeability" influences voters. This and the fact that polls have shown it to be Obama's strong suit with the electorate is, of course, why the left wants to perpetuate its Mean Mitt myth. And while I find Obama as likeable as poison ivy in private areas, let's for argument's sake assume that he truly is the more likeable candidate. Is this meaningful in a leader? Could it even be a warning sign?
This point can be illustrated with a tale of two men, both colleagues of mine at a former place of employment. One was a charming fellow who specialized in the schmooze; the other was a curmudgeonly, stone-faced, and sometimes gruff WWII veteran. Now, it's obvious who was more likeable, and I cottoned to the charmer myself. If you got to know them, however, you learned that Mr. Charm was a Machiavellian operator with a Clintonesque attitude toward truth, while the veteran was a trustworthy, upstanding straight talker.
Knowing this, how could I like the charmer? Well, what we like is determined by emotion or taste, which generally has little acquaintance with reason. A person may like tobacco more than vegetables or chocolate more than exercise, but few would call them wiser choices. In the same vein, I never would have chosen the charmer if he had been running for office against the curmudgeon. For this is where we must lead with our heads, not our hearts -- where we must resist the urge to kowtow to our likes and not eat, smoke, or vote ourselves to death.
In fact, it's usually unwise to choose anyone based solely on likeability, as there's little correlation between extreme likeability and virtue and competence (and some virtue, such as conscientiousness, is necessary for competence). One reason for this is that since all three qualities are relatively rare, they aren't often possessed by the same person. As an example, I know a soft-spoken, affable fellow whom most anyone would call a nice guy, but he couldn't figure out whether the kind of infanticide prohibited by BAIPA legislation is okay or not. As for competence, if you were out to choose a general based on likeability, would you pick George Patton? And if you wanted to choose a computer developer on likeability, Steve Jobs wouldn't be your man. So is it wise to choose a president based on likeability? If a man can't even stand up to an ossified debate moderator, how will he fare locking horns with the Russians or Chinese? In fact, we could use a variation on a famous saying here and wonder if the road to Hell isn't paved by nice guys.
More ominously, likeability can actually be a red flag. Why? Because projecting it is the specialty of the con man. He will tell you exactly what you want to hear; the good person tells you what you need to hear. The con man will peddle seductive little lies to appear charming -- at least until he doesn't need you anymore.
Of course, a good person's likeability is also situational, but for a different reason. You may generally be likeable, but will you seem so violently wielding a sword on a battlefield? Similarly, fighting on the moral/cultural battlefield can be messy business; thus, if you're ever and always likeable amidst this fray, you're doing it wrong. Just consider Ronald Reagan, a man so affable he won even the hearts of many '80s Democrats. How likeable did he seem at the 1980 Nashua, New Hampshire primary debate when he angrily shouted, "I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Green"? He was playing hardball, not Mr. Nice Guy, but it was a defining moment that evoked cheers and helped pave his way to the presidency.
So what's "like" got to do with it? It should be no more relevant to choosing a president than to choosing runners for the Olympic team. Unfortunately, though, man's nature won't change; just as we elevate intellectuals over wise men, many will continue to choose likeability over virtue. It's why our government and culture become less likeable all the time.
1b)A Disengaged President
By Matthew Holzmann
There has been a strange turn of events in the last few weeks as we have learned more about the political and personal isolation the president has created for himself. In Bob Woodward's latest book, The Price of Politics, Woodward describes a president antagonistic to his opponents to a toxic degree, one who has distanced himself even from his own party leadership. Woodward describes a "monumental communications gap" between the president and House Majority Leader John Boehner at the critical moment in the 2010 budget negotiations.
Last week, the New York Times ran an article regarding the president's response to the Arab Spring in which he is described as having distanced himself from Arab and Middle Eastern rulers and leaders, engaging them through intermediaries and with minimal direct contact. This is especially strange in view of his attempt to engage the Islamic world when he spoke at Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2009.
That he did not consult with any of those leaders prior to pulling the rug out from under Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011 sent our relations to the Gulf states into the freezer.
We were told early on in the Obama administration that the president had surrounded himself with a highly loyal cadre and at the same time we have seen an unprecedented number of czars reporting directly to the president and subverting the normal communications channels.
His complete disengagement with the opposition in Congress is also an established fact. But when you are not talking to your own people -- that becomes a real problem. This includes his various and sundry cabinet members and advisers as well. Obama's truancy at national security meetings is legendary.
Wednesday night, in the first debate, we once again saw a disengaged president. He was ill-prepared, disjointed, and quite obviously off his game. Prior to the debate, the party spinners were out in force reducing expectations, but it is generally agreed that the first debate was a disaster for the president.
The president is more comfortable, it seems, campaigning and schmoozing. Neither requires real engagement, and speaking to worshipful audiences roaring their approval is a great salve to the ego.
The country has at different times had a number of presidents who have for reasons of health been unable to completely fulfill their obligations. Woodrow Wilson after his stroke and Ronald Reagan in the latter half of his second term come to mind. At a critical time in his administration, Wilson was unable to campaign for his greatest program, the League of Nations, or for a less onerous treaty with Germany after World War I.
But President Obama is a man in the full flower of life, at an age when his achievements could have been herculean. Instead, as Mr. Romney pointed out during the debate, he placed all of his prestige and wasted his political capital on a highly unpopular health care bill that stands as one of the most imperfect pieces of legislation in our history.
The one thing a president has is access to the most remarkable set of advisers and data in the history of our planet. And yet with all of these tools at his disposal, Obama has made a conscious decision to be remote and to go it alone.
Mr. Obama himself argued for the Lincolnian "team of rivals" when he formed his own cabinet and yet has done more end-runs around his Cabinet than any of his predecessors.
The presidency is the loneliest job in the world. It all comes down to one man's decision. But to isolate oneself as this president has done is to create an echo chamber where decisions are made in a vacuum. This is a very dangerous thing. Consensus and consent are critical to any major decision, and while the president's party has marched in lockstep, very little has been accomplished because of the polarization that originates at the top.
It's not just about policy. It is also about the ability to do the job effectively, and in this, the president has failed.
Shell-shocked Democrats are still trying to figure out what happened to President Obama last night as he got his clock cleaned by Mitt Romney. Most of the post-mortems seemed to center on his lack of aggressiveness on stage and his failure to raise the sort of personal attacks on Romney that have largely characterized the Democratic campaign. The expectation now is that the next time Obama and Romney face off, the president will be more engaged and perhaps ready to attack the challenger in a way that will please his followers. But the question Democrats should be asking themselves today is not just what was wrong with Obama that caused him to be so lackluster, but whether an attempt to savage Romney in person will be such a smart idea.
While the president did mention some of his familiar class warfare themes, pundits were almost unanimous in expressing their surprise that the phrase “47 percent” never passed through the president’s lips. Liberals were also appalled by his omission of any mention of Romney’s Bain Capital experience or tax returns. But if the only lesson the president learns from his defeat in Denver is that he must double down on personal attacks on his opponent, he may be setting himself up for another drubbing on October 16.
Democrats know that personal attacks on Romney have taken a huge toll on the Republican in recent months. They have had some success depicting him as a heartless plutocrat who cares nothing about ordinary people and who stashes money abroad while not paying taxes at home. Romney’s “47 percent” gaffe hurt him in large measure because it fit right into the portrait Democrats have been painting of him. But the assumption that the president would have done better had he echoed these nasty and quite personal barbs is faulty. Presidents are supposed to be presidential while leaving the business of carving up their opponents to lesser beings like vice presidents. If Obama’s cheering section in the media thinks getting down into the gutter on stage during a presidential debate is what Obama needs to do, they may soon be proved wrong.
The problem with the president last night wasn’t that he wasn’t nasty enough but the arrogance with which he seemed to regard the proceedings. His body language and long-winded lectures betrayed not just a man who didn’t adequately prepare for the format, but also a man who has no respect for his opponent or the ideas he put forward.
Yet the ultimate problem for the president is not so much what he did or didn’t say; it’s that he gave us a glimpse of the man that Republicans have always claimed him to be: the arrogant liberal poseur who looks down his nose at the rest of us. More than all the videos in which Obama uses racial incitement or talks down individual initiative, the real danger is that on the big stage of the first debate, he came across as less likeable. The stuffy, long-winded bore we saw in Denver is not the historic figure that inspired millions with his messianic promises of hope and change.
The shock isn’t so much that Obama lost this first debate but that he did so in a manner that leaves him open to the sort of second-guessing that often leads to different mistakes. Obama looked tired (perhaps Al Gore’s theory about him suffering from the altitude in Denver was correct) and disengaged. That is something he can fix in subsequent debates. He can also listen to advice about looking his opponent in the eye rather than constantly looking down and smirking. But there is a difference between being more focused and aggressive and resorting to personal slurs. If Obama takes the pleas for more savagery too much to heart he will wind up looking nasty and only make Romney look good by comparison.
More to the point, those dissecting Obama’s performance are also ignoring the fact that the president’s bigger problem is that his challenger has turned out to be more formidable than even many Republicans thought him to be. So long as Romney was viewed as merely a gaffe-prone tackling dummy, Obama could get away with not running on his record. But faced with a smart, confident opponent who is prepared to harp on his failings, it was the messiah of 2008 who looked like the empty suit.
The conundrum for Democrats is that the president has very little to say for himself or his record. Shorn of the demonization of the GOP, Obama is left with nothing. While such attacks work well on the campaign trail and in television ads, they are not likely to help in a face-to-face debate. Looking ahead to the next encounter, it won’t be hard for the president to better his Denver performance, but what last night might have exposed is not so much fatigue or overconfidence as it is the emptiness at the core of his re-election campaign.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Defecting Iranian cameraman brings CIA priceless film of secret nuclear sites
One of the CIA’s most dramatic scoops in many years, and epic disaster for Iran. Iranian and intelligence sources disclose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s personal cameraman, Hassan Golkhanban, who defected from his UN entourage in New York on Oct. 1, brought with him an intelligence treasure trove of up-to-date photographs and videos of top Iranian leaders visiting their most sensitive and secret nuclear and missile sites.
The cameraman, who is in his 40s, is staying at an undisclosed address, presumably a CIA safe house under close guard.
He stayed behind when Ahmadinejad, after his UN speech, departed New York with his 140-strong entourage. For some years, Golkhanban worked not just as a news cameraman but personally recorded visits by the Iranian president and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of top-secret nuclear facilities and Revolutionary Guards installations.
When he left Tehran in the president’s party, his luggage was not searched and so he was able to bring out two suitcases packed with precious film and deliver it safely into waiting hands in New York.
The Iranian cameraman has given US intelligence the most complete and updated footage it has ever obtained of the interiors of Iran’s top secret military facilities and various nuclear installations, including some never revealed to nuclear watchdog inspectors. Among them are exclusive interior shots of the Natanz nuclear complex, the Fordo underground enrichment plant, the Parchin military complex and the small Amir-Abad research reactor in Tehran.
Some of the film depicts Revolutionary Guards and military industry chiefs explaining in detail to the president or supreme leader the working of secret equipment on view. Golkhanban recorded their voices.
Sources disclose, in late September, he took the precaution of sending his wife and two children out of Iran on the pretext of a family visit to Turkey. They are most likely on their way to the United States by now.
Sources disclose, in late September, he took the precaution of sending his wife and two children out of Iran on the pretext of a family visit to Turkey. They are most likely on their way to the United States by now.
From his years as a member of the loyal Bassij militia, the cameraman earned the complete trust of Iran’s security services and was able to reach his professional pinnacle as personal photographer for the two most eminent figures in the country, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, with the task of recording their most confidential pursuits.
This was his second visit to New York. The first time, a year ago, US intelligence was able to make contact and persuade him to defect with his stock of priceless photos and film.
Although Golkhanban’s defection to the United States and request for asylum was disclosed to the media some days ago, Tehran has not made any comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
NYT': US rejected Iranian plan to defuse nuclear crisis
Iranian officials offered a “nine-step plan” to defuse the nuclear crisis with the West which was rejected by American officials,The New York Times reported Thursday.
According to the report, the Iranian initiative would gradually suspend the production of uranium that would be easiest for them to convert into a nuclear weapon. The Iranian plan is based on a proposal made to European officials in July.
The report says the plan calls for a step-by-step dismantling of the sanctions while the Iranians end work at one of two sites where they are enriching what is known as “20 percent uranium.” Once the Iranians reach the last step, and the sanctions have been lifted in their entirety, there will be a suspension of the medium-enriched uranium production at the Fordow underground site, according to the initiative.The Times reported that the plan required so many concessions by the West, starting with the dismantling of all the sanctions, that American officials dismissed it as unworkable.
Obama administration officials say the deal is intended to generate headlines, but would not guarantee that Iran cannot produce a weapon, the Times stated.
“The way they have structured it, you can move the fuel around, and it stays inside the country,” the Times quoted a a senior Obama administration official as saying. The official also warned the program could be restarted in a "nanosecond...they don't have to answer any questions from the inspectors."
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held out the possibility that sanctions on Iran could be eased quickly if Tehran worked with major powers to address questions about its nuclear program.
Speaking to reporters about protests in Iran triggered by the collapse of the Iranian currency, which has lost 40 percent of its value against the dollar in a week, Clinton blamed the Iranian government - rather than Western sanctions - for the financial troubles.
"They have made their own government decisions - having nothing to do with the sanctions - that have had an impact on the economic conditions inside of the country," Clinton told reporters when asked about the protests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) held their 103rd annual convention in Houston, Texas in July of 2012. Radio talk show host Michael Berry, based out of Houston, tells the world what he thinks of the NAACP:
http://michaelberry.iheart.com/pages/NAACP.html?feed=460645&article=10256179#.UG46BW2ySHs.email
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment