December 2009

Best Kept Secret for 13 Years

This new announcement the Osama bin Laden tried to assassinate former President Bill Clinton when he was at the APEC meeting in the Phillippines in 1996 is just oh so appropriate…as this week, the troop increasement officially begins with the first 1,000 US Marines heading to Afghanistan with a less than favorable support from the American public.

Sounds like Obama is getting a bit more heat than anticipated and they need to pull out all the tricks they can now to gain support of this insurgency in Afghanistan. No better than to show this ace card!

The event: The terrorists were actually minutes away from success as Clinton’s motorcade was set to go over a bridge in Manila that had explosives on it, when Secret Service got a quick message from intelligence sources saying ‘bridge’ and ‘wedding’ — wedding is the terrorist code word for assassination.  They quickly rerouted. American intelligence sources later found explosive devices under that bridge. It wasn’t Osama bin Laden himself of course, it was one of his affiliates in Al Qaeda acting on his behalf.

Now, Bill Clinton at the time of his presidency chose to keep this assassination attempt quiet. I am sure he had his reasons.

Key Secret Service and Intelligence officials in many agencies knew and seemed to be good to keep this quiet for 13 years.

All of a sudden, it’s worthy to be known.

So what do you think changed everyone’s mind, all of a sudden?

Do you think it’s just because Professor Gromley’s book is set to release? He’s the one who writes about this.

I doubt it.

My theory – Obama needed this edge to remind people of how important it is to spend our taxpayer money to get good ole bin Laden and to stop his globally conglomerative organization.

Obama’s justifications for this insurgency  - or what he calls reasoning – are weak, if at best, and he and his Administration believe this piece of information might relate to more people.

Big chance to take – hoping people will be sucked into this one because they liked Clinton – and now all of a sudden will be okay with our taxpayer dollars funding this almost 9 year ridiculous war.

Gotta hand it to our crafty govy folks – this one’s a goody to pull out of the bag!

For one second, they almost got me even (as I liked Clinton).

An extra umph to this strategy –  this now helps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton justify her support of Obama’s plan even more so.

Afterall, this is her husband, our former US President for 8 years, who outside his sex scandal, did a phenomenal job, and a man who is continuing to make significant contributions globally through his non profit, The Bill Clinton Foundation.

I am sure Hillary knew of this assassination attempt right after it happened, but still, this ‘news flash’ gives her umph in her position today even more so, as to why she stands behinds Obama’s decision.

Keep in mind, Obama’s polling rates dropped a lot since the beginning of December on multiple issues, the war being one.

Indeed, his team needed to think of something quite clever to have these numbers move back up before 2010 rolled in.

Outside those 3 working weeks in December, there wasn’t much time, as the President is on vacation in Hawaii for the holidays, so he wouldn’t be doing much ‘heroic’ presidencing between Christmas and the New Year.

If this works, one would say it’s perfect timing —-and everyone knows timing is everything in politics and war.

Savvy authors and publishers won’t release a book until a certain time when they know a subject matter will be hotter than any other time of the year to increase a higher chance of sales quicker in a shorter amount of time.

The government invented this strategy years ago (as a way to manipulate the American citizens).

Our elected officials and those in our government agencies not only invented this strategy, but over the years, they have perfected it. They are quite slick  - always picking the ‘appropriate times’ to release classified information to the American citizens and/or global world.

Believe me, they don’t just wake up one day and say, “hey, how about we release xx info today to give the media something to write about in case it’s slow for them”.

This ace…this best kept secret for 13 years…well, there is a heck of a lot of political, military and presidential strategy behind this one – and I am sure there is more about this strategy than just this war and Obama’s ratings. More will be revealed in 2010, no doubt.

I surmise numerous interviews with Bill Clinton will be first. Bill obviously knew once this book was released and this precious secret was revealed, that interviews would be requested.

Perhaps there is a bigger Democratic reason why Bill Clinton needs to be in the spotlight more so now than he already is.

Poor Hillary, overshadowed by her husband, yet again.

I am very glad Bill Clinton wasn’t assassinated, but this doesn’t change my opinion at all. No matter what way you color it or state it, I don’t support this AfPak war. So this didn’t work on me. How about you?

0% proof – A Better Plan for our Troops

We are sending more troops to Afghanistan to stop the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network.

In the Fall, Zazi had a planned terrorist attack in NYC on their transportation system on the 8 year anniversary of 9/11.

Today, December 25th, Christmas, a Nigerian with Al Qeada connections boarded a blane headed for Detroit and attempted to set off his bomb that was strapped to his body shortly before landing. He was only partially successful thankfully. The device came from Yemen.

I have blogged about this before, but I hate venting without offering a solution. I have given this more thought and have increased my solution suggestion based upon the events that have unfolded these past few months.

To restate, we can send thousands upon thousands of troops forever to Afghanistan and we will never ‘deter’ or ‘dismantle’ or ’stop’ these terrorists like Obama claims we can.

There is 0% proof sending more troops to this country will make even the slightest dent in this organization or make the US or global world safer from these extremists. When you look at it from these situations, there really is 0% proof.

No one has really challenged Obama (or McChrystal) , on the percentage of proof. They have challenged him on the strategy, on the dollars spent, but not the proof that his belief/wish can realistically happen.

A strategy always sounds good and can make asking authorities loose focus of the proof. A strategy also always sounds great – until someone comes up with a better one. It’s not too late for my better one.

The locations I am reading about that affect me, an advocate for the US Military, both in voice and donations and as an American citizen are: Colorado, NYC, Detroit, Pakistan,Yemen & Africa.

Right here, right now – that’s real. What almost happened a few months ago and almost happened today is my reality. NOT what is happening in a country that is thousands of miles away and one we will never be able to ‘clean up’ to achieve the objective Obama wants.

No where in all of 2009 have I read that Afghanistan is the actual, truest, most  immeninet and serious threat to unarmed civilians in the U.S. Please note the extreme difference I am bringing to the forefront here when I am making my point.

I am not saying an overall threat.  I am saying the threat that all us unarmed civilians care about each and every day – the threat that is very serious and very immeninet. The threats that are taking place in the US. The attacks that are almost happening, more too close for comfort than I prefer these past few months.

We all know that 1000 US Marines leave next week for Afghanistan as the start of the 30,000 troop increasement. And the remainder military surge from US military and our allies troops will be there in the Spring 2010.

So, do you feel any safer today knowing that? Ask someone from NYC. Ask someone from Detroit. Even if not from those cities, ask anyone.

Do you think that what they do over in Afghanistan will really affect the terrorist attacks – that as I mentioned in a previous blog, are already planned and the sleeper cells just waiting for orders?

If you ask me, the taxpayer footing Obama’s wish, I could care less about trying to stop this organization that can never be stopped. I am smart with my money and this is not a wise investment. I am also a realist, and know his mission is lacking 100% proof and is filled with campaign ideology.

What I do care about is the threat of me getting on a plane or the threat of me getting on a subway system, etc.

Where is Obama’s 100% proof that he can protect me today in America, when just these past 4 months, 2 attacks almost happened under his leadership? Why isn’t he spending my tax payer dollars more on Homeland Security than on something he knows, if he looks in the mirror hard enough, can’t be achieved in Afghanistan.

No one’s polled me to ask me how I want my taxpayer dollars spent. That’s not right either, as it’s my money.  So I am stating clearly,  that’s what I want my taxpayer dollars to go to supporting. I would rally behind Obama if he took those military troops and stationed more of them in locations such as Africa or Pakistan, or in the predominant cities of the US in the primary target locations – transportation, infamous buildings, etc. Your average security people who patrol these are just not trained like the military to spot the terrorists. We could use more military presence in these locations.

And it is clear the source of origin is just as powerful in Yemen as it is in Afghanistan. And it is just as powerful in parts of Africa as it is in Afghanistan. Ditto for Pakistan. Yet we are not sending any more troops to these locations than are already there.  Why?

If Obama really wants to make a dent in ‘detering and dismantling and stopping the Taliban’ and Al Qaeda, frankly he needs to do an insurgency in many locations simultaneously as a massive kick in the butt to the terrorists.

Otherwise, we just move the terrorists out of one location and into another country. You attack with more power in Afghanistan, they will just move more over to Pakistan and Yemen and Africa. They travel quick and easy.

And then the cycle repeats itself – they will grow faster in numbers in those locations before in a few years, we decide it’s time to do an insurgency in them too. 10 year war. Wag the dog. Chase the tail. Reactive not proactive. They are always ahead of us. Someone will one day write the book of history on the military in the 21st Century, and it won’t be pretty.

Government decisions really aren’t that hard. You don’t need to be a genius or have a law degree to figure these ‘decisions’ out. Some common sense, logic and maybe some business savviness is all you need – and you would come up with a much more public acceptance, doable, realistic, less costly solution.

You must hit all the places the Taliban and Al Qaeda thrive all at once. It’s the only way to attack efficiently. That is, if Obama really wants to do this – and he isn’t doing it just to look good.

This is simple sports 101 or business 102. A business owner wouldn’t send out a marketing message to only one country if the business was international. The business person would hit all countries so the competition couldn’t get a chance to get ahead. A basketball team wouldn’t block just one player, they would block the whole team.

You can not single out one country to surge in on when the Taliban is massive in numbers in more than one country, and their power is just as efficient and just as powerful in those other countries as it is in the original source country where they were formed out of.

I think my reasoning makes more sense than Obama’s. And I would support this plan and be glad my taxpayer dollars are finally being put to logical and efficient use. So Obama  is more than welcome to take my idea – I am almost begging him to.

0% proof or a better plan of attack?

Senseless lives lost and wasteful money spent, or better use of our taxpayer dollars and a stronger, more strategic way to keep us all safe right now, today on our homeland soils (and maybe even actually make that dent that Obama wants to ‘deter, dismantle and stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists’).

You choose.

There is still time for your voice to be heard, before the 29,000 more are deployed.

Attempted Terrorist Attack on Northwest on Christmas Day

Northwest Airline is really getting slammed this latter part of 2009.

Just last month, you had 2 pilots that overflew their landing destination by hundreds of miles and an hour outside of their landing time because they were on their laptops, even though they had started their descent to land. Schedules on the laptop was more important than the huge plane they were supposed to land.

Today, on Christmas Day 2009, a Nigerian with ties to Al Qaeda ignited an explosive device that consisted of a powdery substance that was in a plastic bag strapped to his body. The flight originated from Amsterdam Netherlands, and was headed to Detroit, Michigan. He did this just about 20 minutes before it landed.

Thursday, he left Lagos, Nigeria on a KLM flight to Amsterdam. Friday, 12/25/09 he left Amsterdam on Flight 253. He previously acquired the explosive device in Yemen and it is now in Quantico, VA  FBI labs for further testing.

This 23 year old Nigerian, has not been 100 % identified yet. Some media news stations say his name is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Rep. Pete King, a ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, says it is Abdul Mudallad. Apparantly, Umar’s name is in the FBI counterterroism files and might have been a name listed as a person not allowed entry into the U.S.

Presuming FBI’s identification is a bit more spot on than a legislators, and it is Umar,  stating that he “might have been” sounds like a stall tactic for the FBI and TSA to figure a great explaination of how this man got passed security not only with his name, but with the substances he had.

There were 278 passengers on board and one of them and a flight attendant jumped the Nigerian to stop him and put the flames out on his body. The plane did an emergency landing at 11:31 am EST.

Thankfully, no one was hurt or killed, outside of the terrorist. I don’t think Americans are prepared to handle another airline terrorist tragedy, let alone handle any more bad news at this point, and on Christmas Day to boot.

This will be interesting to follow to find out how this man got through the screening and how his substance was not picked up either. Obviously the bigger question being – just how good is security in airports globally?

On the topic of security, currently, the U.S. threat level is already ‘high’ or orange. So why aren’t they raising it to even a higher level?

U.S. Homeland Security defines high or orange as “high risk of terrorist attack’. That means it could happen more today than 8 years ago (9/11 attacks) basically. They define ’severe’ or red as “severe risks of terrorist attacks”

Well I don’t know about you, but a man who is tied to Al Qaeda that was able to ignite the device in the plane, caused flames, etc (it just didn’t completely work) with the intent to blow up the plane justifies the word ’severe’  a whole bunch more to me than it ‘it’s possible’.

Who makes these judgement calls? Too much eggnog Homeland Security Napolitano? If she doesn’t call it, Secretary of State Clinton should. Unbelievable!

Keep in mind, it was December 21, 1989 when a Libyan terrorist bomb blew up a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland and everyone on board and many on the ground were killed.

So had this attack today been successful, we would be looking at a very close repeat of a transnational flight being bombed around/on Christmas, with yet another origin/source from Africa,  20 years later. History repeats itself.

If this does not raise the threat level, then what does? An actual successful terrorist attack?

The purpose of threat levels is to make us extra aware. It states reality. Reality happened to day. It shouldn’t take the act of a successful attack to make this level rise!  By then it’s pointless, because the world will already be too scared to get on a plane for some time, yet again.

I think ’severe’ or red is more appropriate… but wait, that probably means Obama’s ratings will go down —well then, no more needs to be said.

Not a very Merry Christmas for the CEO of Delta. Something about Northwest flights and landing doesn’t seem to be going quite smooth these days. Wonder if he is second guessing this Northwest merger.

I know I won’t be boarding one of their flights for a while.

I think many will be counting their blessings this Christmas Day 2009.

Happy Holidays!

Wishing everyone a festive holiday season and a magnificent New Year!

May we all be champions for transparency back to our global governments, agencies and people who work in them  - much louder, firmer and demand more or better in 2010!

Thank you for supporting TOWP, a venue to expand minds globally.

Be safe, happy holidays and Cheers to 2010!

Abbey

Can we win the war in AfPak?

Obama’s recent announcement to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan disgusts me.

The President claims it’s ‘to help our existing troops fight there’ and it’s the only way we can ‘deter, dismantle and stop the Taliban’ and the terrorists that constantly want to and plan to kill us.

But this war isn’t even our war anymore.  What are we truly fighting? Our troops should have been brought home years ago. We are never going to win this AfPak war.

Why? Because we are always chasing them, and never ahead of them.

Logic tells me the one that is chasing is always at the disadvantage/always behind, and will always loose more than gain or even win at all.

The only way we will win this war is if we know where all the roadside bombs are, know where all the next attacks (for at least another 5 decades) on the US will be and how they will be orchestrated, know every single Taliban member so we can recognize them before they kill us, etc etc. So you see, this is simply not a reaslistic situation, there is no real win.

Indeed, it doesn’t even make a difference if we find Osama bin Laden – as he isn’t even leading anymore. His ‘image’ really isn’t making or breaking the strength in recruiting people to join the Taliban. It helps, but it certainly isn’t the breaking point.

This is all irrelevant anyway, as so many sub groups of insurgencies have formed that even if the Taliban was halted, these other serious terrorists who hate the US and our western ways and are powerful enough to do damage. This will go on for centuries.

So, it’s just  not worth it anymore for the less than 1% chance we could actually accomplish Obama’s mission in our lifetime or within this century. It’s not worth the lives or the billions of taxpayer dollars we are spending on this.

I am not a quitter. And this by no means in my eyes or in the eyes of many against this war is saying the US and our allies are giving up – this is simply being smart. Business smart, street smart – whatever you want to categorize it as – it’s just smart.

But the government has always lacked in that area. The government doesn’t know how to be smart, they know how to follow the leader. We fought hard for 8 years already, that is not quitting.  Time to be smart. Time to be done.

Troops can return home victorious because we are basically sending a stronger message to the terrorists:

Message: That we are smart. And we won’t spend our time, money or precious lives on them anymore. You terrorists aren’t worth it.

Meaning behind the message: That essentially tells them they hold no power over us.

The one who truly wins the war is the one that takes the high road and the one that takes control. By us not waisting our time on this anymore, we do those 2 things. That’s a dignity and a respect that is insurmountable and will overcome all naysayers.

But the more we stay their to fight them, the more power they do hold over us. The more we play into their game, the more they keep playing us.

That reverts back to the statement before, remember, they have the advantage (they are planting the IED’s, they are moving around countries quicker than we can get there to stop them, etc).

Terrorists are part of the organized crime world. I have yet to hear President Obama make a speech to the American Citizens or in front of Congress saying he is going to deter, dismantle and stop Organized Crime.

Why? Because he knows he can’t. These families and chains are so tight, so closely integrated, and so predominant for centuries, globally, that no military, no amount of fighting or technology and certainly no president can even remotely touch this organization enough to make this type of change he wants to have.

So again, Obama’s goals are unrealistic. In order to stop the Taliban, to win this war, he needs to stop organized crime too.

Even if you remove the fact of organized crime from this assessment of winning the war, realistically, we all know the Taliban will never stop. The Al Qaeda network won’t either. C’mon, really think about this for a moment.

For every one we kill today, there are hundreds if not thousands more already trained, ready to jump in and fight or kill us. They want us Westerners dead. That is a very strong motivating factor and gains power in numbers.

Anyone who truly believes Obama – that we can ‘deter, dismantle and stop the Taliban’ and Al Qaeda is an idealist. I am not faulting Obama or you for being that idealist -it’s great!

But this is an exorbiant amount of our taxpayer dollars and this is numerous young soldiers lives being lost. You have to really ask the hard question of the benchmark measure between the costs and deaths vs what we really can achieve there, and if we can really win this war. And Obama’s goal is just off the charts in realism.

We can’t afford to have a president making these kind of idealistic decisions at the expense of the global troops’ lives and the higher tax costs to the citizens.

And our soldiers and our allies soldiers just don’t need to shed blood or die for this ridiculous war anymore. Again, it’s not even our war anymore. The US just likes to tell the global world it is.

We can’t see our enemy at all times, so it doesn’t make a difference what we do in Afghanistan, when there are terrorists sitting here in America, in Canada, all throughout Europe and Africa in sleeper cells just waiting.

We saw this clearly with attack that almost was pulled off from the terrorist in Colorado in Fall 2009 on the NYC public transportation system with the planned date on the 8 year anniversary of 9/11!

Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t need to go to Afghanistan to deter, dismantle, stop (fight) the Taliban, they are right here in the US, and are a much graver and more immeninet threat to all of us unarmed citizens than anything happening overseas! Military voluntarily signs up to fight, possibly die for their country. American citizens don’t sign up to possibly be blown up one day on a NYC subway.

Yet 2 months later, President Obama still makes this announcement of troop increase overseas. Where is the logic?

More of our soldiers are dying from roadside bombs and IED’s than actually being killed in shootouts. So it’s not like this is a ‘fair’ gun to gun battle and the increase in troops will even out the score.

Sending more troops just means more will be killed by these roadside bombs, untrustworthy Afghanistan police that turn their guns on the US soldiers that trained them one day, etc. All we are doing is increasing the number of injuries or deaths that will occur, and we won’t be accomplishing much more at the end of the day.

Wait and see. July 2011  starts the beginning of the troop withdraw (of course, they set no numbers for how many, and that is IF Obama keeps his word)

So, let’s see what the report is for their accountablity and measurement. Let’s see what we really achieved, let’s see if we even won or are closer to winning, let’s see if another attack happens on US soil before or after that, and lets see how many soldiers were mamed or died for nothing,  and don’t forget to look at your paycheck to realize it’s lower because you paid for all this.

I’d rather have Obama take these troops that are already in Afghanistan and bring them home and/or take these 30,000 troops ordered to go, and strategically place them in the cities that we know have the sleeper cells and start taking care of the problem right here in the USA!

Now that I would support and would not mind my taxpayer dollars being spent on. To me, that is smart.

But again…”smart”, “logic”, “makes sense” — all words unfamiliar with the underpinnings of government, congress and the president.

I believe we can’t win this war in AfPak. I say stop the troops going over and bring the ones there home earlier.  The world will rally around all those that fought this war, for all the bravery they displayed and all the hardships and suffering they endured for 8 years. There are more of us against this war than for it and we want our troops home and will thank them loudly.

My prayers go out to all the troops – including our allies troops – being sent to Afghanistan in December 2009 and Spring 2010.

30,000 more troops being sent to the wrong country

President Obama has decided that an insurgency in Afghanistan -akin to the one done in Iraq – would at this point, be the best way to ‘deter, dismantle and stop’ the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network that still significantly threatens the US and the global world.

I disagree 100%.  This is lacks any common sense. It’s completely senseless in cost, and more importantly, senseless in the lives that will be lost to fight this long, drawn out, going on 9 year war.

The Taliban is more predominant in the Pakistan area and that is where Osama bin Laden is reportedly hiding – along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So why would he send 30,000 more troops on top of the 68,000 that were sent when he first came into office in January 09 to Afghanistan, if that is not the country where the bigger problems really are?

I would think that if you are going to try to make sure a terrorist group doesn’t take over a country, it would be the one with nuclear arms.

Not with the country that we train their men to fight USA style and they turn around and shoot and kill 2 of our own USA soldiers for no reason at all while they are patrolling along with them. You can not trust these Afghanistans. They turn on us in an instant – they have no loyalty to us, so we can’t expect anything but distrust.

I would also think it would be the country where this powerful and growing terrorist group is more heavily infiltrated. The terrorists are not stupid, the more you move into Afghanistan, the more they just simply move into Pakistan and gain even more leverage than they already have there.

But that’s just me talking logic -and the government doesn’t work on logic, they work to support their own agendas…except Vice President Biden.

Biden seems to be the only smart one in the national security team pack. He has repeatedly stated he does not agree with this Obama/General McCrystal strategy. Biden’s solution (unmanned drones and special ops) is much smarter in terms of dollars, efficiency and less lives lost. And Biden thinks if we are sending any troops over, it should be to Pakistan.

Finally, a refreshing thought in government and one that is logical!

Extra prayers are sent to these 30,000 troops that will be sent to Afghanistan: 1000 Marines last week in December 2009 and the remaining during the Spring 2010.

CA Governor Shwarzenegger Challenges the U.S. Government

In his discussion with John King on State of the Union today, Governor Arnold Shwarnzenegger (Republican) gave a very candid detailing of where California is at in terms of money.

You heard clearly in his tone how fed up he is with the way the U.S. Government is running this healthcare reform bill.

He stated that in the beginning he was very much for the health care reform bill. But  now he doesn’t support it anymore.

He says California in 2009 had a $76B deficit. In 2010 it’s coming into a $20B deficit on top of it. If the health care reform bill is enacted, this would cost California another $3B on top of the $20B – a total of $23B coming into 2010, keeping in mind the 2009 $76B was not wiped out. That’s starting California out in 2010 with a deficit of $99B if Congress passes the health care reform bill.

Some would say when you are talking about $20B, what is another $3B at this point, if it is getting us health care reform. But Shwarzenegger said this is unacceptable. He informed there are no revenues to support this. He also commented that the government needs to tighten it’s own belt and get more conservative in terms of the burdens and costs it’s adding to States, especially struggling ones.

Indeed this is more interesting to me, as I live in California and I am glad to see Shwarzenegger stand up to the Federal Government. It’s even more refreshing that he has switched his decision.

I am sure this wasn’t easy for him.  He is married to Maria Shriver, who is the late (Democrat) Senator Ted Kennedy’s niece. Teddy was family. Teddy was also the biggest champion for healthcare reform. Teddy was also a very close friend of President Obama. One would think our Governor would be somehow swayed by these factors.

But  this shows the true character of Shwarzenegger standing up stronger for his state and Californian’s, and not letting existing cozy relationships that intertwine in politics whether by default (family) or on purpose come into play. Shwarzenegger looks out for California when our own U.S. Government fails.

Shwarzenegger’s other biggest point was that the federal government needs to start paying California back. He made it clear he was not asking for bailout money, but the rightful turnover from the endless IOU’s the US Government issued to California over the years.

I couldn’t agree more!

Kudos Shwarnzeneeger – great to hear you get demanding!

NY Mayor Bloomberg was also a part of this discussion. He said he has talked to members of Congress asking for explainations about this bill and they can’t even answer him.

He said the bill is so big and so long and there are so many versions of it, no one can keep track. That concerns him – that the same people that have the power to enact or kill this bill don’t even know what is really in it, enough to even provide him with answers.

He stated he is for the bill, but he has questions, and he thinks the costs are exorbiant when you compare it to a country like Europe and what they are doing with their healthcare.

He said their healthcare is 1/2 the cost of ours and provide a longer life expectancy rate.  U.S. is about $7K per person per year with a life expectancy of 82. Europe is about $3000 per person/year with an average life expectancy of 86.

He wants to know where the money will really go and why it is going to cost States and American citizens so much money.

If he really wants to know, someone should Tweet COR (see previous blog) in his ear; he should realize it is going to the rich, and it’s now just maneuvering money to a different group, and paying that new group more.

Either way, glad we have two powerful states standing up asking harder questions as we are closing in on the days to a final decision.

Well, at least the D.C. area got an early white Christmas – perhaps that will keep morale up to start the new year off with smiles!

Happy Holidays!

Consider this my Holiday Season gift to you!

This is better than reading anything current about Military Troop Increasement, AfPak, Climate Change, Healthcare Reform, the Global Economic Mess, Iran and Nuclear Arms, etc.

If anyone knows, Robert Kiyosaki is a leader in entrepreneurism and a self made millionaire.

Due to a personal situation in his life, he dedicated his time in 2008 to write a book about this economic situation we have all be thrust into.

He wanted it to be an interactive book – to allow global participation, so he welcomes your comments on each chapter he has written.

But he did one better than just sharing his unique, brilliant, laymens-term wisdom with all of us, he provided it for FREE ! Yep, the entire book is online:

http://www.conspiracyoftherich.com/read/current

Robert Kiyosaki has been an influencer since I came to a cross roads in my career path in my early 30’s.  He has been an educator and inspirator for me to stay on the path to entrepreneurship. I probably wouldn’t be an entrepreneur today without having read his books (and Tony Robbins).

If many of you don’t know, Kiyosaki is about empowering and educating everyone with ways to survive and thrive regardless of what is going on in the financial system or in our government halls.  Many of you might recognize him as the author of the “Rich Dad” series.

Although there might be aspects of this book you already know, I would be very surprised if you didn’t gain a lot of insight from this, or from the constant “Updates”  he provides – because this is book is a constant work in progress – it’s about the making of history as it’s happening.

A big Thank You to Robert Kiyosaki and a  huge thank you to my friend/colleague Will Smith Jr. in MD who told me about this today.

Happy Holidays to All!