Paralyzed bride to marry one year after accident

Found this article on Yahoo. It's a pleasant surprise to see there are good people out there.  I admire them both for not letting circumstances overwhelm them. Maybe there is such a thing as love.   Link to Article with video

By Claudine Zap

Bride-to-be Rachelle Friedman and her groom, Chris Chapman, give new meaning to the marriage vows pledging to love, honor and support one's partner "in sickness and in health." One year after the bride was paralyzed from a freak accident during her bachelorette party, the couple will marry.

The dance instructor made news last May when during the poolside horseplay, she was pushed in the shallow end of the pool by one of her bridesmaids. She told ABC News that she knew immediately something was wrong. The 25-year-old said, " I instantly just stopped moving." She told her friends it wasn't a joke and to call 9-1-1.
The bride-to-be was paralyzed from the waist down with the wedding one month away. The two postponed the wedding, but their commitment to each other remained strong. The two will finally exchange vows and honeymoon in Fiji.

Chapman, who teaches middle school science, said he never thought, "'What am I going to do?' It was 'What are we going to do.' … It was one step at a time." The 28-year-old groom will be by his bride's side when her father wheels her down the aisle.
The bride has refused to name the woman who caused the accident, who will also be attending the wedding. "She was tragically hurt, mentally and emotionally," Friedman said. "And I was tragically hurt, physically."
In the past year, Friedman has become active, learning wheelchair rugby and texting with friends using her knuckles instead of her fingers.
For his part, Chapman can't wait to be married. "I'll be happy and relieved to see her coming down the aisle," he says. "It's something we've been working on for quite a while."
The two will tie the knot on Friday.

The Answer is FEAR!!!

Have you ever noticed, or thought about the fact that this country has had an enemy constantly since we entered World War 2?  Why? Fear is the answer. 
There are two reasons for fear really. The first is that our government, and the corporations and banks that control it, telling our "elected leaders" what to do, when to do it, and who to do it to, discovered during our last legitimate war, WWII, how much money there was in war. The profits from the money  paid from our taxes by our "leaders," for making weapons, the money paid to our "leaders" by everyone from friends to enemies for these same weapons, the profits in destroying a country, only to rebuild it, the profits from their share of foreign aid and bribes to the "leaders" of the defeated countries,  So, the first fear is the fear of loss. Our "leaders," and their corporate bosses, fear the loss of that virtually infinite income.
The other fear is what keeps them, our "leaders," in power and able to generate millions of dollars in income.
A brief tangent.  Have you ever noticed how many, if not most, politicians enter office as regular people, not rich, not poor, and amazingly they all seem to have fixing the system as their goal. But funnily before long they're using the system like pro's, generating income, taking advantage of their benefits, the goal of fixing the system forgotten.
Let's use Bill "Caligula" Clinton as an example. Here's a man who never did anything really, other than getting elected as governor. He was possibly the poorest and least experienced of men elected to the office of President, before Hussein Obama, maybe not.  He entered office poor, his wife earning much more per year legally, and possibly illegally according to the rumors. She's secretary of state Hillary, in case you don't know. Today after being president for two terms, filling their pockets, Hillary and Bill are multi-millionaires.
Something is clearly wrong, when the employee becomes a millionaire, and the people that employed him are losing jobs, losing their homes, going hungry, getting sick and dying because they can't afford medical care and medication, in many cases literally living in boxes and eating out of dumpsters. Something is clearly wrong. The whole system is wrong, somehow the employees have become the employers, no, worse, the rulers of the rest of us. I wouldn't be surprised that one day Mr. Hussein Obama, or someone like him writes an executive order changing his title to Emperor, would you?
Back to fear, the other fear is that they make sure that we, the people feel, and it allows them to get away with what they do. In the fifies they called it a cold war, the commies were out to get us. It was the west against the east, like a football game. They built weapons, nukes, jets, warships, the draft dragged willing and unwilling into the military. All for nothing, the Soviets, (who were playing the same game, making the commisars, etc. rich and average people poor), collapsed and the cold war was over.
Then our "beloved leaders" realized that without fear, they were eventually going to be broke and out of a job, metaphorically. They needed a new object of fear to keep us in line, paying taxes, and filling their pockets.  Several things were tried, but none really took hold, until George the 2nd and his minions had a brainstorm.  Terrorists!!!!  There's the ticket. 
So, George the 2nd and his minions thought and thought, until they came up with the idea of a terrist attack that would drive the people into a frenzy of fear, similar to that in the prime of the cold war.  They found some pilots and "terrorists" to do the dirty work. Allegedly they were middle eastern, but who knows really, I don't think bodies were recovered. They put the "terrists" to work in hyjacked airliners, destroyed the twin towers, some minor damage to the pentagon, and one plane crashed in a field. Americans were murdered by their own president. What I've called Pravda west, the tame American media, shouted terror to the rafters, George the 2nd lied his ass off, convincing everybody that we had been "attacked." Next thing we're back at war, in the oil rich middle east, all his buddies, and bosses, are making money. Regular peoples kids are being murdered by their own president. Mr. Hussein Obama now is in office, well on his way to becoming a millionaire, and he's making sure that all George the 2nd's policy's and wars are kept going, and that all George's buddies and bosses are making money.  Fear.... Everybody's afraid, the biggest fear though is that our "leaders" fear that we are going to realize what they're really up to someday.

A Question Occurs to Me

Watching a movie from 1941, as it ended something came on the screen that brought a question to mind. It was a plea for the audience to buy War Bonds. Parents put Gold Stars in their windows. There were canteens in every town. There were movies, radio shows, books.  A member of the military could go anywhere and be befriended. Not anymore. 
My question is this, if all the wars this country has manufactured since WWII were SO important. If our very survival as a nation was at stake. Why isn't the public being asked to support them too? I believe the German and Japanese of the WWII era were evil personified. This was a legitimate war, a necessary war, our last.
I guess the answer is that simple, in the days since, all wars have been created simply to make money. The politicians, the corporations, the banks, Wall Street, they all fill their pockets. Everyday people, see their sons, and now daughters, murdered.
What fascinates me is that all the kids who in the sixties and seventies objected, shouting ban war. All those who said they'd never make the same mistake as their parents and grandparents, those of us from the Age of Aquarius," are now responsible for allowing this country to currently be in six, or is it seven, wars. Just like in the sixties the rich keep their kids out, so they can become the new generation of warmongers, the average people see theirs die.
The good news is that in today's wars, the total murdered are fewer than those killed in a few minutes in earlier wars. Which is not even counting the millions of civilians and foreign military murdered by Bush, Obama, and others who went before. Not much comfort to any of their their families though. The biggest industry in this country is war, the second biggest is prisons. Says a lot doesn't it? The truth is our "leaders" are too stupid to do  anything else, I guess.

Lee Murray

For America's "99ers," jobs crisis is hard to escape

Found this article on Yahoo, about two ladies who are among the millions of AMERICAN's who have run out of unemployment benefits and are just hanging on by the skin of their teeth. These are women who worked, and earned, and supported their country, and now through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by the very system they supported for their whole lives, and but for help from relatives, friends, or drawing on savings or the declining value of their homes they would find themselves living in a box or a homeless shelter.
This is not right, yet now the government see's fit to take even these meager benefits away, putting more AMERICAN's out of their homes. It's bad enough that the government is responsible for these AMERICAN's being out of work, but to add insult to injury to all of us, "our leaders" president, congress, senate, and who knows who else, those that raise their own pay, have million dollar pensions and benefits, now say that the meager dollars we all get when our jobs are eliminated by circumstances created by them, or by the corporations and banks that they our "leaders" answer to, are "ENTITLEMENTS."
This is not only unemployment benefits but also social security and medicare. They are entititlements that our "leaders," and even regular people say, SHOULD BE REDUCED or even eliminated!!  I say bullSHIT!!  These are not entitlements and should not be reduced. I, and every person that's worked, unlike our "leaders", have paid for unemployment, social security, medicare, etc., through taxes, and paycheck withdrawals.  I say something we paid good money for is not an entitlement.
If the government needs money, they say they do, but you'd never know it, by all the gifts of multi trillion dollar subsidies and the pay raises they give themselves and their minions, they should cut spending. Stop the wars, bring the military back, reduce the military, etc, cut spending on all the millions of things nobody needs, that just put money in the pockets, or gain re-election of our "leaders."  Anyway on to the article.   Link to the Article


On Thursday July 7, 2011, 3:07 pm EDT



By Alexandra Alper

Unemployed operations manager Mary Kay Coyne
 unfurls a U.S. flag on the front porch of her residence
 in Sewell, New Jersey, July 7, 2011.
REUTERS/Tim Shaffer

SEWELL, New Jersey (Reuters) - Mary Kay Coyne has just filed what she says is her 1,862nd job application since being thrown out of work three years ago.  She is one of millions of Americans whose unemployment benefits have expired -- after 99 weeks in many states -- as the United States suffers its highest level of long-term unemployment since 1948.
Coyne had to move in with a friend after benefit payments ran out last year. Now she gets by on Medicaid -- U.S. health insurance for the poor -- and food stamps, contributing what little she can to her friend's household costs.
"You're 56-years old and you feel like you are sitting on a big pile of nothing," said Coyne, who spends about four hours a day sending out resumes.
"For the better part of a year, I have something sitting on my chest. It's not a medical condition. It is that pressure of 'Is this going to end, when is this going to end?'"
Unlike in much of Europe, the safety net of the U.S. welfare system times out for the long-term unemployed. The federal government and many states have provided extra help for those caught up in the worst labor market in decades but the U.S. debt crisis rules out further extension of the programs.
Coyne is typical of many middle-class Americans now struggling to get by.
She used to earn $70,000 a year as an administrative assistant until her firm began to downsize and left Coyne among the growing number of Americans struggling to live on unemployment benefits, and eventually on minimal food aid.
Now Washington is considering cuts to social welfare programs to shrink a swelling budget deficit.
It may not only be Americans like Coyne who feel the pain. Some economists say the cuts could make it even harder to shrink long-term unemployment that damages the wider economy by dampening consumer demand and lowering output.
In 2010, an estimated 3.9 million unemployed Americans exhausted unemployment benefits, according to the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group that campaigns for lower-wage workers.
More than 14 percent of the U.S. unemployed have been out of a job for 99 weeks, or longer.
The Labor Department’s report on Friday showed that the unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent in June.
Many so-called "99ers" subsist on social services like food stamps and Medicaid, programs now in danger of deep cuts demanded by many Republicans in Congress in exchange for allowing the federal government to go deeper into debt.
"An increase in demand for social services is what you would expect in a downturn of this magnitude and so the fact that they are cutting the social safety net is quite perplexing," said Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California at Berkeley. "We've just never seen (long-term unemployment) at these levels, period."
Forty six percent of those looking for work have been jobless for six months or more and the average length of job searches that eventually result in a hiring has doubled to 10 weeks between 2007 and 2010.


NO MORE SHOPPING TRIPS


Cindy Paoletti had no idea she would still be unemployed more than three years after being laid off by JPMorgan Chase.
The 59-year-old accountant -- who volunteered to be laid off to care for her dying father --- now survives on loans borrowed against the falling value of her home, Medicaid and food stamps.
"By the end of the month we are down to practically nothing in the house," she says.
The $200 in food aid she now receives each month goes furthest when spent on frozen vegetables and potatoes.
That's a far cry from Paoletti's lifestyle as a 23-year veteran at JPMorgan.
Although on a modest annual salary of $34,000, Paoletti went shopping, dined out with friends, smoked cigarettes and traveled each year to visit friends around the country.
That all changed after her severance package ran out.
"I stay home all the time," says Paoletti, who has given up smoking to save money and has found new ways of spending her spare time. "I work in the yard or play with the dog."
Paoletti says she has all but given up finding a job.
"I just got so discouraged," she said. "You apply for jobs online and you get an email the same day saying this job is no longer available."
The long-term unemployed have a tougher time than others landing a job. In 2010, someone unemployed for less than five weeks was three times more likely to get a job than someone unemployed for 27 weeks or more, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


DEMAND SURGES FOR FOOD STAMPS

Just as the United States prepares to tighten its belt and deal with its fiscal crisis, demand for key aid programs has never been higher.
The number of Americans signed up for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- which provides food stamps -- has reached its highest level since it began in 1939. One in seven Americans now receive aid from the program.
Medicaid enrollment as of 2010 surpassed 68.2 million, its highest level in the program's history.
Cuts to these programs now seem inevitable as states struggle to plug budget gaps and lawmakers on Capital Hill turn their attention to the budget deficit.
The White House has reportedly agreed to $100 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next 10 years. Some House Republicans want cuts of more than seven times that amount.
Last week, federal stimulus programs providing billions of dollars for state Medicaid programs ran out.
The cuts are piling on the pressure for the long-term unemployed.
Coyne -- who has a chronic thyroid condition -- received notice last month that her New Jersey Medicaid benefits would be cut by $25. That means she will have to skip some doctor visits because she cannot afford to cut down on her medication.
But Coyne worries most about losing her food stamps.
"That would be the kick in the mouth I could not take," she said. "To have to depend on someone completely who is not related to me, that would make me feel awful."
Cuts to the program are being negotiated in Washington. A Republican version of the U.S. budget for 2012 would cut $127 billion -- about 20 percent -- from food stamps over 10 years.
Unemployment benefits are under pressure too. Two federal programs are set to expire in January though unemployed workers receiving emergency benefits may be eligible to draw checks through May.
There are some signs the number of people stuck in long-term unemployment may be easing from its historic highs.
The total number of people on the last available phase of jobless benefits and those exhausting them each month is falling. Economists say seasonal factors may be causing some of the decline.
Stories like Coyne's and Paoletti's make some economists question whether now is the time to cut benefits. Persistently high unemployment should spur more spending to aid the jobless and prop up consumer demand, they say.
Other economists argue the existing benefit system is overly generous and makes Americans too dependent on social services that are untenable at a time of skyrocketing debt.
"The government is not here to ensure whatever standard of living you're at, that you're not going to go below that," said James Sherk, a labor economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That is just not the purpose of the safety net."
He says the benefit system is flawed because it provides support to the wealthy unemployed who could support themselves for a while without a job. Sherk says the labor market is still too weak to eliminate the federal unemployment extensions. He recommends cutting them to around 70 weeks total.
Coyne hopes government support is only a temporary fix. She keeps applying for jobs despite the hundreds of rejections and tries to keep alive her hopes that she can one day return to work and pay her friend a fair share of their living costs.
"I can curl up on the sofa and cry and pretend that it is going to get better but it is not going to go better unless I make it better."

Let's Talk About A New Illegal Obama War

Let's talk about Libia, Mr. Hussein Obama's very own attempt to become a war president. For this one he doesn't have to admit that George 2nd actually started it, and that he's simply carrying it forward. This one is his alone. Following is part of an article   Link to the Activist Post  on the Activist Post. I've only shown the paragraphs that caught my eye, click on the link to read the whole article.
Tripoli, Libya At ten a.m. Tripoli time on 6/28/11 the Libyan Ministry of Health made available to this observer its compilation entitled “Current Statistics Of Civilian Victims Of Nato Bombardments On Libya, (3/19/11-6/27/11).

Before releasing their data, which will be made public this afternoon, it was confirmed by the findings of the Libyan Red Crescent Society and also by civil defense workers in the neighborhoods bombed, and then vetted by researchers at Tripoli’s Nassar University.
As of July 1, 2011, military casualties have not been officially released by the Libyan armed forces.
In summary, the MOH compilation documents that during the first 100 days of NATO targeting of civilians, 6121 were killed or injured. The statistical breakdown is as follows: 3093 Men were injured and 668 were killed. Women killed number 260 and 1318 injured. Children killed number 141 and 641 injured.
Of those seriously injured 655 are still under medical care in hospitals while 4,397 have been released to their families for outpatient care.
NATO's claims that private apartments and homes, schools, shops, factories, crops, and warehouses storing sacks of flour were legitimate military targets are not believed by anyone here in Libya. To date NATO has failed to provide a scintilla of evidence that the 15 civilians, mainly children and their aunts and mothers, who were torn to pieces by 8 NATO rockets in the Salman neighborhood last week were legitimate military targets.

What we either never knew or have forgotten is like many leaders in the mideast, Gadhafi was once the darling of the USA, and the west. A quote from Wikipedia explains:

"On 1 September 1969, a small group of junior military officers led by Gaddafi staged a bloodless coup d'état against King Idris while he was in Turkey for medical treatment. His nephew, the Crown Prince Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi, was formally deposed by the revolutionary army officers and put under house arrest; they abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic.[30]
A plan to use mercenaries to restore the monarchy was organised by David Stirling, founder of the British Special Air Service, who had been approached by a member of the royal family. The plan — dubbed "Hilton Assignment" in an ironic reference to Libyan jails — was to spring 150 political prisoners from Tripoli jail as a catalyst for a general uprising; the mercenaries were to slip away quietly as the locals took over. Despite Stirling's confidence, the plan was called off at a late stage by the British Secret Intelligence Service, allegedly because the United States government judged that Gaddafi was sufficiently anti-Marxist and thus acceptable"

Like the Shah, Hussein, and countless others, our presidents (they could lay it on their minions, like others of their cowardly ilk, but as Truman said, "the buck stops here," use, and use, and use, until there is no use left, and then they call these same men a danger to Homeland (read Fatherland or Motherland depending on which president) security, and send (one part of the US version of the Gestapo) the CIA to create a revolution, or possibly just to assasinate him.


Here's another article I found today on NewsMax.  Link to Article   I'm not posting it because it's too long, but I suggest you read it.  In brief it says, that Gadhafi broadcast that if Nato doesn't backoff he'll take their war to Europe. Could we be headed to WWIII, thanks to Obama?  It also says that the world court has issued arrest warrents for Gadhafi, his son, and another man. Stating crimes against humanity. If this relatively little guy is guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, then why hasn't this same court issued warrants for Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama at the very least? All are guilty of far greater crimes against humanity, just the crime of murder numbers in the millions. But the world court, the same as Nato, is controlled by the US, so that's unlikely, not impossible, but highly unlikely.
Something to think about, is this the USA that you were born in?

Lee Murray

PS  
A U.S. drone aircraft fired on two leaders of a militant Somali organization tied to al-Qaeda, apparently wounding them, a senior U.S. military official familiar with the operation said Wednesday.

The strike last week against senior members of al-Shabab comes amid growing concern within the U.S. government that some leaders of the Islamist group are collaborating more closely with al-Qaeda to strike targets beyond Somalia, the military official said. U.S. drones target two leaders of Somali group allied with al-Qaeda  The airstrike makes Somalia at least the sixth country where the United States is using drone aircraft to conduct lethal attacks, joining Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen. And it comes as the CIA is expected to begin flying armed drones over Yemen in its hunt for al-Qaeda operatives.
Link to Article in Washington Post

In tears at the inhumanity to man that still goes on