HEALTH CARE SUMMIT: GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY DON'T WANT!

Yesterday began the 6 hour infomercial on Obama's new health plan for America. Billed as a bipartisan affair with most of the speaking as well as the spotlight on Obama, Republicans were fortunate to get a word in edgewise.  There is nothing "new" about this latest proposal.  It's basically the Senate version infused with a mild dose of steroids that will hopefully give it strength to win public approval before Democrats move on to reconciliation. Nothing new, just "Meet the old boss, same as the new boss" legislation that is frankly, just as bad as the Super Bowl performance of the song containing those lyrics, Won't Be Fooled Again, (apologies to the "Who", I loved you guys years back but age does take a toll). In the end, the entire summit meeting did nothing more than portray Democrats as the "good guys" and Republicans as the "bad guys" or the other way around, depending on your flavor. I think after the first hour most Republicans had enough of the Obama version of bipartisanship, wishing they could escape somehow during the lunch break, but no such luck.              

There were some memorable moments that caught the eye as well as some that didn't.  We now find out that before the meeting, Joe Biden confirmed what most of us already new, that "being Vice President is easy...there's nothing to do."  I'm sure there are plenty of federal employees that feel the same way Joe, they just don't say it in front of an open microphone. Then there was a "testy" little exchange between McCain and Obama, where Obama reminded him he won the election and when House Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell brought it to Obama's attention that Democrats were doing most of the talking, Obama again reminded all those present, that was correct because he's President. So much for setting the tone of the meeting. And just when you were about to switch channels, Nancy Pelosi awakens from a coma.  Unfortunately her colleagues forgot to tell her this was not a jobs summit. Quoting figures from outer space, she announced the immediate creation of 400,000 new jobs if health care passes, with an additional 4 million created over the long haul. A quick pan from the camera showed Republicans staring in expressionless disbelief and Democrats looking away, nervously thumbing through parers, pretending not to hear, except for Harry Reid, who was nodding his head in agreement, like some well trained dog expecting a treat.

In the end it was best summed up by McConnell saying that the health care issue has been closely followed by Americans, probably more than any legislation ever before Congress. The people are well informed, they know what's at stake, and by a majority they are telling Washington they don't want what is currently being offered. He then went on to explain that each of them in the room had an obligation to respect that wish and that starting over was the right thing to do.  On the other hand, Obama pretty much slammed the door on that thought by saying it was not an option. As President he gets to talk last and he made it very clear that Democrats would pass something on their own whether the Republicans or the country liked it or not. Then much to Republican delight and Democrat dismay, he said that the elections in November will tell who is right and who is wrong.  Whatever you say Mr. President.

For the record, the summit showed that there isn't much hope for bipartisan support for the current health care legislation.  On the other hand, one must not be so quick to pass that judgement.  In fact there is growing evidence in Congress for a bipartisan consensus between Republicans and Democrats on this matter and that is to not to approve it at all.  Obama will have a hard time convincing all the Democrats in Congress to fall on their sword just to help him save face. After all, they are keenly aware that November could spell unemployment for them too.

Edisto Joe

Related articles by Zemanta

• With or without you (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Obama Health Summit Fails To Break Deadlock (news.sky.com)

THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS: DAY OF REMEMBERANCE

The Battle of Iwo Jima (February 19 – March 26, 1945), or Operation Detachment, produced undoubtedly some of the fiercest and hardest fighting seen by the United States Marines during the Pacific Campaign of World War II.  On this day, February 23rd, 1945, Joe Rosenthal took the photograph that would forever immortalize the Marine Corps in the eyes of America and the world. 

"Semper Fi"





If interested, you can read more on the history of the battle and the raising of the flag at the supplied links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima#Aftermath

Edisto Joe

BLOCKHEADS ON HEALTH CARE

With a majority in Congress and a President sitting in the White House, the Democrats are now trying to figure out a way to rescue their number one domestic issue, health care. After all their closed meetings and back door deals, the plans produced by the House and Senate were overwhelmingly rejected by the American public. On top of that they lost their filibuster proof margin in the Senate with the election of Massachusetts Republican, Scott Brown, whose success was do largely to his opposition to the health care plan. Throw in the Democratic losses in Governor's races to Virginia and New Jersey and you would think that Democrats would be getting the message. They have...and they figured out that their not doing a good job at properly defining their message and very possibly they could have sprinkled a little bipartisanship in there somewhere to make it work...but not too much. After all they are in the majority and by their way of telling it they let Republicans completely destroy all their hard work and efforts by spreading fear and lies about all the good they were doing for the country.

Merriam-Webster defines the word "blockhead" as simply a stupid person. However I expand on the meaning to define it as someone whose brain matter has turned to cement, encased in a dense three dimensional square representing a head that is incapable of rational thought.  How else can you describe the leadership coming out of Congress and the White House.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid fit the description perfectly.  Before the supposed bipartisan "Health Care Summit" at the Blair House takes place next week, the President will have already drafted a proposal that Pelosi and Reid will then push through Congress under the terms of reconciliation. When the summit begins and the two sides sit down to discuss the issues, it won't be about starting over.  It will be about this is what we have now and what is it you don't like.  The voice of America doesn't matter.  The election in Massachusetts doesn't matter and the appearance of bipartisanship is merely a ploy for the camera broadcasting the event. This will be another staged PR appearance in the  health care saga, much like the "white coat" event this past year on the White House lawn where anyone available was made to look like a doctor favoring  Obama's health care reform.

It seems nothing is getting through these Democratic heads. The cement has set fast and hard and it's very doubtful that even a sledge hammer can crack it.  Their health care proposal is like taking your car in for a tune up and coming back later only to find out they have replaced the entire engine.  Their old stand by response that Republicans are simply obstructionists and offer no ideas or proposals is just worn out. Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear them respond to exactly what is wrong with tort reform, opening up competition across state lines and reforming Medicare and Medicaid from within. Of course you will need to crack that cement head before any of that is heard.  Good luck at the Blair House next week Republicans and take your sledge hammers.

Edisto Joe

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House Hints of New Health Bill (prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Up Next! On Live TV! A Battle Over ... Health Care? (nytimes.com)

OBAMA'S MILITARY: REPEALING DADT

Despite what has been printed in liberal blogs and media, as well as what is broadcast by the various news programs, there is no overwhelming majority that's ready to overturn the policy of DADT for gays serving in the military. That includes active and former service members.  The few polls that claim support are biased and flawed.  For example, the recent CBS poll question: "Do you support gays and lesbians serving in the military?"  Most people know that gays serve in the military and by using the word "support" it is coaxing a positive response.  The recent "Military Times poll" which states that with active duty personnel the support for DADT is down from 66% to 51% . This poll is also flawed in the way it was conducted, explained in the following:

The Military Times poll is not scientific; the newspaper e-mailed invitations to 45,000 subscribers and randomly inserted fliers in about 40,000 newsstand copies of the paper asking for readers to respond. About 8,200 readers, including National Guard, Reserve, and other readers, responded to the survey. Of those, the paper gleaned responses from about 3,000 active-duty military readers.

Conducting a poll in this manner gives you any result you want, but none the less the media picked it up and ran with it as positive proof the Obama Administration was on the right track. But are they really?  If everyone was so sure this is the mood of the country,  politicians on both sides of the isle would be clamoring for it's immediate repeal.  If it's so popular with the public and the military there should be no problem with bringing it to the floor of either house in Congress for open debate.  Why do we need to let the Pentagon study the matter any further?  The answer is simple...no one in Washington wants to risk their job, especially during an election year.  I doubt that even Barney Frank is willing to go all out on the issue. More than likely Obama has passed this campaign promise, made to his gay supporters, off on Gates and from there he hopes somewhere along the way it gets stuffed back into the closet.  I know that's not likely but I'm sure that there are plenty in Congress that hope it stays locked away at least until mid-terms are over.

There was, what I considered a very good response to my last post on DADT, from a former service member, (http://www.edistojoe.com/2010/02/obamas-big-blunder-repealing-dadt.html), and he relates some of his personal experience and reasoning on the DADT policy.  The writer is a fellow blogger and author of the BoBo Files, a blog he proudly states is "Driving The Loony Left Loonier!"  The following clearly states his opinion on the matter.

On this subject progressives and others like them who have never served in the military - just don't get it.



It was bad enough when Clinton instituted the DADT - the UCMJ , (Uniform Code of Military Justice), is very clear regarding sodomy. This has been part of the code since the UCMJ was written. If gays are allowed to openly serve - then it puts the UCMJ open to interpretation and change.


Next - they don't understand esprit de corps. This will absolutely hurt morale and will also bring down recruiting and will weaken our military. It has nothing to do with being homophobic - it has everything to do with not wanting homosexuals sharing bunks and showers with non-homosexuals. There will be no straight soldiers who will want to share with openly gay soldiers. When that happens - then there will be segregation. The military can't afford segregation in its ranks and you can't force an individual to accept homosexuality - especially if those who are religious as I am - that believe it is immoral. The First Amendment protects our belief and our right to uphold our religious views of homosexuality.


The military cannot dictate that straight soldiers share bunks and showers with gay soldiers. Apparently, the term "blanket party" never occurred to those who support the repeal of DADT. There will be a helluva lot of blanket parties if they start allowing gays to openly serve.


As for the assertion regarding gays in the military not having the ability to speak openly - I knew quite a few while I was in and they had no qualms about being flamboyant and open about it. I was a lowly Airman so - there wasn't much I could do about it. The DADT mostly applies to those in command. If I reported those individuals whom I knew were gay - the brass wasn't allowed to ask. It was my word against theirs. It's the DT part that gets soldiers thrown out...when they openly admit to their commanders and superiors or if one of the superiors witnesses or hears them openly speak about it - that's when they are out.


Those individuals I knew were ostracized - as they should have been - none of us wanted to be associated with them knowing that ultimately they would be caught and we did not want to go down with them.


Repealing DADT and allowing gays to openly serve will be an absolute huge mistake and will only serve to really weaken our country and will be a detriment to our national security


Well said. I could not agree more!

Edisto Joe

IRAN TO UNVEIL NEW PREDATOR DRONE!

Iran's military has launched two production lines to build unmanned aircraft with surveillance and attack capabilities, their defense minister said Monday. The drones would be used for "surveillance, detection and even assaults with high precision," according to a report quoted by the London Daily Telegraph.

This is just the latest in a list of technological advances and military achievements announced by the country.

SEN. KAUFFMAN: SARAH PALIN SIMPLISTIC, SUPPORTERS UNINFORMED!

Democratic Senator, Ted Kauffman, went on record Tuesday morning in Philadelphia stating that most backers of Sarah Palin are really uninformed about the issues and she, herself was simplistic with her solutions.

Fox 29 News in Philadelphia, 2/08/2010:
"There are folks that are out there that are very, very upset at what's going on, I think most of them don't follow what's really happening, but they're upset, they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, and Sarah Palin's one that appeals to them."

Continuing in reference to her Tea Party speech:
"Frankly, most Americans I talk to are really concerned with real problems and real issues and understand them and realize they're a lot more complex than sometimes Sarah makes them out to be."

It's obvious that Kauffman is very comfortable with only a year to go before finishing out his appointed term as Senator for Delaware.  Since he won't be seeking re-election he can insult anyone he wants without fearing the wrath of voters.  On the other hand, his comments expose the very problem Congressional Democrats are facing today. The air of superiority, arrogance and elitism they try to project on the American people today is exactly what makes Sarah Palin such a popular figure on the current political scene.

Sarah knows that to connect with voters you don't preach rocket science to them. You don't talk down to them...you talk to them. What in the world could be so complex within the Democratic mindset that would lead a sitting senator to believe that the everyday American could not possibly understand the complexity of their agenda as it relates to the real problems and politics of the day?

National Security and Terrorism?  It's a matter of keeping the military strong,  leaving the DADT policy intact, securing our borders, and turning suspected terrorists over to the military for tribunal.


Economy?  It's about jobs, not bloated, expensive health care proposals we can't afford, not energy policy that creates more taxes on business, industry, and the public.


Budget? Quit the spending. Obama, under his current budget will run up the deficit at least three times what is was under 16 years of Clinton and Bush.


It's about less government, less taxation and letting the free market run it's course, not more government programs and intrusion into our daily lives. You will have to excuse me if that's too simple an answer. 

Senator Kauffman said that most of the voters he talks with are concerned with real problems and understand the complexity in solving them. He believes Sarah Palin's simplistic approach only appeals to those voters who are angry but don't really know whats happening in the country today. He refers to them as a niche. Perhaps the Senator would like to niche this. Most of the voters you are talking with don't represent the majority of Americans in the country that are tired of the way Washington is running this country into the ground. They may not have graduated from Harvard but plenty of them have been educated in the school of hard knocks and life. They are not interested in eloquent and grand speeches that last hours or more when the simple KISS solution is all that is required.  What is so complex to understand  about a 2000 page bill that none of you has read in entirety or could explain on either floor of Congress, being pushed through in the dead of night after numerous closed door meetings and back room deals, that we couldn't possibly understand?  You can shake your head and smirk, dismissing us as angry and simplistic but you better look at some of the polling data throughout the land. It shows a lot of angry, simplistic voters out there poised to run you guys out of town. Are you dismissing New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts to the uninformed? 

It wasn't too long ago that a "niche" group called "The Moral Majority" made a lot of angry and simplistic noise throughout the land that helped sweep a fellow named Reagan into office.  Maybe you should reflect on the complexity of that before you label Palin as simplistic and her supporters as uninformed.

Edisto Joe

Related articles by Zemanta

• Palin: 'America Is Ready for Another Revolution' (abcnews.go.com)
• Palin Says Now is Not the Time For Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal (lezgetreal.com)

OBAMA'S BIG BLUNDER: REPEALING DADT!

President Obama just cannot help himself from blaming current problems on the past administration. Nothing is ever his fault. That's about to change. He is about to make a colossal blunder...


One must remember, there is no Constitutional right to serve in the United States Military...period! There never has been, yet according to our once Constitutional law professor, President Obama, there is and he stated so in his State Of The Union Address.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

After many occasions praising our military and relating to us the amounts of respect he holds to those who serve, he announces that he is ready to embark on what Bill Kristol, from “The American Standard” and Col. Oliver North, from  “Fox News” have described as a dangerous social experiment. The President looks to satisfy a liberal section of society and his party by asking Congress to repeal the “Don't Ask Don't Tell” law for the military that restricts open homosexuality in the service.

However the President is mistaken...IT DOES NOT DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO SERVE! For obvious reasons, the majority of Americans understand, the law basically requires exactly what it states. We don't ask about sexual preference and you don't tell what your sexual preference is. The policy works for the military and that should be the end of it. For good reason, the military has always operated under separate rules and regulations that differ from those of civilian society. Just because you are citizen does not mean you can serve. Right now we operate on an all volunteer basis but we maintain a Selective Service System. Two words, “Volunteer” and “Selective”, stand out here.

Gay men and women are already serving in the military and are doing so as volunteers. They cannot say they weren't aware of the DADT law. A true call to duty is based on one willingness to serve their country not to advance some social agenda as the President would like. If the need ever arose to increase the level of troops, then Selective Service would kick in. However, just because you are chosen through the Selective Service System you are not guaranteed the right to serve and never have been. Inductees must first pass physical, mental and moral exams before given a classification for service.

Right now our military has the best equipment and the best trained and educated soldiers in the world. Simply put, they are the finest fighting force in the field. What the President and the radical left are proposing is damaging to what may be the one institution the American people still place their faith and trust in. Currently the American military is engaged in two wars. The logistics of that alone demands their full attention. Yet her comes “Mr. Change” ready to embark on dismantling the current operational structure to appease a minority. Ready to tear down the institution he claims to have so much respect for. The time effort and money spent on re-organizing the military if such a law was overturned is unimaginable. It is bad for moral, it is bad for unit cohesiveness, and will certainly effect recruiting.

Time and again this President has shown no foresight into the policies he proposes. Here is something that he might want to consider. If his proposal does in fact reduce recruiting, will Selective Service be brought into action...will he then be forced to institute a draft? Even if a draft is enacted after he leaves office, it will always be part of his legacy, the President who brought back forced military service. I believe many of those young supporters of his, including the gay ones, won't be so enamored with him then, not to mention all their parents. Obama just doesn't get it. The reason our military is the best is because it is an all volunteer vocation. The young men and women serving have done so not to advance a social cause or to participate in a social experiment. They have done so to protect and serve this great country. There is no Constitutional right to serve but there is a right to pass on service or leave after your time is up. Think on that Mr. President. The military you claim to love may be the one you destroy.



Edisto Joe

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ollie North On What Happens If Gays Are Allowed To Serve Openly In Military: 'NAMBLA Members' Are Next (thinkprogress.org)
• Studying DADT Repeal Likely Intended To Delay Implementation (lezgetreal.com)

NATIONAL SECURITY: TWEEDLEDUM-TWEEDLEDEE APPROACH!

Alice, from "Through The Looking Glass" provides insight on Obama's National Security Policy.

President Obama and his administration along with the liberals in Congress have only themselves to blame for the uneasiness in the minds of the American people when it comes to national security and battling terrorism. From day one since taking office they have taken a "Tweedledum-Tweedledee", approach to the problem.

I have said often that Obama complicates simplicity, and turns the obvious into the ludicrous. It is an understatement to say their logic is flawed. Every action they have taken, from announcing the closing of Guantanamo, right up to the "Christmas Day Bomber" episode has been disastrous. It only makes sense to the liberal base that they are trying to appease but is simply out of touch with mainstream American thinking. It's all based on liberal logic. They know what is best and your concerns are of no consequence.

`I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; `but it isn't so, nohow.'


`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

That pretty well sums up the administration's way of looking at the situation. Every major poll in the country shows that Americans want Guantanamo to stay open, they want terrorists to be tried by military tribunal, and they don't want terrorists to be Mirandized. Yet Obama continues on his course, unwilling to admit he was wrong and unwilling to believe that America is not on the same page with him. What could be the logical explanation to justify such thinking?  There is none...at least from a rational point of view. It's all from liberal ideology aimed at some utopia that doesn't exist and never will. Even his own moderate Democrats are starting to walk away from this logic.  With mid-term elections approaching they are fearing the Queen's voice, "Off with their heads." They are well aware by continuing to follow Obama on his course they are being led deeper into the woods and like Alice, soon to be lost. When they turn to the administration for help, they just receive a smile and are told to take a hit for their leader.

`I was thinking,' Alice said politely, `which is the best way out of this wood: it's getting so dark. Would you tell me, please?'


But the fat little men only looked at each other and grinned.

There is hope. If Obama is denied domestic funding for 9/11 trials by Congress, then he will most certainly need to return to Gitmo and place the trials in the hands of the military where they belong. That would most certainly inflame his liberal base and maybe cause Rahm Emanual to go off on them again with another "F-ing Retards" episode.  I don't look for the President to give up on this, no matter what is being reported. He desperately needs to start getting his agenda pushed through. As with everything with Obama, it's a matter of personal pride and ego. Two qualities that don't sit well with leadership.

`Ditto,' said Tweedledum.
`Ditto, ditto!' cried Tweedledee.


Excerpts are from: Through the Looking Glass, by: Lewis Carroll,  Chapter IV, Tweedledum and Tweedledee .



Edisto Joe

NIGERIAN FAMILY NOW POSSIBLE TERRORIST TARGETS!

Is it truth, fiction or plain stupidity that the White House is employing to defend and combat criticism of Obama's plan to Mirandize captured terrorists?  We are now publicly being given information on what intelligence officials are learning from the Christmas Day Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

After taking withering fire from both political parties on their "50 minutes of interrogation" before reading the suspect his Miranda rights, the Administration is now trying to justify and give credibility to their position.
They are basically fighting back the criticism looking for some sort of vindication. Suddenly we are finding out that a terrorist suspect who has legal rights is now talking again and even better, they are letting us know how they did it.

ABC NEWS reports that on Tuesday a senior administration official confirmed that the family of Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, was called upon to get their son to start cooperating with federal authorities in sharing information about Al Qaeda.  They also report that he has been cooperating with authorities and sharing intelligence information since last Thursday.

What a coincidence. Right when Obama's taking much deserved heat on his National Security decisions. We now know that we are gaining much needed information from Umar. Guess what? Now Al Qaeda knows too.

I don't know how much truth or fiction is going on here but I do care about the stupidity in issuing such information over the public airways.  By trying to gain political vindication on Obama's policies they have endangered an entire family that supposedly was called upon to help authorities. Do they think that Al Qaeda doesn't watch TV? The terrorists don't need inside operatives, they have senior White House administration officials doing that work for them.  What now?  Do we bring the entire family over and place them in a witness protection program?  This whole episode is so  blatantly absurd one has to wonder if it is even true...some grand story to leak to the press. If it is true, then the Obama Administration has placed their image and interests ahead of the safety of others which is unacceptable and irresponsible and the liberals and media pundits calling it proof that the President's way works are simply condoning such behavior. Never mind that you are endangering others.

This is just another example of why the American people don't trust this administration when it comes to security issues. Instead of admitting their mistakes and correcting, they confront a bad situation and make it worse, once again proving the "Peter Principal" applies to everything this administration does.

Edisto Joe

JUDGE OBAMA: "GUILTY...GUILTY...GUILTY"

Image via Wikipedia

Why are we even bothering to hold a trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?  The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks has already been convicted and sentenced. The verdict came directly from the White House. Eric Holder has testified before Congress that the man is guilty and they have the evidence to prove it and President Obama has taken it a step further and announced he will be executed.  His Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has reiterated that claim.

From the President:
"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." (Interview with NBC News)

From Robert Gibbs:
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of." (Interview on CNN's "State of the Union")

The whole purpose of moving this trial from a military tribunal to the civilian court system was to put our system of justice in the world spotlight. According to Obama by closing Guantanamo and transferring all the terrorists and their trials to the U.S. we will "regain the moral high ground" on the terrorists. I'm no lawyer, but Obama is, and if I was a defendant being tried in the American court system, I would ask the court if there was any way I could receive a fair trial now that the President of the United States has publicly stated that I'm guilty and will be executed.  So much for our "moral high ground" and our legal system. This entire show should have the ACLU up in arms crying out for the President's head!

The most obvious solution to this is simple. Leave it in the hands of the military but as we have seen too many times before, Obama is a master at taking the obvious and turning it into the ludicrous. A recent Rasmussen Report finds that a growing number say they want a military tribunal, not the civilian courts, to litigate the cases of the accused terrorists. The poll found that 67 percent support tribunals, up from 54 percent in July 2008. It also shows that 74% of voters strongly oppose giving suspected terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens.

As it stands now, they don't know where the trials will be held or even  if Congress will approve funding. The answer is obvious to the American people but when has Obama ever listened to what America wants.

Edisto Joe

Related articles by Zemanta

• 9/11 'kingpin' 'faces execution' (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Gitmo closing deadline missed (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

TERRORISM: NEW SITE FOR 9/11 TRIALS FOUND!

The Obama Administration has been searching all over the country for a new location to hold the 9/11 terrorism trials now that New York looks like a no-go. Among the many problems they face are cost and security, with cost being the number one concern.

Those in charge of finding a location have run into roadblocks at every turn. This past weekend they announced what is believed to be the perfect location and should fit into the new budget without a problem. The question of security has yet to be addressed but they are confident it will work out.

To find out more go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQTddaIO2s

Edisto Joe

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama to Pull Plug on Plan for NYC 9/11 Trial (abcnews.go.com)
• Administration Considers Changing Terror Trial (eagleviews.org)