Follow by Email

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The War At Home.

Hey folks.

Happy Wednesday to you. First a quick note. I KNOW the big news yesterday, and I’m sure for a little while is and will be "Global Warming." If I get time I’ll get to it. Simply put, the LWL and the MMD are simply attempting to legislate a THEORY. There is NO "Global Warming." For every ten Scientist that say they feel it is real, you have ten that say it’s not. But what they are attempting to do is SILENCE any opposition. It’s all about money, power, and more government in private lives.

Now to the war. Now I’m not talking totally about Iraq. Now it is seeming more and more like we may be talking about Iran also. FINALLY. But what I’m mostly talking about is the war at home. The war between the LWL and the President, their number one enemy.

The news is absolutely stunning. Let’s get right to it. From the AP,

The Bush administration has increased rhetorical, diplomatic, military and economic pressure on Iran over the past few months, in response to Iran's alleged deadly help for extremists fighting U.S. troops in Iraq and the long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

That’s because they are aiding the enemy. They are HELPING them to kill our men and women in Iraq. They want us DEAD. They want Israel DEAD. They want anyone non-Muslim DEAD. President Bush said,

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said. "It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal."

Makes sense to me. But then again, I’m not a card caring LWL. I can actually THINK. But this article says,

Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.

STOP!!! Hold on. First folks, look at the wording here. "Republican" is first. They want you to believe that the President is this out of control leader, that even his own party, no longer has faith in. That's just simply a lie. They say "emboldened Iran?" Well, WHY do you think they are? They it says that Bush missed a chance of "potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq?" This is just the FIRST paragraph. Are you REALLY buying this garbage?

Then they have the little god, Sen Barack Hussain Obama, saying, "What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place."

Same old, same old. More talks. Nothing accomplished. But that’s OK with them.


OH, the Republican? You know, the first word of this story? I can only assume that they are talking about Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb who asked John Negroponte, who is going to be the Deputy Secretary of State, if we are heading to war with Iran. Why ask him? Ask Simon Tisdall who has an article in the Guardian. He said,

US officials in Baghdad and Washington are expected to unveil a secret intelligence "dossier" this week detailing evidence of Iran's alleged complicity in attacks on American troops in Iraq. The move, uncomfortably echoing Downing Street's dossier debacle in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, is one more sign that the Bush administration is building a case for war.

He goes on to talk about all the things HE feels are leading to this. Then he wraps it up with this.

Almost any one of these developments might produce a casus belli. And when taken together, despite official protestations, they seem to point in only one direction. The Bush administration, an American commentator suggested, is "once again spoiling for a fight".

GOOD!. Stop Little Hitler BEFORE he has nuclear bombs that he WANTS to use. But then you still have the fact that the LWL and the MMD HATE. The fact that President Bush IS the ONLY Commander and Chief. But WAIT. They are trying to circumvent that now. With a little help.

A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.

The Commander and Chief is not. Never will be.

But there are other legislative options to force the war's end, say majority Democrats and some of Bush's traditional Republican allies.

The alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in Iraq to cutting off funding for troop deployments beyond a certain date or setting an end date for the war.

"The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who presided over a hearing Tuesday on Congress' war powers. He also is pushing legislation to end the war by eventually prohibiting funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq.

Then get this from Reuters,

"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.

"It is ultimately Congress that decides the size, scope and duration of the use of military force," said Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general -- the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court -- in 1996-97, and an assistant attorney general three years before that.

{Laughing}To all you anti-war kooks out there, don’t get to excited. You may hear these things reporting HARD in the next few days, but they are simply NOT true. Even if Congress could find a way to squirm, no, make that slither, their way into the "office" of Commander and Chief and end the war, they just will not do it. They KNOW that the majority of the American people are AGAINST this type of action. I love this statement by Robert Turner of the University of Virginia School of Law,

"In the conduct of war, in the conduct of foreign affairs, the president is in fact the decider," Turner said. He suggested lawmakers might need to "run for president" if they wanted to manage war policy.


Run for President? {Laughing, banging hand on desk} There are like 26 of them that ARE running. Again, as I have said, over and over again,

But the White House said that while Congress controlled the money, Bush controlled the military forces. "The president is not the only decision-maker, but he is the only commander-in-chief," spokeswoman Dana Perino said, adding: "if they (in Congress) have a better plan for securing Baghdad and turning a corner in Iraq, he wants to hear it."

Stop bitching and give us DETAILS about your plan. Oh yeah, sorry, forgot who I was talking to. Out of time, got to go. It is absolutely mind numbing to watch these people continue to use our brave men and women fighting this war as political pawns to conduct a war against their only true enemy, President George W. Bush.
Peter

Sources:
AP-Specter: Bush not sole 'decision-maker'
AP-Senators warn against war with Iran
The Guardian-Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran

Reuters-Congress can halt Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Off Day Tuesday January 30, 2007








Hey folks,

I will not be in the office this Tuesday, January 30, 2007. Wishing you all a great day. See you tomorrow.
Peter

Monday, January 29, 2007

Pelosi And Other Dems Violate the Law

Hey folks,

Here is something for the Mass Media Drones to ignore. Until they have to report it due to the "new media" reporting it. Here is how it’s most likely going to go. The New media will be all over it. The MMD? Most likely will just wave it off as an "oversight" and find something else to attack the President with. Some other "injustice" of the war. Or, down play it, saying everybody does these things. No big deal.


It turns out that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities. They are sitting on a lot of money. Now why would they do this? Not only is this a way to hide money, but it’s a violation of law. Non to mention, a violation of ETHICS.

According to USA Today,

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

All three foundations are funded and controlled by the lawmakers and their spouses, and do not solicit donations from outside sources.

It other words folks, they control the money. This is not new. 16 other lawmakers from both parties hold similar positions. So what is the problem? They REPORTED it. Not reporting it, like these three have failed to do, violates the law, gives an appearance of impropriety, and could also be tax evasion.

According to the second article,


Rep. Rahm Emanuel made millions as an investment banker. Sen. Evan Bayh had leftover cash after two successful campaigns for Indiana governor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul, became wealthy investing in real estate and technology firms.

It was with this money that each of these Democrats started a charitable foundation.

Emanuel, Bayh and Nancy Pelosi are officers of the foundations that carry their names but failed to disclose the fact on their annual financial disclosure reports filed with Congress. Tax records show the foundations donated mostly to hometown charities that reflect the lawmakers' personal and political attitudes. None of the foundations received donations from outside sources.

They made their money. Then they create these "Charitable Foundations" as a way to avoid big tax bills. They give some away to this group or that, to APPEAR they are doing something good, but in reality, it is THEIR money. They are just hiding it. This is done all the time. Not just politicians, but a lot of the wealthy do these things. But for them to do this and then NOT report it?

The Senate passed an ethics bill earlier this month that would boost penalties for knowingly filing false financial disclosure statements.

"Despite all the ethics reforms, there's still no enforcement," said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and head of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.

Filing a false report could be prosecuted as a felony, Sloan and Brand said, but prosecutions are rare. Last year, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist failed to report his role in a family charity. He updated his disclosure form and wasn't punished.

So what is their response to this? "Oh it was just an "over sight." No big deal. We will just go back a rewrite it. We got caught, no problem." {Sigh}

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Friday the speaker will amend her reports. He said it "was an oversight" that she had not listed her position dating back to 1992.

Bayh spokeswoman Meghan Keck said it was "simply an oversight" that he did not disclose his charity role. Bayh has since amended his reports, Keck said.

Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Conference, does not believe the law requires him to disclose his foundation post, spokeswoman Kathleen Connery said. "We believe we're following the instructions of the (ethics) committee exactly right, but if we're not, we'll amend our report," she said.

Pelosi had NOT listed her position dating back to 92? OH you can’t do that? {laughing} Translation time folks, we tried to cover it up. We got caught, now we are going to re-write history. The norm for the LWL.

If the headline read, "{Any Three Top Republican Names Here} Violated The Law By Attempting to Hide Money, Could Be Guilty Of Tax Evasion," It would be reported COMPLETELY differently. Front page. All the shows. Then you would most likely have the call for hearings. Since it’s Pelosi? Well, I guess we’ll see.
Peter

Sources:
USA Today- Pelosi, two other Democrats failed to disclose roles in family charities
USA Today- Democrats put own money into charitable foundations

Sunday, January 28, 2007

IWA for Sunday January 28, 2007









Hey folks,

It’s Sunday, time for the IWA. This weeks winner is too stupid to be a cop. Yup a cop. Don’t you just hate stupid cops. The good news is, he is not a cop any longer. I do have a question though. According to ABC- Fla. Teen Gets $35G in Topless Lawsuit.

PENSACOLA, Fla. Jan 27, 2007 (AP)— A teenager who sued the city after claiming a police officer forced her to do jumping jacks while topless has reached a $35,000 settlement, officials said.

The City Council unanimously approved the settlement Thursday, City Manager Tom Bonfield said.

Officer Shawn Patrick Shields found the girl, then 16, and a 19-year-old man together in a parked car in April 2003. Shields ordered the two teens out of the car, then told them he could arrest them for lewd and lascivious behavior, authorities said.

The girl told investigators that Shields told her to perform five topless jumping jacks, which she said she did as he shone his flashlight on her.

Now according to this article, Patrick Shields was fired and is under investigation for extortion. My question is why not charge this moron with sex offenses? Contributing to the delinquency of a minor? This girl was 16 years old. He made her, out of fear, show off her boobs to him. Topless jumping jacks? What else has this guy done?

Not only am I glad this girl got the money, he was fired, and facing extortion charges, but I truly believe this guy should be locked up, and investigated for other sex offences.

Congratulations EX-Officer Shields, you are the Idiot of the Week. As well you should be inmate of the week, but that is not up to me.
Peter
Updates, What to Look For, Whatever.

Hey folks,

It’s Sunday morning. The Sunday morning talk shows will be starting up soon. Whatever will be their topics? Here’s what to look for. The anti-war protest that I told you about on Friday. It’s still too early, and no one has an actual number, but it seems that some "ten’s of thousands" is the "number" some are throwing out there. Nowhere near the hundred thousand that they wanted. Interesting if you think about this, the phrase "tens of thousands," as was used by Reuters is EXACTLY how they are reporting it now. I guess they’re looking for confirmation. I wonder what the REAL number is.

At any rate, the big story this morning seems to be this protest. Reuters report,

Chanting "bring our troops home," tens of thousands of anti-war protesters rallied in front of the U.S. Capitol on Saturday to pressure the government to get out of Iraq.

Here is where they attempt to justify their "prediction,"

Tens of thousands of people attended the rally on the National Mall, according to a park police officer.

But the AP reports that,

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, had hoped 100,000 would come. They claimed even more afterward, but police, who no longer give official estimates, said privately the crowd was smaller than 100,000.

I do truly wonder what the real number is. Both go on to talk about the stars, the anti-war crowd, even attempt to give more credit to the pointless protest by reporting that there were some families that lost loved ones in Iraq.

In the crowd, a group of families of soldiers killed in Iraq held pictures of their loved ones, including one photo of a soldier in full dress uniform lying in a coffin.

Uh OK. If I lost my Son in a car accident, I would be mad, hurt, ETC. If I lost him in a fire, flood, whatever, I would have the same emotions. If he CHOSE to sign up and go fight a war, and he died, I would be hurt, sad, but also PROUD. By hey, that’s me.

Here is something you need to look for as well. This just made me sick. The AP reported,

At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."

This kid is being used by her idiot parents, and now she will be used by the MMD. No twelve year old little girl is going to make a statement like this without be prompted. Watch her be the new "face" or the protest.

This is bad for the Democrats that got elected in. Not for President Bush. Like the Christian Science Monitor is reporting,

"What's happening is, the left is trying to stiffen the resolve of the mainline Demo-crats," says Dr. Williams, who's also a retired naval reserve captain. The question for the political left on the eve of major demonstrations, he says, is "Do you want to be effective, or do you want to be cathartic?"

Along with the protest. You also have Iran. First,

The lawmaker, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said the installation under way at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant "stabilizes Iran's capability in the field of nuclear technology," IRNA reported.


but now this morning, "No we’re not."

It was not immediately clear why the two officials made contradicting statements. Iranian officials have in recent weeks said the country was moving toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini refused to elaborate on the discrepancy Sunday, saying only that the contradicting remarks were a "technical matter."

"Let the organization elaborate on it at a convenient time," Hosseini said.

Hosseini also said that Russia's national security adviser, Igor Ivanov, arrived in Tehran on Sunday for talks with top leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, the country's nuclear negotiator.

Yes they are. Now the Russian Security Adviser is going over to talk to them about this very thing.

I wrap it up today with this. This is funny, but you have to pay attention to find the humor in it. As you probably know, Speaker Pelosi is touring the war. This morning we get this report from the AP,

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ate breakfast with soldiers from California on Sunday and met briefly with top military leaders at the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan, an official said.

Pelosi and her congressional delegation stopped at the U.S. base in Bagram for about an hour, where she thanked soldiers from the 10th Mountain and 82nd Airborne divisions for their service, said Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman.

The Headline of this article is "Pelosi meets with troops in Afghanistan" {laughing} The rest of the article talks about how she met with this and that foreign leader, and will be meeting with more. You know what they say about a picture saying a thousand words? Well, what picture did the AP use to show Pelosi "meeting with the troops" THIS ONE. {Laughing hard}


Anyway, enjoy the morning protest rush. See you in a little bit for the IWA.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters- Tens of thousands demand U.S. get out of Iraq
AP-Crowds on both coasts protest Iraq war
CSM-Antiwar protesters target Congress

AP-Iran says it's installing centrifuges
AP-Report: Iran denies centrifuge work
AP-Pelosi meets with troops in Afghanistan
JMT January 28,2007

"Not Recommended For Children"

Hey folks,

The title of this JMT segment is not a warning by me. It appears on new product that is growing in popularity with kids. Here is some more of what appears on the same product. "Your being lied to." "Search and destroy" "Bring the system down." "A bad influence." It also depicts alternative sports stars like Pat Duffy, Cris Ward, with a message, "Tear down your idols."

What is the Product? "Lost Energy Drink." The warning states, do not consume more than 3 cans a day. Not recommended for children." So WHY are they marketing this product TO children? Has anyone done ANY research as to the long term effects of this and other similar product on long time users?

I’ve talked about the effects on all the hormones, chemicals, and additives, in our foods, and the visible effects it has had over time. We have discussed the obvious change in our YOUNG teens going from developing around the age of 14 and 15 to now starting around 9 and 10. Look at most of our kids today. The boys are bigger, going trough puberty earlier, and our girls? Well, with the right look, hair style, make up, and dress, some of them could easily pass as late teens early twenties.

This is why I have a major problem with some parents allowing them to dress in a manner that does more than bring attention to themselves. The parents that allow them to go wherever and do whatever they want.

Remember THIS young girl?

But now the new craze seems to be these energy drinks. I know, my 15 year old Niece LOVES them. I’ve seen kids drinking these things like water. To me they taste like cough syrup, but that’s beside the point.

Now I understand that every generation says and does things that try the patients or the previous one. From music, movies, to dress, I have no problem with this generation finding their "thing" and expressing themselves, to a degree. But when it comes to companies making products to sell to them, that may very well be BAD for them, it’s time to look into it.

My main concern is simple. Are these things safe? We already know that caffeine has been good, bad, good, bad,,ah,,whatever, for adults. What about young and still developing minds and bodies? How about the other chemicals that make up these products?

My concern is simply the safety and well being of our kids. I’m just concerned that these products have not been fully tested. Remember the big tobacco industry use to say their product was safe. This is a product designed to boost the energy levels in it’s consumers. If it’s safe, then so be it. They can drink all they want. But if it’s not, lets regulate them. Besides, don’t they already have WAY too much energy as is?
Peter

Saturday, January 27, 2007

First Gen. Petraeus, Now Gates. Bush Still In Charge

Hey folks,

Time for the article I meant to post this morning. From the Seafood Festival, to various other stops with the Family, it was a GREAT day. But I have to say this as a side note. I really have to just pick a off day here. A permanent day off for the family. They get tired of coming into the OPN office just to see me. I need to just pick an internet free day. Well, I’ll get around to it. Someday.

First was General David Petraeus, who testified that this idiotic resolution against the President and sending more troops would both demoralize the troops and give hope to the enemy. They passed it anyway. Now you have Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying the same thing.

According to this article from yesterday by the AP,

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday an effort in Congress to pass a resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup undercuts U.S. commanders in Iraq and "emboldens the enemy."

At the same time, he said the Pentagon is hoping to speed the deployment of five additional Army brigades to Baghdad to bolster security in the capital. They had been scheduled to arrive a brigade per month through May, each containing roughly 3,500 troops.

Gates' strong language, along with Bush's own forceful comments, underscored the high stakes in a congressional battle expected to start next week over proposals from both parties criticizing the president's war strategy.

I’ll get to what the President said in a second. How can anyone possibly say that they support the troops, and not the effort? They can’t. Make no mistake about it, as I’ve said before, the LWL does NOT care about the troops. They want America to lose. They are playing politics with the troops. It IS just that simple.

The new attack on the President and I’m sure will also be the troops, in a round about, disguised way, will be the fact he has ordered Iranians involved in the effort to kill us, captured or killed. Can you imagine that? Someone trying to kill you, or someone aiding someone else trying to kill you, and you are told to stop them? Say it isn’t so.

As Bush put it,

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said. "It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal."

"I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," he said. "They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work."

STOP!! WAIT!!! Translation time for those in the LWL who need a little further help in understanding. He just said, I understand you do not like this plan. You believe, or at least keep saying, that it will not work. Fine, stop denouncing my plan, saying how wrong I am, and tell us what your plan IS. Stop saying you have a better plan. Give us the details." The LWL response? "Duh, huh?"

Then you have the USA Today saying,

WASHINGTON — President Bush today criticized some lawmakers for not giving his new Iraq plan a chance to succeed while his new defense secretary said any Congressional resolution opposing an increase in troops for Iraq "emboldens the enemy."

The Senate is expected to vote as early as next week on several bipartisan resolutions opposing Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, including one that calls the new policy "not in the national interest."

Bush, saying "I am the decision-maker," spoke to reporters at the Oval Office while meeting with senior military advisers.

"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush said.

He is the Commander and Chief. I know that they hate to remember that. I know that some in this country hate to realize that. But, I repeat, yet agin, he does not need their permission, nor does he need them to like it. The decision is his.

VIDEO: Bush asserts authority

The sooner that the new Democrat leadership realizes this, the sooner we can start to get things done.

Peter
Sources:
AP-Gates: Iraq resolution 'emboldens' enemy
USA Today- Bush: 'I am the decision-maker'
Remembrance

Hey folks,

Well today is January 27, International Day of Commemoration for victims of the Holocaust. To all the surviving Jews, and to all the families. I apologize for the delay in the action that America took. I apologize for America refusing to see the signs of the evilness of Hitler. I promise to do what I can to ensure that this does not take place again.

To your loved ones. God speed, and peace be to you.
Peter
Quick Update, The Resolution Condemning Holocaust Denying

Hey folks,

Just a quick update. The Washington Post is reporting today,

U.N. Approves Resolution Condemning Holocaust Denying

The United Nations General Assembly today approved a resolution, drafted by the United States and co-sponsored by 103 countries, that condemns denials of the Holocaust.

The resolution came six weeks after a conference in Tehran, organized by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, questioned whether six million Jews were exterminated during World War II.

Ahmadinejad and the conference were not mentioned in the resolution, which "condemns without any reservation any denial of the Holocaust" and "urges all member states unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."

The conference, which drew 67 Holocaust skeptics and deniers from 30 nations, including former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, was widely denounced.

STOP!!!! David Duke is an Idiot. How anyone would ever take this guy seriously is beyond me. But you know, I have to say this. Someone said to me, in essence, {Pete’s Paraphrase} "I have no problem with a day of remembrance. However, is this not an attempt to legislate morals?"

You know folks, I have to admit, I NEVER thought of it until that moment. They’re right. Having a day to remember what had happened, even a, which I’m still calling for, National Holiday, is indeed different and separate from attempting to outlaw, "Free Speech."

According to the Post,

A statement from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's office said the resolution "reflects the prevailing view of the international community. The Secretary-General reiterates his conviction that the denial of historical facts such as the Holocaust is unacceptable."

I can appreciate that, but hindrance to free speech should be also. When we start going down a road where we start outlawing what people say, no matter how insane, offensive, or wrong it may be, we open a very dangerous Pandoras Box. We start saying that Little Hitler cannot say that the Holocaust is a "myth," because it is offensive. Then before you know it, someone could find you talking about Jesus offensive. Then, all of a sudden, it’s illegal to do so.

One of the other reasons I believe in "Free Speech" is the fact that this way, we will know what they actually believe, how looney they are, and what they are planning. Like Israel's U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman says,

"While the nations of the world gather here to affirm the historicity of the Holocaust with the intent of never again allowing genocide, a member of this assembly is acquiring the capabilities to carry out its own," Gillerman said, according to Reuters. "The president of Iran is in fact saying, 'There really was no Holocaust, but just in case, we shall finish the job."

We would not know there is a new Hitler rising, if we did not allow him to tell us. So I’m not so sure that a resolution condemning the speech about it is a good thing. But we must NEVER forget what happened. If we do, we are at risk to repeat it. Like sitting back and ignoring Little Hitler. At least we know now, I’m not the only one watching him. So is the President, the UN, and a lot of other folks.
Peter

Friday, January 26, 2007

Quick Correction

Hey folks,

Sorry, have to make a quick correction. I think, maybe not. Maybe so. After watching some of the debate on the Senate floor about the Minium Wage Increase, I have noticed that I may have mistyped. That’s right folks, the first ever err here at the OPN.

I wrote "Just recently Reed said he would not have anything to do with it unless it included tax cuts for small business." It should have been, "Just recently Reed said he would have nothing to do with it BECAUSE it included tax cuts for small business." It was the Republicans in the Senate that put it in. This is what created the two versions. The Senate rejected the House version and attempted to write their own version. Now NEITHER will be passed. Same thing for the all so famous resolution in reference to more troops. More on that later. They are NOT a united party. That still hasn’t changed. I read in an article that Reed said he did want tax cuts to off set the cost. That is INCORRECT. The article has since been removed so I cannot link to it.

You know what folks, scratch that. I am taking the LWL method. The Democrat method. Yes I wrote it, but it’s not my fault. I was lied to. I was tricked. I read this in an article. The only article I didn’t link to. Now it’s not there. But It’s not my fault.

Just kidding. I should have known better. Reed wanting tax cuts? In the past I would just go in a change it. But now, I have learned and seen some of the things I write, used elsewhere. That’s OK, do not get me wrong. I do not mind if you want to use one of my articles. But because of this, if I just change it here, then wherever it may be elsewhere will remain the same. So if you have borrowed this article, you may want to change that. {Smile}
Peter
Much To Do, Nothing Getting Done.

Hey folks,

AM I missing something here? Am I the only one scratching my head? I stopped in the OPN office last night after seeing a article in the Washington Post. I scanned the news of the day and kept running into the same thing. But here’s what has stupefied. It’s all about NOTHING.

The article I’m talking about is this,

Tens of thousands of peace advocates from across the country are expected in Washington on Saturday for an anti-war rally that could be among the biggest since the war in Iraq began, organizers said yesterday.

They said the rally on the Mall, followed by a march near the Capitol, will target President Bush's intention to send more troops to the Iraq war.

The president's policy is "fight, war, occupation, death, destruction, spend our tax dollars," Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, the umbrella group that is one of the main organizers of Saturday's events, said at a media briefing.

Citing what she called "this devastating debacle of lies and horror," Cagan said: "The people of this country have had it. This Saturday, January 27, on the heels of the Bush administration's decision to send another 21,000 U.S. troops into Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people from all across this country will come to this capital city to make it clear."

{Sigh} Tens of thousands? I guess we’ll see. I guarantee you that the MMD will be there. Apparently so will the "stars,"

Among the featured speakers will be Vietnam War-era protester Jane Fonda, according to the organizers. Others include actors Danny Glover, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, and Carlos Arredondo, who in 2004 set himself on fire after learning of the death in Iraq of his Marine Corps son, Alexander.

The rally is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. at the east end of the Mall, at Third Street and Madison Drive NW, the organizers said. The march is to kick off at 1 p.m.

Same old same old. Stars, {has beens} trying to get some attention. Jesse? WAIT!!! Hold it a second.

Cagan declined yesterday to predict a Saturday turnout. "We learned a long time ago not to put out numbers," she said. "There are many variables, especially in the winter."

If she did not put out the "Tens of thousands of peace advocates from across the country are expected" then WHO did? The Post? The MMD? Notice this also, she is already making excuses just incase in turns out to be a joke of a turnout.

The rest talks about how Fonda has avoided previous protests because she is so important, it would be a distraction. OK. So what did I see while scanning the news? The so called resolution. You know, the non-binding, powerless, pointless, and all around bad resolution?

From the AP,

Sen. John Warner R-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he won't negotiate with Democrats to develop a single proposal on Iraq. His comments _ along with the emergence of other resolutions the Senate might consider _ underscored how a Congress largely against Bush's proposal to send more troops to Iraq remained divided over what to do about it.

Warner's decision bolsters chances that his resolution will be the one to win final Senate approval. Democrats are expected to vote for his proposal if their measure fails, and several Republicans said they prefer Warner's approach because it is less divisive.

Seems that he even wrote a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden that said,

Any agreement on the two resolutions "should occur as a consequence of the will of the Senate, working in 'open' session," Warner wrote in a letter to Biden and other co-sponsors of the Democratic-driven resolution.

So what does this all mean. Why does it matter the there are TWO different resolutions?

His decision to avoid bargaining also decreases the odds that a single resolution would emerge that would garner a strong, bipartisan vote reproaching Bush's plan, which the White House hopes to avoid.

NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN! The LWL cannot get along with each other. They cannot agree because they ALL want to have the power. I’ve been telling you this. Now you are seeing it come to pass. Not to mention NON-BINDING.

I told you back on August 9, 2006

"Trust me folks, when you have unlimited funds to get your message out, no matter how looney that message is, you will get some believing it. But is this a sign to come? I do not think so. But if the LWL take over in November, I guarantee that nothing will get done, except making the President’s life miserable for two years, cut, surrender and run, and more taxes. They STILL have no agenda."

Remember how happy they {The House} were about passing the increase in the minium wage? Just recently Reed said he would not have anything to do with it unless it included tax cuts for small business. The House will not go for that, so again, NOTHING.

Back to this resolution. CNN says

"There is a legitimate concern about the lack of congressional oversight, about sending Gen. [David] Petraeus there saying we don't approve of his mission," he said. Bush has nominated Petraeus to be the new commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq.

"One of the areas we really want to work on is setting some benchmarks, so the American people and Congress will know if we're making progress or not," McCain said.

Yes. General Petraeus testified it will give hope to the enemy and demoralize the troops if this resolution is passed.

Two groups of senators have proposed nonbinding resolutions of opposition to President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq. Three other Democratic senators have proposed bills that would cap the number of U.S. troops there. {Watch senators clash over competing proposals}

This is just simply a lot to do about nothing. Nothing is getting done. The President does not have to listen to these idiots. He is, I know they hate this but, HE is the Commander and Chief. The only thing that they could actually do, is de-fund the war. But that would be political suicide. They would not longer be able to attempt to deceive you about "supporting the troops." They will NOT do anything like this. They will just continue to give the President a hard time in the hope that we cut and run, translation, lose.

With this, and all these investigations they are doing, and are planning on, NOTHING is going to get done in this country for the next two years. I warned you about that. The President said that the White House will cooperate fully with all these investigations. Of course. He will allow them to play for the next two years, while he continues to do what he feels is necessary to protect this country and win the war.
Peter

Sources:
Washington Post-Large Rally Planned Saturday on Mall
AP-No compromise seen on Iraq resolutions
CNN-McCain says he'll propose benchmarks for Iraq
Reuters- White House will cooperate with investigations

Me

Thursday, January 25, 2007

National Holiday January 27?

Hey folks,

First, let me say this. I mentioned that yesterday was a big and busy day for me. This is because it was my first day back to a semi normal schedule. One week ago Tuesday, I woke up in the morning not feeling so good. Physically, I do not always feel so good. I’ve pretty much beat the hell out of my body over the years, so I’m use to it. I figured it would just go away. Well about 8:30 am I got out of my vehicle and felt what felt light a bolt of lightening shoot through the left side of my body.

I called a friend of my who was also in Port St Lucie Fla. and advised him of the situation. He rushed me to the Urgent Care facility there. After being hooked up on EKG, and other things, I was sent home. This is why is seemed I was here more the last two weeks. I still should do some more tests coming up, but I feel one hundred percent better. Doctors cleared me to return to normal yesterday, so I had some catching up to do. But right now, I’m good. Back to myself, and not to worry.

Now the news of the day? I told you so. Basically, I’m sure I’ll touch on some aspects of all of it soon, but basically, the President gave his State of The Union Address on Tuesday. The LWL and some in the MMD did not like it. The Dems passed a "Non-binding" resolution saying that more troops are not in the best interest of the country. But that basically means,,NOTHING.

So what I want to talk about today, wanted to yesterday, is January 27. Should this be a new national Holiday? I say yes. What say you? What am I talking about? This article by Reuters’s Evelyn Leopold

U.S introduces UN resolution on Holocaust deniers

"The United States introduced a U.N. resolution on Tuesday condemning denials of the Holocaust, weeks after Iran sponsored a meeting dominated by speakers questioning the extermination of 6 million Jews in World War Two.


A total of 72 nations so far are sponsoring the resolution in the 192-member General Assembly, including all countries in Europe, Israel, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The United States and its allies hope for a vote in the General Assembly on Friday.

The aim is to get more than the 104 sponsors of a November 2004 resolution making January 27 the International Day of Commemoration for victims of the Holocaust, diplomats said."

I say great. Not only should it be an international day of remembrance, but it should be a national and legal Holiday. Why not? We have a Holiday for other things. We have MLK Day, Veterans Day, Labor Day, Independence Day, ETC. We celebrate past Presidents, Religious figures, and even a groundhog. OK I know, I know, the groundhog thing is not a national holiday, but what other event in history is more deserving than that of remember six million Jews being murdered during one of the darkest parts of history?

I have no problem with,

"The operative part of the resolution has only two paragraphs. It "condemns without any reservation any denial of the Holocaust" and "urges all member states unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."

We have our Independence Day. Why not celebrate the Jews Independence from Hilter?


"At the urging of former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the General Assembly in January 2005 held its first ever session on the Holocaust to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.

Up to 1.5 million prisoners, most of them Jews, were killed in Auschwitz alone. A total of six million Jews and millions of others including Poles, homosexuals, Russians and Gypsies were murdered by the Nazis and their allies during the war.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a statement last Friday said "the Holocaust was a unique and undeniable tragedy."

"The ability of the Nazis to command a following, despite their utter depravity, still strikes fear," Ban said, adding that the commemoration was "an essential response to those misguided individuals who claim that the Holocaust never happened, or has been exaggerated."


Not only would a National Holiday force people to remember that of which should never be forgotten, most definitely be a slap in the face of all the Idiots out there that would like to deny the reality of this horrific slaughter of innocents, but it would give the Jews here hope that the world really does care. They get bashed enough by anti-semitism from all over the world. They deserve this respect, acknowledgment, and remembrance. This will not solve anything, erase anything, or ever make up for any of it, but it will keep in mind that it happened, and if we forget the past, it could happen again.
Peter

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

President George W. Bush's State Of The Union Address

President George W. Bush,

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

This rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour -- when decisions are hard and courage is tested. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies -- and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate -- and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation's prosperity ... to spend the people's money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

We are not the first to come here with government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth -- in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs ... so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move -- and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise.

Next week, I will deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 -- and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget.

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process ... expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress ... and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience -- and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty -- and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security.

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act -- preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards ... without taking control from local communities ... and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools ... and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better. We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.


A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available healthcare. When it comes to healthcare, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making healthcare affordable for more Americans.

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our Nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts ... help small businesses through Association Health Plans ... reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology ... encourage price transparency ... and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform. And in all we do, we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.


Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol -- and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in -- and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers -- so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country -- without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate -- so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ... raise the price of oil ... and do great harm to our economy.

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power -- by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.


We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years -- thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well -- to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that terrorists can cause. We have had time to take stock of our situation. We have added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.


With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled -- that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since Nine-Eleven has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented -- but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in Nine-Eleven is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.

In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats ... instruct with bullets and bombs ... and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." And Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ... kill democracy in the Middle East... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our Nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must.


In the last two years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections -- choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world ... and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province -- where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them -- we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation -- to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens ... to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq... to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life ... to hold local elections ... and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq -- because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdadis secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq... and to spare the American people from this danger.


This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united -- in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq -- and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field -- and those on their way.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military -- so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle -- because we are not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations -- and we are working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government. The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet -- the UN, the European Union, and Russia -- we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we are pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. And we will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease -- and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa- and because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty.

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth -- or the duty to share his blessings with others. He has built a brand new hospital in his hometown. A friend has said of this good hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo our fellow American.

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born -- and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I've ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." We are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark.

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks ... pulled the man into a space between the rails ... and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he's not a hero. Wesley says: "We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love." There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire -- and used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs -- yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy's position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and gratitude of our whole country.

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong ... our cause in the world is right ... and tonight that cause goes on.

SOURCE White House Press Office
Big and Busy Day,


Hey folks,

Today is both a big and a busy day for me. I do not have all that much time today. I'll try to get back later or I will most definitely be here in the morning. I'll explain a little more then.

Should January 27 be a new national Holiday? I think so. More on that later or tomorrow as well.

You are about to be bombarded today with "reaction" and analyses from the President's "State of The Union Address, last night. So here it is. This way, if someone tells you "The President said this, or that" you can see for yourself. Sorry I could be here more today. Talk to you soon.
Peter

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Dems To Be Controlled By Soros?

Hey folks,

This article by the AP got my attention. We already know that George Soros owns the MMD {Mass Media Drones.} Now it seems that he wants to own the entire Democrat party. I have told you before that

"They, the Moderate Democrats, have one pertinacious fight ahead if they are going to do this. Not only will they have to fight with the Right, but they will have to avoid being eaten by their own leaders, and the dealings with the MMD. But if they do, this may very well be the beginning of restoration the real Democratic Party. That would not be such a bad thing."

I said,

"This is what I mean when I say that the New Moderate Democrats have a tenacious fight on their hands if they want to make a difference. They have to battle and more importantly BEAT, their own leaders, before they can even think about working with the Republicans. I will repeat again, what happens IN the Democratic party during the next two years, will determine the next President of the United States of America."

You do not hear too much about these moderate Democrats accomplishing much. Now, according the AP, the LWL and the MMD Guru, are getting serious.

"Democratic lawmakers who stray too far from the party line could find themselves facing primary opponents financed by unions, trial lawyers and political activists eager to put the new congressional majority to the test."

It goes on to say,

"Anti-war activists led by groups such as MoveOn.org and Win Without War have already mobilized, pressuring Democrats and Republicans to denounce President Bush's troop boosting plan for Iraq. But they also want tougher action, arguing that the elections that put Democrats in power were a referendum on the war.

This week, an influential group of organizers from labor and the liberal movement are banding together to hold Democrats in line on populist issues such as expanded health care, trade restrictions and worker protections.

"The idea is that this election was a watershed," said Steve Rosenthal, one of the main organizers of the new labor coalition. "There is a great opportunity to begin moving America in a new direction of economic populism and fairness."

The coalition has organized two entities — a lobbying wing called They Work For Us and a campaign arm called Working for Us PAC — that will target lawmakers who don't support their agenda of raising wages, increasing jobs, providing more affordable health care and preventing job losses to foreign countries.

"Our PAC will encourage Democrats to act like Democrats — and if they don't — they better get out of the way," Rosenthal wrote in a memorandum describing the organization."

Looks like the LWL want to make sure that these moderates do not start disobeying the leadership. You know, with intelligence, and free thought. It is attempted to be explained this way.

"Instilling party discipline in our party is simply harder than in the Republican Party," said Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democrat Network. "We are a more diverse party than they are."

Of course. This is because there are so many little groups and so many people, that are all striving for power. There is no real unity. This is why they are attempting to run the party by fear. But not all are aboard. I respect people like, Henry Cuellar, and I have been saying the same thing for a while.

"I'm not going to let any outside group dictate to me how I represent my district," Cuellar said. "If we're going to continue winning and keeping the majority and winning the presidency in '08, we have to make sure we can attract the independent voters. We can do that with moderate centrist positions in the party."

Yes, but NOT with the LWL agendas. Now I have pointed out to you the fact, that these people live and die for polls. They live for the spotlight. They will do NOTHING that they do not feel is popular with their looney base. Or as Rep. Chris Van Hollen D-Md said,

"We're going to look for those issues that have a consensus within the caucus."


The moderates are going to have a hard time with it. If they do not "fall in line" they will be eaten up as the MO of the LWL dictate. They will join them or die. Again, if you are going to have a dictatorship, you cannot have people in your own party that are free thinkers. You must silence or destroy them. Then, and only then, can you truly have the power you seek.



Peter

Source:
AP-New coalition aims to keep Dems in check