Follow by Email

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

End Of Day Round Up, Wednesday Feb 28

Hey folks,

Well, here is yet another end of day round up for you. The big news is the Democrats, make that the LWL, failing in their quest to pass a bill stripping the President of his Commander and Chief status, and the fact that there is this big meeting that many are screaming about.

First the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} find out that most Americans are NOT for them cutting funding and even restricting the who, what, where, and when, of the troops . In essence, they finally got it. Most Americans do not want to lose this, or any, war.

According to the LA Times,

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers, who earlier this month nearly unanimously backed resolutions condemning President Bush's plans to boost troop levels in Iraq, are struggling to agree on what to do next in their drive to bring the war to an end.

They PROMISED they would end the war. The problem is, they promised this to a minute fraction of LWL fringe. You know, the Moveon.com type. But the majority of the American people, and even some in their own party DO NOT WANT THIS. So they made the promise, they boast,


"We've been in the majority for six weeks," said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. "We've had 38 hearings on the Iraq war…. We've already had two votes on the war…. That's a lot better than they've done in the last 3 1/2 or 4 years."

But they haven’t really gotten anything done. {Laughing} I could say I worked all week. Over time even. But if I did nothing while at work, what’s the point? There is none. It doesn’t matter how long I worked. But this is not sitting well with the extreme Looneys out there.

"There seems to be a new world land-speed record set in back-peddling," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman from Maine who heads Win Without War, a coalition of antiwar groups.

Just a few weeks ago, Win Without War was targeting Republicans for standing in the way of the resolutions. Now, Andrews said, antiwar groups are encouraging their members to pressure Democratic lawmakers.

"There seems to be a new world land-speed record set in back-peddling,"
I love it.

Democratic leaders in the Senate have never been enthusiastic about using congressional authority over funding the military to tie up the deployment. But their strategy of rewriting the resolution that authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq to limit the U.S. mission there also has run into trouble.

Leaders have been circulating a draft by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the Armed Services Committee chairman. But several senators sounded uncomfortable with language specifying that U.S. troops could engage in some activities, such as counterinsurgency, but not others.

"I think it's very difficult to start changing things after the fact and still avoid micromanaging," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a moderate lawmaker who helped lead efforts to pass a nonbinding resolution opposing the deployment of additional troops.

So what is their answer to this. This HAS to be in the "you can’t make this stuff up" category. According to The San Francisco Chronicle,

House Democratic leaders, defending a plan by Rep. John Murtha, said Tuesday they will press ahead with legislation requiring all U.S. troops be fully equipped, trained and rested before being sent back to Iraq.

Despite rumors that Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was backing away from the plan, which Republicans have decried as a "slow bleed" on the war, the speaker said Murtha's proposal on troop standards would be debated next week in committee and that she hopes to move it quickly to the floor.


The proposal, however, would allow President Bush to waive the rules if he wanted to deploy troops faster or under different standards than allowed by the measure.


WAIT A SECOND!!!! Read that again,

The proposal, however, would allow President Bush to waive the rules if he wanted to deploy troops faster or under different standards than allowed by the measure.

So they are going to attempt to pass THIS version, where the President can just simply ignore it? This is too much folks {Laughing hard} Seriously. "We are going to admonish you Mr. President, because we have too to attempt to satisfy the Looney fringe, but do not worry, you do not have to abide by it."

Democrats in the House and Senate are struggling to find ways to confront Bush on the war without alienating their most conservative members and opening themselves to political charges they are harming American troops fighting in Iraq.

It’s all about the polls for them. As I keep telling you. It all about popularity

Now for the other big news of the day. This is something that ALL the big guys are complaining about. They are ALL very upset about it. I’m not. I know, that may surprise and even upset some of YOU, but it IS the truth. I’m just not that mad about it.

What am I talking about? This so called "Good Neighbors" meeting in Iraq. This will include Iran and Syria. Now has the Bush Administration said that it will not meet with Little Hitler as long as he continues to his quest to build nuclear weapons? Yes. Are we going to this meeting with includes Iran? Yes. Why did US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice make this statement?

"We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."

I would hope that it is because she meant it. I hope they will too. But everyone is absolutely livid about this. Why? Or better yet, you are probably wondering, why am I not?

OK, my take on this is simple. One, we are trying to get them, and are allowing them, to take over their own country. We freed them. We are training and protecting them while they start finding their footing. They WANT this. They called for it. Are we just going to lay down and allow Iran to build nuclear weapons? No. Are we going to allow Little Hitler to attack Israel? No. Are we going to just allow them to continue to attack tour troops? No. What WE decide to do with Iran, is between us and Iran. Nothing really to do with Iraq. They are THEIR neighbors. Not ours. They are now a sovereign nation. We have to allow them to make choices for themselves.

Two, we can at least say we tried. Look folks, you all know how I feel about Ahmadinejad. You all know that even when other fail to report to you all his doings, I do. You all know I have been watching Iran closely. He Is an evil man. He IS a new Hitler on the rise. But Iraq asked for this meeting. We are going to be there to observe. Nothing else. We are not going to turn over Iraq to Little Hitler. We are going to deal with him in our own way.

This is why I’m not all that upset over this. There will come a time when we leave, giving Iraq totally to the Iraqi government. After that, whatever their dealings with Iran, is their own. We will deal with Iran on our own. Make no mistake about it, we are not asking Ahmadinejad for help in Iraq. We are merely observing.

So to all my friends having coronaries over this meeting, relax. Let it play out. After the meeting, we can then determine the truth of the whole situation.

See you all tomorrow, for a story noone seems to be reporting.
Peter

Sources;
LA Times-War bill divides Democrats
The San Francisco Chronicle-Dems to push tough bill on redeployments
BBC-Iran positive on Iraq conference

AP-Analysis: Iraq talks may open new doors
In Case you Missed It.

Hey folks,

AS you know I took yesterday off. ANY TIME I take time off from the OPN, something happens. Yesterday was no exception. I spent a lot of time in my vehicle and, in turn, I spent a lot of time listening to talk radio. It was all over the news both local, and the big ones. The biggest, Rush Limbaugh make a very good statement. More on that in a few.

But the big news comes from the Tennessee Public Policy Center. According to them, Al Gore, Mr. Global Warming himself, is one of the biggest violators. Accord to the TCPR website,

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House
2006

High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept Low 12541 kWh Jan - FebAverage: 18,414 kWh per month
2005

High 20532 Sept - OctoberLow 12955 Feb - MarchAverage: 16,200 kWh per month
Bill amounts

2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)
Nashville Gas Company

Main House2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)

Guest House/Pool House
2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

According to them,

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Do the math here. That would be as much as 20 regular homes for the year. 20. You know, the 20 that he is telling it’s THEIR fault that the world is going to end. It is THEIR {your} arrogance and ignorance that is causing the havoc that is ravishing the world toward utter destruction.

But Al?

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

STOP!!! Hold on a second. Since this stupid, fact-less, although Oscar winning, Sci-fi movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," where he tells YOU to down size your life, has come out, he has INCREASED he usage and out put. In one month more than an average household in one YEAR?

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

Or else, Al Gore KNOWS this is nothing but bunk. But he is making millions and getting the fame he would have NEVER gotten without it.

Then you have Rush, that pointed this out yesterday on his show.

During the singing of Gore's song that accompanied the movie at the Oscars on Sunday night, Melissa Etheridge was up there warbling away with one of the most depressing songs nominated all night, and they've got this stupid stuff in the background on this giant screen: "Take mass transit as often as you can" and light rail as often as you can. "Calculate your carbon footprint," all this sort of stuff. The whole point here is to downsize the American lifestyle, to blame America for all of these so-called climate crises, problems, global warming or what have you. The hypocrisy here is that Gore is not doing that. He's not reducing his footprint. He's making excuses for having a large one. Everybody else is supposed to reduce theirs. The bottom line here of all of this is that the ultimate aim of the global warming religion followers is to make sure that the United States gets the bulk of the blame, and the fix for this is going to be you and I surrendering more of our liberty and our freedom and paying larger taxes to "fix" this disaster that we have supposedly caused, and empowering an ever larger and larger government to make regulations over how we can live.

The reason Gore is in trouble on this is because he's not reducing his carbon footprint. He's going out and using his wealth and buying other people's unused footprint to allow him to have this big gigantic one. I have no problem if he wants to build a mansion that large -- and he wants to pay for the electricity and the gas to run it, fine! I have no problem with it. You have a big house; you want to use energy to heat it and cool it, and you buy it and you pay for it. I have no problem, because it's not destroying the planet. Algore's perfectly fine doing all of that on his own, but his plan involves you reducing your consumption because you and the mass of the population in this country are responsible for the "crisis" that we face in the climate.

Can you see ANY of those in that room {at the Oscars} taking mass transit? No is the correct answer. "Well, you know Pete, you have to make exemptions due to the fame factor." No I don’t. Like Rush, I couldn’t care less want Al Gore, or any of the others in that room do. I just simply do not care. They have the money to do whatever they want. So be it. But do NOT tell me I have to do something YOU are not willing to do yourself. Worse yet, tell me not to do something that you are doing MORE than I will EVER do, even if I tried.

Then you have this whole "buying offsets" thing. This is the one of the stupidest things I ever heard. OK your house is flooding. You have a foot of water on your floor. You say to me, "Let me buy a foot of space from you, since you have no water on the floor." I say, "Sure." You pay me a stupid amount of money, and now you can say you have no water. But the problem is, all you did was buy the "right" to say you have no water, but reality is you STILL have a foot of water on your floor. I still have none. Do you see how stupid this is? Al increases his "footprint," with all the flying around being a "cool" guy, so he spends more money to say he isn’t doing anything wrong.

Truth is folks, he is NOT doing anything wrong. But neither are YOU. There is NO Global Warming. But to continue to preach his message, even some in the media are calling him a evangelist for Global Warming, then to live the way he is, just goes to show you how completely idiotic all this really is. Even more idiotic is how the Mass Media and the LWL will attempt to defend him. Just watch.
Peter

Sources;
TCPR
Rush

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Off Day Tuesday Feb. 27, 2007

Hey folks,

As I mentioned yesterday, this is a busy week for me. A lot on the schedule to deal with. I apologize, but I will not be in the office today. I just do not have the time needed to meet the high expectations that you all have come to know and, well, expect.

I will be doing everything in my power to be here tomorrow. There is a SLIGHT chance I’ll miss Wednesday as well, but do not fret, I will be back soon. Back up to the standards you know.

Have a great day, and for my friends in the north, I REALLY do wish you sunny days. See all of you folks soon.
Peter

Monday, February 26, 2007

No Big Surprise,

He folks,


Remember when I just said it’s one of those days? So much news I didn’t know were to start? I even had to give you an End Of Day Roundup, in the hopes of just touching on the many news stories out there that NEEDED to be commented on? This is NOT one of those days.

It seems the news today is about things we already know. USA Today and the CSM are both reporting that the Political Race boils down to money and name recognition. Really? They are reporting that the long shots probably will not over come the mainstream players backed by millions.

Then you have some Dems making there way around the Sunday shows saying the want to micro manage the war. Attack the President, and our troops, while saying the support them. Claim that the negativity is coming from "Conservative hosts" and those on the Right that blindly follow whatever Bush says. {Sigh} Sad isn’t it?

Here is another news story that can only be catagorize as no big surprise. Al Gore won an Oscar. I knew he would. Apparently "An Inconvenient Truth" won many Oscars. Yes this movie, sorry, "Documentary" bombed at the box office. It was and continues to be carried by millions funded by the LWL and Liberal activists. There is a push and it has been shown in some schools as fact. But reality is, it has no truth in it. It is a joke. Anyone with an once of intelligence knows that this movie is idiotic.

It’s based on this slide show, that they are hyping again, made ten years ago by Al Gore, saying we only have ten years to go. Then they change this to say more "data indicates," now they are talking hundreds and up to a thousand years. Notice they never talk about the non-existent "Global Warming" while the north is receiving record snow fall, and cold. {Smile}

This story goes on to say that Gore even joked about the pressure of those wanting him to run in 08, it says,

But Gore ruled that out once again on Sunday and even played with the pressure to run with a well-timed joke that won raucous laughter from the audience.

"Even though I honestly had not planned on doing this, I guess with a billion people watching, it's as good a time as any. So, my fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now to formally announce..," Gore said.

And then loud music from the pit orchestra -- the kind used to cut short acceptance speeches -- drowned out Gore and he and DiCaprio walked off stage arm-in-arm.

{Sigh} {Laughing} WAIT!!! Maybe he was toying with the idea of coming out? This would TRULY be funny. Why would he and DiCaprio walk off arm and arm? Now THAT would be a surprise.

But I didn’t watch it last night. I used to. Until I learned that the fix was in. I used to sit watching the outfits, the stars, and hoping my movies that I liked won. But no longer. After years of seeing movies I never heard of, and activist actors winning, I have stopped. This seals the deal for me. I will no longer waste my time.

So you see folks, the news so far today is no big surprise. It’s Monday, and a long week ahead. So I’ll see you soon, when the news improves. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
Peter

Source:
Reuters-With Gore's goading, Hollywood goes green at Oscars

Sunday, February 25, 2007

IWA for Sunday Feb, 25, 2007

"Reading Writing, Reefer"

Hey folks,

It’s SUNDAY, Time for the IWA. This week, we learn something new. For this teacher, it’s the four R’s. That would be reading, writhing, arithmetic , and, well, reefer.

MURRAY, Ky. (AP) - A middle school teacher trying to buy pot was arrested after she sent text messages to state trooper instead of a dealer, police said.

Trooper Trevor Pervine was at dinner with his wife and parents celebrating a birthday when his phone started buzzing with messages about a marijuana purchase.

At first, Pervine thought the messages were from friends playing a joke, Kentucky State Police spokesman Barry Meadows said. But a couple of phone calls put that idea to rest, and Pervine responded to set up a meeting, Meadows said.

Authorities say Ann Greenfield, 34, arrived at the meeting point and found Pervine and other law enforcement officers waiting for her.

"She learned her lesson. Program your dealers into your phone," Meadows said.

Yeah, that might have been a good idea. {Laughing} Worse yet, she did this WHILE at school. Maybe she has already smoked too much. The numbers got jumbled or something. Don’t you hate that.

Greenfield, a teacher at Murray Middle School, was charged with conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a school, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, Meadows said.

Now she is listed as a arts and humanity teacher, on the Murry Middle School directory, however her link has been removed. Sorry no photo available.

Congratulations Ms Greenfield, for thinking that you could score, while scoring papers, you ARE the Idiot of the week. Now, I’m not a teacher, but I remember Middle school. I have had some teachers in my time that this would have made sense. {Smile} But Ms. Greenfield, hasn’t anyone ever told you, don’t crap where you eat? Follow your student's lead. Do this sort of thing OUTSIDE of school. Idiot.
Peter

Source:
My Way- Text Messages Land Teacher in Hot Water
Just My Thoughts Sunday, February 25, 2007

"I’ll Eat What I Want Two"

Hey folks,

In the I’ll eat what I want category, there is more news. Now remember the last time we talked about this on October 29, 2006 in the "JMT," I told you about curry. I told you about the new study that shows curry may help keep elderly minds sharp. Then I told you I cringe any time I hear things like this. I said,

So why do I cringe? Simple folks, this is today. Tomorrow? Curry may be found to be BAD for you. Look at Red Wine. One day it is good, then bad, then good.

Then We talked about coffee may become a Health drink.

Well that’s great news for me. My coffee at my side this morning "Butterscotch Toffee."{Today is Hazelnut. ‘Smile’} I understand and have seen the benefits of Curry. I love Curry. Been eating it since around 1982. I was talking to someone about this article I saw and they said, "Well, think about it. How often do you see an Indian {From India}, or an Island person in a long-term care facility, or with major heath issues. How often do you see overweight Filipinos or Asian folks? Their diets have a lot to do with it." I said, "You know you are right, but, if I said that though, I would most likely be deemed a racist." We both had a good laugh.

But my problem with all these "studies" comes from when these Scientists, Nutritionists, and so called "experts" start telling you things that have always been bad for you are now good for you.

You can even say vice versa. After avoiding these "bad foods" for years, now your told they are good. Now what is making the news? According to the USA Today, By Nanci Hellmich,

Artery-clogging trans fats are the villain of the moment in the enduring story of America's love affair with food.

New York and Philadelphia have moved to ban trans fats from restaurant foods, forcing chefs to find alternatives to the partially hydrogenated oils that have kept french fries tasty and pastries firm.

Big food companies are squeezing trans fats out of products from Oreos to Cheetos and rushing to find palatable substitute oils. Even Crisco has been reformulated so it's trans-fat free. Fast-food chains such as Wendy's and McDonald's have scrambled to figure out ways to cook fries without trans fats.

But WAIT!!!

Now, some nutrition and health analysts say the preoccupation with trans fats has gone too far.

They in essence are saying what’s the point if you are just replacing the trans fat with just as bad or worse other oils and fats. I used to love McD’s fries. I haven’t tried any of the new ones. But,

Robert Eckel, a former president of the American Heart Association, says that "getting rid of trans fats is important" because strong evidence indicates they contribute to higher levels of harmful cholesterol and heart disease. But, he says, "the idea that this is the most harmful (type of) fat is a matter of debate."


Matter of debate? So they do not even KNOW? I guess it’s like the "Global Warming" thing.

"The American Heart Association does not consider it acceptable to substitute saturated fat for trans fats" in food products and restaurant foods, Eckel says.

So the replacement could be worse. They just do not know. It goes on to talk about the companies that have changed. Some claim that their customers like the new taste better. But what about the long term effects? We just do not know yet. The last paragraph says it all. Shelley Goldberg of the International Food Information Council, said she worries that ,

"If we make these changes too quickly, we may put something else in that we don't know the long-term effects of, and it might be worse."

I remember growing up, my Grandmother used to cook all the time. The house always smelled like the delicious food that she made. What did SHE use to cook with? Either good old fashion butter, or Bacon Grease. Yup, Bacon Grease.

So I stick to my original statement. I’ll eat what I want. This is another example of the Government trying to get into people's personal lives. The Liberal templet of "We know what is best for you, and you will do as we say." Laws being created because they say so, science named as the reason, yet, reality is, they have no idea.
Peter

Source:
USA TODAY- Trans fats are not the only villain in American diets

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Really Stripping The President, Or Just Hype?

Hey folks,

Yes the big news yesterday was the Looneys are now going to attempt to strip the president of his Commander and Chief status, and attempt to micro manage this war. They are going to attempt to tell the Commander and Chief, a Constitutional controlled and appointed Right endowed to the President of the United States as the ONLY Commander and Chief, how he can order the troops. It is set up this way, for THIS very reason.

US Democrats vowed Friday to handcuff President George W. Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, raising the stakes and risking a constitutional showdown in their battle to bring troops home.

Key senators are aiming to repeal the 2002 congressional authorization permitting Bush to go to war, as they challenge his last-ditch surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, and aim to end US involvement in the unpopular war.

"We gave him the authority to take out weapons of mass destruction which never existed, take down Saddam who is dead, and force compliance to UN resolutions that are already enforced," Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said in a CNN interview Friday.

"This president's policy is driving us into a box canyon, we have got to redefine the mission," he said.

No Mr. Biden, you voted for and gave him the authorization to use military force in Iraq, and wherever else needed to fight the war on terror. Now, you have turned into a gutless coward, pandering to the far left Looney fringe. You would rather serve the minority of rich, arrogant, ignorant, limo riding Libs, that have no clue as to what reality is.

The legislation will also call for a pullout of US combat troops from Iraq by March 2008 -- in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last year, political news website Politico.com reported.

Remember what Hillary said? She wants President Bush to end this war before she "Takes over in 09." They want us to fail. They want us to lose. In their completely warped and dangerous minds, they think that if we lose the war, this would guarantee them a victory for the White House in 08. They do not care about the security of this country, emboldening the enemy, or hurting the troop moral. They do not care about the troops. They do not care about our safty. They cannot run this country. They have NO clue.

They AP reported,

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the White House is not only confused, but in denial.

"They can spin all they want, but the fact is that President Bush is ignoring a bipartisan majority of Congress, his own military commanders, and the American public in escalating the war," said Jim Manley. "The American people have demanded a change of course in Iraq and Democrats are committed to holding President Bush accountable."

This is a COMPLETE, and bold face lie. One, he doesn’t have to listen to you. He is the President, and the Commander and Chief. You mean NOTHING. In this time of war, he has to protect the country. Even protect gutless and ignorant cowards like you.

Two, the American people want "change." They do NOT want to lose this war. They do not want us to pull out. They do not want another attack on this country. New polls, for what polls are worth, even say that.

But here is the problem folks, they cannot legally do what they want. It is NOT Constitutional. They are attempting to give themselves power they have never had, not to mention SHOULD never have. Then you have this story from the Christian Science Monitor,

The International Atomic Energy Agency's report on nuclear activity in Iran will find that Tehran has ignored a United Nations Security Council deadline to cease uranium enrichment by Wednesday

Instead, the IAEA report will show that Iran has installed additional centrifuges in enrichment facilities, sources close to the IAEA work say. It will also note Iran's continuing technical problems in perfecting the process.

Yes Senator Clinton, you WILL still have to deal with Iran if you are crowned, I mean appointed, wait, no, uh, voted in, in 08. Yes Senator, there really are bad people out there. This country really does need protecting. Even if some of those very bad people are your friends.

You know what? Hey Joe, just do what the Huffy Post is telling you. Do the right thing. They said they don’t need or want you, so switch sides. End the lunacies of this hating of America, our troops, and investing everything they have in our defeat, in a time of war. You hold the power to stop the madness once and for all. In the long run, I know you say this is much to do about nothing, but in the long run, who knows, you may even become President.
Peter

Sources;
AP-White House opposes war authority limits
AFP-US Democrats seek to gut Bush's Iraq war powers
CSM-Why US is now turning to diplomacy

Friday, February 23, 2007

One Of Those Days,

Hey folks,

It’s STILL Friday, for a little while longer anyway. It has been one of those days where there is SO MUCH in the news, I simply cannot comment on everything I want to. So you get the benefit from this fact. Here is you End Of Day Roundup, for Friday, February 23, 2007

Let’s start with a quickie. Remember back on January 20 and 21, 2007 I was talking about Assemblywoman Sally Lieber? How she wanted to make it a crime to spank your child? Well, {Raspberry} it’s dropped. According to the United Press International,

SACRAMENTO, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- A California lawmaker whose anti-spanking proposal triggered a national debate has decided to drop efforts to criminalize the spanking of children.

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, is instead offering a measure that would prohibit adults from hitting children with a closed fist, electrical cord, shoes or other objects, The Los Angeles Times reports.

Uh, we already have these laws. It’s called child abuse. Noone was ever, and I would hope noone is now, against calling it a crime if an adult beats their kid with a closed fist or any other object. But you failed because you wanted to outlaw a simple spanking. You know, discipline that WORKS.

She is STILL not happy about it though. This last paragraph tells the whole story.

"I personally am very passionate about banning all physical abuse, but the votes are simply not there," says Lieber. "So California law will continue to allow parents, caregivers--whoever is in control of a child -- to spank with an open hand on the buttocks, including to the point of injury to the child."

You would NEVER have had the votes. This was an idiotic proposal. It was even made fun of on "Saturday Night Live" and "The Colbert Report." Glad that’s out of the way.

Sticking with insanity, lets talk about the Dems. I may have to spend more time on this one tomorrow, but for right now, did you hear this? They are NOW attempting to do something that is COMPLETELY un-constitutional. They want to micro manage the war now.

Nope, never mind. I WILL spend time on this tomorrow. This is too complex to simplify in a short sum up. So next is Obama. Today Obama truly showed how ignorant he REALLY is when it comes to the war.

Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

WRONG! He never said anything like that. {Sigh}

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

OK STOP!! I was trying to post these as a whole, but I have to comment. Tony Blair is NOT withdrawing. Like I told you today Prince Harry is on his way there. This IS all part of the plan. It IS a good sign that the Iraqis are closer to taking over. Back to Obama.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

We were. We are. That is just completely ridiculous. And whenever you or any of the other "Surrender Monkeys" say we cannot win, we should know that we probably are winning. There are good things happening there. Ask a soldier. Cheney had no comment. Why would he? What Obama said is completely incorrect, ignorant, and really not worthy of comment from the Vice President.

From the insane, lets turn to something interesting. Seems that the balance of power in the senate may actually truly be in question. Why? One name. Lieberman.

Yesterday, Mr. Lieberman told the Web site Politico he had no "desire to switch parties," but "if that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

They are going to drive him to changing parties. Not that this would be a bad thing. I like Lieberman. I like him a lot. Let’s toy with this idea for a second. Lieberman cannot be intimidated but the LWL. The Lonneys can say or attempt to do anything they want, he will stand his ground. More than that, he will win. So he switches parties because the Looneys REALLY try to pull off this un-constitutional move to strip the President as Commander and Chief and attempt to give themselves the title, he will jump ship.

So if Lieberman is now a Republican, and you have VP Cheney’s vote, guess who runs the Senate. This would stop the LWL COLD. They cannot really get anything done now,,,oh,,wait,, yeah, they are not TRYING to, other than lose the war.

Keep an eye on this one, it will be REALLY interesting to follow.

We wrap it up today with the most idiotic article category, First Humans: Time of Origin Pinned Down.

The lineages of humans and chimpanzees, our closest relatives, diverged from one another about 4.1 million years ago, according to a new estimate that is said to be far more precise than previous ranges for this critical evolutionary moment.

There is only one problem with this, we did NOT evolve from moneys, apes, or anything else We just are. They just are. Science has already proven this. So now we have another theory that says the first theory is wrong. But this one must be right. Right? Sorry, I did not evolve. I am. You want to be from apes, moneys, a little slimed puddle, be my guest. And NO, I will not pick the bugs of you. Ask one of your primate relatives. They like that sort of thing.

See you tomorrow, a little later than normal probably, but see you then anyway, for the answer to the question, True Attempt To Strip The President, or Hype?
Peter

Sources,
United Press International-Anti-Spanking Bill Dropped
AP-Obama ridicules Cheney's Iraq comments
The NY Sun-Lieberman May Decide Fate of Iraq
Live Science
So British Are Leaving? Two Words, Prince Harry

Hey folks,

You KNEW I had to do it. That’s right, I have to point out the simple truth. Remember what we talked about yesterday? How the Mass Media jumped the gun saying that the British were pulling out of Iraq. Remember these quotes?

Joe Scarborough of MSNBC "Scarborough Country" said,

"Breaking news out of Great Britain, Tony Blair will be announcing tomorrow that the United Kingdom is abandoning Iraq and President Bush."

Brian Williams and Meredith Vieira of NBC, jumped in to the fray. Brian said,

"The United States may be starting to lose a big ally in the fight in Iraq. This may be the beginning of the end of British involvement in the Iraq war."

Meredith said,

"The British on the march home from Iraq."

Then, I love this one, Robin Roberts of ABC, said,

" Breaking news overnight, the British are leaving."

So they wanted you to believe that even Bush’s biggest ally was abandoning him. They wanted you to believe that the British believed we could not win, so they were pulling their troops from harms way. If they can pull out, then Bush should as well. Right? But then the big news yesterday was what?

Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, is to join troops serving in Iraq, defense officials confirmed Thursday.

Ending weeks of speculation on the young royal's future, the Ministry of Defense said Harry, 22, will be deployed with his Blues and Royals regiment in May or June this year.

The prince will become the first royal to serve in a war zone since his uncle, the Duke of York, piloted helicopters in the Falklands conflict 25 years ago.

Officials said Harry, who graduated as an officer last year, will serve as a troop commander in charge of several light tank reconnaissance vehicles.

This statement by Prince Harry himself, is absolutely honorable. While we have some in this country that jump out windows, run away like the cowards they are. Protest Bush every step of the way. Make statements about cutting the legs and arms off our soldiers while claiming to support them, Call our troops all kinds of names. Here is the Prince of England, third to the throne, saying,

"There is no way I am going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country."

Now THAT is a true patriot. That is someone who, although does not have too, is willing to fight for his country. He could, if he chose, to sit in his nice comfy home, never a care in the world, and play armchair General, like so many cowards in this country.

He also will receive NO special protection. He DOESN’T want any. One of the reasons? The USA Today put it this way,

The statement did say, however, that Harry would "undertake a normal tour of duty."

British defense expert, Eric Grove said that Harry should serve in a regular fashion. To be held back from normal operational duty would hurt the morale of the rest of the prince's regiment, he said.

Yes folks, the third in line for the crown of England, going into war, without special protection, without special treatment, and without a complaint. He is doing his duty, and will take NO part in hurting the moral of their troops there.

There are quite a few people here in this country that could take lessons from this young Prince. Even some of our "so called" leaders would benefit from Prince Harry’s actions. He wants no special treatment on the battle field for fear of hurting troop moral. They want to cut funding to our troops, call our troops a failure, attack the Commander and Chief, and then turn around and say, "but we support you."

I have to say, I’m more proud of Prince Harry, than I am of some in my own country. I respect him greatly for doing this. While at the same time, some of our own make me sick with their cowardly ways.

As for the British, "abandoning Iraq and President Bush," "The United States may be starting to lose a big ally in the fight in Iraq. This may be the beginning of the end of British involvement in the Iraq war," and, "the British are leaving?" Interestingly enough, as they are suppose to be abandoning us and Iraq, Prince Harry is preparing to go to war.
Peter


Sources;
CNN-Iraq tank command for Prince Harry
USA Today-Prince Harry off to Iraq

Thursday, February 22, 2007

The Over Hysteria Over Brits, Cheney Vs Pelosi

Hey folks,

First I have to comment on the whole hysteria over the announcement by Tony Blair that SOME of the British troops are leaving. This happened just as I posted yesterdays daily article. The Mass Media Drones went completely gaga over this news. They all started to jump the gun. No, forget that, they DID jump the gun big time. All of them started to report doom and gloom. Some even gloated. Here is just some examples.

Joe Scarborough of MSNBC "Scarborough Country" said,

"Breaking news out of Great Britain, Tony Blair will be announcing tomorrow that the United Kingdom is abandoning Iraq and President Bush."

Brian Williams and Meredith Vieira of NBC, jumped in to the fray. Brian said,

"The United States may be starting to lose a big ally in the fight in Iraq. This may be the beginning of the end of British involvement in the Iraq war."

Meredith said,

"The British on the march home from Iraq."

Then, I love this one, Robin Roberts of ABC, said,

" Breaking news overnight, the British are leaving."

But here’s the problem folks. They are NOT completely pulling out. They will still be there training the troops, securing the boarders with Iran, and still helping out when needed. Here is a PERFECT example of how the Mass Media Drones, "Correct" themselves when proven wrong. Get this, from the BBC,

The withdrawal of some UK troops from Iraq does not mark the end of the British commitment there but it is a psychologically important moment that could well mark the beginning of the end.

This is not just about how many are leaving or staying, or about a continuing role for the British military in Iraq, which it will have. It is about perception and psychology, with the emphasis in the public and political mind on getting out.

It could well be the point of no return, the moment when the British government started to put into practice what it has long been planning and from which the flow of decisions will be all in one direction.


STOP!!!! So it goes from "The British are leaving" to, "Well, it doesn’t matter if they stay. It psychological. {Laughing} OK, how about, we jumped the gun? How about, they are NOT pulling out, abandoning Iraq and President Bush? How about we were wrong. Nope.

Look at this,

The troop numbers will go down by 1,600 to about 5,500 within months and then to below 5,000 perhaps later in the year.

Prime Minister Tony Blair was careful to state in the House of Commons that British forces would remain into 2008 and he did not predict how many troops are likely to be there next year.


OK, so, 5,500 troops remain. 1,600 hundred are leaving from a safe zone. In a area where there is little to no terrorist activity. Then the BBC says, "perhaps." anytime you hear "perhaps," that should indicate to you that the one saying it, has no clue. They are guessing at best.

Then the statement by Blair himself SHOULD be case closed. He said there will be British troops there until 08. Translation? They are NOT pulling out.

Blair talked about good and evil. Doesn’t sound like he wants to leave to me. Then he said that they will maintain "above all, the ability to conduct operations against extremist groups and be there in support of the Iraq Army when called upon."

Now the BBC DOES point out in interesting fact. That there will be a new Prime Minister soon, and then it will be up to him. We will not know what he will do, until he does it. But for right now, it seems all is normal. Much to the dismay of the MMD.

Seems I took up all the time with this hysteria about the so called British withdraw, I was going to comment on the battle between Vice President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi, but I’m out of time for now. I’ll be right back with that, in just a few.
Peter

Source:
BBC-Beginning of the end for Brits in Iraq?
Cheney Vs Pelosi,

Hey folks,

That’s right, I’m back. This is too good to pass up. So you guys get a two for Thursday. I saw this last night by TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized the Iraq strategy advocated by Democratic leaders in Congress, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney's remarks were out of bounds.

Wait a second. This is not new. This is also not incorrect. Plain and simply put. VP Cheney is RIGHT. It WILL validate the al-Qaida strategy. They know they cannot beat us face to face, so they are and have been, trying to discourage us to the point we pull out. YES, I’m talking about the terrorists, not the LWL. {Left Wing Looneys}

The speaker said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him.

{Laughing} She tried to complain to the President? She tried to tattle to Daddy?

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

STOP! You guys are killing me. One, you guys do this all the time. From Kerry’s "Pariah" remarks, to you guys meeting with the enemy. You guys undermining the President at all turns. You guys saying that YOU will end the war. {Sigh}

So what is this all about?

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

Um? Yes. This is what I and many others having been saying. This is the TRUTH. So what is the problem?

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

BUNK!!

"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.

{Laughing hard} WHO CARES if you disapprove of him telling the truth. It’s the TRUTH! Believe it or not Speaker Pelosi, YOU do not run the country. YOU are not, and I know this is REALLY hard for you to understand, the Commander and Chief. Do you really think that the President approves of all the things you and your little band of Looneys say?

Then you have the White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino who said that Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's

"Position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue."

This is true. Then of course Pelosi commented on Cheney’s response to the British "pulling out,"
when he said,

"I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."

Another true statement. But Pelosi, again showing ignorance of the situation said,

"If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."

I’m sorry folks, but this is just humorous to me. Kerry, Carter, and the rest, including Pelosi herself, can call the President a liar, say America is the cause of the problems around the world. Say that we were wrong for going into Iraq. Say we are terrorizing "women and children in the dead of night." Call our troops dumb. Then visit with our enemies. This is OK? Yet the VP calls a duck and duck, and she gets her panties in a bunch. She says

"the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country."

He mis-characterized NOTHING. You and Murtha, and some of your buddies, ARE acting against the National Security of our country. If you do not like this pointed out, then stop doing it. It is, just that simple.
Peter

Source:
AP-Cheney slams Iraq plan advocated by Dems

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Iran Not Backing Down, Neither Is Bush

Hey folks,

Look for the next battle in the House and Senate to be heating up in preparations to counter ANOTHER one of Presidents Bush’s responsibilities to keep America safe, and to prevent further Americans from dying. Iran.

Since their "non-binding" resolutions failed, just completely died. The anti-Bush and "Surrender Moneys" will most likely turn their attention to Iran, and one of their heros, Little Hitler.

Iran brushed off threats intended to make it freeze its nuclear program as a U.N. deadline to do so fell due on Wednesday, but offered to guarantee it would not seek atomic weapons.

Iran, defiant as a 60-day grace period it had been given to stop enriching uranium for nuclear fuel ran out, again vowed it would not halt its nuclear activities as a precondition for talks on trade benefits offered by six world powers.

The U.N. Security Council, which in December banned transfers of technology and expertise to Tehran's nuclear program, may consider broader sanctions if Tehran, as expected, does not freeze enrichment work by February 21.

Was there any question that they wouldn't halt their nuclear ambitions? I understand that there are some that truly believe that they can "talk" to Little Hitler, be nice, and he will just go away. WRONG.

You know, as a side note, notice how the media is in attack mode against some that, like I, have started to question Murtha the traitor's mental status. It is clear that if he truly believes all we have to do is leave Iraq and all the terrorists will leave also, that he is in no position to make these kinds of decisions.

Now that the IAEA’s "timeout" didn’t work, we will no doubt be seeking other actions against Iran. The BBC is reporting,

The tension over Iran's nuclear programme is increasing, with the expiry on Wednesday of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

At the same time, the BBC has reported that the United States has drawn up plans for an attack on Iran to cover two contingencies - the confirmed development of nuclear weapons by Iran, or backing by Iran for a major attack on US troops in Iraq.

Now the President has said repeatedly that he has no intentions of attacking Iran. Yet, he has also said he couldn't careless what congress does, he will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. This BBC piece seems to be setting up an attack, and in essence, warns against it. Then you have this in Newsweek, by another hate Bush, hate America, ignorant writer, Ray Takeyh.

President George W. Bush repeatedly insists that "all options are on the table"—a not-so-subtle reminder that Washington might yet use force to halt Tehran's nuclear program. Yet realistically, the United States has no military option. Iran has dispersed many nuclear facilities and hardened others. Even if U.S. forces could find and destroy those targets—quality intelligence is a serious hurdle—they could be rebuilt relatively quickly. The bottom line: Washington must accept certain distasteful facts—beginning with Iran's ascendance as a regional power and the staying power of its regime. It should open talks with Iran, not in order to limit its growing power—an impossibility—but with a view toward regulating it and curbing potential excesses. In other words, Washington should embrace a policy of d├ętente, just as it did in the past with such seemingly intractable enemies as China and the Soviet Union.

Could Tehran ultimately prove to be as willing a negotiating partner as Beijing and Moscow once were? There are reasons to hope so. One is Iran's emergence as the largest and most militarily powerful state in the Persian Gulf. That very fact will force Tehran to choose between coexistence and confrontation with the United States. For all its hot rhetoric, Iran is no Nazi Germany; by and large, its leaders are tactical opportunists. They seek to avoid war. Furthermore, the Iranian regime is undergoing a transformation of its own. This internal divide is not as commonly thought: moderate reformers versus conservative fundamentalists. No, the real fissure is generational. The elders of the 1979 revolution retain ultimate authority—but they are increasingly challenged by a rising cohort of younger conservatives, eager to abandon failed policies of the past.

YES it IS just like Nazi Germany. YES he IS just like Hitler. YES he wants YOU Mr. Takeyh, and I, and EVERYONE else DEAD. YES he wants Israel wiped off the Map. People like you want to let him do it. Better yet, you want to be fiends with him. Help him out.

How do I know this? He has told me so. He told you as well, but the difference between you and I, is I listen. I believe him.

Of course the NYT has their take on this as well. Which is pretty much the same old garbage. America cannot win, we need more talks, etc. {Sigh}






Ahmadinejad will not, nor was he ever going to, back down. But for the good of this country, and others, neither is President Bush.
Peter



Sources:
Reuters-Iran refuses to halt nuclear work as deadline passes
Newsweek-Time to Change Tacks on Iran
BBC-New tensions over Iran's nuclear plans
NYT-Iran’s President Defiant on Nuclear Program

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Religion In Government Good? Hillary Flip Flop? Mexico and Military.

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to ya. Yeah I know for most of you, this is Monday, but hey, we only have four days to go. I commented that I’ve been away in an internet and news free zone for three and a half days. I started scanning and found the following that NEED to be commented on. These stories are WHY I have to be here to translate, simplify, and point out the obvious to you, to make the insanity sane, looniness logical, and the complicated simple. Easy for all to understand.

Lets start with this one. Do you remember when it was "bad" and a few in the mass media had a field day that the President is a Christian? More than once or twice we heard of the non-existent "Wall of Separation" argument? The fact that religion has no place in public life, most assuredly NO place in the White House? So what is the NYT reporting yesterday?

Narrowing the Religion Gap? They are talking about how faithful Hillary and Obama are. They even ask you to picture them, not only sitting in a pew, but to picture them standing in the pulpit preaching a sermon. Nothing but praise for these two for having faith. Unbelievable.

Let’s stick with the NYT for a second. Then you have this story. Seems that Hillary is changing her explanation yet again as to why she voted for the war. This has become a real problem for her and many on the left want her to apologize and say that she simply made a mistake.

First she said she was lied to. Then she said she was fooled. Now, and this is not new, she is saying "If I knew then what I know now." But the problem is, she CLAIMED to know everything then. It’s all over U-TUB and has been played all over the place, Hillary back in 02 and 03 saying why she was FOR the war in Iraq. She said SHE did the investigations. She was told by the Clinton advisers. She studied the evidence. She felt we needed to go alone if necessary.

Then when the Looney fringe came out against it, she said she was fooled by Bush. Bush Lied, Bush is to blame. When this did not work, including some very Liberal writers asking an honest question, "She was fooled by Bush, by her husband, by Saddam, by North Korea, by the little blue man on the moon, how can she be trusted to be President?" So now, "if I knew then,,,"

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have been split for some time about whether she would be better off if she apologized for the vote. Mark Penn, her chief strategist, who was also Mr. Clinton’s pollster, carries considerable influence within the campaign, and he agrees with her that she should keep the "mistake" onus on Mr. Bush and turn her attention to finding "the right end" to the war, as she says.

{Sigh} Then you have THIS story by the AP. More examples of corruption to be ignored and excused.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday denied that her campaign traded money for an endorsement from one of South Carolina's most influential black politicians.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton responded to questions about the consulting contract her campaign negotiated with state Sen. Darrell Jackson, who last week endorsed her candidacy rather than of top rivals John Edwards or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"Senator Jackson was someone who was involved in my husband's campaigns. He was someone we turned to for political advice and counsel and I'm proud to have him on my team," Clinton told the AP.

Soon after the endorsement, Jackson acknowledged that his media consulting firm had negotiated a $10,000 per month contract with Clinton's campaign. Jackson has said he turned down more lucrative contracts from other candidates.

That’s $10,000 a month until the 08 elections. Do the math folks.

Although he backed Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, Jackson said he now supports Clinton because she has the best shot of winning the White House.

And the fact that she outbid him. {Laughing} I’m not making this up folks. Edwards campaign along with Obama were seeking his endorsement. Clinton simply had more money to offer. Now wait a second,, The name of this article is "Clinton defends consulting contract." Where does she do this? {Sigh} But she gets a pass on this as well.

Then I’ll wrap it up with this story. Completely unrelated, but just another example of insanity. By the AFP.

The Mexican mother of a US soldier jailed for refusing to deploy to Iraq said she had asked Mexico's government for help in gaining his release.

"My son is no coward," Susan Aguayo said in Mexico City.

Yes he is.

"My son is not disobedient. He is responsible and knows what he is doing," she said.

Yes he is. No he isn’t and it doesn’t matter. If he knows what he is doing, then he knows he SHOULD be in jail.

Her son, Agustin Aguayo, 35, was born in Guadalajara, and joined the US Army before applying for conscientious objector status.

He served one tour in Iraq as a medic, but asked not to return and to be recognized as a conscientious objector.

He joined the army in 2002, and served one tour in Iraq, before applying for conscious objector status. He was turned down in 2004 but worked in Iraq for a year, before jumping out a window in Germany to escape being shipped back to Iraq. He remains jailed in Germany.

He is to be court-martialed in Germany March 6-7. He has been charged with desertion and missing movement with his outfit.

His mother said he could spend as many as seven years in prison.

Good. He JOINED the miliary, in a time of war. He was sent to the front lines as a medic. A noble job. Yet he turned chicken liver and decided he didn’t want to go back. He is getting what he deserves. What did she think that the Mexican Government could have done anyway? He wanted to be a US citizen, with all rights and privileges. He joined the military because he WANTED all rights and privileges. He chose to jump out a window and run away. I hope he gets the Court Marshal and jail time he deserves.

Yes folks, it’s a crazy, crazy, world out there. Right is wrong, yet right sometimes, depending on who’s doing it. Sin is pardonable to some, yet condemning to others. Yet, the truth remains the truth, regardless of who is spinning what. See you tomorrow.
Peter

Sources;
AFP- Mom of US soldier charged with desertion seeks help from Mexico
AP-Clinton defends consulting contract
NYT-Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on ’02 Vote
NYT-Narrowing the Religion Gap?

Monday, February 19, 2007

IWA Special For Monday, February 19, 2007

Hey folks,

Yes it’s Monday. I just got back into town and came right here to the OPN office. We’ll get back to the normal stuff tomorrow. I feel so out of touch. I’ve been internet and news free for the past three days. But fret not, tomorrow will begin another week of logic, sanity, and truth, in the insanity and looniness that surrounds us on a daily bases.

Now I have heard of disease after disease, disorder after disorder, being named by those in the Psycho-Babble crowd. I have heard of all kinds of "It’s not my fault" garbage. I have even written articles in the past about self responsibility. But this guy?

Turns out that James Pacenza, 58, of Montgomery NY, {Not too far from my old stomping grounds} has a problem. Turns out he likes adult web sites. He liked to visit them while on the clock for IBM. IBM decided that they didn’t like him visiting these sites while he was being PAID to do a job, so he got fired. So what is the problem? "It’s not his fault."

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) — A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.

James Pacenza, 58, of Montgomery, says he visits chat rooms to treat traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.

In papers filed in federal court in White Plains, Pacenza said the stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict." He claimed protection under the American with Disabilities Act.

Did a "Doctor" actually prescribe porn for this guy? I doubt it. Now although him and his lawyer denies it,

"Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an Internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned," the company said.

IBM also said sexual behavior disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA and denied any age discrimination.

If it goes to trial, the case could affect how employers regulate Internet use that is not work-related, or how Internet overuse is categorized medically. Stanford University issued a nationwide study last year that found that up to 14% of computer users reported neglecting work, school, families, food and sleep to use the Internet.

Yes folks, he may ACTUALLY have a case. "Internet Addition." I guess that would be IA? Look for the Psycho-Babble, and drug crowds to jump all of this one. {I’ve actually been accused of having IA myself. Hey, maybe it not my fault {Smile}}

Several times during the day, machine operators are idle for five to 10 minutes as the tool measures the thickness of silicon wafers.

It was during such down time on May 28, 2003, that Pacenza logged onto a chat room from a computer at his work station.

Diederich says Pacenza had returned that day from visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington and logged onto a site called ChatAvenue and then to an adult chat room.

Pacenza, who has a wife and two children, said using the Internet at work was encouraged by IBM and served as "a form of self-medication" for post-traumatic stress disorder. He said he tried to stay away from chat rooms at work, but that day, "I felt I needed the interactive engagement of chat talk to divert my attention from my thoughts of Vietnam and death."

"I was tempting myself to perhaps become involved in some titillating conversation," he said in court papers.

Pacenza said he was called away before he got involved in any online conversation. But he apparently did not log off, and when another worker went to Pacenza's station, he saw some chat entries, including a vulgar reference to a sexual act.

He reported his discovery to his boss, who fired Pacenza the next day.

So he violates company policy, uses company computers for porn, get’s fired, and wants 5 million dollars because he is "sick?"

Your right Mr. Pacenza, your sick. But you DESERVED to be fired. You deserve NOTHING from IBM. If you really think that you have a "Medical Condition," then go get help. But you claiming that this is somehow IBM’s responsibility, makes you the Idiot of the Week. Congratulations. Now log off and spend time with your family.
Peter

Source:
USA TODAY- NY man who was fired for visiting adult chat room at work sues IBM for $5 million

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Going Away


Hey folks,

I will be out of town this Weekend. But do not fret, I’ll return on Monday, later, and pick up where we left off. There will also be a special Monday addition or the IWA. Have a great Weekend , see you all then.
Peter

Thursday, February 15, 2007

The Democrat Party To Sacrifice The Troops.

Hey folks,

I have now about had it. It was fun to point out to you the lunacies of the Liberal Leadership in the House and Senate until now. Now it is REAL. All the things I and others warned you about leading up to the election is coming true. All the things I and others told you would happen, are and are about to. But now there is no doubt about it. The Democrat party wants to sacrifice the troops out of their pure hatred of President Bush. I told you that they would anything to make sure we lose this war.

Now if they actually have the votes, or if they actually will attempt to carry this through or not, isn't the whole issue. This statement from Sen. John Murtha says it all.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

There is no comedic translation for this one. There is no satire of the idiocies of Murtha the traitor of this one. We are in a war. All we keep hearing form the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} is that they support the troops. Let me re-post what Murtha the Traitor said.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

One more time in red.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

He and others in the new Liberal Democrat party want to cut the legs off of our men and women fighting this war. They already want to undermine the Commander and Chief, in essence, hijack this war. They will, if successful, KILL American soldiers by cutting the funds and supplies they need. They will, if successful, surrender to our enemy. They will, turn over Iraq and Iraqi resources to another one of our enemies who has repeated time and time again, "Death to America." They will open our door and welcome into our country more terrorists to kill more Americans. Worse than all this, they do not care.

They are either too stupid, or just so obsessed with the President’s down fall, OUR President’s down fall, that they would cut a deal with the devil himself. They have all but declared war on this country. I told you this before. To hell with the country. To hell with you. They do not care about you. All they care about is being in power. That’s it. Plain and simple. Now that the sheepeople voted them in, they will do ANYTHING to stay there. Even if it means sacrificing our men and women. Sons and Daughters. American lives. Tomorrow will truly be a sad day.

The above went out to various places. Now to continue more in-depth for you true OPNers. Tomorrow they are set to vote on the "Non-binding resolution." Just the concept of doing this in a time of war, will make tomorrow a truly sad day. But this statement by Murtha the traitor?

What President Bush said, is not only right, but there is no other sane way to look at it. He said,

"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission. Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."

Then House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.

"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.

Well said. Unlike Murtha the traitor.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

Then Reuters reports that,

A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.

Of course the number went down. All they do is get hammered day in and day out by the MMD, about how bad everything is. Now with all this talk about undermining the effort, of course they are going to think we cannot win.

Then you have Pelosi getting into the mix yesterday.

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Uh, OK? Could you tell us what you are referring to? Just because you state it, sorry, that doesn’t mean it is accurate. Maybe a little more detail? {Sigh} I forgot for a second who I was talking about there folks. Sorry about that.

This little tidbit is a gem. From the President himself.

"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle,"

That is because this is the first time in the history of the United States Congress is being run by absolute lunatics. Completely ignorant. Unable to run this country. Blind to ANYTHING other than "Getting" the President of the United States of America. They are showing themselves to be too stupid to run a lemon aid stand, let alone the country.

This is getting serious folks. For any of you out there that may be a parent of a soldier. I encourage you to write to your Representatives and tell them, "If you put my Son or Daughter in harms way to play politics, you’re done. You will NEVER hold office again." For the Republicans that chose to go along with this, I say to you, we see you as we see them, traitors to your country. You will suffer the same result. And it IS, just that simple.
Peter

Sources;
Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran
Reuters-Democrats step up pressure on Bush troop buildup
The Libs REALLY Want To Be Friends

Hey folks,

Yes the Libs REALLY want to be friends, with Iran, that is. It is unbelievably sad and actually, a little sickening, to watch. First , as I have been advising you of for the last two days of ABC’s "Good Morning America," and Diane Sawyer went to Iran to interview Little Hitler {President Ahmadinejad, for those who need a little more help in understanding} .

I pointed out the fact that it seemed from the interview that ABC was attempting to humanize Little Hitler. Show him as a nice guy. Someone we can deal with. Be friends with. Ask for his help.

Now it seems we have an ex-aid spewing out the normal LWL rhetoric. The Bush administration lied, covered up, and was just not fair. According to Reuters,

Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.

Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.

Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."

In the first three paragraphs you see how this is going to go. Let’s highlight, shall we? First, who WANTS rapprochement? They want us dead. They said so. They want Israel wiped of the map. They said so. They are supplying Iraq with weapons to kill our soldiers. They deny, but we have proof.

Second, A proposal was vetted in 2003? By leaders no longer in power. What did this proposal say? Then he says, he was confident that Rice saw it. No proof. Just confident. She said she didn’t. All through this there is speculation, accusation, NO PROOF. As usual.

Then you have this article from the Christian Science Monitor by Peter Grier

The US may be trying to achieve a difficult balance regarding Iran: pushing the Iranians hard enough so they will negotiate over their nuclear program, yet not so hard as to increase tensions in a part of the world that's already aflame.

That's the conclusion some experts draw from the recent US attempt to lay out evidence that officials say links Iran to attacks against US troops in Iraq.

For weeks the White House had promised that it would present proof that Tehran is meddling in Iraq by providing arms and training to Shiite militias. Yet when the presentation came, it was somewhat low-key. It took place in Baghdad, not Washington. It focused almost entirely on a type of dangerous roadside bomb that Iran is allegedly supplying to its Iraqi allies.

Washington "is not claiming this is decisive, and they're not blaming the [Iraqi] insurgency on Iran," says George Perkovich, a nuclear nonproliferation scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "This is part of a bigger diplomatic strategy, which is genuinely designed to try to put more pressure on Iran so it will want to negotiate, and will be more forthcoming when it does."

Now the good General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did say,

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this, What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

Whatever that means. Then you have this article from the NYT, in the Business Section. This is just completely, well, typical of the Left Wing Looney mentality.

Western political and economic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program has chilled foreign investment to the extent that it is now squeezing the country’s long-fragile energy industry, adding strains to a government that is burdened by sanctions and wary of unrest at home.

STOP!!! America is evil. The Bush Administration is evil. These unfair sanctions are hurting poor little Iran. Give me a break. Are these people serious? Actually they are, this is what is so sad. Then the article tries to blame Bush for these companies not wanting to help out Iran. They have this Quote,

"Oil companies are simply assessing risk, including what some see as the real risk of a military strike against Iran," said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, and a former senior State Department official. "Some are deciding it’s not worth it."

If Iran would stop suppling our enemies with weapons to kill our soldiers, stop saying they want us dead, stop trying to build nuclear bombs, they would not have to worry about being blown up. It really is that simple.

As far as this concept that yes, the weapons came from Iran, but we do not know who ordered it. Who cares? We sue people all the time in this country. Smith and Wesson for making a gun that killed someone. Tobacco Companies for making a product that kills. If they made it, they are responsible for it. Besides all that,

"Based on our understanding of the Iranian system and the history of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp operations, the intelligence community assesses that activity this extensive on the part of the Quds Force would not be conducted without approval from top leaders in Iran," said a senior intelligence official.

Yes folks, America is evil, Iran is oppressed by this big bad Bush administration. We are the cause of all the problems in the world. Amazing. Let’s just be friends.
Peter