Follow by Email

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Immigration Now on Fast Track, You Are The Problem.

Hey folks,

Happy Hump Day. {Sigh} You know, since the President got his Iraq War Funding, don’t misunderstand, that is a GREAT thing, the Troops will finally be funded, but he now has all the time in the world to force his other passion on the nation. Immigration. Sorry, he is completely wrong on this one. This needs to be stopped, and STOPPED NOW!

I have been warning you about this. Others are telling you the same things. This IS BAD. This is NOT logical. This is NOT right. This HAS to be stopped. I have told you that all those provisions mean NOTHING. Why? Because as soon as the President signs the bill, they are legal. That’s right folks, 12 to 20 million illegals ‘Poof’ legal. So what is the reason for the provisions? They have already, which I told you they would, started to question if they are "fair" or not.

According to the NYT Editorial -Make a Bad Bill Better, yestereday.

The great immigration struggle of 2007 has moved from the Senate chamber in Washington to the continent at large. With Congress taking the week off, it’s time for constituents to weigh in. You can be sure of this much: The debate will get louder before it gets better.

The problems with the restrictionist provisions of the Senate immigration bill are serious and many. It includes a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants, which is a rare triumph for common sense, but that path is strewn with cruel conditions, including a fine — $5,000 — that’s too steep and hurdles that are needlessly high, including a "touchback" requirement for immigrants to make pilgrimages to their home countries to cleanse themselves of illegality. The bill imposes an untested merit-point system that narrows the channels through which family members can immigrate.

Cruel Conditions? It’s too tough for them to go back and get in line? This is WHY the Illegals are against it. Not it seems the NYT AKA Liberals, are as well. Too bad, don’t come here illegally.

And it calls for hundreds of thousands of guest workers to toil here temporarily in an absurd employment hokey-pokey — you put your two years in, then one year out, then repeat that twice and go home forever. It would be massive indentured servitude — colonial times all over again, but without any hope of citizenship for those taking our most difficult and despised jobs.

It doesn’t say who wrote this tripe. It would be interesting to know. Anyway you get the point. But if they are legal with the swipe of a pen, then what’s the point in all these "cruel conditions?"

You folks have had the phones in Congress ringing off the hook. You have been calling everyone and telling them what you think. GREAT JOB! This has caused some problems for everyone involved in this. As well it should. According to LA Times -Immigration reform debate puts up a wall within the GOP By Peter Wallsten Times Staff Writer back on May 27,

WASHINGTON — The roiling congressional debate over a plan to legalize undocumented immigrants has rekindled a bitter fight in the Republican Party over the best strategy to restore the GOP to political dominance — with each side accusing the other of following a course that would destroy the party for decades.

The clash has grown increasingly intense in recent days, drawing in the most senior figures in Republican politics. President Bush aimed unusually pointed language Thursday at critics, many in his own party, who opposed a more permanent status for illegal immigrants.

Even more so yesterday, more on that in a second.

Two conservative senators were booed by Republican crowds in their home states last week for endorsing the legalization effort. And conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked the Bush-backed plan as the "Destroy the Republican Party Act."

I’m attacking this plan as well. As well as I am aware of, MANY, in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, crossing all party, race, religious, and sexual orientation lines. EVERYONE is against this plan except a hand full of writers, and the President. Should this NOT tell you something? Get this,

But conservatives and many opinion leaders argue that backing the immigration bill is a dangerous course because it angers the GOP's mostly white base, as well as swing voters open to the message of national security and law enforcement.

{Laughing} You RACISTS you. Rudy Fernandz is right about one thing.

"We are at a crossroads in our country and, yes, in our political party," said Rudy Fernandez, a former deputy to White House strategist Karl Rove and one of the GOP's chief architects of Latino outreach.

EVERYONE is against this, not just Republicans. Some of them are FOR it. But as usual, if you question some of the insanity out there, YOU are deemed the one with the problem. From Reuters -Bush: Don't kill immigration reform By Tabassum Zakaria

U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday pleaded with congressional opponents of a compromise immigration reform bill not to kill it.

Senate leaders from both major parties and White House officials have crafted a fragile compromise on an overhaul of the immigration system that Bush supports, but it has met resistance from both ends of the political spectrum.

Fighting to salvage what many analysts see as one of his few shots at a major legislative achievement in his final term, Bush insisted there is a "desperate need" to overhaul the immigration system.

"The system is broken to the point where people are being used as human cargo," Bush said in a speech at a federal law enforcement training center.

SECURE the BOARDER Mr. President. Do not reward 12 million FELONS. Do not bankrupt this country in what you seem to see as compassion. This is a BAD plan. Why do you think there are so many AGAINST it? He went on to say this.

"My answer to the skeptics is give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect," Bush said. "Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving."

"Now is the time for members of both political parties to stand up and show courage and take a leadership role and do what's right for America," he added.

TRANSLATION TIME! "Do not listen to those that put you in office. This is what I want you to do. This is what I feel is good for America. I understand you have been put under pressure. Forget that. Do the ‘right’ thing." Unbelievable.

I know this is going long, but I don’t care. Now according to AP-Bush attacks immigration deal opponents By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they "don't want to do what's right for America."

"The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place," Bush said against a backdrop of a huge American flag.

AGAIN, No matter what YOU think.

He described his proposal — which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of senators — as one that "makes it more likely we can enforce our border — and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America."

OK, I HAVE to ask. HOW Mr. President, is awarding 12 million Felons with citizenship going to make "it more likely we can enforce our border?" HOW? Please explain this to me. Anyone?

Bush spoke at the nation's largest training center for law enforcement.

He chose the get-tough setting as conservative critics blast a Senate proposal as being soft on people who break the law. Hoping to blunt that message, Bush emphasized that any new options for immigrants and foreign workers would not start until tougher security is in place.

PROVE it Mr. President. Secure the borders FIRST. Then we will talk about immigration reform.

The presidential stop came during a congressional recess, with senators back home and facing pressure from the left and right on the immigration plan. Bush's aim is to build momentum for the legislation, perhaps his best chance for a signature victory in his second term. The Senate expects to resume debate on it next week.

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems," Bush said.

Now this creates a BIGGER one. This one gets me. It REALLY does.

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

I want to KILL the whole thing. I do not care about the provisions that will be overturned in the long run. I do not want our welfare system bankrupt from this influx. I do not want 12 million Felons rewarded with citizenship. I do not want a welcome mat put out saying get here however you want, we will reward you. I do not want fines that will end up being paid by ME. There is not a "slice" I do not like Mr. President, it’s the whole thing. Tell me Sir, HOW is this right for America?

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

People are already FRIGHTENED Mr. President. Frightened and Mad as Hell.

Folks, now is the time you need to intensify your pressure on your elected officials. Make the message simple. No matter what the future holds, you vote for this bill, you are OUT! You will NEVER have my support again. Simple message. Vote Yes for this bill, you are out. And YES, it is, just that simple.
Peter

Sources;
NYT Editorial -Make a Bad Bill Better
LA Times -Immigration reform debate puts up a wall within the GOP
Reuters -Bush: Don't kill immigration reform
AP-Bush attacks immigration deal opponents

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Historic Meeting Between US and Iran.

Hey folks

Yesterday, Monday, May 28 2007, was a historic day. Yes, it was Memorial Day. But there was also a meeting that some are calling historic. A meeting between US and Iran. According to the AP -U.S., Iran end 27-year diplomatic freeze By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers

The United States and Iran broke a 27-year diplomatic freeze Monday with a four-hour meeting about Iraqi security. The American envoy said there was broad policy agreement, but that Iran must stop arming and financing militants who are attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi told The Associated Press that the two sides would meet again in less than a month. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation.

"We don't have a formal invitation to respond to just yet, so it doesn't make sense to respond to what we don't have," Crocker told reporters after the meeting.

The talks in the Green Zone offices of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were the first formal and scheduled meeting between Iranian and American government officials since the United States broke diplomatic relations with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

An AP reporter who witnessed the opening of the session said Crocker and Kazemi shook hands.

Yes a historic day indeed. We shook hands.

The American envoy called the meeting "businesslike" and said at "the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own."

However, he said: "What we would obviously like to see, and the Iraqis would clearly like to see, is an action by Iran on the ground to bring what it's actually doing in line with its stated policy."

Speaking later at a news conference in the Iranian Embassy, Kazemi said: "We don't take the American accusations seriously."

Of course not. They are not going to admit they are helping to KILL our Soldiers in Iraq. Now they did not talk about Iran’s Nuclear Program, nor did they talk about their position on Israel. However, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said,

"We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere" that would help them deal with other issues, he said.

Then you have this.

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admitted that its Middle East policy had failed.

"We are hopeful that Washington's realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq — by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy — guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks," Mottaki said.

Noone confessed to failed policies. OK, We agree to talks, the mass media here call them "historic." They say, "We do not take America seriously. We deny what they say. They have been forced to talk to us because they have failed in Iraq." Translation time, "WE WIN. America WEAK. Just ask their Democratic Leadership." But hey, we did drink tea together.

We see this as historic. As I laid out earlier. There is an interesting timeline that the BBC pointed out. But the problem is, they {Iran} did not see this as historic. They are not as optimistic and rosyeyed about future friendly relations between our two countries. As a matter of fact, they do not even want that. No. They saw this meeting as a weakness. They saw this meeting as us coming to humble ourselves to their superiority. To beg them to work with us as friends because we cannot handle them as enemies.

Yes it was a historic meeting. But not a positive one from our prospective.
Peter
Interesting Timeline By the BBC

Hey folks,

I just found this to be interesting. I’ll be back soon with the Article of the Day about this "historic" Meeting between the US and Iran.

Timeline: US-Iran ties {From the BBC}

A chronology of key events:

1953 US and British intelligence services help Iranian military officers depose Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadeq, a leading exponent of nationalising the oil industry.

1979 16 January - US-backed Shah of Iran forced to leave the country after widespread demonstrations and strikes.

1979 1 February - Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini returns from exile and takes effective power.

1979 4 November - Iranian students seize 63 hostages at US embassy in Tehran, prompting drawn-out crisis leading to severing of diplomatic ties and sweeping US sanctions against Iran. Their initial demand is that the Shah return from the US to Iran to face trial. Later Iran also demands the US undertake not to interfere in its affairs.

1980 25 April - Secret US military mission to rescue hostages ends in disaster in sandstorm in central Iranian desert.

1980 27 July - Exiled Shah dies of cancer in Egypt, but hostage crisis continues.

1980 22 September - Iraq invades, sparking a war with Iran which lasts the rest of the decade. While several Western countries provide support to Iraq during the war, Iran remains diplomatically isolated.

1981 20 January - Last 52 US hostages freed in January after intense diplomatic activity. Their release comes a few hours after US President Jimmy Carter leaves office. They had been held for 444 days.

1985/6 US holds secret talks with Iran and makes weapons shipments, allegedly in exchange for Iranian assistance in releasing US hostages in Lebanon. With revelations that profits were illegally channelled to Nicaraguan rebels, this creates the biggest crisis of Ronald Reagan's US presidency.

1987/8 US forces engage in series of encounters with Iranian forces, including strikes on Gulf oil platforms.

1988 3 July - US cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shoots down Iran Air Airbus over the Gulf, killing all 290 people on board.

1989 3 June - Ayatollah Khomeini dies. President Khamenei is appointed supreme leader the following day.

1989 17 August - Hashemi Rafsanjani sworn in as president, with apparent backing of both conservatives and reformers in the leadership.

1990/91 Iran remains neutral in US-led intervention in Kuwait. Rapprochement with West hindered by Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 religious edict ordering that British author Salman Rushdie be killed for offending Islam in one of his novels.

1992/3 Iran criticises perceived US regional interference in the wake of the Gulf War and the

1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

1993 US President Bill Clinton takes office.

1995 President Clinton imposes oil and trade sanctions on Iran for alleged sponsorship of "terrorism", seeking to acquire nuclear arms and hostility to the Middle East process. Iran denies the charges.

1996 Mr Clinton stiffens sanctions with penalties against any firm that invests $40m or more a year in oil and gas projects in Iran and Libya.

1997 23 May - Muhammad Khatami elected president of Iran.

1998 President Khatami calls for a "dialogue with the American people" in American TV interview. But in a sermon a few weeks later he is sharply critical of US "oppressive policies".

1999 Twentieth anniversary of US embassy siege. Hardliners celebrate the occasion, as reformists look to the future rather than the past.

2000 18 February - Iranian reformists win landslide victory in general election. Shortly afterwards, President Clinton extends ban on US oil contracts with Iran, accusing it of continuing to support international terrorism.

2000 March - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls for a new start in US-Iranian relations and announces lifting of sanctions on Iranian exports ranging from carpets to food products. Iranian foreign ministry initially welcomes the move, but Ayatollah Khamenei later describes it as deceitful and belated.

2000 September - Mrs Albright meets Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at UN in New York - the first such talks since diplomatic ties were severed in 1979.

2001 June - The US alleges that elements within the Iranian Government were directly involved in the bombing of an American military base in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Tehran angrily rejects the allegations.

2001 September - Report by Central Intelligence Agency accuses Iran of having one of the world's most active programmes to acquire nuclear weapons. The CIA report says Iran is seeking missile-related technology from a number of countries including Russia and China.

2002 29 January - US President George W Bush, in his State of the Union address, describes Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil". He warns that the proliferation of long-range missiles being developed in these countries is as great a danger to the US as terrorism. The speech causes outrage in Iran and is condemned by reformists and conservatives alike.

2002 September - Russian technicians begin construction of Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr despite strong objections from US.

2002 December - The US accuses Iran of seeking to develop a secret nuclear weapons programme and publishes satellite images of two nuclear sites under construction at Natanz and Arak.

2003 February-May - The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducts a series of inspections in Iran. The country confirms that there are sites at Natanz and Arak under construction, but insists that these, like Bushehr, are designed solely to provide fuel for future power plants.

2003 June - White House refuses to rule out the "military option" in dealing with Iran after IAEA says Iran "failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities". But IAEA does not declare Iran in breach of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2003 September - Washington says Iran is not complying with non-proliferation accords but agrees to support proposal from Britain, France and Germany to give Iran until end of October fully to disclose nuclear activities and allow surprise inspections.

2003 October-November - Tehran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment programme and allow tougher UN inspections of its nuclear facilities. An IAEA report says Iran has admitted producing plutonium but adds there is no evidence that it was trying to build an atomic bomb. However, US dismisses the report as "impossible to believe". The IAEA votes to censure Iran but stops short of imposing sanctions.

2003 December - US sends humanitarian aid to Iran after earthquake kills up to 50,000 people in city of Bam. US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Iran's permanent envoy to UN, Mohammad Javad Zarif, hold telephone talks in a rare direct contact.

2004 January - President Bush denies that US has changed its policy towards Tehran and says moves to help Iran in the wake of earthquake do not indicate a thaw in relations.

2004 March -
A UN resolution condemns Iran for keeping some of its nuclear activities secret. Iran reacts by banning inspectors from its sites for several weeks.

2004 September - The IAEA passes a resolution giving a November deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran rejects the call and begins converting raw uranium into gas.

A US nuclear monitor publishes satellite images of an Iranian weapons facility which it says may be involved in work on nuclear arms.

2004 November - Iran agrees to a European offer to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for trade concessions. At the last minute, Tehran backs down from its demand to exclude some centrifuges from the freeze. The US says it maintains its right to send Iran unilaterally to the UN Security Council if Tehran fails to fulfil its commitment.

2005 January - Europe and Iran begin trade talks. The European trio, France, Germany and the UK, demand Iran stop its uranium enrichment programme permanently.

2005 February - Iranian President Mohammed Khatami says his country will never give up nuclear technology, but stresses it is for peaceful purposes. Russia backs Tehran, and signs a deal to supply fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor.

New US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says attacking Iran is not on the US agenda "at this point in time".

2005 March - President George W Bush signals a major change in policy towards Iran. He says the US will back the negotiation track led by the European trio - EU3 - and offer economic incentives for the Islamic state to give up its alleged nuclear ambitions.

Mr Bush announces the US will lift a decade-long block on Iran's membership of the World Trade Organization, and objections to Tehran obtaining parts for commercial planes.

2005 June - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tehran's ultra-conservative mayor, wins a run-off vote in presidential elections, defeating cleric and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani.

2005 July - The US concludes that President Ahmadinejad was a leader of the group behind the 1979 hostage crisis at its embassy in Tehran, but says it is unsure whether he took an active part in taking Americans prisoner.

2005 August - President George W Bush makes the first of several statements in which he refuses to rule out using force against Iran.

2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes. The IAEA finds Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2006 March - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the US faces "no greater challenge" than Iran's nuclear programme.

2006 April - A report in the New Yorker suggests the US is planning a tactical nuclear strike against underground nuclear sites - a claim Washington denies. Iran says it will retaliate against any attack and complains to the UN.

Iran announces it has successfully enriched uranium - prompting Ms Rice to demand "strong steps" by the UN. An IAEA report concludes Iran has not complied with a Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment. Mr Ahmadinejad insists the pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology is Iran's "absolute right".

Tehran offers to hold direct talks with Washington on the situation in Iraq, in what would have been the first such talks since 1980. Tehran later withdraws the offer.

2006 May - The US, Britain and France table a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment or face "further action".

In response, Iran's parliament threatens to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if pressure over its nuclear programme increases.

Later that month, the US offers to join EU nations in direct talks with Iran if it agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing work.

2006 December - The UN Security Council unanimously passes a resolution imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

2007 January - Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns says that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had been arrested in Iraq. He said they had been "engaged in sectarian warfare".

In his State of the Union address on 24 January, Mr Bush lumps Iran with al-Qaeda: "It has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who...take direction from the regime in Iran," he says. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat."

A few days later, seeking to ease concerns about a future military confrontation with Iran, the US president says he has "no intent" to attack the country.

2007 February - US officials say they have proof that Iran has provided sophisticated weapons which have been used to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

This is rebuffed by President Ahmadinejad in an interview with an American television station. He dismisses the claims as an "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces.

2007 March - The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, holds a meeting with an Iranian team at a conference of Iraq's neighbours in Baghdad.

The talks are the first formal encounter between the two sides for more than two years.

2007 May - The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Kazemi Qomi hold the first high-level talks between the two countries in almost 30 years.

Iraq's security was the only item on the agenda at the event in Baghdad, hosted by the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Monday, May 28, 2007

To All That Were, Are, and Ever Will Be.

Hey folks,


I am a proud American. I proudly stand and face the flag. I proudly stand and say the pledge. I proudly Stand wherever I am, when a Service Person walk by. In a restaurant, airport, shopping center, or even just down the street. I will stand.

I will look them in the eye, and see that so familiar look as they look back. I will stand silent until I know they are close enough to hear. Then I will simply say, "Thank You."

I thank them for their service to country, yes, this is true, but for ALL that they truly do.
We cannot know that look they have, unless we wore their boots, guns, and hat.

We cannot ever understand what it’s truly like, to be called up and asked to fight.
To be told you must kill, as they watch their friends and family die at the enemies will.

To watch their friend shed their blood, knowing that their turn may soon come.
To do something so small as push a button, and watch an entire town be forgotten.

To fight for what they know is right, yet to never sleep at night.
To be called Heros back at home, while they was blood from their comb.

Yes this is the life of a warrior. This is what they do.
We must never forget, that they do it to protect you.

The truth is folks, I stand when I see a Service Person. I shake their hand. I do not care who they are, where they are from, what faith they follow. When they wear that uniform, they are one. They are a Soldier, a Warrior. One that has CHOSEN to take it upon themselves to do whatever it takes., to pay whatever the price, to keep me safe.

To all those that came before. To all those that sign up today, knowing they maybe required to give the ultimate sacrifice. To all the families that stand behind and proudly support them. This proud American says THANK YOU!


Happy Memorial Day to you all. Gods bless you and keep you safe.
Peter
Memorial Day.

Hey Folks,

Just a brief history of today.

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's


Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.


Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his Gerenal Order No. 11 , and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.


In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields," Moina Michael replied with her own poem:


We cherish too, the Poppy redThat grows on fields where valor led,It seems to signal to the skiesThat blood of heroes never dies.


She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children's League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans' organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their "Buddy" Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.


Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.


There are a few notable exceptions. Since the late 50's on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program). And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.


To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps."


The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the right direction to returning the meaning back to the day. What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.


But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."


On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.

See you in just a minute.


Peter



Sunday, May 27, 2007

IWA For Sunday 052707

Hey folks,

It’s Sunday, time for the IWA.

Now I hesitated doing this, because I really have little desire to promote them or their web site. But I have thought about it more and more and I want you to check it out. I want all of you to check them out and read them at lease, oh I don’t know, once a week. Daily might drive you nutty. But it is important for you to find out that I’m not making it up when I tell you that there REALLY are LWL, Sheepeople, and agenda driven, ignorant people out there. This weeks winner? All of the above.

The Huffy Post -Barry Yourgrau: After Hearing Al Gore: How Does He Run for President?

This note, after just getting back from hearing Al Gore speak a couple of hours ago at the Barnes and Noble on Union Square in New York. There was a crowd of 1,300 jammed standing room to the back of the fourth floor where book events are held. Some people had gotten there at 6am apparently. Great excitement and cheering when Gore made his way to the front. He spoke for 20 minutes or so, without notes. (The store had promised only 10 minutes).

{Laughing} Now pay attention to the completely BLIND lust this guy has for Gore. He is MOST DEFINITELY a devout Goretite, or Gwarian. Just listen to this.

Indeed. Terrific applause. But Gore cautioned it's far too easy to just blame Bush/Cheney. The problems lie deeper. How did we get to a point where 70% per cent of the country thought Saddam was involved in 9/11? How come, in our more or less functioning democracy, congress and media could be so feckless and useless, so enabling of the things which impede wise decisions in difficult days? The line between entertainment and news has been blurred, said Gore. The capacity to make decisions based on reason was almost the heart of the original American revolution in governing. And the anchor of its international appeal. And that's being dismantled. He pointed to Iraq and climate change as the two great areas where all the facts were and are there, but they're constantly being dismissed and triviliazed. Reason is under assault, to bring it back to the book title.

Congress and big media are not going to change this state of affairs, said Gore. The change must come from a new mass movement.

{Laughing Harder} Lead by the Global Warming savior himself. Get this.

It was thrilling, it was exciting, it was, I dunno, ennobling. There were no clever showstopper "applause" lines or sound bytes in his remarks. More an accumulation of impassioned argument, marshalling of facts. Lincon-era virtues, almost. As I say, exciting as hell.

Then the rest of the piece talks about how to get Barry’s wet dream to come true. How to get Gore to run for President. I do not believe that will ever happen Barry. Gore is making WAY too much money scamming people like you, to give that all up and run for President. He has come out SEVERAL times and told you, me, and the rest of the world that he is not running. "I’ve falling out of love with politics" was his latest. But then again, we DO know he’s a liar anyway, so who knows, maybe you still have a chance. Still, that’s a lot of money to give up.

You see folks. Barry here, is either ignorant and unable to think for himself. Completely blinded by his lust for Gore and what he sees in him as to fulfill what is missing in his life. Or has heard all the "evidence," no science, given by those who stand to make major profits, and has actually come to truly believe all the bunk about Global Warming.

Whatever the reason, this lust piece over Al Gore and attempting to convince you and I that the Mass Media is ACTUALLY anything BUT what they truly are. Drones, Liberal pawns who merely write what they are told to write by the likes of Soros, and the Democrat leadership, congratulations Barry Yourgrau, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. Now quick, go change your lightbulb.
Peter
H.S. Asia Pollution Worse Than America, But Good For Global Warming?

Hey folks,

OK, Try to follow this one. In the Health and Science Segment this week, Christian Science Monitor -Small particles' big impact on climate By Peter N. Spotts Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor , Dust and soot from Asia create air pollution in California, but also temper global warming and may stymie hurricane formation. Scientists are taking a look.

Vast clouds of dust, soot, and other tiny particles called aerosols migrate over the Pacific from eastern Asia to North America. Now a team of American, Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean scientists is in the midst of a two-month effort to conduct the most detailed study yet of this region's air-pollution plumes.

The goal is to help provide a reality check on climate models, which poorly represent the effect these particles have on the global and regional climate. The results of these field measurements could well feed into current efforts by the World Meteorological Organization and the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Britain to build the effects of airborne particles into weather forecasts.

By any measure, the Asian plumes represent some of the largest pollution events on Earth, researchers say. While air pollution also migrates from North America to Europe, and from Europe across Eurasia, those amounts pale in comparison to Asia's eastbound freight.

WAIT!!! I thought it was all America’s fault?

Soot from Asia that reaches the West Coast accounts for 80 percent of the black-carbon soot in the skies over the United States, notes Veerabhadran Ramanathan, director of the Center for Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. More generally, natural and man-made particles in the plumes represent the single most vexing problem atmospheric scientists face as they strive to understand the handful of outside factors, or "forcings," that affect Earth's climate system.

80 percent? So only 20 percent of the pollution we are blamed for ACTUALLY comes from
us Right?

Aerosols, soot, and dust collectively "are the big gorilla at the table," Dr. Ramanathan says.

These particles have a direct effect on global and regional climate by intercepting sunlight and radiating it back into space. Over the Pacific on a clear day, the plumes can cut sunlight reaching the ocean surface by 10 to 15 percent, scientists say. Globally they may be concealing as much as half the warming effect of the carbon dioxide that human industrial processes have pumped into the air since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, researchers add.

So it a GOOD thing. Right?

Moreover, these particles have an indirect effect on climate and weather through their complex effects on cloud formation. And they represent a significant source of airborne gunk that can make it difficult for some cities in the western United States to meet air-quality standards.

But it’s not their fault. OK, I have an idea. I will sell those cities Carbon credits. I will reduce their carbon footprint, for a lot of money, by 80 percent. I’ll just blame Asia.

Many of these effects are still poorly understood and quantified. To help fill the gap, the team, led by Ramanathan and Jeff Stith of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is flying an instrument-laden Gulfstream jet through the plumes as they migrate across the Pacific. Although the team also is using satellite measurements and data from ground stations, the jet holds the key to the project. Its 6,000-mile range and its ability to fly from just above the sea surface to 50,000 feet allows the team to get samples from the plumes – and from the clouds they affect – at a range of altitudes.

Of particular interest is the effect aerosols have on conditions in the middle and upper layers of the troposphere. While it will take years to make full sense of the data, even now the team is gaining a deeper appreciation for the challenges aerosols present. Dr. Stith notes, for example, that the team has found pollution layers a few hundred feet thick sandwiched between other pollution layers – each layer with its own humidity-related tipping point for forming cloud droplets. These differences present challenges to global and regional climate models, which have a tough time capturing processes that happen on such small scales.

Ramanathan, who took part in a similar, larger-scale experiment over the Indian Ocean in 1999, notes that this time black-carbon soot is appearing at far higher altitudes than it did over the Indian Ocean.

"That worries me greatly," he says, because the higher the soot, the longer it remains in the atmosphere. Soot at six miles up has two to three times the warming effect of soot at half a mile up, he says, because of its persistence at higher altitudes.

Moreover, high in the troposphere, winds can carry aerosols and soot around the globe in under two weeks, affecting cloud formation far from the aerosols' sources. In addition, wispy cirrus clouds form at those altitudes from ice crystals and can amplify the greenhouse effect.

OH wait, so that’s bad. Right? But if it hinders Global Warming, and lessens Hurricanes, that’s a Good thing, Right?

Researchers are unclear about how different mixes of aerosols might affect cirrus clouds. Some combinations might reinforce these clouds' warming effect; others might undercut their blanketlike traits.

So I guess it’s both good and bad.

It's been a long road to get this far. Over the past 15 to 20 years, atmospheric scientists have grown to appreciate the role soot, dust, and aerosols play as thermostats and potential weather modifiers.

More recently, scientists have begun to include the effects aerosols have on regional weather patterns and even on individual storm systems.

Last fall, for example, scientists from the University of Wisconsin and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study noting that when large dust plumes blow off Africa and over the tropical Atlantic, where hurricanes form, fewer hurricanes seem to occur. Based on earlier work, they noted that the sun-warmed dust at high altitudes could keep nighttime temperatures there warm enough to help stabilize the atmosphere and prevent the development of collections of towering thunderheads that can evolve into tropical cyclones. In March, another team found that Asian plumes appeared to strengthen winter storms in the North Pacific.

The current field project, known as PACDEX, should help bridge the gap be­­tween modeling results and actual conditions. Instruments aboard the Gulfstream jet not only analyze the composition of aerosols in the plumes they encounter, they also intercept cloud droplets and ice crystals and extract the aerosol particles around which they grew. US ground stations help researchers track the evolution and destination of the particles as they reach North America.

To feel more confident about how climate and future weather-forecasting models handle these particles, "we need to understand and observe the interactions of the relevant aerosols in cloud systems," says Greg Charmichael, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Iowa and a member of the PACDEX team.

So just on a side note, could that mean that if we have a storm brewing, all we would have to do is fly into it with a specific type of aerosol and could possible wipe it out, or at lease greatly reduce it? If so, than this is great news. Or are they saying that this is why so many computer models got last year Hurricane season predictions wrong. It was Asia’s fault?

Either way, I hope you got all that. {Smile} Be back with the IWA.
Peter

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Iran Heating Up Yet Again, Talks On Monday

Hey folks,

That’s right, we, {The US] will be holding talks with Iran this Monday. This is truly needed. But is it already too late? I have been warning you that talks do not work I’m been laying out the evidence to this fact. I have been warning you and telling you what THEY are saying. What THEY are doing. They simple fact they want us DEAD.

Now we have known for a while that they are training and funding some of the attacks against our soldiers in Iraq. No it seems we have proof. According to CNN -U.S. general: Iraqi militants trained in Iran

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- A U.S. military commander said Friday that militants used a mock-up in Iran to help plan for a deadly operation in the Iraqi city of Karbala earlier this year.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, in an interview Friday on CNN's "Situation Room," answered questions about funding and support from the intelligence services in Iran to extremist elements in Iraq.

"They've gone so far in their overall training that they've helped the raid that occurred on the governor's position down in Karbala back in January," Caldwell said.

"We know they had built a mock facility in Iran and, in fact, it helped conduct the training and planning over there before they came back and executed that here in Iraq."

While Caldwell didn't provide details about the attack, he could have been referring to a notorious incident that occurred on January 20 in Karbala, a Shiite city south of Baghdad.

That's when a group of armed insurgents disguised as American soldiers, driving American vehicles and speaking English raided a government compound in Karbala, killed one U.S. soldier at the scene and captured four others who were later slain.

Of course they are to blame for this. Anyone that truly believes that Iran is just sitting back and talking rhetoric is naive. So are those that want to tell you we are making no progress in Iraq.

U.S. forces on May 19 killed a man identified as the ringleader of the attack -- Sheikh Azhar al-Dulaymi -- during an operation in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, according to an unclassified U.S. military presentation obtained by CNN.

Caldwell had said this week that the death occurred Friday.

According to the military's release, al-Dulaymi was armed and trying to hide on the roof of a building when coalition forces arrived to capture him. The release did not detail how he was wounded, but it said he died as coalition forces were taking him to a military medical facility.

The U.S. military has received intelligence reports that al-Dulaymi received training, "including ... how to conduct terrorist-style kidnappings," from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, the military release said.

That’s right. According to General Caldwell.

Caldwell said the "Iranian intelligence services, the Quds force, is in fact both training, equipping and funding" Shiite extremist groups and extremist elements of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia in Iraq and Iran.

He said the "secret cells" have been receiving a lot of money -- in the neighborhood of hundreds of thousands of dollars regularly -- to fund their efforts, which include kidnappings, assassinations and "some mass murders" in Iraq.

The U.S. military has said that the Quds force has been involved in the transport of a powerful type of bomb used in Iraq called explosively formed penetrators. However, there has not been proof that the Iranian leadership officially sanctions the transport of the explosives.

Then you have this report by Reuters -U.S. show of force in Gulf alarming: Afghan paper By Sayed Salahuddin

A U.S. navy show of force on Iran's doorstep is "greatly alarming" for the region and the United States risked a bloody quagmire if it invaded Iran, a state-run Afghan newspaper said on Saturday.

A large flotilla of U.S. ships entered the Gulf on Wednesday in a dramatic show of military muscle, adding to pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, which the West says are an attempt to develop atomic weapons.

Get this though.

The English-language Kabul Times, which reflects the U.S.-backed government's thinking, said Iran should drop its nuclear ambition and not be so stubborn.

"This is ... greatly alarming news for the whole region lest American invaded Iran and create a blood bath of its people and another quagmire for itself," the newspaper said in an editorial.

The Kabul Times said Iran should not confront the United States.

"Diplomacy required that it should have abandoned its nuclear ambition ... It is not a good policy for a relatively small country to be stubborn and militant against a super power," it said.

They will not listen to them. Little Hitler and the "Supreme Leader" will NOT back down from their Nuclear ambitions. They WANT bombs. They WANT to use the bombs. They want us dead. Israel wiped off the map. I do not understand how some see what the paper printed as a "good sign." It’s a little amazing, the boldness. But unlike the way we do things sometimes here, they do not run their policies per the Press there.

Yes folks, Iran is heating up yet again. This time though, I’m not so sure that it will, or SHOULD cool off anytime soon. They cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear bomb. If President Bush does nothing before he leaves the office in 08, and we get a spineless, gutless, pawn in there who is beholden to the likes of MORON.org or Soros. They {Little Hitler, Iran}WILL not only have, but will use them in due time. Time is ticking.
Peter
Sources:
The Fallout Has Begun

Hey folks,

I meant to post this yesterday, when these started to appear, but my meds said, BED. OK, Now I’m back. It didn’t take long before the fallout started. AP alone has two articles depicting it, Reuters one so far. The only people that seem happy with Clinton and Obama, is Moron.org.

Let’s start with the AP. AP-McCain, Romney assail Democrats on Iraq By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Republican presidential candidate John McCain assailed Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Friday for voting against legislation paying for the Iraq war, accusing them of embracing "the policy of surrender."

Obama, in turn, criticized McCain and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney for "still supporting a war that has cost us thousands of lives, made us less safe in the world and resulted in a resurgence of al-Qaida."

OK, that is a bunch of BUNK. That is simply Moron.org talking points. You would have to be blind not to see that. Or, as Obama seems to think, you are stupid. None of that is true. We have been attacked for YEARS before 9/11. Noone did anything. Now? Not one since. People like Obama that want to be President, need to show they are not merely a member of the sheepeople heard and can think for himself. He is not doing himself any favors.

Now I’m not a big McCain supporter. I have a major trust issue with him. But on this point, he is one hundred percent correct..

"What is Senator Obama and Senator Clinton's 'Plan B' if we withdraw?" McCain, an Arizona senator who backed the measure, said in a telephone interview. "What are their options if the withdrawal fails and we have chaos and genocide?"

Pisss, they don’t care. They will just blame Bush.

McCain also implied that the country would be less safe if Clinton or Obama became commander in chief. "I wouldn't use the words 'less safe,' I would use the wording that our national security would be at risk if we pursue the policy and cut off funding," McCain said.

In an earlier statement, he called his Democratic rivals' opposition to the spending bill "the equivalent of waving a white flag to al-Qaida." He said he was "very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Romney also criticized Clinton and Obama — and used the largely derided term of "Democrat Party" instead of Democratic Party.

Now Romney I’m really starting to like.

"Voting against our troops during a time of war shows the American people that the leaders of the Democrat Party will abandon principle in favor of political positioning," said Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. He said the votes defined the two Democrats' lack of leadership on national security and "render them undependable."

ABSOLUTELY.

In a rebuttal statement, Obama, an Illinois senator, said: "This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone elses civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not."

Because you are an IDIOT. A Drone for the likes of Soros. When is the last time you talked with soldiers? People on the Ground in Iraq? When is the last time you took time to learn the REALITY of the situation?

Also according to the AP-Lawmakers predict shift in war policy By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

Republican and Democratic congressional leaders both forecast a change in President Bush's Iraq war policy as the president prepared to sign legislation Friday providing funds for military operations through Sept. 30.

"I think the president's policy is going to begin to unravel now," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who described the just-passed measure as a disappointment because it did not force an end to U.S. participation in the conflict.

{Because he is stupid and has no plan. Watch, it will fall apart now that we gave him the money.} {Laughing} Can you say sore loser?

At a separate news conference, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell predicted a change, and said Bush would show the way.

"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall and I think the president is going to lead it," he said.

McConnell said he expects Bush announce his intentions on his own timetable.

He is the Commander and Chief. That IS his job.

"This effort shows what can happen when people work together to get a good bill that doesn't have timetables or tell the military how to do its job," Bush said after a visit to wounded troops at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. "It also sends a clear signal to the Iraqis that there's expectations" for them to make progress.

Democrats say the drive to bring U.S. troops home is far from over.

"We're going to keep coming back and coming back," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic caucus.

The Energizer Bunnies?

It goes on and one about what they are going to try to do. Bush Bad War Evil, blah, blah, blah. But at least THEY did the right thing. They voted FOR it. Now this from Reuters -Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton earned praise from anti-war activists but criticism from Republicans on Friday for voting against a measure to pay for the Iraq war that sets no timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops.

The two leading 2008 Democratic presidential contenders had been under heavy pressure from the party's influential anti-war wing and from other Democratic candidates to oppose the emergency funding bill sought by President George W. Bush.

Unlike an earlier funding bill that Bush vetoed on May 1, the bill comfortably passed late on Thursday by both the Senate and House of Representatives was not tied to deadlines for troop withdrawals.

Obama and Clinton had refused for days to say how they would vote, but ultimately sided with opponents of the increasingly unpopular war.

Never mind. Click the link if you want to read it. They really messed up. They really showed their true colors. YOU now know who these people WORK for. It isn’t YOU. They received great praise from MORON.Org That and a dollar will get you a donut. But I’m not ready to say, it will get you in the White House. Did I mention they voted NO on the Minimum Wage increase. No on Hurricane Relief. No on poor kid Healthcare. No on assisting Farmers? They did.

More to come I’m sure. The Spin will continue.
Peter

Sources:
AP-Lawmakers predict shift in war policy
Reuters -Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats
AP-McCain, Romney assail Democrats on Iraq

Friday, May 25, 2007

The Spin, Dangerous to Hillary and Obama

Hey folks,

It’s FRIDAY!! I told you so. I knew they were going to be in trouble. They MMD and the LWL HAVE to spin this, because up to this point, they have been a do nothing Congress. So when they have a major victory like this, they want everyone to know about it. They also want to come across a little bit like, "gotcha" to President Bush. But the problem is, Hillary and Obama, and some others voted NO.

According to Reuters -Congress votes to boost minimum wage, cut taxes By Thomas Ferraro

Legislation to provide the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade won final U.S. congressional approval on Thursday, and headed to President George W. Bush to sign into law.

Democrats promised the pay boost for millions of America's lowest-paid workers in capturing control of Congress in last November's elections from Bush's Republicans.

The measure would increase the minimum wage over two years to $7.25 per hour from $5.15, and -- to avoid a threatened Bush veto -- provide $4.84 billion in small business tax breaks over 10 years to help pay for it.

GREAT News!! They did what they said they would do. WE have to celebrate. The Minimum wage is going up. Great victory for the Democrats. Notice the wording? It makes it seem as if it was unrelated and on it’s own.

After months of wrangling, the legislation was tucked into a hotly contested bill backed by the president to fund the Iraq war. The House of Representatives approved it, 348-73, and the Senate then gave its needed concurrence with 80-14.

"This package will help millions of American workers better cope with the rising cost of living while helping our businesses expand and hire new workers to keep our local economies vibrant," said Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee.

"Tucked into a hotly contested bill" "Gotcha" Great news. Way to go Charlie.

The tax provisions include an extension of existing tax breaks for investments in new equipment and for hiring veterans and people with special needs. The cost would be offset by changing rules on interest and penalties, and on treatment of investment income for dependent children. It would also raise fees for bad checks to the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service.

Wait a second. What is this?

Passed just hours before Congress headed off for a Memorial Day recess, the sweeping spending bill would provide about $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and another $20 billion for a variety of domestic programs.

Oh yeah it was part of that, but never mind about that. This even is good for the poor Farmers.

It includes additional money for farmers who lost crops due to weather damage, increased funds for poor children's health insurance, another $1 billion for homeland security and about $4.1 billion in hurricane disaster relief.

The increase in the minimum wage was the first major Democratic campaign promise to win final congressional passage.

Those still pending include ones to reduce the cost of education and prescription drugs, roll back some tax breaks for big oil companies and move toward energy independence.

{Laughing} This is a great day for the Democrats. Look at all they are accomplishing. Notice how this does NOT say Hillary, Obama, and others voted NO on all this? What they should have done is voted yes, then say things like, "I voted FOR the Minimum Wage increase. I voted FOR the $1 Billion for Homeland security. I Voted FOR the increase in funds for poor children’s healthcare. I voted FOR the $4.1 Billion in hurricane relief. I did not vote yes for the Iraq spending, but I had no choice. What I voted for was these other things that are great for this country. Make no mistake about it. I am still committed to surrendering,, I mean bringing out Troops home, and I will continue to work toward that goal."

But they voted NO. This is going to be a major problem for them in the upcoming days, months, and yes, even the election. They can take NO credit for this whatsoever. Watch the Spin pick up.
Peter

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Update on The Iraq War Funding Vote.

Hey folks,

Update for you, along with something to think about. As I reported to you just a little earlier, the LWL caved, bowed, gave up, whatever, to the President and agreed to give him a bill he would sign. Well, they did that. 80-14 What is interesting is those that voted no. Along with that, WHAT they voted no for.

According to the AP -Clinton, Obama vote 'no' on Iraq bill By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.

Liar.

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Lair again.

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

See what I mean? Besides that, they knew it would pass, so they felt "safe" making a political statement. In essence, they are STILL playing games with the Troops lives. You want THEM in the White House? Those beholden to the likes of Soros first. Beholden to the LWL? {Left Wing Looney Fringe}

On a vote of 80-14, the Senate cleared the measure and sent it to Bush.

Both Clinton and Obama have faced intense pressure from the party's liberal wing and Democratic presidential challengers who urged opposition to the measure because it doesn't include a timeline to pull forces out of Iraq.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who also voted against the legislation, was among the Democratic candidates calling for rejection of it, along with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

None of these people should get your votes. Think about this. They are beholden to those with MONEY. They allow themselves to be BOUGHT by the Liberal looneys.

Of the four Democratic hopefuls in the Senate, only Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware supported the bill. He said he did so reluctantly because he viewed the measure as flawed. But he added: "As long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need."

You see, you can be against the War and still support the Troops. {Smile} Not really, but in this case Biden did the right thing.


With their "no" votes, Clinton, Obama and Dodd earned praise from the party's left flank, which has been pushing for a quick end to the war and is an important part of the Democratic base in the primaries.

"This bold stand by three of the four presidential candidates in the Senate won't soon be forgotten," promised Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org's political action committee.

Whoopie Moron.org is happy.

Although they appeased the Democratic base, Clinton, Obama and Dodd did open themselves up to criticism from Republicans that they were denying 165,000 troops the resources they need — an argument that could be damaging in a general election.

Along with the fact that they have also voted AGAINST roughly $8 billion of that was for domestic programs from hurricane relief to farm aid to low-income children's health coverage. Along with the first minimum wage increase in more than a decade. The current federal wage floor of $5.15 an hour will go to $7.25 in three installments of 70 cents Remember that. They voted AGAINST ALL of this. But they care..

Now Obama I’m sure was given BAD advice. He’s new, not so savvy. As long as he is following a script, he is find, but he is just ignorant. He is new. BRAND new. I would be as ignorant as he is if I only had two years in. Listen to this stupidity.

"I am demanding a new one," he said. "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more," Obama said, calling for "a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."

Translation time folks,."We must support our troops, by voting against them. I support the poor, as long as they have five dollars to give my campaign, but I voted against the minimum wage hike. I support health care, although I voted against it. In other words, I cannot think for myself, I must vote the way I’m told to. I mean, come on, I’m new, and I want to be around for a while."

Clinton is just an idiot.

"But the president vetoed Congress's new strategy and so Congress must reject the president's failed policies," she said, adding that Bush should begin a phased withdrawal and "abandon this escalation."

Clinton voted to authorize the invasion in 2002. She has since become a constant critic of the Bush administration's handling of it but has refused to call her initial vote a mistake. She had adamantly opposed setting a hard deadline for troop withdrawals, but a week ago she voted to advance a bill that would cut off money to force a troop withdrawal by March 2008.

REALLY want her in office? Two others not to vote for?

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, opposed it.

Yes folks, as you can see, we learned some pretty important information here. Some want to cater to the looney fringe, which is a VERY minute group, yet well funded with plenty of money to give them, rather than doing what is best for the country. Keep this in mind.
Peter

Source;
Finally

Hey folks,

Finally the time has come that so many people have been waiting for. Our Troops will be supported. It seems that the LWL has FINALLY come to their senses, at least with this, and will be giving the President an Iraq funding bill he will sign. The Mass Media Drones, and the Left Wing Looneys are going NUTS. Got to love that.

From The AP-Congress approving war-funding bill By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress lined up reluctantly Thursday to provide fresh billions for the Iraq war without the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

STOP! {Laughing} Bowing to the President?

"The Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice," said the commander in chief, and he warned that August could prove to be a bloody month for U.S. troops in Baghdad's murderous neighborhoods.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his war policies anew. "Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war has ended," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

"I hate this agreement," added Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee who played a key role in talks with the White House that yielded the measure.

In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank-and-file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could provide the bulk of votes needed to send it to the Senate for final approval.

Presidential politics spiced the proceedings across the Capitol.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, alone among the Senate's Democratic White House hopefuls, pledged in advance to oppose the bill. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he supported it.

That left Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois publicly uncommitted in the hours leading to the vote, two leading White House rivals tugged in one direction by the needs of 165,000 U.S. troops — and in another by party activists demanding rejection of the legislation.

Yes folks, and they are NOT happy. More on that in a second.

The legislation includes nearly $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. In addition to jettisoning their plan for a troop withdrawal timeline, Democrats abandoned attempts to require the Pentagon to adhere to troop training, readiness and rest requirements unless Bush waived them.

The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.

Which EVERYONE agrees with.

Reflecting unhappiness among conservatives in his own party, Bush said he would have preferred less domestic spending than the bill contained. "But, still, by voting for this bill members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our servicemen and women in harm's way," he said at a Rose Garden news conference.

One of the most vocal war critics in Congress readily agreed. "This is not a game. They run out of money next week," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, whose speech opposing Bush's Iraq policy more than a year ago was a turning point in the debate.

We KNOW this is not a game. You and the Traitor leadership have been the ones treating it as such.


OK according to the NYT, well, need I say more? NYT-On War Funds, Democrats Saw No Option but to Cede Ground to Bush

Not their Fault. {Smile}

WASHINGTON, May 23 — Congressional contortions over the Iraq spending bill could end up with most House Democrats momentarily occupying the position they were so desperate to vacate: the minority.

The decision by the Democratic majority to strip the measure of a timetable for troop withdrawal has raised the prospect that it could be approved mainly by
Republicans with scattered Democrat support. The idea that many Democrats would be left on the losing side in a consequential vote has exposed a sharp divide within the party, drawn scorn from antiwar groups, confused the public and frustrated the party rank and file.

But in recounting the leadership’s thinking, senior Democrats and other officials said that by early this week they had concluded there was no alternative but to give ground to President Bush despite their view that he had mishandled the war and needed to be put under tighter Congressional rein.

Get this folks. This is too funny.

But the outcome has angered segments of the antiwar coalition that helped put Democrats in charge of Congress last November on the presumption that the party would hold Mr. Bush’s feet to the fire when it came to the war.

Eli Pariser, executive director of
MoveOn.org, said Democrats were retreating when the public was squarely on their side. Members of his group were distributing fliers with an illustration of a spinal column to lawmakers, urging them to "show some backbone" and oppose the war spending bill.

"The Democrats were elected in November to lead the country out of the war, and this bill doesn’t do that," Mr. Pariser said. "And the perplexing thing about this moment is that the Democrats have the political wind strongly at their backs, and the country wants them to fight."

Who cares what MORON.Org thinks. You are losing your grip Soros.

Many Democrats share that view, saying they would have preferred a harder line from the leadership. "They were weaker than I would have preferred," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York.

But some of Mr. Nadler’s colleagues said Democrats had to exhibit the responsibility that came with power and should reserve their criticism for Mr. Bush.

"The speaker and our leadership have been indefatigable in their efforts to bring the president to a place to do what we want to do — fund the troops and begin to change direction in Iraq," said Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, Democrat of California.

The leadership has engaged in a bit of legislative legerdemain to ease the pain for Democrats when it comes to the votes on the war money. Their plan calls for two votes. One would be on the war spending and related benchmarks calling for progress in Iraq — benchmarks that were previously resisted by the White House. That is the proposal many Democrats and Ms. Pelosi intend to vote against. Republican officials said Wednesday they believed their members would back it so the money could reach the Pentagon.

A second proposal would contain the first minimum-wage increase in more than a decade and $17 billion in new money for agriculture subsidies, child health care, veterans and military health care, and Gulf Coast rebuilding. Democrats intend to line up behind that measure. If passed, the two proposals would automatically be merged and sent to the Senate without a final vote, sparing Democrats a roll call on the war money and Republicans a vote on the spending.

Aides said they expected the combined proposals to draw considerable support from Senate Democrats who would be more inclined to want to go on record backing the financing for the military as well as the domestic spending. The idea was to get the measure to Mr. Bush by the weekend, though it was still being assembled Wednesday.

Some senators were weighing their options. The Democratic presidential contenders
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois were not tipping their hand.

And Senator
Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and Ms. Pelosi’s partner in negotiating with the White House, had also not revealed how he intended to vote.

They will most likely not vote. Leaving it open for the Republicans to have the Majority, because they are cowards. But it should be interesting to see how this all plays out in the Press. Finally our Troops will be supported.
Peter

Sources;

AP-Congress approving war-funding bill

NYT-On War Funds, Democrats Saw No Option but to Cede Ground to Bush