Follow by Email

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The New York Times Prints TRUTH

Hey folks,

Just yesterday, in the Daily Article, I said this.

Yes folks, the LWL completely with the support, although there are signs that even their blind support of the MMD is fading.

Well, just a little bit later THIS was brought to my attention. Now I KNOW this has had to have been talked to death today, but I’m going to post it for two reasons. One, if you did, by some odd chance miss it, you HAVE to see this. Two, well, basically just to annoy my Liberal friends. {Smile}

The NYT {That’s the New York Times, for those who need a little further help in understanding} actually printed the TRUTH today. In their Opinion section NYT -A War We Just Might Win By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

You are going to get this a lot. But I am doing this as a public service so even my Liberal friends can get this. “the political debate in Washington is surreal”“Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.”

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Just for further understanding, they just said, “As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw.”“We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” This is not water carriers for the Bush Administration to say the lest. They have actually been right there with the LWL denouncing the President. Until they ACTUALLY WENT THERE AND SAW FOR THEMSELVES.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

This needs no comment by me. “Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.”

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

Did you get that? “all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.”

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local
mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

More signs we are winning? “American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate.”

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

Wait. “A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.” I thought that the Iraqis want us out. That it’s a civil war going on?

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

Really? I thought it was all tumult and kaos.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

So there is much more work to be done. Everyone, including the President, knows and has been saying this. I wonder how Congress is going to handle THIS recommendation. “But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.” Probably just ignore it. It doesn’t fit their templet.

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

Like I said, hardly Bush Lackeys. What is really interesting about this, is not the fact that these two guys have gone there, seen, and came back to tell the TRUTH. It’s the fact that the NYT’s actually PRINTED it. Even if the LWL, Congress, doesn’t listen to the TRUTH from the front line, maybe they should listen to the fact that one of their main supporters seems to be backing away. THAT should tell them something.
Peter

Monday, July 30, 2007

Where ARE they?

Hey folks,

Not much time left, but I just caught this. Reuters-Study blames climate change for hurricane rise By Jim Loney

The number of Atlantic hurricanes in an average season has doubled in the last century due in part to warmer seas and changing wind patterns caused by global warming, according to a study released on Sunday.

Hurricane researchers have debated for years whether climate change caused by greenhouse gases from cars, factories and other human activity is resulting in more, and more intense, tropical storms and hurricanes.

The new study, published online in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, said the increased numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes in the last 100 years is closely related to a 1.3-degree Fahrenheit rise in sea surface temperatures.

{Sigh} Where ARE they?

The influential U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a report this year warning that humans contribute to global warming, said it was "more likely than not" that people also contribute to a trend of increasingly intense hurricanes.

Since when did "more likely than not" become scientifically proven FACT? Anyway, like I said, I’m out of time right now, maybe more on this later. This is unbelievable. There are NO storms out there yet. It seems that since there is none, they want to make sure you are still afraid that YOU are going to wipe out parts of this country, because YOU increased the strength of Hurricanes. Uh, that are not there.

Did they not just revise DOWNWARDS the number of storms this year?
Peter
People Are Waking Up

Hey folks,

I have been warning you, pointing out the facts, and have been shouting from the roof tops, about the demise of the Democratic Party. It is DEAD. It has been completely taken over by the LWL {Left Wing Looneys.} It has been bought and paid for by the likes of George Soros.

I told you back on October 19,06

“It is the LWL that is trying to gain power through assertion and attacks. Complete with help from the MMD {Mass Media Drones, for those who need a little extra help in understanding} They have decided that Bush must go. Nothing else matters. Not this war, not this country, not YOU. They have already made up their mind that Bush is wrong, and it is Bush’s fault. Even things that haven’t happened yet.”

I did a whole continuing series of articles, you can see here, on where this NEW Liberalism is nothing more than a VERY real quest for Tyranny.

I have posted their OWN words. Like these of Supreme Leader Wannabe Hillary.

"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy, alternative and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence. I have to tell you, I am not running for president to put Band-Aids on our problems."

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said. "Our country cannot run without the people who have the skills that are taught in this school."

Look folks, for years leading up to this last Election I warned people that one man, President Bush having complete and total power, is dangerous. He had all one party controlling everything. They really would give him permission to do whatever he wanted. We needed balance back in government.

But then the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} started to and eventually DID completely take over leadership of the Democrat party. Now EVERYONE is starting to discover just how insane the LWL really is. They truly are on a quest for tyranny.

Tyranny is the micro management and control over every aspect of your life. This is what the new Liberals strive for. They envy people like Saddam, Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Absolute power without accountability. They even line up to go visit these people. Praise these people. Even say we should talk to these people. We could learn from them.

The NEW liberalism is an attempt to create an alternate reality, where liberalism is compassionateness. Where it is fair and just. Where those that have, should care for those that have not. It punishes independents, and rewards those that blindly follow. It stifles free thought and speech, and tells you want to believe. Look at the war. The Mass Media Drones, lie, fabricate photos, omit truth, leak top secrete information, and post things they get EMAILED to by the enemy. They are in contact with them. Some of them have even become they enemy’s tool for their propaganda.

These people have completely lost it. They do not care about what’s right anymore. I can and will not support those that have turned into a gutless, do nothing, bunch of dullards, and some even worst, traitors.

Remember who said this?

“As a former Democrat, I can tell you [that]... back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party... down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England.”

You are correct. It was Ronald Regan.

Then you have people that are waking up to this fact. You have more and more people, the loonier the LWL become, saying enough is enough. A good friend of our’s here at the OPN, Sam Spade, put it this way.

"I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us."

The democrats have shown us time and again that with all the talk and bluster that not even their own leadership stands its ground.

We see those on the Hill telling the American people that we really mean this or that but when it comes to doing it not all democrats are on this bandwagon of dissent and obvious intention of not supporting our troops just to get even with the Bush administration.

Both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have told the America people that they want this or that and when it comes down to it seem to undermine their own bills and thus their credibility.

As you said even the LWL should have come to the realization that their warped causes really do not have the blind support they had hoped for.

Truth be told, the democrats really need to stop listening to the far left and those ultra partisan democrats and actually try bipartisan efforts to accomplish things.


As it stands now, the democrats have done little in almost seven months except try to undermine the war and the President.”
Sam Spade.

Yes folks, the LWL completely with the support, although there are signs that even their blind support of the MMD is fading, are continuing down this very dangerous road. Their approval rating is at a record all time low. EVER.

This is not enough to get comfortable though. You have to educate yourselves. Get to know who and what these people really are. Get to understand that if they win in 08. There truly maybe NO stopping them. Get ready, get knowledgeable, when the time comes, the power is YOURS, go vote.
Peter

Sunday, July 29, 2007

IWA for Sunday 072907

Hey folks,

This week the award goes to a reporter. This story defies logic and reason. It is one of the biggest pieces of idiotic propaganda I have read in a long time. No, it actually does not appear in the NYT. It’s actually a story in the Christian Science Monitor.

The headline says it all. CSM -Climate change escalates Darfur crisis. By Scott Baldauf Fri Jul 27, 4:00 AM ET

Global warming is going to cause genocide. That’s right. Get this.

With Darfur refugee women waiting up to two days for their chance to fill buckets at a communal water point, it's only a matter of time before bickering turns into a full-fledged fight.

In the 115-degree F. heat of the Touloum refugee camp, just across Sudan's border in eastern Chad, the stakes are high. Refugees receive only 4.5 liters, on average, per family member – just enough for drinking and cooking. A family that misses its day or gets shoved aside at the water pump may not survive.

On this day, a younger woman has been caught cutting in line. She and an older woman wrestle each other to the ground.

"I have been waiting here two days for my turn, and if the water finishes I will have to ask for water from other people," says Khadija Musa, the elderly woman. "Sometimes I have to borrow water to cook. Our clothes are filthy, we cannot wash without water." She rubs her shoulder and sighs. "The only thing left is to die."

Nineteen paragraphs into this, he starts to talk about the “effects” of Global Warming.

British Home Secretary John Reid pointed to global warming as a key factor behind the conflict in Darfur. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he said. "We should see this as a warning sign."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also joined the climate-change bandwagon, writing in a Washington Post opinion page column, "The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change."

Activists in the Save Darfur Coalition and others say the climate-change argument is an attempt to absolve Sudan's government of its well-documented recruiting, arming, and directing of Arab janjaweed militias against black villages.

Khartoum has long minimized its own role in the fighting, calling Darfur "a local conflict." It has also minimized the death toll, citing only 9,000 deaths compared with UN estimates of 200,000.

In the refugee camps scattered across the parched deserts of Eastern Chad, where refugees receive only 4.5 to 10 liters of water a day and where refugee women are often beaten or raped when they venture into local communities in search of firewood or water from local wells, climate change is not a theoretical issue. It is a crushing fact of life.

Emmanuel Uwurukundo, head of the field office of the UN High Commission for Refugees in Iriba, says that water has now become the chief concern of aid organizations, and a growing source of tension between the local population and Sudanese refugees.

It’s a desert folks. You know the Sahara ? I waded thru the rest of this bunk and found no possible solution to this newest Global Warming crisis. No new proof that Man made Global Warming is real. No facts to back up anything.

So this is simply more Global Warming doom and gloom reporting. Congratulations Scott Baldauf, for either being so ignorant that you believe in the scam that is Global Warming enough to, or not being brave enough to say no, and just reporting what you were told to, you are the Idiot of the Week. Imagine that, now even genocide can be blamed on Global Warming. {Sigh} Sad really.
Peter
H.S. 072907 Diet Soda

Hey folks,

Well, Tuesday's big news was Diet Soda. The news was not good. According to the AP -Study: Diet soda linked to heart risks By JAY LINDSAY, Associated Press Writer

People who drank more than one diet soda each day developed the same risks for heart disease as those who downed sugary regular soda, suggests a large but inconclusive study.

STOP!!! Again folks. An inconclusive study.

The results surprised the researchers who expected to see a difference between regular and diet soda drinkers. It could be, they suggest, that even no-calorie sweet drinks increase the craving for more sweets, and that people who indulge in sodas probably have less healthy diets overall.

That’s stretching. So now Diet Soda is a gateway to worse treats?

The study's senior author, Dr. Vasan Ramachandran, {That’s actually Dr. Ramachandran Vasan} emphasized the findings don't show diet sodas are a cause of increased heart disease risks. But he said they show a surprising link that must be studied.

WAIT. “don't show diet sodas are a cause of increased heart disease risks” Can you see where I’m going with this yet?

It's intriguing and it begs an explanation by people who are qualified to do studies to understand this better, said Vasan, of Boston University School of Medicine.

However, a nutrition expert dismissed the study's findings on diet soda drinkers.

There's too much contradictory evidence that shows that diet beverages are healthier for you in terms of losing weight that I would not put any credence to the result on the diet (drinks), said Barry Popkin, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, who has called for cigarette-style surgeon general warnings about the negative health effects of soda.

Where is HIS proof there is ANYTHING wrong with them? Where is the profit here? Money HAS to come into play somewhere.

Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association, said the notion that diet drinks are associated with bulging waistlines defies common sense.

How can something with zero calories that's 99 percent water with a little flavoring in it ... cause weight gain? she said.

It can’t. OK, I told you this story before, I think anyway. When I quit smoking the first time, I blew up from 180 to 230. I was told by a friend of mine, and the one that got me going to the gym, start drinking diet soda. He said, turn around a can of regular soda. {110 calories} then a can of Diet {0}. I started drinking Diet Soda way back then and found it DID help me lose wieght and became a positive part in my weight loss and control.

Still to this day, when I do not have coffee at my side, it’s Diet Soda. Now more so for the taste. It goes on to say that the study found that they feel that it caused metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of symptoms that increase the risk for heart disease including large waistlines and higher levels of blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol and blood fats called triglycerides. But how about common sense.

But Popkin said that result isn't that surprising. He said much of the market for diet sodas are people who have unhealthy lifestyles and know they need to lose weight — with the other portion being thin people who want to stay that way. That means many people drinking diet sodas have unhealthy habits that could lead to increased heart disease risks, whether they drink diet soda or not.

In studies in which some users were randomly given diet sodas and others were given regular soda, diet soda drinkers lost weight and regular soda drinkers gained weight, Popkin said.

In a statement, the American Heart Association said it supports dietary patterns that include low-calorie beverages.

Diet soda can be a good option to replace caloric beverages that do not contain important vitamins and minerals, the association said, adding further study is needed before any association between diet soda and heart risk factors would lead to public recommendations.

They end the article with this.

Without a more definitive explanation, Vasan offers only this advice to diet soda drinkers: consume in moderation and stayed tuned for more research.

So forget what we just reported to you, we’ll get back to you on this. {Laughing}

Then this in Health Day -Study Links Diet Soft Drinks With Cardiac Risk By Ed Edelson
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, July 23 (HealthDay News) -- Drinking more than one soda a day -- even if it's the sugar-free diet kind -- is associated with an increased incidence of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors linked to the development of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, a study finds.

The link to diet soda found in the study was striking but not entirely a surprise, said Dr. Ramachandran Vasan, study senior author and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine. There had been some hints of it in earlier studies, he said.

But this is the first study to show the association in a prospective fashion and in a large population, Vasan said.

Then Blah, blah, blah. Then this.

Vasan, who noted that he is not a nutritional expert, said he leans toward the theory that this is a marker of dietary behavior -- that people who like to drink sweet soda also like to eat the kind of foods that cardiac nutritionists warn against.

But we cannot infer causality, Vasan said, meaning there is no proof that soda itself is the villain. We have an association. Maybe it is a causal one or maybe it is a marker of something else.

So WHY publish this study? Where is the catch? This seems to be just another example of doom and gloom food reporting without actual facts or proof of what they are saying. What is the point?

Take my advice folks. Take my lead. Eat and drink what you want, do so in moderation. Leave these “experts" to fight amongst themselves. You will be happier, and who knows, maybe even healthier for it.
Peter

Sources:
AP -Study: Diet soda linked to heart risks
Health Day -Study Links Diet Soft Drinks With Cardiac Risk

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Commentary on the Presidential Weekly Radio Address

Hey folks,

This morning I posted the Weekly Radio Address by President Bush. Here is my take on it.

President Bush: Good morning. This week I visited with troops at Charleston Air Force Base. These fine men and women are serving courageously to protect our country against dangerous enemies. The terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again. To stop them, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals need the best possible information about who the terrorists are, where they are, and what they are planning.

And they do NOT need invariant harassment and hindrance by the LWL.

One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it.

Modernize it? They want to kill it. The only people they want spying on and silencing Americans is THEM. They have no interest in improving it. They SHOULD , but that would mean working WITH the President.

Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country. Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments. As a result, our Nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe. In his testimony to Congress in May, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, put it this way: We are "significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."

To fix this problem, my Administration has proposed a bill that would modernize the FISA statute. This legislation is the product of months of discussion with members of both parties in the House and the Senate -- and it includes four key reforms: First, it brings FISA up to date with the changes in communications technology that have taken place over the past three decades.

This makes sense. Another reason they {the LWL} will not be interested.


Second, it seeks to restore FISA to its original focus on protecting the privacy interests of people inside the United States, so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations.

Yes but they will not buy this either. They WANT to know EVERYTHING about ANYTHING the administration does. By requiring court orders, they will have more knowledge. Even if this has nothing to do with them.

Third, it allows the government to work more efficiently with private-sector entities like communications providers, whose help is essential.

Remember the big to do about this before?

And fourth, it will streamline administrative processes so our intelligence community can gather foreign intelligence more quickly and more effectively, while protecting civil liberties.

But the templet of the LWL is that Bush spies on Americans. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if they go with this. They may say they will work on it, but most likely try to twist it into something for THEIR benifit.

Every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our Nation.


ABSOLUTELY!!! Way to go Mr. President!

Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.

As the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported, America is in a heightened threat environment. Reforming FISA will help our intelligence professionals address those threats -- and they should not have to wait any longer. Congress will soon be leaving for its August recess. I ask Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass FISA modernization now, before they leave town. Our national security depends on it.

Meanwhile the Democrats have been denouncing the Iraqi Government for taking recess. But they have no problem doing it. They have no problem NOT passing anything that could be a sign to their looney base as helping the President, or attempting to win this war, even if by NOT doing it puts America and Americans at risk.

President Bush seems to be finally saying it like it is. This is a GREAT sign. Hey, he’s out in about a year and a half. By ignoring these idiots, appeasing these idiots, playing their idiotic and pointless games, he will get nothing done. By finally standing up and staying enough, screw you, I’m going to run this country, he may. I for one am glad to see it.
Peter
Presidential Weekly Radio Address

President Bush: Good morning. This week I visited with troops at Charleston Air Force Base. These fine men and women are serving courageously to protect our country against dangerous enemies. The terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again. To stop them, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals need the best possible information about who the terrorists are, where they are, and what they are planning.

One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it.

Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country. Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments. As a result, our Nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe. In his testimony to Congress in May, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, put it this way: We are "significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."

To fix this problem, my Administration has proposed a bill that would modernize the FISA statute. This legislation is the product of months of discussion with members of both parties in the House and the Senate -- and it includes four key reforms: First, it brings FISA up to date with the changes in communications technology that have taken place over the past three decades. Second, it seeks to restore FISA to its original focus on protecting the privacy interests of people inside the United States, so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations. Third, it allows the government to work more efficiently with private-sector entities like communications providers, whose help is essential. And fourth, it will streamline administrative processes so our intelligence community can gather foreign intelligence more quickly and more effectively, while protecting civil liberties.

Every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our Nation. Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.

As the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported, America is in a heightened threat environment. Reforming FISA will help our intelligence professionals address those threats -- and they should not have to wait any longer. Congress will soon be leaving for its August recess. I ask Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass FISA modernization now, before they leave town. Our national security depends on it.

Thank you for listening.

Friday, July 27, 2007

This One Is Just Too Funny


Hey folks,

Happy FRIDAY to you. A friend of mine sent me this. It’s by Mark Steyn. Now I’ll admit that I have never heard of him before, although it seems that I may have quoted him in the past. He has a website, Steynonline.com, and seems to be a columnist in different papers. I have to admit, I do love this.

“In London last week, the Optimum Population Trust called for Britons to have ‘one child less’ because the United Kingdom’s ‘high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change, which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have.’

‘Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet,’ says Professor John Guillebaud.

‘We’re nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless. The answer lies in our own hands... We have to recognize that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers—in other words, human beings, in the UK as well as abroad.’

As the professor sees it, having fewer children is ‘the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.’ The best thing we can do for our children is not to have them.”
—Mark Steyn

{Laughing}

Ok, to my Atheist friends or anyone that get’s offended by the mere mention of God, STOP READING NOW! Or continue and maybe learn something. {Smile}

I have an honest question. A thought to ponder. Let’s see,

Al Gore’s conference on Global Warming was cancelled due to a MAJOR and unusual SNOW STORM.

The Oceans and temperatures are “RISING.” Yet the Ice layers are getting thicker.

"Hottest summer ever?" We are currently having below normal tempts here in South Florida.

"Dry weather caused by Global Warming?" Floods in Briton and around the world.

"Ever increasing storms causing major damage? Over active Hurricanes?" Uh, where?

You know, it’s funny folks. Every time they, the Chicken Little Crowd, comes out with new doom and gloom, the OPPOSITE seems to happen. I don’t know, could it maybe just be God saying “Hey, hello, I’m still in charge here?”

I’m sorry if you get offended by this. If you do, then let me know I’m wrong. Also let me know why. I truly do not believe that you can believe in God AND Global Warming. It’s just not possible. It’s not. How would you possibly have faith in both religions?

If you believe in God, then you must believe that HE created the world. Earth. Our home. You also have to then believe that he created us to live here. God GAVE the earth to us. God made it FOR us, not us for it. Now HE has destroyed it before, this is true, but HE made a promise to Noah to never do it again. So, if HE will not do it again, do you really think WE are going to?

Then if you do not believe in God, you can and most likely will, believe in all this Bunk. But even leaving God out of it, you still can not PROVE in anyway whatsoever that manmade Global Warming even exists. You have to have faith, believing all the lies out there, to believe that there is anything more to it than CYCLES.

Anyway, something to think about as you go off to your day.
Peter

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Congress Out of Control

Hey folks,

I am fully persuaded that Congress is completely out of control now. We really need to seriously talk about term limits. Seriously. These people get so drunk with power, they seemingly will do ANYTHING to keep it. To hell with the Constitution.

From the Immigration AMNESTY fiasco. To the LWL trying to remove protection for YOU for reporting suspicious behavior. Of course the attempts to strip the President of his Commander and chief. Attempting to micro manage a war. Attempting to force a surrender to an enemy that wants us dead. Now talk of censuring the President. Congress cannot censure a president under the Constitution. That is not constitutional. Neither is nearly all the other things they are attempting to do. Then you have this by The Politico -Specter to probe Supreme Court decisions

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.

Congress has NO POWER over the Supreme Court.

Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.

"There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it," Specter said, singling out Roberts.

The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions.


Wait a second. What does that even mean? Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions.

So they told the Democrats that they WOULD chip away, but they are doing it quicker than they wanted? I have no idea what to make of this statement.

Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who served as chairman during the hearings, said he wants to examine whether Roberts and Alito have "lived up" to their assurances that they would respect legal precedents.
Judicial independence is "so important," Specter said, but an examination could help with future nominations. "I have done a lot of analyzing and have come to the conclusion that these nominees answer just as many questions as they have to."

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees, said a review "could lead us to have a different approach." He said senators need to be "more probing" with their questioning of nominees.

"Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee," said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter's idea.

Bunk. “said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter's idea.” Pure Bunk

"They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation."

They seem upset that they are correcting some BAD ones. Just because the court said something, making it legal, doesn’t mean it’s right. Slavery was legal at one point. Doesn’t make it right. There is NOTHING wrong with righting a wrong.

The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.

"It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Roberts has defended his rulings as applications of "existing precedent."

Specter, however, said Breyer's statement was "an especially forceful criticism of the Roberts court."

"I only noticed it in a couple of cases," Specter said of the court overturning or undermining precedents. But Breyer, in their Aspen conversation, said "there were eight."

I would be willing to bet the ones that he is complaining about are strickly LWL motivated ones.

Those that have earned the most criticism from liberals were rulings that struck down desegregation programs, upheld a federal law prohibiting late-term abortions and weakened restrictions on broadcast ads during campaigns.

"The reality is, although John Roberts and Samuel Alito promised to follow precedent, they either explicitly or implicitly overruled precedent," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor.

"It is important to point out how the confirmation hearings were a sham. There is nothing you can do about it now; they are there for life. But it is important as we look to future hearings."

Folks, they are upset that these insane rulings were overturned. {Laughing} But as she said, there is nothing they can do about it.

Conservatives such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a Judiciary Committee member, have no complaints. "I don't have any concerns about them whatsoever," Sessions said of Alito and Roberts.

Like other Republicans and many Democrats, Specter grilled the nominees on their approach to precedent, often as a way to discern their thoughts on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing abortion rights.

And Specter repeatedly sought assurances that Roberts and Alito would respect what the senator considered settled law.

Again, NOTHING wrong with righting a wrong.

Roberts said there would be instances that called for a reconsideration of prior decisions. But, he added, "I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness."

Alito called stare decisis "a very important doctrine," although it was not an "inexorable command."

"I agree that, in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis," Alito said. "And the presumption is that the court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent."

Before voting to confirm Roberts and Alito, Specter cited their statements on precedent as reason enough to put them on the high court.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said at the time that he, too, found Roberts' statements "reassuring" and voted to confirm him. He voted against Alito.

"Oh, sure," Lieberman said Tuesday when asked whether he is concerned about the court's treatment of precedent. "I am interested in what Arlen has to say."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the testimony from Roberts and Alito was misleading in light of their rulings.

"I very much got the idea, the strong chain of reasoning, that they had great respect for stare decisis and they didn't want to be activist judges," said Feinstein, who voted against both nominees. "As you know, some of these latest cases have pretty much shattered precedent."

A review could put "judges on notice that they can't come in front of the Judiciary Committee, say one thing and leave one impression, and then go out and do another," she added.

Specter, who said he will do the review when he "gets a spare moment," would not go as far as Feinstein on whether he feels misled.

"Don't put words in my mouth," Specter said.

The sad fact is that the prior rulings were established BY activist judges. Basically, Congress seems to be over stepping their bounds over and over again. Granted the LWL seem to feel they ARE in charge of the Country and nothing else seems to matter to them. They OPENLY attempt to do what is not Constitutional for them to do.

Now what Specter is planning is not unconstitutional, but it seems pretty pointless to me. More wasted time. I just think that we, the same people that killed the AMNESTY bill, that protected the “John Doe” Amendment, need to start talking about term limits. Some of these people have been in Congress WAY too long. It is indeed time for a change.
Peter

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

I Warned Sheehan

Hey folks,

Happy Hump Day. I cannot believe I missed this. That does not happen much. It is extremely rare that I miss ANYTHING in the news. Even if I’m not here. Especially an AP story. But I did miss this. A friend of mine pointed this one out to me last night.

Two weeks ago, I told you how Cindy Sheehan was running for Pelosi’s seat in the House. On Sunday I awarded Sheehan the IWA. I felt a little compassion for her so I issued her a friendly warning. At the end of the IWA segment I said this.

“Congratulations Cindy Sheehan, you are without doubt, the Idiot of the Week. Just remember, if you go up against the LWL, they eat their own.”

Well, well, well, looky here. According to the AP -Sheehan arrested in impeachment protest By NATASHA T. METZLER, Associated Press Writer Mon Jul 23, 7:09 PM ET

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.

STOP!! Read that again. Who had her arrested? Rep. John Conyers. “Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.”

It wasn’t the Big bad Bush Administration. It wasn’t the evil Dick Cheney. It was the LWL. Apparently she is too looney even for them. {Laughing}

"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside of Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."

Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren't enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.

Forty-five of Sheehan's fellow protesters also were arrested. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said that after they are processed, the arrested activists could each pay a $50 fine to be released.

"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table," Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists before they began their march from the national cemetery.

She really is an idiot folks. The President has done NOTHING that would justify impeachment. The American people do not want it. Most elected officials know that they will fail and it will come back to bite them if they try it. Oh, they’ll TALK about it to appease their looney base, but actually do it? Just like outright de-funding the war, they do not have the guts to try it.

Of course the AP has to try to make you understand that you should have some compassion on this pathetic, I mean, sympathetic character know as Sheehan.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.

Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.

They are not looney enough for Sheehan, or is Sheehan too looney for them? Tough call. But the sad fact is she WAS used and abused by the Left Wing Looneys. No doubt about it. They MADE her a household name. They put her in the lime light. They won, no longer having any use for her, they threw her away like yesterdays trash. But she doesn’t want to go. She LIKES the lime light. She likes the money that Soros gave her. She LIKES the fame.

But the fact remains, if you go against these people, they will seek to destroy you. EVEN if, you are one of them. Ask Lieberman. He’ll tell you. Compared to him, Sheehan is nothing more than a bug that they feel they now need to swash. I warned you Cindy. They really DO eat there own.

Peter

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

The YouTube Democratic Debate

Hey folks,

Last night’s debate was unusual to say the least. However, it was, as with all things Liberal, a show. The CNN / YouTube debate was interesting for the first hour. Then I have to switch off. But let’s discuss it a bit anyway.

According to AP -YouTube questions take a different tack By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Lesbians asking about gay marriage. Two unrelated parents with sons in Iraq asking about the war. And a snowman asking about global warming? Video questions submitted to the hip Web site YouTube shook up the usual campaign debate Monday night.

Even though it was a show. It was interesting. I have to give CNN credit for this. The editor, and those that CHOSE the questions did a pretty good job. It was entertaining. But remember, the questions were HIGHLY and INTENTLY screened and only those chosen out of a countless number submitted made it.

One point, the war. Out of all those submitted, there were really NO questions about Iraq. This even stunned CNN. But of course they had to use the ones they got. But think about this folks. The common talking points and the catalyst for all the daily investigations and attempts to “get Bush” by the LWL always goes back to the war. The people hate Bush. They people want us out of Iraq. The people want Bush impeached. Yet when the people were given the opportunity to ask questions, Iraq was one of the last things asked about. Back to the article.

The questions, most of them coming from young people, were blunt and earnest, yet sometimes bizarre.

"He needs help," Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said after watching a video of a man holding an automatic weapon and asking how the candidates would protect his "baby." "I don't know if he's mentally qualified to own that gun."

The revelations that the questions elicited ranged from the ridiculous to the grave. John Edwards didn't like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bright coral jacket. More seriously, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be willing to meet individually with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his presidency, while Clinton would not.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted video of her answer online, trying to show she has a different understanding of foreign policy than her chief rival.

The innovative questions added a 21st-century twist to the oldest forum in politics — a debate.

This is really not new folks. You could always ask the Candidates questions. Most recently via email, but this was the first time you could summit a video that was shown. I did kind of liked it. I wonder if they will do the same for the Republican Candidates?

"The greatest innovation of this debate is that we're seeing candidates respond to real voters instead of polished TV personalities," said Michael Silberman of the online consulting firm EchoDitto. "It's a win for the candidates who are at their best when addressing voters. It's a win for democracy, since average Americans outside of the early primary states now have the opportunity to ask direct questions of candidates."

Two video submissions featured men singing about topics that usually aren't the stuff of lyrics — taxes and the No Child Left Behind education bill. The first question began with a voter named Zach asking, "Wassup?" Another featured two men from Tennessee playing hillbillies and asking if all the talk about Al Gore entering the race hurt their feelings. "I think the people of Tennessee just had their feelings hurt," Biden responded.

A joke, but an insult none the less. Notice Biden insulted the guy asking about atomic weapons by saying he needed help. and "I don't know if he's mentally qualified to own that gun." then here he insulted the questioners agin. Niether time did he actually answer the question?

Because the questions were asked differently, candidates normally loath to stray from talking points had to answer differently, said Democratic consultant Dan Newman. "Future debate organizers will take note and look for unique gimmicks to keep the countless debates interesting during this marathon campaign," he said.

{Laughing} Good point.

Democratic strategist Kiki McLean said the format got the candidates to speak "in real language, not citing legislative bill numbers."

The candidates were asked whether they would take the presidency at minimum wage. Most said yes. "Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money," Obama said. When Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd tried to protest that he wasn't in the same league, Obama said, "You're doing all right, Chris."

You know, when Obama said that, I had to think to myself, well that was arrogant. But then I thought, well, you know, it is true.

Questions about health care came from brothers spoon-feeding dinner to a father suffering with Alzheimer's, a woman sitting with her mother suffering from diabetes, a man in a wheelchair and a 36-year-old woman who pulled off her wig and declared her hope to be a breast cancer survivor.

"We should be outraged by these stories," Edwards said, his voice rising as he pounded his podium.

No, what we should be outraged by is ALL these candidates want to destroy the healthcare system that is the best in the world. Talk to anyone in the countries with “universal healthcare” and they will tell you, it’s bad. REALLY bad. By the way, when Castro got sick, what did he do? He flew in a Spanish Doctor outside the system to be treated because he knew that his healthcare system would not help him. Think about that.

Their struggles fit in perfectly with Edwards' message of the night — there are too many important issues to focus on the $400 haircuts that he got and are dogging his campaign. Candidates were asked to produce their own YouTube-style videos, and Edwards set his to the theme from the 1968 musical "Hair." It includes serious images including several from Iraq and ends with the text: "What really matters? You Choose."

How many poor people could aford $400.00 dollar haircuts? That one, as we have learned, was cheap. He has flown his hairdresser all around the country. Some were $1200.00 plus. That would help out many needy and poor people. Would it not?

Dodd's video also was about his hair. "The guy with the white hair for the White House," it said. Clinton's video-ad ended with the kicker, "Sometimes the best man for a job is a woman."

STOP!! Where were the Boobs?

Get this. Going back to the LACK of questions about the war. This is a sad attempt to continue the LWL propaganda. VERY sad. They could not report all the questions about the war and attempt to show you that most Americans are against Bush and the war, and want the Democrats to end it, because NO ONE said it. No one asked them. So they go back to January 29.

The candidates gathered at the military college The Citadel in South Carolina, site of one of the earliest primaries — Jan. 29. Many questions focused on the Iraq war.

Asked if Democrats are playing politics with the war, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said yes. "The Democrats have failed the people," he said.

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel said U.S. soldiers are dying in vain. No other candidate would go that far.

Obama took the opportunity to take a slap at his rivals who voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. "The time to ask how we're going to get out of Iraq was before we got in," he said, without naming Clinton, Edwards and others.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said he's the only candidate pledging to remove troops within six months. "Our troops have become targets," he said. Biden of Delaware said Richardson's goal was unrealistic.

Sensing her position was under attack, Clinton bristled as she argued that U.S. troops must be removed from Iraq "safely and orderly and carefully."

I’m sure that they have already reported this back THEN. But they attempt to add it into this debate. WHY? There is only reason? To keep it in your mind. To attempt to get you to believe that it’s the biggest issue with, well, YOU. They want you to believe that everyone want’s out. Too bad THIS debate, on July 23, NOT Jan 29, there were basically no questions about the war.

Like I said, this was entertaining. I was interesting. Even knowing that the videos shown were hand picked by CNN. Highly scrutinized, and one even looked VERY edited. I would like to see them do this for the Republicans, just to see the contrast in the questions asked.

There were a few comedic moments. Mostly the answers were vague, talking points, or reverting back to the war as much as possible. It should be interesting to see how this plays out in the rest of the Mainstream Media today.
Peter
LWL Member and Traitor Pelosi At It Again,

Hey folks,

Here is something you will probably not see in the mainstream media. Nancy Pelosi at it again with the LWL and President’s dead illegal alien AMNESTY bill. You read correctly.

LWL member and Traitor Pelosi hosted a citizenship workshop in San Francisco, which provided free assistance to individuals who are eligible to apply for American citizenship.

She could not help herself. They never can. But she said this.

“Good morning, and welcome to our Second Annual District Citizenship Workshop. This event is about lending a hand to those who seek to become part of the beautiful mosaic that is America. I am honored to be a part of it.

Those here today, who will become the newest Americans, exemplify what our great nation is all about. You have brought your hopes and dreams to a land where hopes and dreams can come true. I am proud to help you on your way to becoming American citizens.”

WAIT!! That is until YOU and the rest of the LWL take the freedoms away that you, and the rest of the LWL, consider detrimental you your power and ruling positions.

“Your participation is part of a historic wave in citizenship registration. Applications for citizenship are up 60 percent over the same period last year, according to a recent story in The Los Angeles Times. That is a reflection of the fact that hard-working immigrants continue to look to America for greater freedom and new opportunities.

This event provides a clear contrast between our vision of the future and that of Republicans in Washington."

It was President Bush’s BILL! HE wanted it. It was not the Republicans that blocked it. It was the PEOPLE! No one wanted it except for the LWL and the President. Not Republicans, Democrats, hell, even some immigrants didn’t want it.

“While Democrats support bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that will keep America safe and unite families, Republicans resorted to obstruction. In contrast, Democrats will continue to move in a New Direction with strong border security, effective law enforcement, comprehensive immigration reform, and the full implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.”

What a bunch of bunk.

"Today's event makes clear that America gains strength from its newest citizens and comprehensive immigration reform will ensure that America keeps growing stronger."

Folks, this is just more proof that all this bill, that YOU killed was, was an attempt to get the immigrant vote. They did the numbers and saw 12 to 20 million new voters, that WOULD vote Democrat. They wanted them for that reason. Period.

But this is important to remember, YOU killed it. Your voice mattered. It matters in 08. As I told you before, if someone like Supreme Leader Wannabe Hillary get’s in, this is a done deal. Amnesty will happen. Freedom of speech? Gone. The war? Lost. More attacks on America? You better bet. Taxes? Thru the roof. Capitalism? Dead.

Listen to these people. Watch what they do. Get knowledgeable about who and what they are. Then when the time comes, go VOTE. Also as I have told you before, America itself may very well hang in the balance.
Peter

Source: Office of the Speaker of the House

Sunday, July 22, 2007

IWA for Sunday 072207

Hey folks,

It’s Sunday!! Time for the IWA. This week’s winner is someone I do not care for. I do not like. I see as a major threat to America itself. HOWEVER. I kind of feel for her on this one. I would hope that she just got bad advise. She was stupid enough to take it, but I would like to believe that she is not THIS ignorant.

OK, I’m a male through and through. Last weigh in I am 216 pounds. I watch what I eat, workout, been told I’m “Scary looking” or “You look mean.” Especially when I’m wearing sunglasses. I work hard. I sweat. If I do not shower, I stink. I use to have no problem in assisting others with their attitude adjustments. I’m a man.

I’m also a proud Papa, and loving Husband. I do whatever it takes to make sure that my family is taken care of. I know who I am. I know what I’m all about. I do not care what others think of me.

So now let’s just say someone, for whatever reason, said that I seem effeminate. Or that I seem to act more like a woman than say, a woman trying to do the same thing I’m doing. I can ASSURE you, I will NOT be going out to buy bicycle shorts to show off my package, nor wear shorts that I fall out of, to prove I’m a guy.

Refraining politics for a second, let me say this. I KNOW Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has always dressed the way she dresses. There is nothing wrong with that. If she is more comfortable being all covered up, so be it. What’s wrong with a little modesty?

She wants to be known for her mind. She wants to be judged by what she says, and the actions she takes. I disagree with her on the issues and what she DOES say, not what she is wearing.

What I’m I talking about? Unless you have been under a rock somewhere, you have heard the story. According to the AP -Edwards: Husband better than Hillary Tue Jul 17, 5:32 PM ET

Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband, Democrat John Edwards, would be a better advocate for women as president than his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I think one of the things that make me so completely comfortable with this is that keeping that door open to women is actually more a policy of John's than Hillary's," Edwards said in an interview published in the online magazine Salon. "I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I've heard. "

Elizabeth Edwards said she sympathized with Clinton, who is running to be the first female president. She recalled the challenges she faced early in her career as a female lawyer and said she understood the pressures Clinton must feel.

"Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic — she wants to be commander in chief," she said.

So Elizabeth Edwards, OK, side question, WHO’s RUNNING? Elizabeth or John? Anyway, Elizabeth Edwards basically calls Hillary a man. We all know that Haircut boy {John Edwards} does seem to lean a little bit to the effeminate side, but a better advocate for women issues than Clinton? Not so sure about that.

So what was Hillary’s response? She showed boobs. {Laughing} According to the Washington Post -Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

Come on folks, this was just too silly. Like I said, she most likely was told to dress like this. It was ridiculously bad advice, and she is an idiot for taking it. Congratulations Hillary, you are the Idiot of the Week. Please, if you are going to take over a country, you can not let people know you care what they think. You should know that by now. {Smile}
Peter



Sources:
AP -Edwards: Husband better than Hillary

Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory

H.S. What Is Going On With ACS

Hey folks,

I have pointed out to you in the past all the confusing information that contentiously come out of the “We Know What IS Best For You” crowd. One day these foods are good for you. One day they are bad. I told you I’ll eat what I want. I still will.

Cancer is an important topic and VERY important to those that contract it. The hunt for a cure continues. We are being told on a daily bases that we need to watch what we eat, and do, to try to avoid cancer all together. But then if you get it, they are working hard at finding a cure. Just give them more money. {Smile}

Then you have those that have done research on foods and drinks that are best for you and your body, in prevention and help in curing the disease if you do get it. But then with all the mixed information, what do you believe?

Just back on May 6, H.S. Coffee Update, I told you that they were saying that COFFEE was good at preventing some cancers. That’s great news for me. Today, Boca Java’s Tropical Kiss {Chocolate coffee with a smooch of coconut}

I grew up loving and believing that Italian food was good for you. The tomatoes, garlic, and vegies were healthy and would help prevent cancer. Today? Well, according to ACS -FDA: Tomatoes Unlikely to Lower Cancer Risk Wed Jul 11, 8:00 PM ET

The US Food and Drug Administration is explaining its stance on the cancer-fighting potential of tomatoes and lycopene, the compound that gives tomatoes their red color. The agency says there is "no credible evidence" that lycopene reduces the risk of cancer, and only "very limited credible evidence" that tomatoes and tomato sauce do.

That doesn't mean you should take tomatoes off your shopping list, though. The American Cancer Society still recommends eating a wide variety of colorful fruits and vegetables every day, and tomatoes definitely fit that bill, says Colleen Doyle, MS, RD, American Cancer Society director of nutrition and physical activity.

Rather, the FDA judgments affect the cancer-related claims that food or supplement companies can put on their products. None are allowed for lycopene, and only a few carefully worded claims are allowed for tomatoes and tomato products.

So let’s say that these are good for you, as they tell you, do not take them off your menu. Why would you NOT want people to know the possibility that these foods can help PREVENT cancer? Does this make sense to you?

In a report published in this week's Journal of the National Cancer Institute, agency scientists describe how they came to their conclusions.

Scores of Studies Considered -- and Rejected

The FDA review was prompted by requests the agency received in 2004 from companies that wanted to put cancer-related health claims on their tomato or lycopene products. The companies asked the FDA to review the evidence linking these compounds to lower risks of several cancers including prostate, lung, colorectal, stomach, breast, cervical, endometrial, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer.

Numerous studies have examined the issue. The FDA considered scores of these studies -- and rejected most of them.

The rejected studies were not included in the evidence review because the FDA found flaws in the design or because the studies did not provide enough information for FDA scientists to draw conclusions.

That is a BROAD spectrum of reasoning. In other words, if it did not meet with the approval of or further the agenda of the FDA, they rejected it.Listen to some of these excuses.

Of 81 studies of lycopene and cancer, all were excluded from the review for these reasons. One major problem the FDA cited: In studies of diet, it's too difficult to determine the effect of a single nutrient -- in this case lycopene -- when so many others may also be at play. As a result, the agency determined there was no credible evidence to support a link between lycopene in any form (as a supplement or as part of food) and a lower risk of any of the cancers it considered.

Of 64 studies on tomatoes or tomato products and cancer, only 39 were deemed strong enough to be included in the FDA review. The agency found no credible evidence, based on these studies, to support the idea that tomatoes or tomato products lower the risk of lung, breast, colorectal, endometrial, or cervical cancer.

Why?

The FDA found what it called "very limited credible evidence" linking these foods to lower risk of pancreatic, ovarian, and stomach cancer. The evidence was so sparse, however, that the agency says it's unlikely that eating tomatoes can lower the risk of ovarian and stomach cancer, and highly unlikely that the food affects pancreatic cancer risk.

The evidence for prostate cancer was slightly better, but still "limited," the JNCI report says. The agency identified 2 large, prospective studies that did show a reduced risk, but also several smaller studies that had mixed results. The agency therefore decided that there is a "very low level of comfort that a relationship exists between the consumption of tomatoes and/or tomato sauce and prostate cancer risk."

But WAIT!! Do not stop eating them. Then they go on to tell you the same thing they HAVE been telling you.

"Choose fruits and vegetables with the most color, like broccoli, tomatoes, cantaloupe, and deep green leafy vegetables like kale," Doyle advises. "These are packed with nutrients and other plant chemicals that have been associated with a lower risk of cancer and other diseases."

Huh? I thought the,, Never mind.

Then you have this story, also from the ACS -Study: Loading Up on Fruits and Veggies Won't Lower Breast Cancer Recurrence Thu Jul 19, 8:00 PM ET

A long-term study of breast cancer survivors shows that eating more than the recommended 5 daily servings of vegetables and fruit has no effect on breast cancer recurrence or deaths. Although researchers are disappointed by the finding, they say women should still strive to fit plenty of these healthy foods into their diet because they have other benefits.

"There are many reasons women should eat a healthy diet, but for breast cancer, there's little evidence that the foods you eat impact risk," says Colleen Doyle, MS, RD, director of nutrition and physical activity at ACS. "What is important is how much you eat, because being overweight is an established risk factor for developing postmenopausal breast cancer, and it also increases the risk of recurrence. That's the message we want breast cancer survivors to know: Watching your weight is really important."

Is it just me, or does Dr. Doyle seems to be having a hard time with these studies?

The study, called the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Trial, was led by a team from the University of California, San Diego, and included researchers from 7 other institutions. The participants were more than 3,000 women (pre- and post-menopause) who had been treated for stage I, II, or III breast cancer.

The women were randomly assigned to 2 diet groups: The control group was told to follow US dietary guidelines, which recommend eating at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables each day, more than 20 grams of fiber, and no more than 30% of calories from fat.

The second group was told to boost their fruit and veggie intake to include 5 vegetables, 3 fruits, 16 ounces of vegetable juice, and 30 grams of fiber each day. They were also supposed to cut their fat intake to 15%-20% of total calories. The women in this group got periodic telephone counseling, cooking classes, and newsletters aimed at helping them stick with this eating plan.

Researchers tracked the women's progress for more than 7 years on average. They saw clear differences in the amount of fruits and vegetables the women in the 2 groups ate, although after year 4 of the study, the gap between the 2 groups tended to narrow. On average, the women in the second group never achieved their goal of getting only 15%-20% of their calories from fat; in fact, by year 6, they were eating a higher percentage of fat than at the beginning of the study.

Despite the difference in fruit and vegetable consumption, the 2 groups had very similar cancer experiences during the 7 years. About 17% of women in each group had a recurrence during the study period, and about 10% of women in each group died.

"I was really surprised and, frankly, a little disappointed by the results," says the study's senior author Marcia Stefanick, PhD, professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention and Research Center at Stanford University School of Medicine. Stefanick and colleagues had hoped that doubling the amount of fruits and vegetables, along with increased fiber and reduced fat, would make a difference when it came to recurrence.

But it may be that diet is important in the context of weight control. For instance, Doyle says, the recent Women's Intervention Nutrition Study (WINS) also looked at dietary factors -- fat intake, in particular -- although in a slightly different group of breast cancer survivors. Early results showed that a low-fat diet seemed to result in benefits, especially for women with estrogen receptor-negative tumors. However, most of the women on the low-fat diet also experienced significant weight loss. While the studies aren’t directly comparable, the difference in weight loss may contribute to the different findings in the WINS and the WHEL studies, as women in the WHEL study actually experienced a small increase in weight.

But then again.

Eating Your Vegetables (and Fruits) Still a Great Idea

So if loading up on fruits and vegetables does not affect breast cancer recurrence, is there any reason for a survivor to go out of her way to incorporate them into her diet?

"Absolutely!" Doyle stresses. "Fruits and vegetables are packed with nutrients and low in calories -- and more evidence suggests they can help with weight control. That's great news for all of us!"

So why this sudden change? What is going on with the American Cancer Society? With the FDA? Could it be as simple as the answer to the question I posed before? Let’s say cancer was gone tomorrow. The cure was found to be natural. What would happen to the profits of all the drug companies, Doctors, Techs, physical therapists, psychologists, and all those other’s PROFITS?

Folks, I eat what I want. I know what is good and not so good for me. I understand the need to take care of yourself. I say, eat, exercise, and take care of yourself. If you live your life listening to these types of “experts,” chances are, all you are going to do is get confused.
Peter

Sources:
ASC -Study: Loading Up on Fruits and Veggies Won't Lower Breast Cancer Recurrence
ACS -FDA: Tomatoes Unlikely to Lower Cancer Risk
OPNTalk -H.S. Coffee Update