I Agree With Wright, You Know

Opinion of the Obama Press Conference

Hey folks,

I just posted the transcript of the Obama Press Conference on Rev. Wright. After hearing him yesterday, and rereading the transcript. I have to admit two things.

First, is it just me or does Obama come across like he cannot think and talk at the same time? Seriously. I'm REALLY not trying to insult the man. But this drove me nuts. He gave another great, elogant, typical Obama speech, then he went off the teleprompter, and "You Know."

Every time he was asked a question, or anytime he was attempting to expound on what he was saying, he said "you know." Someone should REALLY work with him on this. It's distracting and really comes across like you are killing time to think of what to say next. Maybe someone was whispering in his ear or something. I do not know. We do not know. That is why he was there. To keep saying, "you know," then stuttering and stammering, does not convey the image that you are as articulate as you are trying to portray.

Second, I agree with Rev. Wright.

"If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected. Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Wright said that Obama is just a Politician and that he is going to do what Politicians do. Say whatever they have to. I think THIS is what got Obama. Rev. Write just said that Obama is not some great messiah, but just a Politician. Nothing more. He eluded to the fact that he, Wright, believes that Obama DOES believe the same things that he does, he just cannot say so.

So Obama does this Press conference to denounce Wright. What are the three most "outrageous and offense remarks that Wright made."

"But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

Of course those are the three that have been making news for a while now. These are the three that Obama STILL contends that he NEVER heard before. So these are the three he denounces. Folks, do you REALLY believe in a twenty year relationship that he NEVER heard these things? No, of course not. Some of you out there have only known me for two. We have NEVER met. Yet, I bet you KNOW what I believe and what I stand for. So for someone who was like an Uncle, a Spiritual Adviser, and a Mentor? Sorry, I just do not buy it.

Just as a side note, I love this Q and A.

Q: Senator, did you discuss with your wife, after having seen Reverend Wright -- (off mike) -- and what was her --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. No, she was similarly -- anger.

{Laughing} Yeah I don't buy that either. {Smile}

All I heard and all I saw yesterday was EXACTLY what Rev. Wright said. A Politician being a Politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.

PLEASE, someone, work with Obama on the whole "you know" thing.
Peter

Transcript of Obama Press Conference: Rev. Wright

022908

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Before I start taking questions I want to open it up with a couple of comments about what we saw and heard yesterday. I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That's who I am. That's what I believe. That's what this campaign has been about.

Yesterday, we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either.

Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. He's built a wonderful congregation. The people of Trinity are wonderful people. And what attracted me has always been their ministry's reach beyond the church walls.

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

Let me just close by saying this: I -- we started this campaign with the idea that the problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided, that, in fact, all across America people are hungry to get out of the old divisive politics of the past.

I have spoken and written about the need for us to all recognize each other as Americans, regardless of race or religion or region of the country; that the only way we can deal with critical issues, like energy and health care and education and the war on terrorism, is if we are joined together. And the reason our campaign has been so successful is because we had moved beyond these old arguments.

What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think American stands for.

And I want to be very clear that moving forward, Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks.

But what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I'm about and who I am.

And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign's about, I think, will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.

Last point: I'm particularly distressed that this has caused such a distraction from what this campaign should be about, which is the American people. Their situation is getting worse. And this campaign has never been about me. It's never been about Senator Clinton or John McCain. It's not about Reverend Wright.

People want some help in stabilizing their lives and securing a better future for themselves and their children. And that's what we should be talking about. And the fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage, for three or four consecutive days, in the midst of this major debate, is something that not only makes me angry but also saddens me.

So with that, let me take some questions.

Q: What are you going to do --

Q: Senator --

Q: Senator --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, go ahead.

Q: Why the change of tone from yesterday? When you spoke to us on the tarmac yesterday, you didn't have this sense of anger, outrage --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. I'll be honest with you: because I hadn't seen it yet.

Q: And that was the difference you --

SEN. OBAMA: Yes.

Q: Had you heard the reports about the AIDS comment?

SEN. OBAMA: I had not. I had not seen the transcript. What I had heard was that he had given a performance. And I thought at the time that it would be sufficient simply to reiterate what I had said in Philadelphia. Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just a -- it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that -- that -- that contradicts who I am and what I stand for. And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that -- that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the -- the commonality in all people.

And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has -- has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

Jeff?

Q: Senator, what do you expect or what do you plan to do about this right now to further distance yourself, if you think you're going to do that? And does this say about your judgment to superdelegates, who are right trying to decide which Democratic nominee is better? Because your candidacy has been based on judgment, what does this say about it?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, as I said before, the person I saw yesterday was not the person that I had come to know over 20 years. I understand that -- I think he was pained and angered from what had happened previously, during the first stage of this controversy. I think he felt vilified and attacked, and I understand that he wanted to defend himself.

I understand that, you know, he's gone through difficult times of late, and that he's leaving his ministry after many years. And so, you know, that may account for the change.

But the insensitivity and the outrageousness, of his statements and his performance in the question-and-answer period yesterday, I think, shocked me. It surprised me. As I said before, this is an individual who has built a very fine church and a church that is well- respected throughout Chicago.

During the course of me attending that church, I had not heard those kinds of statements being made or those kinds of views being promoted. And I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency. I was a member of the church.

So you know, I think what it says is that, you know, I have not, you know, I did not run through -- run my pastor through the paces or review every one of the sermons that he had made over the last 30 years. But I don't think that anybody could attribute those ideas to me.

Q: What effect do you think this is going to have on your campaign?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, that's something that you guys will have to figure out. And you know, obviously we've got elections in four or five days. So we'll find out, you know, what impact it has.

But ultimately I think that the American people know that we have to do better than we're doing right now. I think that they believe in the ideas of this campaign.

I think they are convinced that special interest have dominated Washington too long. I think they are convinced that we've got to get beyond some of the same political games that we've been playing. I think they believe that we need to speak honestly and truthfully about how we're going to solve issues like energy or health care.

And I believe that this campaign has inspired a lot of people. And that's part of what, you know, going back to what you asked, Mike, about why I feel so strongly about this today.

You know, after seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard, for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems.

You know, now is the time for us not to get distracted. Now is the time for us to pull together.

And that's what we've been doing in this campaign. And, you know, there was a sense that that did not matter to Reverend Wright. What mattered was him commanding center stage.

Q: Have you had a conversation with Reverend Wright and --

SEN. OBAMA: No.

Q: What's going to happen if these distractions continue?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the -- I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. I don't -- more importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign and what we're trying to do for the American people and with the American people.

And obviously, he's free to speak out on issues that are of concern to him and he can do it in any ways that he wants. But I feel very strongly that -- well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed. I believe they are wrong. I think they are destructive. And to the extent that he continues to speak out, I do not expect those views to be attributed to me.

Q: I remember after the story -- when the story immediately broke, Trinity Church -- the current pastor kind of defended Reverend Wright. I'm wondering -- I don't know how they reacted to the latest, but I'm wondering if you continue planning on attending Trinity.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, the new pastor -- the young pastor, Reverend Otis Moss, is a wonderful young pastor. And as I said, I still very much value the Trinity community. This -- I'll be honest, this obviously has put strains on that relationship, not because of the members or because of Reverend Moss but because this has become such a spectacle.

And, you know, when I go to church it's not for spectacle. It's to pray and to find -- to find a stronger sense of faith. It's not to posture politically. It's not -- you know, it's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs. And so -- you know, and I certainly don't want to provide a distraction for those who are worshipping at Trinity.

So as of this point, I'm a member of Trinity. I haven't had a discussion with Reverend Moss about it, so I can't tell you how he's reacting and how he's responding.

Okay? Katherine

Q: Senator, I'm wondering -- to sort of follow on Jeff's question about you, know, why it's a little different now, have you heard from some of your supporters -- you know, you have some -- (off mike) -- supporters who expressed any alarm about what this might be doing to the campaign?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, the -- I mean, I don't think that it's that hard to figure out from -- if it was just a purely political perspective. You know, my reaction has more to do with what I want this campaign to be about and who I am. And I want to make certain that people understand who I am.

In some ways, what Reverend Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life. It contradicts how I was raised and the setting in which I was raised. It contradicts my decisions to pursue a career of public service. It contradicts the issues that I've worked on politically. It contradicts what I've said in my books. It's contradicts what I said my convention speech in 2004. It contradicts my announcement. It contradicts everything that I've been saying on this campaign trail.

And what I tried to do in Philadelphia was to provide a context and to lift up some of the contradictions and complexities of race in America -- of which, you know, Reverend Wright is a part and we're all a part -- and try to make something constructive out of it. But there wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was, was a bunch of rants that -- that aren't grounded in truth, and you know, I can't construct something positive out of that. I can understand it. I, you know, the -- you know, people do all sorts of things.

And as I said before, I continue to believe that Reverend Wright has been a -- a -- a leader in the South Side. I think that the church he built is outstanding. I think that he has preached in the past some wonderful sermons. He provided, you know, valuable contributions to my family.

But at a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough. That's -- that's a show of disrespect to me. It's a -- it is also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign.

Q: Senator, did you discuss with your wife, after having seen Reverend Wright -- (off mike) -- and what was her --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. No, she was similarly -- anger.

Joe?

Q: Reverend Wright said that it was not an attack on him but an attack on the black church. First of all, do you agree with that?

And second of all, the strain of theology that he preached, black liberation theology, you explained something about the anger, that feeds some of the sentiments in the church, in Philadelphia.

How important a strain is liberation theology in the black church? And why did you choose to attend a church that preached that?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, in terms of liberation theology, I'm not a theologian. So I think to some theologians, there might be some well-worked-out theory of what constitutes liberation theology versus non-liberation-theology.

I went to church and listened to sermons. And in the sermons that I heard, and this is true, I do think, across the board in many black churches, there is an emphasis on the importance of social struggle, the importance of striving for equality and justice and fairness -- a social gospel.

So I think a lot of people would rather, rather than using a fancy word like that, simply talk about preaching the social gospel. And that -- there's nothing particularly odd about that. Dr. King obviously was the most prominent example of that kind of preaching.

But you know, what I do think can happen, and I didn't see this as a member of the church but I saw it yesterday, is when you start focusing so much on the plight of the historically oppressed, that you lose sight of what we have in common; that it overrides everything else; that we're not concerned about the struggles of others because we're looking at things only through a particular lens. Then it doesn't describe properly what I believe, in the power of faith, to overcome but also to bring people together.

Now, you had a first question, Joe, that I don't remember.

Q: Do you think --

SEN. OBAMA: Do I think --

Q: (Off mike.)

SEN. OBAMA: You know, the -- I did not view the initial round of soundbites, that triggered this controversy, as an attack on the black church. I viewed it as a simplification of who he was, a caricature of who he was and, you know, more than anything, something that piqued a lot of political interest.

I didn't see it as an attack on the black church. I mean, probably the only -- the only aspect of it that probably had to do with specifically the black church is the fact that some people were surprised when he was shouting. I mean, that is just a black church tradition. And so I think some people interpreted that somehow as -- wow, he's really -- he's hollering and black preachers holler and whoop and -- so that, I think, showed sort of a cultural gap in America.

You know, the sad thing is that although the sound bites I've -- as I stated, I think created a caricature of him. And when he was in that Moyers interview, even though there were some things that, you know, continued to be offensive, at least there was some sense of rounding out the edges. Yesterday I think he caricatured himself, and that was a -- as I said, that made me angry but also made me sad.

STAFF: Last question.

SEN. OBAMA: Richard.

Q: You talked about giving the benefit of the doubt before -- mostly, I guess, in the Philadelphia speech, trying to create something positive about that. Did you consult with him before the speech or talk to him after the speech in Philadelphia to get his reaction -- (off mike) --

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I tried to talk to him before the speech in Philadelphia. Wasn't able to reach him because he was on a -- he was on a cruise. He had just stepped down from the pulpit. When he got back, I did speak to him. And I -- you know, I prefer not to share sort of private conversations between me and him. I will talk to him perhaps some day in the future. But what I can say is that I was very clear that what he had said in those particular snippets, I found objectionable and offensive and that the intention of the speech was to provide context for them but not excuse them, because I found them inexcusable.

So -- yeah, go ahead.

Q: The other day, on Sunday, you were asked whether -- to respond to -- (off mike) -- is this -- you said you didn't believe in irreparable damage. Is this relationship with you and Wright irreparably damaged, do you think?

SEN. OBAMA: There's been great damage. You know, I -- it may have been unintentional on his part, but, you know, I do not see that relationship being the same after this. Now, to some degree, you know -- I know that one thing that he said was true, was that he wasn't -- you know, he was never my, quote-unquote, "spiritual adviser."

He was never my "spiritual mentor." He was -- he was my pastor. And so to some extent, how, you know, the -- the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, wasn't accurate.

But he was somebody who was my pastor, and married Michelle and I, and baptized my children, and prayed with us at -- when we announced this race. And so, you know -- so I'm disappointed.

STAFF: Thank you.

SEN. OBAMA: All right. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.

Democrat Voters More and More Disenfranchised

Only One Option, Maybe

Hey folks,

There is a lot of talk about Screaming Dean calling for one of the two Democrats to quit the race. He has been called every name in the book. But is he wrong? More and more Democratic voters are becoming disenfranchised and more and more are saying they will vote of McCain, with the LWL Leadership does NOT want, or they will simply pull a Republican Voters maneuver. Not vote at all.

According to Reuters, to attempt to lessen the attacks against him, Howard Dean attempted to tone down what he is saying. Reuters - Obama and Clinton will know when to quit: party chief By Alister Bull Mon Apr 28, 8:57 PM ET

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will know when to pull out of the U.S. presidential race in order to unify the party for the general election, the chairman of the Democratic Party said on Monday.

In a round of network television appearances, Howard Dean warned that a prolonged battle between Clinton and Obama could hurt the party's chances in November's election against Republican John McCain.

"Either of these candidates, if it's time for them to go, they'll know it, and they will go," Dean said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Because they will listen to YOU? I doubt it.

"They don't need pushing from people like me or anybody else, or the newspapers or anybody else," he said. "You know when to get in, and you know when to get out. That's just part of the deal."

You are not talking about Sane rational people here. They BOTH want this more than anything else. Neither of them will quit until they lose outright. But then again, they is always the possibility of lawsuits and courts getting involved also.

But Dean is right according to the AP - Heated campaign souring Democrats on rival candidates By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago

Loyal Democrat Richard Somer says if Hillary Rodham Clinton gets his party's presidential nomination, he just may sit it out this Election Day.

A Barack Obama supporter, Somer says he has been repulsed by her use of "slimy insinuations" in the campaign. He especially disliked her attacking the Illinois senator for his relationship with William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical with provocative views.

"She's better than that," said Somer, 72, a retired professor from Clinton, N.Y. He said he expects the Democrats to carry New York anyway, so he might not vote "as a protest to Mrs. Clinton."

Sound familiar.

Somer is not the only Democrat whose views of his party's rival candidate have soured.

Party members increasingly dislike the contender they are not supporting in the bruising nomination fight, an Associated Press-Yahoo News survey and exit polls of voters show. That is raising questions about how faithful some will be by the November general election.

They LOVE it when they do it to the Republicans. But when they do it to each other, it pulls back the veil to show who and what they really are. The Sheeple out there, that just blindly follow, believing and doing what they are told, are now confused. They have always been told that it was the Republicans that are the hateful ones. It is the Republicans that are the Racists. Now they are watching the Democrats SHOW THE WORLD that it really is, and has always been, them the whole time.

In the AP-Yahoo poll — which has tracked the same 2,000 people since November — Obama supporters with negative views of the New York senator have grown from 35 percent in November to 44 percent this month, including one-quarter with very unfavorable feelings.

Those Obama backers who don't like Clinton say they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain over her by a two-to-one margin, with many undecided.

As for Clinton supporters, those with unfavorable views of Obama have grown from 26 percent to 42 percent during this same period — including a doubling to 20 percent of those with very negative opinions.

The Clinton backers with unfavorable views of Obama say they would vote for McCain over him by nearly three-to-one, though many haven't made up their minds.

"I'd be hard pressed" to vote for Obama, said April Glenn, 66, a Clinton supporter from Philadelphia, who said his handling of the controversy over the anti-American preachings of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made her doubt his leadership skills. "I don't think he's capable."

Clinton backers who have taken a dislike to Obama have a sharply lower regard for his honesty and ethics than they did last fall, the poll shows. Obama supporters whose view of Clinton has dimmed see her as far less compassionate and refreshing than they did then.

The feelings seem especially widespread among the candidates' strongest supporters.

_About half of Obama's white backers with college degrees have negative views of Clinton. Fewer black Obama supporters dislike Clinton but their numbers have grown faster, more than doubling during the period to 33 percent.

_Among Clinton's supporters, Obama is disliked by nearly half the whites who have not gone beyond high school, a near doubling since November. Four in 10 white women backing her have unfavorable views of Obama.

Intensified passions during contentious intraparty fights are nothing new, and voters often return to the fold by the time the general election rolls around and people focus on partisan and issue differences.

So they are hoping. They HOPE you are what they see you as. Dumb, mindless, Sheep that will do whatever they tell you. They HOPE that when this blood-fest is over, that they will be able to just come out and say, OK, that was fun, but now do the right thing and vote Democrat.

"These are snapshots of today," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a member of his party's congressional leadership who has not committed to Clinton or Obama. By autumn, he said, "the party will come together."

I'm not so sure. Never underestimate the power of stupidity, but we are talking about Race, Religion, and what many Democrats see as personal attacks, not on the candidates, but on them, the voters. The pandering, condescending attitude, and the blatant disregard for what they hold dear may very well have long lasting effects.

Yet with the battle between the two contenders threatening to stretch into June or beyond, some Democrats are wondering whether the party will have time to regain the loyalty of those whose candidate failed to win the party's nomination.

"If we can bring this to a conclusion by mid-June or something, I think that healing can take place," Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, who has been pressing party leaders to settle on a nominee quickly, said in an interview. "If it goes till late August, then it's a real problem."

Others express concern but argue that the divisions are not nearly as intense as when the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago was split over the Vietnam War; when Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully fought President Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976; or when Sen. Edward Kennedy lost a bitter duel with President Carter to be the 1980 Democratic nominee. In each case, those parties' nominees lost the general election.

Uh, no. There is actually a group out there waiting to "Re-Create 68" As a matter of fact, that is their name. The Democratic Party is in more trouble than they want to admit folks.

It goes on a bit about further slips and more HOPE that all will be fine in the aftermath, but many are not so sure. So what is the only solution? That one of these people quit on their own. Dean, the DNC, nor anyone else can be seen as TELLING either to quit. That would be the same as picking the nominee. No they have to make the choice themselves. Then, and only then, could the Party POSSIBILTY come back together. But the problem is, NEITHER are about to.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - Obama and Clinton will know when to quit: party chief
AP - Heated campaign souring Democrats on rival candidates

Polar Bears Increasing Population, We Need A New Victim.

Next “Victim”

Hey folks,

Happy Monday morning to you. This is actually pretty funny to me. For a while now we keep hearing that the Polar Bears are facing extinction, and it’s all YOUR fault. We have been told that the ice caps are melting and the Polar Bears will starve to death. We have seen fake pictures, PROVEN to be fake, now MOVIE excerpts from the movie “Day After Tomorrow” being PROVEN to be depicted as REAL in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” To school kids being FORCED into watching what more and more people are coming out and telling us is complete BS. The kids are being SCARED into going home and telling their parents that THEY MUST DO something. The poor old Polar Bears are dying because we are killing them.

There is only one problem / The Polar Bears are NOT becoming extinct. They are actual GROWING in numbers. Back on January 30, 2008, The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released the following report. U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears .

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing the polar bear a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This report details the scientists debunking polar bear endangerment fears and features a sampling of the latest peer-reviewed science detailing the natural causes of recent Arctic ice changes.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.

Check it out, it is pretty interesting. So the more and more people that learn of this report and the actual FACTS about the polar Bears, putting aside some that attempted lamely to explain this away, the more the Chicken Little Crowd has been looking for a new “Victim.”

Looks like they are going to take a stab at this one. According to the AP - Narwhals more at risk to Arctic warming than polar bears

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Sat Apr 26, 9:37 AM ET

The polar bear has become an icon of global warming vulnerability, but a new study found an Arctic mammal that may be even more at risk to climate change: the narwhal.

The narwhal, a whale with a long spiral tusk that inspired the myth of the unicorn, edged out the polar bear for the ranking of most potentially vulnerable in a climate change risk analysis of Arctic marine mammals.

The study was published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Ecological Applications. Polar bears are considered marine mammals because they are dependent on the water and are included as a species in the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Which we already now know they need NOT be. Not to mention, they really are NOT Marine Mammals anyway.

Scientists from three countries quantified the vulnerabilities that 11 year-round Arctic sea mammals have as the world warms. After the narwhal — which is also known as the "corpse whale" — and polar bear, the most at risk were the hooded seal, bowhead whale and walrus. The ringed seal and bearded seal were least at risk.

Why? One, we may not even BE warming anymore, but Why is one more at risk then any other? If Global Warming is going to melt the Ice Caps and we are ALL going to die, then would ALL, including US, be at risk and on the endanger species list?

"What we wanted to do was look at the whole picture because there's been a lot of attention on polar bears," said study co-author Ian Stirling, a polar bear and seal specialist for the Canadian government. "We're talking about a whole ecosystem. We're talking about several different species that use ice extensively and are very vulnerable."

NONE of them are actually at risk folks.

The study looked at nine different variables that help determine ability to withstand future climate changes. Those factors included population size, habitat uniqueness, diet diversity and ability to cope with sea ice changes.

This doesn't mean the narwhal — with a current population of 50,000 to 80,000 — will die off first; polar bear counts are closer to 20,000 and they are directly harmed by melting ice, scientists said.

But it does mean the potential for harm is slightly greater for the less-studied narwhal, said study lead author Kristin Laidre, a research scientist at the University of Washington.

Does that make sense to you?

Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who wasn't part of the study, said the analysis reinforces her concern that the narwhal "is going to be one of the first to go extinct" from global warming despite their population size.

"There could a bazillion of them, but if the habitat or the things that they need are not going to be around, they're not going to make it," Root said.

IF. Not true, but IF. IF the world stopped spinning tomorrow, we will ALL die. IF A giant asteroid hits us, we could all die. IF I decided to step out in front of an on coming train, I could die. IF is NOT fact. IF is not SCIENCE. IF is not reality.

Polar bears can adapt a bit to the changing Arctic climate, narwhals can't, she said.

While polar bears are "good-looking fluffy white creatures," Laidre said narwhals, which are medium-sized whales, are "not that cute."

{Laughing} THAT is why the Polar Bears are used as the symbol of Global Warming. She just told you. "good-looking fluffy white creatures." Kids love them. The Norwhales? "not that cute." I have already told you about them using psychology. Do not think that they did not do research to see what would be the most effective "symbol" for their cause. What PICTURE, would best encourage the most people to FEEL the need to be a part of the movement. Make no mistake about it. They DID.

The narwhal, which dives about 6,000 feet to feed on Greenland halibut, is the ultimate specialist, evolved specifically to live in small cracks in parts of the Arctic where it's 99 percent heavy ice, Laidre said. As the ice melts, not only is the narwhal habitat changed, predators such as killer whales will likely intrude more often.

"Since it's so restricted to the migration routes it takes, it's restricted to what it eats, it makes it more vulnerable to the loss of those things," Laidre said in a telephone interview from Greenland, where she is studying narwhals by airplane.

The paper is the talk of Arctic scientists said Bob Corell, the head of an international team of scientists who wrote a massive assessment of risk in the Arctic in 2004 but wasn't part of this study. He called it "surprising because the polar bear gets a lot of attention."

INTENTIONALY.

Inuit natives of Greenland were telling scientists last year that it seemed that the narwhal population was in trouble, Corell said.

How, why, when, who, any facts? No. Just a new victim to replace the Polar Bear. A new symbol to show us how evil we are. How we do not care. A symbol that has not been that well studied, therefore, until the FACTS and the TRUTH comes out about the Norwahles, they can say whatever they want. Just more Global Warming BS.
Peter

Sources:
U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
AP - Narwhals more at risk to Arctic warming than polar bears

Preview for Sunday 022708

Coming right up.

Hey folks,

Another very busy Sunday coming right up. From Alabama doing the right thing, to Penis theft. Yup, you read that correctly. Pelosi denouncing an Obama and Hillary ticket, the Health and Science segment, and of course the IWA.

But first an update. Yes folks, I’m sorry. You can put away those applications. The job has been filled. Sorry Irishgodfather. Back on Sunday, 040608, I told you about a help wanted ad.

The son of a retired widower has placed an advertisement looking for someone to have a few drinks with his father at a local pub for seven pounds (nine euros, 14 dollars) an hour.

Jack Hammond, 88, and his son, Michael, will begin interviewing candidates for the position soon, after Michael posted the advertisement at their local post office in Hampshire, southern England.

The elder Hammond used to go to his local pub four times a week in Barton-on-Sea, Hampshire, with his neighbour, but had to stop the practice recently when he moved into a nursing home closer to the rest of his family.

"When you put an advertisement in a post office for 25p you don't expect anything to come of it, so the response has been amazing," Michael, a chef, said.

They have ruled out hiring a woman, as Michael Hammond said his father, a retired electrical engineer, would be uncomfortable having a drink with a woman he did not know, and are hoping to find "a gentleman who is not too bombastic and enjoys a nice pint" with an interest in engineering or golf.

"Dad will be going out with some of the candidates next week but we are going to do it properly, as he is vulnerable," Michael added.

"It's got to be the best job in the world."

Well, it has been filled. According to Reuters - Getting paid to drink

Mike Hammond was bombarded with offers after advertising in his village post office for someone to accompany his 88-year-old father Jack on visits to a southern England pub from a nursing home.

He offered the lucky winner 7 pounds ($14) an hour plus expenses and, after sifting through the applicants, decided on a job-share. Drinking duties are to be divided between a retired doctor and a former military man.

“Dad's now going to be going down to the pub several times a week -- three with his new friends and twice with me,” Mike Hammond told The Times on Thursday. “I want to give him some of his old life back.”

All well. Maybe all the good jobs ARE taken. {Smile}

Be right back
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - Getting paid to drink
OPNTalk- You Can’t Make This Stuff Up 040608

Alabama Requiring Social Security Cards For Marriage

Unintended Consequence,

Hey folks,

Alabama is TRYING to do the right thing. They are trying to close a loop hole in the Immigration Laws that allows an Illegal Immigrant to get on the fast track to citizenship. There are MANY websites out there that promote this loophole. As a matter of fact, one even comes right out and tells you this.

“Learn how to benefit from United States immigration laws and procedures ... In other words, marriage to a U.S. citizen is the fast lane to a green card.”

Well, it seems that Alabama has decided to fix that. How? Are they trying to create new laws to hinder those seeking marriage? Are they creating new legislation to target Hispanics? Are they making radical moves to limit Immigrates from enjoying the same freedoms we enjoy? NO They are simply following CURRENT laws.

According to this NPR Radio Segment, it’s about two minutes and forty four seconds long, Alabama has decided that if you want to get married in this country, you need to do what everyone else has to do. Show a Social Security Card.

What is the problem with that? OH, yeah, Illegals do not have one. So what is the problem with that? Discrimination and NOW, thanks to Father Thomas Ackerman of St Williams Church, it is a violation of the Freedom of Religion. Yup. You heard correctly. He feels that the requirement to show PROOF that they are a legal citizen encroaches on his Religious Freedom and forces people to live in Sin.

How about this Father, how about they DON’T live in Sin, and they DON’T chose to come here illegally? What responsibility do you lay at THEIR feet.

Now this couple has already had a child. Unfortunately the baby was born with server medical problems and has had nine surgeries. Who paid for those? Now do not misunderstand. I wish them the best and hope that the child comes through OK. But I do have a problem with the whole situation.

First, Krista Praddo or Pratto CHOSE to come here illegally. Then they CHOSE to keep this secrete. They CHOSE to file for a marriage license INSTEAD of a Green Card, and this is the State of Alabama’s fault? It is an encroachment On Religious Freedom? No, it isn’t. It is the actions of some who feel they should receive the benefits yet feel they do not have to do what is required to receive them. It really IS just that simple.
Peter

Obama Clinton Ticket?

Not According to Pelosi

Hey folks,

I love this Democratic race to the White House. I really do. From them getting down and dirty with each other. The Race card being played by BOTH. To BOTH being caught lying, both being condescending, and both talking about Socialism.

Both of these twos base have said that if the other Candidate wins the nomination, or better yet, GIVEN the nomination, by the superdelegates, they will vote for McCain. Basically guaranteeing a Republican win for President.

So how do they counter this? Well, logic would dictate that they bring these two together. Only problem is, NEITHER of them will settle for second. Neither Obama nor Clinton will accept being VP. But that hasn’t stopped all the talk about a Obama / Clinton or Clinton / Obama ticket. We even had Clinton offering it to Obama when he was, and still is by the way, in the lead, the VP spot.

By not ALL are so thrilled about this. Take Traitor in The House Pelosi. She HATES this idea. We all know she is for Obama because she doesn’t want Hillary at all, but she is flat out against these two joining together.

In an interview with CNN talk show host Larry King aired Thursday night. She made the following statements.

“No, I don't think it's a good idea,”

“I think first of all the candidate, whoever he or she may be, should choose his or her own vice presidential candidate,” said Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. “I think that's appropriate. That's where you would see the comfort level on not only how to run, but how to govern the country.”

Can you REALLY imagine these two working together? She also does not want this to be decided at the convention.

“I don't want a brokered convention. I think there's too short a time — maybe just about eight weeks between the end of the convention and the election. And I don't think that's enough time to bring everyone together,” Pelosi said.

“I do think that the campaigns have to work their way through this, that we should have all the elections, let the people speak and then we'll find out who our nominee is.”

Right now, that would be Obama. Clinton CANNOT catch him. It just is not possible. Pelosi does not want another women in a position of power over her. She just doesn’t folks. She also cannot STAND Hillary. So of course, this makes sense. This really is fun to watch.

Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
MSNBC- Pelosi: Clinton-Obama ticket not a good idea

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up 042708

Penis theft panic hits city..

Hey folks,

No comment.

By Joe BavierThu Apr 24, 9:48 AM ET

Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's penises after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft.

Reports of so-called penis snatching are not uncommon in West Africa, where belief in traditional religions and witchcraft remains widespread, and where ritual killings to obtain blood or body parts still occur.

Rumors of penis theft began circulating last week in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo's sprawling capital of some 8 million inhabitants. They quickly dominated radio call-in shows, with listeners advised to beware of fellow passengers in communal taxis wearing gold rings.

Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure.

"You just have to be accused of that, and people come after you. We've had a number of attempted lynchings. ... You see them covered in marks after being beaten," Kinshasa's police chief, Jean-Dieudonne Oleko, told Reuters on Tuesday.

Police arrested the accused sorcerers and their victims in an effort to avoid the sort of bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 suspected penis snatchers were beaten to death by angry mobs. The 27 men have since been released.

"I'm tempted to say it's one huge joke," Oleko said.

"But when you try to tell the victims that their penises are still there, they tell you that it's become tiny or that they've become impotent. To that I tell them, 'How do you know if you haven't gone home and tried it'," he said.

Some Kinshasa residents accuse a separatist sect from nearby Bas-Congo province of being behind the witchcraft in revenge for a recent government crackdown on its members.

"It's real. Just yesterday here, there was a man who was a victim. We saw. What was left was tiny," said 29-year-old Alain Kalala, who sells phone credits near a Kinshasa police station.


Back in a Second. {Laughing}
Peter


Source:
Reuters - Penis theft panic hits city...

H.S. For Sunday 042708

Interesting. But WHY?

Hey folks,

In the Health and Science Segment this week we will learn something interesting. Although, I have to admit, I have NO idea why we need to know this.

According to Live Science - How to Capture Yellow Jackets (and Not Get Stung)

Michael Goodisman
The Georgia Institute of Technology
LiveScience.com
Fri Apr 25, 10:31 AM ET

This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.

Dressed in a white beekeeper suit and full face mask, I pour a small amount of ether into the exit hole of a yellow jacket nest. Too much ether might kill many of the colony inhabitants, too little might allow them enough mobility to attack me, but just the right amount should send the yellow jackets into dreamland.

After a few minutes, my students and I quickly dig up the nest and place it and the yellow jackets into a sealed box. Unfortunately, some angry yellow jackets that weren't affected by the ether always remain behind. As we work, these justifiably disturbed insects fly around menacingly and ram directly into our face shields in an attempt to drive us off. If there is even the slightest opening in our suits, they try to enter and sting us.

Collecting yellow jacket nests is always an adrenaline rush and one part of my job as an assistant professor in the School of Biology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. When metro Atlanta homeowners call me to remove a nest, I'm happy to help. I get yellow jacket colonies to study in my biology laboratory and the homeowner gets rid of a dangerous and irritating pest.

So the next time that you have the desire to capture Honey Bees, remember the ether.

But the rest of the article talks about why PROFESSIONALS do this.

So why study social insects? First, many social insects have direct impacts on humans. For instance, honeybees are critical pollinators of important crops, social wasps are key predators of insects, and many ants and termites are serious pests.

Second, understanding how social insects interact provides direct insight into how complex societies, such as those displayed by humans, operate. Such information can help us understand interactions within human families and between different human groups.

Third, social insects can help us learn how to effectively complete tasks. That is, we may learn how to efficiently organize ourselves by studying how social insect colonies accomplish their goals.

And finally, the formation of social insect societies represents a delicate balance between the selfish interests of the individual and the welfare of the group. The issues governing these relationships are important to understanding such diverse issues as the origin of multi-cellular organisms and the factors governing the occurrence of cancer.

Thus, there are many scientifically-important reasons to study social insect societies, but I like to study them because they are so amazing. Watching social insects interact and understanding how their societies function is fascinating.

OK. There you have it folks. How to capture Bees without being stung. But remember though, before you go out to do this, Africanized Bees {Killer Bees} have made there way here. Many cases of them here in South Florida. So Please, leave this to the "experts."
Peter

Sources:
Live Science - How to Capture Yellow Jackets

IWA For Sunday 042708

She Will Never Learn

Hey folks,

It's SUNDAY! Time for the IWA. This weeks winner is just simply out there. Seriously. Addicted to drugs and Alcohol. She really can't even sing that well, and now she is in trouble AGAIN. This time, for a fight.

According to Reuters - Amy Winehouse cautioned for assault

Grammy-winning singer Amy Winehouse was cautioned for assault and released without charge on Saturday after spending the night in custody, police said.

A man said he was assaulted at in the early hours of Wednesday in north London and the singer presented herself at a central police station in central London on Friday for questioning.

Winehouse admitted common assault after slapping a man with her open hand and accepted the caution, her spokesman said in a statement.

"Amy was fully co-operative with enquiries and apologized for the incident," the statement added.

"She thanks the police for their professional handling of the matter."

The statement went on to say she was looking forward to recording new music. She is working on the theme song for the new James Bond film.

Winehouse, 24, whose private life and battle with drugs have overshadowed her recording success, is said to be worth an estimated 10 million pounds ($20 million) in the latest Sunday Times Rich List.

Her husband, Blake Fielder-Civil, 25, appeared in court on Friday charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and inflicting grievous bodily harm. He denies the charges.

Congratulations Amy, you are the Idiot of the Week. Sorry, just another female celebrity train wreck.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - Amy Winehouse cautioned for assault

Presidential Radio Address for 042708

Presidential Radio Address

President Bush "Good morning. As we approach graduation season, many American students are looking forward to beginning college in the fall. This new chapter of life is a time of great expectation but can also be a time of anxiety. And that anxiety is being heightened by the recent credit crunch, which has raised concerns about the potential availability of student loans.

Recently, some lenders have dropped out of the Federal program that provides college loans to students who have often little or no credit. Without an adequate response, this means that many students may approach the upcoming school year uncertain of when they will be able to get their loans or where they will come from.

A slowdown in the economy shouldn't mean a downturn in educational opportunities. So we're taking decisive action now to ensure that college is accessible and affordable for students around the country.
One way we're helping is through the Department of Education's "lender of last resort" program, which works to provide loans for students who are unable to secure one from a lender. The Department is taking steps to ensure that the agencies involved in this program are ready and able to meet their responsibilities. If necessary, the government will help fund these loans. With these actions, we will help ensure that a college education is not unnecessarily denied to those who have earned it.

These are important first steps, but more needs to be done. Congress needs to pass legislation that would give my Administration greater authority to buy Federal student loans. By doing so, we can ensure that lenders will continue to participate in the guaranteed loan program and ensure that students continue to have access to tuition assistance.

A bill that would do this has already passed the House of Representatives. It is called the "Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act." This bill provides the necessary tools for safeguarding student loans without permanently expanding the government's role in their financing. The authority the bill grants is temporary and would be used only if it became apparent there was a shortage of loans available to students.

Ensuring the stability of student loans is essential to keeping educational opportunities open to all Americans. Last year alone, Federal loans provided more than $60 billion of aid to American students. This money helped pay for tuition, textbooks, and the lifetime of opportunity that comes with holding a college degree. Members of Congress now have a chance to preserve this opportunity, and they should take it.

I urge Congress to get the "Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act" to my desk as soon as possible. A delay of even a week or two may make it impossible for this legislation to help students going to school this fall. By working together to improve and enact this legislation quickly, we can ensure that higher education remains within the reach for all those who've earned it. And we can ensure that America's college students can spend more time next fall thinking about their textbooks than their pocketbooks.

Thank you for listening."

From The Emails 022508

New Ice Age

Hey folks,

Another one of those Fridays I do not know where to begin, or what Email to use. But after thinking about it, I am going to chose this one because I would have posted this had I seen it in the first place. The Sender said this.

"Did you see this?"

I have to admit that I did not. Then they said, "Very interesting." THAT it is.

Now I have been talking about the fact that there is NO consensus out there that Global Warming is even real, and that more and more Scientist are coming out against it. Forget what you hear on the TV News on a daily bases. This is not settled. As a matter of fact, a lot of Scientist are saying that we are not even STILL in a rise in temperatures. That is, the temperatures are not going up at even a degree in ten year pace.

Well, well, well. It seems that some are now even warning of a NEW Ice Age. {Sigh} Didn't we do that already, right before Global Warming? According to this from Fox News- Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age

Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.

Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Chapman wrote in The Australian Wednesday. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

[Critics quickly pointed out that Chapman may have been "cherry-picking" the data. A strong La Nina formation in the Pacific pushed down January temperatures over much of the Northern Hemisphere from where they had been a year earlier, but average global temperatures are still much higher than the 20th-century average, and the NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record.]

Not true. Just like they cherry pick information that makes their point, without including ALL possibilities.

The Bureau of Meteorology says temperatures in Australia have been warmer than the 1960-90 average since the late 1970s, barring a couple of cooler years, and are now 0.3 degrees Centigrade higher than the long-term average.

A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark.

An alternative theory of global warming is that a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the Earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak — during low sunspot activity — the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

But scientists from the U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Bolder, Colorado published a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change.

Idiots. OF COURSE the Sun effects Climate. Any Kindergarten aged Scientist will tell you that.

The researchers wrote in the journal Nature that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, and that that was far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

Which is complete BS. We were hotter BEFORE the Industrial Revolution. then we were cooler. Hence the FIRST round of "Global Cooling" panic. Then we warmed. Not good new, now Global Warming. Now it seems that the tempts have STOPPED Warming. Now Global Cooling again? CYCLES! Natural, normal CYCLES.

Chapman proposes preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective.

"My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he writes.

50:50, {Laughing} Way to commit. Folks, there is no Man-Made Global Warming. It is all just a scam. There is no threat of us turning into a big ball of fire, nor is there any threat of us turning into a big Ice Cube. But since the temperatures have STOPPED rising, there is this massive push to legislate the funds to those that will get rich from it before even those Scientists that are making millions HAVE to say, "we were wrong."
Peter

Link - Fox News- Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age

Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to opntalk@netscape.net As always, you never know what you are going to see here.

I Believe IS Constitutional

ACLU is At it again.

Hey folks,

Here is a story I have been following behind the scenes for a little bit. It has now hit the Mainstreme Media. What I'm talking about is that here in Florida, we have a movement started by a DEMOCRAT Representative in the Florida's House, Rep. Edward Bullard, who is attempting to allow those of Faith, to have Licence Plates with a Cross and the words "I Believe."

Now he has run into some opposition of course. Another Democrat, Rep. Kelly Skidmore is against it, yet she is FAST to tell you she is a Roman Catholic. Then of course you have the All Condescending Losers Union, ACLU getting involved.

Now this story has made it to the Mainstreme Press. Here is how the AP is reporting it.

By JESSICA GRESKO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 8 minutes ago

Florida drivers can order more than 100 specialty license plates celebrating everything from manatees to the Miami Heat, but one now under consideration would be the first in the nation to explicitly promote a specific religion.

The Florida Legislature is considering a specialty plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words "I Believe."

Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate's sponsor, said people who "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with "something they believe in," he said.

THAT is one of the main points. They can BUY it. The State of Florida is NOT saying you HAVE to have it. They are not promoting it as State Mandated. They are simply giving you the opportunity to have it on your car if you want. You can go buy just about ANYTHING in Bumber Sticker form and slap that on your car, no one can say anything about it. Same thing here. But this is not the way some see it.

Enter the ACLU

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

No it doesn't. I guarantee you that if this is approved, it REALLY will not be long before we have Jewish plates or some kind of generic "I Believe" plate out there.

The "I Believe" license plate still has a way to go before it reaches the roads. The proposal is part of a package of license plates being debated in the Senate and ready for a floor vote. In the House, the bill that would authorize the plate has passed one committee 8-2. The Legislature's annual session ends May 2.

Some lawmakers say the state should be careful. Rep. Kelly Skidmore said she is a Roman Catholic and goes to Mass on Sundays, but she believes the "I Believe" plate is inappropriate for the government to produce.

"It's not a road I want to go down. I don't want to see the Star of David next. I don't want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me," said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee. "I just believe that."

Interesting choice of words, is it not? She just said, "I don't want to see the Star of David next." Why not? You're not anti- Semitic are you?

Florida's specialty license plates require the payment of additional fees, some of which go to causes the plates endorse.

One plate approved in 2004, displaying the motto "Family First," funds Sheridan House, which provides family programs but also sees its purpose as "sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Bible" and "information about the Christian faith."

The bill creating the "I Believe" plate would also create an "In God We Trust" plate to benefit the children of soldiers and law enforcement officers whose parents have died. It also could face opposition as a violation of the separation of church and state.

There is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State." But even if there was, THIS does not violate it. It is a CHOICE. Not legislation forcing people to get the plates.

An Indiana plate with the same "In God We Trust" phrase has been challenged by the ACLU, but the courts so far have deemed it legal, arguing that it is comparable with other specialty plates.

Which IS the point here. It IS no different.

This isn't the first time a Florida license plate design has created religious controversy. In 1999, lawmakers approved a bright yellow "Choose Life" license plate with a picture of a boy and girl. It raises money for agencies that encourage women to not have abortions.

That generated a court battle, with abortion rights groups saying the plate had religious overtones. But it was ruled legal, and about a dozen states now have similar plates.

A "Trust God" license plate was proposed in Florida in 2003. It would have given money to Christian radio stations and charities, but was never produced.

Earlier this year, a legislative committee was shown an image of a "Trinity" plate that showed a Christlike figure with his arms outstretched. It and two other plates were voted down.

The group asking for the "I Believe" plate, the Orlando-based nonprofit Faith in Teaching Inc., supports faith-based schools activities. The plate would cost drivers an extra $25 annual fee.

So if you were to want this new plate, you would have to pay for it. Like I said, it will be your choice, just like bumper stickers. The state is NOT mandating you have it. They are not forcing you to get it. They are not promoting one Religion above another.

I see nothing wrong with this. What I do see is more Christian Bashing and more wasted time and money on the part of the All Condescending Losers Union. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

See you tomorrow for the From the Emails Friday Edition. Take care.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Florida lawmakers debate offering a Christian license plate

Operation Chaos In Full Effect

Hillary Wins Pennsylvania

Hey folks,

Well, it was really no surprise last night. Hillary won 55 to 45 over Obama. The exit polls are interesting though.

There were few surprises in Pennsylvania, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for television networks and The Associated Press. Clinton held about 65 percent of white women and about 55 percent of the key swing bloc of white men, a strong showing though slightly weaker than her Ohio showing.

Clinton has now won white men in 12 states and Obama has done the same in 10 states.

Obama did win more than nine in 10 black voters, continuing his unbroken support of African-Americans. And Clinton continued her trend of winning white women in all but a couple of contests. But other trends may prove disconcerting for Obama.

Obama won six in 10 voters age 29 and under. But Clinton split young white voters, as she did in Ohio. In early February, Obama heavily lost whites in Missouri but narrowly won the state with the help of 57 percent of the white youth vote.

Young Democrats made up only 12 percent of voters, however. In comparison, fully 22 percent were age 65 and older. Clinton won more than six in 10 senior voters while winning a majority of all voters 40 and older.

I checked this out, and they do NOT indicate the percentage of REPUBLICANS that have switched parties to vote, and whom they voted for. But just think about Rush's 22 million strong audience. Just like Ohio? The closest they come is this.

Clinton won about six in 10 of those who had decided in either the past three days or the past week whom they were going to support, again mimicking Ohio. One in four Pennsylvania Democrats decided their vote in the past week. Six in 10 voters said they chose their candidate more than a month ago, a higher proportion than usual and one more indication that many Pennsylvanian Democrats had their vote resolved early on in the race.

Or that they decided to listen to the Commander and Chief of Operation Chaos, Rush Limbaugh. {Smile} Should be interesting to see how many of these Democrats switch BACK to Republicans for the General Election.

This is another tell tale sign that Operation Chaos was in full effect. Either that, or these are so completely ignorant voters.

Fewer than one in 10 voters said electability mattered most, a trend that has long been true in the primary as Democrats focus less on pragmatism than on personal identity.

Why vote for someone you KNOW does not stand a chance at winning? Seriously. Why would that NOT matter to you?

160,752 switched their registration from Republican or Independent to Democrat in Pennsylvania. Why? Everyone predicted that it was to support Obama. Well, that did not happen. No folks, Hillary won. This will continue all the way up to the convention. Just like Rush wants it to.

Peter

Sources:
The Politico - Why Clinton won Pennsylvania

Radicalism Does Not Help Your Cause

A Message To My Radical Friends

Hey folks,

I know today is the big day in Pennsylvania. Check back for all the results tomorrow. But I want to send a message to my radical friends out there. Now this all came about when a friend of mine, whom is WELL known to all you out there in OPN land, sent me a ten minute segment from the Rush Limbaugh Show. In it, Rush was talking about all the freedoms we have lost over the years due to Liberalism. The fact that we have come to just blindly accept the Liberal premises on this or that, and allow them to strip away at our freedoms. But it was the last 3 minutes or so that really got me.

Apparently, in the UK, they are now banning offensive words to some in Society. Those really offensive words, like Mother, Father, Husband, Wife, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, ETC. They are banning these offensive words, and replacing them with the generic "Partner." They also want special education for Gay and Lesbian students. They want their Libraries filled with Gay and Lesbian books, and Videos, ETC.

I was discussing this with someone on Friday right before my trip and they asked me what I thought of this. I'll admit to you, my first gut reaction? SCREW YOU! My Wife is my Wife. My Son's Girlfriend, when he has one, will be his Girlfriend. I AM his Father, Laura IS his Mother. I couldn't give a rats behind if that offends you or not. It is what it is.

Look, many of you out there that have known me for the past ten plus years or so, OH, by the way, happy Second Year Anniversary to us here at the OPNTalk. April 19th was two years. Something like 1080 plus posts and still going strong. Thank YOU. Back to the point. As many of you know out there, I'm a Christian. As some of you may not understand just how founded my Faith is. The reason for this? I do not get on a soap box and condemn people on a daily bases. You do not see me waving the Bible around and telling you, you are going to Hell if you do not do what I say.

My point is this. If I were to do that, a lot of you would never come back. In some areas of this country, I could also be arrested and charged with Hate Speech. {Whole other issue} When the occasion comes up and when appropriate, I will without hesitation quote God's Word and talk about the difference of Faith and Religion, or whatever the topic may be. But I am not here to jam it down your throat.

So let me ask you, my radical friends, why do you feel you have the right to do it to others? I believe in your right to live your lives as you chose. I see it as your RIGHT to worship whatever god you chose to worship. I see it as your right, your choice, your life. But I will NOT accept some things just because YOU say so. I will NOT accept some things because the Government gets involved and tells me I HAVE to. I will NOT just go along with some things, in the name {ONLY} of tolerance. As a matter of fact, in many ways, that is the quickest way to turn me off.

I have talked about this in reference to Race in America. Now we are talking about Homosexuality. But this concept applies to ANY cause. You will not help your cause of Race, by USING Discrimination. You will not help your cause of Pro-Life by blowing up Abortion Clinics and killing innocent people. You will NOT help your cause of Pro-Choice, Race, Global Warming, Homosexuality, or even Secularism, by attacking those that do not share your views or by creating unjust laws to attempt to FORCE people to accept it.

Radicalism is NEVER the answer, and NEVER helps your cause. Open and honest conversation, based in facts and Truth is. Open debate on the issues are positive. But when you get into an area where you become radical and start doing radical things, not only does it not help, but it actually hurts your cause. An attempt to promote one cause over another is not an attempt to have equality, it is an attempt to have dominance. Something that Human Nature will fight against EVERY time.
Peter