From The Emails 053008

Am I in trouble?

Hey folks,

It's Friday, time to go to the Emails. This week, I chose this one for two reasons. One, the very name of this author sends stress, hate, and pure unadulterated insanity through the veins of some of my Liberal friends. The very name strikes fear in the hearts of those that love to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room. The name? The name is, Ann Coulter. {Smile}

The second reason I chose this, is simple. I agree.

The sender included this note.

"You better watch out Pete. You keep calling him 'little Hitler' and you are going to be in trouble."

Here it is.

After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to Hitler, liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler. But the only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of thumb is: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While Ahmadinejad has not done anything as starkly evil as cut the capital gains tax, he does deny the Holocaust, call for the destruction of Israel, deny the existence of gays in Iran and refuses to abandon his nuclear program despite protests from the United Nations. That's the only world leader we're not allowed to compare to Hitler.

President Bush's speech at the Knesset two weeks ago was somewhat more nuanced than liberals' Hitler arguments. He did not simply jump up and down chanting: "Ahmadinejad is Hitler!" Instead, Bush condemned a policy of appeasement toward madmen, citing Neville Chamberlain's ill-fated talks with Adolf Hitler.

Suspiciously, Bush's speech was interpreted as a direct hit on B. Hussein Obama's foreign policy -- and that's according to Obama's supporters.

So to defend Obama, who -- according to his supporters -- favors appeasing madmen, liberals expanded the rule against ad Hitlerum arguments to cover any mention of the events leading to World War II. A ban on "You're like Hitler" arguments has become liberals' latest excuse to ignore history.

Unless, of course, it is liberals using historical examples to support Obama's admitted policy of appeasing dangerous lunatics. It's a strange one-sided argument when they can cite Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting with Gorbachev, but we can't cite Chamberlain meeting with Hitler.

There are reasons to meet with a tyrant, but none apply to Ahmadinejad. We're not looking for an imperfect ally against some other dictatorship, as Nixon was with China. And we aren't in a Mexican stand-off with a nuclear power, as Reagan was with the USSR. At least not yet.

Mutually Assured Destruction was bad enough with the Evil Empire, but something you definitely want to avoid with lunatics who are willing to commit suicide in order to destroy the enemies of Islam. As with the H-word, our sole objective with Ahmadinejad is to prevent him from becoming a military power.

What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar bet as to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie?

We know his position and he knows ours. He wants nuclear arms, American troops out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want that. (This is assuming Mike Gravel doesn't pull off a major upset this November.) We don't need him as an ally against some other more dangerous dictator because ... well, there aren't any.

Does Obama imagine he will make demands of Ahmadinejad? Using what stick as leverage, pray tell? A U.S. boycott of the next Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran? The U.N. has already demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has ignored the U.N. and that's the end of it.

We always have the ability to "talk" to Ahmadinejad if we have something to say. Bush has a telephone. If Iranian crop dusters were headed toward one of our nuclear power plants, I am quite certain that Bush would be able to reach Ahmadinejad to tell him that Iran will be flattened unless the planes retreat. If his cell phone died, Bush could just post a quick warning on the Huffington Post.

Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.

The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as "sciatica").

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking for a deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to surrender?

Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the table.

Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. And then Obama can return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle.

There is a third reason to talk to dictators, in addition to seeking an ally or as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur talked with Japanese imperial forces on Sept. 2, 1945. There was a long ceremony aboard the USS Missouri with full press coverage and a lot of talk. It was a regular international confab!

It also took place after we had dropped two nukes on Japan and MacArthur was officially accepting Japan's surrender. If Obama plans to drop nukes on Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's what liberals have in mind.

Link : Townhall.com - You Can't Appease Everybody

I couldn't have said it better myself. Have a great Weekend. See you Sunday.
Peter

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.

Obama The Sharpest Knife?

This is not new.

Hey folks,

All we have been hearing for a while is how great Obama is. What a great speaker. How intelligent he is. He is the one to bring about "change." He can do anything. He is just so smart. Really? People have pretty much backed off of saying these things lately, because LATELY, really it has always been there, but lately it seems more people are talking about this.

Back on April 30, 2008, I said this.

"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, eloquent, 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."

But now people are realizing it is much more than just, "you know." Of course, do not forget "and." But he really is not all that smart. Remember Kansas Tornadoes? They killed 12 people. He said this.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed."

What about this little misspeak? He said this last March.

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Really? Actually folks, Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.

Then you have the fact he really has no clue where he is most of the time. Just in the last few days, in Sunrise, Florida, Obama said,

"How's it going, Sunshine?"

Last week, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Obama said this.

“Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

Talking about not knowing where he is. This is one of my personal favorites. Earlier this month in Oregon.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” Video

But he IS unique in this one aspect. Apparently, he can see the dead. Yes, according to Obama, they walk among us, and even attend meetings. He said this.

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Video

He changes his positions as much as Clinton. Iran is no threat, grave threat, ETC. he does not like to vote on the tough issues, then when he does, he most likely doesn't even know WHAT he is voting for. Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama said this.

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

So he does not know about it? That's odd since he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site. But he doesn't know anything about it?

Oh yeah remember this?

"So we just don't have enough capacity right now to deal with -- and it's not just troops, by the way. It's like Arab -- Arab -- Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers, we only have a certain number of them, and if they're all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them, and -- and obviously they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that they speak in Afghanistan, oftentimes people who speak Urdu or Pashtun or whatever the languages are, they're going to be needed in those areas, and a lot of them have ended up being placed elsewhere."

"Urdu or Pashtun or whatever the languages are"

Seriously? He just made languages up. Talk about disrespect. Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi. He might as well say they speak Goonie Goo Goo.

Of course, then you have the latest.

"I had an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps, and the story in our family was is that when he came home he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."

The Red Army liberated Auschwitz. Of course, he just misspoke again. He really meant to say Buchenwald.

I repeat, Obama is noting without writers and a teleprompter. He is NOT intelligent enough to run this country. Either that, or he is just lazy. Either way, he is NOT the super Intelligent Messiah that everyone ONCE believed in. He is who he is. Nothing but another Liberal Politician that will do or say anything to get into power. Has anyone asked him to spell Potato? Just curious. {Smile}
Peter

Clinton Eulogy By The Associated Press

Talk about a change

Hey folks,

I caught this yesterday morning right as I posted the GWBS. This is to good. Seems the AP has all but written off the Clintons. I couldn't believe that I actually was reading this. I saved it, causing me to be a little late, but I did not want this one to get away. Get this. From the AP- The era of big Clintons is soon over By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago

There's been a Clinton running for the White House or living in it for approximately forever. Bill, it could be said, was born to run. Running became Hillary's destiny, too.

One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.

That is just plain scary. Isn't it?

When Hillary Rodham Clinton finally exits the 2008 Democratic presidential race, she will end a decades-long, power-couple streak of unique political energy, savvy ideas, colossal policy flops and raw ambition dressed in pants suits and briefs, not boxers.

{Laughing} WHEN she exits. They have wrote her off.

"Every day is an adventure," Bill said cheerfully at the start of it all. And how.

By now, the Clintons have been assigned mystical qualities of perseverance. The notion that the adventure is over is almost beyond comprehension.

"I never quit," she says. "I never give up."

Yeah we know. It has been fun to watch.

Even in defeat, Hillary Clinton has made history as the first woman favored for a major party presidential nomination — the first with a real shot at the presidency.

{Laughing harder} "Even in defeat." So sad, so sorry, see ya?

She's gotten more than 17 million votes in her own right this year, enticingly close to the number won by Barack Obama, who is making history, too, because he's black.

{Sigh, laughing again} Folks, this is really to good.

With her cachet, not to mention her job in the Senate, Clinton won't drift far from the nation's consciousness. (Nor is Bill likely to get out of the country's face.)

I take it the author here, Calvin Woodward, is not a fan.

"Whatever else you might say about them, they have contributed to substantive dialogue and policy," says Mary Matalin, a Clinton-era Republican strategist. "Hats off to them substantively.

"They're really kind of giants in this world."

In the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaign years, Hillary Clinton, now 60, will still be younger than the Republican candidate, John McCain, is now. Meantime, she could become a powerhouse senator in the manner of the stricken Edward M. Kennedy. Or a Supreme Court justice. Or Obama's running mate.

Soon, though, there will be no Clinton running for president or about to. Imagine that.

Yeah, imagine that. The Mainstream Media writing off the Clintons. But this goes on.

Clinton I:

Dial back to Bill Clinton's two terms and a few big achievements and various smaller ones stand out: unsurpassed economic growth, a balanced budget, welfare reform, free trade, a Middle East peace agreement, gun control, more money for police on the street, the first Cabinet without white men in the majority.

OK, facts check here? Never mind, I really do not have time, nor do I really care. But this is not actually true. Not the point though.

Here was a man who could wear people out talking about the fine points of policy while owning up to his choice of underwear.

Another legacy was the transcendent His and Hers failure: universal health care. The complex, secretively drawn plan to achieve that goal was sent to and killed by a Democratic Congress, no less.

And there were the scandals, His and Hers.

They are known, in brief, as: Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, the White House travel office firings, White House coffees and Lincoln bedroom stays for donors, FBI background files on Republicans, missing documents and the presidential pardon of a fugitive friend.

The episodes involving women were his. Most of the others were theirs or hers.

SHHHH! You cannot talk about that. {Smile} I love this one.

Scene from a 'funeral':

In January 2001, shortly before George W. Bush was sworn in, some of the Clintons' fiercest critics from the right gathered in a Washington hotel to feast on filet mignon, salmon and sour grapes.

"It's our way of celebrating the fumigation of Washington," said L. Brent Bozell III, host of the "funeral" for the Clinton years.

"I've never seen a back I've found more attractive," said Robert Bork, the scuttled Supreme Court nominee, meaning Bill Clinton's back when he left town.

Bozell amended the Lord's Prayer to say of Mrs. Clinton: "Her socialist agenda got runneth over." And the Rev. Jerry Falwell gave the invocation, thanking God "a new wind is blowing."

She is still here folks, DO NOT WRITE HER OFF YET! Until you DO see her back walking away.

They seemed to be forgetting someone.

Hillary Clinton came blowing into the Senate chamber, the newly minted junior senator from New York.

And he goes on.

Clinton II:

She was diligent from the start, attentive to constituent needs and a hard worker on the Armed Services Committee. She promised to be "pretty New York-centric," and was.

But everything she did was colored by the expectation of a presidential run.

She was to be crowned, and that is all there was to it. Until Obama appeared.

The most polarizing woman in politics turned into a workhorse and formed surprising alliances with Republicans.

Rinos

She edged toward the center and attempted to accomplish in little pieces what she could not pull off as a whole in her years as first lady.

Clinton joined Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an architect of her husband's impeachment, in a law improving health coverage for members of the National Reserve and Guard serving in Iraq.

She pushed for tighter regulation of prescription drugs for children and help for recovery workers whose health was impaired by laboring at the site of the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attack.

And she voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, which she would never live down after she cruised to re-election in 2006.

No monumental law bears her name.

But in the campaign, universal health care returned to her agenda. This time, she said, she would learn from her experience and do it right — more openly and less intrusively on parts of the health care system that work.

No, she still wants Socialized medicine. She still wants a Socialized EVERYTHING.

Clinton was the one to beat out of the gate. Everyone knew her, for one thing.

"Ninety-nine percent of the country feels they have a relationship with her," said Mike McCurry, former press secretary to President Clinton.

Not a good one. {Laughing} More like an ex-wife that most want to forget.

And there was Bill, still in everyone's face. He stumped for his wife as if possessed. Hillary Clinton flashed him that bright smile on stage through thick and thin.

For some voters, that was one Clinton — or two — too many.

"We've had enough of the Clintons," said Haydon Grubbs, 77, of Shalimar, Fla. "New direction, right?"

Grubbs, a Republican who voted in the past for the "He Clinton," backed Obama this time.

The "She Clinton" found her own voice.

But, like her husband, she seemed the strongest when her back was against the wall.

As the odds of beating Obama sank into the nearly impossible, she campaigned as if there were some previously undiscovered "third way" to win, just as Bill Clinton had sought a third way to govern between the old politics of left and right.

There is a third way to win. The Superdelegates. Lie, cheat, and steal if they must. Clinton will NOT go quietly.

On Friday, she cited the 1968 Democratic primaries as a reason why she should stay in the race. She mentioned the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June of that year, then apologized for bringing it up.

You do realize what she was saying was, "Hey, you never know, Obama might get shot sometime in June then that would leave me the nominee." Seriously folks, that IS what she was saying. She HAD to apologize for that one. That was over the top even for most Liberals.

On he goes.

Together, Bill and Hillary Clinton have pulled it out of the fire over and over, going back to 1976, when he bounced back from losing a congressional race two years earlier. He won election as Arkansas attorney general.

Two years after that, at 32, he became the nation's youngest governor.

Then, defeat in 1980 when he sought a second term. It would be his final election loss, but hardly the last dip in the Clintons' seemingly endless cycle of failure and renewal.

By the mid-1980s, when he was back in office in Little Rock, Clinton's name was floating as a Democratic presidential prospect.

He took a pass in 1988. But that year marked one benchmark in the rollout of the Clinton era.

He delivered a speech at the Democratic convention laying out a new orthodoxy that he would bring to the presidential race himself four years later, his activist wife at his side.

The Clintons' national conversation had begun.

The speech went on for so long that some people wondered if it would ever end.

In a way, it never did. Not until now.

I can hear Mr. Woodward playing the Death March. However, like I said, she ain't gone yet, do not turn your back. Do not write her off.

Now THAT was a fun article. {Smile} See you tomorrow.
Peter

Sources:
AP - The era of big Clintons is soon over

Just More Global Warming BS Mumbo Jumbo

A lot of words, nothing said.

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to you. Back to reality. Most of you going back to work and school. Most of you coming off a nice, BEUTIFUL here in South Floria, three day Weekend. But as we find as reported by the French Press, it is back to spewing of the Global Warming BS.

According to the AFP - G8 ministers pledge 'strong will' on climate amid doubts by Harumi Ozawa Mon May 26, 4:23 AM ET

Environment ministers from the world's top industrial powers called Monday for more effort to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but little headway was seen in setting more immediate goals.

Maybe due to the fact the temperatures are no longer rising? Could it be maybe because a report just released says the Global Warming has been put on hold for about ten to twelve years? Of course they cannot just call it what it is, Cycles, they say after we warmed, now starting to cool, look out, we are going to warm again and it's YOUR fault. Idiots.

Ministers from the Group of Eight held three days of talks here in a bid to set the tone for a summit involving the G8 leaders, which opens July 7 in the northern Japanese resort of Toyako and is expected to focus on climate change.

The ministers in a statement said they hoped the summit would "go beyond" the agreement set by last year's talks in Germany to "seriously consider" halving the world's output of greenhouse gases by 2050.

More talk to talk about it. Which means what folks? NOTHING.

But to the dismay of some the talks in Kobe did not signal a direction on the more immediate goal -- coming up with commitments on slashing greenhouse gas emissions once the Kyoto Protocol's obligations expire in 2012.

They agreed to talk about it more. You know, this "Last chance to save the planet" resulted in an agreement to talk more in a year of two. {After the new US President takes office and is will to play the dupe in all this BS.} Looks like they will have their chance. When it comes to the GWBS, all three Presidential Candidates are either on board because they understand how much money is involved, how much control over private industries, businesses and personal lives can be had, or they are just ignorant enough to believe the BS.

More than 180 countries agreed in December on the Indonesian island of Bali to reach a post-Kyoto deal at a conference in late 2009 in Copenhagen.

"I think it's very clear that without a mid-term target, a mandatory mid-term target for developed countries, it's going to be very complicated to get an agreement in Copenhagen," said Matthias Machnig, Germany's secretary of state for the environment.

But Japan's Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita defended the outcome of the meeting here, saying that all sides had shown a "strong will" to move forward with an agreement.

Which means nothing.

"In terms of mid-term targets, that is an issue negotiated at multinational meetings," Kamoshita told reporters.

"This environmental meeting was meaningful in accelerating the efforts by developed countries and raising the momentum," he said.

THERE IS NO THREAT! What signs they like to point to, are going away.

The G8 is made up of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.

UN scientists who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize warned that unless human-made climate change is halted, the world risks a growing number of natural disasters and droughts, putting millions of people at risk and threatening the extinction of some animals and plants.

Not happening. All scifi bunch of Scarience. {Scare Science} None of it is real science at all. Man made computer models saying what man wants them to say. But seriously flawed. If not completely manufactured.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer, in an interview with AFP last week, said that the United States and Japan have focused too much on fixing long-range objectives for 2050 and industry-by-industry goals.

"If you are a businessman planning an investment, you probably want to know more about where governments intend to go in 2020 rather than the middle of the century," de Boer said.

Read that again. "If you are a businessman planning an investment, you probably want to know more about where governments intend to go in 2020" ALL ABOUT MONEY folks.

Naoyuki Yamagishi, WWF climate change programme leader, criticised the Kobe meeting's outcome as insufficient.

"There was speculation that advanced nations might reach an agreement to go one step forward from the summit last year," he said. "But they only stated 'strong political will' to tackle the problem, a very ambiguous expression."

Japan, which is far behind in meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, hopes to use the G8 summit to shape a new treaty on global warming.

NONE of the targets have been met from that OTHER waste of time and BS meeting. NONE. We are still around as well. Since that meeting, the Polar Bears have exploded in numbers, the ice did NOT and is NOT melting. We got a little warmer, now we find we will be getting a little cooler. Nothing has changed. The world did not end. The FACTS and the EVIDENCE is all around those intelligent enough to see them. Those will the ability to think for themselves and actually understand logic and truth, instead of blindly following the BS, just because they are told to.

It has pushed for a so-called "sectoral" approach in which standards are set for each industry. The idea has met resistance from some developing nations, which see it as a bid to force them to adopt costly new technology.

MONEY!

In a possible sign of a softening in Japan's position, the final statement said that "sectoral approaches would be used to set national targets, not as a substitute for them."

Yamagishi said it was one of few positive developments at the G8 ministers' meeting.

"Environmentalists were concerned the Japanese approach may not be enough to lead to emission cuts required to save the earth," he said.

Idiot. WE ARE NOT SAVING THE EARTH! The EARTH IS NOT IN DANGER! THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING THREAT! IT IS ALL BS. IT IS ALL A SCAM! IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY, POWER, AND CONTROL!

The European Union has proposed mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. The United States -- the only major industrial country to reject Kyoto -- as well as Japan and Canada have not embraced a number for the mid-term period.

Climate negotiations are expected to gather steam next year when a new US president is in office. All major candidates to succeed George W. Bush have called for tougher US action on global warming.

{Sigh} Yup. What a way to start the week. I hate getting aggravated over stupidity. I just can not longer deal with this GWBS! {Global Warming Bull Sh--} I am losing patients with the Sheeple out there that just blindly accept it with NO REAL SCIENTIFIC facts, as a matter of fact, SCIENCE proves GW is BS. In the up coming years, so will nature. THIS is why they are pushing even harder now to get these things in place. When nature and science proves that this, just like the Global Cooling hysteria in the 70's is nothing but BS, the laws, control, power, and money will already be in place. Do you really think they will give it up? Think about it.
Peter

Sources:
AFP - G8 ministers pledge 'strong will' on climate amid doubts

Happy Memorial Day

Happy Memorial Day

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

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

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

H. S. For Sunday 052508

WARNING! CONSUMER ALERT!

Hey folks.

This from Reuters- FDA says nipple cream could harm infants. I'm posting this because Laura did breast feed, and I know that Breast Feeding is growing again in popularity. One reason is the health of the child, and the other is simply the cost of Formula. But now Mothers need to be aware of this.

Fri May 23, 9:13 PM ET

Consumers should not buy or use Mommy's Bliss Nipple Cream, marketed by San Rafael, California-based MOM Enterprises Inc, due to ingredients that could harm infants, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Friday.

The product, marketed to nursing mothers to help soothe and heal their dry or cracked nipples, contains ingredients chlorphenesin and phenoxyethanol that could cause respiratory distress or vomiting and diarrhea in infants, the FDA said.

The agency said the company has stated it has discontinued marketing the product. It also said it has not received any reports of injury to infants.

"FDA is particularly concerned that nursing infants are being unwittingly exposed by their mothers to this product with dangerous side effects," Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

"Additionally, these two ingredients may interact with one another to further compound and increase the risk of respiratory depression in nursing infants," Woodcock said.

So to all new Moms, or Moms to be, please be careful.

Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters- FDA says nipple cream could harm infants

You Can't Make This Stuff Up 052508

Can You Say Desperation?

Hey folks,

We all know the numbers. We have all see the effects. The New Media has made a profound effect on the news industry. A negative one. Before the Internet, Rush, Foxnews, Hannity, ETC. the mainstream media had a lock on what you knew and when you knew it. They could get away with furthering their agendas unabashed. Unchallenged, they could make stuff up completely, and no one would know the difference. Not now.

Now more and more people are learning just who some in the mainstream media really are. When they try to spin stories, omit facts, or completely make stuff up, they get caught. Over and over again. The NYT's is dwindling, numbers are down in all areas a notable amount. TV is seeing their rates dipping to all time lows. Liberal Radio? All but flops right out of the box, every time it is tried. People are getting smarter.

So instead of actually doing what they should do, and that is simply report the news, they have decided to try to compete. They have failed. So instead of doing what they should do, report the news, they are trying to SILENCE their opposition. Can you say Fairness Doctrine? Instead of doing what they should be doing, reporting the news, they want to continue to lie to you. It's simply desperation. Get this from USAToday - On 225th birthday, newspapers dying?

Plain Talk by Al Neuharth

"The report of my death is an exaggeration."

• Mark Twain to the New York Journal, 1897

The first daily newspaper in the USA was born 225 years ago next week. The triweekly Pennsylvania Evening Post in Philadelphia became a daily on May 30, 1783.

Since then, most cities or small towns across the USA have had their own daily or weekly newspaper. Currently, 1,422 dailies and 6,253 weeklies are being published.

Sure, the slumping economy has made times a little tough for them. But most still have profit margins well above most other businesses.

It's NOT the economy stupid. It's YOU. It is the mainstream media doing what they have always done in the face of the fact there are now alternatives. Alternatives that more and more people are seeing as more honest.

Exaggerated "obits," á la Mark Twain's, are being peddled mostly by newspapers themselves. When semiannual circulation figures were released recently, newspapers headlined slight losses among eight of the Top 10. But little or no attention was given papers that are growing. Examples:

* USA TODAY, the nation's largest, increased to 2,284,219 daily circulation. It has shown gains every year in its 25-year history.

* The No. 2 Wall Street Journal gained to 2,069,463. Under new owner/boss Rupert Murdoch, it's the most improved newspaper in the country and likely to show significant sharp future increases.

* A dozen other newspapers with circulations of 50,000 or more had gains ranging from 1.21% to 7.61%, including in Baton Rouge, Cincinnati, Mobile, Ala., Munster, Ind., San Jose, Calif., Seattle and Trenton, N.J.

Other than Seattle, that Rush uses a bit on his show, go figure, have you even HEARD of any of these?

Importantly, newspaper owners and editors have embraced the Internet and now are 24/7 providers of news, information, entertainment and advertising. The hunger for all that is greater than ever in history. That's why newspaper-oriented media companies have a bright future.

So, if you're a news junkie, you'll probably continue to get everything you've been getting from your newspaper. And more.

Uh, OK. {Smile}
Peter

Sources:
USAToday - On 225th birthday, newspapers dying?

IWA for Sunday 052508

Not a Fan But,

Hey folks,

I do not mean to offend anyone here, I’m just stating fact. I am a HUGH music fan. I really am. From Bluegrass, Rhythm and Blues, Rock, Pop, even some New Age Stuff, all the way to the Heavy Stuff. Nothing like good Classical and Piano pieces. But try as hard as I have tried, I just cannot do Country. Seriously. I cannot stand Country Music.

So needless to say, I did not watch the ACM this past Weekend, but I did catch this after. According to the AP- Chesney after ACM win: Fan votes shouldn't decide By JOHN GEROME, AP Entertainment Writer Mon May 19, 12:50 AM ET

Kenny Chesney won entertainer of the year for a fourth straight time Sunday, then promptly took issue with the way the Academy of Country music awarded the honor: through fan votes.

For the first time in the show's 43 years, the top prize — traditionally decided by ACM members — was determined through online voting. With the win, Chesney ties Garth Brooks and trails only Alabama, which won five in a row.

Chesney said immediately backstage that he thought fans should be included, just not by voting for the show's most important award.

“The entertainer of the year trophy is supposed to represent heart and passion and an amazing amount of sacrifice, commitment and focus,” he said. “That's the way Garth won it four times, that's the way I won it, that's the way (George) Strait won it, Reba (McEntire), Alabama all those years. That's what it's supposed to represent.”

He said his complaint is directed at the industry, not the fans — and that the method amounted to “complete disrespect” of the artists, saying the academy turned the award “into a sweepstakes to see who can push people's buttons the hardest on the Internet.”

You Sir, are an Idiot. If it were NOT for the fans, you would not be receiving ANY awards. This is why I no longer watch the Emmys. It is NOT about what your peers say. At least it shouldn’t be. It SHOULD be about the fans.

This is the way it should be, and pretty much is, in ANY business. The CUSTOMERS are those that decide if you make it or not. The Professional Entertainment business that I feel really follows this method the best is Pro-Wrestling.

You have hundreds of people trying to be Superstars. But you only have a handful that actually make it. The Hulk Hogans, Stone Cold Steve Austins, and The Rock, are far and few between. But in the Pro-Wrestling business, you are made or broke by the fans. If they love you, or love to hate you, you become a Superstar. If not, you be come nothing. You may be around a few years but then you just disappear.

What Chesney just said is “complete disrespect” to the fans. Those that MADE him. Carrie Underwood gets it.

Carrie Underwood also took home her second consecutive female vocalist trophy.

“I know I don't deserve it, but I'll take it,” Underwood said. “Fans got me everything I have, and I owe everything to you.”

So does LeVox, whoever he is.

LeVox disagreed with Chesney about the night's top honor, saying he hoped it the fans continued to choose.

“It's about time,” he said, calling fans “the reason that all three of us have jobs.”

ABSOLUTELY!

Congratulations to you Mr. Chesney, for slapping the fans that made you in the face, you ARE getting another one. You ARE the IDIOT of the Week. You Sir no longer deserve the fans support.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Chesney after ACM win: Fan votes shouldn't decide

Presidential Radio Address for 052408

President Bush Radio Address

President Bush: "Good morning. This Memorial Day weekend, kids will be out of school, moms and dads will be firing up the grill, and families across our country will mark the unofficial beginning of summer. But as we do, we should all remember the true purpose of this holiday -- to honor the sacrifices that make our freedom possible.

On Monday, I will commemorate Memorial Day by visiting Arlington National Cemetery, where I will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. The tomb is the final resting place of three brave American soldiers who lost their lives in combat. The names of these veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean War are known only to God. But their valor is known to us all.

Throughout American history, this valor has preserved our way of life and our sacred freedoms. It was this valor that won our independence. It was this valor that removed the stain of slavery from our Nation. And it was this valor that defeated the great totalitarian threats of the last century.

Today, the men and women of our military are facing a new totalitarian threat to our freedom. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts around the world, they continue the proud legacy of those who came before them. They bear their responsibilities with quiet dignity and honor. And some have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country.

One such hero was Sergeant First Class Benjamin Sebban of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. As the senior medic in his squadron, Ben made sacrifice a way of life. When younger medics were learning how to insert IVs, he would offer his own arm for practice. And when the time came, Ben did not hesitate to offer his fellow soldiers far more.

On March 17, 2007, in Iraq's Diyala province, Ben saw a truck filled with explosives racing toward his team of paratroopers. He ran into the open to warn them, exposing himself to the blast. Ben received severe wounds, but this good medic never bothered to check his own injuries. Instead, he devoted his final moments on this earth to treating others. Earlier this week, in a ceremony at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, I had the honor of presenting Sergeant Sebban's mom with the Silver Star that he earned.

No words are adequate to console those who have lost a loved one serving our Nation. We can only offer our prayers and join in their grief. We grieve for the mother who hears the sound of her child's 21-gun salute. We grieve for the husband or wife who receives a folded flag. We grieve for a young son or daughter who only knows dad from a photograph.

One holiday is not enough to commemorate all of the sacrifices that have been made by America's men and women in uniform. No group has ever done more to defend liberty than the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. Their bravery has done more than simply win battles. It has done more than win wars. It has secured a way of life for our entire country. These heroes and their families should be in our thoughts and prayers on a daily basis, and they should receive our loving thanks at every possible opportunity.

This Memorial Day, I ask all Americans to honor the sacrifices of those who have served you and our country. One way to do so is by joining in a moment of remembrance that will be marked across our country at 3:00 p.m. local time. At that moment, Major League Baseball games will pause, the National Memorial Day parade will halt, Amtrak trains will blow their whistles, and buglers in military cemeteries will play Taps. You can participate by placing a flag at a veteran's grave, taking your family to the battlefields where freedom was defended, or saying a silent prayer for all the Americans who were delivered out of the agony of war to meet their Creator. Their bravery has preserved the country we love so dearly.

Thank you for listening."

From The Emails For Friday 052308

Senator Bill Nelson on Drilling Our Own Oil

Hey folks,

As you know, this past week has been more show. That is all it is. A show. Congress has Big Oil up there talking about the oil prices. It really is easy to blame Big Oil. I really do not, but I know many of you do. I DO blame the speculators. I do blame those that will push the price, which is already far from supply and demand, to the breaking point. But I MOSTLY blame the environmental wackos and the LWL {Far Left Wing Loonies} that have prevented us from drilling our own.

Now I know you have already heard the fact that in just one place in our own country, we have more oil than the Saudis. That is just one location. There are MANY. We could be completely energy independent if we would just go get our own. But nope.

All through this show hearing, every Senator said the same thing. More oil lowers prices. So what is the problem with getting our own? I got this in the Emails on Wednesday

May 21, 2008

Dear Peter,

I wanted to share with you an op-ed I wrote that was published in today’s Tallahassee Democrat. Last week in the Senate, we fought off another attempt by the oil companies to end the ban on offshore drilling in Florida and other environmentally sensitive areas. I published this piece because I want to remind Floridians and all Americans just what’s at stake if we allow the oil companies to have their way.

OK, {Sigh} Here it is. I will comment after. I really will refrain until the end so you can get the full effect. Even though the very first paragraph is moronic. The third really Ticks me off. The forth is sheer BS. Never mind, just read.

Drilling off Florida isn't the answer

Bill Nelson
My View

May 21, 2008

Start drilling. Put those oil rigs off the protected beaches of Florida and in the preserved wilds of Alaska.

In essence, that is what Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson urged in an April 30 column.

Drilling, right away, in environmentally protected areas was a centerpiece of Samuelson's solution to rising gasoline prices. To oppose drilling in protected areas, he said, is "sheer stupidity" and "prejudice against oil companies."

That's the same thing the oil companies say every time there is a spike in gas prices. They cling to their own long-term remedy that would expose Florida's entirely beach-and-tourism-driven economy to ruination.

Last week, the oil companies made two new end-runs in the Senate, trying to bust the long-standing ban on coastal drilling. Once again their supporters cited the high gasoline prices. Even though we stopped them by a half-dozen votes, they'll certainly be back — and, soon.

Against this backdrop I want to make clear that any oil still deep in the ground has no direct link — none — to today's pump prices. Any oil in the ground won't be in the marketplace for some 10 years. Further, the oil companies that want to drill much closer to our shores already have leases on 33 million other acres where they haven't even started drilling yet.

More importantly — no matter what anybody says or writes — the U.S. has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves while it uses 25 percent of the global supply.

In other words — and I'm using Samuelson's terminology here — it's "sheer stupidity" to think the U.S. can drill its way out of an energy crisis. We as a nation are hooked on oil; and, drilling along our shores or in wildlife preserves won't break the habit.

By the way, one of the main reasons oil prices have gone up sharply in recent years is volatility in major producer nations, such as Iraq and Iran.

History reflects similar spikes circa 1973 with an OPEC oil embargo related to the Yom Kippur War, 1979 with the Iranian revolution, 1990 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War, and since 2003 with the war in Iraq concomitant with increasing Asian demand.

More drilling along protected U.S. coasts and in bays and harbors won't stabilize Iraq or guarantee Saudi Arabia's long-term friendship. Nor will it end the unregulated speculation that has driven the price of oil to more than $126 a barrel — when the price based on present supplies and demand should be no more than $55 per barrel, according to an industry leader's testimony before Congress.

That means the law of supply and demand has been broken; and, we're paying an extra $71 per barrel that enriches speculators.

So, what to do?

Well, the U.S. failed in the 1970s to enact a real energy program to get us off oil. Result: Brazil runs on ethanol today, not the U.S.; Germany leads the world in solar power, not the U.S.

Meantime, the oil companies are awash in record profits — more than $155 billion last year alone — and not spending enough on refineries or alternative energy, while consumers are getting gouged at the pump.

Even worse, it took the U.S. more than 30 years to raise mileage standards on cars and trucks to a paltry 35 miles per gallon. Most of Europe — and the cars that U.S.-based manufacturers sell there — already averages 43 miles per gallon. Japan is approaching 50 miles per gallon.

In other words, we are wasting billions of gallons of oil.

So, again, what to do?

Fifty percent of the oil we use goes into our transportation. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize this is where we must focus.

First, we must enact serious conservation measures, such as 40 miles per gallon for our vehicles, and, provide bigger tax breaks for hybrid cars.

Second, the government — led by the next president — must enact a national energy program to transition us from gasoline to alternative and synthetic fuels to power much of our transportation. President Kennedy led us to conquer the bounds of Earth within a decade.

We must act with the same urgency. And, while we are at it, we are going to have to make ethanol from things we don't eat.

And while we are at that, we are going to have to pay attention to how we power not just our cars and trucks, but our homes and industry. We are going to need to develop solar, wind and thermal energy, and safer nuclear power.

This is what our presidential candidates must pledge in place of drilling in protected areas.

Start drilling? Sheer stupidity.

THIS WHOLE THING IS NOTHING BUT SHEER STUPIDITY!

I do not even know where to start. I know this is going to go long but this NEEDS to be addressed.

First, the Senator wrote "Put those oil rigs off the protected beaches of Florida and in the preserved wilds of Alaska." Off the protected beaches IS the point. WAY off them. They will not be effected at all. I know he would probably give you the same old "What if" argument. What if there is an accident? A leak? ETC. What if an asteroid hit us tomorrow? As for Alaska. We are not even talking about a space big enough to matter. In reality, the Caribou are THRIVING because of the "evil" Pipeline that was put there. They LOVE it. Lets start putting things into perspective Senator.

Then this. "To oppose drilling in protected areas, he said, is "sheer stupidity" and "prejudice against oil companies." Yes, it IS sheer stupidity. To have resources that we can use, yet still refuse to use them, creating the situation we have now, then complaining about it, IS sheer stupidity. It is not prejudice against big oil, it is putting the myth of saving the wild life ahead of taking care of HUMAN BEINGS.

"They cling to their own long-term remedy that would expose Florida's entirely beach-and-tourism-driven economy to ruination."

What a pile of BS. HOW would getting our natural resources "expose Florida's entirely beach-and-tourism-driven economy to ruination?" It will not. Care to explain more?

"Against this backdrop I want to make clear that any oil still deep in the ground has no direct link — none — to today's pump prices. Any oil in the ground won't be in the marketplace for some 10 years." Then he wrote this. "History reflects similar spikes circa 1973 with an OPEC oil embargo related to the Yom Kippur War, 1979 with the Iranian revolution, 1990 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War, and since 2003 with the war in Iraq concomitant with increasing Asian demand." 1973? Do the math. If we learned our lesson THEN, we would not be in the situation now. If we started the process back then. We would not even be using foreign oil at all. But we didn't because a few idiots decided that Americans are not worth it. Right?

"More importantly — no matter what anybody says or writes — the U.S. has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves while it uses 25 percent of the global supply." Care to prove that? Seriously, this is a completely bogus statement.

"Well, the U.S. failed in the 1970s to enact a real energy program to get us off oil. Result: Brazil runs on ethanol today, not the U.S.; Germany leads the world in solar power, not the U.S." We could be going into our 40th year of using our own resources also. Are you really talking about technology that is not going to be effect nor affordable for another 10 to 20 years?

"First, we must enact serious conservation measures, such as 40 miles per gallon for our vehicles, and, provide bigger tax breaks for hybrid cars."

Raise taxes.

"Second, the government — led by the next president — must enact a national energy program to transition us from gasoline to alternative and synthetic fuels to power much of our transportation. President Kennedy led us to conquer the bounds of Earth within a decade."

Not for years. It will take longer to do this than drill. So THIS plan has NO direct link — none — to today's pump prices. So what do you suggest we do now?

"We must act with the same urgency. And, while we are at it, we are going to have to make ethanol from things we don't eat."

{Sigh} I know you are really not this ignorant Senator. Ethanol is causing riots. Ethanol is causing food prices to skyrocket. Ethanol is MORE of a pollutant than OIL. To say ethanol is the answer IS sheer stupidity.

"And while we are at that, we are going to have to pay attention to how we power not just our cars and trucks, but our homes and industry. We are going to need to develop solar, wind and thermal energy, and safer nuclear power."

Did you really just write that? "Safer nuclear power." We agree on that.

"Start drilling? Sheer stupidity."

No Senator, remaining dependant on those that hate us, and NOT taken care of our own when we can, THAT is sheer stupidity.
Peter




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.

True Heart Felt Blessings On Sen Kennedy and His Family

May they have the strength and peace they need in this time.

Hey folks,

Just this past Sunday, I told you about Sen. Ted Kennedy being rushed to the hospital after he suffered a seizure at his Cape Cod home on Saturday morning. I said this.

"First, may Senator Kennedy recover fully and may he and his family be at peace in this time of need. As you may already know, he was rushed to the Hospital."

Then this.

"Yes I know. He is not my favorite person. Yes I know his past. But unlike some of the card carrying members of the LWL, I wish illness, suffering, or death, on no one. I truly wish him and his family the best."

I do not know what faith he may or may not follow. He REALLY is not one of my favorite people. But I do, sincerely, wish him and his family the peace and comfort of the Holy Spirit and may God give him the strength to fight, and the peace to recover. May his family also receive the peace and comfort they are going to need in this time.

Turns out, he got bad news yesterday. The New York Times reported it this way.

BOSTON — Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the longtime Massachusetts Democrat and patriarch of the Kennedy family, has a malignant brain tumor, his doctors said on Tuesday.

Doctors here at Massachusetts General Hospital, who were investigating the cause of a seizure that Mr. Kennedy, 76, suffered at his Cape Cod compound on Saturday, said preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain had revealed that he has a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe, the upper left part of his brain.

Dr. Lee H. Schwamm, the hospital’s vice chairman of neurology, and Dr. Larry Ronan, Mr. Kennedy’s primary care physician at the hospital, said in a statement that “the usual course of treatment includes combinations of various forms of radiation and chemotherapy” and that “decisions regarding the best course of treatment for Senator Kennedy will be determined after further testing and analysis.”

Like him or not, he IS a fighter. Sen Kerry said that he was in "A fighting Mood," and that he was asking questions about the best way to proceed.

News of the brain tumor jolted people in Washington, Massachusetts and beyond, generating reaction from around the world, where Mr. Kennedy’s legendary family legacy and his 46 years in the Senate have made him a well-known figure.

Aside from an unsuccessful run for president in 1980, Mr. Kennedy has focused his energy on issues including health care, education and civil rights. Despite his liberal ideology and occasional loud clashes on the Senate floor, Mr. Kennedy is held in high esteem by the opposition for his determination, understanding of the issues and a willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion on subjects like education, health care and immigration.

“Senator Kennedy enjoys great respect and admiration on this side of the aisle,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “He is indeed one of the most important figures to ever serve in this body in our history.”

He really is. I do not like him. I do not like the choices he has made. But he DOES have my respect and he DOES have a history of doing the right thing. I have tried in the past to get past some of his history, but I just have not been able to. But ANYONE that has given what he has for the last 46 years, deserves respect.

In a statement, President Bush said, “Ted Kennedy is a man of tremendous courage, remarkable strength, and powerful spirit.” Mr. Bush said he and his wife, Laura, “join our fellow Americans in praying for his full recovery.”

Amen!

Senator John McCain echoed that sentiment, and both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked Mr. Kennedy at length on Tuesday night in their speeches declaring victory in the Oregon and Kentucky primaries, respectively.

Doctors and people close to Senator Kennedy said that he would remain in the hospital for the next couple of days. The doctors said he was “in overall good condition” and “remains in good spirits and full of energy.” He has not had another seizure since he was hospitalized, they said.

“Right now, he’s his normal self, except for the news that he’s dealing with,” said a close friend who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I bet he’ll be back at the Cape sailing this weekend. I expect he’ll go back to work” after the Memorial Day recess.

Senate Democrats and Republicans learned of Mr. Kennedy’s condition as they were gathered for their weekly closed-door party luncheons, and members of both parties were visibly shaken by the news.

As he opened debate on the Iraq spending bill, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, at 90 the only current senator to serve longer than Mr. Kennedy, was distraught. “Ted, Ted, my dear friend, I love you and miss you,” Mr. Byrd said in halting remarks on the floor.

Malignant glioma is the most common form of brain cancer, accounting for about 9,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute. They are more common in older people, especially those between the ages of 75 and 84, according to the American Cancer Society.

The prognosis varies depending on the type and severity of the tumor, and the patient’s age. The American Cancer Society said that survival rates drop with increasing age.

Dr. Patrick Y. Wen, clinical director of the Center for Neuro-Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, said the average prognosis for the most aggressive type of glioma is 14 to 15 months, while the prognosis for slower-growing tumors is two to four years.

“This is a sad situation,” Dr. Wen said. He said that such tumors can sometimes affect sensation, speech, or vision, and that tumors in older people tend to be harder to treat. “These are unfortunately aggressive tumors.”

Alain Charest, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Tufts Medical Center, said if the tumor could be removed surgically doctors would do so, although gliomas are difficult to remove because cells from the tumor tend to travel to other parts of the brain. Radiation and chemotherapy usually follow surgery.

Dr. Carl B. Heilman, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Tufts Medical Center, said that most people go back to work after a biopsy, and that many patients respond well to radiation therapy and oral chemotherapy at first.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said on Tuesday in Washington that he had visited Mr. Kennedy over the weekend.

Oh, here you go.

“He’s in a fighting mood,” Mr. Kerry said. “He is asking questions about what the choices are for him. He’s deeply involved in making all the kinds of personal decisions that any of you would.”

Mr. Kerry added: “He would call you and help arrange a discussion with a bunch of doctors to talk about a wife who was sick or a child or any number of things — now everybody needs to do that on behalf of Ted. Everybody needs to pull for him and his family and remember that this guy is one unbelievable fighter.”

In Massachusetts, the impact of Mr. Kennedy’s persona and political legacy is hard to overestimate.

“There’ll never be another Ted Kennedy,” said Paul S. Grogan, president and chief executive of the Boston Foundation, which finances nonprofits involved in economic development and other state issues. “He’s sort of Horatio at the bridge. He’s been such an outsized figure, so influential, so effective.”

You cannot deny that.

Mr. Grogan said that Mr. Kennedy had given Massachusetts a level of political prominence beyond what would normally be accorded a state of its size, and that he had helped engineer policies and financing mechanisms that benefited important sectors of the state, including universities and medical centers.

“He’s single-handedly postponed the onset of Massachusetts’s political decline,” Mr. Grogan said. “His vigor, his vitality and his longevity has kind of encouraged us all to believe that he’s immortal, and we’ve gotten used to the idea that he’s going to be around forever. But this is a reminder that he’s not.”

Cameron Kerry, a lawyer who is the brother of Senator Kerry, said the news of the brain tumor was “like an earthquake,” adding, “He’s just such a colossus that this kind of shakes the ground underneath everything.”

Mr. Kerry said that “on a political level, he’s just been so good to my brother and to the whole family. He really is like family.”

Jack Connors, a businessman who is active in Democratic causes, said: “Ted Kennedy raised public service to an art form. Ted Kennedy has really been a hero for people who don’t really have much of a voice.”

Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, called him “clearly the most influential senator in U.S. history.” Mr. Frank added: “His personality, his understanding of the legislative process, his dedication. He has a good sense of other people, a lot of empathy. And he hires first-rate people and knows how to benefit from them.”

Legislators close to Mr. Kennedy, like Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, said on Tuesday that they were certain Mr. Kennedy would return to work and would battle the tumor with his characteristic tenacity and energy.

“He’s a fighter,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, “and he’s definitely ready for this fight.”

I truly hope he is. I hope he can beat this thing, and get back to work. God bless you Senator Kennedy. We are all pulling for you.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Our Prayers Are With You Sen. Kennedy
NYT - Senator Kennedy Has Malignant Brain Tumor

Obama Clinton both Win

Obama running away with delegates

Hey folks,

Oregon
Obama (W) 58%
Clinton 42%

» 86% of precincts reporting
Kentucky
Clinton (W) 65%
Obama 30%

» 100% of precincts reporting

As the AP puts it.

Once all the delegates were allocated from Tuesday's contests in Oregon and Kentucky, however, Obama was expected to be within 60 of the magic 2,026 needed to cinch the nomination. With 80 percent of the vote counted, he was winning Oregon by a 58-42 percent margin.

No surprises again, this was expected. As a matter of fact, Clinton KEEPS winning. It is just to late to catch him.

Clinton won at least 54 delegates in the delegates from Kentucky and Oregon and Obama won at least 39, according to an analysis of election returns by The Associated Press. All 51 delegates from Kentucky were awarded but there were still 10 of 52 to be allocated in Oregon.

Obama has an overall total of 1,956 delegates, including endorsements from party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Clinton has 1,776, including superdelegates, according the latest tally by the AP.

But of course, nothing changed.

"Neither Senator Obama nor I will have reached that magic number when the voting ends on June 3," she said Tuesday night in Kentucky. "And so, our party will have a tough choice to make — who's ready to lead our party at the top of our ticket, who is ready to defeat Senator McCain in the swing states and among swing voters."

An impossible choice is more like it. A no win situation. Then of course she went into a rant about Michigan and Florida counting. Remember, she did it. She agreed with it. She demanded it. She got it. They do not count.

Still to come?

May 27
Idaho
D&R
D-Non-binding primary; R-Primary

June 3
Montana
D
Primary

June 3
New Mexico
R
Primary

June 3
South Dakota
D&R
Primary

June 28
Nebraska
R
State Convention

Have a great day.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Obama inching ever closer to nomination

What A Difference A Year Makes

Who Said This?

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to you. Big voting day today in Kentucky and Oregon. As always, check back tomorrow for the results. But today, I have a question for you. Who said this?

"Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.

But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.

Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions.

It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations.

It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners.

It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs.

It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws.

And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran.

We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza. The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us.

It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President Ahmadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box this fall.

And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to peace in the region.

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.

This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.

Israel Must Freely Defend Itself When Attacked

And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.

Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there.

That’s why we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end.

True Allies Do Not Walk Away

These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.

The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security.

But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace.

That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction."

To recap a bit.

"Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself."

Which means if he does what he says, more than another 6 million Jews could be wiped out.

"it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done."

"President Ahmadinejad is reckless, irresponsible,"

"Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table,"

"And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself."

Who is it that chose NOT to sign with thirty Senators that sent a letter to the White House on Thursday Nov 1, 2007 warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress?

Then, who just said this?

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

You guessed it. Sen. Barack Hussein Obama.

On March 3, 2007, the Chicago Sun Times reported this.

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."

Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd at a downtown hotel, Obama also repeated his call for a phased pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq and strongly backed a strong U.S. relationship with Israel.

Iranian leader 'reckless' While he was being attacked in Washington, Obama was in friendly territory in Chicago as he appeared at a forum attended by 800 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobby. He received a standing ovation from the crowd and a hug from one of the group's leaders.

Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “reckless, irresponsible and inattentive” to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.

The Iranian “regime is a threat to all of us,” Obama said.

So now he says Iran is tiny. Poses no real threat?

McCain is right. He said this.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess,"

"An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people," McCain said.

Later Monday, McCain said it makes no sense that Obama would not negotiate with the Islamic terrorist group Hamas but would meet with Iran, a sponsor of Hamas.

"It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues we face, particularly in the Middle East," McCain told reporters in Savannah, Ga.

He is right folks. The except of the Obama speech last year, makes it CLEAR that he was seeing Iran as anything but tiny, and he repeatedly refused to take force off the table. Now? Now they are no problem at all. Now he would meet with them without any preconditions whatsoever. {Sigh}

Oh what a difference a year makes.
Peter

Sources:
Obama Speech
The Chicago Sun Times - Obama: Iran threatens all of us
AP - McCain: Obama's Iran remarks show inexperience

Still Not Over for Clinton

But Hillary?

Hey folks,

Happy Monday to you. I come in this morning and start scanning the news. For whatever reason, this stood out to me today. As you know, the Kentucky and Oregon Primaries are right around the corner. While Obama, with 1,904 delegates out of the 2,025 needed to clinch the Democratic nomination, moved on to McCain this weekend, Clinton with 1,717, continues to campaign against Obama.

Now this in of itself is not really news, I already told you she was not going anywhere, what she actually said in Bowling Green just really irks me. She said this.

"If we get everybody turned out, it's going to send a great message to our country that you don't stop democracy in its tracks.

"You don't tell some states that they can't vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they're somehow more important," she said.

But wait a second Hillary. YOU agreed to all this. YOU said that Florida and Michigan should not count, because they broke your little rules. YOU said that some of the smaller states really do not matter. YOU said that not all votes and Delegates should be recognized. NOW you want people to believe that YOU do not agree with, well, you?

In considering who to vote for, she told the crowd to "think about this as a hiring decision."

Think about what? Again, it was YOU that said some matter more than others and that some should not count at all. YOU did.

"Come out and vote for me on Tuesday, I'll work my heart out for you," she said.

Folks, it really is simple. She finds herself in this position because NONE of this was suppose to happen. Obama, an unknown young Black Senator, was suppose to come out and make some noise and energize the Democratic Party, then go away. Clinton was suppose to be crowned the nominee and move on to battle those wascally Republicans.

That is not what happened. What happened was people saw that they have a choice. They saw something new. They did not have to just accept another four years of the Clintons. They did not HAVE to accept the DNC's plans. They actually had a choice. She found that she actually was not all that liked. Now she is in the battle for her political life. Losing at that.

Remember the numbers my friends. 122 separates Obama from the lock. Over three hundred for Clinton. Kentucky has 51 pledged delegates and nine superdelegates to offer. Oregon has 52 pledged delegates and 13 superdelegates. Now I know Obama will not win all of them, but even if Clinton DID, she still is not even close.

So she can whine all she wants. But truth is, she is simply complaining about what SHE did. Obama moves on, as well he should. McCain had better be ready.
Peter

Sources:
CNN - Clinton: 'Think about this as a hiring decision'