Follow by Email

Friday, October 31, 2008

Happy Halloween

From the Emails 103108

Hey folks,

Lets take a bit of a break from Politics. I have and will continue to tell you the truth of what is at stake this election. It is America itself. I will be talking more about that this Weekend. But tonight? Tonight those that could not care less about Obama or McCain will be flooding the streets.

That's right, our children will be dressing up and going out to the streets, in the dark, knocking on strangers doors, begging for candy. In the news here in South Florida, stories of Police stepping up patrols and going door to door themselves, fills the papers and the local news. They are going to and warning Sex Offenders that they need to stay home and stay clear of the Trick or Treaters.

Well, I repeat, our children will be dressing up and going out to the streets, in the dark, knocking on strangers doors, begging for candy. The Sex offenders do not have to do anything. Buy and, or steel a, $2.00 pumpkin and carve it out. Get a bag of candy, and wait for the knock.

So this article was pointed out to me by SG. "This is a great article. Maybe you should post this." I couldn't agree more. The writer is BRILLANT! It was written back on September 30, 2006. I'll have to check this writer out more often. {Smile} Here it is.


Just My Thoughts,
Saturday Sept. 30 2006

Hey folks,

The time is HERE! It’s officially Fall. My second favorite time of year. Spring being number one. I remember in NY, I loved the time when it was the same temperature outside as it was in. I love the first signs of crisper and cleaner air rolling in. The start of the change of color in the trees. The signs that the earth was about to go into a sleep to renew for the next year.

I loved going to Warwick NY to this Farmers Market there. Where you could go out to the apple orchards and pick your apples off the trees. Get REAL apple cider, pies, and of course, those absolutely famous, apple cider donuts.

Then you were thinking, as a kid, Halloween is right around the corner.

Halloween was a COMPLETELY different time back then. Everyone knew everyone and there were no razor blades, drugs, or anything else to taint the treats. Kids were free to go to a "strangers" house and knock on the door.

Today? Today you had better be a little more careful. There are some really bad people out there. If you want to lose some sleep tonight, go onto any of those websites that track sexual predators, child molesters, and deviants. If you have never done this, you WILL be surprised. You most likely have one right around the corner from you. You may even KNOW them.

Couple that with the fact that there really is evil out there. Those that want to harm kids with tainted treats. Those that do not care about the safety of your kids walking down the street, who drive by too close and too fast. It is just not really worth the risk anymore, with a few exceptions.

Here in my new home town of Stuart, there are a few neighborhoods that still get into it. It’s all about the kids. They have some that "patrol" the area while the kids, at specific times, trick or treat. They all know each other and create elaborate haunted houses, and mazes, etc. for the kids. Closed neighborhoods is another way to go, however, you still need to be careful. You do not have to be poor to be a molester.

Now I know there are some, due to religious beliefs, or fear, who denounce the whole practice. I’m not saying do not let them go. Halloween can be fun. Just let the kids know what it’s all about. Make sure that they know to be safe. NEVER let them go alone. Commonsense on yours, and their part, can keep them safe.

OH, and do not forget, I know the stores are vamping up for Christmas already, but right after Halloween, comes my FAVORITE Holiday, Thanksgiving. {Smile} I love Thanksgiving. Family, food, and fun. Keep your kids safe this Halloween, inspect the treats, and make sure that they are around for Thanksgiving.
Peter

Yes folks, have fun tonight and BE SAFE. See you Sunday.

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@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Socialism In Waiting

All Depends on Obama

Hey folks,

I did not see it. I did not get the Transcript. As a matter of fact, I can not find the transcript of Obama's 30 infomercial ANYWHERE. So I can not comment on that yet. I'm sure I can pretty much guess at what he said, but I will not do that.

But I did want to point out that it is JUST FACT now, that Socialism is in waiting. I'm not kidding. They are coming out of the woodwork folks. They are in place and ready to change this country as soon as Obama takes over as President. One group even comes right out and TELLS you this.

First, as I have been telling you, they do not like this country. The NEW liberal movement is nothing more than a quest for tyranny. Nothing more than full out Socialism. Remember,. we just learned that when it comes to redistribution of wealth, Obama is SERIOUS, and hates the Constitution that FORBIDS this. He is not alone.

United States House of Representatives for the Ninth Congressional District of Ohio, Marcy Kaptur Tuesday in Toledo, advocating a Second Bill of Rights.

"The Toledo Blade had it right. The other day they printed what they call the Second Bill of Rights. [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt talked about the right to a useful, remunerative job, to provide a decent living. He talked about the right of every business owner to trade with freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. Sound familiar? That's really why we're here. We're here in that legacy. We're here to say, 'We are all together in wanting an America that is job rich with health and retirement benefits that are earned and belong to all and are secure!?'"

Then I see this just this morning. From the AP - Progressive think tank offers new plan for America

You can substitute the word Socialist for Progressive. Because that is what it is.

WASHINGTON – In a 10th-floor office a few blocks from the White House is a self-described government in waiting, ready to push detailed proposals for the economy, Iraq and scores of other issues if Barack Obama becomes president.

You have to read this, and FULLY understand it folks.

The Center for American Progress, formed five years ago by top aides to former President Clinton, could become Washington's most influential think tank overnight. It is about to publish a 50-chapter book on how to run a Democratic administration, and many Obama aides have perused its 26-page document describing what the last five presidents did on each day of his transition.

How to run a Socialistic Administration.

Of course, the group's efforts will go for naught if Obama loses to Republican John McCain. But if Obama wins, one of the first people he will turn to is John Podesta, the founder and president of the center and the man Obama tapped this fall to head his transition planning.

He is in place a ready to go.

Podesta, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, helped create the Center for American Progress in 2003 to counteract conservative think tanks. Many other former Clinton aides and Democratic activists joined him there, and some will be eager to fill top slots in an Obama administration.

More than a year ago, the center commissioned about 60 people to write articles for its forthcoming book, "Changing America: A Progressive Blueprint." Obama can ignore its department-by-department suggestions, certainly. But with Podesta heading both the think tank and Obama's transition, that seems unlikely.

Remember what I keep telling you. Obama is an empty suite. A Puppet.

McCain also has a transition team, headed by former Navy Secretary John Lehman. Political insiders say it's essential, not presumptuous, for presidential nominees to launch transition plans before the campaign ends, provided they do so discreetly.

Podesta modeled the Center for American Progress on the conservative Heritage Foundation, which gained fame by offering ideas, strategies and personnel to Ronald Reagan when he won the presidency in 1980. Heritage published the first such hefty think tank blueprint that year, outlining conservative ideas.

Who is running the show? Who is running the Media? Why is there such a Media Bias for the "Messiah?" Who is in charge? Who is trying to BUY this country? I keep telling you. Here is more proof.

Wealthy liberals including George Soros provided the Center for American Progress an initial budget of about $10 million and 75 staffers. Now it has about 150 staffers and spends more than $25 million a year.

GEORGE SOROS. The MMD {Mass Media Drones} Guru himself.

Its reputation is solid among government insiders, and one of its blogs, Think Progress, gets heavy traffic. But the center could instantly vault to greater visibility and importance if Obama is elected and perceived to be turning to it for political and intellectual support.

CAP can become a near equal to the larger and wealthier Heritage Foundation "if they play their cards right and become Obama's favorite think tank," said Heritage vice president Michael Franc.

CAP isn't shy about its ambitions. Its roles include being a Democratic "government in waiting," said spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, another former Clinton White House official.

But the center will speak out when it disagrees with an Obama administration policy or action, she said. "There will be times we will be an irritant," Palmieri said.

I doubt they would have to speak out that often. He will do whatever they say.

The center offers ideas on a range of domestic and foreign issues through its Web site, events, publications and media outreach. Many proposals are similar to Obama's, but not always identical.

Because if he came right out and SAID what he is going to do, more than he already has, he would lose in a LANDSLIDE. People would not be able to MISS that Socialism he would be espousing.

CAP's health care blueprint, for instance, calls for giving some people refundable tax credits to help them pay medical insurance premiums. Obama has a similar plan for the needy. CAP would require Americans to acquire health insurance or pay a fee to help fund the health care they would use if sick or injured. Obama, however, would not require adults to obtain coverage; he says his incentives would prompt a great majority to do so.

That is not entirely true. Obama would indeed FORCE you to have health care. He has backed away from saying so, but his plan WOULD.

The "Progressive Blueprint," scheduled for release by Basic Books a few days after the election if Obama wins, will offer detailed proposals to the new administration on dozens of topics. Many of the writers were prominent in the Clinton administration, according to a summary provided to The Associated Press.

Surrender, GWBS FEARED and forced control in your Private lives. Distribution of wealth, higher taxes for ALL, Universal Healthcare, if you like it or not. AMENESTY. Just to name a few.

They include former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger; former economic advisers Gene Sperling and Laura Tyson; former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros; and former Federal Emergency Management Director James Lee Witt. Former Clinton White House aides P.J. Crowley and Steve Richetti wrote the chapter on homeland preparedness. Former White House staff secretary Todd Stern wrote the chapter on the National Energy Council. Clinton's impeachment trial lawyer, Gregory Craig, wrote the State Department chapter.

Podesta, who declined to be interviewed, wrote the book's preface and its White House overview. The book's co-editors are consumer activist Mark Green of New York and CAP senior fellow Michele Jolin.

Podesta, 59, is a low-key, intense lawyer who has devoted most of his career to government work and teaching law.

His recently published book, "The Power of Progress," includes a hypothetical inaugural address for the next president. When Obama named Podesta his transition chief, the McCain campaign said Obama was so overconfident he'd already had an inaugural address drafted. Palmieri said Podesta never intended Obama to deliver the speech but wrote it as a way to express his own ideas for a new administration.

Podesta's speech says the nation must make "three extraordinary transformations" — in energy production and consumption; a reinvigorated economy; and a new national security structure including more interaction with other nations.

Giving up US Sovereignty to the UN.

If McCain wins, Podesta's speech will quickly lose relevance. And Basic Books would certainly lose interest in the "Progressive Blueprint," Palmieri said, so the Center for American Progress would probably self-publish.

Yes the POWER is in your hands. ACRON is trying hard to change that. 200,00 questionable registrations in Ohio, MANY DISTRICTS IN MANY STATES finding they have MORE Registrations than they have VOTERS. Homeless can now vote in Ohio. People being PAID to Vote for Obama. ETC. This is why you MUST go out and VOTE in five days.

Socialism is in waiting. America is on the edge. This very country is at stake. Make no mistake about it. It all depends on Obama winning or losing. Obama is the greatest threat to America itself then we have ever had from within. DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN
Peter

Sources:
AP - Progressive think tank offers new plan for America
The Center For American Progress

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama Is A Socialist Out of His Own Mouth

Not even HE can deny it. Well, credibly that is.

Hey folks,

This is really too funny. I have been watching the media for the last three or four days now, attempting to cover up Obama's "Redistribution of wealth" or "Spread the wealth around" comment and attempt to tell you that this is NOT "Marxist."

I have seen some LAME attempts from some bloggers and even uh, YouTubers?? trying to explain that Obama never really said he was for it. {Laughing} Folks, I'm not sure who found this audio from a 2001 Radio interview Obama gave, but it really is great. This is Obama in his OWN words.





Folks, he just said,

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted -- and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that."

Yes, those "essential constraints" so people like YOU, did not attempt to do away with the Constitution, or change it to fit what you want. "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties" Yeah, like Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Like being FREE from Dictatorships, oppressive taxation and keeping personal Freedoms. Those must be the "negative liberties" he was talking about.

Then this. "It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." Which is the whole point. The whole reason for the Declaration of Independence. "But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf." Because you are too stupid to know what is good for you. Because Redistribution of Wealth is unConstitutional, Obama wants to change that. He is not happy with that little annoying fact.

"Now, now, Pete. You can not say that. Besides, that was 2001. He wasn't running fro President then." Uh, YEAH. Debatable. But "Joe the Plumber" was just the other day. Obama LOWERED the bar this past Weekend. He said that you are now rich if you make $200,000. Not the magic $250,000. Remember I warned you about this. When will he decide those making $100,000 are rich? What about individuals? Remember he VOTED TO RISE TAXES on you if you made $42,000. SO?

One week from TODAY. Seven days folks. That's it. That's all the time we have left. If you love this country, you can not POSSIBLY vote for Obama. If you want Socialism, the NEW USSA, then by all means, Obama is your guy. Free Healthcare, free education. He'll even take those brats off your hands at age 4. You know, when their heads are REALLY full of mush and easily molded. He will take from you and give to those that never worked a day in their life. Why. It's fair. You do not need to make all that money. Let the Government take care of you. Don't worry about complaining about it either. You will LOVE it. There will be no voices of opposition. He will make sure that the local and nightly news tells you how much you love him and his programs. They will tell you just how great the new USSA really is. If this is what you want, go vote Obama in seven days.
Peter

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Preview For Sunday 102608

Continuing Series on the Quest for the New USSA

Hey folks,

Happy Sunday to you. Yes, today we are going to continue to look at this movement by the Liberal LWL. The Far Left Wing Loony fringe that has taken over the Democrat Party. The NEW Liberalism that is all about Socialism and NOT the true Freedoms and the American Dream that this country was founded on.

This week we are going to start right off the bat with a two part article all about Obama which was first posted here on July 31, 2008. From him coming right out and telling the now famous "Joe The Plumber" the he, Obama, wants to "Spread the wealth around" all his ASSOCIATIONS with criminals and terrorists, along with those that HATE America, all the things that this Investor's Business Daily piece pointed out are even MORE evident today then we it was written.

We are nine days away folks. NINE. The Mainstreme Media continue to attempt to smear Palin. They continue to attack McCain. They continue to attack YOU. Calling YOU a dumb Racist Hick. At the same time, they continue to cover for Obama. They continue to print puff pieces, LIE, cover up and ignore all the FACTS about Obama. Cover up for Biden's HONESTY. They continue to attempt to discourage you by telling you of these PHONEY polls that say this thing is over already. There will be a landslide, so do not even bother voting.

Meanwhile, Little Hitler waits. North Korea waits. Russia watches. Venezuela hopes. Those that hate us, they are waiting as well. The world is waiting to see if the American People are actually going to vote a Socialist into office. The world is waiting to see if the next President of the United States is one of THEM. They are waiting to, in Biden's own words, "Test this inexperienced new President." They know he will do nothing in retaliation. He has even hinted that he would be open to turning American Sovereignty over to the UN. We could become a "citizen of the world" and not who we are, the greatest country on the face of the planet. Make no mistake about it, the world waits. The world watches.

We have a President right now, that has in essence NATIONALIZED the Financial Industry. We have a Presidential Candidate that wants a NEW America. A Socialist America. One that will take over Healthcare, silence the opposition, attempt to take over Energy, and place limits on how far the average citizen can achieve. Who will meet with the world Dictators without preconditions. Who will impose the largest oppressive tax increase in the history of this country.

Nine days to go folks. Nine days that could very well be the LAST nine days of the America we know. The America we love. Nine days could see a new era dawn. The NEW USSA {United Socialist States of America} could very well be on it's way to becoming reality.

Coming right up today.
IWA For Sunday 102608

For those of you out there that are still thinking to yourselves, "This is America, there is NO WAY that this could EVER happen here. There is no way that Obama or anyone could ever turn this country into a Socialist Country." I will be re-posting why and HOW it is MORE than possible one week from tomorrow. Election Eve if you will. Make no mistake about it folks, not only is it possible, but we are seeing signs of it right now.

We are fully loaded and have a lot of ground to cover today, so lets get right to it.

Peter

Obama Is The New Socialist Poster Boy

Truth and Facts About Obama By IBD

Hey folks,

If you have been here for ANY period of time, you KNOW that I have been talking about the New Liberalism. It is not the same as it once was. If fact, it has completely changed into what REAL Liberalism USE to fight against. Yes folks, like it or not, believe it or not, Liberalism is NOW a quest for Tyranny. If you have not been here for a while, check out this montage.

I pointed out their words, their actions, their plans. I spelled out the difference in the New vs Old Liberalism Ideals. I have been warning you that America itself MAY very well be at stake this election. I'm not kidding. I'm not exaggerating in the least. What I have found in discussing these things over the years in various places around the Internet, is that most folks, just REALLY can not accept this. They just can not imagine that this type of thing could possibly EVER happen here. This is America. The greatest Country on Earth. So I posted EXACTLY how it could happen here.

Well, NOW others are starting to point out this possibility. With the same reasons I have and will continue. The FACTS and TRUTH speaks for themselves. Our friends over at Investor's Business Daily, are doing a series on this very issue about Obama. They call it the The Audacity of Socialism. Here is how they start it off.

Barack Obama has styled himself a centrist, but does his record support that claim?

In this series, we examine Senator Obama's past, his voting record and the people who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years. We'll show how the facts of Obama's actions and associations reveal a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

I want to touch on Part One today.

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

You know what folks, I'm just going to post the whole thing.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."


They edited that. I did not.

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.

(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

As I keep telling you. America itself is at stake.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

I know this is long. I know my montage is long with a lot of information jammed into it. I really want you to read it over and over until you get it. It CAN and actually IS happening here. THESE are the FACTS. Obama is not the glorious Media Messiah, who will bring change to this country to help all those in need. He is not this pure and clean Saint sent to save us that they like to portray to you as they dry hump his leg like dogs in heat while ignoring the TRUTH about Obama.

OK, Sorry, I know this is a lot to take in, but I'll be right back with Part Two.
Peter

Obama Is The New Socialist Poster Boy Part Two

Continuing Series from IBD

OK, I'm back. Here is Part Two from Investor's Business Daily - Obama's Global Tax

Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."

What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats — from fascism to Nazism to communism — defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.

Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

WHO WROTE THIS? Oh, By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY {Laughing} I really wish they gave the name of the ACTUAL Author. Folks, Some of you will realize that these words mirror what I have been saying for the last two years. Since the LWL {Far Left Wing Loony Fringe} completely took over the once great Democratic Party, the New Liberalism has been on full display.

Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."

These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." In other words: American resources.

It's a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world's population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet's supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America's population, just 5% of the world's total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world's GDP — to the enormous benefit of other countries. Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it.

We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.

Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

READ THAT AGAIN! Every taxpayer, YOU, $2,500

If you're worried about gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they'll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama's Global Poverty Act is the "international community's" foot in the door.

The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production — oil, natural gas, coal . . . fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Sorry, but Chucky Hagel is a RINO. He really is no Republican. As for Lugar?

Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world's oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

Can you say "turn over our Sovereignty?"

Obama's agenda sounds like defeated 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. foreign policy decisions where "you have to do it in a way that passes the test — that passes the global test — where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Bunk.

Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

Because GW IS BS. A Scam. There is NO threat.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama has said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

No, not if he get's elected.

Oh, really? Who's to say we can't load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.?

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

I was serious folks. I would REALLY love to know who the actual Author of this is. I would LOVE to drop them a note. I hope they continue this series.

All I can say is keep these facts in mind. When you go to the polls to vote in the next President of the United States of America. Make SURE you KNOW who you are really voting for. Not the hype. Not the Mass Marketing Machine Driven empty suite. The REAL Obama. Make sure that you KNOW that a vote for him, may very well be a vote for the New USSA. The United Socialist States Of America.

See you tomorrow for From the Emails.
Peter

Drilling On Hold

Gas Prices Hang On the Next President

Hey folks,

Yes, it is nice. Gas Prices plummeted to under $62 dollars a barrel. The average Joe, Josephine, American can actually fill up their tank. It is a good day in America. But do not expect these prices to stay this low. Not without drilling. Not without us using our own resources. It all depends on who the next President is. You see, this warm a fuzzy feeling we are having at the pump is coming to an end.

According to the New York Times.

OPEC to Cut Output by 1.5 Million Barrels a Day

The OPEC cartel ordered a cut in oil production of at least
1.5 million barrels a day on Friday. The reduction will come
into effect on Nov. 1, according to Ali Al-Naimi, the Saudi
oil minister.

Oil prices have more than halved since peaking at $147 a
barrel in July. After the OPEC statement, the price for Brent
crude immediately dropped below $63 a barrel.

In an Updated story, OPEC Will Cut Oil Output GET THIS

VIENNA — Stung by what it called “a dramatic collapse” in crude prices, the OPEC cartel said on Friday that it would reduce output by a steeper-than-expected 1.5 million barrels a day. But that action failed to brake the price decline, and oil dropped 5 percent more by the end of the day.

The oil cartel swiftly agreed to the cut in an emergency meeting at its headquarters here, and its president suggested afterward that still more production cuts were coming as OPEC struggled to get ahead of an economic slowdown so severe it could leave the world awash in oil.

The stunning decline of oil prices in recent weeks has left oil-exporting countries fearful that they will have to cut government budgets, including the popular social programs that cement many leaders’ hold on power.

Did you catch that?

Oil dropped to $64.15 a barrel on Friday, from a high close of $145.29 on July 3, a 56 percent decline in 16 weeks and one of the steepest in the oil markets.

If prices keep falling, OPEC’s president, Chakib Khelil, said the cartel would “definitely” reduce its production again in coming months, either when it meets in Algeria in December, or sooner.

“The fundamentals are not good,” Mr. Khelil, who is also Algeria’s oil minister, said in an interview after the meeting. “This is a crisis situation.”

In a rare appeal that highlights the urgency of the situation for producers, the cartel is also starting to look beyond its ranks for help in stabilizing the market. OPEC called on other oil-producing countries to “contribute to efforts to restore prices to reasonable levels, and eliminate harmful and unnecessary fluctuations.” OPEC’s members control 40 percent of the world’s oil exports.

Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries face their toughest test in years. The slowing global economy has depressed the consumption of oil in the United States, Europe and Japan, and the global economic turmoil risks spreading to emerging economies like China, long the main engine of growth in oil demand. OPEC members said they had little choice but to reduce production to avert a glut.

“OPEC has been slow to grasp the full impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, and it dawned on them all of a sudden,” said Vera de Ladoucette, an energy analyst based in Paris at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, of Cambridge, Mass. “There is definitely a new sense of urgency.”

Despite OPEC’s ability to forge a rapid consensus on Friday, members of the cartel know they are navigating perilous seas. For consumers, falling commodity prices have been one of the only positive developments in a profoundly depressed economic landscape. If OPEC’s cut eventually sends oil prices higher, that would be another blow to the global economy.

Are you getting this? Seriously folks. They are telling you that they are not making the money that they need to fund their SOCIAL PROGRAMS. They are not making the BILLIONS they need to do want they want to do. They see this fall in Gas Prices as a CRISIS, and they are saying SCREW YOU. We know that the economy is bad, but we need more money so we WILL cut production that will ARTIFICALLY increase demand, hence rise the prices at the pumps.

WHY do you think the prices started going down when they realized that we were SERIOUS about Drill here, Drill Now, Pay Less? More supply, less demand, lower costs.

Now with this, and the fact that we KNOW that Obama really does NOT want off shore Drilling, as well as the Democrat Loons running the show, I sent a Email to our friend Jane over at API. I asked her this.

Now of course, as we all know, there is no logical reason for anyone to invest a ton of money into the exploration, drilling, refining, and shipping to market at this time. We are 11 days away from the elections with a very real chance that Obama could become the next President of the United States. With Obama as President, and the Loons {Pelosi and Reid} still in control of the House and Senate, with possibly a filibuster proof majority, the moratoria could simply be put right back.

So I was wondering what API and your friends in the industry think about all this. Do you have contingency plans. In other words to simplify things, do you have two plans? One, for an Obama Presidency, and another for McCain?

Here was her response.

· First, it remains to be seen whether OPEC will adhere to its own supply reduction. In the past, individual OPEC countries often have produced and sold more oil than they’ve agreed to at the OPEC meetings.

· The decline in oil and natural gas prices is having an impact on energy companies’ investment plans. Chesapeake Energy, which is one of the nation’s largest natural gas producers, already has announced massive spending cuts. Other companies are following suit. I haven’t seen any of the major oil companies announce cuts yet. Generally speaking, they are very good at maintaining their investment levels in good and bad economic cycles. Right now, many of the large companies have the cash they need to continue investing, but I don’t know whether they will be willing to invest in really expensive projects. It costs a lot of money to invest in oil sands, oil shale, and ultra-deep water projects, and they have to consider the price of oil and their responsibility to their shareholders before committing millions or perhaps billions of dollars to these expensive projects.

· Here at API, we don’t talk about individual candidates. We are concerned about any campaign promises, however, that involve increasing taxes on the energy industry. Raising taxes would be very counterproductive in this economy. It would be better to encourage companies to expand their capital spending instead. If allowed to increase domestic oil and natural gas exploration and drilling, the energy industry could provide a much-needed boost to the economy by creating jobs, buying steel for rigs, investing in technologies, and producing domestic energy supplies which would reduce the amount of money sent abroad for imported oil.

· We hope that our elected officials will have the foresight to streamline the process that’s required to develop oil and natural gas supplies from offshore areas that have been off limits. Re-imposing the moratoria would only make us increasingly dependent on foreign oil, some of which comes from unstable countries and people who aren’t fond of America.

· Government statistics indicate that our country will continue to run on fossil fuels for many years to come while affordable alternative fuels are being developed. We believe our elected representatives should develop a long-term balanced energy policy to stimulate the economy and improve our energy security. Frankly, this nation needs all of the energy it can get, and now is the time to develop all energy sources – alternatives as well as traditional fossil fuels.

Now she was Politically Correct which she has to be. But if you think about it, she agreed with me. Here is what I mean. Who is it that is talking about MORE taxes on "Big Oil?" Obama. Who is it that FOUGHT to keep us from Drilling? Obama, Pelosi, Reid. Who is it that has prevented us from using our own resources up until now? Same people. The LWL beholden to the Evionuts. So if they, Oil Companies, are going to invest the sums of money we are talking about here, they want to make sure that they are not WASTING the money.

Now McCain and Palin are ALL for drilling. As I have been saying for a while, we really CAN do both. But why WOULD they spend the money when the OBINDEN Administration could just put the ban back, tax and attempt to NATIONALIZE the Oil Companies? You get the point.

We MUST make sure that the Socialist figurehead Obama does NOT get in. The effect on the Gas prices will be only a minor thing compared to what he TRULY wants to do. Just remember this folks. OPEC is not happy that you can fill your tank in this economic slump, so they want to cut production top RISE the price. We need the RIGHT leadership to ensure that we keep our energy affordable to all.
Peter

Honest Reporters Reporting The Truth Nine Days To Election

Pipe Dream But OK

Hey folks,

This was sent to me by Bob G. He said this. "You probably heard this on the EIB, but if not, please read and incorporate in your blog." Honest reporters reporting the truth nine days before an election? Talk about pipe dream. But here you go.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? By Orson Scott Card

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

I really do not see this being Front Page News any time soon. They have had plenty of opportunity to tell the truth about this, but they would rather blame Bush.

Oh, by the way, someone pointed out to me that my Email has changed. They were right. It is NOW opntalk@aim.com but fret not, if you send it to the old one it will be rerouted. I will be changing it on the Email Tag.

Be right back
Peter

Sources:
The Ornery American - Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

IWA For Sunday 102608

Race Card Player Code Word For Idiot

Hey folks,

That's right, this weeks winner is yet another Idiot that has taken to playing the Race Card because someone like ME, McCain, Palin, Rush, Sean, YOU, or anyone else, DARES to question the Messiah. Yes this weeks winner's LAME excuse at crying Racism is Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star.

Socialist Code Word For Black
KCS -
Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black By Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

It's not just them Mr. Diuguid, it is ANYONE who actually UNDERSTANDS what Socialism is and has the ability to LISTEN to what Obama actually SAYS. ANYONE who is able to look at the FACTS and REASON the truth of what Obama stands for.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

What a bunch of bunk this is. He goes on.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

PARTLY RIGHT here. I do see Obama as un-American. I do see that he can not be trusted. I do see him as a THREAT to this very Country. It has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. It is not a code word when I call him a SOCIALIST. Do you even know what a Socialist IS Mr. Diuguid? Do YOU? DO YOU KNOW what a quest for Tyranny REALLY means? It is not fighting for equal Rights. It is NOT about fairness or freedom. It is ALL about control and power. A few over many. I guarantee you, when you ask someone if they can think of a Socialist of the past, you will get Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and the like. NONE of which are Black.

As a matter of fact. If you took the time to check, you would find several ACTIVE Socialist Websites right now. Democratic Socialists of America Led by Frank Llewellyn, not a Black guy, Communist Party USA, Led by John Bachtell, another NON Black guy, World Socialist Web Site, Socialist Party USA, NONE of these are Black led. Nor is this all of them out there.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

Shame on YOU Mr. Diuguid. Shame on you for your inability to THINK for yourself. The inability to understand reality. To actually LISTEN to what Obama himself has told us he wants. Shame on you for your complete and utter ignorance on full display here in this lame excuse at playing the Race Card.

No Mr. Dimwitt, uh, Diuguid you ARE the Idiot of the Week. At lease those that want to set up a possible Obama Loss as Race based, and those that vote against him may be based on the fact he is Black, does have some sort of appearance of possible truth. You saying that someone calling Obama what he is, a Socialist, are somehow using a code word for Black is just patiently absurd.

Peter
Sources:
KCS - Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Presidential Radio Address for 102508

President Bush Radio Address For 102508

President Bush "Good morning. Americans from all walks of life are continuing to feel the effects of the financial crisis. In recent weeks, concerns about the availability of credit, the safety of financial assets, and the volatility of the stock market have made many families understandably anxious about their economic future.

The Federal government has taken bold action to stabilize our economy. Earlier this month, my Administration worked with Congress to pass bipartisan legislation that is providing funds to help banks rebuild capital and resume lending. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has temporarily guaranteed most new debt issued by insured banks, which will make it easier for these banks to borrow needed money. And the Federal Reserve is launching a new program to provide support for commercial paper -- a key source of short-term financing for America's businesses and financial institutions. These steps are beginning to show results, but it will take time for their full impact to be felt.

In coordination with the United States, many other nations have taken similar steps to address turbulence in their domestic markets. This crisis is global in reach -- and addressing it will require further international cooperation. So this week, I consulted with leaders from throughout the world and announced that I would convene an international summit in Washington on November the 15th.

This summit will be the first in a series of meetings aimed at addressing this crisis. The summit will bring together leaders of the G20 nations -- countries that represent both the developed and the developing world. And the summit will also include the heads of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Financial Stability Forum, as well as the Secretary General of the United Nations.

During this summit, we will discuss the causes of the problems in our financial systems, review the progress being made to address the current crisis, and begin developing principles of reform for regulatory bodies and institutions related to our financial sectors. While the specific solutions pursued by every country may not be the same, agreeing on a common set of principles will be an essential step towards preventing similar crises in the future.

As we focus on responses to our short-term challenges, our nations must also recommit to the fundamentals of long-term economic growth -- free markets, free enterprise, and free trade. Open market policies have lifted standards of living and helped millions of people around the world escape the grip of poverty. These policies have shown themselves time and time again to be the surest path to creating jobs, increasing commerce, and fostering progress. And this moment of global economic uncertainty would be precisely the wrong time to reject such proven methods for creating prosperity and hope.

Despite the ups and downs that our markets have experienced in recent months, the American people have reason for optimism in our Nation's economic future. Throughout our history, we have seen that when Americans are given the freedom to apply their talents and imagination, prosperity and success follow closely behind. For over two centuries, that principle has allowed our economy to overcome every obstacle it has faced. And we can all be confident that it will do so again.

Thank you for listening."

Friday, October 24, 2008

NYC Council Member To Extend Term Limits

Does this fit your Socialist agenda?

Hey folks,

It's NOT MY Socialist Agenda. It is the New Liberal Movement. The LWL. And YES! It does. Happy Friday to you, time to go to the Emails. This was sent to me by AN. Now some may not see the connection, so let me explain how this DOES fit the quest for Tyranny.

One of the things that any good Tyrant wants to do, is make sure that they are not going anywhere. Some do away with elections altogether, some EXTEND TERM LIMITS, some simply rig the elections.

Now even though this is New York, one of the most Liberal States there are, even most New Yorkers would not go with doing away with the elections. Nor would MOST put up with rigged elections, if they knew about it. So what is the other option. Extend the Terms that one can run the Office. Hey, after all, they still have to be voted in no matter how many times they run. it is STILL the people's choice. So what's the problem. Right? {Sigh} Wrong.

The problem IS rigged elections. Bought and paid for elections. Scammed elections. A Billionaire with Billionaire friends, getting elected over and over again, while some poor schlep thinks his vote counts. Term limits are set up to avoid any such problems. If you can not be on the ballot, you can not POSSIBLY stay in power. Time for a change. ETC.

Well, what just happened in NYC? The LWL Members of the Council just voted to extend term limits so that Mayor Bloomberg can run again. This not only violates a key element in the Constitution, but it also goes COMPLETELY against what the VOTERS of NYC said about it. 29 Liberal Council Members just said SCREW YOU to the VOTERS!

This is from the NYT - Council Votes, 29 to 22, to Extend Term Limits By Sewell Chan AND Jonathan P. Hicks

After a spirited, emotional and at times raucous debate, the New York City Council voted, 29 to 22, on Thursday afternoon to extend term limits, allowing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and undoing the result of two voter referendums that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms.

The vote was a major victory for Mayor Bloomberg — a billionaire and lifelong Democrat who was elected mayor as a Republican in 2001, won re-election in 2005, became an independent last year, and decided just weeks ago that he wished to seek a third term for himself in 2009 — and for the Council’s speaker, Christine C. Quinn. But the intense acrimony surrounding the decision left a sharply divided Council and could ultimately damage the mayor’s popularity.

As WELL IT SHOULD. He should be OUT! Folks, I just do not understand the Sheeple on the Left. They HAVE to see all this RIGHT IN FRONT of their eyes. They have to UNDERSTAND what this type of thing REALLY means. They have to get tired of being called and treated like idiots. When are those on the Left, the average Democratic Voter, going to WAKE THE HELL UP?!?!? I just REALLY do not understand. There REALLY can not be this many stupid people out there.

The new law, which earlier on Thursday sailed through a committee vote, limits elected officials to three consecutive terms and applies to all of the city’s elected officials. It has already begun to upend municipal politics, reshaping the dynamics of next year’s races.

Of the Council’s 51 members, 35 would have been barred by term limits from seeking re-election next year. On Thursday, 23 of those members voted in favor of extending term limits, and 12 voted against.

The Council has 48 Democrats and three Republicans. All three Republicans — James S. Oddo and Vincent M. Ignizio, of Staten Island, and Anthony Como of Queens — voted no.

THIS SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING! It is now, THE DEMOCRATS. THE LWL, that are on this never ending quest for Tyranny. IT REALLY IS CLEAR!

Over two days of public hearings lasting 19.5 hours last week, and in the floor debate on Thursday, both sides argued that their position was in the best interests of the people.

Opponents of the bill accused the mayor and his supporters on the Council of flouting the will of the people — as expressed in a 1993 voter initiative that established a limit of two consecutive terms and a 1996 referendum in which voters rejected a Council-led effort to change the limit to three terms. They said that democratic procedure demanded a public vote on the issue, no matter what one thinks of Mr. Bloomberg or term limits.

ABSOLUTELY! The PEOPLE spoke.

Supporters of the bill said the dire economic situation confronting the city — and the possibility of multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls — demanded continuity of leadership. They said term limits deprived voters of the opportunity to return dedicated politicians to office. They argued that it would be too costly and difficult to put the matter back before the people by holding a special election early next year.

Most experts agreed that the Council had the legal authority to amend the City Charter and override a law created by a referendum, but opponents said lawmakers had no moral right to do so. Two council members had gone to court, arguing that it was a conflict of interest for lawmakers to extend their own terms, but a judge refused to block the vote.

Liberal Judge. Go figure.

After Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who presides over the Council, announced the final result at 4:35 p.m., the balcony erupted in shouts of “The city’s for sale!” and “Shame on you!”

YUP!

Mayor Bloomberg’s office issued a statement minutes after the Council’s vote:

Today, the majority of the City Council decided to give the people of New York a fuller choice in the November 2009 election. I believe that was the right choice, and I want to thank Speaker Quinn for her leadership. Those of us who work on both sides of City Hall must now move forward with the important decisions that face us, particularly finding ways to soften the fallout from the economic downturn and balancing our budget as revenues decline. We have a lot of work to do together to get New York through these tough times.

But the city comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., condemned the vote, calling it “an affront to New Yorkers.”

“It says that their votes and their voice do not matter, that bullying and heavy-handed threats are more powerful than democratic ideals,” said Mr. Thompson, a Democrat who had planned to run for mayor next year. “I am saddened that our mayor and majority of City Council members have put individuals before principles. Today our government chose to empower itself rather than the people it serves.”

Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Queens and Brooklyn, who sought the Democratic nomination for mayor in 2005, said outside City Hall, “Today is a sad day for New York’s democracy, and I’m disappointed.”

Yes it is.

He added: “I’m running for mayor. The middle class and those struggling to make it in this city deserve to have a voice. They had their voice taken away from them today, and I’m going to fight to be that voice.”

Earlier, at 3:22 p.m., the Council rejected, 28 to 22, a key amendment that would have called for a public referendum on term limits by summoning a Charter Revision Commission, which would schedule a special election. One member, James Sanders Jr. of Queens, abstained on the amendment. Opponents of the bill to extend term limits saw the amendment as their best chance of stopping the mayor.

Yeah, we already know where the VOTERS, you know, the PEOPLE stand, we do not DARE let them vote on this. They are too stupid to know what is best for them.

When Ms. Gotbaum announced the vote count on the amendment, groans erupted from the balcony, which was packed with members of the public opposed to extending term limits without a public vote.

(See the end of this article for the full roll calls on the amendment and the bill, and a related map showing the council members voted.)

The Council immediately turned its attention to the mayor’s bill, and so began the main floor debate.

The Floor Debate

Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, who supported the amendment, warned his colleagues that the Council’s legitimacy would be forever tarnished.

“The people of the city will long remember what we have done here today, and the people will be unforgiving,” Mr. de Blasio said. “We are stealing like a thief in the night their right to shape our democracy.”

YUP!

Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, one of three members who had introduced the amendment, announced that despite its defeat, he would vote for the underlying bill. He said that term limits were bad public policy and that a limit of 12 years, instead of 8, would help strengthen future lawmakers in the face of strong mayors.

Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn adamantly disagreed. “The city of New York has never, ever in the history of our nation postponed a transfer of power, regardless of the circumstances,” she said, citing an editorial in The New York Times in 2001, when Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani sought, without his success, to extend his term by three months in the aftermath of 9/11.

“My constituency wants the opportunity to vote for this,” and if they do not have that opportunity, “they want me to vote no,” Councilwoman Rosie Mendez of Manhattan said.

Councilman Tony Avella of Queens called the term limits bill “an absolute disgrace,” and warned sternly: “You’re not conning anybody. The public of this city knows that the fix was in from the beginning.”

He added: “You should all be voted out of office for voting for this. Vote this down!”


YUP!

Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn urged his colleagues to extend term limits, citing the economic crisis. He paraphrased Abraham Lincoln, who ran for re-election in 1864 during the Civil War, as saying, “When crossing a river you don’t swap horses halfway.”

Idiot.

Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn said he would vote to extend term limits because he had always believed they were a bad idea. “I’m pleased that the billionaires have finally come around to my point of view,” he said to laughter, adding that he did not care about any of the three billionaires who have inserted themselves into the debate: Mayor Bloomberg, Ronald S. Lauder and Tom Golisano.

Councilman G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx said the Council was acting within its full authority to amend the City Charter, which was amended in 1993 by a voter initiative that imposed a two-term limit. “The Charter can be amended in different ways for different things,” he said. “We’re acting within the rules.”

Not really. You are SCREWING the people of New York City for your own gain. This is incredible. Even more incredible is some will go along with this, and think it is a GOOD thing.

Councilman John C. Liu of Queens denounced what he called the “arrogance” of Mayor Bloomberg, who promised Mr. Lauder that he would convene a charter revision commission in 2010 to revisit the issue of term limits. Such a commission should be convened next year instead, he said.

Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens urged his colleagues to preserve the existing term limits, saying, “It’s no wonder that people no longer trust politics or politicians.”

‘An Ethical Bind’

Councilman Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan, one of the three authors of the amendment, drew hisses from the balcony when he announced he would support the underlying bill:

The possibility of a referendum is now impossible — unfortunately, in my opinion. We are therefore left with two stark alternatives: either we decide not to extend term limits, or we decide to extend term limits. The same democratic principles which led me to support a referendum compels me, under this choice before us, to vote yes on this bill.

While a public vote would have been preferable, Mr. Gerson said, “it would set a terrible precedent to raise a referendum result to the level of absolute constitutional principle.” He said New Yorkers deserved to have “a debate” about the merits of continuity in leadership.

As the main roll call got under way at 4 p.m., Councilman Charles Barron, a firebrand on the Council, attacked Mr. Recchia by name, saying, “We’ve got to prioritize the will of the people over the fish of your aquarium,” a reference to the New York Aquarium, which is in Mr. Recchia’s southern Brooklyn district and has received city financing. Mr. Barron told Councilman Leroy G. Comrie Jr., who earlier had quoted Thomas Jefferson. “If you’re gong to quote somebody, don’t quote Jefferson, a slave-holding pedophile,” Mr. Barron thundered.

Mr. Barron concluded, “Even though the mayor will win today, he is the big loser, because he lost democracy, he lost the favor of the people.”

Lets PRAY this is true. If not, my loss in my faith in humanity will increase speed to blinding velocity.

Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan said she was in an “ethical bind” and said she felt she was open to “accusations of hypocrisy.” She decided to vote no on extending term limits.

“This is a defining moment, a game-changing moment, that marks not the end of a process, but the beginning of a process,” Ms. James said as she cast her dissenting vote.

“If my constituents are not satisfied with the work I’ve done on the City Council, they will vote me out,” Councilman Miguel Martinez of Manhattan said as he voted yes.

“Yes, we will!” came a cry from the balcony, as Ms. Gotbaum banged the gavel, calling for order.


I hope they are ALL Voted out. In a fair election, with people actually THINKING about this, they should be.

Similarly, as Councilman James Vacca of the Bronx announced that he was voting yes, a voice from the balcony cried out, “Sell-out!”

Councilman Thomas White Jr. of Queens was in an unusual position: He was forced out by term limits after the 2001 elections but came back to the Council after defeating his successor, Allan W. Jennings Jr., who was censured by the Council for sexually harassing subordinates.

Mr. Yassky tried to preserve his image as a reformer. “I don’t think that the throw-the-bums-out policy that is embodied in term limits and in Ron Lauder’s campaign to maintain it is reform,” Mr. Yassky said before voting yes.

Councilman James S. Oddo, the leader of the three-member Republican minority on the 51-member Council, said jokingly that he was hesitant about giving a speech because “I’ve had enough YouTube exposure for two lifetimes.” (A video of Mr. Oddo cursing loudly at a Borat-style prankster was widely circulated on YouTube.)

Mr. Oddo warned, “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” He voted no.

Debating the Amendment

The Council meeting began at 2:22 p.m., nearly an hour after the scheduled start time of 1:30 p.m., and began with a speech from the Council speaker, Ms. Quinn.

“This is a difficult vote in very difficult times,” she said. Reiterating arguments she made hours earlier, at a news conference, Ms. Quinn argued that continuity of leadership was essential, saying the city faces its gravest crisis since the Depression.

She added:

Make no mistake: I believe that our great city will get through these challenges and emerge stronger than ever before. I also believe that in challenging times like these, the voters should have the choice — the choice to continue their current leadership. They should have the right to vote for the current mayor, or a new one, for their current City Council member, or a new one. That is exactly what is at stake today.

When Ms. Quinn said it was “ludicrous” for critics to suggest the bill was the product of a “back-room deal,” a chorus of boos and jeers erupted from the balcony. Ms. Quinn said the bill had been the subject of vigorous discussion, including “two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate.”

“Support for this bill is broad and deep,” she said, citing union officials and former elected officials like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and Mayor Edward I. Koch.

“From Floyd Flake to Felix Rohatyn, the brightest minds with the deepest understanding of the crisis this impact could have in our neighborhoods have come forward in support of extending term limits from two terms to three,” she said.

In one year, she said, “voters will have the right to re-elect us, or defeat us, in the voting booth.”

“The debate today is an important one, but ultimately it is a debate about process,” she said, adding, “By passing this bill, we are increasing voter choice.”

NO YOU ARE NOT! You are LIMITING Voter choice. You are taking away the possiblity of OTHERS to run against you. It's time that you go. PERIOD.

She added, “None of us are arrogant enough to believe we are indispensable. But we are confident enough and secure enough in our ability to help this city we love that we are willing to stand before voters on Election Day and ask them to re-elect us.”

Ms. Quinn tried to preempt criticism that the bill represents “a deal between billionaires, with no one else having a say,” by arguing that she and other supporters of the bill are far from billionaires.

No, but you like their money. Idiot.

Mr. Yassky, of Brooklyn, spoke next. He rose and proposed an amendment that would require a public referendum on term limits, by convening a Charter Revision Commission. He said the commission could call a special election on term limits for early next year.

Mr. Yassky said he opposed term limits but that the Council’s legitimacy as a democratic body was at stake. “Voters have approved term limits twice, including once when they specifically chose to keep the two-term limit rather than go to three terms. For us to reject those votes and those voters will, without question, make New Yorkers more cynical about politics,” he said.

Mr. Yassky cited a Quinnipiac University poll showing that 89 percent of voters supported a referendum. “That should tell you that a referendum is the right way to go,” he said, to scattered applause from the balcony.

“The only serious objection I have heard to a referendum is that it might lose,” he said. Mr. Yassky said that with an “extraordinarily popular mayor,” newspaper editorial pages and lawmakers on its side, a measure to extend term limits would pass a popular vote.

Mr. de Blasio agreed. “By voting yes on the amendment, we are saying to the people of New York City that we respect what they require of us as public servants,” he said.

Councilman Charles Barron, of Brooklyn, assailed Ms. Quinn’s logic. “If we are talking about a direct democracy, where the people rule, and a representative democracy, where those who represent the people come to vote — if you do this, you’re undermining the very people who vote you in to represent them, because their voices were already heard,” he said.

Mr. Barron, a fiery critic of Ms. Quinn and Mr. Bloomberg, added, “The bottom line: Mayor Bloomberg has not been the best person to run this city. It was under this watch we got into this economic mess. He came in worth $5 billion. He’s now worth $20 billion. And he comes to this Council wanting to cut the budget.”

Mr. Barron noted that voters in Venezuela in 2007 rejected a proposal by President Hugo Chávez that would have allowed him to run for re-election indefinitely. “Mayor Bloomberg, be like Hugo, and let the people decide,” Mr. Barron said.

WOW! Read that again! Mr. Barron noted that voters in Venezuela in 2007 rejected a proposal by President Hugo Chávez that would have allowed him to run for re-election indefinitely. “Mayor Bloomberg, be like Hugo, and let the people decide,” Mr. Barron said. Way to go Mr. Barron.

“I personally am against term limits, but I am against a process that doesn’t go back to the voters,” said Councilman David I. Weprin of Queens.

‘Let’s Have a Backbone’

Mr. Gerson, of Manhattan said, “We are left with selecting among alternatives which each have significant flaws,” and called it “a difficult, wrenching decision.” He noted that the amendment was structured so that if a special election could not be held early enough for next year’s election cycle, the Council could revisit the issue.

Councilman Lewis A. Fidler, a Brooklyn Democrat, called the amendment “a cure that’s worse than the disease.” Because of the need for a Justice Department voting rights review and the time to convene a Charter Revision Commission, Mr. Fidler said, there was little realistic chance that a special election could be held before nominating petitions will be circulated in June for the November 2009 election.

Council members Letitia James and Vincent J. Gentile of Brooklyn argued that extending term limits would damage the body’s legitimacy. “From the very beginning, the process has been the problem,” Mr. Gentile said. “The amendment will let the public know that their voices are being heard as clearly as ever.”

Councilman Robert Jackson of Manhattan said he had always been an implacable opponent of term limits. “Let’s have a backbone,” he said, saying his colleagues had been elected to represent their constituents.

Councilman Anthony Como of Queens said it would cost $15 million to hold a special election “and we know what the answer is going to be.” Mr. Como urged his colleagues to vote no on both the amendment and the underlying bill.

Councilwoman Rosie Mendez of Manhattan disagreed. “It doesn’t matter if the cost is $5 million, $15 million or $15 billion,” she said. “The people have a right to vote.” Council members Annabel Palma of the Bronx and Vincent M. Ignizio of Staten Island said they agreed.

Councilman John C. Liu, of Queens, said he opposed term limits, but argued that to abolish them without a popular vote would foster cynicism. “Term limits were not enacted in New York City as the result of a rich man’s ad campaign, as has been suggested, but were born out of a deep cynicism for politics, for elected officials, not only here in New York City, but all across America,” he said.

Councilman Tony Avella of Queens gave a stirring speech:

The people voted twice for term limits. Their message could not have been clearer. for this body to overturn that without going back to the people is undemocratic and disgraceful. There is no excuse for this. Pass the amendment. Put it back to the people. Anything less than that just goes to the heart of what people say about politicians. Do you want to be remembered as the politicians who voted to ignore the will of the people?

A Packed Chamber

Even before the meeting started, as members took their red leather seats, throngs of journalists had assembled on both sides of the Council’s dais. The Council’s sergeants-at-arms restricted access to the main floor of the chamber to lawmakers, their staffs and the press; ordinary members of the public were directed to the balcony, which was standing-room-only.

But many people who tried to enter the chamber were turned away by the sergeants-at-arms.

One was Gene Russianoff, the senior attorney with the New York Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog group that has been opposed to the mayor’s effort to extend term limits. He made several attempts to plead with the Council’s doorkeepers to get access and was rebuffed each time. Finally, he said, he threw himself on the mercy of one of the Council staff members whom he had known for some time.

In the end, he was able to get a seat in the balcony. “I was able to get in because of the relationship I have with some people on the staff here,” Mr. Russianoff said. “But the average New Yorker would not have fared as well as I did. That’s a problem for the average New Yorker who wants to participate in the process.”

Dan Cantor, the executive director of the Working Families Party, was not so fortunate. He got as far as the hallway outside of the Council Chamber but was told that he couldn’t enter the large meeting room.

“It’s outrageous that they are keeping people out of the meeting,” said Mr. Cantor, whose organization has also been a leading opponent to the Council extending term limits.

“They know that this meeting would draw a lot of interest from the public,” Mr. Cantor said. “And they should have made some provisions to accommodate the public.”

Roll Call, 3:22 p.m., on an amendment calling for a public referendum on term limits:

28 no, 22 yes, 1 abstaining.

Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. of Queens, yes; Maria del Carmen Arroyo of the Bronx, no; Tony Avella of Queens, yes; Maria Baez of the Bronx, no; Charles Barron of Brooklyn, yes; Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan, yes; Anthony Como of Queens, no; Leroy G. Comrie Jr. of Queens, no; Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, yes; Inez E. Dickens of Manhattan, no; Erik Martin Dilan of Brooklyn, no; Mathieu Eugene of Brooklyn, yes; Simcha Felder of Brooklyn, no; Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, no; Helen D. Foster of the Bronx, no; Daniel R. Garodnick of Manhattan, yes; James F. Gennaro of Queens, yes; Vincent J. Gentile of Brooklyn, yes; Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan, yes; Eric N. Gioia of Queens, yes; Sara M. Gonzalez of Brooklyn, no; Vincent M. Ignizio of Staten Island, yes; Robert Jackson of Manhattan, no; Letitia James of Brooklyn, yes; Melinda R. Katz of Queens, no; G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx, no; Jessica S. Lappin of Manhattan, no; John C. Liu of Queens, yes; Melissa Mark-Viverito of Manhattan, yes; Miguel Martinez of Manhattan, no; Michael E. McMahon of Staten Island, yes; Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, no; Rosie Mendez of Manhattan, yes; Hiram Monserrate of Queens, yes; Michael C. Nelson of Brooklyn, no; James S. Oddo of Staten Island, yes; Annabel Palma of the Bronx, yes; Christine C. Quinn of Manhattan; no; Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, no; Diana Reyna of Brooklyn, no; Joel Rivera of the Bronx, no; James Sanders Jr. of Queens, abstain; Larry B. Seabrook of the Bronx, no; Helen Sears of Queens, no; Kendall Stewart of Brooklyn, no; James Vacca of the Bronx, no; Peter F. Vallone Jr. of Queens, no; Albert Vann of Brooklyn, no; David I. Weprin of Queens, yes; Thomas White Jr. of Queens, no; David Yassky of Brooklyn, yes.

Roll Call, 4:35 p.m., on Introduction 845-A, to extend term limits for New York City elected officials to three terms from two:

29 yes, 22 no.

Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. of Queens, no; Maria del Carmen Arroyo of the Bronx, yes; Tony Avella of Queens, no; Maria Baez of the Bronx, yes; Charles Barron of Brooklyn, no; Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan, no; Anthony Como of Queens, no; Leroy G. Comrie Jr. of Queens, yes; Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, no; Inez E. Dickens of Manhattan, yes; Erik Martin Dilan of Brooklyn, yes; Mathieu Eugene of Brooklyn, no; Simcha Felder of Brooklyn, yes; Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, yes; Helen D. Foster of the Bronx, yes; Daniel R. Garodnick of Manhattan, no; James F. Gennaro of Queens, no; Vincent J. Gentile of Brooklyn, no; Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan, yes; Eric N. Gioia of Queens, no; Sara M. Gonzalez of Brooklyn, yes; Vincent M. Ignizio of Staten Island, no; Robert Jackson of Manhattan, yes; Letitia James of Brooklyn, no; Melinda R. Katz of Queens, yes; G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx, yes; Jessica S. Lappin of Manhattan, no; John C. Liu of Queens, no; Melissa Mark-Viverito of Manhattan, no; Miguel Martinez of Manhattan, yes; Michael E. McMahon of Staten Island, no; Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, yes; Rosie Mendez of Manhattan, no; Hiram Monserrate of Queens, no; Michael C. Nelson of Brooklyn, yes; James S. Oddo of Staten Island, no; Annabel Palma of the Bronx, no; Christine C. Quinn of Manhattan; yes; Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, yes; Diana Reyna of Brooklyn, yes; Joel Rivera of the Bronx, yes; James Sanders Jr. of Queens, yes; Larry B. Seabrook of the Bronx, yes; Helen Sears of Queens, yes; Kendall Stewart of Brooklyn, yes; James Vacca of the Bronx, yes; Peter F. Vallone Jr. of Queens, yes; Albert Vann of Brooklyn, yes; David I. Weprin of Queens, no; Thomas White Jr. of Queens, yes; David Yassky of Brooklyn, yes.

The LWL {Left Wing Loons} the NEW Socialist Liberal Party in NYC just said SCREW YOU to the PEOPLE of NYC. They just said we are here, we are not leaving any time soon. It is the Liberal Policies that has turned New York City into a Welfare State. It Is the oppesive taxation that has resulted in what we see there now. And now, those responsible have decided they want MORE opertunity to screw things up. Not for them though. If times get really bad, they will just vote themselves a raise, and YOU will pay for that also.

Peter
Sources:
NYT - Council Votes, 29 to 22, to Extend Term Limits

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.