Monday, March 31, 2008

The Democrats Love To Help The Poor

Why Not Give Them Their Salary?

Hey folks,

I have very little time today, and I MAY not be here tomorrow. There is just some things I have to take care of. But I thought this was interesting. You know that the reality of the situation is this. We do not have poor folks running for President. All the candidates are pretty well off. The Liberals more so than not, TALK about themselves being for the poor. Republicans talk less but do more. I have a solution to help Obama and Clinton win even more votes.

You see folks, the Liberals love to talk about helping the poor. Talk never put food on tables, paid electric bills, or helped cloth people. Talk never helped a family get good jobs that they can take care of themselves. But the Liberals LOVE to talk.

They also love to say we should model our country and certain policies, laws, and benefits after other countries. They say we are behind the times. Universal Healthcare being one example. So may I suggest that Obama and Clinton both pledge to do the same as the South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak? They should take his lead. They should get us out of the dark ages. They should give their Presidential Salaries to the poor. According to CNN- South Korea president to donate salary to poor

(CNN) -- South Korea's new president has pledged to donate his salary to the underprivileged.

Lee Myung-Bak made the pledge during an unscheduled meeting with reporters Sunday in the press room of his presidential office, the state news agency reported.

The president said he would donate his salary during his entire five-year term.

Lee is a former CEO of an engineering and construction company with a vast personal fortune. As mayor of Seoul from 2002 to 2004, Lee donated his salary to the children of street cleaners and firefighters.

"I promised to spend my whole salary earned as a public official on public welfare," Lee told reporters. "My plan to donate the presidential salary to the underprivileged is an extension of that promise."

The news agency did not say how much the president earns in a year.

During the election campaign, Lee, 66, vowed to donate his entire personal fortune of more than 30 billion won ($30.2 million) to the poor. He said at the time he would keep only a retirement house in Seoul.

Now here is a guy who puts his money where his mouth is. HE IS making a difference. So, uh, Obama? Clinton? How about any of the Senators? Hello? Anyone?

{Crickets chirping}

I thought so.
Peter

Sources:
CNN- South Korea president to donate salary to poor

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Sunday Preview 033008

Coming right up

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Sunday edition of the OPNTalk Blog. Today we are talking about quite a few things, the 08 race to the White House, more Global Warming Bunk, who Wal-Mart actually is, who McCain actually is. But up first, I will be putting to rest this completely idiotic debate that has been going on in the news lately, with all this talk on race and racism, “was Jesus a Black man?”

I know some of you will get angry. I know some of you will get those feeling of hate building up inside you. I know this may go against the very thing you have been taught your whole life. I understand that it is important to some of you. So important that it actually DIVIDES the Races even further. But it is what it is, and HE was what He was while He was here on earth in the flesh.

So get yourself a cup of coffee {Mine is Hazelnut}, sit back, and get comfortable. Here we go.
Peter

Answering The Question, What Color Was Jesus

Not that difficult to understand

Hey folks,

It’s time we laid this stupid argument to rest. It is stupid and defines logic. Although stupid and completely pointless, it also has the power to divide Christians and breed HATE. The exact opposite of Jesus’s message.

In the news lately, we hear Preachers like Manning, and Wright, along with many others in the Black Community teaching their followers that Jesus was a Black man. I grew up in up state NY. Every picture I ever saw of Jesus, portrayed him as a blond with blue eyes. Put aside for a second that ANY picture EVER of Jesus is nothing more than some artist’s rendition of what they picture Jesus to look like and NOT an actual picture of the man. There were no cameras back then.

So you have these Black extremists and White extremists telling us that Jesus was a Black / White man. That he does not care about the other. That he came for them. {Sigh} I get so tired of this idiocies that I actually find myself getting angry. So it’s time to answer the question, “What color was Jesus?”

I know this is going to be difficult for some of you to understand. I know it is very complex. I know that it might even go against EVERYTHING you were ever taught. But it’s just FACT.

OK, get on the plane. Make yourself comfortable, it’s a long flight. We are heading to Africa. Yup. Africa. We are landing now. Come with me and take a look around. What do you see? African folks. Same African folks that have been there 2000 plus years. They all have the same features. They all have differing variations, but for the most part, they are Black. Dark hair. Brown eyes. ETC. If we were to go in a time machine to 2000 plus years ago, we would see the same people. African folks. Now get a good night sleep. Back on the plane in the AM.

Off again as we come to our next stop. China. Come with me and tell me what you see. Chinese folks. Same Chinese folks that have been there 2000 plus years. They all have the same features. They all have differing variations, but for the most part, they all are around the same size. Same facial features. Dark hair, brown or Green eyes. ETC. If we were to go in a time machine to 2000 plus years ago, we would see the same people. Chinese folks. Now get a good night sleep. Back on the plane in the AM.

Off we go again. This time to Europe. Come with me and tell me what you see. European folks. Same European folks that have been there 2000 plus years. They all have the same features. They all have differing variations, but for the most part, they all White. Differing coloring of hair. Brown or Green eyes. Rarely but sometimes Blue ETC. If we were to go in a time machine to 2000 plus years ago, we would see the same people. European folks. Now get a good night sleep. Back on the plane in the AM.

Now we come to our main destination. Jerusalem. Come with me and tell me what you see. Jewish folks. Same Jewish folks that have been there 2000 plus years. They all have the same features. They all have differing variations, but for the most part, they all a little tanner than us. Brown hair. Brown eyes. ETC. If we were to go in a time machine to 2000 plus years ago, we would see the same people. Jewish folks. If we did go back in a time machine, we could even actually run into Jesus himself. Why? Jesus was born to a Jewish Father and Mother. Jesus was a JEW. Hello? Are you with me on this?

Actually, if you want to be exact, you have to go to Nazareth. Jesus’s earthly Father Joseph and Mother Mary are from there, and there was where Jesus was conceived. If you we to go there today, mostly what you will see is Arabian Jews.

Biblical times are the same as today. There were many races. Many different people. There were Black, White, Asia, ETC. Not everyone in the Bible were White, nor were they Black. They were what they were. Here is an interesting note to some of you. Did you know that racism has been around SINCE there have been races? Sorry, it was not started by White Americans. In Numbers 12, the Bible talks about how Moses was discriminated against because he married a Black women.

1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

That tells us that one, racism was alive and well in Biblical times, and two, Moses was not Black as some would like to portray him. The bottom line here is the fact, none of this matters. A Pastor teaching the truth of the Salvation by Jesus The Christ, SHOULD be teaching what the word says. In Galatians 3 it says this.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Today’s terminology? There is neither Black nor White, rich nor poor, we are all one. If these Preachers really feel the need to teach Color, then may I suggest the color Crimson Red? The color of the blood Jesus gave for all mankind.
Peter

Sources:
The Word Of God

Dem Race Getting EVEN Better, Operation Chaos In Full Effect

Limbaugh Must Be Loving This

Hey folks,

A lot of people, the “Drive By Media,” Those I call the MMD {Mass Media drones} Talk Shows, Blogs, even the average America Joe on the street is watching this complete melt down of the Democrat Part. Many are giving Rush Limbaugh credit for it.

Now we have been talking about Obama’s Racist Pastor. The fact Obama denounced the comments but is keeping him on his campaign. Then lied that he did not, no, make that “Of course I knew.” No, make that “Well, I did not hear THOSE comments.” Whatever. Now he is saying that his Pastor APOLOGIZED? Really. I’m not making this up. According to the AP- Obama suggests ex-pastor is contrite By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

Democrat Barack Obama seemed to suggest in an interview aired Friday that his former pastor has acknowledged that his controversial remarks were inappropriate and hurtful, although there are no public accounts of the minister having done so.

EXACTLY If this is true, then he should tell Pastor Wright to do so publicly. Put it on the record.

Obama discussed his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on ABC's The View, which was taped Thursday and aired Friday.

“Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church,” Obama said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator's remarks did not imply that Wright has expressed misgivings about his statements.

OH? So he is NOT sorry he said them?

Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that the reverend understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country,” Burton said.

{Laughing} Well, I guess that was pointless. Then you have some very powerful superdelegates, not only saying they will vote for Obama, but that Clinton should QUIT all together. According to the LA TIMES Sen. Leahy calls for Clinton to drop out

Vermont's Leahy gives voice to a growing concern among Democrats that a protracted nomination fight will hurt the party in November. By Michael Finnegan and Mark Z. Barabak

Los Angeles Times Staff Writers March 29, 2008

In a sign of growing anxiety over the Democrats' bitter nominating fight, a senior senator urged Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday to abandon her presidential bid and cede the race to rival Barack Obama. Clinton rejected the notion.

The recommendation from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont that Clinton drop out came as Obama picked up support from another senator, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, the state holding the next primary, on April 22.

Maybe because people are getting tire of Clinton LYING all the time?

Separately, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean signaled his concern over the tenor of the race by urging Obama and Clinton to scale back their rhetorical assaults, saying they risk undermining the effort to beat Republican John McCain in November.

{Laughing} Even one of the most Loony or the LWL is calling for help. That is to funny.

Dean also urged undecided superdelegates -- the party and elected officials who are likely to decide the nomination -- to pick a candidate by July 1 to avoid an irreparable rift at the party's August convention.

"Let the media and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth," Dean told the Associated Press. "The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat."

Well, take comfort there Screaming Dean. Many see McCain as a Democrat anyway. More on that in a second.

McCain has been making mistakes, Leahy said Friday in a written statement, but is “getting a free ride on those gaffes, because the Democratic candidates have to focus not on him but on each other.”

I love this.

“Sen. Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to,” he said. “As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out.”

Translation time. SHE CAN’T WIN. Unless she attempts to STEAL it at the Convention. Which EVERYONE knows she will try to do. Everyone knows what will happen to the Democrat Party if she succeeds as well.

Get this.


"There's a lot of feeling among Democrats on the Hill that the Clintons did very little for the party. It was all about them," said one Democratic lawmaker, an Obama supporter who did not want to be identified in order to preserve a working relationship with Clinton. "We lost seats in Congress, we lost governorships, we lost statehouses. . . . And the whole time defending [President Clinton] through the impeachment process, the entire Democratic agenda got shelved."


All that is true. Along with all this. Folks, these are DEMOCRATS saying these thing. DEMOCRAT are telling the truth about the Clintons.

“There were definitely tensions,” Elmendorf said. “But I haven't heard a whole lot of people say, 'They screwed us on NATFA. They screwed us on welfare reform,'” he continued, citing two of the biggest legislative battles of the Clinton years. “I think most people ended up in a pretty decent place with the Clintons.”

Not really. Most know it also. But Leahy is not alone on his call for her to get out.

Dodd, a former presidential candidate, was more measured than Leahy, telling the National Journal on Thursday that Clinton should drop out of the race next month if voters keep rallying behind Obama.

This cannot sit well with Clinton Inc. They are not use to any of this. You really can trace this back to Rush Limbaugh calling for Journalists to ask Clinton about Drivers Licences for Illegals in NY, which they did, and she flopped BIG TIME. Then you can move a head to when Rush suggested that Republicans switch parties and VOTE for Clinton to keep her in this. It worked. Now we have what we have.

Now to this, from the AP - AP - Party fears tight Obama-Clinton finish By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press

For all their delight in soaring voter registration and strong poll numbers, some Democrats fear the contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton might have a nightmarish end, which could wreck a promising election year.

They really did have this locked up folks. They really should have just walked in and took over the White House, but that is not even a near possibility at this point.

Barring a complete meltdown by Obama, Clinton has almost no chance of surpassing his number of pledged delegates, even if she scores upset wins in states such as Oregon, which votes May 20. But such victories would encourage her to keep criticizing Obama — her only hope for the nomination — and thus heighten doubts about Obama's ability to defeat Republican Sen. John McCain in the fall.

That scenario troubles many Democrats, especially those who feel Obama's nomination is all but inevitable.

Yeah, well so was Clinton. Remember that?

“This is going to give Republicans a chance to try to destroy everything we've been trying to work for for eight years,” said Ken Foxworth, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota and superdelegate who backs Obama.

Privately, however, some party insiders worry that these superdelegates may be blithely marching toward a treacherous crossroad, where they will have to choose between a deeply wounded Obama and a soaring Clinton whose success was built on tearing down the party's front-runner in terms of delegates.

Clinton is NOT soaring.

A senior Democratic Senate aide, who would speak only on background because most members of Congress bar their staff members from being quoted by name, called it a nightmare that's getting worse.

The Democrats' optimism of February has been replaced by fear, this aide said, referring to the widely held view last month that Obama was coasting to the nomination after winning 11 straight contests. Clinton halted the skid in Texas and Ohio on March 4 and is favored to win the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Even that is now in question.

Obama's nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., told National Journal. Dodd endorsed Obama after trying for the nomination himself.

He's ahead of Clinton in delegates, popular votes, states won and fundraising. Obama seems nearly certain to finish the primary season far ahead of Clinton financially. At the end of February his campaign had $30 million on hand, while Clinton's had only $3 million more in cash than in debts.

After loaning herself some money. {Smile} Now HERE is something I have NOT heard before. This is interesting. I would not doubt this a bit.

Some Obama supporters question Clinton's motives: They suggest she is counting on a stunning gaffe or shocking revelation to cripple Obama and hand her the nomination. Others float a more sinister possibility, which has found its way into mainstream news accounts: Clinton hopes to damage Obama so severely that he loses to McCain this fall, clearing her path to challenge McCain in 2012, when he will be 75.

Clinton scoffs at such suggestions, and calls on voters to support whomever is the Democratic nominee in November.

Because she plans on making sure it is HER.

Whatever her motives, many Democrats fear that Clinton's continued criticisms can only hurt the man they see as their all-but-certain nominee. They point to a recent Gallup poll, in which 28 percent of Clinton's Democratic supporters said they would vote for McCain if Obama is the party's nominee. Nineteen percent of Obama's supporters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nod.

I bet you it is MUCH more than that.

Faced with such disturbing trends, some Democrats want party elders either to persuade Clinton to drop out, or to orchestrate enough superdelegate endorsements of Obama to make her defeat inevitable. But high-profile Democrats, including former president Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, have refrained from such moves so far.

“My job is to make sure the person who loses feels like they have been treated fairly so that their supporters will support the winner,” Dean told The Associated Press.

Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi drew objections from Clinton backers when she approached the issue by saying she shared Obama's view that superdelegates should be guided by the vote for pledged delegates.

Let the people decide. Why not? By the way, how stupid is Pat Waak?

Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, said the worriers should relax.

“I actually think it's good for the party to get through this process,” she said. “It gives everybody a chance to be part of it,” she said, noting that Democratic voter registration is soaring in many states.

In Pennsylvania, Democrats have registered a staggering 161,000 new voters since last fall, pushing their numbers over 4 million for the first time. In Oregon, nearly 10,000 voters have refiled as Democrats in the last seven weeks.

Because of Republicans following Rush. Do you REALLY think there are that many people out there that REALLY like Obama OR Clinton? {Sigh}

I went WAY long here. Be right back with some people’s observations on McCain.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Obama suggests ex-pastor is contrite
LA TIMES Sen. Leahy calls for Clinton to drop out
AP- Party fears tight Obama-Clinton finish

Many See McCain As A Liberal

McCain is a RINO.

Hey folks,

I got this in the Emails. This was one I was going to use on Friday but one, time did not allow, and two, I knew I was going to be talking about the 08 Race today anyway. But the sender in closed this note.

“I thought you might find this article interesting. For reasons that remain largely a mystery, he has chosen to take the U.S. down the road of global governance.”

Here it is. It’s from AIM {Accuracy In Media} McCain’s Incoherent New World Order by Cliff Kincaid March 28, 2008

In his March 26 speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, McCain never mentioned the need to preserve American sovereignty. He could have reassured conservatives by stating his forthright opposition to Senate ratification of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which provides for international control over billions of dollars worth of oil, gas and minerals and undermines American claims to North Pole riches. But he chose not to.


Instead, as the Washington Post put it, McCain promised “a collaborative foreign policy,” conducted in coordination with other nations. The New York Times said he distanced himself from “unilateralism” in foreign affairs.


“Liberals are going to love this speech,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said about the McCain address. He said it sounded like the “global test” that liberal Democratic presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry had proposed for U.S. foreign policy in 2004.


Yet, McCain’s new TV ad calls him “the American president Americans have been waiting for.” The public should not be fooled. He is as much of a globalist as Hillary and Obama.


Noting that McCain committed himself to adoption of a new U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty, which would be even more comprehensive and tougher than the Kyoto Protocol, Limbaugh said that “The theme here is that there’s nothing special about America, and that we’re not going to be able to do anything without involving other nations and making them like us and showing them that we intend them no harm and that we want to be good stewards of the planet just as they want to be good stewards.”


The latter was a reference to McCain declaring that “We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders.” McCain sounded like another Democrat―Al Gore.


But despite his preference for what appears to be some kind of New World Order, McCain’s prior endorsement of a new Muslim state in Europe by the name of Kosovo could undermine all of his best-laid plans. Recognition of Kosovo could lead to war with Russia and more terrorist problems for Israel.


Scary Rhetoric


Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA commented, “Sen. McCain delivered a laundry list of all things non-conservative.” He said the speech wasn’t conservative or even Republican.


Amanda Teegarden, a grass roots pro-sovereignty activist, was also alarmed. “It is imperative that conservatives listen to this speech―especially if you are concerned about the sovereignty, and the economic survival, of the United States,” she said.


In addition to a new global warming treaty, she noted that McCain’s proposals included open borders in the Western Hemisphere, nuclear disarmament, and a Transatlantic free trade area.


Eberle focused on a segment of the McCain speech that included the statement that “Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.”


McCain’s strange rhetoric about “North, Central, and South American life” reflects a view that nation-states are disappearing and being replaced by regional alliances and institutions. He referred to “the powerful collective voice of the European Union,” as if the U.S. response would have to be submersion of our voice in a larger hemispheric entity. But McCain seems to be calling for something beyond even a North American Union (NAU) of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. He talked about “creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish,” as if they would be built on top of the EU and the NAU.


Earlier, McCain had declared, “With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny.” But why should trade with America’s neighbors necessarily lead to a “common destiny?” This implies a political merger of the U.S. with other countries.


Nuclear Disarmament


“We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own,” McCain said. This appeared to be a call for unilateral nuclear disarmament. He went on to call for the U.S. to lead “a global effort at nuclear disarmament.” This, too, seems to require more reliance on international institutions, in this case the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Indeed, McCain in the past has called for more funding for the IAEA.


McCain added, “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact―a League of Democracies―that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.” But as I noted in a recent piece, “McCain, Soros, and the New World Order,” this is a liberal project that is being currently funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros and managed by former Clinton officials. It has nothing to do with democracy but is intended to create another global institution that will eventually help strengthen the U.N.


After calling for the closing of the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (but not saying where he would put the detainees), McCain declared that “There is such a thing as international good citizenship.” This is the kind of rhetoric we would expect from an advocate of world government. If Hillary or Obama were spouting such silly rhetoric, conservatives would be laughing at them.


It goes without saying that McCain is oblivious to the evidence that the man-made global warming theory doesn’t hold up under serious scrutiny. His proposal for “a successor to the Kyoto Treaty” that “delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner” is potentially very damaging to the U.S. economy. But the proposal pleases the Europeans.


McCain talked about the virtues of the “transatlantic alliance,” which served a purpose during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but went on to say that “Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO.” The European Union was devised primarily as a counter to the influence of the U.S. in foreign affairs. It has also proven to be a bureaucratic disaster for the people of Europe. The “strong NATO” has proven to be extremely weak in Afghanistan, where it cannot field enough troops to defeat the Taliban terrorists. Expanding NATO has not resulted in making it stronger.


“The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion,” declared McCain.


So not only is the U.S. going to move toward common policies for North, South and Central America, but it is going to develop common energy and economic policies with the European Union. Developing a common policy on “foreign assistance” is a recipe for more looting of the U.S. taxpayers. The Europeans have long complained that the U.S. isn’t devoting enough money to “official development assistance,” as the U.N. calls it.


Nightmare Vision


Does McCain’s vision look like an emerging world government? It is certainly a variation of “global governance,” which is the proposal that former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott makes in his book, The Great Experiment. Talbott calls McCain a “pragmatist” in foreign affairs, just like Obama and Hillary, and says that he expects his liberal Brookings Institution to have influence over a McCain presidency.


On other issues in his speech, McCain talked tough about Iran and Russia.


The big problem for McCain, as we noted in a recent column, is that his vision of a New World Order is incompatible with his support for making the Serbian province of Kosovo into an independent state. Carving Kosovo out of Serbia is a threat to international peace and security. It has split NATO, which McCain says he wants to expand and strengthen. This policy, which has also been embraced by the Democrats, threatens a completely unnecessary war with Russia, which backs Serbian control of Kosovo and wants to aid the Serbs remaining in the province.


McCain spoke about Israel’s survival, without addressing the reality that Kosovo’s independence has energized the Arab/Muslim push for a Palestinian state that could threaten Israel.


While McCain said that the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is “the transcendent challenge of our time,” he seemed unaware how some of those same forces are behind the push for Kosovo statehood. It just doesn’t make sense to fight Muslim extremists in one place, Iraq, while helping them in another, Kosovo, and even giving them their own state.


This is a contradiction that McCain has failed to address.


“We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq,” the Senator declared. “It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.”


This rhetoric strikes a chord with conservatives. Yet, some say that genocide is already occurring in Iraq, in regard to the plight of Christians there. More than half have fled the country since the U.S. invasion, and those who remain are being kidnapped, threatened and murdered. Do we not have a moral responsibility to them? Shouldn’t the U.S. be less concerned about the survival of the Muslim government in Iraq and more concerned about the defenseless and unarmed Christians?


McCain seemed blind not only to the issues that conservatives regard as critical in an election year, but he went out of his way to reach out to liberals and Democrats. The only part of the speech they probably didn’t like was on Iraq.


But if the liberals get beyond their differences with McCain on Iraq, they will not only vote for him but promote his agenda as president. Then, as Rush Limbaugh notes, it may eventually be possible to change the name of the United States of America: “We’ll call ourselves New Europe.” In the process, true conservatism as a political force will be finished in the U.S.


The tragedy of this approach is that it comes from a man who served his country in uniform and risked his life on behalf of the U.S. McCain would have been a natural choice to lead a campaign for restoration of American sovereignty in foreign affairs. He could have been “The American President Americans have been waiting for.”


For reasons that remain largely a mystery, he has chosen to take the U.S. down the road of “global governance,” in which the U.N. and other international agencies, institutions and alliances determine our fate as a nation. It is the same road the Democrats are on. It is a tragedy for our country.


Folks, this is not new. We already KNOW that McCain is a Lib. We all ready know that what he says now, and what he has done in the past are two completely different things. McCain IS a RINO.

I understand were a growing number of you are. McCain, Obama, Clinton, NONE of the IDEA and perhaps even GOOD for the country so what is the point in voting. I get that. I cannot tell you how to vote. I would not even think about it. You have to vote for who you feel is better. Sad thing is, never has it been any truer than it is today, you have to vote for the lessor of evils.

I hear many will not vote. Fine, someone else will pick the President. Some say the will write in names. "That will send a message." No, sorry, it really won't. Whoever wins, is the President. No one will care if you put Micky Mouse or whatever. Bush will leave, the new President will take over, and WE will get to work to attempt to minimize as much of the damage they will do as possible.
Peter


Sources:
Emails
AIM-
McCain’s Incoherent New World Order

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up 033008

De-stress by laying in grave

Hey folks

What do you do to de-stress yourself? I use to go to the gym. I now go for a walk. I find a quiet place and be alone for a bit. I have to admit, I never really thought of THIS. According to Reuters - German vicar offers stress relief in grave

A vicar {a vicar is the representative of any ecclesiastic} in Germany who had the novel idea of helping parishioners escape the stresses and strains of daily life by letting them lie in an open grave was upset when intrusive journalists spoiled the atmosphere.

"I meant it as a meditative exercise," pastor Thorsten Nolting told Reuters. "I wanted people to think about what weighs on them down in the darkness and gather the energy to resist it."

Nolting, from the western German city of Duesseldorf, said his plan went "horribly wrong" when journalists' persistent questioning as parishioners were "laid to rest" earlier this week ruined the serenity of the occasion.

"It wasn't silent, as it should have been. They ruined it. (They) would not go away, even when I asked them," he said.

Uh, Pastor Nolting, you seem a little stressed there, maybe you should lay down. {Smile}

Extraverts who could cope with the incessant questioning were happy to climb down into the two metre long hole, and then rave about their "resurrection", Nolting said.

But a local newspaper said one man was still shaking, 20 minutes after his seven-minute spell in the dank grave ended.

OK. That just falls into my OK category. You know, when there really is no explanation and no way to truly respond to something you just heard or seen. OK.

Folks, you can lay in an open grave if you chose. I think I will continue to de-stress ABOVE ground. Thank you very much.

Be right back
Peter


Sources:
Reuters- German vicar offers stress relief in grave

H.S. For Sunday 033008

Global Warming Offensive?

Hey folks,

The Chicken Little Crowd are getting desperate no. I posted back on Monday the 24th “Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans. I pointed out that they are getting desperate and are now releasing talking points and arguments for their little group of Sheeple to use when addressing the “Deniers.”

• They think others similar to themselves are jumping on the green bandwagon.

• They get frequent positive feedback for effort.

• They feel able to make a difference by taking concrete steps.

• They think their children will be harmed by global warming, or children encourage the family to lead a greener life.

"This is to good folks. They are TELLING the rest in the movement. Here are the talking points. Read this again. You have to convince people that they are not just sheeple. That everyone is doing it, so they should too. Make sure you give them a pat on the back when they do. Make them feel that they are now a good person. That they matter. That they are heroes for doing this. They also have to believe that THEY can solve it. Don't be going around telling them that there is no hope. Make sure they know 'we can do it.' If all else fails, tell them their kids are going to DIE. That they will blame them for not doing anything about it. Scare them into submission if need be.

What if the people ask for proof? Just tell them that all the Scientist agree that it is real, and they are smarter then them, so they need just accept it. Any Scientists that say it's not real are just kooks, or bought off by big oil.

This is the very definition of Scaryence. Scare Science. Don't forget, if all else fails, the KIDS. Bring up the kids. "

Now we learn that some are urging the UN Security Council to preemptively strike at the “Deniers” This really is funny. It also shows how desperate they are becoming. According to The Christian Science Monitor CSM - The Security Council must act preemptively – on climate change By Gregory Meeks and Michael Shank Mon Mar 24, 4:00 AM ET

The United Nations tackled the task of troubleshooting climate change last month. Between holding special General Assembly meetings at headquarters in New York, bringing 100 environmental ministers to Monaco in the largest meeting of ministers since Bali, and launching a Climate Neutral Network to highlight best practices in tackling global warming, the UN appears to be doing what it can to ensure that climate change does not fall off the political radar. Yet, it still isn't enough. A concerted international strategy, on a par with the seriousness and scope of an UN Security Council resolution, is what's needed to counter this climate crisis.

What was the result of this last chance to save the planet? Remember? They agreed to talk more about it, in a year or two. {Laughing}

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was right in comparing the effects of climate change to the effects of war, given the potential level of human and environmental devastation potentially wrought by rising sea levels and increasingly catastrophic weather conditions. Philanthropist Sir Richard Branson, who keynoted UN General Assembly deliberations on climate change, was correct to call for a “war room” to adequately respond to a rapidly warming planet.

These people are sick. Greedy, and sick. If they actually believe this. They don’t. But if they did, it would be sad. All together now folks, money, power, and control. Notice the usual wording here? “environmental devastation potentially wrought by rising sea levels and increasingly catastrophic weather conditions.” Not DEFINITELY. But POTENTIALLY. How about nothing is going to happen? {Smile}

Both leaders recognize the need for serious strategy and the comparisons to war were not casually made. The threat to international peace and security calls upon nothing less than the purview of the UN Security Council.

Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council maintains the right to identify threats to international peace and security and to devise means to counter these threats. The potential impact of that on climate change is substantial: the Security Council's toolbox includes the capacity to cap greenhouse-gas emissions on every country and sanction those who fail to comply. Both a carbon tax, as well as a carbon-trading scheme, could incentivize countries to reduce emissions below even capped levels.

People are not listening. WE WILL FORCE THEM TO. Although we cannot PROVE any of this. Idiots.

It is a moral imperative that the Security Council acts quickly. While island nations like Palau and the Maldives stand to face warlike scenarios sooner than the Security Council's five permanent (P5) members – China, Russia, United States, Britain, and France are not immune. Moreover, the culpability of the P5's populaces in contributing to climate change must be recognized. China and the US rank as the world's top two greenhouse-gas emitters.

They want the UN to go to WAR with America and China. {Laughing} War to save the planet from you evil Americans.

Not surprisingly, this may well account for the Security Council's reluctance to tackle climate change with carbon caps and concomitant sanctions. The P5 has a hard enough time wrestling with resolutions that put parameters on their own political prowess. To expect them to write a resolution that restricts their right to pollute may be unrealistic. But the alternatives to inaction on this issue are dire.

No they are not DIRE. THERE IS NO THREAT

Disappearing Pacific islands, due to rising sea levels, are projected for within our lifetime. Catastrophic weather conditions accosting the coastal regions of China, the US, and the UK, once mere prediction, are already taking place. Conflicts escalating over depleted natural resources, due to disrupted and rising temperatures, are already occurring. The planet may not wait patiently until the Security Council overcomes its propensity for political pandering.

That entire sentence is bunk. Where are Islands disappearing and what is the PROVABLE link to Man-made Global Warming? Conflicts over depleted natural resources? Where? What about the conflicts that are happening because people can not longer afford corn and wheat? Because they are being used to the growing failure of Ethanol? Are the tempts STILL Rising? PROVE IT Just more Scaryence folks. NOT ONE WORD of the above paragraph is true.

Unless we act now, and with formidable preemptive force, more of this is what could face the international community. Transcending the Security Council's usual scope of nation-state conflicts, climate change-related conflict will affect all of us – with particular devastation to developing countries not represented by the P5. Thus it is incumbent upon the Security Council, which has a responsibility to protect weaker member states, to step up and save the world.

These people are nuts folks.

A global threat requires global commitment. And that commitment can be best coordinated in the Security Council.

Representative Gregory Meeks (D) of N.Y. is vicechair of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment. Michael Shank is the government relations adviser at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Both of THESE people are nuts. But then again, I’m just a denier. {Laughing} HEY, that’s what Father Al says. He says I believe in the flat Earth. Check out this VIDEO.

Wrong Father AL. The movement is growing. More and more people are seeing you as the hypocrite you are. More and more Scientists are calling GW what it is. An unproven scam. Now the Chicken Little Crowd wants to declare WAR on you if you are intelligent enough to actually THINK about the FACTS and REAL Science. They do not care anymore about convincing you that Man-made Global Warming is real. They are getting desperate now because they can’t convince you. So NOW they want to force you. Unbelievable.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans
CSM - The Security Council must act preemptively – on climate change
Al Gore on 60 Minutes

IWA For Sunday 033008

First time ever, an entire Corporation

Hey folks,

It’s SUNDAY Time for the IWA. Yes, you read that correctly. For the first time ever, I am awarding an entire Corporation the Idiot of the Week. That Corporation? Wal-Mart

OK, I’ll be honest here. I actually worked for Wal-Mart in one of their distribution centers for about eight months. On paper, it sounds like a GREAT job. GREAT pay, good benefits {If you can afford the chunk they take out of your pay,} and a GREAT future. Once there, I found the complete opposite.

The pay is good, if you get your hours. But if it’s slow, they send you home. I had to drive 45 minutes to get to work, then on many occasions, once I got there, I was told sorry, go ahead and go home. One pay period I remember getting like 44 hours for two weeks. Then you have the completely unreasonable quotas. If you did not meet them, you got wrote up. If you did not meet them because you were in the office getting wrote up for ANYTHING else they write you up for, oh yeah, I’m sorry, they call it coaching, you got wrote up for getting wrote up. One time I asked how to handle a situation that gave me more work to do, they told me, I did it, THEY were wrong, I got wrote up. {Laughing} True story.

Then you have security like and an army walking around to make sure you are working. They see something they do not like, right, wrong, or indifferent, you get wrote up for that as well. They tried very hard to brainwash me into thinking I was part of the Wal-Mart Family. We all had to do this little cheer at the start of the shift. We all had to stretch together because they care. {Smile} We all had to speak nice about Wal-Mart. ETC. Sorry, I could only last eight months in what the employees there called “The Pit.”

So I know first hand how Wal-Mart treats it’s employees, but THIS? According to AOL News - Wal-Mart Sues Disabled Ex-Employee CNN Posted: 2008-03-29 09:54:15

JACKSON, Missouri (March 29) - Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

ALWAYS read the fine print. ALWAYS.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

“They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad,” Jim Shank said.

No. Folks, I hate to break this to your. But your beloved “family oriented” Wal-Mart, is nothing more than a greedy, money hungry Corporation that cares nothing more than for their bottom line. Money. Their CEOs and upper management could afford anything they want to. But they could not care less about the little people. As long as you keep giving them your money that is. Why do you think at the time I left the Distribution Center there was like a 68 percent turnover rate?

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

$90 BILLION and they decide to take ALL the money this family has.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case “unbelievably sad,” replied in a statement: “Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan.”

That is just complete Bull. That is not even bunk. That is just outright BULL. John Simley could afford to give the money back to this family himself if he so chose. I bet you he does not care that much.

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

“My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife,” he said.

They do not care.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

“Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?” he asked.

They don’t need it, but they will take it.

The family's attorney agrees.

“The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering,” Graham said.

“She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses.”

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

That’s because if Wal-Mart is good at anything other than buying and selling cheap Chinese made products, it is covering themselves. Their case is legally sound. The Supreme Court would have to actually violate the law to overturn the Wal-Mart “victory.” Of course they will not do this.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and “do the best we can for Debbie.”

‘Luckily, she's oblivious to everything,” he said. “We don't tell her what's going on because it will just upset her.”

And Wal-Mart will go on making Billions of dollars without a second thought of this meaningless, in their eyes, disabled person. They won their money back. Screw her. They probably think she would be better off dead anyway. Right?

This is “your Wal-Mart” folks. THIS is “YOUR” Wal-Mart. I remember when Wal-Mart first came to town. They put all the Mom and Pop businesses out of business. Bigger competitors? Well, they pretty much closed down too. Some say they will not shop at Wal-Mart. But good luck. They have and continue to do everything they can to make sure that, THAT is not an option.

Congratulations Wal-Mart. For screwing this family and showing us who you really are at the same time, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. You are even in the running for Idiot of the Year. I truly hope you lose some sales for this one. At the very least, oh, I don’t know, lets say $500,000 this year, just to make up for the money your STOLE from this family. Talk about taking candy from a baby.
Peter

Sources:
AOL News - Wal-Mart Sues Disabled Ex-Employee

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Presidential Radio Address for 032908

President Bush Radio Address 032908

President Bush: "Good morning. It's not every day that Americans look forward to hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, but over the past few weeks many Americans have received a letter from the IRS with some good news. The letters explain that millions of individuals and families will soon be receiving tax rebates, thanks to the economic growth package that Congress passed and I signed into law last month.

Americans who are eligible for a rebate will get it automatically by simply filing their taxes. If you are not a tax filer, you should visit your local IRS office to fill out the necessary paperwork so you can get your rebate on time.

The growth package also contains incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment this year. On Wednesday I visited a printing company in Virginia that has decided to use these incentives to purchase new software. As more businesses begin taking advantage of these incentives, investment will pick up and so will job creation. And together with the individual tax rebates, these incentives will help give our economy a shot in the arm.


For many families, the greatest concern with the economy is the downturn in the housing market. My Administration has taken action to help responsible homeowners keep their homes. In October, we helped bring together a private sector group called the HOPE NOW Alliance. HOPE NOW has helped streamline the process for refinancing and modifying mortgages, and it runs a national hotline to connect struggling homeowners with mortgage counselors.

On Friday, I visited an impressive mortgage counseling center in New Jersey. At the center, I met with homeowners who have been able to get help, thanks to HOPE NOW. One of them is Danny Cerchiaro. Danny owns a home in New Jersey that also serves as a studio for his movie production company. When Danny and his wife learned that their adjustable rate mortgage was resetting to a higher rate this past summer, they became concerned about their financial security. So Danny called HOPE NOW for help. Less than two months later, he was able to get a more affordable fixed-rate mortgage. And today Danny calls the mortgage counselor who helped him, "the magic lady."

Theresa Torres from Kansas City is another homeowner who has been helped. Theresa called HOPE NOW after she and her husband fell behind on their mortgage payments in December. A mortgage counselor helped Theresa modify her mortgage. Today she no longer worries about losing her home.

There are hundreds of thousands of homeowners like Theresa and Danny who could benefit from calling HOPE NOW. If you're a homeowner struggling with your mortgage, please take the first step toward getting help by calling the hotline at 888-995-H-O-P-E. That's 888-995-H-O-P-E.

HOPE NOW can help homeowners find the right solution for them. One solution for some homeowners is a new program we launched at the Federal Housing Administration called FHASecure. This program has given the FHA greater flexibility to offer struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit histories a chance to refinance. So far this program has helped more than 130,000 families refinance their mortgages. And by the end of the year we expect this program to have reached nearly 300,000 homeowners in all.

This is a good start, and my Administration is committed to building on it. So we're exploring ways this program can help more qualified homebuyers. The problems in the housing market are complicated and there is no easy solution. But by supporting responsible homeowners with wise policies, we'll help them weather a difficult period, we will help get our economy back on track, and we will ensure America remains the most prosperous Nation in the world.

Thank you for listening."

Friday, March 28, 2008

From The Emails 032808

Hey folks,

Happy Friday to you. Since it IS Friday, it's time to go to the Emails. I know I have said this in the past, but I really mean it. This week? {Laughing} I CAN'T chose just one. I really just can't chose. I'm sitting here looking at all the Emails and find my self saying "YES. I'll use that one. NO, WAIT! This one. NO, But I have to comment on this one." So you get THREE today. Just deal with it. {Smile}

First up, this one from Heartland Perspectives. This is what I keep telling you folks. The Movement is growing. More and more REAL Scientists are coming out of the wood work to tell you that Global Warming is nothing more than a SCAM. When they do, especially a VERY predominant and RESPECTED Scientist, they get slammed and there is an immediate attack on their character to attempt to dis-credit them. Remember the talking points and the tactics I showed you from the Chicken Little Crowd themselves? Well, how dare a Scientist violate them. Get this.

ABC’s Shameful Global Warming Character Assassination

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: March 26, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

The nasty tone and gutter tactics of global warming alarmists and their media allies {The Chicken Little Crowd} reached a new low on Easter Sunday when ABC aired on its nightly news and published on its Web site a character assassination of prestigious scientist S. Fred Singer. Singer, one of the most respected and impeccably credentialed atmospheric scientists in the world, deserves much better than the media mafia hit ABC delivered on him.

From the very first sentence, the ABC News hit-piece revealed gratuitous nastiness and personal venom. “His fellow scientists call him a fraud, a charlatan, and a showman,” ABC News said of Singer.

Really? Singer is Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. A small sampling of his additional professional qualifications includes positions as chief scientist for the U.S. Department of Transportation; dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami; director of the National Weather Satellite Service; and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland.

So, which “fellow scientists” feel so supremely qualified as to call a scientist with Singer’s impressive credentials such nasty names? The story does not identify a single one.
{Of course} What specifically makes Singer a “fraud, a charlatan, and a showman”? ABC News refuses to say.

Because they CAN'T. The Chicken Little Crowd CAN'T win ANY argument with those using REAL Science and REAL Facts. This is because they are not using REAL Science. It nothing more than Scaryence. {Scare Science} Bogus, and complete bunk.

ABC News states Singer “argues, against overwhelming scientific evidence, that a warmer planet will actually be beneficial.” Where is the overwhelming evidence that a colder planet is better than a warmer planet? ABC does not say.

Of course.

Let’s see what hard science has to say. By virtually every measure, the warming of the twentieth century produced a far more healthy and vibrant environment than the preceding Little Ice Age. Growing seasons are longer, crop production is at record levels, forests are expanding, deserts are shrinking, soil moisture is higher, and human life spans have never been longer. Yale University economics professor Robert Mendelsohn reports that until and unless global temperatures rise another 2.5 degrees Celsius--something that would not occur for at least a few centuries even if current trends continued--global warming will continue to bestow more benefits than harm upon human health and the environment.

Does recognizing and presenting such facts make Singer a fraud and a charlatan?

Similarly, ABC News asserts that polar bears “are starving because the Arctic ice cap is shrinking.” That is simply a lie. The global polar bear population has doubled since 1970, despite legal polar bear hunting. Starving animal species do not double their numbers in so short a time, even if starting from a low number.


{Laughing}

ABC News also claims, “Scientists say there is no other side. The debate about global warming is over.” How is it, then, that more than 19,000 scientists have signed a document known as the Oregon Petition, presenting scientific evidence that humans are not creating a global warming crisis? Even New York Times science reporter Andrew Revkin acknowledges that “For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.” who disputes the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis.

Told you so.

ABC News claims “scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton” dismiss Singer’s research as “fabricated nonsense.” Which scientists? ABC doesn’t say. Assuming they exist, why doesn’t ABC News also mention that the head of NASA is on record as siding with Singer’s analysis?

Doesn't fit the agenda.

ABC News also conveniently forgets to mention the NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists attending the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change who agree with Singer. In addition, the story conceals the fact that the Princeton scientist who so frequently makes such mudslinging attacks is a longtime staffer of the Environmental Defense Fund activist group.

ALL ABOUT MONEY, Control, and POWER folks. It all comes back to THIS.

When a person devotes his entire life to scientific enlightenment, and produces research and scientific findings that are so admired and respected by his peers that he achieves the very highest of professional positions and honors, he deserves better than despicable character assassination from media propagandists. ABC News has disgraced its entire profession.

They are not alone. They want ratings, and of course, money as well. They will go with whoever pays them more. The NEWS is now more like a business. They want to make money just like any other business. So they report what they are TOLD to.

You can keep believing in this bunk if you want, just leave me out of it. I will live the way I chose. I will drive want I want. I will have the light bulbs I want. I will set my OWN temperature in MY house. I will will not EVER bow to the scam. Nor will I ever kiss Father Gore's ring. Sorry, but I'm losing patients with those that are ignorant enough to buy this garbage. I really am. If you chose to do so, then remain ignorant. There is to much REAL Science and FACTS that contradict even the most hardened claims of Man-made Global Warming, to even have FAITH in the possibility of it being real.

Be right back.
Peter

LINK
Website

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.

From The Emails 032808 2

Hey folks,

Here is another one. This one is from the Wall Street Journal - A FARC Fan's Notes

March 25, 2008; Page A22

A hard drive recovered from the computer of a killed Colombian guerrilla has offered more insights into the opposition of House Democrats to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia's most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia's elected and popular government.

Mr. McGovern's press office says the Congressman is merely working at the behest of families whose relatives are held as FARC kidnap hostages. However, his go-between's letters reveal more than routine intervention. The intervenor with the FARC is James C. Jones, who the Congressman's office says is a "development expert and a former consultant to the United Nations." Accounts of Mr. Jones's exchanges with the FARC appeared in Colombia's Semana magazine on March 15. This Mr. Jones should not be confused with the former Congressman and ambassador to Mexico of the same name from Oklahoma.

"Receive my warm greetings, as always, from Washington," Mr. Jones began in a letter to the rebels last fall. "The big news is that I spoke for several hours with the Democratic Congressman James McGovern. In the meeting we had the opportunity to exchange some ideas that will be, I believe, of interest to the FARC-EP [popular army]."

Mr. Jones added that "a fundamental problem is that the FARC does not have, strategically, a spokesman that can communicate directly with persons of influence in my country like Mr. McGovern." Semana reports that in the documents Mr. Jones "rules himself out as the spokesman but offers himself as a 'bridge' of communication between the FARC and the congressman." Semana says when it spoke with Mr. Jones, he verified the letter and explained that "he made the offer because the guerrillas need interlocutors if they want to achieve peace and that it is a mistake to isolate them."

But communications among FARC rebels suggest the goal was to isolate Colombia's government. A letter that Reyes wrote to top FARC commander Manuel Marulanda on October 26 reads: "According to [Jones's] viewpoint, [President Álvaro] Uribe is increasingly discredited in the U.S. . . He believes that the safe haven [for the rebels] in the counties can be had for reasons mentioned. Congressional Democrats have invited him to Washington to talk about the Colombian crisis in which the principal theme is the swap."

Semana reports that Mr. Jones made some proposals to the FARC, including a Caracas meeting with representatives of Venezuela, Colombia, the FARC, other South American countries, U.S. Congressmen and the Catholic Church. "It would be almost impossible for Uribe to reject such a meeting," Mr. Jones wrote, "without burning himself a lot, nationally and internationally. If he persists in being against it, I have understood that there are ways to pressure him from my country [the U.S.]."

In a letter to Semana, Mr. Jones said his words were taken out of context. He says he is not in favor of the "violent methods of the guerrilla" or "the military solutions" of the government. He had only a professional relationship with the FARC and had to address them as he did because he had to build trust. Mr. McGovern's office says it knew what Mr. Jones was doing and engaged with him because "we need to find an interlocutor who could discuss these things including the safe haven" for the guerrillas.

We think the documents reveal something else entirely: Some Democrats oppose the Colombia trade deal because they sympathize more with FARC's terrorists than with a U.S. antiterror ally.

Of course they do, but we already KNOW this. This is why it is no big deal for people like The Traitor in The House Pelosi to play political games with our men and women in uniform. Play games with the safety and security of our own country. This is why they are the way they are. They LOVE these people. They only wish THEY had the power that the terrorist, Dictators, and Tyrants have.

Folks, this is why we have to limit their power. This is why there must be a balance in Government. This is WHY we cannot let people like Supreme Leader Wannabe Hillary to win the White House. Most definitely NOT with a LWL controlled House and Senate.

Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
Wall Street Journal - A FARC Fan's Notes

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.

From The Emails 032808 3

Hey folks,

Now this one from Senator Bill Nelson himself. I know, he's a Democrat, but I am with him on this one.

March 27, 2008

Dear Peter,

This morning in Tallahassee, I spoke before our state Senate on a subject that has become all too familiar to Florida—the right to vote and to have that vote count as intended.

I commended the Florida Senate and Governor Crist for banning touch-screen voting machines; last fall, I filed legislation in the U.S. Senate requiring that no vote for federal office be cast on a touch-screen voting machine starting in 2012. I also proposed a system of six rotating primaries from March to June in each presidential election year.

But these actions are just a beginning.

When I return to Washington, I will propose a legislative package that calls for early voting in every state, allows every qualified voter in every state the option of casting an absentee ballot, gives grants to states that develop pilot projects for mail-in balloting and secure Internet voting, and eliminates machines that don't produce a voting paper trail.

And, I will propose that we amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College, giving citizens direct election of their president by popular vote.

Let's not forget: it was more than 230 years ago that our Founding Fathers declared that all men are created equal. But the country still had to wait 94 years before former slaves were given the vote. And it took another 50 years before women in America were allowed to vote.

This country cannot wait that long to fix the flaws we still see in our election system. The blessings of liberty cannot wait. The time for reform is now.

Thank you Senator. I really mean that. Why not let the PEOPLE vote. Uh, just a suggestion though, why not start with getting rid of all the insanity of the Democrat nomination procedures along with the superdelegates? Like I said, just a suggestion.

Have a great Weekend. See you Sunday.
Peter

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

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Road Getting Rocky For Dem Hopefuls

Hey folks,

Happy Thursday. The road to victory, and the White House, seem to be getting pretty rocky for the Democrat hopefuls. McCain? well, he is just kinda there.

Yesterday was all about Clinton being caught lying. Told you this would be going on for days. Now today, Reuters is reporting a new poll that shows an eight percent drop in approval. I really found this NBC poll interesting until I read the last paragraph. But most of the news out there is how, because of their actions, and the fact more and more people are FINNALLY figuring out that they both LIE, both of them are beginning to feel the heat.

According to Reuters- Clinton takes hit in new poll on White House race
Wed Mar 26, 10:53 PM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's positive rating has dropped to a new low of 37 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, the New York senator's positive rating slid 8 percentage points in two weeks and she had a negative rating of 48 percent in a week where she admitted making a mistake in claiming she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.


Along with the fact it has been established that this was not just a misspeak, but an outright lie that she has told over and over again.

Clinton's Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, also saw a slight dip in his positive rating, to 49 percent from 51 percent, the poll found.

That was due to his Uncle, uh, Pastor, uh Racist friend's comments.

NBC said 32 percent of respondents said Obama "sufficiently addressed the issue" and 26 percent said he needed to say more about the Wright controversy.

More than half of those surveyed -- 55 percent -- said they were "disturbed" by the videos of Wright that were widely circulated on television and the Internet, the poll found.


Now I found this next part interesting. It just didn't make that much sense to me compared to other polls I have seen.

In head-to-head matchups, Obama and Clinton were even at 45 percent. In general election matchups, Obama led McCain by 44 percent to 42 percent and McCain led Clinton by 46 percent to 44 percent.

When asked which candidate could unite the country if elected, 60 percent said Obama, 58 percent said McCain and 46 percent said Clinton.

The poll of 700 registered voters was conducted on Monday and Tuesday and had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.


REALLY? Then I read this.

NBC said its pollsters oversampled African-Americans to get a more reliable cross tabulation on questions regarding Obama's speech on race.

Oh. OK, Well THAT makes sense. We do not know how much they OVERSAMPLED African-Americans. They could have ALL been for all we know. But that would make sense why 60 percent still feel Obama can still unite the country. {Sigh} He really just can't.

But then you have this story from the AP - Obama seeks to quell flap over pastor
Thu Mar 27, 1:44 AM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday sought to quell concerns over anti-American remarks by his former pastor, saying people are paying too much attention to a small number of "stupid" comments.

But it's not Barack. It shows a history and what appears to be a common practice by a Racist person using the pulpit to spew hate.

"This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down ... into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country," Obama told an audience in this central North Carolina city.

"There are misunderstandings on both sides," the Illinois senator said. "We cannot solve the problems of America if every time somebody somewhere does something stupid, that everybody gets up in arms and forgets about the war in Iraq and we forget about the economy."


{Laughing} Change the subject, CHANGE the SUBJECT!! Sorry, but you did not do enough to convince people that this has NOT effected you. We hear what you are saying. But then we hear your wife. Then we hear your Pastor of twenty years. Then we see you will not disassociate yourself with him. YOU are running for President. YOU want us to trust you on the economy. You want us to TRUST you on the War? You cannot even denounce a Racist? Separate yourself from him? HE IS STILL employed by your campaign?

On Tuesday, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, weighed in directly, saying: "I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor."

The controversy began earlier this month when videos of Wright's sermons surfaced, including one in which the pastor shouts "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities.

Wright has said the U.S. government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and also has suggested that U.S. policies in the Middle East and elsewhere were partly responsible for the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

In the speech last week, Obama sharply condemned Wright's remarks and the preacher's refusal to acknowledge progress in race relations. But he refused to repudiate his longtime spiritual mentor, saying he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his white grandmother.

Wright has canceled some planned public appearances this week. Obama said Wednesday he has spoken with the pastor.

WAIT!!!!! WRONG!!! Wright has not cancelled anything. THEY cancelled Wright. These speaking engagements were to take place in Black Churches. THEY cancelled HIM. They understand what it means to distance themselves from this man. Why can't Obama get it?

"I have talked to him. I have not asked him to do anything," the Illinois senator told reporters.

That is the point. Then you have this, which I find funny. Pelosi being told to butt out of the Superdelegate race. According to Reuters - Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Wed Mar 26, 8:17 PM ET

A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.

The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.

Pelosi has not publicly endorsed either Clinton or Barack Obama in their hotly contested White House battle, but she recently said superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the nomination contests with the most pledged delegates -- which appears almost certain to be Obama.

She does not want a woman to take a higher position than her. {Laughing} Right now SHE is the most powerful Woman in Government. She also does not LIKE Hillary. This is getting good folks.

"This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984," the letter from the wealthy Clinton backers said.

No, the party's intent for the Superdelegates to to ignore voters. To put into place whomever they want. In this case, Hillary.

"Superdelegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party's strongest nominee," said the letter signed by some of Clinton's biggest fund raisers.

Told you they are laying the ground work for the nomination steal.

Superdelegates have emerged as likely kingmakers in the fight between Clinton and Obama. The letter was another sign of growing Democratic tension over their nominating battle.

Neither candidate is expected to have enough pledged delegates won in state-by-state contests to clinch the nomination when voting ends in June, leaving the choice in the hands of the superdelegates.

Both candidates have wooed them heavily, with Obama contending they should follow the will of Democratic voters and Clinton arguing they should vote for the candidate with the best chance of winning the presidential election in November -- which she says is her.

Translation time "SCREW the voters. They are to stupid to know who to vote for. So it is up to you to do the right thing. Crown me as Supreme Leader."

Among the signees of the letter were prominent Democrats and Clinton supporters like Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television; Bernard Schwartz, former chairman of Loral Space and Communications; and venture capitalist Steven Rattner.

The signees reminded the House leader from California of their support for the party's House campaign committee and said "therefore" she should "reflect in your comments a more open view" about superdelegates.

"We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters," the letter said.

Listen to the kooks. You better do the right thing and shut up if you want to keep your power.

The Obama campaign said the Illinois senator would support the election efforts of House Democrats no matter what the outcome of the nomination fight.

"This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Clinton had made the case superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who would be the best for the party and the country.

"Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign," he said.

{Laughing} You REALLY can't make THIS stuff up folks. You really can't. You just need to sit back and watch.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters- Clinton takes hit in new poll on White House race
AP - Obama seeks to quell flap over pastor
Reuters - Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Clinton Lied, BIG Deal

Hey folks,

{Laughing} Perhaps I misspoke. Just yesterday morning I posted "Clinton Lied, No Big Deal." I said this.

{Laughing} "Of course. She just misspoke. I guess it was just a verbalo."

I knew this was not the first time that she told this particular whopper. However, I did not have time to look it up so I just said this.

"So she misspoke TWICE? Three times? Four? One time? maybe she misspoke. Two or more is just an outright lie."

Normally, and in the past, it would be no big deal. But as they say, the worm has turned. Well, Rush, and his people had time to research it. On his show today, he pointed out that this is NOT the first time.

RUSH: Here's Mrs. Clinton, by the way, this morning on the radio in Pittsburgh.

HILLARY: I am a human being like everybody else. Uh, the military took great care of us. You know, they were worried about, uh, you know, taking a first lady to a war zone and took some extra precautions and worried about, uh, all kind of things, but, uh, uhh, I've written about it in my book and I talk about it on many other occasions, and last week, uh, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke.

RUSH: "Last week... for the first time in 12 years or so I misspoke" about the Bosnia arrival. You know, Hillary if you're going to lie about this, just say that you were confused, that you were watching sniper fire on the in-flight movie and that that's where you got the idea for it, but it looks like, ladies and gentlemen -- we're still tracking this down, but it looks like -- the Drive-Bys have Hillary saying the same thing about sniper fire last month.

February 29, 2008, a campaign stop in Waco, Texas, quote: "I remember particularly a trip to the Bosnia where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire." So she said it again. She "misspoke." This is the second time she's misspoken in 12 years. I guarantee you, Operation Chaos, the pressure, everything is getting to these people. Wait 'til you hear the Clinton bite. You know, and Obama and his crowd, they're not that much better off, in terms of the pressure and everything. They're both waiting around for the other to screw up: hoping, hoping, hoping that the other side screws up.

Remember what I said? "So she misspoke TWICE? Three times? Four?"

RUSH: Folks, it's getting even worse. We have found yet another instance of Mrs. Clinton telling the sniper fire lie upon landing in Tuzla, Bosnia. On December 29th, Mrs. Clinton was in Dubuque, Iowa -- last year, December 29th, 2007 -- and she said that, quote, "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire." Then on March 11th, in the Washington Post, a column entitled, "The Sleuth." Headline: "Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton -- Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials. Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call..." Sinbad says he was not harrowing. "He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

"In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the 'scariest' part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. 'I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: "Do we eat here or at the next place."'" So one of the people she was with has debunked the whole thing. We went back to the archives. From The Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper, "The campaign of [Hillary Clinton] is seeking to play down news that the former first lady gave an incorrect account of landing in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire, and refused to answer additional questions about a flap that could hurt her chances ... 'We've said all we're going to say on that,' said Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer on a Tuesday morning conference call with reporters." So, they're in lockdown on the Bosnia flap. She has four instances of lying about this going back to December 29th of last year, and even lying about it after Sinbad put the whole lie to it in the Washington Post on March 11th. This is exactly what we mean when we say the Drive-Bys cover for these people and they have come to expect it. Not just the Clintons, but all liberals, all Democrats.


It wasn't just Rush. I caught the first 40 minutes or so of the Sean Hannity Show. Guess what HIS big news was? {Laughing} Yup, you guessed it.

AP, AFP, CBS, USA Today, Reuters, SBS {Australia World News}, Newsmax, News Busters, Fox News, you name it. This WAS big news yesterday. Actually, I love the way SBS World News reported this.

US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has been criticised for misleadingly claiming she came under sniper fire while on a trip to Bosnia in 1996.

Just three or four confirmed times. She really was just misspeaking all those times. It doesn't mean she lied. She was just confused. {Smile}

Ms Clinton told reporters last week that she remembered "landing under sniper fire" during the visit to Tuzla when she was first lady.

But television footage of the trip in question showed she was in no danger, despite suggestions she had gone into a "potential combat zone".


This is Australia World news. This is how the world sees this. They went on to say this.

Ms Clinton, who was accompanied on the trip by her daughter Chelsea and singer Sheryl Crow, is seen being greeted by smiling officials on the tarmac, and listening as an an eight-year-old Bosnian girl read out a poem.

Not ducking and running to cars.

Comedian Sinbad, who was also on the Tuzla trip, but who is supporting Democratic rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign, has said the most worrying part of the visit was deciding where to go for dinner.

Folks, I do not see this going away anytime soon. This must really be a shock to the Clintons. They use to have the Mass Media on their side no matter what. Bill, when President, had articles written about how they MARVALED at his ability to lie. They even told us how lying can be a GOOD thing. Not any more. {Smile}

The Clintons can not tell the truth. They just can't. They have never had to. This is new territory for them, and they are not doing well. This is why more and more people are abandoning them at record speed. The only hope she has left? The Superdelegates. As I have already pointed out to you, they have started laying THAT ground work. This gets better and better as days go by.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Clinton Lied, No Big Deal
Rush Limbaugh Show- Bosnia Lie: CBS Destroys Hillary
SBS - Clinton caught out over Bosnia 'sniper' claims
OPNTalk- Clinton Inc Laying the Foundation For Nomination Steal

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Clinton Lied, No Big Deal

Hey folks,

Not to much time this morning, but I got this when I first came in. Clinton gets caught lying again. No big deal. From the AP- Clinton 'misspoke' about '96 Bosnia trip By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer 55 minutes ago

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a "misstatement" and a "minor blip."

{Laughing} Of course. She just misspoke. I guess it was just a verbalo.

The Obama campaign suggested the statement was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

How is that a misspeak?

According to an Associated Press story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on the trip. And one of her companions, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

When asked Monday about the New York senator's remarks about the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton's written account of it in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," Clinton wrote.

"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

No she flat out LIED! Got caught, like the Clintons ALWAYS do.

Asked about the issue during a meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board on Monday, Clinton said she "misspoke."

"I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.

{Laughing} That all depends on what IS is. Right? If she cannot keep her trips and what she does clear, we expect her to be the President? What if she was to give a misstatement to a world leader? We are to trust that she is competent?

A spokesman for rival Barack Obama's campaign questioned whether Clinton misspoke, saying her comments came in what appeared to be prepared remarks for the Iraq speech. His campaign's statement included a link to the speech on Clinton's campaign Web site with her account of running to the cars. Clinton's campaign said what is on the Web site is not the prepared text, but a transcript of her remarks, including comments before the speech in which she talked about the trip to Bosnia.

It was what she SAID. They are upset that the Obama camp did not print the corrected written remarks, instead of a transcript of what she SAID. Sorry, she LIED.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."

Maybe because she HAS none? Just a thought. But then again, neither does Obama.

The Obama campaign statement also links to a CBS News video of the Bosnia trip posted on YouTube, which shows Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, walking across the tarmac from a large cargo plane, smiling and waving, and stopping to shake hands with Bosnia's acting president and greet an 8-year-old girl.

I can hear Clinton now. "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling YouTube."

"This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push 'cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate," Wolfson said Monday.

Clinton's written account contradicts her comments last Monday about the welcoming ceremony.

Just after the speech, Clinton reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it during a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base.

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."


So she misspoke TWICE? Three times? Four? One time? maybe she misspoke. Two or more is just an outright lie.

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who accompanied Clinton to Bosnia, said he was not surprised "that there could be confusion" when someone who has taken a number of trips tries to recall details of a particular trip 12 years earlier.

She want to be the Supreme Leader, uh, I mean President. She has no memory? She gets confused?

"The important thing is that she was there. Our soldiers saw she was there and heard her and knew that our country cared about them and what they were doing," West told the AP during a telephone interview.

Yeah they saw she was there. They stayed away from her. {Smile} What a bunch of feel good Liberal BUNK. They KNOW she does not care about them. They KNOW she was there for PR nothing else. There is a movement right now in the military that many said they will quit if she becomes President. They will not serve under her.

She really is not fooling anyone. Everyone knows who and what she is, and they do not like her.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Clinton 'misspoke' about '96 Bosnia trip

Monday, March 24, 2008

Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans

Hey folks,

Hope everyone had a happy and safe Easter. Back to reality. Get this. It seems that the Chicken Little Crowd is going to spend A LOT of money in an attempt to brainwash more Americans. There just is not enough Sheeple out there to achieve their goals. There just is not enough poeple out there that are ignorant enough to just accept what they say, in the growing evidence to the contrary. There just are to many Scientist coming out AGAINST the Hoax that is "Global Warming."

So they are left with no choice. This new group, ordained by Father Al himself, are going to do whatever it takes to "convince you" that you are evil and that YOU are killing the planet. They are ready to spend over a hundred million dollars to do it. {Laughing} $100 million folks.

According to USA TODAY- 'Green' bandwagon is getting a big push, By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY

"The missing ingredient is the force of public opinion."

That's the line Cathy Zoi recalls from former vice president Al Gore when he urged her to become CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Americans are aware of global warming, "but they don't get the urgency of it and that this is solvable," says Zoi, who took the job last year.

Well, according to SOME in the Chicken Little Crowd, it is NOT solvable. So which is it?

The new group is about to launch the most ambitious U.S. marketing campaign ever on climate change, at a cost of more than $100 million a year for three years, to focus on the urgency of the problem and solutions.

The need for a different approach is apparent, environmentalists say.

"We've come up against a brick wall with Americans," says Lee Bodner, executive director of ecoAmerica, an environmental group based in Washington, D.C. Despite Americans' widespread familiarity with global warming, "only a small group are changing their behavior."

There's little research on how to lower people's energy use, but early evidence suggests that many people will change if:

• They think others similar to themselves are jumping on the "green" bandwagon.

• They get frequent positive feedback for effort.

• They feel able to make a difference by taking concrete steps.

• They think their children will be harmed by global warming, or children encourage the family to lead a greener life.

This is to good folks. They are TELLING the rest in the movement. Here are the talking points. Read this again. "You have to convince people that they are not just sheeple. That everyone is doing it, so they should too. Make sure you give them a pat on the back when they do. Make them feel that they are now a good person. That they matter. That they are heroes for doing this. They also have to "believe" that THEY can solve it. Don't be going around telling them that there is no hope. Make sure they know 'we can do it.' If all else fails, tell them their kids are going to DIE. That they will blame them for not doing anything about it. Scare them into submission if need be."

What if the people ask for proof? "Just tell them that all the Scientist agree that it is real, and they are smarter then them, so they need just accept it. Any Scientists that say it's not real are just kooks, or bought off by big oil."

This is the very definition of Scaryence. Scare Science. "Don't forget, if all else fails, the KIDS. Bring up the kids."

Though research about green behavior is sparse, there's strong evidence on what sparks behavior change in general. "We just haven't applied it to global warming the way we have to public health issues like smoking and cholesterol," says Douglas McKenzie-Mohr, environmental psychologist in Fredericton, Ontario.

Fact-jammed books — appeals often used by global warming activists — and terrifying threats about the future that don't offer solutions won't motivate many people and may even backfire, says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change. The more people are inundated with facts and figures, the more emotionally turned off many become, "and you have to have an emotional response — bad or good — to put a high priority on doing something."

They are not even trying to hide this anymore folks. He just SAID it. "and you have to have an emotional response — bad or good — to put a high priority on doing something."

Forget the SCIENCE, or in this case, the LACK of, make them FEEL. Unbelievable. The absolute arrogance of this.

That's not to say dire threats work better. If not paired with positive, doable actions, fear tactics can make people feel overwhelmed and powerless, Leiserowitz says.

Fear tactics.

It's understandable that activists want to heighten a sense of the threat. Most Americans see global warming as a problem of the future in a far-away place, likely to affect other species but not people, Leiserowitz's surveys show. Although concern has grown, fewer than one-fifth of Americans are passionate about the issue, suggests a sweeping 2007 poll by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University.

Not enough Sheeple.

Amping up awareness could raise pressure for policy changes by government but won't necessarily change personal behavior. Decades of research show little correlation between attitudes and behavior, says Carrie Armel of Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency. On global warming, action can be hard: Even concerned people may live where there's no good public transportation and be unable to afford solar heat panels.

So what does spark change?

For one thing, many are prompted to take green actions if they think others like them are doing it.

In studies at hotels, guests who read in-room cards urging them to reuse towels to save energy were much less likely to comply than travelers whose cards said most hotel visitors recycled towels. Cards that said most who stayed in that very room had reused towels were even more likely to recycle.

"We most want to follow those who seem similar to us," says study leader Robert Cialdini, a persuasion expert at Arizona State University.

Cialdini's studies also have found that people use less energy if they think most neighbors have cut back.

"This 'everybody's doing it' pitch is almost never used in the PSAs around energy conservation." If people hear they're doing better than neighbors, they'll raise their energy use. But they'll come down again if they just get a smiley-face icon on their bill praising their extra effort, Cialdini says.

Tailoring messages to diverse audiences and hearing them from many sources also fosters change, says Edward Maibach, director of a new center on climate change and communication at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

"We have to mainstream this. It has to become easy and normal," Zoi says.

{Laughing} ARE you getting this?

The Alliance for Climate Protection will buy ads and partner with grass-roots groups to spread the word on how to cut greenhouse gases. It also is seeking partnerships with consumer product makers "to amplify the message" on how to curb global warming through their packaging, websites or ads, Zoi says. The website www.wecansolveit.org, scheduled to launch in the next week, will spell out concrete steps for change.

Even with mass exposure, "you need to offer a reason to make changes that connects to something they care about, probably something close to home," says ecoAmerica's Bodner.

Yup, "YOUR KIDS ARE GOING TO DIE. YOU are responsible for it." Look at that one insane TV Commercial with the kids going "tick, tick, tick." {Sigh}

For Brian Flynn, it was bears creating havoc in Aspen, Colo. Bears were coming into town a few years ago, breaking open containers of discarded vegetable oil behind restaurants and scaring people.

Companies supply and pick up the containers, because commercial oil can't be dumped into landfills. Flynn, a manager for the city, came up with the idea for a bear-proof container. He learned of a company in Denver that converts the oil into a cleaner fuel for automobiles, "and the next thing you know I had a recycling business on the side," picking up the oil so it can be converted into fuel. His own Ford pickup has been modified to run on the recycled fuel.

When Flynn and his wife, Lisa, built their first house three years ago, they used recycled wood and framed with huge foam panels that cut the need for heat. That and other green features increased costs by $50,000 to $60,000 — roughly 8% more than a similar house without such materials, he says. "We have a very large mortgage, and we don't have a lot of extra money, but I don't want to be a drain on this society. It makes me feel good to live this way."


Well, if they do it, then so can you. And you will feel GOOD to live this way. {Smile}

Surprisingly, money doesn't matter nearly as much as many think in deciding whether to buy a gas hog or fuel-efficient car, according to new research. "Most people don't buy cars based on fuel economy," says Tom Turrentine, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California-Davis. "Again and again, we hear 'I buy cars I really like.' "

As for buying a hybrid car, money matters, "but buyers often are much more motivated by making a statement about their values and beliefs. They feel it shows they're ethical people, that we need to get together as a community to solve this," says Rusty Heffner of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm in McLean, Va.

Tom Creasman, 61, of Cincinnati says he likes the $3,000 he saves — compared with previous cars he has owned — by driving 25,000 miles a year in his Prius.

"But it's equally important that it fits with our lifestyle," he says. The family has drought-resistant landscaping, eats organic and is considering adding solar heat panels. "I've always been a backpacker, kind of leave-no-footprint-oriented. We try not to live our lives like pigs at the trough."

If you do not live like these people, you are nothing more than "Pigs at a trough." You WANT to feel good don't you. You do not want to be a pig.

Persuading people such as Creasman to lighten their carbon footprint is easier than persuading others, says Bill Guns, CEO of SRI Consulting Business Intelligence, a consumer behavior research firm. Since 1990, SRI has used a method called the VALS System that separates Americans into categories based on what motivates them to make choices.

About 20% will be driven by facts and ideals to change behaviors that contribute to global warming, he says. Most are already convinced of problems linked to climate change.

But another, highly influential 25% are middle-of-the-road, achievement-oriented people, many of them 30 to 50 years old. "They never have enough time or money," he says.

Wonky research gives them a desired pretext to toss global warming concerns in the "ignore" box, he says. They're drawn to appeals that promise more success or financial security.

They are researching how to BEST LIE to people about this. {Laughing} BRING IN THE KIDS!!!!!

And one thing matters greatly to many of them: their children.

"Kids are particularly effective in getting changes into these 'achiever' households," for example by demanding a greener household, Guns says.

Any pitch that suggests their children will suffer harm from global warming would hit this group hard, and their choices often spread to the rest of the population, he says.

To achieve widespread greener behavior and big policy changes, "we need to get this group on board," Guns says.

Changes in how people live and use energy are inevitable, "because nature bats last," McKenzie-Mohr says.

"We'll be forced into it, whether we do it proactively or retroactively, and I hope it's not retroactive because then we'll always be in a crisis mode. If we do it proactively, we're more likely to do it wisely."

Folks, there you have it. The talking points, the rhetoric, the mission. Lie, avoid REAL facts, and if needed, SCARE people into submission. Hey, at least they are telling everyone what they are up to. It is out there in the open. Yet, the sad thing is, it will work on some people. That truly is sad.
Peter

Sources:
USA TODAY- 'Green' bandwagon is getting a big push

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Special Saturday Edition Of OPN

Hey folks,

Welcome to a special Saturday edition of the Weekend edition of the OPN. It's a condensed version of what you normally see on Sunday, but due to the Holy Day tomorrow, we will be doing it today. All the normal segments, YCMTSP, H.S., and the IWA, coming right up.



Hope you all have a GREAT Easter. See you Monday.
Peter
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up 032208

Pope Kisses Father Al Gore’s Ring.

Hey folks,

JUST this past March 9, 2007, I told you about this. Churches Buying Global Warming

"I do not even know what to say about this. Really. You cannot believe in God, and Global Warming. You just simply can’t."

I pointed out the Biblical reasons why, using the Word of God. Then asked you,

"Every time you look up and see a Rainbow, what you are actually looking at is this covenant between God and YOU. The promise he made to Noah, to NEVER completely destroy the Earth again. So if GOD will not do so. Do you REALLY think he will let us?"

Then I said this.

"Now if these churches have decided that they have to do their part to put off Global Warming. I am TRULY saddened. But I have a feeling, that it is more likely, they are doing it to help the communities they serve. They even hint to this in this article."

Well, today, I AM truly saddened. According to Reuters - Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

“(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control,” he said.

The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.

Girotti, in an interview headlined “New Forms of Social Sin,” also listed “ecological” offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively “green.”

It has installed photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels.

Girotti, who is number two in the Vatican "Apostolic Penitentiary," which deals with matter of conscience, also listed drug trafficking and social and economic injustices as modern sins.

Notice the timing of this article? Read that again. “economic injustices,” “Global Warming,” “drug trafficking,” ETC. Think about it.

But Girotti also bemoaned that fewer and fewer Catholics go to confession at all.

Why should they?

He pointed to a study by Milan's Catholic University that showed that up to 60 percent of Catholic faithful in Italy stopped going to confession.

In the sacrament of Penance, Catholics confess their sins to a priest who absolves them in God's name.

But the same study by the Catholic University showed that 30 percent of Italian Catholics believed that there was no need for a priest to be God's intermediary and 20 percent felt uncomfortable talking about their sins to another person.

That is true. The Bible teaches there is only one. His name is Jesus, and He does not believe in Global Warming either.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Churches Buying Global Warming
Reuters- Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution
H.S. For Saturday 032208

Better to Give Than Receive Confirmed


Hey folks,

You know this is true. If you have ever done it that is. It really does make you feel better to give, than it does when you receive. The Bible talks about this often and I can tell you first hand it is true. But now it looks like Science has once again caught up to the Word Of God.

According to the AP - Science, Bible agree: Giving is better, By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Thu Mar 20, 6:49 PM ET

The Bible counsels misers that it's better to give than to receive. Science agrees. People who made gifts to others or to charities reported they were happier than folks who didn't share, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

While previous studies have shown that having more money can increase happiness, the researchers at the University of British Columbia and Harvard University wondered if the way people spent their money made any difference.

Turns out, it does.

Lead researcher Elizabeth W. Dunn, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, said she wasn't surprised that doing something for others made people happy.

But she was struck by how big the effect was and that how people spent money was more important than how much money they had.

"This work suggests that even making small alterations in how we spend money on a daily basis can make a difference in happiness," Dunn said in a telephone interview.

"That doesn't mean go get a high paying job so you can spend tons of money on others. The message is, given what you have, how can you make little alterations to do something for others," she said.

And, she added, "there's nothing special about money," giving can involve time or special skills to help other people.

The report didn't surprise Sue Citro, senior digital membership manager for the Nature Conservancy:

"We do hear from our members and our supporters that the do get a real feeling of satisfaction from knowing their giving is doing good," she said.

Andrea Koslow, director of advertising at the American Red Cross, said: "The act of helping has its own profound effect."

"People need a humanitarian outlet ... feeling that they make a difference ... that's very motivating," Koslow said.

The good feeling associated with giving is why workplace charity opportunities can engage employees and lift morale, added Kristine Templin, director of corporate partnerships at the American Red Cross.

STOP! OK, I understand that this is by the Red Cross Advertising Director, but this is NOT the same thing. More on that in a second.

The researchers started by asking a sample of 632 Americans, 55 percent of whom were women, to rate their happiness on a scale of 1 to 5, the higher the number the happier.

Then they asked the participants to report their annual income and estimate how much they spent on paying bills, buying gifts for themselves, buying gifts for others and giving to charity.

The first two were considered personal spending and averaged $1,714-a-month, the second two were termed "prosocial" spending and averaged $146-a-month.

"Personal spending was unrelated to happiness," said the researchers. "But higher prosocial spending was associated with significantly greater happiness," they found.

Not content with that, they then studied 16 employees of a company in Boston, asking about their happiness one month before and six to eight weeks after each received a profit-sharing bonus from their employer.

In the second interview they also asked about personal and prosocial spending and once again those who spent more on others were happier.

"The manner in which they spent that bonus was a more important predictor of their happiness than the amount of the bonus itself," the researchers found.

Finally, 46 Canadian students were asked to rate their happiness and then each was given a random envelope containing money, ranging from $5 to $20. Some were instructed to spend it on themselves, others were told to buy a gift for someone else.

At 5 p.m. that day, they were called together again and asked to rate their happiness.

The amount of money had no impact on happiness, but those assigned to buy something for another person reported greater happiness than those told to get something for themselves, the researchers said.

A separate study published in 2006 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the same parts of the brain that produce the good feeling when a person receives a reward also respond when they give to someone else.

Indeed, researchers led by Jordan Grafman at the National Institutes of Health found the reward areas were more active when giving a gift than when receiving one.

Well, well, well, The Word was right again. I love when Science catches up. Do not worry, I'm not going to get preachy here. But I did what to talk about that one point tat the Director of the Red Cross Advertising made.

I have been employed by a couple companies that did participate in the whole auto deductions for charity thing. In other words, someone comes in and talks to the employees and they agree to have money withdrawn and given automatically to the cause they chose. What does that mean? Yes, you are giving. Yes, you can feel good about it, but it is not even worthy to be compared to the feeling you get, when YOU actually give.

Try this. Find out where your nearest Food Pantry or Soup Kitchen is in your area. Go there. Check it out. I mean, REALLY check it out. Watch the people come and go. If you have time, ask to volunteer for a day. Or just ask them what they do their. Then, go to the bank. Withdraw some cash, or write a check. It can be any amount you feel comfortable to give. Then watch what happens.

I have done this. I have also given money to bums on the street. I have given gifts to people that least expected it. You really cannot describe the feeling you get when you see their face light up. When you receive the hug. In some cases kiss. When you KNOW at THAT moment, just how much you have just effected them in a positive way. Sorry, I just do not see that as the same as an auto withdraw of money you never see.

But anyway you do it, DO IT. You will find that BOTH the Bible and Science are correct.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Science, Bible agree: Giving is better
AFP - Money can in fact buy happiness, if it's spent on others: study
IWA For Saturday 032208

Hey folks,

It’s, uh, Saturday, Time for the IWA. This weeks Winner? Well, he is no stranger to being an Idiot. Card carrying member and a Leader of the LWL, Screaming Dean. But this time, I’m not really the one that is giving him the Award. It is the DEMOCRATS. {Laughing}

Get this, from Time.com- Will Dean Cost the Dems Florida?

By TIM PADGETT/MIAMI
Thu Mar 20, 2:00 AM ET

Florida's famously feckless electoral system usually deserves the ridicule it gets. But not this time. Instead of the typical jokes about Flori-duh, the Sunshine State debacle currently gripping the Democratic Party has evoked reminders of the Dean Scream - the notorious petulance of Democratic National Chairman (DNC) {Or LWL} Howard Dean. He, along with the other sage bosses of the DNC {LWL}, has left Democratic voters in what is arguably the nation's most crucial swing state feeling dissed, disenfranchised and, it now seems, disinclined to back whomever the Democratic candidate is in November. And that could harm the party's White House bid as severely as any butterfly ballot or hanging chad ever did.

Yes it will. But this time, no one can blame ANYONE BUT the LWL {Left Wing Loonies}and their leadership. Florida and Michigan Democrats, only have Dean and the DNC to blame for this one.

According to a poll conducted this week for various Florida media, almost a quarter of Florida Democrats say they'll be "less likely to support" the party's nominee if their state's delegates aren't seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August - and by seated they mean counted in the final tally to choose the presidential nominee. Florida has more than 4 million registered Democrats, but even just taking into account the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted in the January primary, that's still a potential alienation of some 400,000 votes, on a peninsula (and the nation's fourth largest state) that ended up deciding the 2000 presidential race by a mere 537 ballots. In addition, some state party leaders tell TIME they privately estimate the Dem dysfunction will cost them at least 1% of Florida's sizeable chunk of independent voters, who number more than 2 million, or almost a fifth of the state's electorate.

Then there's the question of all the prodigious Flori-dough. Prominent Florida Democratic donors and fundraisers are now threatening to withhold or seek the return of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from the national party if at least some of the state's delegates are not reinstated.

This is just to fun to watch. Dean's arrogance and unwilling to compromise with his own party is what is causing this whole mess. They NEVER planned on this situation. They REALLY did not think they would need Florida. Now they do. {Smile} That should tell you what they think of you my Florida Democrat friends. They didn't care about you until now, when they find they DO need you.

Those risks were already apparent when Dean and the DNC made their original fateful decision. Last May, Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist and the state's GOP-controlled legislature - fed up with what they call an absurd presidential primary process that gives small states like Iowa and New Hampshire inordinate clout - decided to leapfrog Florida's primary from March to Jan. 29. The move violated Democratic as well as Republican party rules, but many if not most Florida Democrats also supported it. Still, the DNC ruled that all 210 of Florida's Democratic nominating delegates would be annulled. It exacted the same draconian punishment on Democrats in Michigan, which moved its primary to Jan. 15. The DNC also allowed Iowa, New Hampshire and other small, early-primary states to force Democratic candidates to pledge not to campaign in Florida or Michigan.

Oops. {Laughing} You know it's funny if you think about this. The LWL NEVER follow rules. They lie, cheat, and steal. Now they actually want to follow rules and regulations? Good news for McCain, who might just win, based on nothing more than the disenfranchised Democrat voters.

Dean has consistently argued that the integrity of party rules is at stake. But that seemingly principled stand rests on shaky ground. In a New York Times op-ed article this week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the DNC, pointed out that one of the perennially pampered primary states, New Hampshire, also broke newly established party rules last year by defensively moving its own primary to an earlier date - and the DNC allowed it. Even discounting that apparent hypocrisy, Florida Democrats insist that the moves by their state and Michigan should have indicated to the DNC that the rules were antiquated and flawed, and therefore required some flexibility. "I detest this ruling," says U.S. Representative Robert Wexler, Barack Obama's Florida campaign director. "This should have been a wake-up call to the party that the primary system needs to be more representative and democratic."

It's YOUR Leadership. most of the rules and regulations, even as some see it, Laws, are "flexible" when it comes to Democrats. Republicans? They must follow them to the T. But Dems? Especially the LWL? Well, they are more like suggestions. {Smile}

Either way, the DNC's lack of foresight is astonishing, even more so now that Florida and Michigan have rejected the idea of costly and less than reliable primary revotes. After all, the Republican National Committee annulled only half of Florida's GOP delegates - a more measured ruling the DNC could have mirrored. And while Democratic rivals Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn't set foot in Florida in January, John McCain and his Republican competitors campaigned there and scored valuable face time with Florida independents, with McCain even winning the endorsement of the popular Crist. Despite all that, Florida Democrats campaigned with cardboard cutouts of Clinton and Obama and then turned out to vote in record numbers for the primary election, which was remarkably blooper-free by Sunshine State standards. All the while they were convinced that in the end the DNC would never shut out their delegates, especially with Clinton and Obama running neck-and-neck into the spring.

Their simmering frustration now is beginning to boil. "None of this makes sense to me," says JoAnne Bander, a Democratic activist in Miami and a Clinton supporter. "I feel completely disenfranchised. How can they dismiss the turnout we produced and keep treating Florida as if it were some marginal consideration?"

Perhaps because Dean and the DNC painted themselves into a corner. They can't easily lift the Florida-Michigan sanctions after all the authoritarian chest-thumping they did last year. Yet if the party heads into Denver without a clear nominee - and needing the votes of Florida and Michigan to decide the issue - their peremptory action will seem even more ridiculous, making the leadership of the so-called people's party look like a clique of arrogant patricians thwarting the popular will.


THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. What they have ALWAYS been. "the leadership of the so-called people's party look like a clique of arrogant patricians thwarting the popular will."

What's worse, Dean and the DNC now look all but AWOL when it comes to resolving a mess they did so much to create, leaving it to the states to figure it out. Nor have Crist and the Florida legislature been much help after they were the ones who led the state into the primary rebellion in the first place. (In this week's poll, Florida Democrats lay equal blame on Dean and the Florida GOP.)

With any hope of a revote in either Florida or Michigan all but dead, the candidates themselves aren't helping to resolve the mess they too helped create by going along with the DNC. Clinton accepted the DNC ruling last year when she was the front-runner; but now, because she won the Florida and Michigan primaries but trails Obama in the delegate count, she's the earnest champion of voters like Bander. She backed the idea of revotes in Florida and Michigan; but this week rejected a compromise solution offered by Democratic state Senators in Florida that would take the GOP tack and reinstate half the delegates (giving Clinton 63 and Obama 42) and perhaps divide the other half equally between the two candidates or divvy them based on the popular vote that has so far been tallied nationally. Clinton insists instead that short of a full revote, all the Florida and Michigan delegates must be counted and seated as they stood in January.

The Florida compromise was also rejected by Obama, who didn't even put his name on the Michigan ballot in January. Otherwise, not surprisingly, he is keeping sheepishly quiet - and a bit unpresidential - about the whole thing, looking to many as if he is simply trying to run out the clock by raising objections to a proposed revote in Michigan.


Neither are going to have a revote. Just not going to happen. So watch for these "Rules" to all of a sudden become "flexible" in the days to come.

Meanwhile, little if anything is being done to appease angry Florida Democrats - whose enthusiastic support the party will need if the Florida sun is going to shine on its candidate in the general election. But either way, Florida isn't likely to be the butt of national jokes when this is all over. The new derisive puns may well fall instead on Dean and the DNC - starting with Dem-witted.

"Dem-witted"
{Laughing}

Congratulations Screaming Dean, you are, as with any other day of the week, the Idiot of the Week. Just because Hillary won Florida, doesn't mean you can care now. Your arrogance is once again costing you. Are you ever going to learn? I doubt it.
Peter

Sources:
Time.com- Will Dean Cost the Dems Florida

Friday, March 21, 2008

From The Emails 032108

Hey folks,

First, just a quick note. The OPNTalk will be off line this Sunday. I will not be here. It's Easter of course. But fret not, I WILL be here Saturday. That's right, look for a SPEICAL extended verison of the SATURDAY edition of the OPN. The IWA, Health and Science, You Can't Make This Stuff Up, segments along with whatever else I have time for, one time only, this SATURDAY.

Right now? It's Friday, time to go to the emails.

"I thought you might like an alternitive view of the Obama Speech. Believe it or not, some people were actually moved by it."

OBAMA'S SPEECH HOLDS OUT POSSIBILITY OF TRANSCENDING RACE

By Georgie Anne Geyer

Thu Mar 20, 7:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Something profoundly inspirational in the long American trauma over race occurred this week with the extraordinary speech of Barack Obama. It was a moment and a message that might well carry us as a people even beyond Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s great message of justice and on to a new one of transcendence.

We may not realize quite what is happening yet, but it is not impossible to see that Sen. Obama is using his campaign and his address on "A More Perfect Union" -- which took place just yards from Independence Hall in the iconic city of Philadelphia -- to outline the transformation he foresees for America.

He spoke to the anger and to the angst, but also to the hope of all sides, black and white and otherwise, saying that "we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction."

Speaking of his controversial black pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons critical of America carried us to this moment, Obama zeroed in on what was truly Wright's profound mistake. It was "not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation."

At this point, I wanted to jump up and sing and maybe even dance around a little, just like the members of his Trinity United Church of Christ do proudly at Sunday services, because finally we are hearing some truths about race. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama, this remarkable young mixture of names, races, ideas and beliefs, can indeed be where he is because this country has already changed enough to make his narrative including the presidency possible. As they say on Sunday, "Thanks be to the Lord."

As it happens, I grew up on Barack's and the Rev. Wright's self-same South Side of Chicago. I joyfully attended a Baptist Church at 87th Street and Ashland Avenue. It was a storefront -- nothing elegant like the 9,000-seat Trinity.

I don't remember a minister ever talking about politics. That was as verboten as dancing, drinking and going to the movies. (I didn't do so well on that last verboten.)

But there was a big difference. For us white people, churches were only for worship, while for black South Siders, their churches served as community, cultural and civic centers. Indeed, Obama has written and often spoken about becoming a Christian unsure of his faith, but very sure of the crucial place of the black church in organizing the black community.

So what he did in Tuesday's memorable "Philadelphia story" was to show understanding of the historical anger and hurt of black Americans, but also to speak sympathetically of the historical resentment of the white immigrant and other Americans toward blacks. What he did was to issue a moving cry for transcendence, for rising above and beyond the very real progress -- and, look at our history, this IS real! -- we have already made, particularly since civil rights were made part of our laws.

Probably the best description of where we are was given to me by Dr. Don Beck, head of the National Values Center and the Center for Global Emerging, when he said that, as a nation, we are moving from civil war to civil rights to civil transformation.

Obama has "rejected outright" Wright's statements that were found so reprehensible. There is no wavering in his condemnation, and that should now be history. Yet a person seeing the world fairly also has to see that a church like his in a racially complicated era is itself a complicated business.

Congregants angry and hurt at the criticisms of the church have pointed out that the Rev. Wright arranges bus trips for predominantly white congregations to visit Trinity every Sunday, and that the church has steadfastly maintained its relationship with the mother denomination, the predominantly white United Church of Christ, whose president, John H. Thomas, called Wright "a wonderful friend to white pastors" who has "gifted the organization financially."

Curiously, what Obama seems to understand instinctively from his experience of living all over the world, and being the son of a mixed couple and of mixed families, is that racism is hardly an American construct. We do well to remember that the African slaves so cruelly sent to America were largely rounded up by other African tribal leaders and by Arab slavers -- that's where the Rev. Wright seems to get lost in the mazes of history.

What Obama brings to the country is a sophisticated understanding of the experiences of peoples all over the world; and yet, as he said in his Philadelphia speech, "For as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."

Then he added: "It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate." One can surely say that again.


Here is the Link

Uh, OK.
Peter

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

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Obama Told The Truth

Hey folks,

I know I will take a little bit of heat on this, but I have to agree with Obama on a couple of points. Now I know WHY he gave this speech. He had to. It is nothing more than damage control. Nothing more than him attempting to seemingly rise above the Race issue, and the hate spewed by his Pastor. It didn't work.

Well, if you listen to some in the Mainstreme Media, and some in the Black community, you would think that this was a great speech. You would think it was second to only Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. Which is what it was intended to be like. Excusing his Pastor and explaining to the White people, we just cannot understand why his Pastor feels the way he does, because White people never walked in his shoes. It was intended to show that Obama is above the Race issue, yet wants to hold close to him those that are Racist.

But I got news for you. I do not know if he wrote this or not. I do not know if he intended this or not. But a couple of points he made, are 100 percent true. I have been saying the same thing for a while now. Many of you know, I have been talking about TRUE equality. The fact that we will NEVER have true equality in this country as long as so called "Leaders" continue to preach division. As long as we have Government programs that promote one Race over another. As long as we continue to treat people differently just because of the color of their skin. Here are a couple of highlights of Obama's speech I want to point out.

"This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well."

Who was asking these questions? The Liberal Media. The Democrats. Black Leaders. These were they that were bringing race into it.

"And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn."

Why is that? It is because of Obama's BLACK Pastor teaching HATE. It is because his BLACK Leader was preaching to hate "Rich White People." To Hate America. To Hate anyone not Black. It was because, as we are now discovering, not just him, but MANY "Black Leaders" that Obama has decided to associate himself with, to surround himself with, ALL have been teaching Hate and Division.

"On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike."

Both TRUE.

"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

Wait! So he LIED? He told us that HE {Obama} never heard these things himself. NOW he said this? "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

"Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable."

Yup. This is why this is NOT even worthy to be compared to "I Have A Dream." MLK was all about the PEOPLE. You are given this speech that is all about YOU.

"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."

Now it's time, most likely, for me to be labeled a Racist again. This is a bunch of bunk. So he is blaming White America, and the lack of financial opportunities for the fact that Black men have CHOSEN NOT to be Fathers? He is saying that it's the White man's fault that Black men run around and impregnate women then move on? That they do not want to be FATHERS? This IS true "a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened." They have sent the message, the more kids you have, the more money you get. You do not have to work. We will give you anything you need.

Then this "And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us." Barack, if we are getting really honest here, then LET us get REAL. This is not a racist statement. This is the TRUTH.

In neighborhoods where we do have parks, what do we have? Drug dealers, gang bangers, ETC. I watched a NEW housing complex be erecting when I was in NY for the low income families. People started moving in the one half before it was done. That half looked like something out of bombed out Iraq before the other half was finished. Broken windows, ripped screens, teenagers hanging out at the corner. Music blasting hateful lyrics. This place was destroyed before it was even built.

If I treated my house in this manor, I would have Code Enforcement coming down on me. I would have people trying to move ME out of the neighborhood. Not because of the color of my skin, but because of WHAT I was doing.

You cannot blame the programs that ARE there to help people, when it is the PEOPLE that are ruining it for themselves.

"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

ABSOLUTELY! This is what I have been talking about. Programs like Affirmative Action is nothing more than reverse discrimination. I have said over and over again, that as long as we treat people, ANY people differently based on the color of their skin, we will continue to have Racism. He NAILED one of the MAIN reasons we still have some problems. Back on January 15, we remembered MLK. I posted the "I Have A Dream" Speech. I said this.

"I will occasionally come into contact with a black person, usually an older male, and I am disrespected, called a racist, called names, without the person I’m standing in front of even knowing my name. Why? Because I’m a white male. So in his mind, I HAVE to be a racist. He made that judgement, not based on my words, actions, or anything else, other than the color of my skin.

They you have government funded and supported racism which states that companies and the government itself, must hire the minority over anyone else regardless of their qualifications. Simply based on the color of their skin. The wisdom of Dr. King warned us of this way back then."

"I have ALWAYS conducted myself in this manner. I judge everyone on what they do, say, and how they act toward me. I do not care what "color" they are. I do not care what religion they follow. I do not care what sexual orientation they observe. I care about WHO they are, NOT what they are."

"But first we must get ALL dividers out, allow the uniters to do their thing. We need to rid society from those of ALL races, that do nothing but preach separation and hatred. This includes the "Black Leaders" that WANT to keep them down, so they can make more money and get more fame.

On this day that America remembers one of it’s greatest leaders and visionaries, let us not only remember his actions, but the true meaning of his words as well."


Back on September 16, 2007, Black on White Violence OK, Talking about the Jenna 6 mess, I said this.

"THIS is one of the reasons, some in this country that are not inherently racist, start having some problems. Some see things like this, and ask, why? Why is this. Just because of the color of their skin? THIS type of thing can actually lead to more racism."

"This is what I mean. Some that are not inherently Racist, could very well look at this situation and say, “Screw it, if it’s good for one group, it’s good for another.” Racism BREEDS Racism. Hate BREEDS hate. This type of situation produces worst."

Then on September 21, Forgetting The Victim, I said this

"We cannot right wrongs by wrong means. As I have said before, if we were truly going to have equality, then we must treat everyone EQUALLY."

Back to Obama.

"Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."

That's just his opinion. The facts are they do discuss "racial injustice and inequality" And yes Obama, these programs ARE reverse racism.

Then he goes right back to division. He was doing OK, until this.

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed."

So for Whites to help in equality, we must accept the fact we are racists and we are the problem. We must PAY for our past misdeeds.

"Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

{Sigh} It goes on in further attempts to get you to accept that he is above all this. MLK? He is not. Comparing this speech to MLK? It's like comparing Jesus to Judas. You just can't. One came and died for the betterment of all man kind. One came for the betterment of himself.
Peter

Sources:
Obama
OPNTalk-
MLK
OPNTalk- Jenna 6

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama Speech On Race

Hey folks,

Here it is. I will be commenting on this tomorrow. See you then.


"A More Perfect Union"

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”


Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories tha t we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Clinton Inc Laying the Foundation For Nomination Steal

Hey folks,

This one is TO good. Clinton Inc. is starting to lay the foundation for the steal of the Democratic Nomination at the Democrat Convention. Their surrogates are anyway. Get this. Two former Clinton people have decided to release a statement, in reference to the up coming Convention.

John Larmett who was Judiciary Legislative Assistant to Rep. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc, who in 1995, President Bill Clinton awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. "As the father of Earth Day, he is the grandfather of all that grew out of that event," Mr. Clinton said. "He inspired us to remember that the stewardship of our natural resources is the stewardship of the American Dream."

Robert Weiner, Chief of Press Relations/Director of Public Affairs, White House Office of National Drug Policy, May 1995-August 2001. Liaison with media and spokesperson for Clinton Administration and Office for top national profile issue.

Here is their statement in full, I’ll comment after.

Debunking Conventional Wisdom: Brokered Convention Could Help Party Say Ex White House, Hill Aides Robert Weiner and John Larmett

This time, we may see more than pre-ordained roll calls with a predetermined outcome. In Denver, the convention may actually decide the nominee and the next president.

The conventional wisdom is that such a convention decision -- a "brokered" convention -- is bad for the party. But let's take a second look.

FDR, one of the party's all-time luminaries, was selected after four ballots. Woodrow Wilson was chosen after 46 ballots. Contrary to what has become the accepted view, Democratic Party history shows the opportunity of election success starting with a convention decision.

If a brokered convention with multiple ballots was good enough for FDR -- the party's greatest hero, who was elected president four times -- what's the problem with the party today using its established process?

Another conventional view is that if the Clinton-Obama battle goes until the August convention, the party will be hurt for the November general election. Actually, the reverse is likely true. The race continuing until the convention actually allows Democrats to stay in the spotlight, criticizing the Iraq war and tax cuts for the wealthy, while John McCain gains little media attention on his own.

The remaining Democratic candidates will criticize each other, but they will be agreeing on the need to replace Bush-McCain and will come together immediately following the convention. Many of the primaries have been decided in their last two days (New Hampshire, Texas and Ohio, for example), let alone the two months the general election allows.

Moreover, the convention itself will be mandatory for the media to cover - - the legitimate news will negate the networks' reduced coverage in previous years because of the argument over minimal relevance.

The brokered convention is becoming a likely scenario. The fact of the matter is that as of now, anyone claiming a "significant" delegate lead is spinning against the basic math. The difference is around 100, according to wire and news counts, essentially nothing given that Pennsylvania has 187 delegates, nationally almost 800 superdelegates can decide either way, and the Michigan and Florida process must be determined for their 313 delegate votes.

Moreover, Democrats must allow Florida and Michigan to have full primary re-votes. For the Democratic Party to ignore those two states -- especially since the Republicans in Florida moved the schedule, penalizing the state's millions of Democrats -- would be a strategic blunder, potentially costing those states in the general election. Neither Obama nor Clinton can afford to anger Florida and Michigan, let alone bring back memories of the 2000 Florida vote.

Democrats should not be afraid to add a little life to the party and the convention this year. They can truly make history -- for the party and the nation -- and be proud of it.

The Denver Post reported it this way.

Denver may witness a historic Democratic National Convention. There could be more memorable events than Al Gore's smooch of his wife, Bill Clinton giving a speech so uncharacteristically bad that he's joked about it since, Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy rousing the delegates, or George McGovern waiting until 3 a.m. to give an acceptance speech seen by no one.

Then this. {Laughing}

Moreover, Democrats must allow Florida and Michigan to have full primary re-votes. For the Democratic Party to ignore those two states — especially since the Republicans in Florida moved the schedule, penalizing the state's millions of Democrats — would be a strategic blunder, potentially costing those states in the general election. Neither Obama nor Clinton can afford to anger Florida and Michigan, let alone bring back memories of the 2000 Florida vote.

Highlighting the MUST.

We are hopeful that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will keep his word to support a primary re-vote, and that Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who joined Crist in a statement saying both states' votes “must count,” will follow suit. Thankfully, DNC Chairman Howard Dean has indicated the party will accept a plan by Michigan and Florida to redo the delegate selection.

Hate to break this to you, but it is looking more and more like it ain’t going to happen in Florida. That should give Sharpton something to do. {Smile} It's the DNC's fault. No one else is to blame.

The rest is the same. But what is funny is that they are TELLING you that the Clintons are going to try to steal this, and that Obama will have to settle for being on the bottom of the ticket. They are telling you, that they do not care about YOUR vote. They do not care about the 80 percent of the Black vote that has and will continue to go to Obama. They are loving this. They think this actually is HELPING them. No media coverage for McCain.

OH, by the way. “Bush-McCain” is NOT on the ticket. Morons. Bush is out. It is starting to look like McCain - Romney, but I do not want to jump the gun.

There you have it my Democratic friends. Clinton Inc. is at it again. They do not CARE about you. They do not care about your vote. All they care about is getting into power. Plain and simple.

You want more insanity form these two Loons? Check THIS out.

Have a great day. See you soon.
Peter


Sources:
Robert Weiner and John Larmett
Denverpost.com - Debunking convention wisdom
Salam News - 1984' in 2007? Ex-White House Aides Say Parallels are Disturbing

Monday, March 17, 2008

Call A Black Racist Racist? Your A Racist

Hey folks,

Good Monday morning to you. {Sigh} Here we go again. You know, anytime you speak out against Black Racism, YOU become the Racist. You talk about Sharpton, Jackson, or Farrakhan and their OWN WORDS. YOU are the Racist. After all, a Black man can't be a Racist. What a bunch of bunk. But here we go again.

According to CNN - Church: Obama ex-pastor is under unfair attack, By Steve Brusk and Alex Mooney

(CNN) -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's former church criticized the news media Sunday for coverage of his sermons, saying in a statement that Wright's "character is being assassinated in the public sphere."

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, defended Wright, saying he "has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."

Yup. He taught them to hate the White man, and the Jews. He taught them that they cannot go anywhere in life because this is a Damned Country controlled by "Rich White People." He taught them Hatred.

The statement came two days after Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a longtime friend of Wright and attendee of the church, denounced sermons that have become the subject of recent controversy. Obama called them "inflammatory and appalling."

"It is an indictment on Dr. Wright's ministerial legacy to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite," the Rev. Otis Moss III, the current pastor of the church, said in the statement.

Wait, is he attacking OBAMA? Obama is the one the denounced him. {Laughing} No, he'll say something like, Obama had no choice. He was forced to by the Evil White Media. {Smile}

"The African-American Church was born out of the crucible of slavery, and the legacy of prophetic African-American preachers since slavery has been and continues to heal broken, marginalized victims of social and economic injustices," Moss added.

"This is an attack on the legacy of the African-American Church, which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world."

No it was telling the TRUTH about this Pastor, Pastor. It was pointing out the TRUTH that he was preaching Racism. Like it or not. THAT is the truth.

In the same statement, the Rev. John H. Thomas, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ -- the denomination to which Wright's church belongs -- said the news media were creating a "caricature" of his congregation.

"It's time for us to say 'No' to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," Thomas said.

Then STOP PROMOTING HATE! Really simple.

The sermons in question became the subject of scrutiny last week after being highlighted in an ABC News report.

And on Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.

At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is easier than Obama's because of her skin color.

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home; Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a 'nigger!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person."

No. Has Obama? Seriously. I'm asking. When was he told he was a non-person? HIM. Obama. Not the entire race. HIM himself? He was not some poor boy in the streets with no shoes. He lived in a nice home. Went to the best schools. Wait, his Mother was white. He had the best of both worlds. Right?

Wright, who retired this year from his post, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

Obama is not POOR.

In denouncing those sermons Friday, Obama defended his 20-year relationship with Wright, saying that the pastor has served him in a spiritual role -- not a political one.

What does that mean anyway? So I guess there would no problem if McCain went out and found a KKK member to be his Spiritual Advisor? You know, as long as they are not his Political Advisor, all should be fine right?

You cannot say that someone filling one's Spirit with hate, does not effect their decision process.

Folks, as long as we have "leaders" of any race, preaching hate toward another, we will NEVER have equality in this country. Obama needs to get rid of this guy. Get him out of his campaign.

Sorry to disappoint you Pastor Moss, but a Black man CAN BE a Racist. Pointing out that fact, does NOT make one a Racist. It just means they are telling the truth.
Peter

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Sunday Edition Preview 031608

Hey folks,

Happy Sunday to you. Coming up today? Another fully loaded Sunday. It’s Not Over Till It’s Over, Obama Tries To Distance Yet Stay Close, a FISA update, Ashley Alexandra Dupré, yup, and of course the Health and Science segment, and the IWA. All coming right up.

First though, according to CTV - Hard-liners take early edge in Iran's elections
Updated Sat. Mar. 15 2008 6:03 AM ET

The Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran -- Hard-line allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pulled ahead in Iran's parliamentary elections, according to partial results Saturday, but the president's conservative critics were making a strong showing that could unsettle his domination of the legislature.

Reformists, meanwhile, struggled to create an effective minority bloc after large numbers of their candidates -- many of which support better relations with the West -- were barred from the race. The United States said the results were “cooked” because of the disqualifications.

OF COURSE THEY ARE! I told you all the back on February 29 in response to this.

“At home, the Iranian president may welcome a foreign policy success to distract attention from the economy and double-digit inflation before a March parliamentary election that will test his popularity and indicate his chance for re-election in 2009.”

Give me a break. Seriously? He is not going anywhere.

Many reform supporters spent election day Friday deliberating whether to vote and give legitimacy to a contest many of them saw as unfair, or boycott and ensure an even stronger conservative domination of parliament.

Break,

In the 95 of parliament's 290 seats decided so far, pro-Ahmadinejad hard-liners won 39 seats and reformists 13, according to results announced by state television and the official news agency IRNA and reports from local officials speaking to The Associated Press.

We will not know for a few days the OFFICIAL outcome, but YOU already know, because I told you already. {Smile}

Anyway, here we go. Go get some coffee. Mine is Butterscotch Toffee. Get ready, let’s get right to it.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Little Hitler Going To Iraq
CTV- Hard-liners take early edge in Iran's elections
It’s Not Over Till It’s Over

Hey folks,

More and more people are lining up to say that even though Obama in is the lead. The Clinton plan on stealing the nomination from him at the Convention. They keep saying that he will not have enough, if he loses Pennsylvania, to beat the Super Delegates the will vote for Clinton.

Now we have this to do about his Pastor of 20 years and his Pastor's hate and anti-Semitic Sermons. He has attempted to distance himself from his Pastors remarks, but has not removed him from the Campaign yet. More on that in a second. But Dick Morris sees things a little differently.

Super Delegates Lining Up for Barack Obama
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Saturday, March 15, 2008

A funny thing is happening. While Hillary and Bill appeal to super delegates to override the will of the voters and back Hillary, the super delegates are doing just the opposite.

The latest delegate count posted on realclearpolitics.com shows that Hillary’s lead among super delegates, once a comfortable 60 votes, has now been cut almost in half to 36 delegates. The latest tally has Hillary leading among super delegates by 247 to 211. So, with 57 percent of the super delegates decided, Hillary’s lead is shrinking.

In fact, Obama’s total delegate lead has swelled to 163 votes among elected delegates and 127 among all delegates. With 1,614 votes, he isn’t far from the 2,025 he would need, without Florida or Michigan, to win the nomination.

Of the remaining 566 delegates to be selected, Hillary should enjoy a slight edge. She’ll probably win Pennsylvania (158 delegates), Indiana (72), Kentucky (51), West Virginia (28), and Puerto Rico (55). Obama will likely win North Carolina (115), Oregon (52), Montana (16), South Dakota (15) and Guam (4). If this turns out to be so, Clinton would lead in states with 364 delegates while Obama would prevail in states with 202. But even if we assume 10 point wins for each candidate in each state (and the margin will likely be much tighter), all Hillary would get from her states is 36 more delegates while Obama would get 20 from his — still leaving Obama with a lead of 147 in elected delegates.

At that point, Obama would have about 1,900 votes, within spitting distance of the 2025 he’d need to win. Hillary would have to win the remaining super delegates by a top-heavy margin of 2:1 in order to win (steal) the nomination from Obama, who will have won the most elected delegates.

Steal is right. {Smile}

Even if we factor in possible do-over primaries in Florida and Michigan, the nature of the proportional representation process is not likely to change this outcome significantly. Hillary might get an extra 20 delegates if she wins both states, but she’s not likely to get more.

Along with the fact it is looking more and more likely that Florida will NOT have the do over.

Can Hillary carry the remaining super delegates by 2:1 when she is carrying the ones who have committed by only 247 to 211? Not very likely. The pressure on these delegates to vote as their states voted will be very intense and few are likely to stand up to it.

Remember that these super delegates are either elected officials in their own right, which means that they need to get reelected or party officials in the various states whose ears are very close to the ground. Particularly in caucus states that Obama carried heavily, they are not about to antagonize the party activists who backed Obama by undercutting their will and switching to Hillary.

They are afraid of the Rev.s coming to their towns. Plain and simple. They WILL if needed. Riots in the street? That has already been talked about. They will not risk this.

In fact, the track record of the super delegates so far indicates that they are abandoning Hillary and signing up with Obama as his delegate lead mounts.

So even if the Clintons try as hard as they can (and they will) to steal his election, their chances of doing so are getting increasingly remote.

With more and more of the Mass Media jumping on the Obama band wagon, they {Clinton Inc.} is dwindling in power and prestige. There is something they NEVER would have thought of happening. But it is. As Dick says though, the Clintons WILL try to steal this, and they will do whatever they have to, to get what they want. They WANT the Presidency. It’s not over until it’s over. And it IS just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
Townhall.com - Super Delegates Lining Up for Barack Obama
Obama Tries To Distance Yet Stay Close

Hey folks,

The big news for the last two days is the fact that the Obamas, Mr., Mrs., and the kids, have attended this particular church for the Past 20 years. Problem is, the Pastor of that church preaches hate. Hate for White people. Hate for America. Hate for Jews. He promotes and awards the Hate Monger Louis Farrakhan.

People have been calling for Obama to denounce this Pastor and move on. Well, he did. Kind of. But he STILL has a major problem. According to the AP- Obama denounces pastor's 9/11 comments By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press WriterSat Mar 15, 8:53 AM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor, who has railed against the United States and accused the country of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.

Obama called the statements appearing on television and the Internet “completely unacceptable and inexcusable” in a Fox News interview and said they didn't reflect the kinds of sermons he had heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright while attending services at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

Wait a sec. Seriously? You really want us to buy that? You, Senator Obama, YOU went to this church for 20 years? Your Wife says things that are VERY SIMILAR to what your Pastor preaches. He is YOUR Spiritual Adviser? You never heard him talk like this?

Obama, a member of the church since the early 1990s, said he would have quit Trinity had such statements been “the repeated tenor of the church. ... I wouldn't feel comfortable there.”

{Sigh}

Earlier Friday, Obama responded by posting a blog about his relationship with Wright and Trinity on the Huffington Post. Wright brought Obama to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters and inspired the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

The Huffy Post. Go figure. {Laughing} The same that have removed posts that declared that Gov Spitzer was not involved in Prostitution Rings.

Obama wrote that he's looked to Wright for spiritual advice, not political guidance, and he's been pained and angered to learn of some of his pastor's comments for which he had not been present. Obama told MSNBC that Wright had stepped down from his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Was he there for the Christmas Sermon? Was he there after 911? It would be interesting to find out. I guess the Pastor only preached hate during the Sundays Obama wasn’t there.

“I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies,” Obama said in his blog posting. “I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue.”

Then fire him from your campaign and find a new Spiritual Adviser.

In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.”

In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his candidacy and criticizing his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright told a cheering congregation. "Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger.”

Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him as "like an uncle" who says something that he disagrees with and must speak out against. He also said he expects his political opponents will use video of the sermons to attack him as the campaign goes on.

Questions about Obama's religious beliefs have dogged him throughout his candidacy. He's had to fight against false Internet rumors suggesting he's really a Muslim intent on destroying the United States, and now his pastor's words uttered nearly seven years ago have become an issue.

Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the statements, but he acknowledged that they have raised legitimate questions about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church. He wrote that he joined Wright's church nearly 20 years ago, familiar with the pastor's background as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who lectured at seminaries across the country.

“Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life,” he wrote. “And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor and to seek justice at every turn.”

He said Wright's controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them. Because of his long and deep ties to the 6,000-member congregation church, Obama said he decided not to leave.

“With Reverend Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good,” he wrote.

{Sigh} You just said if you knew that this was being taught you would quit. Now you are staying? Man of your word? OK. Maybe this new Pastor is not racist. I bet people will be watching him.

Also Friday, the United Church of Christ issued a 1,400-word statement defending Wright and his "flagship" congregation. The statement lauded Wright's church for its community service and work to nurture youth and the pastor for speaking out against homophobia and sexism in the black community.

“It's time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends,” John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ's president, said in the statement.

Idiot. So the Church will not condemn him for his racist statements. Obama SAYS he condemns his statements, yet keeps him on board his campaign and as his Spiritual Adviser. How much Spiritual advice can a racist give you? Sorry, you did NOT do enough Senator. Not NEARLY enough.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Obama denounces pastor's 9/11 comments
FISA Update

Hey folks,

I just posted this Friday “From The Emails” segment. I said this.

“It's FRIDAY. Time to go to the Emails. This week, I got a lot about the Global Warming bunk, I may touch on some of these this Weekend. But this one needs to be brought back to the forefront of peoples' minds. The mass media have all but forgotten about this. Even the usual Radio suspects have all but forgotten about this. No one seems to want to talk about this. Right now the big news, that is getting bigger, is the Hooker that brought down Spitzer. She has had over a million hits on her blog in 24 hours. She has two songs for sale on line, .98 cents a piece, over a million downloads. She will become more famous than Monica Lewinsky. Mark my words folks.

However, THIS is way more import than any of that. WE, the USA, are less protected against those that want to kill us because Traitor of the House Pelosi wants to keep playing games. Here is the Email of the week.”

Well, just a bit later that day, Traitor in the House Pelosi tried to weasel out of it by saying this on the House Floor.

“I thank Mr. Conyers, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Reyes, chair of the Intelligence Committee, for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. They know, as does each and every one of us, that our primary responsibility is to protect the American people. We take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And in the Preamble, it states that one of our primary responsibilities is to provide for the common defense. We take those responsibilities seriously, and I don't take seriously any statements by some in this body that any person here is abdicating that responsibility.”

You are Traitor in the House Pelosi. You ARE.

“All of us understand, also, the role that intelligence plays in protecting our troops -- force protection. That used to be our primary responsibility, and now of course, homeland security is part of that. None of us would send our troops into harm's way without the intelligence to perform their mission and keep them safe. Although some have been willing to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way without the equipment they need to keep them safe, we don't make any accusations against them that they are not patriotic Americans. We want to protect the American people.”

No you don’t.

“As Chairman Conyers and Chairman Reyes have already pointed out in some detail, this legislation will meet our responsibility to protect America while also protecting our precious civil liberties.

The President has said that our legislation will not make America safe. The President is wrong and I think he knows it. He knows that our legislation contains within it the principles that were suggested by the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, early on, as to what is needed to protect our people in terms of intelligence.”

Bunk. It is,,well, keep going.

“The Administration demands that Congress grants immunity to companies for activities about which the President wants only a small number of Members of Congress and no member of the Judicial Branch deciding any of the currently filed lawsuits to know anything about.”

Yup. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. The lawsuits are bogus. YOU Traitor in the House Pelosi, WANT the lawsuits to go through, because you were paid off, with MILLIONS of dollars, by the SAME trial Lawyers that will get rich by them. Twit.

“The bill before us acknowledges that immunity for the companies may already exist under current law and allows that determination to be decided by a judge with due protection for classified information. Not by hundreds of people who really do not have the facts.

Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:

First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in the statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed -- that's one possibility. They simply didn't do it right. Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or third, public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.”

Want a worm for that hook? Since your fishing, I thought maybe I could help you out.

“None of these alternatives is attractive, but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.

As important as the issue of immunity might be, it is chiefly important to the Administration and the telecommunications companies as they look back to events that occurred as many as six years ago. What is truly important to the security of our country and the protection of our Constitution going forward are the amendments made to FISA in Title I in this bill that is on the floor today, the so-called surveillance title of the bill.

The bill retains three of the essential provisions of the bill passed by the House in November and in doing so, explicitly rejects again the heart of the President's warrantless surveillance program. Those provisions are:

One, a restatement that FISA remains the exclusive -- means to authorize electronic surveillance. The President likes to think that he has the inherent authority to survey and collect on anybody and this bill restates that FISA is the exclusive authority. This was a point conceded to in 1978 when the Congress of United States established the FISA law, which was signed by the President of the United States, thereby his recognition of Congress' ability to make the courts the third branch of government the exclusive authority for the collection of intelligence in the United States.

Second, except in emergencies, FISA court approval must take place before surveillance begins. But there are exceptions in case of emergencies.”

That is completely bogus. It puts in the hands of a Judge to determine how and when someone should listen to attack preparation being made against this country. THAT is not the role of a judge. It is an act of War not of Law. A delay or denial by a judge with an agenda or just plain ignorance can HELP another attack happen.

“Third, a refusal to follow the Senate in excluding -- this is very important, because people are talking about the Senate bill as some great thing -- from the definition of electronic surveillance activities historically considered to be within the definition. In other words, if they don't want the law to apply for a particular activity, they'll just say it doesn't fall into this bill. If the Administration's change in the definition change was accepted, 'FISA-derived' information including U.S. person information could be data-mined with fewer protections than currently in place under FISA. This is very important to each and every person in America.”

It passed the Senate, it will pass the House, because it is the right thing to do. Again, you Twit.

“The President insists that we pass the Senate bill as is. Yet even that legislation's chief author -- Chairman Rockefeller -- agrees that many of the House provisions improve the Senate bill. “This legislation before us today will ensure that our intelligence professionals have all the tools they need to protect the American people, and the President knows it.

This legislation will also ensure that we protect what it means to be an American -- our precious civil rights and civil liberties.

Both goals are essential and both are achieved by this bill. I urge its passage.”

It will be vetoed, because again, you are playing politics with American lives. YOU are. Same day as a response to this, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt issued the following statement.

“Even for a Congress with a proven record of over-reaching, the majority's decision to play politics with critical terrorist surveillance legislation is deeply disappointing. And as they force through another ill-fated and poorly conceived FISA bill today, it's worth wondering how many intelligence agents would have to testify that vital information is being lost before Democrats hear their message, and finally take up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill.

Nearly a year has passed since the director of national intelligence identified the need to modernize our outdated surveillance laws, and asked Congress to work with him on finding a workable solution. The Senate has done its part, working with the administration to produce a bill that balances national security with protecting individual rights. But until the House decides to follow suit, our intelligence capabilities will continue to dim -- until our agents reach the point where they find themselves completely in the dark.

It's my sincere hope the two-week Easter recess imparts in Democrats perspective on this issue they currently do not have. Maybe then they'll decide to bring forth the bipartisan Senate bill for passage -- legislation that arms our intelligence agents with the tools they need to keep us safe, while ensuring the firms that aided our country in the days following September 11th aren't rewarded for their patriotism with a lawsuit.”

Yes, you read that correctly. For the second time, the House if going on vacation, WITHOUT passing the Senate version that will keep us safe, and protect companies that help out in doing so. Traitor in the House Pelosi wants them to be able to be sued, not because she cares about you or your “Rights” but rather because she has been paid off. So she just continues to stall, play games, and now go on vacation again. It’s time folks, it’s time she needs to go on an incessant vacation. Like the old saying goes, don’t go away mad, just go away. Let the grown ups keep Americans safe. Let the grown ups run the country.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - From The Emails 031408
Office of the Speaker of the House
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up 031608

Ashley Alexandra Dupré

Hey folks,

The next Britney Spears? No. She will be bigger than Britney Spears. Mark my words. Note it on your calender. Today, Sunday, March 16, 2008. I’m telling you folks, Ashley Alexandra Dupré will be a mega star.

About 84 hours after the story broke, around 48 hours after former Gov. Elliot Spitzer resigned, Ashley Alexandra Dupré is selling music. On the cover of all the news outlets. Paper, TV, Internet, and even on the radio. Stories like “You, Me, and Dupre.” “His fall, her rise.” ETC. She is all over the place.

A local radio show down here in South Florida, The Jim DeFede Show played her music on Friday. He was commented on the fact, as long as you can get passed the REASON she has been discovered, you have to admit, “She is better than Britney Spears.” She really is. She has a great voice. But you also have to remember, she is a Hooker. Does anyone care?

I know that some will see this, and some will play it, that she was working as a high price call girl just to survive while trying to make it in the Music Industry. Some will say that this does not make her a bad person. Just using what she had to make it. Some will argue that she is nothing but a Hooker. A Skank that makes her not worthy to become some kind of role model for young girls across the country. She has no business influencing young girls to do whatever it takes to “Make It.”

Her own words?

“I am all about my music, and my music is all about me… It flows from what I’ve been through, what I’ve seen and how I feel. I live in New York and am on top of the world. Been here since 2004 and I love this city, I love my life here. But, my path has not been easy. When I was 17, I left home. It was my decision and I’ve never looked back. Left my hometown. Left a broken family. Left abuse. Left an older brother who had already split. Left and learned what it was like to have everything, and lose it, again and again. Learned what it was like to wake up one day and have the people you care about most gone. I have been alone. I have abused drugs. I have been broke and homeless. But, I survived, on my own. I am here, in NY because of my music. It started when I moved in with a musician during my odyssey to New York. One day, I was in the shower singing “respect.” He and his lead guitarist burst in, had me repeat it and it started. We wrote, rehearsed and toured. After recording a bit with them, I decided to move to Manhattan to pursue my music career. I spent the first two years getting to know the music scene, networking in clubs and connecting with the industry. Now, it’s all about my music. It’s all about expressing me. I can sit here now, and knowingly tell you that life’s hard sometimes. But, I made it. I’m still here and I love who I am. If I never went through the hard times, I would not be able to appreciate the good ones. Cliché, yes, but I know it’s true. I have experienced just how hard it can be. I can honestly tell you to never dwell on the past, but build from it and keep moving forward. Don’t let anyone hold you back or tell you that you can’t…because you can. I didn’t and here I am, just listen to it…. What we Want is my latest track. It’s really about trust, something my past has made very difficult for me to feel. This one was inspired by a guy, who taught me not to confuse my dreams with the sounds of the city…I hope you like.”

My HONEST opinion? In the long run, nobody is going to care about this. Nobody will care that she use to be a Hooker. In our society today, that’s no big deal. The fact that she did Spitzer, now she is a big star, not based on her music and abilities, but because she brought down a powerful and well dis-liked Governor of New York, all the better for her.

She has already sold like 3 million plus downloads of her songs at between .98 cents to now about $1.68 a pop. Do the math. She is GUARANTEED to have a recording contract with a major label. She has already most likely made Millions. Between her music, the tabloids, the interviews she has and will be giving. Watch, she will be all over the place for a while. Watch for her to appear on MTV, VH1, ETC. Most likely Playboy. Watch for a story to come out about her life. This one may be big enough to make, not just some TV movie, but hit the big screen. Someone is writing it as we speak.

You know, one has to wonder. I may be the only one asking this. But, is it at least within the possibility that SHE is the one that made the phone call? Seriously. Think about it. She is not in jail right now. She is not even charged with anything yet. But yet, the Governor is gone. She is a BIG STAR and rising. Hmm?

ANY way you chose to look at this, Ashley Alexandra Dupré is here to stay. Get use to it.
Peter

Sources:
850WFTL- The Jim DeFede Show
Ashley Alexandra Dupré
NYP - Gov Hooker Can Bare All
H.S. Sunday 031608

Hey folks,

I told you last week, that now we have more problems with defective products coming from China. This time, Heparin. Well, this is good news. According to Reuters - FDA detaining imported heparin for tests By Lisa RichwineFri Mar 14, 6:55 PM ET

U.S. health regulators said on Friday they have ordered the detention of all imported supplies of heparin blood-thinner products so they can be tested for possible contamination.

The move is part of an investigation into serious reactions and deaths reported in patients treated with Baxter International Inc's version of heparin. The company recalled most of its U.S. supplies of the drug last month.

“We will be stopping all heparin products slated for import and assuring that manufacturers are testing them, or we will be testing them ourselves,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told reporters during a conference call.

The FDA said the detention order was issued on Monday.

FDA officials previously identified a contaminant in some of the drug's active ingredient supplied to Baxter by a plant in Changzhou, China, owned by Wisconsin-based Scientific Protein Labs. They have not determined if the contamination caused the reactions, which include breathing problems and drops in blood pressure.

Twenty out of 28 samples from the Changzhou plant recently tested positive for the contaminant, which is a chemical similar to heparin, Woodcock said.

Baxter and APP Pharmaceuticals Inc have been the two major U.S. heparin suppliers, but other smaller companies manufacture and sell the drug.

Five companies have agreed to test for the contaminant, FDA officials said. The agency would not name the companies or say where they are located, but said they represented the majority of the U.S. heparin market.

Baxter, Scientific Protein Laboratories and APP said they had agreed to do the testing.

To date, the FDA has received more than 785 reports of heparin reactions including 19 deaths in patients treated with some brand of heparin. Baxter said only four fatalities might be related to its heparin and there was not yet enough data to say the drug was the cause.

Heparin is derived from pig intestines and used in kidney dialysis, plus heart and other surgeries to prevent blood clots.

Scientific Protein Laboratories said the majority of lots it produced from Chinese ingredients had not tested positive for the contaminant, and it would test every new batch. The Changzhou plant is not currently producing heparin, SPL said.

Last week, Germany ordered a countrywide recall of heparin made by Rotexmedica after reports of allergic reactions there.

So they are at least making an effort. Good job Dr. Woodcock.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk- H.S. For Sunday 030908
Reuters - FDA detaining imported heparin for tests
IWA For Sunday 031608

Hey folks,

Guess who? Not only the IWA, but most DEFINITELY in the running for the IWY Idiot of the Year. Former Governor Elliot Spitzer.

We all know the story. A really mean, vindictive former Prosecutor, then Governor of New York, with a reputation of being a hard line “Crusader” going after organizer Crime and Prostitution Rings, lead a double life as Client number 9. Racking up over $80,000 dollars over 10 years with PROSTITUTES. The NYT reported this.

Mr. Spitzer did nothing at half-speed. “Listen, I’m a steamroller,” he told a State Assembly leader in his first days as governor, adding a vulgar flourish. But his path through public life has at times resembled a blindfolded dash along the political I-beam, and he sometimes failed to recognize that his own footsteps could fall into ethically dodgy territory.

As attorney general, his ambition, intelligence and energy were palpable, and he took full advantage of the demise of a gilded, stock-fed decade to expose corruption at many of Wall Street’s most prestigious firms.

But he stumbled badly after ascending to the governor’s office, where his shiv-in-the-kidney style, so effective in facing down skittish bankers, met its match in the viscous political world of Albany. He relied — too often, said some — on his tough-talking crew from the attorney general’s office, and tended to speak loudly when he might better have listened.

Yet we now know the WHOLE time he was spending time and money on Prostitutes. One of the things that caught him was VALENTINES Day night when he was talking to the NOW famous Ashley Alexandra Dupré.

Now I kind of hinted to this in the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” category this week, but he put himself in a position where he could be black mailed by a bunch of people. All it would take in a phone call, from, oh, I do not know, a Hooker trying to make a name for herself? To cause him MAJOR problems. Oh, yeah, he was forced to resign.

Congratulations FORMER Governor Spitzer, for putting your self in this position and playing tough guy, you lose. For not taking into consideration your Family, the State of NY or any of your responsibility as the “Ethical Governor” you claimed to be, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. I have a feeling you will have plenty of free time to find another Hooker soon. Hey think of it this way, you can say you did a Super Star. Because you did.
Peter

Sources:
NYT- Spitzer Resigns, Citing Personal Failings

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Presidential Radio Address 031508

President Bush : "Good morning. On Friday, I traveled to New York City to talk about the state of our economy. This is a topic that has been a source of concern for families across America. In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow, but in the short run, it is clear that growth has slowed.

Fortunately, we recognized this slowdown early, and took action to give our economy a shot in the arm. My Administration worked with Congress to pass a bipartisan economic growth package that includes tax relief for families and incentives for business investment. I signed this package into law last month -- and its provisions are just starting to kick in. My economic team, along with many outside experts, expects this stimulus package to have a positive effect on our economy in the second quarter. And they expect it to have even a stronger effect in the third quarter, when the full effects of the $152 billion in tax cuts are felt.

A root cause of the economic slowdown has been the downturn in the housing market. I believe the government can take sensible, focused action to help responsible homeowners weather this rough patch. But we must do so with clear purpose and great care, because government actions often have far-reaching and unintended consequences. If we were to pursue some of the sweeping government solutions that we hear about in Washington, we would make a complicated problem even worse -- and end up hurting far more homeowners than we help.
For example, one proposal would give bankruptcy courts the authority to reduce mortgage debts by judicial decree. This would make it harder to afford a home in the future, because banks would charge higher interest rates to cover this risk.

Some in Washington say the government should take action to artificially prop up home prices. It's important to understand that this would hurt millions of Americans. For example, many young couples trying to buy their first home have been priced out of the market because of inflated prices. The market now is in the process of correcting itself, and delaying that correction would only prolong the problem.

My Administration opposes these proposals. Instead, we are focused on helping a targeted group of homeowners -- those who have made responsible buying decisions and could avoid foreclosure with a little help. We've taken three key steps to help these homeowners.

First, we launched a new program that gives the Federal Housing Administration greater flexibility to offer refinancing for struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit histories. Second, we helped bring together the Hope Now Alliance, which is streamlining the process for refinancing and modifying many mortgages. Third, the Federal Government is taking regulatory steps to make the housing market more transparent and fair in the long run.

And now Congress must build on these efforts. Members need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

Congress also needs to take other steps to help our economy through this period of uncertainty. Members need to make the tax relief we passed permanent, reduce wasteful spending, and open new markets for American goods, services, and investment.

By taking these steps and avoiding bad policy decisions, we will see our economy strengthen as the year progresses. As we take decisive action, we will keep this in mind: When you are steering a car in a rough patch, one of the worst things you can do is overcorrect. That often results in losing control and can end up with the car in a ditch. Steering through a rough patch requires a steady hand on the wheel and your eyes up on the horizon. And that's exactly what we're going to do.

Thank you for listening."

Friday, March 14, 2008

From The Emails 031408

National Security and Pelosi

Hey folks,

It's FRIDAY. Time to go to the Emails. This week, I got a lot about the Global Warming bunk, I may touch on some of these this Weekend. But this one needs to be brought back to the forefront of peoples' minds. The mass media have all but forgotten about this. Even the usual Radio suspects have all but forgotten about this. No one seems to want to talk about this. Right now the big news, that is getting bigger, is the Hooker that brought down Spitzer. She has had over a million hits on her blog in 24 hours. She has two songs for sale on line, .98 cents a piece, over a million downloads. She will become more famous than Monica Lewinsky. Mark my words folks.

However, THIS is way more import than any of that. WE, the USA, are less protected against those that want to kill us because Traitor of the House Pelosi wants to keep playing games. Here is the Email of the week.

FISA Fight Continues

Posted By: Karen Hanretty , March 12, 2008 - 11:16 AM

It was over three weeks ago that House Democrats allowed the terrorist surveillance program to expire, and in the dead of the night on February 16, 2008, every single American became less safe. To make matters worse, the following week the House of Representatives skipped town for a ten-day vacation, leaving the security of our nation in limbo.

Since then, Democrats have maneuvered through desperate stall tactics to block the Protect America Act, knowing that it would pass with overwhelming bipartisan support like the Senate bill did earlier in February, by a vote of 68-29. Every member of the Blue Dog Coalition, which consists of 21 moderate House Democrats wrote to House Speaker Pelosi and said "the consequences of not passing such a measure could place our national security at undue risk" (Bloomberg, 2/13/08).

Why do the House Democrats want to keep our intelligence community weak? The answer is quite simple - many House Democrats have received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions by the trial lawyer lobby, and Democrats are working hard to prolong their boon to trial lawyers, who are tying up the court system with frivolous lawsuits against telecommunications companies who carried out their patriotic duty to assist in terrorist surveillance in the wake of September 11th.

It is unconscionable that the House Democrat Leadership would play politics with our national security. The Protect America Act expired almost a month ago and has hindered our ability to intercept conversations between those linked to suspected terrorist networks.

That's why it's critical that
you sign our petition, so we can demand the Democrats bring this legislation to the floor.

In response to the hard-hitting truth, Democrats have made outrageous claims citing the non-apparent need for the Protect America Act. Sylvestre Reyes, the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a letter to President Bush, stated that the intelligence community could still expand surveillance and be adequately prepared to handle any potential threats against our country. Unfortunately, the truth is much scarier.

The expired provisions under the Protect America Act do not give our intelligence community the ability to use existing certifications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to cover future unknown threats against the United States. The Protect America Act allows the intel community the speedy and agile methods it needs to collect information on future terrorist suspects and organizations.

The fact still remains that while the Democrats believe that FISA itself is sufficient enough, that particular piece of legislation is dangerously out of date, having been signed into law almost thirty years ago. The Protect America Act was an essential piece of legislation which in essence, updated and modernized FISA so that it could enable our intel agencies to have access to the proper tools and methods it needs to combat our greatest threat in the 21st century.


Link - NRCC

Take a second and sign the petition. I did. Have a great Weekend. See you Sunday.
Peter

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

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Spitzer Does The Right Thing

Hey folks,

It's STILL Wednesday. I will not be here in the AM, but I have to talk about this and the fact our Friend Dr. Laura is taking some heat. That is coming right up. First up though. Gov. Spitzer did the right thing today. He resigned. Everyone is reporting this. This from the New York Times - Spitzer Resigns, Citing Personal Failings By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whose rise to political power as a fierce enforcer of ethics in public life was undone by revelations of his own involvement with prostitutes, resigned on Wednesday, becoming the first New York governor to leave office amid scandal in nearly a century.

The resignation will be effective on Monday, and Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson will be sworn in to replace him.

In an appearance that lasted 140 seconds at his Midtown Manhattan office, the governor — with his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, at his side — offered an apology to his family and to the public and said he would devote himself to serving “the common good.”

“From those to whom much is given, much is expected,” Mr. Spitzer said. “I have been given much: the love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York and the chance to lead this state. I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me.”

“Over the course of my public life, I have insisted — I believe correctly — that people regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct,” he said. “I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor.”

Mr. Spitzer, 48, spoke in a somber but steady voice, his usual barking tone softened by contrition. He took no questions. His wife, in a dark suit and brightly colored scarf, looked off to the side of the podium, occasionally glancing up to reveal deep circles beneath her eyes.

Immediately after the remarks, Mr. Paterson offered sympathy to the governor and his family in a written statement. “It is now time for Albany to get back to work as the people of this state expect from us,” he said.

The sudden and stunning end to Mr. Spitzer’s political career came less than 48 hours after it emerged that he had been a client of a high-end prostitution ring, caught on a federal wiretap that had been prompted by his own efforts to quietly make payments to the agency, Emperors Club VIP.

They even have a picture of the Hooker in the midst of this whole thing. For her story and more pictures, click HERE. Back to the story.

Mr. Spitzer issued a brief apology on Monday after the news was first reported on the Web site of The New York Times, then he disappeared from public view. The governor, an unabashed fan of the spotlight, spent Tuesday in seclusion in his Fifth Avenue apartment overlooking Central Park, engaged in what associates described as an agonizing day of deliberations with his wife, lawyers, and a handful of close friends.

It remained unclear on Wednesday what legal implications, if any, Mr. Spitzer will face from his involvement with the ring. His lawyer, Michele Hirschman, reached out to federal prosecutors this week to strike a deal in hopes of avoiding charges. But the United States attorney investigating the case issued a statement shortly after the resignation saying that his office does not have any arrangement with the governor.

In Albany, where state government has stood still since the scandal broke, lawmakers sent words of support to Mr. Paterson and offered a few final requiems for the departing governor.

Joseph L. Bruno, the Republican leader of the state Senate who once labeled Mr. Spitzer “a spoiled brat,” shunned the fiery rhetoric he often used to refer to his chief political foe.

“I’m going to leave it to the governor and his family to sort out how they deal with present circumstances and the future,” Mr. Bruno said at an unusually restrained morning news conference. “And frankly, I have them in my prayers.”

In the State Assembly, which convened just after 1 p.m., a chaplain read from Psalm 51, a Bible passage in which King David, after committing adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of a friend, pleads with God to “cleanse me from my sin.”

The chaplain then added: “Bring healing to the Spitzer family.”

Please. OK. YES. I do feel for his wife and his Daughters. I DO hope he can save his family. But this guy spent $80,000 dollars over TEN YEARS doing this. This guy at the same time, laundered money, used his power and position to intimidate and harass people. This is not a nice guy. He is a hypocrite. He got caught, I say let him pay for it. I do not know ANYONE that likes him. Even the most die hard card carrying members of the LWL have to admit that he was "difficult to deal with." He is no King David.

Fallout from Mr. Spitzer’s resignation also reached the presidential campaign. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will lose the governor’s support as a Democratic superdelegate, a post he must now relinquish. “I’m deeply saddened by this turn of events and my thoughts are with Governor Spitzer’s family during this painful time,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement released by her campaign.

I bet.

Mr. Spitzer becomes the first New York governor to resign from office since 1973, when Nelson A. Rockefeller stepped down to devote himself to a policy group, and the first to be forced out since William Sulzer was impeached in 1913 over a campaign contribution fraud.

“I look at my time as governor with a sense of what might have been,” Mr. Spitzer said in announcing his resignation. “But I also know that as a public servant I, and the remarkable people with whom I worked, have accomplished a great deal. There is much more to be done, and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work.”

You ARE the people's work. {Laughing} YOU are now. Of course, here is the puff.

It was such work that Mr. Spitzer chose to devote his life to, in a career whose ascent was as dizzying as its precipitous fall.

The brainy scion of a wealthy New York real estate baron, Mr. Spitzer graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School before rising to fame as an avenging state attorney general, hunting down Wall Street malefactors with an evangelical fervor. Everywhere he found “betrayals of the public trust” that were “shocking” and “criminal.”

What do you call what HE did? You know, one might have to start questioning all those cases he worked on. How do we know THEY were legitimate?

A landslide victory handed him the governor’s seat in 2006, and he built a vast electoral mandate for changing the often-corrupt ways of the New York State House.

Reformers relished the thought of a young bull with a national reputation stampeding around the calcified halls of Albany. When he was sworn in as governor just 14 months ago, the guests attending the private ceremony cheered: “Go get ‘em, Eliot!”

Mr. Spitzer did nothing at half-speed. “Listen, I’m a steamroller,” he told a State Assembly leader in his first days as governor, adding a vulgar flourish. But his path through public life has at times resembled a blindfolded dash along the political I-beam, and he sometimes failed to recognize that his own footsteps could fall into ethically dodgy territory.

"I’m a steamroller."
No you are Client number 9. {Laughing}

In 1994, he denied — and later acknowledged — secretly borrowing millions of dollars from his father to finance his failed first campaign for attorney general. Four years later he won the election, but his Republican opponent, Dennis C. Vacco, argued that Mr. Spitzer violated the law by failing to file proper disclosures about a campaign loan.

Of course he did. But, he's a Democrat. There are no rules for them.

As attorney general, his ambition, intelligence and energy were palpable, and he took full advantage of the demise of a gilded, stock-fed decade to expose corruption at many of Wall Street’s most prestigious firms.

But he stumbled badly after ascending to the governor’s office, where his shiv-in-the-kidney style, so effective in facing down skittish bankers, met its match in the viscous political world of Albany. He relied — too often, said some — on his tough-talking crew from the attorney general’s office, and tended to speak loudly when he might better have listened.

And now we know, should have zipped his pants.

Time and again, Mr. Spitzer began as the hunter and finished as the hunted. The Republican leader of the State Senate, Joseph L. Bruno, a wily, white-haired 78-year-old former Army boxer, tossed jab after jab at the governor, 30 years his junior. An attempt to reveal Mr. Bruno’s misuse of a state helicopter badly backfired, upending Mr. Spitzer’s agenda of reform and grinding Albany’s business to a halt.

“Straight talk,” Mr. Spitzer told a reporter last fall, “is perhaps something that comes too naturally to me.”

Along with lies and omissions.

It was a statement both modest and boastful, perhaps a hint of the internal contradictions that manifested themselves, this week, in the worst way.

On Wednesday, Mr. Spitzer ended his speech by pledging to return to public service outside the political realm, following a period of atonement with his family.

A proud man humbled, he made a final nod to the enduring American belief in the possibility of redemption: “As human beings our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”

Good luck. Good Bye.
Peter

Sources:
NYT - Spitzer Resigns, Citing Personal Failings
NYT- Woman at the Center of Governor’s Downfall
Our Friend Dr. Laura Taking Heat, Her Side

Hey folks,



Our friend Dr. Laura is taking some heat for some comments that she made on the Today Show yesterday.

According to NBC 24 -Why do men cheat?

Dr. Laura Schlessinger blames women for men cheating on "The Today Show"

TOLEDO, OH -- The prostitution scandal surrounding New York governor Eliot Spitzer has tongues wagging. And Tuesday morning on "The Today Show" psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger was asked if she blames women for men cheating. She said,“yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.”

According to the New York Times- Mars and Venus Dissect the Spitzer Scandal on the TV Talk Shows

It wasn’t until Tuesday morning, on shows like “Today” and “The View,” that female commentators could really unload, and they did, mostly on panels with titles like “Why Men Cheat” and filled by psychologists, self-help coaches and anthropologists. The biggest issue was not whether the governor would resign or face criminal charges. It was whether Ms. Wall Spitzer was right to stand by him, and even more urgently, whether all husbands stray, and why. It got testy at times.

“Are you saying the women should feel guilty, like they somehow drove the man to cheat?” a visibly aghast Meredith Vieira of “Today” asked Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a radio host.

Dr. Schlessinger replied, “Yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.”

Then this from The Buffalo News - Was Spitzer just stupid — or worse?

One of the most controversial came from Dr. Laura Schlessinger, known for her books and radio shows that dispense conservative advice for women and families, who suggested in a “Today” show segment on NBC that men cheat because their wives don’t spend enough time taking care of their physical and emotional needs.

“When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs,” said Schlessinger, in comments excerpted on the MSNBC Web site.

Well, I got this Email today.

Dear Peter,

As you may know, I was on The Today Show yesterday to promote my new book, "Stop Whining, Start Living". Since there was a breaking news story about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, they also asked me to participate in a panel discussion on "Why Men Cheat."

And that's when the fun stuff hit the fan.

As a member of the DrLaura.com Family, and loyal listener to my program, I thought you'd like to hear the story directly from me.

Here is HER side.

Go To The Videotape!

About two months ago, my publisher, Harper Collins, called me up to tell me that The Today Show wanted to interview me in the 8AM hour on Tuesday, March 11, the day that my new book, Stop Whining, Start Living was going to be published. I said, “Great!”

Last week, I did the “pre-interview” with one of their producers, and they called me back to say they wanted to have my interview go for two segments. I said “Even better!”

Then, at 4PM on Monday, March 10, they called up and asked if I would also participate in a “panel” segment entitled “Why Men Cheat.” I went “uh oh.”

I hate doing panels. I hate all the talking heads shouting over each other. And I feared they would end up asking about tabloid gossip and not the real topic, but they reaffirmed that they really wanted to hear my opinion about “Why Men Cheat.”

So, silly me, on I went. Meredith Vieira asked the three panelists, “Why do men cheat?” Panelist #1 said that the legacy of promiscuous cavemen has created an evolutionary tendency toward infidelity among today’s men. Hmmm.

Panelist #2 said something to the effect that men often cheat because they are missing something physically, mentally or emotionally in their relationship with someone. Who might be responsible for this missing “something” was not specifically mentioned. Hmm….could it be the wife? The boss? Co-workers?

So Panelist #3 (that’s me) responded:

“Men need validation. When they come into the world they are born of women and getting their validation from mommy is the beginning of needing it from a woman. And when the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like a hero, he’s very susceptible to the charms of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days women don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give a man what they need.”

Maybe I should have had a sign around my neck that said I was not talking specifically about the governor of New York’s current alleged problems with money transfers and a $5,000 an hour call-girl ring. Certainly a man who won the governorship of the second largest state in the nation does not sound like a man who needs validation to feel like a success. I was answering the question asked: “Why do men cheat?”

Suddenly, the topic WAS about the New York governor. To my utter amazement, Panelist #1 proclaimed that the New York governor’s high cheekbones and protuberant eyebrows indicated high levels of testosterone which would be a strong indicator of infidelity.

Panelist #2 said that, speaking of testosterone, highly testosteroned people tend not to worry as much about the consequences of the risks they take. (I guess that explains the use of steroids in baseball).

Ms. Vieira then asked why a man of such power as the New York governor would risk everything to carry on a tawdry relationship. Note: This was the first time that Ms. Vieira referred to the governor in any way in the entire segment. Panelist #3 (that’s me!) responded:

“When a person is in a high position of power, especially a man, there is a sense of entitlement and a sense of being…above the law because of the importance of what they do - because of the importance of who they are.”

Since that fleeting moment, I have been accused of the most heinous of crimes (apparently far worse than the foibles of politicians and celebrities): giving my opinion and advice. According to The New York Times, Meredith Vieira was “aghast” at my comments. In the 10 am hour, Ann Curry tried to take me to task for “things that were said about the governor.” Wrong! And finally the renowned News Team at The Huffington Post proclaimed “Dr. Laura Blames Spitzer’s Wife”.

In three segments over 2 hours I never made a comment about the Governor’s wife. And my only direct comment about the Governor was that powerful men sometimes feel an unwarranted sense of entitlement. I answered the question they asked, not the question I’ve been accused of answering.

Now here’s the good news. Thank goodness I had bought a new outfit for the program, and I was feeling pretty good yesterday morning, or else I might have gotten a little ticked off that my words were so ludicrously taken out of context.

If you don’t believe me, feel free to go to the videotape (click here). And don’t whine for me. I’m having a great time in New York - good friends, good restaurants, and almost-Spring weather.

On a more serious note: The stories that we see on the news and the Internet 24/7 indicate an epidemic of dysfunctionality in America in the relationships of the powerful, talented, and merely famous. The sad part is it is only the tip of the iceberg in our society. And sadder still is knowing that so many children are being hurt by these problems.

You know what folks, I agree with her. Having been Married, Divorced, and Married again, never CHEATING, I do understand WHY some do. I will not go into it, but the last year of my 7 year marriage was not a pleasant one. Wasn't really bad either. We just co-existed. I didn't care if I came home. I did not feel like it was home. I just worked 24-7 because I had no reason not to.

The people jumping all over Dr. Laura seem to be coming from the Lib point of view. Men are dogs, women are victims, ETC. To bad that's not true. It really is that simple. If the man is happy at home, he will go nowhere else. Same thing for women. Why is THAT controversial?
Peter

Sources:
NBC 24 -Why do men cheat?
NYT- Woman at the Center of Governor’s Downfall
The Buffalo News - Was Spitzer just stupid — or worse?
Dr. Laura-
Go To The Videotape!
Obama wins Mississippi With Magic 61 Percent


Hey folks,

Happy hump day to you. As expected, Obama wins Mississippi. Like in Wyoming, he wins with 61 percent of the vote. The AP breakdown goes like this.

Obama won roughly 90 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday, but only about one-quarter of the white vote. That was similar to the breakdown that helped him win South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana before losing to Clinton in Texas and Ohio, which has similar voter demographics to neighboring Pennsylvania.

"Now we look forward to campaigning in Pennsylvania and around the country," Maggie Williams, Clinton's campaign manager, said in a written statement that congratulated Obama on his victory.

"I'm confident that once we get a nominee, the party is going to be unified," Obama said in claiming his victory in Mississippi.

You have to win the nomination first. Which means you have to survive the convention. As I keep telling you folks, the Clintons will lie cheat and steal to get and keep power. They really want Hillary to be President. So it seems, Florida will be voting AGAIN, this time with mail in votes. {Laughing} This means Hillary will go after those delegates that have already pledged to Obama. Which means they will help Gov. Spitzer weather this mess he got himself into, at least until his superdelegate vote for her counts. This means they will mess with the Convention itself. Wait and see folks.

Clinton was attending a presidential forum in Washington on Wednesday. Obama planned to be in his hometown of Chicago.

With 99 percent of the vote counted, Obama had 61 percent to 37 percent for Clinton.

Obama picked up at least 17 of Mississippi's 33 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, with five more to be awarded. He hoped for a win sizable enough to erase most if not all of Clinton's 11-delegate gain from last week, when she won three primaries.

The Illinois senator had 1,596 delegates to 1,484 for Clinton. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination. With neither appearing able to win enough delegates through primaries and caucuses to claim the nomination, the importance of nearly 800 elected officials and party leaders who will attend the national convention as unelected superdelegates is increasing.

Obama leads Clinton among pledged delegates, 1,385-1,237 in The Associated Press count, while the former first lady has an advantage among superdelegates, 247-211.

Blacks, who also supported Obama in overwhelming numbers in earlier primaries, accounted for roughly half the ballots cast in Mississippi, according to interviews with voters leaving polling places. About one in six Democratic primary voters were independents, and Clinton and Obama split their support. Another 10 percent of voters were Republican, and they preferred Clinton by a margin of 3-1.

Rush had NOTHING to do with that one. {Smile}

Exit polls showed blacks accounted for a majority of the ballots in all but Louisiana, where they represented a plurality. Obama's share of the black vote in those states ranged from 78 percent in South Carolina to 88 percent in Georgia, while Clinton won the white vote with ease.

Other than Pennsylvania, the remaining primaries are in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.

Did you catch the subliminal message here? Think about it. If you read this article by the AP, does it not seem to suggest at the end, that Obama has peaked? Now with the majority of States to come, they are mostly White, and therefore Clinton will win them? Seems like a hidden message is saying that with this "fact" and with the fact that Clinton leads in the superdelegates, she will win the nomination? Maybe this is why the one in second, is offering the one in first the Vice Presidency. Just a thought.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Obama wins Mississippi Democratic race

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Mr. Clean Busted, Gov. Spitzer NEEDS to Resign

Hey folks,

I know you have already heard this on. It broke about 1:45 pm yesterday. New York Times reported it this way.

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring
By DANNY HAKIM and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM

ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.

The wiretap captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.

Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat, today made a brief public appearance during which he apologized for his behavior, and described it as a “private matter.” He did not address his political future.

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family and violates my or any sense of right or wrong,” said Mr. Spitzer, who appeared with his wife Silda at his Manhattan office. “I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public to whom I promised better.”

“I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.”

Before speaking, Mr. Spitzer stood with his arm around his wife; the two nodded and then strode forward together to face more than 100 reporters. Both had glassy, tear-filled eyes, but they did not cry.

As he went to leave, three reporters called out, "Are you resigning? Are you resigning?", and Mr. Spitzer charged out of the room, slamming the door.

He NEEDS to resign. Many are calling him to do just that. Here is a guy that is relentless. He is arrogant, claiming moral superiority, and just a all around BAD guy personality wise. Now we find that Mr. Clean is not so clean. He is also Client Number 9.

This is also NOT a private matter. He broke the law. He put himself in a position in dealing with those he was investigating. He put himself in a position where he could have compromised his authority out of blackmail.

The governor learned that he had been implicated in the prostitution inquiry when a federal official contacted his staff Friday, according to the person briefed on the case.

The governor informed his top aides Sunday night and this morning of his involvement. He canceled his public events today and scheduled the announcement for this afternoon after inquiries from The Times. The governor’s aides appeared shaken before he spoke, and one of them began to weep as they waited for him to make his statement at his Manhattan office.

Please.

The Republican state party and a leading Republican legislator called for the governor to step down. James Tedisco, a Republican Assemblyman from Schenectady who has clashed loudly and publicly with Mr. Spitzer, called on the governor to step down if the allegations are true. “The governor who was going to bring ethics back to New York State, if he was involved in something like this,” Mr. Tedisco said, “he’s got to leave. I don’t think there’s any question about that.”

There isn't. Not one question about it. He has shown himself to not have cared less about his family, or the state of NY. All he cared about was paying some bimbo to,,well, you know. Apparently, he has no respect for his wife and family at all. He has become less than scum. Mr. Clean?

As questions swirled about the Governor’s political future, a swarm of reporters gathered outside the office of Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who by law would become governor if Mr. Spitzer resigns. But his staffers provided no information.

The man described as Client 9 in the affidavit arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, Emperors Club VIP, on the night of Feb. 13. Mr. Spitzer traveled to Washington that evening, according to a person told of his travel arrangements.

The affidavit says that Client 9 met with the woman in hotel room 871 but does not identify the hotel. Mr. Spitzer stayed at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington on Feb. 13, according to a source who was told of his travel arrangements. Room 871 at the Mayflower Hotel that evening was registered under the name George Fox.

The law enforcement official said that several people running the prostitution ring knew Mr. Spitzer by the name of George Fox, though a few of the prostitutes came to realize he was the governor of New York.

Mr. Fox is a friend and donor to Mr. Spitzer. Asked in a telephone interview Monday whether he accompanied Mr. Spitzer to Washington on Feb. 13 and Feb. 14, Mr. Fox responded: "Why would you think that? I did not.”

Told that the Room 871 at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel was registered in Mr. Fox’s name but with Mr. Spitzer’s Fifth Avenue address, Mr. Fox said, "That is the first I have heard of it. Until I speak to the governor further, I have no comment."

Federal prosecutors rarely charge clients in prostitution cases, which are generally seen as state crimes. But the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution, human trafficking and what was viewed at the time as immorality in general, makes it a crime to transport someone between states for the purpose of prostitution. The four defendants charged in the case unsealed last week were all charged with that crime, along with several others.

Mr. Spitzer had a difficult first year in office, rocked by a mix of scandal and legislative setbacks. In recent weeks, however, Mr. Spitzer seemed to have rebounded, with his Democratic party poised to perhaps gain control of the state Senate for the first time in four decades.

Though his signature issue was pursuing Wall Street misdeeds, as attorney general Mr. Spitzer also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force.

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.

“This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. “It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”

Which we now know you actually like. Maybe they did not give you a freebie to look the other way?

It goes on to talk about other questionable deeds. The AP reports that the call for him to resign is increasing. AP- Scandal puts Spitzer's career in danger By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

Gov. Eliot Spitzer's political career teetered on the brink of collapse after the corruption-fighting politician once known as "Mr. Clean" was accused of paying for a romp with a high-priced call girl.

As well it should. Get this.

But an affidavit based on the wiretap told of a man identified as "Client 9" — Spitzer, according to the law enforcement official — paying $4,300 in cash, some of it credit for future trysts, some of it for sex with a "petite, pretty brunette, 5-feet-5 inches, and 105 pounds," named Kristen.

I really and TRULY feel bad for his wife. She is the one my well wishes are for. He is not worthy of compassion on this. Look at the picture folks. His wife had to stand there and KNOW that everyone was looking at her as well as him. He should have come out by himself and just resigned.

"He has to step down. No one will stand with him," said Rep. Peter King, a Republican congressman from Long Island. "I never try to take advantage or gloat over a personal tragedy. However, this is different. This is a guy who is so self-righteous, and so unforgiving."

Democratic Assemblyman John McEneny said: "I don't think anyone remembers anything like this — the fact that the governor has a reputation as a reformer and there is a certain assumption as attorney general that you're Caesar's wife. It's a different element than if you were an accountant."

He needs to resign. He needs to go try to repair his family. I agree with Mr. Tobias.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, noted that prostitution customers are often not charged, and said charges against Spitzer might be unlikely.

"Especially if he resigns, he may just be left alone. It may be that the public is satisfied by his resignation as governor," Tobias said.

But not all are calling for his political head. Which makes no sense to me.

Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Nathan Daschle issued the following statement regarding New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's remarks.

“We have been closely following the unfortunate news coming out of New York today. Our thoughts and prayers are with Governor Spitzer and his family during this very difficult time. Governor Spitzer is a dedicated public servant with a long record of bringing positive change to New York.

This is not the time to play politics, particularly as investigations are ongoing. Until all the facts of this case are known, we should all exercise caution and restraint.”

Like he did? Nope, sorry, he needs to go. He needs to do the right thing. He didn't do it yet. We'll have to wait and see if he does it soon. He is most likely talking to people like Clinton, he is a big Clinton supporter and a pledged delaget for her, and trying to find a way to play this and keep his job as Gov. Only problem is, he has lost ANY credibility. She needs to RUN away from this guy as fast as possible. Her Husband cheated on her, NOW this guy, who supports her cheats on his wife?

But you know what folks? He is a Democrat. Which means he has no morals. If he did, he should have resigned yesterday. Hillary NEEDS all the delagets she can get. So this may get interesting.
Peter

Souces:
NYT - Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring
AP - Scandal puts Spitzer's career in danger

Monday, March 10, 2008

DCF And The LWL WANT Your Kids

Hey folks,

On a day we learn that the Socialist Leader in Spain wins re-election, think about what is going to happen here in our General Election, we also learn this. We need to REALLY thing about this.

AP- Spain's Socialists win re-election

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero won re-election Sunday in a clear endorsement of a record of social change including the legalization of gay marriage and on-demand divorce, reforms once unthinkable in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Spain.

Zapatero also shifted Spanish foreign policy by pulling troops from Iraq in his first term, which he won three days after Islamic militants killed 191 people in a string of bombings against commuter trains.

I assure you folks. The Socialists running right now for President are taking note of this. Listen to what he said.

"The Spanish people have spoken clearly and decided to start a new era," Zapatero told euphoric supporters outside the party's headquarters in Madrid. "I will govern with a firm but open hand ... I will govern for all, but do so thinking most of all of those in need."

Sounds like something we will hear in our General Election if we elect one of these Socialists that want to rule, I mean, govern "with a firm but open hand ... I will govern for all, but do so thinking most of all of those in need."

We see attacks all the time in this country against Christianity, Morals, and Family. ALL the time. I have done series on "He who controls the youth, controls the future." I have pointed out how DCF {Department of Family and Children Services} by what ever name they go by in your State, is out of control. Way to much power and NO ONE to answer to. I have pointed out that our public schools are now becoming nothing more than little indoctrination factories. They is something wrong when our kids are being taught why Susy has two mommies, Evolution as fact, and how to have sex, and NOT be able to read and write when they graduate.

So more and more parents are keeping their kids home and Home Schooling them. Teaching them the basics and teaching them TRUE history and moral values. Well, that is not sitting well with some Lib.s out there. It most DEFINITELY is not sitting well with those that believe in this indoctrination process. According to TIME -Criminalizing Home Schoolers

By KRISTIN KLOBERDANZ/MODESTO
Sun Mar 9, 12:25 PM ET

Parents of the approximately 200,000 home-schooled children in California are reeling from the possibility that they may have to shutter their classrooms - and go back to school themselves - if they want to continue teaching their own kids. On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools - or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Citing state law that goes back to the early 1950s, Croskey declared that "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." Furthermore, the judge wrote, if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action.

This is so insane that one has to ask who is this Idiot Judge? Does he have an agenda himself? The answer? A BIG resounding YES.

July 9, 2004 – A judge in California has decided that the state’s law on parents can be interpreted in a gender neutral way to include a Lesbian as a dad in family custody disputes. In Colorado, a judge has ruled that a non-custodial lesbian sex partner has co-parenting rights with an ex-homosexual Christian woman. This practicing homosexual woman is said to be the psychological parent of the child.

This is the same judge that ruled the Good Samaritan Laws need not apply to YOU. Just emergency medical personnel of those that work for government. YOU? You help someone in need, they can sue you. This guy is a genius.

This news raised a furor among home schooling advocates, including government officials. "Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement today. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will." "It's kind of scary," says Julie Beth Lamb, an Oakdale, California, parent who, with no teaching credentials, has taught her four children for 15 years. "If that ruling is held up, this would make us one of the most restrictive states in the nation."

So even The Governator is against this. What could be the POSSIBLE reason that this was even brought up? Yup. DCF thought that they know better than this CHRISTIAN Family on how to raise their kids.

The debacle originated with a suit over child abuse. One of the eight children of Philip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles couple, had filed a complaint of abuse and neglect with the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services. The agency determined that the Long children were being home schooled, taught by their uncredentialed mother while officially enrolled in independent study at Sunland Christian School. The DCFS then turned to the courts to mandate that the children attend public school so that teachers might spot evidence of abuse (a charge the parents deny). A juvenile court, however, determined that the Longs had a constitutional right to home school their children. The DCFS appealed and the case landed in Croskey's appellate court.

A case CLEARLY up his ally. This is the type of case that the Liberal Judges WAIT for so they can change society to fit the Liberal Agendas. If THESE Parents, are in any way abusing their kids, then deal with THESE Parents. Do not create laws against ALL Parents. You cannot outlaw Home Schooling. My kid. My way. Stay our of MY FAMILY.

For years, the state of California has allowed parents to home school as long as they file papers to create a private school and hire a tutor with credentials or if their child participates in an independent study program through a credentialed school. In evaluating the Long case, however, Judge Croskey found that state law forbade any home schooling that was not taught by a credentialed teacher and that what California had been allowing was, in his judicial opinion, illegal. In 1953, another appellate court ruled against home-schooling parents who didn't want to adhere to California's compulsory education laws, which require kids between six and 18 to attend a credentialed school. The current case is most likely to be appealed to California's Supreme Court.

So HE just determined, he did not like it, therefore, illegal.

"We weren't trying to change the law on home schooling," says Leslie Heimov of the Children's Law Center, which represents the Long children involved in the case. "The law is accurate - it hasn't changed since the 1950s." She says the Center does not even have an opinion on home schooling. They just wanted to do what was best for the children represented in the case.

Yes, what is best of the children. The standard Lib talking point.

The fact that this sweeping ruling has sprung from such an individualized case is what has most outraged home schooling advocates. "Public schools are not a solution to the problem of child abuse," says Leslie Buchanan, president of the HomeSchool Association of California. Jack O'Connell, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction - the equivalent of a department of education - now faces the potential crisis of dealing with tens of thousands of truants. Does he know what will happen next? "I honestly don't know," O'Connell says, adding that his department is reviewing the case. "There is some angst in the field."

As well there should be. I would like to think that this Idiotic ruling is so far beyond what is right and decent that it will be thrown out as garbage. But we know from experience that these things do not just go away. They grow and more and more Rights are stripped away based on the base of lies.

Home Schooling is allowed all across the country. As long as the kids can pass the Standardized tests, and graduate, there should be no problem.

Keep in mind what is going on in Spain. Things once thought of as unheard of, now the norm. Freedoms taken away slowly, under the cover of "For Good." and now an open Socialist wins re-election. He pledges to rule, sorry, I mean, govern with a "FIRM HAND." If we election Supreme Leader Wannabe Hillary, or Socialist Obama, we WILL have things like this happening right here in America. Rights eroding under the guise of "For your own good." Before you know it, this America you know and love will be gone. DO think it can happen here. Because it CAN.
Peter

Sources:
TIME- Criminalizing Home Schoolers
AP- Spain's Socialists win re-election
TVC - Judges Create ‘Psychological Parent’ And Lesbian ‘Dad’
Metropolitan News

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Sunday Edition Preview 030908

Hey folks,

Congratulations Obama. He wins Wyoming with like 61 percent of the votes.

OK. I heard ya. Let me try to explain what is going to happen. Someone, actually, a couple of people have told me they do not like the way the Sunday edition is laid out. This is what one said.

“I love the Sunday edition of the OPNTalk. So much more stuff. But it’s like sometimes hard to follow. I mean, you start off with the IWA, which I love by the way, but then you go into the real stuff. I think it would be better if you ended with the IWA or the can’t make stuff up thing. I would rather end with a giggle than giggle and end up mad or disgusted.”

Well, this was not the only one that told me about this. The reason the IWA comes first? It’s the LAST thing I post. So basically, I do all the harder stuff, real news, first and post it, then I end with the lighter side of the OPNTalk Blog. The IWA, You Can’t Make This Stuff Up, even the Health and Science segment. But it is kind of like a mirror, if you will. The first thing I post, is the last thing you see. The last is first.

SO, taking this into consideration, I will NOW start posting the “harder,” more meaty, real news, articles LAST, which mean they will be the first thing YOU see. Then as you scroll down, you will get the lighter side and end with the IWA. OK, got all that? So when you are at the IWA, you know that’s it for the day.

Anyway, the Sunday edition of the OPN is getting more and more jam packed as the weeks go by. This one is no exception. Coming up today? A BIG I told you so on the Global Warming topic. In related news, churches going “Green,” which is just plain idiotic. A guy says Internet Predators are no big deal. UN Chief stepping down because the UN doesn’t care about Human Rights. Duh. China at it again, contaminated Blood thinner, French Kissing kids, and we wrap it up with a drugy, that says, Moses and others in the Bible were ALL drugies. {Laughing} Idiot.

We are completely fully loaded and ready to go. Lets get right to it.
Peter
Big Global Warming I Told You So

Hey folks,

On December 11, 2007, I gave you a kind of update on what I have been talking about for the last couple of years. There is NO MAN MADE Global Warming that is going to kill us all. I told you back to June 9 about the Petition Project. This is where it told us that "during the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition."

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

I said.

"So it sounds to me like the movement is growing . Global Warming is a scam folks. It’s all about money and power. Period. So to answer Three, There is no reason to be "safer than sorry." I have no desire to lose freedoms or funds based on a scam. I also have no desire to accept a scam as fact."

Then on June 28, 2007, I told you about this. I may have been the only one.

In a historic move, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.

"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.

The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.

Then on November 9, 2007, I told you how the founder of the Weather Channel was on the war path.

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

Get all the links HERE. Back on December 11, 2007 I posted Two, Further Evidence There Is No Consensus. I love this one. I told you about the world conference on Global Warming. “The Last Chance To save the Planet.” What did they agree on? To talk about it again. You know, in a year or two. I couldn’t believe this when I read it.

{Laughing} We are all going to die. This is the last chance. But, wait, we really cannot do anything about it right now, maybe later. {Laughing}

So this brings us to today. Well, actually this week. How many of you knew there was a Global Warming conference in Manhattan? There was. By REAL Scientists, using REAL Science. NOT Scaryence. Some of the people participating were Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, Dr. Robert Balling, professor of Climatology at Arizona State University; Dr. Vincent Gray, executive director of the New Zealand Climate Coalition; Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University; and Dr. Willie Soon, chief science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute. They all believe in Global Warming. Well, they all believe it is a SCAM.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Joseph L. Bast
Conference Host
President, The Heartland Institute

Welcome to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.

This is a truly historic event, the first international conference devoted to answering questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We’re asking questions such as:

how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend?

how much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?

how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? and
is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change?

Obviously, these are important questions. Yet the IPCC pays little attention to them or hides the large amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding them.

Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream? Not at all. A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

Only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.”

That’s a long ways from “consensus.” It’s actually pretty close to what the American public told pollsters for the Pew Trust in 2006:

70 percent thought global warming is happening,

only 41 percent thought it was due to human causes,

and only 19 percent thought it was a high-priority issue.

The alarmists think it’s a “paradox” that the more people learn about climate change, the less likely they are to consider it a serious problem. But as John Tierney with The New York Times points out in a blog posted just a day ago, maybe, just maybe, it’s because people are smart rather than stupid.

And incidentally, 70 percent of the public oppose raising gasoline prices by $1 to fight global warming, and 80 percent oppose a $2/gallon tax increase, according to a 2007 poll by The New York Times and CBS News.

I’ve got news for them: Reducing emissions by 60 to 80 percent, which is what the alarmists claim is necessary to “stop global warming,” would cost a lot more than $1 a gallon.

Al Gore, the United Nations, environmental groups, and too often the reporters who cover the climate change debate are the ones who are out of step with the real “consensus.” They claim to be certain that global warming is occurring, convinced it is due to human causes, and 100 percent confident we can predict future climates.

Who’s on the fringe of scientific consensus? The alarmists, or the skeptics?

These questions go to the heart of the issue: Is global warming a crisis, as we are so often told by media, politicians, and environmental activists? Or is it moderate, mostly natural, and unstoppable, as we are told by many distinguished scientists?

Former Vice President Al Gore has said repeatedly that there is a “consensus” in favor of his alarmist views on global warming. And of course, he’s not alone.

Two weeks ago, Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, when told of our conference, said, “You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.” (Denver Post, February 12, 2008).

RealClimate.org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference.

Well ...

We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States.

They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University.

From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics.

From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

And I apologize if I left anyone out.

These scientists and economists have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books. If you call this the fringe, where’s the center?

Hey Jim Martin, does this look like a phone booth to you?

Hey RealClimate, can you hear us now?

These scientists and economists deserve to be heard. They have stood up to political correctness and defended the scientific method at a time when doing so threatens their research grants, tenure, and ability to get published. Some of them have even faced death threats for daring to speak out against what can only be called the mass delusion of our time.

And they must be heard, because the stakes are enormous.

George Will, in an October Newsweek column commenting on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, wrote that if nations impose the reductions in energy use that Al Gore and the folks at RealClimate call for, they will cause “more preventable death and suffering than was caused in the last century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined.”

It takes more than four Norwegian socialists to win a Pulitzer Prize, so I’ll put George Will’s Pulitzer Prize and his recent Bradley Prize up against Gore’s Nobel any day.

You’ve probably read some of the attacks that have appeared in the blogosphere and in print directed against this conference, and against The Heartland Institute. Let me repeat for the record here tonight what appears prominently on our Web site:

No corporate dollars were used to help finance this conference.

The Heartland Institute has 2,700 donors, and gets about 16 percent of its income from corporations.

Heartland gets less than 5 percent of its income from all energy-producing companies combined. We are 95 percent carbon free.

And let me further add to the record:

The honoraria paid to all of the speakers appearing at this conference add up to less than the honorarium Al Gore gets paid for making a single speech, and less than what his company makes selling fake carbon “off-sets” in a week.

It is no crime for a think tank or advocacy group to accept corporate funding. In fact, corporations that fail to step forward and assure that sensible voices are heard in this debate are doing their shareholders, and their countries, a grave disservice.

We’re not doing this for the money, obviously. The Heartland Institute is in the “skeptics” camp because we know alarmism is a tool that has been used by opponents of individual freedom and free enterprise since as early as 1798, when Thomas Malthus predicted that food supply would fail to keep up with population growth.

We opposed global warming alarmism before we received any contributions from energy corporations and we’ll continue to address it after many of them have found ways to make a fast buck off the public hysteria.

We know which organizations are raking in millions of dollars a year in government and foundation grants to spread fear and false information about climate change. It’s not The Heartland Institute, and it’s not any of the 50-plus cosponsoring organizations that helped make this conference possible.

The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say--over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. They have swayed the views of many people. Some of them have even grown very rich in the process, and others still hope to.

But they have lost the debate.

Winners don’t exaggerate. Winners don’t lie. Winners don’t appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks.

As George Will also wrote, “people only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.”

We invited Al Gore to speak to us tonight, and even agreed to pay his $200,000 honorarium. He refused. We invited some of the well-known scientists associated with the alarmist camp, and they refused.

All we got are a few professional hecklers registered from Lyndon LaRouche, DeSmogBlog, and some other left-wing conspiracy groups. If you run into them over the course of the next two days, please be kind to them ... and call security if they aren’t kind to you.

Skeptics are the winners of EVERY scientific debate, always, everywhere. Because skepticism, as T.H. Huxley said, is the highest calling of a true scientist.

No scientific theory is true because a majority of scientists say it to be true. Scientific theories are only provisionally true until they are falsified by data that can be better explained by a different theory. And it is by falsifying current theories that scientific knowledge advances, not by consensus.

The claim that global warming is a “crisis” is itself a theory. It can be falsified by scientific fact, just as the claim that there is a “consensus” that global warming is man-made and will be a catastrophe has been dis-proven by the fact that this conference is taking place.

Which reminds me ... the true believers at RealClimate are now praising an article posted on salon.com by Joseph Romm--a guy who sells solar panels for a living, by the way--saying “‘consensus’? We never claimed there was a ‘consensus’ ”

And notorious alarmist John Holdren a couple weeks ago said “‘global warming’? We never meant ‘global warming.’ We meant “‘global climate disruption’ ”

I’d say this was a sign of victory, but that would suggest their words and opinions matter. It’s too late to move the goal posts, guys. You’ve already lost.

It is my hope, and the reason The Heartland Institute organized this conference, that public policies that impose enormous costs on millions of people, in the U.S. and also around the world, will not be passed into law before the fake “consensus” on global warming collapses.

Once passed, taxes and regulations are often hard to repeal. Once lost, freedoms are often very difficult to retrieve.

Amen, and AMEN Folks, this has JUST become a two parter. I’ll be right back.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Further Evidence There Is No Consensus
OPNTalk - Two, Further Evidence There Is No Consensus
Heartland Institute- The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
Big Global Warming I Told You So Part Two

Hey folks,

We just talked about the Climate Change Conference that took place in Manhattan this past week. I keep telling you folks, it all about power, control, and money. I love this statement by President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic. He said this at the conference.

“My answer is clear and resolute: 'it is our freedom.' I may also add 'and our prosperity. Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical—the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. What I have in mind, of course, environmentalism and its currently strongest version, climate alarmism.”

He also said this.

“What I see in Europe (and in the U.S. and other countries as well) is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of cynical approach of those who themselves are sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.”

William Rusher wrote about this over at Town Hall.com Global Warming Doubters Strike Back

Every few years, some group of scientists, egged on by the media, is persuaded to warn mankind of some new danger facing the human race. This triggers the anxiety that always floats just below the conscious level in most people, and serves the purposes of the media by generating several months of gratifying headlines. It also serves the purposes of the scientists, by giving them months of flattering publicity, not to mention the financial rewards that accompany scientific papers on the subject.

The excitement dies down in due course, but there is always some new peril being discovered. Remember the ozone hole? And whatever happened to acid rain?

But by far the most durable scare in recent years has been that generated by the supposed dangers of global warming. The Earth's climate is never absolutely stable. It is always either warming or cooling by tiny fractions of a degree per year, and recently it has been warming. By extrapolating this process beyond any justification, the usual scaremongers have managed to convince a good many otherwise sensible people that human activity is responsible for the warming, and that we must slam on the brakes or face disaster.

A November editorial in The New York Times spelled it out: “... the consequences could be disastrous: further melting at the poles, sea levels rising high enough to submerge island nations, the elimination of one-quarter or more of the world's species, widespread famine in places like Africa, more violent hurricanes.” What's more, there is no time to waste: “...the world must stabilize the emission of greenhouse gases by 2015, begin to reduce them shortly thereafter and largely free itself of carbon-emitting technologies by midcentury.”

In support of this nonsense, the Times offered the report of “the International Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2500 scientists who collectively constitute the world's most authoritative voice on global warming.” In the ensuing months, a major effort has been made to establish that this panel's view is the all-but-unanimous opinion of the world's climatologists on the question. It is, however, no such thing. More than 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. (The complete list can be seen at www.oism.org/pproject.)

The International Conference on Climate Change is meeting this week in New York City. Its topic is “Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?” and according to the announcement, “More than 400 scientists, economists and experts will meet ... to challenge the claim that global warming is a 'crisis.'” Under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, 50 organizations are co-sponsoring the event, including the John Locke Foundation, the George C. Marshall Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Among those participating will be Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, who has long opposed the global-warming hysteria; Dr. Robert Balling, professor of Climatology at Arizona State University; Dr. Vincent Gray, executive director of the New Zealand Climate Coalition; Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University; and Dr. Willie Soon, chief science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

It is too much to hope that even a gathering of experts as impressive as this one will deter the global-warming hysterics. The latter are hell-bent on forcing down emissions associated with the use of fossil fuel, on which the United States relies for 85 percent of its energy. This can be done only by restricting the supply or raising the cost of energy -- especially coal, which provides half of America's electricity.

But it is heartening to know that the scientific community is at last finding its voice and speaking out against such folly.

A movement that is GROWING. Faster than Global Warming itself. By the way, just as a side note that I know you have already figured out. It is funny to me that all of a sudden, this warmer than usual, no snow, winter, that we are having, has made them change the name to Climate Change. {Laughing} Kind of hard to sell people on Global Warming when they are sitting in 5 feet of snow at record low temperatures. {Smile}
Peter

Sources:
Town Hall . Com - Global Warming Doubters Strike Back
Churches Buying Global Warming

Hey folks,

I do not even know what to say about this. Really. You cannot believe in God, and Global Warming. You just simply can’t. OK. I’ll leave out the supernatural reason WHY God did this, but Genesis 6: 5-7

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

We were saved from total and utter destruction by ONE man. Noah.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD

You know the story. Noah built the Ark and mankind was saved from complete and utter destruction. God made a promise to Noah.

21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Genesis 8

Then God provided a sign to all mankind that we STILL see today.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

A Rainbow. Every time you look up and see a Rainbow, what you are actually looking at is this covenant between God and YOU. The promise he made to Noah, to NEVER completely destroy the Earth again. So if GOD will not do so. Do you REALLY think he will let us?

But according to USA Today - Churches go 'green' for Palm Sunday By Jeff Martin, USA TODAY

Palm Sunday is going green.

This year, more than 2,130 congregations across the USA, including Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, will use “eco-palms” that are harvested in a more environmentally friendly way, says Dean Current, program director at the Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agricultural Management at the University of Minnesota.

The number of churches using eco-palms on Palm Sunday — which, in the Christian faith, marks Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem before his death and resurrection — has grown from a pilot program of 5,000 in 2005 to the 600,000 eco-palms ordered for this year's March 16 celebration, Current says. He estimates that is about 1.5% of the 35 million to 40 million palms sold annually for Palm Sunday services in the USA but says he expects the growth to continue.

What makes the eco-palms different is the way that they are harvested, says RaeLynn Jones Loss, a research specialist at the University of Minnesota.

More than 50% of the palms are wasted by traditional methods, Jones Loss says. Harvesters in the eco-palm program are trained to be more selective. They cut only the best fronds, which results in only 5% to 10% waste.

Now if these churches have decided that they have to do their part to put off Global Warming. I am TRULY saddened. But I have a feeling, that it is more likely, they are doing it to help the communities they serve. They even hint to this in this article.

About 25% of the program's proceeds go back to the communities where they were harvested. They pay for such things as scholarships, she says.

“It's a matter of helping support these communities, getting them a fair amount of money for their wares and also using a sustainable resource,” says Chris Barnett of Amazing Grace Lutheran Church in Anchorage.

Like I keep telling you folks. MONEY

The eco-palms can cost more, depending on the type. A typical order of 200 eco-palms costs $47.50, Jones Loss says, compared with $21 to $23 for traditional palms, according to Catholic Supply of St. Louis.

Anyway. Look for the Chicken Little Crowd to jump all over this. “See, even the Religious people are excepting the fact Global Warming, uh, sorry, Climate Change is real. What is wrong with you?”

No one will ever, nor can ever, dispute that Climate Change is occurring. It occurs all the time. We have little to do with it. As for “What’s wrong with me?” I have the ability to THINK.
Peter
UN Does Not CARE About Human Rights

Hey folks,

Want proof?

AP - UN rights chief stepping down By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press WriterFri Mar 7, 12:22 PM ET

The United Nations' top human rights official, a lightning rod for denunciations from many countries stung by her criticism, said Friday that she is quitting after only one term.

High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said she told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that she will be unavailable for a second term in the job after her four years in office end on June 30.

Arbour, who won international acclaim for indicting former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 when she was chief prosecutor in The Hague, did not tell the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council why she is stepping down.

But she told a small group of reporters that she wanted to spend time with her family after constant travel and long hours. She acknowledged that she found much of the criticism hurtful, but she said she was not quitting because of it.

“On the contrary, I have to resist the temptation to stay to confront it,” the 61-year-old former Canadian supreme court justice said.

What else do you expect her to say? Yup, I was forced out because I was making waves?

Arbour is the second high-ranking U.N. official this week to announce plans to step down. On Thursday, peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno of France disclosed he would end eight years on the job this summer.

Hmm, The Head of Peace Keeping and the Head of Human Rights? Interesting. Why now?

After her speech, Arbour scolded some council members for going too far in criticizing her and her staff by impeaching their integrity or alleging “bias, hypocrisy, insubordination or dereliction of duty as being outside the acceptable range.”

On Monday, Zimbabwean Justice Minister Patrick Anthony Chinamasa told the council that his country “joins others in voicing its discontent with the office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights for repeated dereliction of duty.”

Arbour last year denounced police violence against opposition party members in Zimbabwe as “shocking.”

She has criticized China's use of the death penalty and said the so-called U.S. war on terror was eroding the worldwide ban on torture, noting reports of secret U.S. detention centers.

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time, said it was “inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in the war on terror, with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers.”

That one is true. But if she truly felt that way, it was her JOB to voice concern. But it is seeming to me that she is being forced out by those that DO have things to hind, the UN? Well, they are on their side. I’m still thinking about why now? Notice what IS going on now? Iran.

The U.S. Mission to U.N. offices in Geneva on Friday released a statement acknowledging differences but crediting Arbour's dedication.

“Although no country, including the U.S., has agreed with the high commissioner on every issue, we respect her dedication to the cause of promoting and protecting human rights,” the statement said.

A recent mistake by her office inflamed anger among pro-Israel groups. While the office later clarified that Arbour did not endorse a provision in an Arab human rights charter equating Zionism with racism, her original support for the document led to a fury of reaction among pro-Israel Web sites, with some blog entries calling for her death.

Arbour, however, has been well-regarded by human rights organizations.

“The criticism she receives is a tribute to the good work that she's been doing,” said Amnesty International spokesman Peter Splinter.

“She's been unflinching in challenging human rights violations in big and powerful countries as well as in countries not so big and not so powerful,” Splinter said. “It's going to be a real challenge for the secretary-general to replace her.”

Yeah, but guess what. The UN doesn’t care.


Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
AP - UN rights chief stepping down
Runner Up To The IWA

Idiot Says Internet Predators no big deal.


Hey folks,

I still cannot get over this one. I really can’t. This guy is a complete Moron when it comes to this. He is sending a dangerous message to your kids, and to stupid adults out there. If they believe this Idiot, they will lower their already lacking concern and supervision on what their kids are doing on the Computer. There are almost no words for this one. According to Live Science - Study Debunks Web Predator Myths by Benjamin Radford

Don't believe the hype.

It's not just Flavor Flav's catchphrase, it's good advice for parents, teachers, police, and anyone else concerned about the threat of Internet predators.

According to a new study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center, most of what you think about Web-based sex predators is probably wrong.

The study, published in the February/March issue of the journal American Psychologist and titled, Online 'Predators' and Their Victims: Myths, Realities and Implications for Prevention, was based on three surveys: two of teen Internet users, and one involving hundreds of interviews with law enforcement officials. The results reveal that the stereotype of the Internet 'predator' who uses trickery and violence to assault children is largely inaccurate.

Much of the public's concern comes from fear-mongering journalism. While TV shows like NBC's To Catch a Predator and the Today Show gain high ratings scaring parents into thinking that threats to children lurk around every corner and abound on the Web, the reality is quite the opposite.

In face of all the evidence to the contrary. I love “experts.”

Among the study's findings:

Myth# 1: The sexual abuse of children has jumped, largely because of the surge in Internet predators.

Despite popular belief (and a fact-challenged 2001 Newsweek magazine headline that claimed that the Internet has created a shocking increase in childhood exploitation of children ), sex assaults on teens dropped significantly (more than 50 percent) between 1990 and 2005. Ironically, it is the alarmist news coverage of sex offenses that has jumped dramatically over the past decade-not the attacks themselves.

PROOF? Can we get some PROOF?

Myth #2: Internet predators are a new threat to children.

In fact, the largest threat to children always has been, and remains, the child's parents and caregivers. Children are in far more danger of being abused, kidnapped, or killed by their parents than any stranger on the street or on the Web. While the Internet is a new way for some predators to find victims, if the Internet had not been invented they would have found victims in other ways-at home, school, or church, for example.

It’s all the evil parents out there. Idiots.

Myth #3: Children should not interact with strangers online because of the potential for abuse.

If there is one thing that the Internet does better than anything else, it is connecting people who don't know each other. That's the magic of the World Wide Web; it's just as easy to communicate online with someone around the block as around the world. Of course everyone (including kids and teens) should be careful about divulging personal information, but in virtual life, just as in real life, the vast majority of strangers are not a threat.

Yes, like NAMBLA, the Internet just brings people together. No threats. No bad guys. Just be careful and go have fun.

Myth #4: Most Internet predators are pedophiles.

The public largely assumes that people looking for sex online are targeting young children, but that's not true. In fact, most predators seek relationships and sex from teens and adolescents, not from younger children.

Yes 13 year olds are not as bad as 10 year olds. Come on folks, didn’t you know that?

Myth #5: Internet predators often use deception to abduct and forcibly rape their victims.

The reality is that Web predators rarely use deception; most victims are well aware that the person they are communicating with online is an adult interested in sex. The predators rarely trick or force their victims into sex; they don't need to because the victims often voluntarily meet with them, intending to have sex. Most Web predators are guilty of statutory-not forcible-rape because the victim is under the age of consent.

And of course there is nothing wrong with that. If the Kids know the Pervert,, Uh, I mean, the adult relationship challenged person wants to have sex with them, and they go because THEY want to have sex. All is well.

Misplaced concern

There is no doubt that Internet predators are real, and do pose a threat. But the real danger is the public's deeply flawed understanding of the problem.

It’s YOUR fault. You are the “real dangers.” {Laughing}

“To prevent these crimes, we need accurate information about their true dynamics,” said Janis Wolak, lead author of the study. “The things that we hear and fear and the things that actually occur may not be the same.”

Nah.

Until the news media start accurately characterizing child sexual abuse and the real dangers of Internet predation, America's children will remain at greater risk.

OK. HOW? Could someone explain that to me?

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. He wrote about sex offender panics and Megan's Law in his book Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us. This and other books can be found on his website.

I checked out this guy’s website. Some of his stuff is interesting. Most is so far from reality that it’s not even funny, but this is completely idiotic, and dangerous. Congratulations Benjamin, you are NOT the Idiot of the Week. You were beat out by the dugy that says Moses was a drugy. If not for him, you would be.
Peter

Sources:
Live Science - Study Debunks Web Predator Myths
RadfordBooks.com - Website
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up 030908

French Kissing Kids?

Hey folks,

I did not know this was a big problem. I guess I was wrong. At least in Virginia. According to the AP - Va. targets adults who French kiss kids By DENA POTTER, Associated Press WriterSat Mar 8, 9:42 PM ET

State legislators passed a law Saturday that would require adults who French kiss a child younger than 13 to register as a sex offender.

Seriously folks? This is REALLY a big problem?

Those convicted of tongue-kissing a child would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The House of Delegates passed the legislation 96-1 and the Senate 39-0.

The bill now heads to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who said he supports the legislation.

Delagate Riley Ingram, R-Hopewell, introduced the bill on behalf of a woman whose 10-year-old daughter was French-kissed by the 62-year-old husband of her babysitter.

That IS just sick. This 62 year old guy needs to be kept away from kids, but an entire law is now required?

The only crime prosecutors could charge the man with was contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which did not require that he register as a sex offender.

Ingram and other members of the House fought to make the crime a felony, but in the final day of the 2008 General Assembly session gave in to senators who thought that classifying it as a felony was too harsh.

Delegate Phillip Hamilton, R-Newport News, cast the lone nay vote, refusing to back down from his belief that the crime should be a felony.

"I think that type of behavior is so egregious it warrants a felony," Hamilton said.

Ingram said he was satisfied that a conviction would land someone on the sex offender registry.

OK. I know I’m going to take some heat on this one. But I really do not care. Here is the thing. We need to revamp this whole sex offender list thing. This is just getting stupid now. Here is what I mean.

If you are say 62, and you have sex with a minor, you are on the list. If you are 18 and have sex with a 16 year old, you are on the list. If you hunt down little girls and molest them, you are on the list. If you take a leak on the street and a minor sees you, you are on the list. Now if you are sick enough to French Kiss a kid in VA, you are on the list.

There has to be a way to categorize this list. Sorry, SICK yes, but I do not see French Kissing a 10 year old the same as hunting and molesting kids. I do not see two kids having CONSENSUAL sex with each other equal to an adult forcing or tricking a minor into sexual relations. But as it stands right now, they are ALL treated the same. Some of these kids lives are ruined because they have no control over their hormones.

So now we have a new law, JUST because of one sicko. Seriously. How often have you heard of adults French Kissing kids? Why would anyone want to? They're KIDS. I know, I know, there are sickos out there, girls do not look the way they did years ago. But, uh, they’re KIDS.

You definitely can not make this one up. Sicko.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Va. targets adults who French kiss kids
H.S. For Sunday 030908

China At It Again?


Hey folks,

In the Health and Science segment. We have MORE bad news coming from China. Apparently now we have to worry about blood thinners. I asked this question “What is going on?” OPNTalk- Someone Has To Ask This

“OK. We have a collapse of two bridges with no explanation. We have a collapse of a Mine in Utah, that was NOT due to and earthquake, and a Dike that broke flooding a Mine in China. Sorry, I do not believe in coincidences. Even if you were to believe that “Things happen.” you have to wonder about these.

We also cannot ignore all the tainted food and toys that have come out of China. This is another area of concern. For years we never had problems with this. Then all of a sudden we do? Could there be a connection? All of these things happening at the same time? What about the fact that North Korea has already threatened us may times in the past and came right out and said they would use Nuclear Weapons against us? Could there be a connection there? While we are focused on Iraq? I’m not saying anything definitively. It just seems to me to be interesting that all these things have just occurred in a very short span of time.”

Now we have tainted Blood Thinners? According to The AFP - US says contaminated blood-thinner came from China

Batches of the recalled blood thinner heparin, which contained an unidentified contaminant and has been linked to 19 deaths, have ingredients that came from China, the US government said Thursday.

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which added that Germany has announced its own recall of heparin due to allergic reactions, has yet to prove that the contaminant was the cause of the deaths as well as other adverse health effects.

But the FDA said that all the US batches of heparin
linked to health problems and deaths were made with ingredients that came from China.

GET THIS

“At this point, we do not know whether the introduction was accidental or whether it was deliberate,” said FDA deputy commissioner Janet Woodcock.

“We don't know if any of the heparin products worldwide might contain this contaminant and that is something we are going to be looking into.”


Well, someone better find out what is going on.

Magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) tests performed on the anti-coagulants showed that up to 20 percent of the active ingredient in the medication contained the unknown contaminant, the FDA said.

On February 11, the FDA announced a limited recall of Baxter International pharmaceuticals' multi-dose heparin and on February 28 the lab expanded the recall to include nearly all heparin being produced.

The injectable drug is made in part from pig intestines. Baxter's supplier, Scientific Protein Laboratories based in Wisconsin, sometimes buys the raw ingredients from unregulated shops in China, according to the New York Times.

However, Wayne Pines, a spokesman for Scientific Protein Laboratories said there was “no evidence of counterfeiting or tampering or anything of that nature.”

“No one really knows what happened here,” he said.

FIND OUT!

The FDA has so far received 785 complaints of health problems as well as 46 reports of death, but Woodcock said that the FDA determined that only 19 of the deaths were linked to the drug. Baxter maintains that four people have died as a result of the drug.

The Times said that the FDA has admitted to violating “its own policies by failing to inspect Scientific Protein's China plant before approving the drug for sale.”

How much money did the FDA receive for looking the other way?

FDA inspectors who visited a plant in Changzou that makes the drug components for US production found “at least some heparin was made from 'material from an unacceptable workshop vendor.'”

SO WHY did it make it here then? Anyone? I repeat, what is going on?
Peter

Sources:
AFP - US says contaminated blood-thinner came from China
OPNTalk- Someone Has To Ask This
IWA For Sunday 030908

Hey folks,

It’s Sunday, TIME for the IWA This week, I just could not decide what to do with this one. You can’t make this up, but this guy really is just a complete Idiot. He is using the fact that he is an Israeli researcher, a Jew, as some sort of credibility. Problem is, anyone that so much went to Sunday school as a kid, can see that this guy is either completely clueless, or as I suspect, simply an atheist attempting to further an agenda. Or it could just be a nobody attempting to be controversial to make a name for himself. He has. He is the Idiot of the Week.

Get this. According to the AFP - Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

Bunk. Can he prove it? No.

“As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics,” Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

{Sigh} There you go folks. RIGHT THERE “I don't believe.” He just said that he doesn’t even believe that it was a legend. A story. Nah, they were just all drugies.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the “burning bush,” suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

What does his study actually say? I would love to read it. The whole thing. Where is his research? How did he research what? Should be an interesting read.

“The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon,” he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to “see music.”

Where? I checked the Hebrew, King James Version, International, Living, Albanain, Arabic Life Application, Russian, Chinese {I did not even know there was a Chinese Bible.} Where does any of them say people SEE sounds?

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. “I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations,” Shanon said.

So HE is a drugy?

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

NO it isn’t. The truth is folks. The Shittah Tree.

The shittah tree is mentioned only once in the Bible (Isaiah 41). Referred to many times as shittum, which is the Hebrew plural, the tree is an acacia, one of the thorny trees found in the Holy Land. It is sweet smelling with leaves colored soft green. Acacia flowers are yellow. The tree grows abundantly across Egypt. Smaller numbers are found in arid areas. It is as large as the mulberry tree. Sharp thorns g