Greed, Murder, Death, and Mayhem. Happy Holidays

Preview for Sunday 113008

Hey folks,

"I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas." "Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem." "Silent Night, Holy Night." These are just a few of my favorites. Every time I hear them, they take me back to that small town in upstate NY. Being a kid, I could not wait for this time of year. From the fall season leading into Halloween to Thanksgiving which then lead into waiting for Santa.

It wasn't just the fact presents were on the way, but the FEELING of the whole season. I was in the small local Church play every year up to about 12 years old, and loved every minute of it. I loved going with my Grandmother to the stores and seeing them all decked out in Holiday Cheer. I like seeing so many people, more than normal but not as insane as it is today, shopping for their loved ones. Nearly everyone had smiles on their faces and was quick to wish you a Merry Christmas.

Rudolph and Frosty were on TV, and let's not forget Charlie Brown. Everything was good. Everything was fine. I loved everything about this time of year. Then when I turned 18, I worked in a Mall as the Sgt. of Security for 4 years. During that time, I started seeing more and more people arriving and deals being made on what is now known as "Black Friday." The Friday after Thanksgiving. Yes, there were no parking. Yes sometimes a few people's nerves got a little frazzled. But all in all, not really all that bad. Just more busy.

Now this changed over the years. One "GOT TO HAVE" gift after another. Cabbage Patch kids, Elmo, got to have this, got to have that. People lost their minds. People were selling, or even more sad, BUYING things Online for THOUSANDS of dollars that people could not GIVE away the very next year.

Retailers and Merchandisers learned that this was an EASY and nearly a guaranteed way to make a lot of money fast. So stores and Manufactures started to MARKET this ONE day as THE DAY. They started trying to create that next got to have item.

So what is in the news today? Greed, Murder, Death, and Mayhem. Yes that new Holiday Spirit is in full effect. Something has happened since Linus explained to Charlie Brown what Christmas is all about.





So coming right up today?

That Ain't No Toy Gun
The Holiday Spirit
Unwelcome Guest?
Envionuts Coming Out To Hold Obama 's Feet To The GWBS Fire.
The Obama New Deal
IWA For Sunday 113008

I have to reiterate this folks. Too late this year, but as for next. Take my advice, STAY HOME ON "BLACK FRIDAY!" If you DO venture out, pretty please, LEAVE THE KIDDIES AT HOME. Spend time with family and friends, shop Online, and wait a few days before venturing out. The Monday after, when everyone goes back to work and school, is usually pretty good. Do not buy into the whole "got to have" thing. NOTHING is worth your or a loved one's life. NOTHING. Do not let GREED, ruin what should be the best time of the year. Never forget, the REAL reason for the season. He can not be bought at Wal-Mart.
Peter

That Ain't No Toy Gun

Holiday Spirit on Full Display

Hey folks,

I started out talking about the lady that uh, excused her dinner guest via a machete. Then I saw the story of the poor temp Wal-Mart Employee that got TRAMPLED to death. Then I just saw THIS. Yes folks, the Holiday Spirit is in full effect. I guess. More on the others in a second. First, THIS IS A TOY STORE! TOYS, KIDS, A FUN PLACE. But that ain't no toy gun.

According to the AP - Witnesses: Fatal shooting followed toy store brawl

PALM DESERT, Calif. – The shooting occurred in a crowded toy store on the traditional start of the holiday shopping season, but authorities say it wasn't related to the bargain-hunting frenzy. Instead, two men pulled guns and killed each other after the women with them erupted into a bloody brawl, witnesses said.

How was this NOT related to shopping? Why were they there?

Authorities released few details about the mayhem that broke out at the Toys "R" Us store around 11:30 a.m. Friday, sending scared shoppers fleeing. Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez said the fight was not over a toy and that handguns were found by the men's bodies. He refused to say whether the shooting was gang-related.

The victims were identified as Alejandro Moreno, 39, of Desert Hot Springs, and Juan Meza, 28, of Cathedral City. No one else was hurt.

Witnesses Scott and Joan Barrick said they were checking out of the store when the brawl began between two women, each with a man. The women were near the checkout area, but the Barricks did not think the women had purchases.

They're trying really hard here. They really are.

One woman suddenly started punching the other woman, who fought back as blood flowed from her nose, said Scott Barrick, 41. The man who was with the woman being punched pulled a gun halfway out of his pocket, then shoved it back in, he said.

"He pulled his gun right next to me. I turned to look for my wife, and she was already hiding," Scott Barrick said.

"I was scared," said Joan Barrick, 40. "I didn't want to die today. I really didn't want to die today, and I think that's what we were all thinking."

The other man pulled a gun and pointed it at the first man but forgot to cock it, Scott Barrick said. The first man tried to run but was blocked by the line of people, then ran back toward the store's electronics section as the other man fired his gun, he said.

The first man reached a dead-end in electronics, turned around and ran toward an exit, pulling his gun and firing back, Scott Barrick said.

"He went up to the cash register, he went to put his hand on the thing and he just went phoomp," he said, indicating the man fell.

He said he did not see what happened to the other man.

Palm Desert Councilman Jim Ferguson said police told him two men with handguns shot and killed each other.

"I think the obvious question everyone has is who takes loaded weapons into a Toys "R" Us?" he said. "I doubt it was the casual holiday shopper."

Maybe on "Black Friday."

Ray Turner, 20, said he was two aisles away when two women began shouting and screaming at each other and he had a clear view of the fight until a crowd clustered around them. Both women had children, he said.

"We thought it was just a fight and then someone yelled: `He's got a gun! He's got a gun!' You really couldn't see nothing because there was a crowd," Turner said.

Rafael Gomez, 11, said he and his father had been in the store about 20 minutes before the shooting but were in a nearby Pizza Hut when they saw people pouring out of the store screaming.

"We just saw them running and crying. I was kind of scared," Rafael said. "We got lucky."

Toys "R" Us issued a statement expressing outrage over the violence.

"We are working closely with local law enforcement officials to determine the specific details of what occurred," the statement said. "Our understanding is that this act seems to have been the result of a personal dispute between the individuals involved. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to associate the events of today with Black Friday."

Palm Desert is a resort town about 120 miles east of Los Angeles.

Folks, this is three stories in just two days time. Now if this had nothing to do with shopping, one would have to then wonder why they were there. Why they we at the check out. Right?

Anyway, take my advice, STAY HOME ON "BLACK FRIDAY!" If you DO venture out, pretty please, LEAVE THE KIDDIES AT HOME. I'll be right back with the other two.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Witnesses: Fatal shooting followed toy store brawl

The Holiday Spirit

Something has happened since Charles Dickens

Hey folks,

Even all the way back to Charlie Brown's little Christmas tree, Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol," people have been warning about this type of thing.

I remember growing up in a little known town in upstate NY. I was in the Christmas Play at the local Church every year. The Holidays were ALWAYS about family and friends. Not just Holidays, but every Sunday as well. Yes, of course I waited for Santa. I looked forward to presents. However, I KNEW what the real meaning of the Holiday was all about.

Slowly over the years as I grew, I watched Christmas creeping into the stores earlier and earlier every year. Now? Even Halloween is commercialized. It is all about money and things.

I remember one year I actually took my Aunt up on her offer to go shopping on "Black Friday." My foot was run over twice. I was hugged by a strange Woman that thought I was her Husband, and saw a fist fight over the last Bike. That was it for me.

But this is the norm nowadays. The Stores BANK on this one day, then the following leading up to Christmas itself to make or break them. Our whole economy is judged at least in part on these numbers. People get nuts and go into "Black Friday" as if it were a sport. Well, here is a perfect example of how greed kills. Literally.

Sun Sentinel - Wal-Mart worker dies in Black Friday stampede

Hundreds of bargain-hungry shoppers stepped on a fallen Wal-Mart worker, who died Friday morning, after the crowd knocked down the store's front doors -- and the worker -- during the "utter chaos" of a Black Friday shopping melee, Nassau County police said.

"A throng of shoppers . . . physically broke down the doors" around 5 a.m. Friday and knocked the 34-year-old part-time worker to the ground as the crowd pushed its way into the store at the Green Acres Mall, Nassau police said.

Seriously folks. What is WORTH a life of another?

Police identified the worker as Jdimytai Damour of Jamaica, Queens.

God Rest his soul and comfort his family.

"This crowd was out of control," said Nassau Police Det. Lt. Michael Fleming, whose squad is investigating the death. He characterized the melee as "utter chaos."

Fleming said an estimated 2,000 people had gathered in line around 5 a.m. as the store was preparing to open.

Asked at a news conference whether the store had enough security given the crowds that Black Friday shopping typically attracts, Fleming said no. Four shoppers had minor injuries, police said.

Yeah, blame the store. Do not get me wrong. Did Wal-Mart have a part in this? Yup. Should they have had better security? Yup. I believe that this employee WAS a security person. But what about the GREED that drove these 2000 plus "shoppers" insane enough to BREAK DOWN the door and TRAMPLE this poor employee, most likely making a hair more than a Minimal Wage?

People in the rear of the line began pushing, cascading the people in the front into the doors, which were knocked off their hinges, Fleming said.

Hundreds of shoppers who then streamed in literally stepped on the worker who later died, Fleming said.

Fleming said the worker, who has not been publicly identified, was a temporary worker sent by an employment agency. Fleming did not rule out criminal charges in the case, though he said it would be nearly impossible to identify individual shoppers.

But, he said, authorities were reviewing surveillance video.

Another police officer told Newsday the prelude to the death at the Green Acres Mall was "a mob scene."

Shoppers who surged past the fallen Wal-Mart worker into the store were asked to leave by other store workers, some of them crying and visibly upset, said one shopper, Kimberly Cribbs, of Far Rockaway.

Though rumors circulated among the shoppers that someone had been badly injured, people ignored the Wal-Mart workers' requests that they stop shopping, move to the front of the store and exit, Cribbs said.

"They kept shopping. It's not right," Cribbs said. "They're savages."

Greed folks. Greed.

Cribbs said she entered the store after the injured worker was already being attended to. As people waited, then pushed into the store, she said, "It was chaos."

Another shopper said people were screaming and shoving in line before the opening.

The police got an emergency call at 5:03 a.m. reporting that the worker had been injured, and he was taken to Franklin Hospital in Valley Stream where he was pronounced dead at 6:03 a.m.

As of Friday morning, the cause of death was described as "undetermined," police said. An exact cause of death will be determined by the county medical examiner's office, police said.

Shopper Camla Brown described a disorganized mob that was thirsting to get into the store before the trampling.

Again, FOR WHAT?

"There was no organization," said Brown, 47, a restaurant manager from Valley Stream.

A 28-year-old pregnant woman was taken to a hospital for observation. Three other shoppers suffered minor injuries and were taken to hospitals for treatment, and they were expected to be released.

Dan Fogelman, spokesman at Wal-Mart corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., said Friday, "The safety and security of our customers and associates are our top priority."

Fogelman called the death "a tragic situation" and said the company was cooperating fully with the Nassau County police investigation. He declined to comment on whether the company would review its practice of heavily-discounted holiday sales events, or whether the company was reviewing its crowd control measures at such sales.

Fogelman said company management were saddened by the death of the worker and the injuries to customers, adding, "Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time."

In a pace considerably more subdued, shoppers by the hundreds streamed into the Wal-Mart the moment it reopened in the early afternoon. Nassau County police officers standing near the entrance asked the shoppers to take it easy as they walked in.

The store's front doors, the ones broken down by the earlier mob, have not been replaced.

A handwritten sign, apparently from early Friday morning, said, "Blitz line starts here" with an arrow telling shoppers where to line up.

What is in Wal-Mart, or ANY store for that matter, that is worth the death of another person? WHAT thing would you put before your own safety and security. Greed is a powerful thing. That is partially what drove Obama to victory. He kept talking about giving everyone something for nothing. It is what causes some to go to War. It is what causes murder and mayhem everywhere and at any time. It IS what caused the death of this worker. Yes we can not have anything that may seem "TOO Religious" in our public areas. But Greed? That is just fine.

You know what else I discovered on the one "Black Friday I survived with my Aunt? I could still get the same, in one case, a BETTER deal the next day. You know, when everyone was tending to their injuries or being bailed out of jail. I also learned there are better parking places a couple of days after. Things are also restocked by then as well.

You can keep the whole "Black Friday" thing. Me I'll spend time with family and friends, shop Online, and wait a few days before venturing out. The Monday after, when everyone goes back to work and school, is usually pretty good.
Peter

Sources:
Sun Sentinel - Wal-Mart worker dies in Black Friday stampede

Unwelcome Guest?

You Can't Make This Stuff Up 113008

Hey folks,

Well, I hope you all had a happy and safe Thanksgiving. I hope that you all got together with friends and family, had bountiful meals, gave thanks, and slept well. Tomorrow is back to reality for most of us.

Now I know that there are some that have family they only see on Holidays, Weddings, and Deaths. Most of the time you dread them coming, can't wait for and even celebrate when leaving. But we do these things out of respect, usually for another member of the family.

Yes, I have heard all about unwelcome guests. I have had my share over the years. I have dropped hints, "It's getting late. Better beat the traffic. I'm really tired and have this thing tomorrow." ETC. I have to admit, I never thought to do this.

According to the Sun Sentinel - Tampa woman chases dinner guest out with machete

TAMPA - A Tampa woman is behind bars for chasing after a Thanksgiving dinner guest with a machete.

Annette Jenkins, 46, is facing aggravated assault charges. She's being held on $2,000 bond.

Police were called to her home Thursday night when her brother arrived for dinner with a woman. The hostess reportedly waved the machete at the woman while yelling, ``If you don't get out, I'll kill you.''

No one was injured.

Jenkins is being held at the Hillsborough County Jail.

Think she got the point? {Laughing} Ah yes, the Holiday Spirit is in the air. I guess this unwanted guest has something else to be thankful for. She is not chopped up and being served for Christmas dinner. {Smile}
Peter

Sources:
Sun Sentinel - Tampa woman chases dinner guest out with machete

Envionuts Coming Out To Hold Obama 's Feet To The GWBS Fire.

More evidence that when the Loons are in charge, the Kooks come out.

Hey folks,

In the Health and Science Segment this week, we have FURTHER evidence of the fact that when the Loonies are in charge, the Kooks just keep coming out of the woodwork. This latest example is the Envionuts that want Obama to pick Jonathan Cannon, a University of Virginia law professor. So who is he? YUP you got it, yet another Clintonista. He is a former Clinton official who is widely regarded as one of the Chief Architects of Greenhouse Gas Regulation policies in the 1990s. AKA, GWBS.

Jonathan Cannon, director of the Law School's Environmental and Land Use Law Program, joined the Law School faculty in 1998 from the Environmental Protection Agency, where he served as general counsel (1995-98) and assistant administrator for administration and resources management (1992-95). Prior to his work with the EPA, Cannon was in the private practice of environmental law; served as an adjunct professor at Washington and Lee Law School, where he taught environmental law; and was a lecturer at the Law School.

He is one of these complete Idiots that "created" the whole GHG thing. He is also one that agrees with the whole complete garbage junk science that says Carbon Dioxide, you know, that of which we exhale, is a pollutant.

They are THRILLED that Obama won. According to this piece in at US News and World Report- Environmental Groups Hope Obama Will Rebuild EPA After Bush Years by Kent Garber Posted November 25, 2008

Environmentalists are eager for President-elect Barack Obama to take office so that he can reverse the troubled Bush administration legacy at the Environmental Protection Agency. They have watched with dismay—and often disgust—for eight years as the Bush White House took apart decades-old protections and gutted the agency's authority.

Of course. They blame Bush for the EPA not CATERING to them. They feel that Bush is evil and is helping destroy the planet. They seem to forget that Bush is eager to "Protect the planet" as well. They are just upset with him that he does not let the EPA control people's PRIVATE lives and that he has not let the EPA become a Government Hit Squad to enforce the whims of these Kooks. They think that Obama is one of them.

Now, environmentalists are hopeful for a more receptive president. In recent weeks, Obama has signaled, sometimes explicitly, his intention to take the EPA in a much different direction than his predecessor. The changes, observers say, will likely be both broad and specific, affecting not only individual policies but also the larger question of where power should lie within the federal government for decisions that affect the environment.

There are strong indications that the EPA, under the Obama administration, will be asked to play an integral role in the fight against climate change, that some air and water regulations will be reviewed and tightened, and that the agency could stand to receive large boosts in its budget and staffing. Some changes could come quickly, within the first year of Obama's presidency; others may take longer.

All about the money folks. All about the money. That is what GWBS is all about. Power, control, and MONEY. The last paragraph of this piece really says it all. Like I have been pointing out to you, Obama is putting into place people that will further his agenda.

That process could be lengthy. But it doesn't have to be, since in many cases proposals for more stringent rules already exist, they've simply been cast aside. "There is already a whole base of knowledge out there, so this doesn't have to take forever" Steinzor says. "The most important thing for [Obama transition cochairman] John Podesta and the transition team is to make sure they have people in place, sitting at their desks."

The problem is, that "whole base of knowledge" out there is BAD science. False hypothesises, and unproven hypothesises, passed off as FACT. The problem is, what these people want is a GOVERNMENT controlled organization to pass laws and FORCE people into compliance of a SCAM. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. There is also a "whole base of knowledge" out there that says we are heading for another Ice Age. No, I'm not talking about back in the 70s. I'm talking about an article I caught just a couple of days ago. There is also a "whole base of knowledge" out there that says this is just cycles. NATURAL cycles and there is no threat whatsoever.

As I just pointed out to you last week, poor little Lee Myung-Bak, President of South Korea, is having a hard time enacting and enforcing his part of the SCAM because no one wants to join him. Why? No money. So since Obama is throwing all this money around, they feel, "Hey, maybe he will start tossing some our way so that we can in turn start making money on this SCAM. We'll even give him a piece of the pie." They also help get him elected so, uh, Obama, it's uh, time to anti-up.
Peter

Sources:
US News and World Report- Environmental Groups Hope Obama Will Rebuild EPA After Bush Years

OPNTalk - Lack Of Money Causes Interest In Saving The Planet To Dwindle

The Obama New Deal

From the Emails Special Sunday Edition 113008

Hey folks,

As promised, here it is. The special Sunday Edition of the From the Emails Segment. Having not been here on Friday, I could not post it then.

You know, I almost did not post this. JG sent this to me with this caption.

"Oh, boy. While Barack Obama's appointments so far have been fairly moderate, other Democrats are whistling "Happy Days are Here Again" and dusting off their wish lists for federal spending. "

MODERATE? While Barack Obama's appointments so far have been fairly MODERATE?!?!? Seriously? A guy that sends dead fish to people? HILLARY? Rahm Emanuel, a fiery partisan is a significant departure from the soft-spoken, low key aides that "No-Drama Obama" has surrounded himself with during his campaign. What about John Podesta, like Emanuel, is a former top aide to Bill Clinton and a tough partisan infighter, though less bombastic than the new chief of staff. Eric Holder? Janet Napolitano? MODERATES?

But I clicked the link anyway, and to my surprise, I found this to be a pretty good article. Here it is.

About That New Deal by Mona Charen

"This is the best deal since 1932." So said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) regarding the increased public appetite for government intervention in the economy. Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel echoed the sentiment when he told the Wall Street Journal, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Oh, boy. While Barack Obama's appointments so far have been fairly moderate, other Democrats are whistling "Happy Days are Here Again" and dusting off their wish lists for federal spending. "The House and Senate Appropriations committees hope to use December to negotiate a $410 billion omnibus measure that can be swiftly approved when the new Congress convenes," reports the Politico. Wasn't it just two months ago that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- supposedly outraged that the Congress was being asked (by Bush and Paulson) to pony up $700 billion to prevent a total freeze of credit markets around the globe -- intoned "SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS." She repeated it for emphasis: "Madame Speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS? It's a staggering figure."

But that was then. Now the cover of TIME magazine features Obama as FDR and the term "new New Deal" is on everyone's lips. Columnist Paul Krugman is fine with that, except he objects that Roosevelt didn't do enough!

The conventional wisdom has had a rough time of it lately among scholars. You know the fairy tale. You were probably taught it in school. During the 1920s, America practiced laissez-faire economics. The 1920s were seen, as historian Amity Shlaes put it, as a period of "false growth and low morals." Greedy businessmen got out of control and created a market crash in 1929. President Hoover, obedient to Republican ideas concerning noninterference in the market, did nothing. The economy spiraled into a depression. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, banished fear, inaugurated the New Deal, and put America back to work.

A series of recent books has demolished the myth. Some of Roosevelt's reforms were salutary (the Securities and Exchange Commission, reform of the Federal Reserve) but the New Deal's chief object was never achieved -- it did not solve the nation's unemployment problem. The CATO Institute's Jim Powell points out in "FDR's Folly," "From 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent. ... Living standards remained depressed until after the war." Stanford University history professor David Kennedy has acknowledged, "Whatever it was, the New Deal was not a recovery program, or at any rate not an effective one."

Amity Shlaes' "The Forgotten Man" reminds us that FDR was a class warrior with a vengeance, always at pains to pin the nation's ills on "economic royalists" who had, he claimed, depressed wages, fixed prices, and conspired to keep all of the nation's wealth in their own greedy hands. FDR's war on businessmen (which featured not just rhetorical but actual criminal prosecutions) spread fear and timidity throughout the entrepreneurial sector. Shlaes writes, "The New Yorker magazine's cartoons of the plump, terrified Wall Streeter were accurate; business was terrified of the president. But the cartoons did not depict the consequences of that intimidation: that businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold on to their cash, and invest in future years."

It is only recently that the New Deal myth has really taken hold. At the time there was less pretense. In "New Deal or Raw Deal?" Burton Folsom of Hillsdale College quotes Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. Testifying before the House Ways & Means Committee in May of 1939, the FDR ally and acolyte did not sugarcoat it:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."

On balance, the New Deal damaged the nation profoundly by extending and deepening the Great Depression. No other downturn in American history lasted so long or afflicted so many.

So no repeats, thank you very much.

I agree 100 percent. Well, OK. Not 100, maybe more like 98 percent. I still have a problem with the whole MODERATE thing.
Peter

LINK
Townhall.com - About That New Deal


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

IWA For Sunday 113008

Another self important Actor thinking we care what they think.

Hey folks,

Yeah, here we go again. You know, I really do get tired of this. But you know what? It actually works. Someone who gets paid way too much to PRETEND that they are someone else or that they are somehow important to the world, start thinking that they REALLY are.

I've talked about this type of thing before. These people are usually swamped with fans, receive Emails and Letters from thousands if not millions of people saying that they are the best thing since sliced bread. Then they are surrounded all day and night by others that wait on their beckoning call. They are surrounded by "Yes People" all the time and then they get to a place where they think this is NORMAL. That people really care what they think or say.

Too many times, these people do not live in reality long enough to understand what reality actually is. They do what they are told, think how they are told to think, and say what others tell them to say.

Well, it appears that Actor Josh Duhamel, best know most likely as of late from the "Transformers" movie, has decided to speak out about the plight of the Polar Bears. Yup. Polar Bears.

The Actor traveled to the shore of the Hudson Bay near Churchill, Manitoba, where Polar Bears assemble annually to await the freeze up. He joined elite polar bear "Experts" Dr. Ian Stirling and Dr. Steven Amstrup, members of the Scientific Advisory Council of Polar Bears International, a non-profit organization devoted to worldwide conservation of the Polar Bear through support of research and education.

So he makes this following statement.

"I'm blown away by the beauty of seeing these awesome creatures up close and personal, I wanted to see the effects of climate change and confront the contradictory claims about polar bears first hand. The plight of the polar bear is a symbol of what's going on globally."

OK. Did you catch this contradiction? He said that he wanted to go there to "confront the contradictory claims about polar bears first hand." This implies that he has heard both sides of an argument and want to find out what it the TRUTH for himself.

I had a similar, well OK many, similar situations in my own life. One was back in the late 80s. I had two very good friends of mine trying to convince me that THEIR church was the best one for me. They BOTH claimed to be "Born Again", BOTH claimed to be "Christian." BOTH claimed that the OTHER'S church was just flat out wrong. How could this be? So I went to BOTH to see for myself. I did. I chose based on what I actually SAW and HEARD, and INVESTIGATED for myself.

So little Josh Duhamel has heard that the Polar Bears are dying and we are killing them, but he has also heard that it is a bunch of bunk. That the Polar Bear numbers have exploded and they are no longer in any threat at all. So he is going there to find out for himself. Right? Wrong. Finish his statement. "The plight of the polar bear is a symbol of what's going on globally."

So he has already made up his mind. I guess. Then while he was there, he met Dr. Ian Stirling, AKA the "Godfather of polar bear research," Dr. Ian Stirling shared his latest findings with Duhamel about the decline in the Polar Bear population. Problem is, they are not declining. So he claims the latest data shows that Polar Bear body weight has dropped 20% over the last 25 years. Polar Bears are smaller and therefore at a higher risk of losing cubs during birth. {Sigh}

So what is this great Actor's answer?

"In Los Angeles especially, we have got to travel more efficiently. Reducing electricity as much as possible, and eating locally-grown, organic food are easy actions to take for most of us."

{Laughing} OK. So how do YOU travel? What is YOUR electric bill? Folks, the Polar Bears are not going anywhere. They are NOT reducing in numbers. The weight thing? I would love to see the research on that. I would LOVE to see how Global Warming has reduced the weight of the Polar Bears.

Congratulations Josh Duhamel, for one, thinking anyone really cares what you have been told to say, two, for being nothing more than a sheep, and three, your answer to how to solve the fictitious GWBS problem, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. Now why do you not go make a movie on how that incredible car of yours travels to the Hudson Bay and saves the Polar Bears?
Peter

Sources:
Polar Bears International

Happy Thanksgiving To You And Yours

Happy Thanksgiving

Wishing you all a very happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Eat well, drink responsibly, and above all give thanks for your many blessings. Be safe, be of good cheer, and remember, everyone goes home at the end of the day. {Smile} Just kidding. See you Sunday. Do not fret, we'll have a special from the Emails Sunday edition. See you then.
Peter

California Seeks to Silence Free Speech

Further PROOF that New Liberals are Idiots

Hey folks,

There are so many different problems with this, it is not even funny. It is just further proof the the New Liberal Party is NOTHING like the original. Nor do they even have a clue what TRUE Liberalism is. AGAIN:

What is Liberalism defined? According to Wikipedia

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.

Now lets touch on some of these. The LWL {Left Wing Loons}do NOT support personal freedoms, free exchange of thought, nor do they support free speech. Unless you agree with them. If not, they will do EVERYTHING they can to discredit, close minds, and silence the speaker. They also do not care what the PEOPLE say at the voting both, if they disagree with them.

They DO want to control the market. They DO want to, in essence, put a cap on how far you can go. Ask Obama and his $250,000, uh, $200,000, I mean $150,000, would you believe $130,000? Whatever it is today, it is still a cap on private citizens. Make Make more than that, you will pay for it. They DO want you to need them. They love social programs that they try to pass off as compassion. They want more control in your lives.

Anti-discrimination laws have become discrimination. Universal education is becoming simple brain washing. Progressive taxation is simply punishment for making it. Religion? I'll get to that in a minute. What about this? "classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights." Not the new LWL. They have no problem taking your land if it benefits them. They will even give it to another private person for that reason. They call it eminent domain.

Then this statement in the meaning, "Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property." That is the EXACT opposite of what they truly believe. Right to life? Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, I guess that is the same. Right?

They want you to have no other choice than to depend on them. Why do you think that they are so against God? Many see God as the final authority. As well they should. But that would mean someone or something, in their mind, is above them.

Look at their targets. Wal-Mart, Big Oil, Pharmaceutical Companies, any big business. Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in the world. They start giving out cheap prescriptions, they are attacked. They {LWL} do not want you going there. They will give them to you. You need THEM not Wal-Mart. Free market is their enemy.

The "American Dream" is fine with them, as long as they are the center of it. They strip away at your abilities to think for, express, and do for yourself so that they may do for you. The "Fairness Doctrine" AKA the Censorship Doctrine.

According to Wikipedia,

A tyrant (Latin tyrannus, from Greek τtύ?ρ?αaν?ν?ο?ς? týrannos) possesses absolute power through the people in a state or in an organization: one refers to this mode of rule as a tyranny. In ancient Greece, tyrants were generally aristocrats who had gained power over the others by getting the support of the poor people by giving them land, freeing them from slavery, etc.

Welfare, food stamps, government housing, free education, ETC. Get the point?

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

Liberalism is an attempt to create an alternate reality, where liberalism is compassionateness. Where it is fair and just. Where those that have, should care for those that have not. It punishes independents, and rewards those that blindly follow. It stifles free thought, and tells you want to believe.

Yes folks, like these six words or not, TODAY'S "Liberalism IS a quest for tyranny."

Let's look at California. Since the election, where the PEOPLE voted in Prop 8, the LWL have lost their minds. Remember the break down. In Florida, Whites voted 60-40, but Black voters approved a ban on gay marriage by a vote of 71 to 29. Is there any question? Now I'm pointing out Race for a reason here. Then in California, Whites may have even let this fail 51-49. It was the 70 percent support from Black voters that put the measure over the top. 70 to 30. It was not the White, War Mongering, Racist, Chauvinistic, Homophobes, you know, Republicans. It was not the "Church" that did this. It was the Blacks. Liberal Democratic Black people. Obama's base.

We have seen EVERYTHING being thrown at the Blacks from the Gays. Liberal bloggers and a bunch of Gay Rights Activists were out there calling Black people the N-word for supporting Prop 8 in large numbers. Some stars made off hand comments about this. Like Roseanne Barr calling Blacks Ignorant and said some of their churches were corrupted. Where is the investigation for possible HATE SPEECH on these people? Why are the Gay Rights Activists NOT protesting the Blacks in the Inner City neighborhoods?

So what do we learn yesterday? According to the AP - California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

ABSOLUTE BULL! The majority of the people in California VOTED. Prop 8 PASSED. It is CLEAR what the WILL of the PEOPLE in California, and 30 other States, is. Now ONE complaint is going to cause this Inquisition against the Mormon Church? Pay back against Mitt Romney? The MORMONS did NOT get this passed. The PEOPLE did. The VAST MAJORITY OF BLACKS DID.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

None was Moron, I mean Roman. So what is the point? We know the point folks. They are attempting to find some kind of way to subvert the Will of the People.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.

They should not have to comment. We have a little thing called the First Amendment in this Country. I know that the LWL HATES that, but we do. Not only does this PROTECT the people by given them the RIGHT to say whatever they want, it also PROTECTS THE CHURCHES FROM THE STATE. I think I may have found my Idiot of the Week already.

I will be watching this one folks. But you know, the sad truth is, this new Clinto,,I mean Obama Administration is FILLED with people JUST LIKE Roman. People that HATE the Constitution, the Freedoms that it provides, and that could not care less about the Will of the People. This is the type of thing that I have been warning you about for over two years now. This will only get worse once the new Administration takes over. Folks, you have not seen ANYTHING yet.
Peter

Sources:
AP- California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

Farewell to Alan Colmes

It is a sad day.

Hey folks,

This broke yesterday on the Sean Hannity Radio Program and is now posted on Alan's Fox News Blog Liberaland

It’s Been A Great 12 Years

November 24th, 2008, 1:34 PM EST
ALAN COLMES TO DEPART TOP RATED HANNITY & COLMES

FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Alan Colmes will relinquish his role as co-host of Hannity & Colmes at the end of the year.

In announcing his decision, Colmes said, “I approached Bill Shine (FNC’s Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network. Although it’s bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I’m proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years.”

Colmes will continue to have a presence on FNC as he will serve as a liberal commentator on a variety of FOX News programming, including Foxnews.com’s The Strategy Room and continue hosting his radio program, The Alan Colmes Show on FOX Talk, a division of FOX News Radio. He will also begin developing a weekend program.

Shine said, “We’re very sorry to see Alan reach this decision but we understand his desire to seek other creative challenges in his career. We value his incredible hard work in making Hannity & Colmes the most successful debate program on cable news and we’re going to miss him on the show. Thankfully, he will begin developing a weekend pilot for us.”

FOX News Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Roger Ailes added, “Alan is one of the key reasons why FOX News has been such a remarkable success. We’re sad to see him leave the program but we look forward to his ongoing contributions to the network.”

Hannity & Colmes is the only FNC program which has remained in the same timeslot for 12 years, catapulting to number one in 2003 and never relinquishing the top spot. The second highest-rated program in cable news behind only The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes averaged 3.3 million viewers nightly for the Nielsen month of October and is poised to mark 60 consecutive months at number one at the end of November.

Hannity added, “Not only has Alan been a remarkable co-host, he’s been a great friend which is rare in this industry - I’ll genuinely miss sparring with such a skillful debate partner.”

Throughout his 12 year tenure on Hannity & Colmes, Colmes has interviewed numerous key political figures, including: President Elect Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), DNC Chairman Howard Dean and former Vice President Al Gore.

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, entertainment and business news. For nearly seven years, FNC has been the most watched cable news channel in the nation. Owned by News Corp., FNC is available in more than 90 million homes.

So Alan is out. Now I know I know, I have heard all the rumors, and the conspiracy theories. Some even sound like they consist of plausible logic. But I'm not ready to jump on board yet.

I really am upset that Alan is going. Hannity will most likely find a replacement and the show will go on. Perhaps former Mayor Koch? Maybe someone like, WAIT!!! I got it. I doubt it. But I got the PERFECT substitute. No one could EVER replace Colmes. But this guy would most DEFINITELY bring in ratings. Imagine this, Hannity and Carville. Yup, James Carville. I would actually watch THAT every night. I know, it's just a dream. But MAN, would THAT be a great show.

I will NEVER agree with Alan on, well, just about ANYTHING, but he is not loon. He can reason, even if he has Liberal tendencies. {Smile} Even if he just doesn't think for himself from time to time, he is still a good guy. It really was a great 12 years.

Good luck to you Alan Colmes, with whatever you chose to do in the future. I wish you nothing but the best.
Peter

Sources:
Alan Colmes Blog

Kids and The Internet

The "Experts" are just FLAT OUT WRONG! Partially right on premises.

Hey folks,

I just got done posting the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog when I caught this article about kids on the Interenet from the Sun Sentinel, a local paper here in South Florida. I have to take exception with the "Experts" on some of their points of view.

Back on December 09, 2007, I posted You Control Access To The Internet. I was talking about the case where an adult women, Lori Dew, allegedly played an online prank on 13 year old Megan Meier, who later committed suicide.

I was talking about how how Lori Dew had been blamed for the whole thing and how she was EVIL in the eyes of those in their home town. I said this.

STOP!!! OK, question. Did Tina Meier, Megan's Mother, know ANYTHING about what her daughter was doing? Did she know where her daughter was visiting online? Did she KNOW that this was happening? If not, WHY?

The question is still valid. Then I offered this advice.

I get "harassed" from time to time online. I get called names, wished death upon, told I should just go away. I've been in many battles over the years. You know what? If I really get to the point that I no longer what to deal with some of these people, I simply don't. There is software, and all kinds of ways, you can block them. You could stop going where they are. Or you can do what I do, just ignore them. When you ignore them, it get boring to them, who do it for a reaction, no reaction, they move on.

The advice is still valid. Then on Sunday March 9, 2007, the IWA winner WAS one of these so called "Experts." Idiot Says Internet Predators no big deal. I said this.

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.

He sighted a study saying that there really are no Internet predators out there. Really no danger. The Parents are more likely to molest their kids. IT ACTUALLY SAID THIS. One of the points of the Study that really got me was this.

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?

I'm getting angry all over again. So what do I see yesterday morning? Sun Sentinel - 'Geeked out' kids can learn vital tech skills socializing online

Equipped with a mobile phone, laptop and Internet access, Heather Prince hangs out for hours a day on MySpace, YouTube and other venues in a virtual world baffling to her mother.

"Often I think she could be using her time doing something better," Annette Deuel said of her daughter, a senior at Tavares High School, near Orlando.

She could be. Do you have her passwords Mrs. Deuel? Do you know where she is REALLY visiting and who she is REALLY talking to?

"My mom doesn't get it," Heather, 17, said while scanning fresh postings on her MySpace page.

Many parents don't, says a new study regarded as the largest ever to examine how the Internet affects kids' social development and education. It concluded that Heather's and her mom's generational differences over the value of spending time online are common.

Which is TRULY SAD.

The report points out benefits for "geeked out" kids who take full advantage of such learning opportunities. They can find the freedom and encouragement to pursue interests that might not be popular with their school peers. They also become more technologically savvy.

"It might surprise parents to learn that it's not a waste of time for their teens to hang out online," said Mizuko Ito, a researcher from the University of California-Irvine, and lead author of the study. "There are myths about kids online — that it's dangerous or makes them lazy. But we found that spending time online is essential for young people to pick up social and technical skills they need to be competent citizens in our digital age."

WHAT ABOUT THE DANGERS Dr. Ito? Oh yeah, there is no danger.

The project, which began in 2005, was completed this summer and included interviews of 800 youths, ages 8 to 20, and their parents. The three-year study was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which has pledged $50 million to explore how digital media are changing how young people learn, play, socialize and participate in civic life.

In an interview, Ito said today's kids socialize online in much the same way that their parents once hung out at the mall or their grandparents gathered at the soda fountain.

"It just looks really different from the social life their parents grew up with," she said.

Ito said the opportunities can be educational, though they're often peer-based and self-directed.

The findings might surprise parents, but not "wired" educators, said Rob Anderson, former principal at Orlando's Edgewater High School, which boasts magnet programs in engineering, science and technology.

"Folks who work with kids already know this," he said of the study's findings. "Parents might not like it, but they don't really have a choice. This is how the world is, and these things are not going away."

WRONG Mr. Anderson. WRONG! Parents DO have a choice. Parents NEED to control this. They NEED to have access at all times. THEY NEED TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN. Parents DO have a choice. Sorry. That is just fact. I know some in the Psychobabble community will not like this, but kids are kids, and PARENTS are PARENTS. The KIDS, have no Rights or privileges save those granted by the Parent. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

Anderson said online activities force kids to employ collaborative skills — as they share ideas and arguments with others who live worlds away. It also requires them to analyze, evaluate and synthesize information, a process that sharpens critical thinking.

Nonetheless, some parents remain wary of hanging out online, with lurking predators and many distractions.

"I know it's a different world now than what was available to us," said Midori Burton, who worries about the amount of time her 14-year-old son spends socializing online. "My concern is that when he goes into that digital field, I don't know who he's dealing with. With a push of a button, you can talk to anybody." She said she has tried to limit his online and texting times.

This is why it IS your job Mrs. Burton to MONITOR what she is doing. With a pull of the plug, she goes nowhere. It really is not a difficult concept to understand.

Heather Prince says she observes her parents' online rules.

"Be careful what you do there," she said. "My dad tells me the stuff on MySpace, for example, is a way for people to learn about me. He doesn't want me to have cuss words, gross things or inappropriate pictures there, so I don't."

Good Girl! Good Father. I hope he is checking from time to time.

The study suggests that kids learn quickly from other kids what's acceptable and what's not.

You know, {Sigh} I'm going to need a calming moment when I'm done with this GARBAGE today. Kids need NOT to be learning from OTHER KIDS what is acceptable. Some kids think it is acceptable to have BJ competitions at school dances. Some see it as acceptable to send naked photos of themselves over their cell phones. Some see "Bedding as many boys as you can" as acceptable. Some see drugs as OK, as long as you do not over do it.

PARENTS need to teach their kids what is acceptable and not. Not other kids. Here a little ray of sunshine in this otherwise completely absurd article.

It also concludes that the best way for parents to monitor their children's online life is to be part of it. Some interviews revealed that families bonded around the computer, by watching videos together, producing and posting their own media and through gaming, a central part of the online experience for many youths.

Along with that, make sure you have the passwords. Check where they are going when you are not around. Get software if you have too to track and record what they are doing. They do not like that, they do not go online.

"I think it's important for parents to understand that their kids are picking up sophisticated skills that will serve them in the future," Ito said. "Ten years ago it would have been hard to believe most kids would have a home page. Now more than half do, and they are filled with pictures, music and things that are important to them.

Online participation is becoming more and more essential in our society — it's how we associate professionally and interact socially."

OK. I have no problem, {Laughing} yeah believe it or not, with kids being online. I really do not have a problem with it. In limited and fully controlled doses. I'll give Dr. Ito credit here. She is right. We do live in an age of technology. No doubt about it. Kids being online is essential. Look at this past election. One of the news agencies used Holograms. That really was cool. Before you know it, we ALL will be. We will all be beaming all over the place and meeting and spending time with each other in ways we can only imaging now. I get all that.

However, there MUST BE RULES. No, not Big Brother monitoring and censoring everything we do, we need Big Parent. Big Mom, Big Dad. THEY need to monitoring and censoring everything that their KIDS do. It really is, just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - You Control Access To The Internet
OPNTalk - Idiot Says Internet Predators no big deal
Sun Sentinel - 'Geeked out' kids can learn vital tech skills socializing online

In-dept Look At Obama Cabinet

Preview for Sunday 112308

Hey folks,

Happy Sunday to you. Since it is Sunday, you know what that means. The Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog.

Coming right up today, an in-depth three part look into the New Obama Administration. I'm sorry, but try as hard as I can, all I see is the Clinton Administration taking back over.

The New Clinton Administration
Janet Napolitano for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Clinton as Secretary of State
Misplaced Anger and False Call For Censorship
Lack Of Money Causes Interest In Saving The Planet To Dwindle
IWA For Sunday 112308

I really want to get right to it, so sit back, get ready, here we go.
Peter

The New Clinton Administration

I mean Obama Administration. I think.

Hey folks,

This is going to take some time. This has been completely amazing me as I watch this come into being. I pointed out the new AG Eric Holder, and BIG TIME Clinton operative. Member of Hillary's Health Care mess, involved in the pardon of Rich, and Terrorists, including two of the Weather Underground. ETC.

So let's look at some more of this mystical CHANGE and this NEW direction. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) surfaced Friday as a possible candidate for secretary of the Interior. Greg Craig to the post of White House counsel, who does not like Obama's choice for Secretary of State. Bill Richardson is now a top choice for Commerce secretary. Timothy Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, who likely will emerge as the secretary of treasury. Lawrence Summers is another candidate.

Retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, who was the former head of NATO and U.S. forces in Europe, appears to be the leading contender for the national security adviser position. Retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair, former commander in chief of the Pacific Command and a sixth generation naval officer, has emerged as the top candidate for director of national intelligence. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has been picked to head the Department of Health and Human Services, where he would work on a health care plan that will provide universal access, as Obama promised in his campaign.Of course, Gov. Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, and Hillary for Secretary of State.

Let's look at some of these people. Shall we? One they are ALL Clintonistas.

Lawrence Summers was forced out as president of Harvard University for a number of perceived insults, including suggesting that biological differences explain why women are inferior to men in science, engineering and math.

What about Retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair? Some say he is a New World Orderist. A Universalist that hates war and Bush. I'm not sure what to think of him yet. I found his following comments interesting.

"To carry out a successful future strategy in the world, we do not need to maintain a relative level of power to the rest of the world on the order of our superiority to North Korea, but we need to have a vibrant and open economy, strong military forces and a society with important aspects that other countries admire and seek to emulate. This means that we must get our fiscal house in order, we need to improve our K- through-12 educational system, repair our national transportation infrastructure, maintain and improve our global economic business competitiveness, maintain open markets in capital, services and goods, and restore our reputation for acting in a moral and responsible manner."

Now they stop here. He is for universal FREE education and in in agreement with Obama on early education. He agrees that the war is immoral and the Bush Administration policies have hurt America's standings. I have seen this quote. But they fail to give you the rest of what I find VERY interesting.

"Only an economically dynamic, militarily powerful, attractive United States can improve its position in the world with our open, inefficient national security system not driven by a single powerful threat."

So he doesn't think our National Security is what it should be. But he DOES believe in a STRONG Military, and, well, keep going.

"There is one other set of internal policies that the United States must pursue consistently to improve its international position, and these have to do with imported oil. Continued dependence on imported petroleum at current and projected levels will undercut any strategy or set of principles the country tries to pursue in the future. We will continue to be on a military hair trigger in the Persian Gulf Region, and we will become more heavily involved in violent and unstable areas of Central Asia and Western Africa. It is difficult to imagine a successful American grand strategy under these circumstances.

Although energy independence is unrealistic, a dramatic decrease in the oil intensity of the American economy is very achievable. During the 1970s and 1980s the United States cut in half the amount of imported petroleum it used to generate a dollar of gross domestic product. We can do so again with a combination of known conservation measures, safe drilling of domestic reserves, and investment in alternative technologies financed in large measure by revision of ethanol tariffs. With national oil intensity cut in half our economy would be much less subject to interruptions in supply abroad and variations in price, and our policies towards the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia could be more balanced, less militarized, and more in keeping with our values."

ABSOLUTELY!

"So the first orders of business are to rebuild the foundation of American international power, restoring a United States that is economically dynamic, globally competitive, attractive in its values and with reduced imported oil intensity. Beyond these actions at home we need a set of strategic principles to guide our international policies and actions.

The start point for a set of strategic principles is a goal or objective. What kind of a world does the United States want in another 20 or 30 years? What is our vision of the world we want to build?

We seek a world of nation states with secure and respected borders that are able to enforce the rule of law within their territory; we seek a world of nation states that have representative governments that protect the rights of their minorities, that base their economies on free markets, and that openly trade with one another in capital, services and goods."

FREE MARKETS! CAPITALISM!

"I believe that the great majority of Americans share this vision. As important, I believe that the great majority of citizens of the rest of the world and their governments also share it. In fact, most of these goals are expressed in the United Nations Charter, to which 192 nations now belong, representing virtually the entire population of the planet."

Now this following bit I find TRULY amazing. Get this.

"Beyond the hypocrisy of authoritarian governments that repress their people and pay lip service to these ideals, the only reservations around the world about this goal have to do with enforcing one of its tenets at the expense of others and timelines and methods for achieving it. So American grand strategic principles have the great advantage of being based on a vision shared by most of the world."

ABSOLUTLEY again! However, we just elected a President that does EXACTLY that. He spouts Authoritarian ideals and "pay lip service to the America" that you Adm. Blair, just pointed out. So if you take this job of Director of National Intelligence, I hope you stay TRUE to what you just said.

Now what about Tom Dashle? He heads Obama's health care policy group and wrote, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Daschle argues in the book that the U.S. must make health-care available to everyone. A HUGH Universal Health care proponent.

Daschle has proposed creating a Federal Health Board that would function similarly to the Federal Reserve System as a kind of enforcer of health policy. He has also suggested merging employer-based plans, Medicaid and Medicare with an expanded Federal Employee Health Benefits Program that would cover all.

So you are starting to see how Obama is putting into place some that will work hard to further HIS ideals.

I'll be right back with the two I REALLY want to talk about, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is the chief candidate for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and of course Hillary as Secretary of State.
Peter

Sources:
ABC News- Obama's Team Brings Out the Old and the New
Armservices.gov.org- Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (retired)
Testimony before the House of Representatives {PDF}
Dashle Book - Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis

Janet Napolitano for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Seriously?

Hey folks,

OK we're back. Just like Tom Dashel, Obama tapped someone else to put into a position that will help him to further his agenda. Janet Napolitano for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

So how is this person that is going to be placed in charge of our Nations Security? A big Amnesty proponent, big Pro - Choice, proponent, and or course, another Clintonista.

In 1991, while a partner with the private Phoenix law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, Napolitano served as attorney for Anita Hill. Remember her? Anita Hill testified in the U.S. Senate that then U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her ten years earlier when she was his subordinate at the federal EEOC. It didn't happen.

In 1993, Napolitano was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States attorney for the District of Arizona. As U.S. attorney, she was involved in the investigation of Michael Fortier of Kingman, Arizona, in connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. She ran for and won the position of state attorney general in 1998. Her tenure focused on consumer protection issues and improving general law enforcement.

Then she Chaired The Arizona-Mexico Commission (AMC), is a public/private, membership driven, 501 non-profit organization that formulates programs and action items impacting the relationship between Arizona, Mexico, and Latin America.

The AMC Claims that their mission is to improve the economic well-being and quality of life for the citizens of Arizona by promoting a strong, cooperative relationship with Mexico and Latin America through advocacy, trade, networking and information. The AMC headquarters office is maintained within the Arizona State Capitol building in Phoenix, Arizona.

She has NO experience in Foreign Affairs other than this. She knows NOTHING about Homeland Security. Yet, she could very well end up in charge of it. Now THAT is a scary thought.

What is her position on Wire Taps? We do not know. What is her position on the War in Iraq? We do not know. What is her stance on those that wish to harm this country? We do not know.

What we do know is that she hold radical views just like the new President, and will now be in a place to HELP him with HIS agenda. That's great, but do we REALLY want someone in such a sensitive position that we know very little about? Well, then again, Obama did get elected President.

Be right back with Clinton.
Peter

Clinton as Secretary of State

How is this NOT a conflict of interests?

Hey folks,

Alright, Hillary? Hillary Clinton is going to be the new Secretary of State. According to the Chicago Tribune - Report: Clinton to accept Obama cabinet By Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons Tribune staff reporter 7:56 PM CST, November 21, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama has settled on former campaign rival Hillary Clinton to be secretary of State, following a high-stakes courtship that is expected to lead to a formal announcement after the Thanksgiving holiday, aides to both said.

We are also hearing that she either has or will be resigning her Senate Position. But how is this NOT a conflict of interest? According to the Tribune.

After an extensive examination of Bill Clinton's complicated financial dealings, the Obama transition team is now satisfied that the nomination will not pose any conflicts of interest, an aide to the president-elect said.

Oh well I'm glad that they are sure of that. {Sigh}

On her end, Clinton is ready to give up her Senate seat and become the nation's top diplomat, taking one of the most prestigious cabinet posts, friends and advisors said Friday. They added that she has not yet accepted the job.

She will. According to this article.

The Obama transition team and Clinton's Senate office both said the nomination is "on track.'' At least two other prominent Democrats were also in the running for the secretary of State job: Richardson and U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004.

After a withering presidential campaign, bringing Clinton into Obama's circle was a feat of diplomacy in itself. As candidates, the two competed hard for the nomination, with loyalists trading tough charges.

Not all are happy about this. No not happy at all.

In March, Obama's team put out a memo challenging Clinton's foreign policy credentials. Greg Craig, who worked in Bill Clinton's State Department, wrote that as first lady she "did not do any heavy lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis.''

{Laughing} So the NEW White House Counsel is counseling again it.

Obama recently named Craig to the post of White House counsel. Obama and Clinton have also represented different factions in the party. He was favored by better-educated, wealthier voters; she was the hero of women and a more downscale swath of the electorate.

"a more downscale swath of the electorate?"

One obstacle to the appointment was Bill Clinton's finances. The former president has made a fortune delivering speeches around the world, while taking in hundreds of millions of dollars from anonymous donors for his private foundation and library. Some of the money has come from foreign sources, including a $10 million gift from the Saudi royal family.

AND SHE WILL BE THE SECRETARY OF STATE!

During the campaign, Obama released a memo claiming that the secrecy surrounding the donors showed that Hillary Clinton, despite her years in public life, had not yet been fully vetted and had a "history of misleading voters.''

What has changed?

To clear a path for his wife's appointment, Bill Clinton agreed to several concessions: He gave the Obama team the names of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation and library; he agreed to clear any future paid speeches with the White House and State Department; and he said he would distance himself from his foundation.

{Laughing} Yeah, but he is not doing away with the foundation. This really is incredible.

An Obama aide said Friday the "financial disclosure issues have been worked out.'' And a Bill Clinton aide said: "If she does not do it, it won't be because of my boss.''

Idiot. But there are more that do not like this appointment.

The selection of Clinton for the State Department prompted Latino groups to ask Obama to consider the ethnic makeup of his cabinet.

Richardson, a Latino, had hoped for the State job, a Democrat close to him said. He is now a top choice for Commerce secretary, a member of Obama's circle said.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) surfaced Friday as a possible candidate for secretary of the Interior. "Everybody's hope in the Latino community was to see Gov. Richardson as secretary of State," said Janet Murguia, president and chief executive of the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization. "Obviously, we felt like he was eminently qualified.''

While Clinton would be an ``excellent'' secretary of State, Murguia said, Latino activists want to see Richardson installed in an important cabinet position and several Latino candidates-Grijalva and others-considered for other positions.

"We've got qualified Hispanic candidates who could fill any cabinet role," she said. "Giving them due consideration is only right."

Yeah they want AMNESTY. They think this would be a GIANT STEP in that direction. Even Richardson is not happy.

A Democrat close to Richardson brushed aside talk of the Commerce slot, at the same time acknowledging Richardson's interest in a cabinet position. "Richardson's interested in being secretary of State. Until that's resolved, he doesn't want to think or talk about anything else," this person said..

So not all are happy in Obama World. As we see his cabinet taking shape, all we see is Clinton 3. Including Clintons themselves. I only see one that I have hope for, the rest, nothing but Clintonistas and no change whatsoever. Where is the CHANGE? I guess "you can't have change if you put a representative of the same ol' guard in the drivers' seat," but it is OK if you are driving the bus FILLED with them. Right?
Peter

Sources:
Chicago Tribune - Report: Clinton to accept Obama cabinet post

Misplaced Anger and False Call For Censorship

You Can't Make This Stuff Up for Sunday 112308

Hey folks,

First and foremost, God Speed to Abraham Biggs Jr. May his Father and Family have the peace they need in this devastating time. I am not heartless, and I can not imagine the loss that this Father feels. I have no idea what I would do if I lost my Son Joshua.

However, having said all that, the Fathers anger is misplaced. His call for censorship is false. There is NO ONE to blame but his Son. Period.

According to Seacoastonline- Father appalled by virtual audience to son's death By SARAH LARIMER Associated Press Writer Nov 23, 12:01 AM EST

MIAMI (AP) -- The father of a college student whose suicide was broadcast live over a webcam said Saturday he was appalled by the virtual audience that egged on his son and called for tougher regulation of Internet sites.

Regulations for WHAT? On what?

Abraham Biggs Sr. said those who watched and the Web site operators share some blame in his 19-year-old son's death.

"I think they are all equally wrong," he said. "It's a person's life that we're talking about. And as a human being, you don't watch someone in trouble and sit back and just watch."

Uh Mr. Biggs? Some didn't just sit back and watch.

Police found Abraham Biggs Jr. dead in his father's bed Wednesday, 12 hours after he first declared on the Web site for bodybuilders that he planned to take his own life. He took a fatal drug overdose in front of an Internet audience. Although some viewers contacted the Web site to notify police, authorities did not reach his house in time.

So some that were viewing it, CALLED 911. What regulations would have helped this?

Biggs, who has said he was at work during the episode, said he had not known about his son's online presence.

"I think after this incident and probably other incidents that have occurred in the past, they all point to some kind of regulation is necessary," Biggs said. "I think it is wrong to have this happen for hours without any action being taken from the people in charge. Where were they all the time?"

And what about YOU. YOU are the Father. Are YOU NOT suppose to know your Son better than some strangers?

The younger Biggs posted a link from the Web site to Justin.tv, which allows users to broadcast live with their webcams.

A computer user who claimed to have watched said that after swallowing some pills, Biggs went to sleep and appeared to be breathing for a few hours while others cracked jokes. Some users told investigators they did not take him seriously because he had threatened suicide on the site before.

Biggs Sr. said he believes the webcast was a cry for help.

"But rather than get help, he was ignored," Biggs said. "I would not want to see anything like that on the Internet and not try and get help for that young man. I think that's what the average person would do. Any normal person would do. I'm really appalled."

SOME DID Mr. Biggs. Again, what is YOUR role in understanding that there may have been a problem with your Son? Do not misunderstand me, I do not blame the Father. Nor do I blame those watching, nor the Website. The blame lays at the feet of Abraham Biggs Jr. Since he was determined to do this, did it, HE is the only one to blame. No amount of regulations would have changed ANYTHING.
Peter

Sources:
Seacoastonline- Father appalled by virtual audience to son's death

Lack Of Money Causes Interest In Saving The Planet To Dwindle

People are not willing to spend money on the SCAM

Hey folks,

In the Health and Science Segment this week, we learn what I told you about a while back. The SCAM known as Global Warming is all about Control, Power, and Money. Take away the money, and the interest in "saving the planet" dwindles. This is actually funny to me.

From the AFP - SKorean leader says invest in climate

LIMA (AFP) – South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak on Saturday appealed for investment in green energy, saying it would not only help the environment but also boost the ailing world economy.

Not really. It would TAKE money from those that already have little, and give it to those working the SCAM known as Global Warming, AKA Climate Change.

South Korea is one of the rare countries that is setting national goals to cut emissions that cause global warming despite not having obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which only covered leading economies.

Lee, attending a summit of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Peru, called for greater investment in clean energies such as wind power.

"Although we are now going through an economic crisis, for sustainable future growth we must not neglect common issues of humankind such as climate change and our resources crisis," Lee said.

"We urgently need a new energy paradigm that can get us through the current energy and climate change crisis," he said.

"This is not a path that we can either take or not. It is one we must take for future generations," he said.

Can you say BEGGING? {Laughing} I know times are tough, but I want you to not worry about that. Give me money to save the planet.

However, a survey of Asia-Pacific opinion leaders released at the APEC summit earlier showed that concern about global warming has diminished sharply, with far more people putting priority on addressing the financial crisis.

OK, if GWBS was REAL. Why would everyone NOT be MORE interested in GWBS than anything else? If we "kill the planet" what does it matter HOW much money you do or do not have? If the world really was going to end, would that NOT be more important?

Lee, who was elected president in December last year, won wide praise as mayor of Seoul for tearing down a highway in the middle of the crowded metropolis and replacing it with a restored river.

So the guy is a nut. But more and more people are starting to realize that GW IS BS and since the money is getting harder and harder for people to part with, they would rather join others and save their money. No more money, no more GW? Just a thought.
Peter

Sources:
AFP - SKorean leader says invest in climate

IWA For Sunday 112308

No one's fault but your own.

Hey folks,

It's SUNDAY! Time for the IWA.

You know, this really never made sense to me. I do not care what you do in your private time, but if it is something that you do not want others to know,

A- Do not do it where others can see you.
B- Do not tell anyone that may tell someone else.
C- Do not record it.
D- If you DO record it, make sure that you are the only one to have access to it.

Yes folks, this weeks winner decided that it was a good idea to keep nude photos of his Wife on his cell phone. Now do not get me wrong, I,

A- Have no problem with nudity.
B- Think that if his Wife sent them to him, as a fun gesture, to spice up the romance, or whatever, it's pretty cool.
C- See no problem with him wanting to keep them.
D- See this as a completely harmless act between two consenting adults.

HOWEVER, ever forget your cell phone at work? Ever have someone look over your shoulder while you are texting someone? Of course you have. If this Idiot did NOT want anyone to see what he had, he should have deleted them. But according to the AP - Nude pics in phone lost at McDonald's get online

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – Here's some food for thought: If you have nude photos of your wife on your cell phone, hang onto it.

Phillip Sherman of Arkansas learned that lesson after he left his phone behind at a McDonald's restaurant and the photos ended up online. Now he and his wife, Tina, are suing the McDonald's Corp., the franchise owner and the store manager.

The suit was filed Friday and seeks a jury trial and $3 million in damages for suffering, embarrassment and the cost of having to move to a new home.

WHAT? Seriously. $3 million dollars? Having to move to a new home?

The suit says that Phillip Sherman left the phone the Fayetteville store in July and that employees promised to secure it until he returned.

Manager Aaron Brummley declined to comment, and other company officials didn't return messages.

I got news for you Mr. Sherman, you do not deserve a DIME. Nope. Not one penny. You could have simply deleted the pictures. McDonald's did not embarrass you. YOU did. McDonald's did not ask you or your Wife to pose nude. They are not responsible for your stupidity. They also did not force you to move.

Congratulations Mr. Sherman, for not taking honest and easy steps to protect yourself, and going WAY overboard with the moving thing, YOU are the Idiot of the week. You want money for the pictures? May I suggest you mail them to Playboy. Hey, you never know.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Nude pics in phone lost at McDonald's get online

Democrats Talking No Off Shore Drilling Ban

From The Emails for Friday 112108

Hey folks,

This week, one article stands out from the rest. This is an article that more than just one of you pointed out to me. I also have a bit of inside information to share about this.

The article is from the Washington Times on Wednesday, Democrats say no to drilling ban

A top House Democrat on Tuesday said his party will not push to reinstate a ban on offshore oil and natural-gas drilling next year.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland said there will be serious discussion as to the "parameters" to which offshore drilling will be pursued, but Democrats will not try to backtrack after grudgingly giving in to Republican demands to allow the 26-year ban to expire this fall.

"I don't think there is any intent at this point in time ... to return to the same position we were in" before the ban was lifted, Mr. Hoyer told a gathering of reporters Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington.

Now what you may not know, is that the New President of API, Jack N. Gerard, sent this letter to Congress on Tuesday, November 18, 2008. Here it is.

November 18, 2008

Dear Member of Congress:

As the 110th Congress returns for its final session, we are at an historic turning point for our nation and its energy policies. As the new president and chief executive officer of the American Petroleum Institute, I want to pledge API’s continued commitment to work with the Congress to ensure future energy security and economic prosperity for the United States.

The current economic crisis is the uppermost concern of all Americans, but we cannot put our nation on the path to recovery if we do not address our energy challenges. Energy drives the U.S. economy and supports the American standard of living. Energy provides American jobs, higher incomes, economic growth, and competitiveness in global markets. If we fail to address energy as an economic issue, we will have neither energy security nor economic prosperity.

The economic crisis makes the development of oil and natural gas resources more urgent than ever. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry supports approximately 6 million jobs – 1.8 million people directly employed by the industry, with more than 4 million indirect jobs. Expanded access creates more job opportunities – and many of these jobs pay more than double the national average. In addition, oil and natural gas development on federal lands, both onshore and offshore, means billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and state governments in the form of royalties, bonus bids, rentals, severance taxes, corporate income taxes and property taxes.

Now that the campaigns are over, the time is right for a fresh start on energy. The American people have shown overwhelming support for increased domestic oil and natural gas development. Election Day exit polls found two-thirds of voters favor offshore drilling where it is not currently allowed.

The Congress took an important step in lifting the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing moratoria off the east and west coasts of the lower-48 states for the first time in more than two decades. But much more remains to be done. Congress should open up areas of the Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico that remain off-limits – and take further steps to more quickly develop our offshore resources. Moreover, Congress should reject any attempts to re-impose the moratoria that were lifted.

According to U.S. Energy Information Administration projections, oil and natural gas will play leading roles in meeting our energy needs for decades to come, even with greater reliance on alternative energy and increased energy efficiency. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry has the expertise and technology to meet the massive and varied energy needs of U.S. consumers. However, to meet these needs, significant capital investment will be required by the oil and gas industry. Harmful, counter-productive energy policies, such as higher taxes targeting oil and natural gas companies, will deter needed investment, discouraging new domestic oil and natural gas production and expansion of refining capacity, and tilting the competitive playing field for global energy resources against U.S.-based oil and natural gas companies.

API is confident that by working together – the private sector, government, and consumers – we can meet the energy challenges our nation faces and achieve a prosperous economy and secure energy future. We stand ready to assist you in whatever way we can as the Congress addresses these issues.

Sinceley
Signed Jack N. Gerard
President and Chief Executive Officer

So API CEO Mr. Gerard sends this letter on the 18th, and Steny Hoyer makes these statements on the 19th. Good job Mr. Gerard. It's easy to be bold when you are right. It's easy to take on Congress when you know 80 percent of Americans are on your side. {Smile} The Congress KNOWS it. Now according to the Washington Times piece.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the main U.S. trade association for the oil and natural-gas industry, said it was encouraged by Mr. Hoyer's words, but also cautioned Democrats against tweaking the rules governing offshore drilling.

"When they're talking about 'parameters,' we should point out that putting arbitrary limits on development, whether that's [prohibiting drilling within] 100 miles from shore, or whatever they're thinking, could take some of the most promising domestic resources off the table," said API spokeswoman spokesman Cathy Landry.

"So we would caution them to really look at what they're doing and learn about what's out there before they take action. It could potentially keep some of our nation's best prospects from being developed."

ABSOLUTELY!

API also released this.

WASHINGTON – The American Petroleum Institute today issued the following statement:

“We believe the position outlined to news reporters by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer – that the Democratic leadership would not seek to re-impose the ban on oil and natural gas leasing in federal waters – is the right approach. The American public has made clear its strong support for increased access to untapped domestic oil and natural gas resources. At least two-thirds of Americans in recent exit polling said they supported offshore drilling. Neither Congress nor the next administration should set unreasonable, arbitrary limits on leasing because such restrictions could remove some of the nation’s most promising oil and natural gas prospects for development, and the industry has proven it can develop these resources in an environmentally safe manner. The industry stands ready to help put America’s vast energy resources to good use to strengthen our nation’s economy and energy security, generate billions of dollars for the benefit of our federal and state treasuries and provide good jobs for Americans across the country.”

Back to the Washington Times article and another I told you so.

The lifting of the ban allows oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf - three miles to 200 miles offshore - and expanded oil-shale development in the West - areas that had been off limits.

Gasoline prices have dropped nearly in half since the ban was lifted.

It KEEPS GOING DOWN. It keeps going down because THEY {Big Oil Cartels, Traders, ETC.} KNOW that we could start producing our own in less than two years. They were counting on Obama and the Democrats REINSTATING the Ban. Now they just said NO?

Then I also have to give Steny credit for actually telling the truth here. He said this.

Mr. Hoyer also said he wouldn't recommend that President-elect Barack Obama give a "Kennedyesque" declaration for the U.S. to stop importing foreign oil in 10 or 15 years.

"I don't think he ought to make that definitive statement because I'm not sure if that's possible," Mr. Hoyer said. "What is possible, however, is to very substantially reduce our reliance on petroleum products."

Yeah, like saying that all this fictitious alternative sources of energy, that DOES NOT EXIST YET, are going to free us. Right? All these "Green Jobs" producing???? WHAT? workers diligently???? Doing WHAT? Cars, Homes, Plans, Trains, and other NON-ENERGY product will run on and be made of WHAT?

No folks, we MUST go with what we HAVE. What is REAL. What is AVAILABLE NOW. We can, and ARE working on AE right now. Meanwhile, lets increase the Job Market, lower and keep Gas Prices affordable for all, and do what we CAN do NOW.

Peter

Sources:
Washington Times- Democrats say no to drilling ban
API- American Petroleum Institute


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

Attorney General Eric Holder Not Welcomed By All

Why is this a surprise?

Hey folks,

The big news yesterday afternoon and evening was President Elect Obama picking Eric Holder as the new Attorney General. But just like 30 other Obama appointees, Holder has a past with the Clintons. Well, OK, THAT is an understatement.

Reuters reports it this way.

Before the offer becomes official, Obama's team wants to determine if Holder could win Senate confirmation with broad bipartisan support and clean up a Justice Department wracked by scandals during George W. Bush's presidency, the Democrat said.

THE Democrat said. {Laughing}

"We know we have the votes for Senate confirmation, but we want to make sure he would have broad support so he can make needed reforms," said the Democrat, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said of Holder, "He would make an outstanding nominee, and should have the support of senators from both sides of the aisle if President-elect Obama were to choose him for this critical position."

Sure he will. He's a GREAT pick. Involved in the whole Marc Rich thing, when he was the deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton. But that's not all. The following is a press release by National Legal and Policy Center

FALLS CHURCH, Va., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a plaintiff in the successful 1993 lawsuit to open the meetings and records of Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care task force, today criticized Barack Obama for selecting Eric Holder as his Attorney General nominee.

According to NLPC President Peter Flaherty, "Holder is not ethically qualified to serve as Attorney General. His track record is not one of independence or objectivity. Instead, he has been guided by politics and self-interest."

On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he, too, would not prosecute Magaziner.

Magaziner, who headed up the task force, asserted to plaintiffs in a March 3, 1993 statement that no outsiders, or non-government employees, were taking part in the task force. When task force documents were later produced, it was obvious that dozens of outsiders had taken part. It was not a small point. The presence of outsiders would trigger the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requiring that task force meetings be opened to the public. Magaziner's claim stood for several months. Magaziner and other participants in the task force took no action to expose it or to correct the record.

An example of an outsider was Lois Quam, a vice-president of United Health Care Corporation, a for-profit managed care provider. United Health Care stood to financially benefit from the decisions of the task force, not to mention the reams of inside information to which she would become privy. Quam's participation also helped fuel a controversy directly involving Hillary. The Clintons were investors in a closely held limited partnership called ValuePartners 1, which held a block of United Health Care stock. The partnership shorted a number of health-related stocks including United Health Care. At the time of his death, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster was in the process of putting the Clinton's health care stocks into a blind trust, a task not completed until July 26, 1994.

At the time, NLPC accused the Clinton administration of a cover-up. Both Reno and Holder were appointed by Clinton, and Reno owed her job to Hillary. Additionally, the Washington Post reported in January of 1995 that Holder was under consideration by Clinton for appointment to a federal judgeship.

Flaherty concluded, "When Reno said she would not appoint a special prosecutor, it was even more appropriate for the case to be handled by the U.S. Attorney with jurisdiction. That was Holder and he should have acted. Holder's failure to pursue Magaziner made a mockery of the law."

A more detailed account of these events can be found in a 1996 book titled The First Lady: A Comprehensive View of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Peter and Timothy Flaherty. The relevant chapter can be read online at http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=60

NLPC promotes ethics in public life, and sponsors the Government Integrity Project.

Yes folks, The CHANGE we need. Obama is really working hard on CHANGE. Change right back to the Clintons. Whatever happened to new? Whatever happened to CHANGE? Oh he is STILL all about change. Problem is, the CHANGE he is seeking is Socialism. He is putting all the players in place. Make no mistake about it.
Peter

SOURCES:
National Legal and Policy Center
Reuters- Obama offers Holder attorney general post

Attacking God

Or ANYTHING Faithful

Hey folks,

If you have known me more for a while, you know that I have been talking about the moral decline in this country for years. I have done series of articles on the subject and have discussed this at length here and elsewhere. From the dumbing down of our kids, to the very active role on some people's part to remove ANYTHING "God" from public life.

We constantly hear of this fictitious "Wall of Separation of Church and State." Well, as far as Christians go that is. Jew? More subdue attacks because of history. Muslim? Wicken? Scientology? Well, that's great. You had better not say anything about those Religions, because of the First Amendment. Kid prays in the name of Jesus in school? Suspended or threaten with expulsion.

Some would argue, incorrectly, that the Founding Fathers did not want God in public life. They say that this Country was NOT founding on Judeo - Christian beliefs. It was. They would say that allowing God in public life is a violation of the "Wall." Well, first off, and yet again, there is no WALL. The phrase was taken from a private letter, NOT the Constitution. Second, the Amendment they are taking about is to protect the CHURCH. It is Freedom OF not FROM Religion. The founding Fathers put that there because that was the whole reason we LEFT to come here. They wanted to make sure, that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT did NOT ESTABLISH a National Religion. In other words, the Church of America. Then through laws, and oppression, FORCE you to worship there.

But there has been a consorted effort by some in this country to remove Faith and God from Public life. No God in school. Look at our school system. No God on our Money. Money has become SOME peoples god. No God in our National Anthem. Remove that little annoying part that says "One nation under God." Forget the part in the Bill or Rights that say we are all given Rights and Freedom by our Creator. Forget the mention of God in other countless historical documents.

But whenever you remove God and morals, something else has to fill that void. The more God and morals are removed from society, the darker society gets. The more crime rises. The "anything goes" mentality, allows ANYTHING to go. So anytime I see something like this next article, it get's me thinking. According to Reuters- Hollywood out of step with American morals

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – A majority of Americans say Hollywood doesn't share their moral values, according to a poll commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights anti-Semitism.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said that religious values in America are "under attack," and 59% agreed that "the people who run the TV networks and the major movie studios do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans."

Neither does the Democrat controlled Congress.

The poll, titled "American Attitudes on Religion, Moral Values and Hollywood," was conducted by the Marttila Communications Group, which surveyed 1,000 adults nationwide. It was released Friday at the ADL's annual meeting in Los Angeles.

"These findings point to the challenges that we face in dealing with issues of religion in society," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director. "The belief that religion is under attack underlies the drive to incorporate more religion into American public life. Disturbingly, 43% of Americans believe there is an organized campaign by Hollywood and the national media to weaken the influence of religious values in this country."

It's NOT just Hollywood though folks.

Among the survey's findings:

-- 61% of respondents agree that "religious values are under attack in this country," while 36% disagree with that statement.

-- 43% said that Hollywood and the national media are waging an organized campaign to "weaken the influence of religious values in this country."

Yup. Started will Bill Clinton. Anything he did was fine. Adultery, lying, ETC. They actually marveled at Clinton's ability to lie. The admired him for it. Yet, anyone that is even remotely close to being, well, anything Christian, they belittle, attack, dig up any kind of dirt they can. If they can not find something, they just make it up.

We just saw during this past election. Obama comes out and says that those who believe in God are "bitter Clingers." Clinging to their guns and Bibles. Yet, you know as well as I do If Obama was not the Far Left Socialist spewing Liberal he is, HE would have been crucified in the Media for, well, name it. Illegal land deals, illegal contributions, associations with Radicals, ETC. Yet, they send a thirty person hit squad to Alaska to investigate Palin. They attack a PRIVATE citizen named "Joe the Plumber." while ignoring anything negative about their new Messiah.

-- 63% disagree with the statement that "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," while only 22% agree with that point. When ADL conducted its first survey on anti-Semitic attitudes, in 1964, nearly half of the respondents believed that the television and film industries were run by Jews.

-- Nearly 40% support the notion that "dangerous ideas should be banned from public school libraries," and nearly the same number disagree with the statement that "censoring books is an old-fashioned idea."

Do not forget folks, CENSORSHIP is on the rise and the Censorship Doctrine is on it's way.

-- Nearly half of those surveyed -- 49% -- believe that the United States is becoming "too tolerant in its acceptance of different ideas and lifestyles; 47% disagree with that statement.

WE saw that in the past election as well. AKA Gay Marriage Ban.

The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

The majority of Americans STILL believe that God in public life, and morals still matter. This is interesting because they found that a majority of those surveyed believe that there IS an active effort to take God and faith out. Interesting. True. Interesting that more people are seeing it.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters-Hollywood out of step with American morals: poll

Thoughts And Prayers For Those In California

May the Firefighters have the strength they need to continue this fight.

Hey folks,

With over 800 homes destroyed, 34 MILES burned, it is a miracle that there has been NO loss of life as of yet. That is amazing. But for those that have lost homes and everything in these fires, this is a most devastating time. Our thoughts and prayers go out to our friends in California, and I pray that the Firefighters that are bravely fighting these fires continue to have the strength and courage to continue the battle. May they be safe as well.

Peter

AP - Even as winds calm, more Californians flee fires

Some Gay Activists Just Do Not Get It

Coming right up, today, 111608

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. We are fully loaded today, with some things you may only hear here, and some that are becoming big news. So get your coffee, tea, Hot Coco, Juice, or whatever it is that gets you moving in the morning, and let us get right to it.

Coming right up.

Testing For Obama Starting Early?
Ah, Yes, The Compassion of The New Liberalism
Amnesty Revisited
Answer to Chicken or Egg
IWA For Sunday 111608

That's coming right up. But right now I have a question. Why is it so hard for some of the more extreme Militant types of Gay Rights Activists to get it? Seriously. I'm asking.

Since Prop 8, which they are calling Hate 8, was voted on and PASSED in California by the VOTERS, 70 percent of which was the Black Vote that went to approve the Constitutional Ban, they have lost their minds.

Major destruction and hateful abuses have taken place. People have been force to quit their jobs. Threats and violence is the norm in some parts, and they keep attacking the WRONG people.

According to the AP - Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation, they continue to not get the fact it was the American People that voted this in. Not the Church, Religious Right, ETC. It was the American people. As a matter of fact.

Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.

Protests following the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, have sometimes been angry and even violent, and demonstrators have targeted faiths that supported the ban, including the Mormon church.

So 30 states have changed their Constitutions based on a VOTE from the people in the states, to Ban Gay Marriage by defining Marriage as one Man and one Woman. The PROTESTERS have been "angry and even VIOLENT" during these protests and it's time to hold them accountable. There are some that get it.

However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday's demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

Yes it is, in more ways than one. Every cause that you want to convince people is worthy, can not ever be FORCED down people's throats. From Religion, Race issues, Gay issues, to anything else. The quickest way to turn people off is to get in their face and scream at them, threaten them, or call them names.

"If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change," she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated 1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us," she said.

The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song "Respect." Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read "Gay is the new black."

No it isn't the new Black. Sorry. If I were a Black person, THAT would offend me. I'm sure that is one of the reasons that 70 percent of Blacks voted FOR the Ban in California, and 71 percent in Florida.

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago, where several thousand people gathered, read: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics."

Again folks, it was NOT the Religious Right Organizations that did this. The PEOPLE Voted for it.

"I just found out that my state doesn't really think I'm a person," said Rose Aplustill, 21, a Boston University student from Los Osos, Calif., who was one of thousands at the Boston rally.

Nice but wrong. Again, not the state.

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: "You have three wives; I want one husband."

{Sigh}

Chris Norberg, who married his partner in June, also referred to the racial divisions that arose after exit polls found that majorities of blacks and Hispanics supported the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

"They voted against us," Norberg said.

Yup.

In Salt Lake City, where demonstrators gathered just blocks from the headquarters of the Mormon church, one sign pictured the city's temple with a line adapted from former Republican vice president candidate Sarah Palin: "I can see discrimination from my house."

{Laughing} Sarah Palin had NOTHING to do with this either.

More than 500 demonstrators in Washington marched from the U.S. Capitol through the city carrying signs and chanting "One, two, three, four, love is what we're fighting for!"

A public plaza at the foot of New York's Brooklyn Bridge was packed by a cheering crowd of thousands, including people who waved rainbow flags and wore pink buttons that said "I do."

Protests were low-key in North Dakota, where people lined a bridge in Fargo carrying signs and flags.

Mike Bernard, who was in the crowd of hundreds at City Hall in Baltimore, said Proposition 8 could end up being a good thing for gay rights advocates.

"It was a swift kick in the rear end," he said.

In Los Angeles, protesters gathered near City Hall before marching through downtown. Police said 10,000 to 12,000 people demonstrated.

Supporters of traditional marriage said the rallies may have generated publicity but ultimately made no difference.

That is probably true. Unless President Obama decides to go against his word, and attempt to over turn the Will of the people. The Will of the people in 48 states. I'm not so sure even HE is that brave.

OK. Like I said, we have a lot of ground to cover, so get ready. I'll be right back.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation

Testing For Obama Starting Early?

Biden, make that Vice President Biden, told us this would happen.

Hey folks,

Remember what Biden said? He said that the Obama Administration would be tested within the first six months. He also BEGGED the Liberal Loony Base to stick with them, because they would not think that they were doing the right thing in the way they respond to it.

Well, we had the elections. The House and the Senate remain in strong control of those that wanted to surrender in Iraq. To declare defeat. The Socialist spouting Obama got elected President. You know, the guy that said he would meet with Little Hitler without preconditions. So what is happening in the world? Reuters - Hamas fires heavier rockets at Israel

GAZA (Reuters) – Hamas Islamists fired their longest-range rockets at a southern Israeli city Friday after an Israeli air force attack on their Gaza stronghold, in the 11th day of skirmishes threatening a five-month-old truce.

A statement from the armed wing of the Islamist group said Hamas fired 5 five 1960s-era, Soviet-made Grad rockets at an Israeli town, the longest range weapon they have claimed to shoot at the Jewish state.

Israeli rescue services said five rockets struck the southern coastal city of Ashkelon but caused no casualties. The Grad has a maximum range of 25 km (15 miles).

Palestinian medical workers said two Hamas fighters were wounded in a morning strike by the Israeli air force, which an Israeli military spokesman said was ordered in response to a Hamas rocket attack.

Hamas said it fired 8 shorter-range Kassam rockets in response, aimed at the city of Sderot.

Two hit the town causing damage to buildings, Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. One Israeli was treated for shrapnel wounds, and a number of people were treated for shock.

"Fortunately there were no casualties but there was a lot of damage," said Micha Ben Alain, whose kibbutz near Sderot was hit. "Windows were smashed and doors were torn apart."

Right-wing Israeli lawmakers called on Israel to end the truce and step up operations against Hamas, including strikes on the group's leaders, Army Radio reported.

The fighting is stepping up. Heavier weapons are being used. Back on May 20, 2008, I posted This What A Difference A Year Makes I told you about Obama and a speech he gave to a pro-Israel crowd.

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

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

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

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

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

But He also said this.

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

So the test will be, WHICH OBAMA will respond to this of situation when he takes the reigns. The Terrorist are counting on the Kumbaya Obama. We NEED the "use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." Obama. Only time will tell.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - Hamas fires heavier rockets at Israel
OPNTalk- What A Difference A Year Makes

Ah, Yes, The Compassion of The New Liberalism

Religious Leaders and the Protect Marriage Coalition Leadership Unite Against Vicious Attacks By Prop 8 Opponents

Hey folks,

This is yet another example of what we continue to hear. How, now that Obama is President, the country will be compassionate, all inclusive, and fair for all. The World will love us. Peace and harmony will reign supreme.

Now for the past 8 years, we have heard how evil Bush was. How out of touch with the people the Republicans have been. We have been told that the democrats and the New Liberals are all about helping the people. They will take care of us. They care. They are going to do what the PEOPLE want.

Well? The people voted. They WANT Proposition 8. They WANT a Ban on Gay Marriage in California. In many other states as well. So I found this article interesting. Protect Marriage.com - Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks

SANTA ANA - Today, leaders representing the broad coalition of Californians who supported Proposition 8 called on leaders of the No on Proposition 8 campaign, in addition to Senator Diane Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to denounce the attacks against citizens who supported the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening. Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger while churches are being attacked? And where is Senator Dianne Feinstein while people are losing their jobs and grandmothers are being bullied by an angry mob?" said Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert.

Because these people are beholden to the extremist Liberal nut cases that are doing the attacking. That is because they are most likely trying to find a away to overturn the Will of the people.

The statement was made at the first press conference of the Protect Marriage coalition since election night when Proposition 8 was passed by California voters with 52.5% of the vote. In the past ten days, hostility has increased against people whose only offense was to exercise their right to participate in the political process.

Some of the outrageous activities include:

In Sacramento, a musical theater director was forced to resign after he was blacklisted for contributing $1000 to the initiative;

A Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles has been boycotted after a relative of the owner donated to the coalition;

Numerous churches have had their property defaced;

And an unknown white powder was mailed to several LDS temples and the National Headquarters of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization that supported the campaign.

Yes, you have to love the compassion of the New Left.

The leadership of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, a group of interfaith religious leaders, community leaders from a wide range of ethnic groups, and approximately 500 supporters of Yes on Proposition 8 gathered in Santa Ana to voice their opposition to the increasing attacks and harassment against supporters of traditional marriage.

Speaking on behalf of the African American community, Pastor Ed Smith of the Zoe Christian Fellowship of Whittier said: "Marriage is important to members of all faiths and all communities, but an election was held, the outcome was fair and people throughout California should honor it."

Yeah, people like Rosanne Barr who are calling African Americans Idiots and stupid. 70 percent of them voted for this. I have even heard the N word being thrown around. Not by the Right, but the LWL.

"For 14 months, we have been called bigots and hatemongers and we have not retaliated against these unprecedented attacks," Pastor Jim Garlow said. "But we will not be silenced."

Conservatives have been called these names for years. Welcome to the club Pastor. Welcome to the club.
Peter

Sources:
Protect Marriage.com - Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks

Amnesty Revisited

Yet Another I Told You So

Hey folks,

This was pointed out to me by SG. "I guess you were right."

Of course I am. I warned you all about this, as well as many other things. It really is this simple. When a Loon is in charge, the Loons come out of the woodwork. The Congress, and even President Bush, attempted to grant Amnesty, over and over again. The NEW Media, Talk Radio, gave you folks the TRUTH on this. YOU put a stop to this.

But NOW? According to the Washington Post - Immigrant Advocates Reach Out To Obama By N.C. Aizenman Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 12, 2008; B05

Dozens of immigrant advocates from across the country convened in Washington yesterday to call on President-elect Barack Obama to halt work-site immigration raids and fulfill campaign pledges to offer the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States a path to citizenship within his first year in office.

AMNESTY! Unlike the last countless attempts, this time, you have very little say. This time, we will have a President that wants it, and a Congress that wants it. If they are able to steal another three seats, they will have a filibuster proof Majority. Since they do not care what you think, this will pass no questions asked.

Representatives of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a coalition of grass-roots organizations from Los Angeles, New York and the Washington area, also announced plans to mobilize tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters for a demonstration on the Mall on Jan. 21, the day after Obama's inauguration.

"We voted in the millions, and now we're going to demand progress in the millions," said Angelica Salas, director of one of the allied organizations, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, at a news conference to publicize the movement's efforts.

Get use to this folks. They want Amnesty. The Feminists want Murder. The Socialists want redistribution of wealth, and Libs in general want to silence Free Speech. Obama is going to be busy.

The last attempt by Congress to overhaul the immigration system foundered in spring 2007 amid a storm of angry phone calls from constituents complaining that the legalization component amounted to an unacceptable "amnesty" for lawbreakers. And several members of the coalition acknowledged yesterday that the tanking economy had further complicated their efforts.

But the election is over folks. They are guaranteed another two year term. President Obama is guaranteed four. "So SCREW YOU America. We will do what we want."

However, they said they were also confident that the record participation of Hispanic and immigrant voters in last week's elections would translate into greater political clout.

Get it?

Turnout among Latinos -- who tend to favor legalizing undocumented immigrants -- increased by 30 percent from the 2004 presidential race. Two-thirds of the Latino vote went to Obama, compared with barely more than half for the 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). And Latinos proved particularly helpful to Obama and other Democrats in the battleground states of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

"Historically, we've never had legislative progress on immigration during an economic recession," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of another alliance member, the New York Immigration Coalition. "On the other hand, we've never had these kinds of numbers turn out at the polls. . . . The immigrant and Latino vote has permanently established itself as part of the electoral calculus."

Can you say ACORN?

Although Hong and the other speakers said they did not expect Obama to tackle immigration legislation within his first 100 days, they outlined several executive decisions such as the moratorium on immigration raids that they hoped he would take immediately. These included devoting more resources to clearing up a backlog of visa applications, improving conditions at immigrant detention facilities and suspending the Bush administration's recent decision to begin mailing notices to 140,000 employers of workers with suspect Social Security numbers, warning them that they have 90 days to resolve the discrepancies or fire the workers.

"We need an end to these harsh tactics that don't work," Salas said. "Americans have shown that they want practical solutions."

They have SHOWN THEY DO NOT WANT AMNESTY. You IDIOT! They do not want FELONS rewarded. Yeah, let's stop enforcing the laws. Let's stop punishing companies that hire them. Let's just forget their misdeeds and reward them. Yup, that will stop it. Even more will flood in thinking, "hey, even if we get caught, they will just grant us Citizenship ANYWAY." So?

Here we go again folks. Get ready.
Peter

Sources:
Washington Post - Immigrant Advocates Reach Out To Obama

Answer to Chicken or Egg

In the interest of time, both the HS, and the YCMTSU Categories combined.

Hey folks,

In the interest of time, and because this is appropriate, I will combined the Health and Science and the You Can't Make This Stuff Up Categories in to one this week. Turn out that Scientist have answered the age old question of which came first. The Chicken or the egg? Wrong, but they answered it. {Smile}

According to Live Science - Which Came First? Eggs Before Chickens, Scientists Now Say Jeanna Bryner Senior Writer LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner senior Writer livescience.com – Fri Nov 14, 10:52 am ET

A rare fossilized dinosaur nest helps answer the conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg, two paleontologists say.

The small carnivorous dinosaur sat over her nest of eggs some 77 million years ago, along a sandy river beach. When water levels rose, Mom seems to have fled, leaving the unhatched offspring.

Researchers have now studied the fossil nest and at least five partial eggs. The nest is a mound of sand that extends about 1.6 feet (half a meter) across and weighs as much as a small person, or about 110 pounds (50 kg).

"Some characteristics of the nest are shared with birds, and our analysis can tell us how far back in time these features, such as brooding, nest building, and eggs with a pointed end, evolved - partial answers to the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg," said researcher Francois Therrien, curator of dinosaur paleoecology at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada.

The answer?

Well, it's still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.

But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.

"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."

Can't have an egg without the Chicken. You CAN have the Chicken without the egg. It's just that some do not like the answer.

So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.

Well, unless one of these Dinosaurs laid an egg, in which a Chicken hatched, the two are completely unrelated. Relax folks, I understand that this is an attempt at humor and word play. I just find it funny that these people wrap themselves up so much attempting to answer the simplest question.

You see, they do not like the real answer. They do not like it so much that they are attempting to PRODUCE another to replace it with. I just find it humorous. Just like those folks that do not believe, spend their entire lives fighting against something they do not believe in. The answer? God.
Peter

Sources:
Live Science - Which Came First? Eggs Before Chickens, Scientists Now Say

IWA For Sunday 111608

This Weeks Winner, in trouble again.

Hey folks,

You know, when you have a free ride, you do not do stupid stuff. This weeks winner is in trouble again. Not because of what he believes. Not because he likes to stir up problems. Not for his work, that in some cases could even be seen as admirable. But for his LOVE of money.

Yes. I have even said I like this guy. I actually really do. He really does have a great sense of humour and I truly believe, that some of the things he does, he truly believes are the right things to do. But then you have that ages old adage, "The love of money, is the root of all evil."

According to National Legal and Policy Center - NLPC Welcomes $500K Action Against Sharpton; NLPC Filed Two FEC Complaints Alleging “Off the Books” Presidential Campaign

date: November 15, 2008
contact: Ken Boehm or Peter Flaherty 703-237-1970
website: www.nlpc.org

Falls Church, Virginia — The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) today welcomed media reports that Federal Election Commission (FEC) auditors have concluded that Al Sharpton owes the government $486,803 as the result of campaign law violations related to his 2004 presidential campaign.

NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm stated, “We are delighted that the FEC has finally acted on our allegation that Sharpton ran an ‘off the books’ presidential campaign. As we documented, the irregularities in the financing of his campaign were extensive.”

Boehm continued, “Al Sharpton is notorious for not paying his bills. The FEC must utilize all legal means at its disposal to recover this money.”

NLPC filed two formal FEC Complaints against Sharpton.

The first, filed on April 18, 2003, resulted in a Conciliation Agreement under which Sharpton had to pay a $5,500 fine for late filing of disclosure documents report.

The second Complaint, filed on February 2, 2004, cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that Sharpton’s nonprofit group, the National Action Network (NAN), might have underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.

Last summer, NLPC criticized federal prosecutors when they decided not to seek criminal charges against Sharpton for tax evasion after a grand jury investigation. NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm said, “It seemed like Sharpton got preferential treatment. Anyone else would have been indicted.”

According to media reports, the IRS levied a $931,397 lien on Sharpton. New York city and state officials alleged another $933,577 in unpaid taxes. Additionally, NAN reported in its most recent tax filing that it owed $1.9 million in payroll taxes and related interest.

NLPC has been a critic of corporate support for Sharpton and NAN. NLPC President Peter Flaherty has raised the issue at the annual meetings of PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch and Colgate-Palmolive. In May, Flaherty belittled Colgate-Palmolive Chairman Reuben Mark for accepting a “corporate excellence” award from Sharpton.

NLPC promotes ethics in public life.

Congratulations Rev. Al. You are the Idiot of the Week. I hope you learn one day that being a servant of the people, is not suppose to make you rich. But then again. What else would you do? Maybe a talk show host? You really can be entertaining.
Peter

Sources:
NLPC Filed Two FEC Complaints Alleging “Off the Books” Presidential Campaign

Presidential Radio Address for 111508

Presidential Radio Address

President Bush:"Good morning. This weekend I am hosting a summit on the global financial crisis with leaders of developed and developing nations. By working together, I'm confident that with time we can overcome this crisis and return our economies to the path of growth and vitality.

I know many of you listening are worried about the challenges facing our economy. Stock market declines have eroded the value of retirement accounts and pension funds. The tightening of credit has made it harder for families to borrow money for cars, homes, and education. Businesses have found it harder to get loans to expand their operations and create jobs. Many nations have suffered job losses and have serious concerns about the worsening economy.

Nations around the world have responded to this situation with bold measures, and our actions are having an impact. Credit markets are beginning to thaw and businesses are gaining access to essential short-term financing. It will require more time for these improvements to fully take hold and there will be more difficult days ahead, but the United States and our partners are taking the right steps to get through the crisis.

As we address the current crisis, we also need to make broader reforms to adapt our financial systems to the 21st century. So during this summit, I will work with other leaders to establish principles for reform, such as making markets more transparent and ensuring that markets, firms, and financial products are properly regulated.

All these steps will require decisive actions from governments around the world. At the same time, we must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.

This is a decisive moment for the global economy. In the wake of the financial crisis voices from the left and right are equating the free enterprise system with greed, exploitation, and failure. It is true that this crisis included failures by lenders and borrowers, by financial firms, by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people around the world.

The benefits of free market capitalism have been proven across time, geography, and culture. Around the world free market capitalism has allowed once impoverished nations to develop large and prosperous economies. And here at home, free market capitalism is what transformed America from a rugged frontier to the greatest economic power in history.

Just as important as maintaining free markets within countries is maintaining the free movement of goods and services between countries. There are many ways for nations to demonstrate their commitment to open markets. The United States Congress can take the lead by approving free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea before adjourning for the year.

In the long run, Americans can be confident in the future of our economy. We will work with our partners around the world to address the problems in the global financial system. We will strengthen our economy. And we will continue to lead the world toward prosperity and peace.

Thank you for listening."

Brave Catherine Vogt

From the Emails For Friday 111408

Hey folks,

I was all about to talk about another I told you so, don't worry SG, I'll get to that on the Big Sunday Edition, but that was until I saw THIS. THANK YOU RM for pointing this out. I love this article.

This comes to us from right here in sunny South Florida, Via the Sun Sentinel - Tolerance fails T-shirt test.

As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we're all united now, let's consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

Liberal Mom and Conservative Dad? Boy she must be screwed up. {Laughing}

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.

So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:

"McCain Girl."

"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters," Catherine told us. "I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be."

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain's name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

{Laughing}

"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

Folks. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. THIS IS THE LIBERAL PARTY OF TODAY. It took this brave little red head girl to PROVE it. This is too good.

But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

Who wrote this? Oh here it is. John Kass who is a Chicago Tribune Columnist. I will admit that I know nothing about him, but he seems right on here. "If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college." It's true.

"Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said," Catherine said.

One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.

"He said, 'You should be crucifixed.' It was kind of funny because, I was like, don't you mean 'crucified?' " Catherine said.

I really love this girl.

Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."

You see folks. This is how Liberals have brainwashed their young into thinking this garbage. Seriously. Kids only know what they are told. Republicans are Rich, Hate Filled, War Mongering, Racist, Chauvinistic, Homophobes, that apparently should be killed. Ah yes, kumbaya. This NEW Liberalism is the kinder, more gentle alternative. {Smile}

Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election. And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn't want to jeopardize her experiment.

"I couldn't show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing," she said.

Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt."

That's when you know America is truly supportive of diversity of opinion, when children must whisper for fear of being ostracized, heckled and crucifixed.

Just DAMN! Yeah another bulls eye.

The next day, in part 2 of The Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment, she wore another T-shirt, this one with "Obama Girl" written in blue. And an amazing thing happened.

Catherine wasn't very stupid anymore. She grew brains.

"People liked my shirt. They said things like my brain had come back, and I had put the right shirt on today," Catherine said.

Some students accused her of playing both sides.

"A lot of people liked it. But some people told me I was a flip-flopper," she said. "They said, 'You can't make up your mind. You can't wear a McCain shirt one day and an Obama shirt the next day.' "

Yup. You are either with the Liberal Loons or you are forever their enemy. Ask Lieberman. They eat their own.

But she sure did, and she turned her journal into a report for her history teacher, earning Catherine extra credit. We asked the teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney, whether it was ironic that Catherine would be subject to such intolerance from pro-Obama supporters in a community that prides itself on its liberal outlook.

"That's what we discussed," Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. "I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you've done? The students were kind of like, 'Oh, yeah.' I think they got it."

I hope so. Remember what I keep telling you. He that controls the youth, controls the future. Why do you think the Loons want free and EARLY MANDATED Education?

Catherine never told us which candidate she would have voted for if she weren't an 8th grader. But she said she learned what it was like to be in the minority.

"Just being on the outside, how it felt, it was not fun at all," she said.

Don't ever feel as if you must conform, Catherine. Being on the outside isn't so bad. Trust me.

For the years of getting it from both sides. I second that one. WAY TO GO Brave little Cathrine Vogt. Way to go John Kass for reporting it. It really is pretty sad when someone like me, sits at a keyboard, talks to people, and even puts up VIDEOS of these RADICALS, Socialists, and wannabe Dictators, in there OWN words, for YEARS. One who points out that it TRULY is them that are the hate filled loony ones. Then a little 14 year old Red Head girl PROVES my point in just one day.

I would LOVE an update on young Ms. Vogt when she hits 18. I would LOVE to know which side of the fence she decides to make hers. Or could this little exper,,, wait! There was nothing little about this. This was BRILLIANT. Maybe this will teach Ms Vogt, to stand up for WHATEVER she believes. Regardless of "Popular Opinion." I hope that she learned the truth. Hate filled words, wishes of death, and slanderous name calling, compassion and inclusiveness, does not one make. {Smile}

Oh as for the Girl that whispered. That is one of the BIGGEST problems that Conservatives and Conservative Republicans need to over come. STAND UP for what you believe in. If CONSERVATIVES and Conservative Republicans were HALF as brave as Ms. Vogt, McCain would be the President Elect right now. Barring all the election fraud. Obama would have been LAUGHED OFF the Political Stage and told to take his Socialistic views back to the obscurity of which he came.
Peter

Sources:
Sun Sentinel - Tolerance fails T-shirt test

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

Losing Faith In Our Electoral System

I really am.

Hey folks,

I'm not ready to jump on the Obama stole the election bandwagon. I'm really not. It's a waste of time. Yes, I am more than aware of the twit in Ohio, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, refusing to verify hundreds of thousands of new registrations. I know all about the Ohio Supervisor of Elections throwing out Republican ballots on technecalities at the same time.

Yes I am well aware of the New Black Panthers intimidating White Voters. Yes I know all about, and told you all about ACORN. Case after case of Voter Fraud. Yes I am well aware that if you look at the map, all you see is RED. But where the Vote "matters." are, well, Democrat. Along with major involvement in those areas by ACORN.

Yes I am well aware of the fact that the Mainstream Media did EVERYTHING they could to put their Messiah, Obama, into power, while attacking McCain any chance they could. Yes I am aware of all these things. I am aware of the fact that I and many other WARNED you who the REAL Obama seems to be. But He got elected ANYWAY. The numbers may not add up. The results may stink a bit of tampering. But he got elected.

But THIS? Al Franken may ACTUALLY win in Minnesota? Are you kidding me? Both Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and his Democratic challenger, Al Franken, are holding almost daily news conferences, raising money for a recount fund and have hired election attorneys to guide them through what could be a month long recount. You see, there are no redos, or run off elections in Minn. Whoever wins, wins.

So by all counts, Norm Coleman won. But wait. Mistakes were made here. Numbers transposed. 84 became 48 ETC. Missing ballots found in the car of the Director of Elections for the City of Minneapolis, Cynthia Reichhert? Who do you suppose these favored? Every "irregularity" is favoring Franklin? Really? According to KSAX TV- ABC - JUDGE: New ballots will be counted in Senate race

A judge ruled Saturday that 32 new absentee ballots will be counted in the race for U.S. Senate.

Coleman's campaign learned of the new ballots Friday night after a phone call from Minneapolis elections director Cynthia Reichert.

"We were actually told they had been riding around in her car for several days, which raised all kinds of integrity questions," said Coleman's attorney, Fritz Knaak.

On Saturday, Coleman's campaign asked Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin to issue a temporary restraining order regarding the counting of the ballots.

Gearin denied the request because of a lack of jurisdiction.

Franken's campaign spokesman Andy Barr called it "a Saturday sneak attack" spurred by concern Franken was gaining ground.

Coleman has no plans to contest the results.

The Minnesota secretary of state's office most recent tally had Coleman 221 votes ahead of Franken.

But you know, a mistake here, a mistake there, more missing ballots turning up here or there, all in favor of Franken, could even things out, as well as put Franken over the top. Remember folks, who wins in Minn. Wins. Period.

I'm sorry but I really am trying to just go with it. In the back of my mind, I know what will happen if Obama DOES go down the road he SAID he wants to go down. Remember folks, no matter how bad things get, the blame is squarely on the Democrats. They control the House, Senate, and President Elect Obama will be in the White House. They have no one to blame but themselves. YOU, if you voted for Obama or Franken in Minn., have no one to blame by YOURSELF.

It is amazing that we do not see ONE major Mainstream News Outlet, ANYWHERE, reporting ANYTHING, about the possibility of Voter Fraud or elections tampering. There were NO PROBLEMS. No problems at all. NOTHING. NOWHERE. Oh yeah, all is well. Their guy won. Imagine though if you would , if ACORN was working for McCain? Or you saw the Christian Right standing in front of Polling places. Imagine if you would a Republican Supervisor of Election "finding" missing ballots in their car. Or if what is happening, all these errors coming out in favor of the Republican Candidate? But then again, since Bush "stole 2000" what is fair is fair. Right?
Peter


Sources:
KSAX TV- ABC - JUDGE: New ballots will be counted in Senate race

President Elect Obama Did the Right Thing

Even If Just For Show

Hey folks,

First, to answer an Email publicly, No. I was not in the OPNTalk office all that long yesterday. No I did not post anything on Veterans Day. I did however spend most of this past Weekend and some of Yesterday, actually shaking their hands and thanking them personally for their service to our GREAT country. For those of you who think I missed something, just because I did not post it here, let me just say this. For all the Veterans out there, I only have two words for you. THANK YOU! Anything other than that, would be me attempting to make something about me, or using you as a pawn in a political discussion. No words that I could ever use could come close to the sacrifices you have made. So simply, THANK YOU!

Now for President Elect Obama. Keeping with my promise to give him a chance, and for being true to who I am and what I'm about, giving credit where due, and calling out those that do wrong, Obama did the right thing.

According to the AP- Obama wants Lieberman to stay with Senate Dems

WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama has told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid he's not interested in seeing Democrats oust Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman from their ranks over his endorsement of Republican John McCain.

That is most definitely the right thing to do. Like it or not, Lieberman is a Democrat. Always has been, always will be. He has been true to the Democratic party like 90 percent of the time. Traitor Reid's attempt to throw him out like yesterdays trash is just completely wrong. But then again, they eat their own. So I congratulate Obama on doing the right thing here. Even if it is just for show.

Obama told Reid in a phone conversation last week that expelling Lieberman from the Democratic caucus would hurt the message of bipartisanship and unity that he wants for his new administration, a Senate Democratic aide said Tuesday. This aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.

The caucus is the meeting of all Senate Democrats and at the beginning of each Congress it chooses the body's leaders. Lieberman, a longtime Democrat most recently re-elected as an independent, has continued to join the Democratic caucus.

In the last Congress his presence was essential to the Democrats' control of the Senate because he gave them a 51-49 edge over Republicans. But Democrats expanded their majority last Tuesday and no longer need Lieberman to control the chamber, though his vote still could be crucial in votes to end filibusters.

However, he made it clear that he wouldn't mind if they Punish Lieberman. {Laughing}

Obama says he won't get involved in the fight on Capitol Hill over whether Democrats should take away Lieberman's chairmanship of a key committee to punish him for backing his close friend McCain for president.

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement Tuesday. "President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward. We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."

So by all means punish him, but do not throw him out of the Party, that will hurt my image. {Smile}

Lieberman angered many Democrats by criticizing Obama during the presidential race. Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and accompanied McCain on the presidential campaign trail.

Lieberman has met with Reid, but there has been no word on whether Reid intends to try to oust Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said the caucus should be "gracious in victory" toward Lieberman.

"Despite what Sen. Lieberman did in campaigning for Sen. McCain, speaking at the Republican convention, he has voted with the Democrats an overwhelming percentage of the time," Durbin said after a Veteran's Day event in Illinois.

Four Senate Democrats have been asked to review the situation and recommend possible actions against Lieberman, Durbin said. He would not identify the four.

Last week, Lieberman pledged to put partisan considerations aside and work with Obama. Lieberman, who was Democrat Al Gore's running mate in 2000, was re-elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 2006 as an independent after losing his state's Democratic primary. He remains a registered Democrat and aligns himself with Senate Democrats.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky spoke to Lieberman last week about the possibility of Lieberman's joining the GOP caucus.

So this was nice of President Elect Obama. It really was. He did the right thing here, and he deserves credit for it.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Obama wants Lieberman to stay with Senate Dems

President Elect Obama On Gay Marriage and Executive Orders

Big I told you so coming right up.

Hey folks,

Happy Monday to you. I have a special Monday Two For. I planed on posted Obama's position on Prop 8, that I found Sunday, but then when I came into the office this morning, I saw that President Elect Obama is already starting to get ready to start his radical agenda via Executive Orders. So coming right up today.


Obama And Executive Orders
Gays Targeting Wrong People

Folks, I truly meant it when I said I want to give Obama a chance to prove me wrong. Just yesterday I posted this. Congratulations President Elect Obama I said this.

"I have to respect the people's decision. I have to HOPE that the decision really WAS the people's. I have to RESPECT the OFFICE of the President of the United States of America. I congratulate Obama in a hard fought and a historic accomplishment. Congratulations President Elect Obama.

Now I truly have so many articles, and so much I really want to talk about, but yet, none of this really matters in the end. What we have is President Elect Obama taking office in the VERY near future. All I can do is have HOPE, the GREATEST HOPE I have ever had, that I am wrong about Obama.

I DO want the President to succeed in making this country better. I want the President to work for the people and keep this country safe. I DO want the President, regardless of who that may be, to be successful."

But I also said this.

"Do not misunderstand. I will not sit back and silently watch America die. That I will NEVER do. As a friend of mind said this week in Email Correspondence."

Now we learn that he wants to use Executive Orders to bypass that annoying Constitutional thing, Congress, the Will of the people, and so on. What Obama wants, Obama will get. The talk is that he wants to reinstate Embryonic Stem cell Research, put the Off Shore Oil Drilling Ban back in place, and is "Looking at other things." I do not know, maybe Amnesty. Maybe over riding the peoples voice on Gay Marriage. Although he says he is against it. Maybe he's looking into how to start redistributing wealth through Executive Orders.

I have been warning you, many people have been warning you, this guy is dangerous. Now it seems that he has found a way, Executive Orders, to do whatever he wants so that even those on the far Left, that fear retribution form their constituents, can not stop him. They can say, "Hey, it's not my fault. Actually I'm against President Obama's plan on this or that, but he did it through Executive Order, so there is nothing I can do about it. Sorry." Convenient. Isn't it?

So sit back, get your coffee, I am, and I'll be right back.
Peter

Obama And Executive Orders

BIG I told you so.

Hey folks,

Here we go. Get use to Back Room Deals. He has not even taken office yet and Obama is talking about getting moving with his RADICAL agenda. He is coming right out and letting you know, what Obama wants, Obama will get. Screw the Congress. Screw the people. It's all about Obama.

Remember when Hillary was all but guaranteed to step in and take over, she was talking about the use of Executive Orders. I even posted a whole article on them.

"Quite simply put, Executive Order equals what the President wants, the president gets. Congress wanted embryonic stem cell federal funding. The President finds this unethical. He see this as the destruction and murder of innocent lives. I agree. I’m glad he vetoed it. But then he decided to cut to the chase and stop the game playing by congress. Again, not a bad idea. Glad he did it.

Now because the President issued an executive order, funding will be given to those scientist that play by the rules. Does Congress like it? No. Can they do anything about it? No. Here in lays the danger. Notice you have heard no complaining by Congress over this? That is because they can do nothing about it."

According to the article I was commenting on back then.

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

Obama does not like the Constitution anyway. He said so. So this should be no surprise to you folks. According to the AP - Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

No. He is on a power trip. He WANTS to be a Socialist Dictator. He wants to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" this country. {Sigh} Folks, this is why I and so many others have been warning you about this guy. I love this. Get this.

Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents — part of the broad coalition that supported Obama during the race against Republican John McCain. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been mentioned as a possible holdover.

OK reaching across that isle and working with Republicans? What does Traitor Reid think of this?

"He's not even a Republican," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican."

{Laughing} Reid is honest at least. He just blew what the AP and other MMD {Mainstreme Media Drones} were trying to pass off as "a diverse Cabinet." As long as they are not Republicans. {Laughing}

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end — an effort Obama supports. But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.

"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."

Yeah, that Damn Constitution thing. Then you have to deal with the Will of the people. That can really get in the way of a Dictator Wannabe.

Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.

Of course. Forget most Americans WANT them.

Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.

Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.

Bull.

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

80 percent of the American People WANT This. Do you think Obama will listen to 80 percent? "But he said he was for Drilling." Yeah, and you really believed that?

Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.

"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."

But with Executive Orders, they can do nothing. Congress can do nothing. YOU, the American people, can do nothing. Just wait folks. He'll do something that even YOU will not like. Give him time. Just do not forget, YOU Voted him in. YOU caused what is about to happen. YOU are to blame for the insanity that will commence in this country. All you that stayed home, or Voted for Obama, YOU did this. As for me? Well, I told you so.

Peter
OPNTalk- Executive Orders
AP - Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact

Gays Targeting Wrong People

Now we know where Obama Stands

Hey folks,

Remember, just Thursday, I posted Not a Good Day To Be Gay I said this then.

"Here in Florida, the Florida marriage protection amendment, Voters decided to identify marriage as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else, banning gay marriage and extra benefits for domestic partnerships. Florida will now be one of approximately 30 states with a definition of marriage in its constitution.

One of the other 30? California. Yup. Home of San Fransisco. Home of Pelosi, the twit herself. They passed the Gay Marriage Ban as well. As in Florida, it was a LANDSLIDE. There is NO doubt where the voters stand in these states. NONE whatsoever.

In Florida, Whites voted 60-40, but Black voters approved a ban on gay marriage by a vote of 71 to 29. Is there any question? Now I'm pointing out Race for a reason here. Then in California, Whites may have even let this fail 51-49. It was the 70 percent support from Black voters that put the measure over the top. 70 to 30.

So in both these states, it seems one minority discriminated against the other. Blacks against Gays. It was not the White, War Mongering, Racist, Chauvinistic, Homophobes, you know, Republicans. It was the Blacks. Liberal Democratic Black people. Obama's base. "

Many Gays and Lesbians are not happy with this. Of course. They truly feel that they are being discriminated against and their "Rights" are being taken away. So they go out and attack those that they THINK are to blame. According to AP - Gay marriage supporters march in California

SAN DIEGO – As many as 10,000 people took to the streets in San Diego and similar numbers marched in Los Angeles Saturday to protest passage of an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, authorities said.

Demonstrators began marching through central San Diego at noon, according to police Sgt. Diane Wendell. The event lasted about 90 minutes and was peaceful, with no arrests.

The march in the Silver Lake area of Los Angeles began at Saturday evening and lasted about four hours, said police Sgt. Jake Bushy. No incidents were reported as demonstrators marched down Sunset Boulevard carrying signs and waving banners.

The demonstrations were the largest of several marches that followed Tuesday's passage of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and overturning the state Supreme Court decision that legalized such unions in May.

A candlelight vigil in Laguna Beach Saturday evening drew about 1,000 people and police reported no incidents.

On Friday, tensions flared at a vigil at Palm Springs City Hall when a supporter of the gay marriage ban carrying a plastic foam cross clashed with protesters, according to The Desert Sun. The crowd ripped the cross from her hands and stomped on it. Police made no arrests.

About 2,000 people gathered in Long Beach Friday night and there were three arrests. A thousand people also marched Friday in San Francisco.

In Salt Lake City Friday night, a crowd of about 2,000 chanted "Separate church and state" and waved rainbow flags outside the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which encouraged its members to work to pass the amendment by volunteering their time and money for the campaign.

But the only problem is, they are targeted the WRONG people. It was NOT the Religious folks. It was not those White War Mongering, Racist, Hate Filled, Chauvinistic, Homophobes. It was 70 percent of the Blacks that voted in California and 71 percent in Florida that place this Ban in the Constitutions. They should be protesting in the those areas. Protesting the Blacks. {Smile} It's true.

So I asked, and that really WAS the point of the whole article, what is Obama's position on this. Since he promised the Gay community that he would be a friend of theirs in Washington. What does he think of this. Well, we found out.

Barack Obama participated in a question and answer segment on Saturday while campaigning in Nevada. The show, called "Ask Obama," will be aired on MTV tonight at 7 p.m. John McCain was also invited to participate, but declined.

One of the questions Sen. Obama tackled was on Proposition 8.




"What is your reaction to Proposition 8, and would you vote yes or no on it?" interviewer Sway asked.

"You know, I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that's not what America's about," Obama answered.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. He just said "when you start playing around with constitutions,,that's not what America's about," Remember he said this. We may have to remind him of this in the future.

So he is AGAINST Gay Marriage. The people Voted. He also said he was up to letting the states decide for themselves. So now 30 states have amended their Constitutions to Ban Gay Marriage. Which I feel is unnecessary to begin with since being Gay is no more a Constitutional Right than being straight is. Will he attempt to override the Will of the People, or will he be true to his word? We'll have to wait and see.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Gay marriage supporters march in California
Washington Blade Blog - Barack Obama on Proposition 8

Family Update and Preview for Sunday 110908

Coming Right Up

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. I will admit, it is considerably shorter than it was going to be. I seriously cut out quite a bit. I threw out two articles that I printed out to use, and I hit the Delete button on one that I was about to formulate into the Blog. All of them about Obama. President Elect Obama. OK, one I will be using Tomorrow. We now know where he stands on Prop 8.

But that is tomorrow. Coming right up today?

Congratulations President Elect Obama
What Does API Think Of President Obama?
Atheists Attempting To Convert
IWA For Sunday 110908

I really feel I had to, not only write it, but actually mean it. Obama IS the President Elect, therefore we MUST give him a chance to prove me wrong. But as you can see, it shortened the Blog today. {Smile}

OK. Family Update. To all of you that continue to ask my Mother's status, she is on the road to recovery now. FINALLY. Her Operation was this past Friday, where they went in a put staples into her foot. I guess that the Doctor had a choice between putting rods, or staples in to mend her five breaks. Rods he would have to then go BACK in and take out after. Staples will be in forever.

After a check on her bone density and her ability to HAVE the operation, the Doctors determined that she COULD have the staples. So the operation commenced and was completely in like 3 hours.

She is home now, still unable to get around by herself, but she should be able to start trying in a few days. She goes back on Tuesday for a check up.

Her arm is healing nicely.

All in all, she is in good spirits and Josh is helping to keep her that way. Hopefully in under two months, things may get back to normal. I even showed her something that one of you sent me wishing her well. She was REALLY touched by that. THANK YOU! My neighbor also found out what was happening and he and his Wife decided to stop by her house and bring her dinner one night.

I really am VERY THANKFUL to all of you out there that cares and is keeping her in your Prayers and thoughts. All the well wishes are appreciated.

Be right back.
Peter

Congratulations President Elect Obama

The Hardest Article I have Ever Written.

Hey folks,

Yes, this is the hardest article I have ever written. It truly is. I find myself putting aside anger, disagreement, FACTS, and TRUTH. I find myself tossing out COUNTLESS articles and historic documents. I find myself fighting with every once of strength I have, to put my sword back in it's place. I find myself nearly numb.

I have to do these things though folks. I do. I have to respect the people's decision. I have to HOPE that the decision really WAS the people's. I have to RESPECT the OFFICE of the President of the United States of America. I congratulate Obama in a hard fought and a historic accomplishment. Congratulations President Elect Obama.

Now I truly have so many articles, and so much I really want to talk about, but yet, none of this really matters in the end. What we have is President Elect Obama taking office in the VERY near future. All I can do is have HOPE, the GREATEST HOPE I have ever had, that I am wrong about Obama.

I DO want the President to succeed in making this country better. I want the President to work for the people and keep this country safe. I DO want the President, regardless of who that may be, to be successful.

Do not misunderstand. I will not sit back and silently watch America die. That I will NEVER do. As a friend of mind said this week in Email Correspondence.

"My personal thoughts? Well, let me put it this way – I believe in our Constitution. And I am a strict constructionist. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best: “The government that governs least, governs best.”"

But I have to give Obama a chance to prove me wrong. Remember what I said November 08, 2006?

"It’s time, like it or not, that we, ALL Americans, extend our hands to the Democrats, and even the Looneys that are running them, and attempt to trust them. Americans voted them in, lets see if they truly DO have a better direction for America. {I’ll reserve my right to say why I think they were voted in for a later time}

I hope I’m wrong in my predictions of higher taxes, Amnesty, doing away with our safety and security, cut and run in Iraq," Adding now, Socialism, Tyranny, and the death of America as we know it. "If you stayed home and did not vote, Just remember, YOU voted these people in as well. Now we have to try to live with it." And Obama.

"Congratulations to the Left," and Obama, "now let’s make this country better as you claim. Now is your chance."

I was right then. We got the biggest do nothing Congress we have ever had. They TRIED Amnesty, Surrender, Higher Taxes. I hope I am not right again about Obama. The only thing that stopped the Radical Left was YOU. Let's hope together, that I am so far off base about Barack, that you cannot even see me. Let's hope together that Obama REALLY is the best choice. I doubt it. But we shall see. Let's give him a chance.
Peter

What Does API Think Of President Obama?

From the new API President

Hey folks,

Some of you were wondering about API, the American Petroleum institute, and what they thought about Obama being elected to the highest office in the land. Since some of you have figured out that I have a friend over there, you thought maybe I could answer this. I was kind of wondering this myself to tell you the truth.

So I sent them an Email asking them their take. Since Obama is really against Off Shore Oil Drilling, FOR oppressive taxation on "Big Oil", and came right out and said he wants to bankrupt the Coal Industry, not to mention he also said he LIKED high gas prices, what are their thoughts on this? This was pointed out to me. It is from the NEW API President Jack Gerard.

This election gives us all a new opportunity to think about energy and environmental policy in a new way. In essence, we have a rare chance to get it right, to shed preconceived notions, old ways and unworkable approaches. As President-elect Obama said Tuesday night, we cannot go back to the way things were.

While the economy is the No. 1 issue on our leaders' minds, it is our duty to remind them that without sound energy policies there can be no sound economic policies. An energy policy that will ensure our nation's energy security must be based on this one principle: we need all the energy we can get from all sources, and we need to do a better job of using energy wisely.

We are gratified that President-elect Obama and the leaders of the new Congress have listened to the will of the American people and have advocated expanding domestic production of oil and natural gas. Expanded production is essential to fuel our economy, create new jobs and give American consumers the energy they want and need. We hope that their willingness to expand production demonstrates a desire to put behind us the divisiveness and bitterness of the past, as well as a yearning for lasting solutions. The people of America's oil and natural gas industry--the backbone of our economy--are ready and willing to join in this constructive approach to energy. Our nation's economic survival and its standing in the world depend on it.

Now we will see if President Elect Obama is true to his word or not. We do not need oppressive taxation on Oil. We do not need the Off Shore Oil Ban placed back. We most DEFINITELY NEED the Coal Industry. Economics 101. If people can not afford the gas to get to work, they can not afford to help the economy. If truckers can not afford fuel, then you will not get the goods and services you need. If you can not afford the "SKY ROCKETING electric bills," you will not have one of the most basic needs.

Does Obama care? Does he even understand? Was this just campaign pandering to the far Left Loons? I guess we will just have to wait to see.
Peter

Sources:
National Journal Online- Jack Gerard, President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute

Atheists Attempting To Convert

You Can't Make This Stuff Up 110908

Hey folks,

I bet you we will see more and more of this now that a full fledged card caring member of the LWL {Left Wing Loons} has become elected President. This is not an attack on Obama. This is just fact. I'm not saying Obama condones this, and I also understand these Idiots Right to Free Speech. But seriously, this is an outright attack on Christianity. You know it, and I know it.

Of course these fools will say, "No it's not, it is giving an opposing view toward ANY God." But you know the truth out there folks. Seems that the American Humanist Association, Atheists, will launch their Ad Campaign Tuesday, November 11, 10:00 AM at the National Press Club.

The American Humanist Association will go public on Washington, D.C. Metro buses with a godless ad campaign for the winter holidays. This announcement of the first ever non-theistic ads in the United States that utilize this medium follows in the wake of a similar bus ad campaign recently announced in the United Kingdom by the British Humanist Association.

Many D.C. buses will feature a bold new ad that is sure to draw attention. A number of buses will carry the ads on their sides, additional ones will have tail-light ads, and still others will feature ads prominently inside, behind the driver's seat.

The British Humanist Association campaign features the slogan, "There's Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life." But the American Humanist Association's bold new ad will more directly challenge the viewer and clearly connect the message to the holidays.

The entire ad campaign will be unveiled at a Washington DC press conference and take the successes and controversies of other prominent humanist campaigns to the next level.

Yeah.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1

So I guess someone that goes around saying "There's Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life." is probably a fool.
Peter

Sources:
American Humanist Association

IWA For Sunday 110908

Dumbing Down Our Kids Even More

Hey folks,

Happy Sunday to you. Since it is Sunday, It's time for the IWA. Has this ever happened to you. You are in a checkout line and you find that the young cashier can't count back change. Seriously. Without the computer telling them, they are clueless.

What about these past elections? What about current world events? Try asking a 16 to 30 year old, what IS Socialism? Who was Hitler really? Why is knowing the past relevant to the future? Most of the time, you get blank stares. Or an "I don't know. I do not really care either."

No folks, our education system is broken. It really does need a complete overhaul. So what does our winner, and apparently a few far Left Liberals think is the solution to this? Dumb them down even more. According to Time.com - Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade? By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY

High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school.

Now wait a second. A MORE rigorous state board of exams? To throw kids out of school when they hit 16? But this may sound good I guess, if you are 16, but read on.

Once implemented, the new battery of tests is expected to guarantee higher competency in core school subjects, lower dropout rates and free up millions of education dollars. Students may take the exams - which are modeled on existing AP or International Baccalaureate tests - as many times as they need to pass. Or those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years, taking a second, more difficult set of exams senior year. "We want students who are ready to be able to move on to their higher education," says Lyonel Tracy, New Hampshire's Commissioner for Education. "And then we can focus even more attention on those kids who need more help to get there."

OK. "Once implemented, the new battery of tests is expected to guarantee higher competency in core school subjects, lower dropout rates and free up millions of education dollars." Then you have this. "as many times as they need to pass." So as long as they want to go into trad schools, they can "Graduate" two years early? They can take the test over and over again until they pass? Do you see the problem with this yet?

But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests.

With its new assessment system, New Hampshire is adopting a key recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce. In 2006, the group issued a report called Tough Choices or Tough Times , a blueprint for how it believes the U.S. must dramatically overhaul education policies in order to maintain a globally competitive economy. "Forty years ago, the United States had the best educated workforce in the world," says William Brock, one of the commission's chairs and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. "Now we're No. 10 and falling."

Hey Bill, 40 years ago, our kids were learning the basics. You know, what they actually need. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic. They learned history and taught how to NOT repeat it. They were not learning about Evolution, Homosexuality, or Sex for that matter, and the big time crimes were talking and chewing gum. Now, Rape and Murder, and a failing School system. Take God out of the equation, SOMETHING will take God's place.

As more and more jobs head overseas, Brock and others on the commission can't stress enough how dire the need is for educational reform. "The nation is running out of time," he says.

New Hampshire's announcement comes as Utah and Massachusetts declared that they, too, plan to enact some of the commission's other proposals, such as universal Pre-K and better teacher pay and training. Still more states are expected to sign on in December. And the largest teacher union in the U.S., the National Education Association, is encouraging its affiliates to support such efforts.

Some reform advocates would like to see the report's testing proposals replace current No Child Left Behind legislation. "It makes accountability much more meaningful by stressing critical thinking and true mastery," says Tracy.

Then you have this that Mr. Tracy and other Liberal Loons want. BRAINWASHING the youth, and taking the responsibility away from the Parents. Get this.

No date has been set for when New Hampshire will start administering the new set of exams, which have yet to be developed. But to achieve the goal of sending kids to college at 16, Tracy and his colleagues recognize preparation will have to start early. Nearly four years ago, New Hampshire began an initiative called Follow the Child. Starting practically from birth, educators are expected to chart children's educational progress year to year. In the future, this effort will be bolstered by formalized curricula that specify exactly what kids should know by the end of each grade level.

Starting from Birth folks. If the kid cannot learn all the garbage and agenda driven material, then they will be helped to pass these idiotic tests to get them out and trained on how better serve society.

That should help minimize the need for review year to year. It will also bring New Hampshire's education framework much closer to what occurs in many high-performing European and Asian nations. "It's about defining what lessons students should master and then teaching to those points," says Marc Tucker, co-chair of the commission and president of the National Center for Education and the Economy in Washington. "Kids at every level will be taking tough courses and working hard."

{Sigh}

Right now, Tucker argues, most American teenagers slide through high school, viewing it as a mandatory pit stop to hang out and socialize. Of those who do go to college, half attend community college. So Tucker's thinking is why not let them get started earlier? If that happened nationwide, he estimates the cost savings would add up to $60 billion a year. "All money that can be spent either on early childhood education or elsewhere," he says.

Elsewhere WHERE?

Critics of cutting high school short, however, worry that proposals such as New Hampshire's could exacerbate existing socioeconomic gaps. One key concern is whether test results, at age 16, are really valid enough to indicate if a child should go to university or instead head to a technical school - with the latter almost certainly guaranteeing lower future earning potential. "You know that the kids sent in that direction are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it," says Iris Rotberg, a George Washington University education policy professor, who notes similar results in Europe and Asia. She predicts, in turn, that disparity will mean "an even more polarized higher education structure - and ultimately society - than we already have."

THAT IS THE PLAN!

It's a charge that Tracy denies. "We're simply telling students it's okay to go at their own pace," he says. Especially if that pace is a little quicker than the status quo.

Congratulations Lyonel Tracy, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. Our kids need a better education system where we can get back to the basics. NOT free rides.
Peter

Sources:
Time.com - Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?

One World Obama Governance?

From the Emails 110708

Hey folks

Don't forget to join us for this weeks Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. I already have some interesting stuff I'm working on and other things that I may or may not be able to use. But I am looking forward to spending some time with you this Sunday.

That's Sunday. Right now IT'S Friday! Since it is Friday, that means it's time to go to the Emails. This was sent to me by Bill. Bill included this.

"Take a gander at this. Your money and mine going down a sink hole again."
Bill

American Policy Center- Barack Obama and the UN’s Drive for Global Governance
By Tom DeWeese

Senator Barack Obama has introduced a dangerous bill and it’s on the fast track to Senate passage, probably because of his high profile position as the expected Democrat presidential nominee. Obama hasn’t done much legislatively in his freshman Senate term, but this one is very telling about what we can expect from a President Obama.

The bill is the “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) and is not just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill is directly tied to the United Nations and serves as little more than a shakedown of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. In fact, if passed, The Global Poverty Act will provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates are that it will add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money for welfare to third world countries, in addition to the $300 billion Americans spent for the same thing in 2006.

The situation is urgent because the Global Poverty Act has already passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote on September 25, 2007. The senate version has been passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent and ready for a full Senate vote.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. And the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its herd of programs. So what’s new about Obama’s bill, and why is it dangerous?

Some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared to be a blueprint for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

· Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

· Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.

· Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

· Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

· Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

· Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.

· Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.

· Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations -- now achieved.

· Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

· Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Cort

· Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights -- The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

· Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN -- here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed -- just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could opposes such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s bill specifically mentions the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now much evidence surfacing to debunk the theory.

Clearly, Obama’s bill has been introduced to assure the United States falls in line with the Millennium Declaration and all that it stands for. After all, the UN needs the money to pay for its new found power. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged. Barack Obama wants to be a “world” leader.

Apr 24, 2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718. So they tabled it until? Yup. President Obama. LWL Controlled House and Senate. They HAD hoped to have a 60 person Veto and Filibuster proof Majority. But that did not happen. Still, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. God bless the USA. This IS who Obama IS. This IS the type of thing we should look forward to. This IS the very type of thing I have been warning you about. THIS IS REALITY.
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@aim.com As always, you never know what you are going to see here.

Not a Good Day To Be Gay

But what about Obama?

Hey folks,

No I'm not calling Obama Gay. I'm just curious about what he has said in the past, and this new PEOPLE'S Vote to ban Gay Marriage in Florida and California. That's right folks. Here in Florida, the Florida marriage protection amendment, Voters decided to identify marriage as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else, banning gay marriage and extra benefits for domestic partnerships. Florida will now be one of approximately 30 states with a definition of marriage in its constitution.

One of the other 30? California. Yup. Home of San Fransisco. Home of Pelosi, the twit herself. They passed the Gay Marriage Ban as well. As in Florida, it was a LANDSLIDE. There is NO doubt where the voters stand in these states. NONE whatsoever.

In Florida, Whites voted 60-40, but Black voters approved a ban on gay marriage by a vote of 71 to 29. Is there any question? Now I'm pointing out Race for a reason here. Then in California, Whites may have even let this fail 51-49. It was the 70 percent support from Black voters that put the measure over the top. 70 to 30.

So in both these states, it seems one minority discriminated against the other. Blacks against Gays. It was not the White, War Mongering, Racist, Chauvinistic, Homophobes, you know, Republicans. It was the Blacks. Liberal Democratic Black people. Obama's base.

So what is he intending to do about this? Well, back on March 02, 2008 I posted excerpts from Obama's Open Letter to the Gay Community. He said this.

“In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees,”

“And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The letter goes on to say that if elected president he would use the bully pulpit “to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”

“I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.”

“I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

“Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.”

“While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.”

Obama also said that he supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

“The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic,”

“When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception.”

The open letter was released as Obama prepares to run ads in four major LGBT newspapers in Texas and Ohio in advance of Democratic Party primaries.

SO Obama? President Elect Obama? The letter goes on to say that if elected president he would use the bully pulpit “to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”

What about when the PEOPLE speak? They spoke LOUD and CLEAR in California and Florida. They WANT a Ban on Gay Marriage. You said this.

“I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

So I guess the Federal Government should stay out of THESE two Constitutional Amendments. Right? Or are you going to do the OTHER thing you said.

Then again, under Liberal Socialistic type Governing, your Vote really does not matter. Ask New York about that one. {Term Limits}

Could this be one of Obama's first tests as President? I guess we will just have to wait and see. Just remember folks, this is a guy who has come out and said he doesn't like the Constitution to begin with. Too many negative Rights. He is the guy that has friends that want to create a NEW Bill of Rights. He is a guy that has promised to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE this country. With the Loons in the Congress still in power, him as President, and the Radical LWL running all things in Government now, it should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Peter

Sources:
CBS New - Florida Amendment Results
CNN Break Down - Gay Marriage Ban California
CNN Break Down - Gay Marriage Ban Florida
OPNTalk - Hillary Is Not Lesbian Enough

So This Is How Freedom Dies

With a thunderous round of applause and great cheer.

Hey folks,

So many different things running through my mind, I didn't know where to start, nor do I really even care. I mean what I said. "So this is how freedom dies, with a thunderous round of applause and great cheer." That is how I felt when I watched Obama deliver his speech.

Now I know that some of you out there will simply say, "Hey, this is history man." Some of you will actually BELIEVE the garbage that he is FOR you. Some of you, like this complete moron that I saw on the news that actually SAID. "Now I will not have to worry about gas or paying my mortgage. Obama will do it for me." {Sigh} Some of you will simply call me a Racist.

NONE of this matters. Nothing that I have been warning you about over the last two years matters now. Nothing you have seen with your own eyes matters now. The bomb is dropped. It has been released and is falling to the heartland of America. It is now too late to stop it.

You know, when I was watching the news coverage, I was absolutely amazed. All of them had all this new technological marvels. Foxs News had big billboard size touch screens, CNN had Holograms, MSNBC, CBS, and the rest all seemed more interested in playing with their new gadgets, then they did at actually covering the election. Meanwhile, America Voted in a Socialist Dictator in waiting.

It was not a total victory for the Loons though. Two top Democratic targets, Kentucky seat of Senate Minority Leader, Mr Filibuster himself, Mitch McConnell, and a Mississippi seat once held by Trent Lott were saved. Senate picked up 5 to get 56, but not the 60 seat, filibuster and veto proof majority they were hoping for. The House gained seats as expected but they will just be an approval stamp for Obama anyway.

Yes, Traitor in the House Pelosi and Lonny Traitor in the Senate Reid are still there. The biggest do nothing Congress is still intact and bigger. {Laughing} I just do not understand. I really did not think that there were THIS many Sheeple and ignorant people in America. I was wrong.

Terrorists, Thieves, Traitors, Felons, and Radicals are now set to control this Country. Moron.org, the Daily Kooks, SOROS, and the like have now been put in charge of controlling YOUR life. By YOU.

Now yes, I Know, this is a historic moment in this country's history. I get that. I love the fact that we have come this far. I love the fact that for the first time in history we have a Black guy that ran for and was elected as President. That is a MONUMENTAL accomplishment. I appreciate all this. I AM proud of my country in this aspect. But folks, THIS IS THE WRONG Black guy. My objection to Obama is NOT based on Race. It IS based on WHO he really is. WHO his associates are. WHAT HE SAYS he wants to do. He is a Socialist, and Dictator Wannabe, and he is DANGEROUS. He will damage this country beyond recognition if he does HALF of what he promised.

The sad thing is, the American people WILL wake up. But it is NOW too late. To those who voted for Obama, when you see the coal industry bankrupted, intentionally, when you see your electric bill jump from say $200 a month to $400 or $500 a month, intentionally, blame yourself. When you see gas prices go back up to over $4.00 a gallon, blame yourself. When you see your taxes go up so high you can't afford it, blame yourself. When you start losing your Freedom of Speech, blame yourself. Never mind. I have warned you about all this. Others have been warning you about all this. As a wise man once said, the most expensive commodity we have in America is ignorance.

Let's hope, that Obama is NOT able to do half the things he has said. Let's hope that there still enough people in this country that can actually think for themselves. That the lack of the 60 seats in the Senate is a glimmer of hope that this country will still be salvageable once the American people wake up. I do have hope, now that Obama has become elected. I HOPE we survive.

Peter

Barack Obama Wins, Delivers Victory Speech

Obama's Victory Speech In Chicago

Hello, Chicago.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain.

Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him; I congratulate Governor Palin for all that they've achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart, and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton... and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years ... the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady ... Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia ... I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us ... to the new White House.

And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.

And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe ... the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best -- the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.

To my chief strategist David Axelrod ... who's been a partner with me every step of the way.

To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics ... you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy ... who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.

It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me.

You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.

There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

AUDIENCE: Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can. At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

AUDIENCE: Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

AUDIENCE: Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

AUDIENCE: Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

AUDIENCE: Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Judgement Day Is Here

The Date Is 110408

Hey folks.

Judgement Day is here. It is today. It is NOW. The choice is yours. YOU hold the future of this country in your hands unlike at ANY other time in history. Need further proof of who Obama is?

To "Joe The Plumber." Actually to ALL of us.

"I don't want to punish you for being successful... I think spreading the Wealth around is a good thing for everyone."

As long as you make $250,000, uh, $200,000, uh no, $150,000, NO wait, uh, what I meant was $120,000. Yeah I voted like 42 times to rise taxes on those of you that make $42,000, but uh, forget that. Let's go back to $200,000. Until after the election that is.

Then this that was just brought to light. He made these comments earlier in the year with an editorial board meeting that was recorded, the San Francisco Chronicle.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more -- that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else's out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

He even told you that your electric bills will "SKYROCKET."

"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

No in-depth analysis needed here folks. No hard hitting investigation. No QUESTIONS remaining to be asked. From ALL of Obama's associations with those that hate this country, criminals, terrorists, and the like, to HIS OWN WORDS. To his own lack of experience. To his own votes. We KNOW the real Obama. The one that wants “fundamental” change. Who wants to fundamentally change this country.

“We need fundamental change in this country, and that’s what I’d like to bring.”

Merriam-Webster defines “fundamental” as “of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts” and says that “radical” is a synonym. The related definition of “radical” is “of or relating to the origin.” A usage example is “fundamental change,” exactly what Obama wants to bring.

He wants to destroy the country as it is, and built it into a country where the Government runs EVERYTHING. He wants Socialism. He WANTS Tyranny. A few, or one, in control of all. HE WANTS THAT ONE TO BE HIM. Make no mistake about this folks.

YOU HAVE THE POWER. NOW IS THE TIME!. Go out there and Vote. Not for McCain. Not for Palin. Not for the Republican Party. But go out there and VOTE for AMERICA. Do not let this Socialist get into power. America itself is at risk.

Peter

God Speed Madelyn Dunham

Rest In Peace

May Barack and the entire Obama, and Dunham families have the peace and comfort they need at this time. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Why Socialism Is Possible

Remember Obama is Farther Left Than Hillary Originally Posted 102107

Just 24 hours folks. Just 24 hours left. Time for you to decide WHAT change you want for this country.

Hey folks,

I have been talking about the true intentions of the LWL {Left Wing Loonies} and the NEW Democrat Party. I have posted their own words, chronicled their own actions. I have pointed out what the true definitions of what could very well happen, if what they are doing and saying, were to actually come to pass.

Back on Sunday October 14, I gave you a trip down memory lane. Kind of a round up of all the things I’ve been warning you about. Even then, I could not add EVERYTHING. I told you how they want to indoctrinate our kids into their way of thinking. “He who controls the youth, controls the future.”But STILL, with all this, some of you out there are still saying, “It can’t happen here. This is America. We will not allow it.”

Do you know what it is that causes a Dictator or a Socialist Society to rise? YOU. The people. Hitler could not rise by himself, unless he had people HELPING him to. Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili {Joseph Stalin} same thing. The Soviet Union would have never been, had not some people WANTED it to be. ONE man, one idea, can do little. They need support. Little Hitler {Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad} is rising right now because there are many helping him. Including some in this very country. Hugo Chavez? GET THIS according to CNN- Critics say changes in Venezuela law could erode rights

The pro-Chavez legislature already has approved 33 other changes to the constitution. They are to be considered in a referendum slated for December 2.

“We will do what we have to do to approve the constitutional reforms that the president proposes because that is what the people want,” said Iris Varela, a pro-Chavez member of parliament.

But Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at the New York-based Human Rights Watch, expressed fear the changes could do more harm than good.

“This amendment, if approved, would allow President Chavez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law,” Vivanco said.

"These include the presumption of innocence and rights to a fair trial, to an attorney, against self-incrimination, for a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him, and against double jeopardy," he said.

"The proposed amendments would eliminate limitations on how long a state of emergency could last and the requirement that a constitutional tribunal review the suspension of rights during times of emergency," Vivanco said.

They also would get rid of language requiring that any such decree “meet the requirements, principles and guarantees established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights,” he said.

Sound familiar?

So scanning the news I caught this from the AP- Poll: Some Germans see good in Nazi rule By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 17, 1:25 PM ET on Wednesday.

A quarter of Germans believe there were some positive aspects to Nazi rule, according to a poll published Wednesday — a finding that comes after a popular talk show host was fired for praising Nazi Germany's attitude toward motherhood.

Pollsters for the Forsa agency, commissioned by the weekly magazine Stern, asked whether National Socialism also had some “good sides (such as) the construction of the highway system, the elimination of unemployment, the low criminality rate (and) the encouragement of the family.”

Forsa said 25 percent responded “yes” — but 70 percent said “no.”

Stern commissioned the survey, conducted Oct. 11-12, after Germany's NDR public broadcaster last month fired talk show host Eva Herman over comments she made about the Third Reich.

News reports quoted Herman as saying there was “much that was very bad — for example, Adolf Hitler,” but there were good things under the Nazis, “for example, the high regard for the mother.”

Herman, 48, who has written books urging a return to more traditional gender roles, has stood by her comments.

“What I wanted to express was that values which also existed before the Third Reich, such as family, children and motherhood, which were supported in the Third Reich, were subsequently done away with by the 68ers,” she later said, referring to 1960s-era leftists.

Praising the 1933-45 Nazi dictatorship is taboo in Germany. The Nazis were responsible for the murder of some 6 million Jews and for starting World War II — a conflict in which at least 60 million people died, including more than 7 million Germans.

The poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, showed that people 60 or older had the highest regard for aspects of the era, with 37 percent answering “yes.”

Those who grew up directly after the war, now aged 45 to 59, were the least enthusiastic about the Nazi era, with only 15 percent responding “yes.”

The point is folks, it seems to be in reverse here. The LWL are getting to our youth. They are attempting to indoctrinate them into Liberalism. They are also using the pure and unadulterated hatred for Bush and anything Christian to rev up the Loony base.

They are small, but very well funded, and very loud. They no longer even try to hind their goals. Hillary said this.

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

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

Campaign for America's Future co-director Roger Hickey just said this.

“Congressional conservatives and the president are the culprits who have stood in the way of a new progressive direction for our nation”

“A new progressive direction for our nation” SOCIALISM He just came out and said it.

If you vote the LWL to stay in power, and you vote someone like Supreme Leader Wannabe Hillary into the White House in 08, you WILL have someone in power who has antepenultimate power. Like what we just read by CNN “We will do what we have to do to approve the constitutional reforms that the president proposes because that is what the people want,” will be heard over and over again in OUR OWN Country. The only way to stop this? DO NOT ALLOW IT. YOU have the power. YOU either support or condone the Socialist quest by the LWL, in turn helping it to rise to power, or YOU do not allow it. YOU are the fuel. The choice is YOURS. Get educated. Get ready. When the time comes, go VOTE.

You do not think this can happen here? There are some here working really hard on MAKING it happen. YOU are the only thing standing in the way.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk- History Of Warnings of The Quest for Tyranny
OPNTalk- Controlling Young Minds Series
CNN- Critics say changes in Venezuela law could erode rights
Poll: Some Germans see good in Nazi rule

Shorter Version Of the Big Sunday Edition

Preview for Sunday 110208

Hey folks,

As you know I have been dealing with a Family Medical Situation. It has forced me to miss a few days, and will coming up again soon, and has kept me preoccupied as of late. So today's Sunday edition will be abbreviated to say the least.

However, we are just two days away from a historic and possibly the most important Presidential Election in the history of this country. We have record early voting turnout, can you say ACORN, and the Mainstream Media has already told you who they are voting for. As a matter of fact, they are trying to convince you that this is all but over.

You HAVE to understand what the New Liberalism really mean. You have to FULLY understand who Obama REALLY is. So we will spend a little time on that today.

Then in the Health and Science Segment this week, we will checkout the Transcript of the latest API / Bloggers conference that took place this past Thursday. Again, like so many things as of late, I was forced to sit this one out. But it is an interesting read and something I think you all would really appreciate checking out.

Obama's KGB

The New Liberalism on Full Display

Blogger Conference Call: Industry Earnings and Recent Oil Prices

That's it this week. The Idiots have the day off, no IWA this week. Oh I know, I could take my pick, but time is on their side. {Smile} Anyway, have a great rest of day, see you in the AM.

Peter

Obama's KGB

You Are Now Rich Making $120,000

Hey folks,

What a week this has been. So NOW you are rich if you make $120,000 a year. I told you so. Only $20,000 to go to my prediction of $100,000.

Remember folks, he started off with $250,000. Anyone making less than that, would not see tax increases and would in fact, get a tax cut. Then he changed that to $200,000 in a recent Campaign Commercial. Then Biden changed it to $150,000 a few days later. Now, just this past Friday morning on a Denver Radio Station, KOA, Governor Bill Richardson said this.

"What Obama wants to do is -- is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those."

Pretty soon folks, pretty soon, YOU will be considered "RICH" therefore not worthy of keeping your money. You will have to give it up so that Obama can give it to someone he feels better deserves it.

But this is not what I really want to talk about. What I do want to talk about is this. Komitet Gosudarstvennoĭ Bezopasnosti. Other wise know as the KGB. The state security police (1954-91) of the former USSR with responsibility for external espionage, internal counterintelligence, and internal “crimes against the state.”

Basically, a hit squad to deal with those that opposed the government. Now look at Obama. Obama has REFUSED to go on interview shows that he knows will ask him tough questions. He would NEVER go on a Hannity, or Limbaugh Show, Fox News, or some of the other Cable outlets, unless he can get the questions in advance and or already have the answers prepared. So when he threw off three reporters from his plane, it was really no surprise.

The Washington Times, The New York Post, and Dallas Morning News. All these papers Editorial Sections have endorsed John McCain. They were told they needed to free up the seats for “network bigwigs” and reporters from two black magazines, Essence and Jet. Yeah OK.

Then just before that, the Obama people went after a reporter who dared ask Biden some tough questions. According to this piece from the Orlando Sentinel - Journalism or partisanship: Did Barbara West interview with Joe Biden cross the line?

Nothing Barbara West has done in her 22 years at WFTV-Channel 9 has generated the attention of her interview last week with Sen. Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate. The contentious chat has become an Internet sensation -- 1.2 million hits on YouTube over the weekend and more than 500,000 on WFTV.com -- and generated controversy about how journalists question their subjects.

"The thing that stuns me is that this has become about me," said anchor West, 60. She appeared Monday night on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel and Larry King Live on CNN and plans to be on three more national shows today.

"It's not a good thing. I am not trying to seek the limelight in any way," she said. "I did not do the interview to make headlines, but to get answers that people in the street want to know. When I'm doing fund-raisers, I see vast numbers of people. My questions were reflective of what they're asking about."

In the Biden interview, West quoted Karl Marx and asked, "How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking?" said Biden.

"No," West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Sentinel readers described the interview as the best or the worst they have seen. "Barbara must be the last honest reporter in America," wrote one.

"West was asking the most idiotic questions I've seen from a professional reporter," countered another.

"I was trying to get to the heart of things, not lob softballs," West said. "We are a hard-breaking news station. Our job is to challenge people and ask probing questions."

Jill Geisler, who teaches ethics and management at the Poynter Institute journalism school, said West has a right to ask any question she wants. "Depending on where you sit, you may say, 'Somebody finally asked the question I had,'. " Geisler said. "Others would say it's loaded language."

Geisler found some of West's language hyperbolic and described the anchor as coming from a point of view similar to talk radio hosts Sean Hannity's or Rush Limbaugh's.

"I can ask you 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' and say it's just a question, but there's an assumption embedded in it," Geisler said. "There was a world view in those questions."

WFTV news director Bob Jordan supported West's approach. "I'd rather be known as aggressive than pulling punches," he said. "We ask questions on behalf of viewers."

West received 10,000 e-mails about the Biden interview -- she estimated they were 9 to 1 positive.

After the Biden interview, West's bio was the next most-requested item, Jordan said. "I've never seen anything like this," he added.

The station posted West's Monday interview with Sen. John McCain on the Web before evening newscasts.

"I think I asked just as tough questions of him," West said.

Obama's campaign was critical of West. "Let's be clear: This station's interview with Joe Biden wasn't tough -- it was just absurd," said Adrianne Marsh, Florida spokeswoman for the campaign. "Republicans and their allies are looking for any excuse they can find to change the subject because, by their own admission, if they keep talking about the economy, they're 'going to lose.'. "

In a release, McCain's campaign noted: "Senator McCain sat down with Barbara West today, the same reporter that Biden is now criticizing."

Several readers questioned how objective West could be because her husband, Wade West, was a Republican strategist, who contributed $2,250 to Republican candidates from 2000 to 2006. Barbara West said he was no longer a strategist and instead runs America Fundraising Auctions, which stages charity auctions.

"That's his business, his full-time business and his only business," West said.

Asked her political affiliation, West said, "I don't think I should say." Voting registration records show she is a Republican.

So you ask The Messiah or one of his disciples a tough question, and they will attack you and attempt to destroy you. No questions asked. Even if you are one of them. That is pretty bad. The "mavericks" in the Media being disciplined by their own for not following the script. But the thing that bothers me the most about all this is THIS. "Several readers questioned how objective West could be because her husband, Wade West, was a Republican strategist, who contributed $2,250 to Republican candidates from 2000 to 2006."

Yeah, they attacked her HUSBAND. This is not new though either. They attacked Gov. Palin's 17 year old Daughter, and her Husband. PRIVATE CITIZENS that are running for NOTHING. People who should be off limits. Then you have Joe.

Here is a guy playing Football with his kid in HIS back yard. Obama, the MMD and LWL Messiah, comes walking down his street. He asked Obama a question. Obama gave the wrong answer. Then all hell breaks loose for "Joe The Plumber." Ohio Democrats and their accomplices in the Mainstream Media go into attack mode. They use the OFFICIAL STATE GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS to investigate and attempt to destroy a PRIVATE CITIZEN. They are still to this day attempting to smear and discredit a guy who DARED to asked a question.

Is this what we have to look forward to in an Obiden Administration? We already know we have Socialism in the waiting. Do we also have the Obama version of the KGB? The PMB? {Protect the Messiah Bureau}

I agree wholeheartedly with Gov. Palin.

"You shouldn't be working for government. Your government should be working for you and if you share that commitment and if you want to work hard, if you know what hard work feels like and if you want to get ahead, and if you believe that America is the land of possibilities, and you don't want your dreams dashed by the Obama tax plan increases then, Pennsylvania, we're asking for your vote.

Pennsylvania, the far-left wing of the Democrat Party is preparing to take over the entire federal government. Now, with Democrats in control of the House and the Senate, heaven forbid the White House, and this isn't a mainstream policy, mainstream thinking in the Democrat Party. It is far left. Let's not entrust all the powers of the federal government to the one-party rule of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid."

AMEN! Just two days to go folks. YOU can stop this. YOU do have the power. YOU MUST STOP Obama from taking over this country. Two days to go. ARE YOU READY?
Peter

Sources:
Orlando Sentinel - Journalism or partisanship: Did Barbara West interview with Joe Biden cross the line?
Sweetness and Light - Reporters Kicked Off Obama Press Plane

The New Liberalism on Full Display

Right From Their Mouth Originally Posted May 25, 2008

Hey folks,

You know, it really was a toss up today. I really wanted to give this Idiot the IWA, but at the same time, I really THANK her for telling us who she is. The wording is VERY important as well.

Look, I have been telling you for years now, that the NEW Liberal Party was on a Quest for Tyranny. Here is a montage for you to check out. But I really want to revisit a couple in particular. First, When I told you that America itself is at stake, some of you just could not wrap your mind around it. You just cannot image this even being a remote possibility here. In the USA. But then we got a first had look at what CAN happen. So I explained it more. I started it off this way.

"I have been talking about the true intentions of the LWL {Left Wing Loonies} and the NEW Democrat Party. I have posted their own words, chronicled their own actions. I have pointed out what the true definitions of what could very well happen, if what they are doing and saying, were to actually come to pass.

Back on Sunday October 14, I gave you a trip down memory lane. Kind of a round up of all the things I’ve been warning you about. Even then, I could not add EVERYTHING. I told you how they want to indoctrinate our kids into their way of thinking. “He who controls the youth, controls the future.”But STILL, with all this, some of you out there are still saying, “It can’t happen here. This is America. We will not allow it.”

Do you know what it is that causes a Dictator or a Socialist Society to rise? YOU. The people. Hitler could not rise by himself, unless he had people HELPING him to. Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili {Joseph Stalin} same thing. The Soviet Union would have never been, had not some people WANTED it to be. ONE man, one idea, can do little. They need support. Little Hitler {Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad} is rising right now because there are many helping him. Including some in this very country. Hugo Chavez? GET THIS according to CNN- Critics say changes in Venezuela law could erode rights"

I went on to talk about the CNN story on Hugo Chavez. They reported this.

The pro-Chavez legislature already has approved 33 other changes to the constitution. They are to be considered in a referendum slated for December 2.

Picture if you will, a Socialist, Dictator Wannabe getting into the White House, with a Lonny run Congress.

“We will do what we have to do to approve the constitutional reforms that the president proposes because that is what the people want,” said Iris Varela, a pro-Chavez member of parliament.

Hillary said this.

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

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

Remember, if she cannot get want she wants?

Clinton said some of the proposed changes would be made through executive order and others through legislation. She said she'd move quickly as president to implement the changes.

Back to Chavez.

“This amendment, if approved, would allow President Chavez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law,” Vivanco said.

"These include the presumption of innocence and rights to a fair trial, to an attorney, against self-incrimination, for a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him, and against double jeopardy," he said.

"The proposed amendments would eliminate limitations on how long a state of emergency could last and the requirement that a constitutional tribunal review the suspension of rights during times of emergency," Vivanco said.

They also would get rid of language requiring that any such decree “meet the requirements, principles and guarantees established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights,” he said.

Sound familiar?

Then you had this Idiot.

Campaign for America's Future co-director Roger Hickey just said this.

“Congressional conservatives and the president are the culprits who have stood in the way of a new progressive direction for our nation”

“A new progressive direction for our nation” SOCIALISM He just came out and said it.

Now he is not the only one. Now Senator Maxine Waters JUST said this, Thursday 22, during the show hearing.

"And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

Talking about Big Oil. See the video HERE. Even some of her LWL friends had to laugh at this "Sheer Stupidity." She even was proud to say she was a Liberal. "Socialist."

Remember this from Clinton?

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

Chavez Nationalized the Oil Companies. That was one of the first things he did. He Nationalize the Radio, TV, News Papers ETC. Can you say "The Fairness Doctrine?" He is also in control of commerce. Remember Clinton? Talking about the economy?

"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Then you have this one that STILL bothers me. Talking about trade schools.

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

{Laughing}, yes, our country cannot run without the little people. Without those that can build things, fix things, and, well, just better society for those that run it.

This is not just Clinton that thinks this way. This IS the new Liberalism folks. This IS what is behind the whole Global Warming BS. This is what is behind the erosion of the First and Second Amendments. This is the driving force that is keeping Hillary in this thing. This is the goal. The quest for tyranny continues.

Yes, do not be angry at Maxine Waters, she is doing you a favor. She is letting you know who these people are. Thank her for it.

Peter

Sources:
Fox News- Video
OPNTalk -Quest For Tyranny Montage
OPNTalk - Why Socialism is Possible
OPNTalk -America IS At Stake

Blogger Conference Call: Industry Earnings and Recent Oil Prices

Health and Science Segment for Sunday 110208

Hey folks,

Due to my Family Medical situation, I was unable to attend this API / Blogger Conference this time around. The following is a transcript of it. VERY interesting read. Thank you Jane. Here it is.

Blogger Conference Call: Industry Earnings and Recent Oil Prices

Summary: On Thursday, Oct. 30, API hosted a blogger conference call to discuss third-quarter industry earnings, as well as the recent decline in oil prices. Jane Van Ryan moderated the call, which was led Rayola Dougher and Ron Planting of API. Special guest Lou Pugliaresi of the Energy Policy Research Foundation was also on the call to offer additional insight for the bloggers’ questions. Fourteen bloggers dialed-in for the hour-long call, which touched a variety of topics including windfall profits tax, a potential gas tax and other policy issues, in addition to the originally scheduled topics.

Moderator:
Jane Van Ryan, Senior Communications Manager, API

Speakers:
Lou Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research FoundationRayola Dougher, Senior Economic Advisor, APIRon Planting, Manager of Statistics, API

Bloggers:
Carter Wood, Shopfloor
Cindy Kilkenny, Fairly Conservative
Dave Schuler, The Glittering Eye
Devil’s Advocate, Copious Dissent
Gail Tverberg, The Oil Drum
Geoff Styles, Energy Outlook
Greg Balch, Goat's Barnyard
Joules Burn, The Oil Drum
Robert Rapier, R-Squared
Steve Atkinson, The Conservative Voice of America
Wilson Cruz, Vulcan's Hammer
Brian Westenhaus, New Energy and Fuel
Ken Moyes, Broken Government
"The Bear", The Absurd Report

00:12 RAYOLA DOUGHER: Okay, just a quick summary. We have had 14 oil companies put their third quarter earnings up, and their profit margins are averaging about 9.6 cents on every dollar of sales. That‟s the net income divided by the revenue. We‟re also tracking the Dow Jones Industrial companies, and we have 24 out of 30 companies reporting, and they‟re averaging about 10.7 cents on the dollar. So while oil is about 1.1 cent behind, we‟re waiting for one other major company to report and that‟s Chevron. In terms of prices, of course, they‟re dropping like a rock. Crude oil prices are down from about $100 a barrel about a month ago; $63 dollars the other day. They were at $67.50 last night, and I think they‟re around $65 today, but who knows what they‟ll close at or whether we‟re really at the bottom yet. Gasoline prices have followed that decline. Retail gasoline prices are averaging about $2.55 a gallon, and that‟s down from $3.09 a gallon from a month ago. And diesel fuel prices are also down about 74 cents a gallon. So that‟s a brief summary and Ron is going to talk a little bit about the supply and demand figures.

01:32 RON PLANTING: This is Ron. We‟ve had sluggish demand here in the U. S. in the last year or two because of higher prices and changes in consumer behavior, and a peak in July, as you probably know, product prices have been coming down, but the economic uncertainty has been increasing, and that has led us to fourth quarter U.S. petroleum deliveries of just 19.7 million barrels per day, according to our API data we published just a week or so ago. It‟s down 5.2% from just a year ago, and it‟s the lowest third quarter in 10 years for U.S. petroleum consumption. Gasoline consumption by itself was down 4 percent for the quarter from a year ago; that was the lowest third quarter in six years. So, you know, if it‟s not higher prices and their effects, it‟s the state of the economy. Lou, do you have something you‟d like to say?

02:30 LOU PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I mean, I think if you look at the decline over the last year, we have – most of this decline is OECD. In fact, year on, year out, I think our latest numbers showed a consumption down about one-and-a-half million barrels a day, and the non-OECD up about 200,000 barrels a day, which I think is pretty consistent with the numbers you guys have.

02:56 MR. PLANTING: We just focus on the U.S. This is Ron.

03:00 JANE VAN RYAN: Okay, we‟ve had a couple of other people join us. May I ask who came on the call and then will open this up to questions?

03:08 GAIL TVERBERG: This is Gail Tverberg from The Oil Drum.

03:10 MS. VAN RYAN: Hi, Gail. Nice to hear your voice. Who else do we have? Anybody just join us within the last two minutes? Okay, well, we‟ll move forward then. Who would like to ask the first question of our experts today?

03:29 BRIAN WESTENHAUS: Ready?

03:31 MS. VAN RYAN: We‟re ready.

03:34 MR. WESTENHAUS: I‟m ready. I noticed that diesel is not following gas down nearly as fast. When do you expect the gap to close up?

03:40 MR. PUGLIARESI: Rayola, would you like me to take a whack at that?

03:45 MS. DOUGHER: Sure, if you‟d like.

03:47 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, you know. First, we are joined at the hip with the world market, and this is an interesting – I mean, this whole question of the disparity between diesel and gasoline has been going on for some time. And it‟s – there is in fact a rather substantial imbalance between diesel and gasoline demand related to – and that imbalance is the demand versus the configuration of the world refining structure capacity.

Around 2004, the Chinese pulled a lot of coal out of industrial uses and began a kind of world-wide growth in demand for the middle of the barrel. This was followed by increasing dieselization in Europe, and essentially, what‟s been happening over the last few years is that as the world refining centers move to hit the diesel targets, they are producing a lot of gasoline for which there is no local market. Now, they can swing this production 3 to 4 percent with existing capacity; but in Europe they‟re already at the limit. And we, in the U.S. are importing roughly a million barrels a day of gasoline from the finished gasoline and blend stock, mostly blend stock. And in fact, we have been exporting a distillate over the last few months. And I think last month, it might have been as 5 to 6 hundred thousand barrels a day.

And so our view is, look, this is a relatively – this is a short-term or medium-term problem which will get fixed when the world refining capacity comes more in line with the structured world demand. And of course it‟s been exacerbated even in the U.S. If you think about refineries, they‟re sort of like producing steaks and leather. You can‟t really produce more distillate without producing more gasoline. I mean, as I said, we can swing a little bit. And so what‟s happening is that, in order to meet – until we get more hydro-cracking, hydro-treating, and more distillate capacity online, and the world refining configuration can rebalance itself a bit, we‟re going to have this disparity.

06:09 MR. PLANTING: This is Ron. I think that‟s all a good description of what‟s going on, I‟d just point that what‟s being exported is not ultra-low sulfur diesel; it‟s not highway diesel. It‟s something that‟s got more sulfur in it than can be used on highway. It‟s a category for which the market has gotten a lot smaller here in the U.S. because of the –

06:34 MR. WESTENHAUS: Well, I‟ll buy it. I got it for farm uses. What‟s your time frame?

06:36 MR. PUGLIARESI: You mean how long is this going to take?

06:39 MR. WESTENHAUS: Yeah.

06:40 MR. PUGLIARESI: Well, that‟s a good question. I mean, we, you know the – some of this is going to be related to the pace at which foreign refinery centers come online. The Indians have a million barrels a day of capacity coming online, and some of their – largely aimed at the world distillate market. The – I would say, in the first quarter next year, they‟re going to be moving some of their lower-spec – let‟s say the middle of the barrel that doesn‟t quite meet the European specs – but over time they will be pulling more sulfur out of the middle of the barrel; to the extent that the U.S. refining industry can begin to make some capital investments, you know, maybe five – take as much as 10 years, it could happen as quick as three. It really depends upon whether we‟re going to get any recovery in some of these margins, and people are willing to put some risk capital to make these projects go forward.

07:43 MR. WESTENHAUS: Huge groan.

07:46 MR. WESTENHAUS: How about propane? Propane – I‟ve been watching it on the New York Merc, and it doesn‟t seem to move much. When do you expect to get some motion from propane?

07:54 MR. PUGLIARESI: You know, I think propane is – I don‟t really have a good answer; I don‟t really have a good theory for that. But, you know, propane is, it‟s really going to be related to the – if you can get the number of runs up, you can get more propane out.

08:09 MR. WESTENHAUS: Yup.

08:10 MR. PUGLIARESI: And I think we‟re going to be suffering – Look, if you‟re a refiner, and you are in the wrong spot, and you‟ve got the wrong configuration now, you‟re forced to cut runs. I don‟t know what else you can do. And your ROI is just taking a beating.

08:26 MR. WESTENHAUS: Well, propane‟s higher than gasoline with tax now. So I‟m just a little paranoid about buying propane.

08:31 MS. DOUGHER: It‟s down about 50 cents or so in the past month, but it certainly hasn‟t come down at the same rate as distillate or gasoline.

08:39 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, but I think it is important and, of course, this is something I don‟t need to tell you guys about. We really have two markets here. We have the market for the feed stock, and then we have the manufacturing facilities that turn that feed stock into the whole product slate. And we have been arguing for over a year that the feed stock was way out of line, that what we saw in terms of oil prices was the result of some unique conditions in the market. And that it was not sustainable.

We just – you know, we published an article on this in July in The Oil and Gas Journal, we‟ve done a lot of presentations on this, and we just didn‟t see – we really believe that when you get up to the level of 130, 140, 150 dollars a barrel, you‟re way beyond the long-run backstop for petroleum. I know it‟s hard for a lot of people to get around that, but, I mean, you know, you could – a lot starts to happen when you go between $70 and $90 a barrel. Both in terms of alternatives, non-conventional supplies, and conservation.

09:39 MR. WESTENHAUS: How is natural gas supplied? I go through and I comparatively speak on the huge amount of natural gas in the form of anhydrous ammonia. Is it on course with the NYMEX for being price parity for oil right now?

09:53 MR. WESTENHAUS: I was quoted $1,060 for a ton of anhydrous ammonia, which is $187 two years ago, so I‟m learning to watch natural gas really close now, too.

10:06 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, natural gas is – that‟s something we need to spend a lot more time on. I mean we have this big growth in natural gas production over the last few years, up about 9 percent. There appeared to be a – you know, when we saw this big decoupling between the price of natural gas and crude, where you had natural gas selling at half – at a BTU value – at half, you can say well, that‟s got to get fixed one way: Either crude‟s got to come down, or gas has got to go up. (Chuckles.)

And I do think there is a lot of evidence that the U.S. – I mean, this is an interesting issue because the U.S. may be – either we are the leading edge of a major decoupling of gas from oil, in which case we may see a real renaissance of chemical plants and fertilizer back in the U.S. – you know natural gas in the U.S. is about half the price in Europe and Asia. It‟s just amazing what‟s going on, and I think that‟s something worth looking at. Or, are we going to see the rest of the world see gas – because you know, in the U.S., gas now competes either with other gas or coal. There‟s no more resid fuel to compete against. And that‟s not quite the case in Europe or in the Asian markets yet.

11:20 MR. WESTENHAUS: Well, they‟re down almost one supplier from the east, aren‟t they?

11:23 MR. PUGLIARESI: No, actually there‟s more. I mean, there is LNG, there‟s North Sea gas, there‟s a lot more competition in the European market than you would expect if you look into more detail. The problem with the European gas market is that it‟s probably the most untransparent gas market in the world.

11:39 MR. WESTENHAUS : Oh. Okay. So we‟re not at parity yet, with natural gas and oil again?

11:45 MR. PUGLIARESI: Absolutely not. We‟re still probably a good – I mean, oil price keeps dropping; I have to go back and recalculate. But my guess is we‟re still 60 percent of the value of crude.

11:55 MR. WESTENHAUS : Okay, there‟s enough to, you know, heat the houses and stuff? The hurricane that came through has not got us behind the 8-ball, so to speak?

12:05 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I think that from that production is starting to come back on, and we still have a ways to go in the Gulf, the refining sector as well.

12:14 MR. WESTENHAUS : I don‟t need to expect a natural gas scare between now and March?

12:16 MR. PUGLIARESI: I would doubt it.

12:19 MR. WESTENHAUS: Okay, super. Thank you.

12:25 MS. TVERBERG: This is Gail Tverberg from The Oil Drum. I was going to ask about the connection between the credit crisis and the current low prices of oil and gas.

12:35 MR. PUGLIARESI: In what sense?

12:37 MS. TVERBERG: Well, I think we‟ve been seeing various indirect effects of, you know, the hedge funds selling and the rising dollar; there‟s been a variety of different – but this is affecting the oil price and such.

12:53 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I mean – You know the last time we looked at it, the swing in the price of oil just swapped. You know, I‟ve never been a big fan of – I mean, if you look between our July 1, 2008 to October 8, 2008, the dollar‟s been up about 7 percent. But crude oil prices fell by nearly 40 percent. The trouble with this dollar/crude oil issue is you never now which end – whether you‟re chasing or falling – or the dog is wagging the tail or the tail is wagging the dog. Because it‟s possible that the reason the dollar got beat up so much is because our import bill is rising so fast. The cause and effect is something I‟m not prepared to say we fully understand. But I do think that you can make a pretty strong case that 80, 85, 90 percent of the movement is driven by fundamentals. And the fundamentals here are slower economic activity and people responding to high prices. So we have what we call income effect and a price effect, right? Some guy rides his bicycle to work because the price is too high. Another guy rides his bicycle downtown because he doesn‟t have a job. Well, one of them is a price effect; the other is an income effect – (chuckles). But it‟s going to take a while to sort it out.

14:20 MS. VAN RYAN: Rayola, Ron, do you have comments on that?

14:23 MS. DOUGHER: Well, I would agree that what we‟re seeing are strong fundamentals primarily and that the credit crisis is hitting all industries and all commodities right now, not just the oil industry.

14:36 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, you know there‟s a lot of discussion about being – you know, one of the things I think we‟re concerned about is this kind of – you know, we need to move to alternative fuels at any cost. You know, well, that‟s kind of – we do need to have a strategy to transition to the fuels of the future, but we shouldn‟t be silly about it. We produce, the U.S. with 5 percent of the people, produces 30 percent of the world‟s gross domestic product. And we‟re doing that with – actually more efficiently than the Middle East, China, or India. We use a lot of oil, but people keep forgetting that we also produce a lot of goods and services.

15:14 DEVIL‟S ADVOCATE: Hi, this is Devil‟s Advocate from Copious Dissent. I just have a quick question on how the recent moratorium lapse as well as the discovery of Cuba‟s new oil has impacted the price at all.

15:29 MR. PUGLIARESI: Well, this is a good question. You know, Nancy Pelosi said that we shouldn‟t do offshore leasing because it won‟t happen for 10 years and it will only have a two cents effect, and you know –

15:45 DEVIL‟S ADVOCATE: Yeah, but Cuba just discovered 20 billion barrels if –

15:46 MR. PUGLIARESI: I don‟t know what they discovered, but I do take your point, and we have argued – if you go to our website, there‟s a couple of really good pieces on there where we look at the history of price changes in the oil market. And I would argue that, going back to ‟73 and ‟74, large swings in the price of oil are driven much more by a new set of expectations on shifts in future production than what‟s happened in the current period.

So, you know, in ‟73 and ‟74, the production of oil out of the Middle East did not decline at all – it actually went up, slightly. But the expectation was that the world was going to develop its resources at a much slower pace, at a pace with much more government involvement, and so the price went up – it went up a lot. So, yeah, if the world sees these finds in Brazil and Cuba and around the world as fundamentally changing their perception on future supply, it could affect prices in the current period, but can you sort it out? It‟s pretty hard.

16:50 GEOFF STYLES: This is Geoff Styles, and I‟ve got a related question about the future supply. With the new report out of the IEA looking at really severe decline rates – I believe they‟re talking about 9 percent on the large fields – are you worried that the combination of low prices and the credit crunch could actually put us sufficiently far behind on the development curve that we might actually never catch up with the decline rate?

17:20 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, well I guess the first question is, what do you think – I don‟t know the answer to this question, but I can talk about it. What do you think the major oil companies, both the -national oil companies and the international oil companies – what are they using as the hurdle-rate when they were evaluating long term projects? They were never using $140, $130, $90 a barrel.

My guess is – and I don‟t – I only know this number by rumor on the edges of conferences and talking to people – they‟re using some number between $40 and $60-$65 a barrel and maybe the tar sands or oil sands guys are using $70 to $80 – somewhere in there – thinking they can get the costs down and fuel prices fall and everything. So, in terms of the major companies, I think the existing price structure – I don‟t think it‟s affecting their willingness to go and find new prospects.

Here‟s the interesting question: Does the new dynamics – these lower prices – does it begin to change behavior in Venezuela, Russia, you know, off the African coast and even in the Gulf a bit – do people begin, you know, the kind of excessive resource nationalism we had, violation of contract sanctity – all the kinds of counterproductive behavior we saw from these national governments – is that going to start to unwind?

And I think you can see some movement already. So I‟m less concerned about these price swings than access to the resource bit. And the question – that‟s something to watch very carefully.

19:01 MR. STYLES: Right, and I certainly agree that it‟s unlikely the majors‟ price expectations have been affected much by this, but I suspect that their weighted average costs to capital have.

19:12 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, okay. I mean, there‟s no doubt it‟s going up – the question is, how much. And I suspect – a lot of that is their weighted cost – for many of the majors, that‟s a number they have to make up, because they‟re operating on a retained earnings often, and –

19:30 MS. VAN RYAN: Lou, Rayola‟s got some thoughts on that as well.

19:33 MS. DOUGHER: I was just going to say that it‟s been a challenge for a lot of the smaller producers.

19:41 MR. PUGLIARESI: Absolutely. That‟s where I think the issue is.

19:41 MS. DOUGHER: And there have been a number of companies announcing delays in operations for some of the things that they were investing in to move forward, so it is having an impact on different segments of the industry and refiners and others. The credit crunch is affecting some investment, but so far, for the majors, not so much.

20:04 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I think, actually, it‟s very important to understand that the refiners face a completely different set of issues – a completely set of different problems – than the upstream oil producers. There are two different markets now. You could argue, perhaps, that some of the refining operations attached to the tar sands and oil sands is the kind of way to monetize that asset – that may be a unique way you view as part of the upstream oil production process, but for the most part, refiners face a completely different set of constraints and problems.

20:40 ROBERT RAPIER: Hi, this is Robert Rapier. I have a question, but, first, I‟ll make a comment on that price band. As I worked for a major until earlier this year, that price band you quoted is pretty accurate and there is great reluctance to move that up, because I had some deep discussions internally about moving that up because I expected oil prices higher in the future and there‟s a very conservative bent there – (audio break) – number down in the $40 range or so and do economics based on that. And I hear from friends, other companies, that that‟s pretty consistent.

21:18 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, you know, here‟s the thing. I mean, I know there‟s a lot – I know there‟s a couple of peak-oil guys on the call now. (Chuckles.) I don‟t want to get into that story, but I do think it‟s – this is a good time to back away a bit and say, okay, what do we think the long-run backstop price might be for petroleum in the sense that there‟s a price out there which, you can‟t really drive it a lot higher long term because of availability of non-conventional supplies, alternative fuels, conservation, new technologies.

And, you know, I was on a conference call with a bunch of folks, with Bob Tippee and the Oil & Gas Journal when the price was like $140. And I said, does anyone think we are in – not above the long-run price of oil? And everybody said, no, we agree; we‟re way above the long-run price of oil, which I think is a really interesting view. I mean, it might be wrong. Okay, I‟m not saying we know the answer to this, but it is clear that government policy, if you look at ethanol, so all the mandates are based on some concept that the price of oil is $500 a barrel or something.

I mean, if you just look at the policies that are being rolled out now – and so, another interesting question is, how are they going to deal with that dissonance? You know, how is the policy going to deal with that dissidence as we go to a market in which the price of oil is $60 or $70 a barrel?

22:48 MR. RAPIER: Okay, my question is, I had a chance to review the API primer, “The Truth about Oil and Gasoline” befor the call. And, as you read through there, you see just an absolute disconnect between the information there and I think what the average person on the street might believe. One of the issues I wanted to touch on was on the stock buy-backs. There‟s been a lot of stories out there that oil companies are spending, you know, record amounts of money to buy back stock and the graph that was shown there was that it‟s actually lower than the average for the – the average S&P company.

But that was from 2006. My impression is, that‟s substantially gone up since then and wondered if you knew how that fares now? My feeling is, it‟s probably above S&P average now, the stock buy-back number.

23:40 MS. DOUGHER: No, we just don‟t have that number; we haven‟t compiled it so I really can‟t say for certain. But it‟s been pretty consistent since over the 10-year period from 1996 to 2006. It was below the S&P industrials, but it‟s just hard to know what 2007 data look like. This data is put together by the EIA and they always have a long lag time. I think they won‟t be updating it until probably December. And so we won‟t even have the 2007 until then and we don‟t have any other source to use. So I just don‟t have a good feel for it.

24:15 MR. RAPIER: Okay. One more question from me, a political question: If you look at political contributions, the contributions from oil companies to Republicans are – tend to outweigh those of Democrats and, subsequently, Democrats have a pretty hostile view toward oil companies. And I‟m wondering how we improve that relationship. This is one thing that‟s 10
always frustrated me, was that there just seems to be this incredible distaste from Democrats and I never understood why we don‟t open up a better relationship here with them, the Democratic leadership.

I think we‟re about to have a Democrat in the White House who‟s threatening windfall profits and all kinds of things and I can‟t understand why we don‟t sit down and open up a better dialogue with the Democratic leadership.

25:01 MR. PUGLIARESI: You know, I have a little story to tell you about that. I happen to have been in a little meeting with Bennett Johnston, the former, as you know, the former senator from Louisiana. And he‟s a Democrat. And he said, you know, he was talking about – I sort of asked him a similar question. You know, why is the Democratic Party at war with the oil industry? I mean, in 2006, it was a cash cow. It generated like $130 billion of revenue to the government. I mean, compare that to the problems they‟re having with GM. You know, they should be doing award dinners for these guys. And he said, you know, when we had Democrats from oil-producing states, we didn‟t have these problems, because then, the party was afraid – (chuckles) – to overdo it. So you may be – we may be ending up in that direction in the next year if the polls turn out the way they seem to be.

26:05 GREG BALCH: Uh, this is Greg from the Barnyard. I want to follow-up on that a little bit. Aren‟t Democrats really using energy and fuel as a means of social engineering, then, in this? Telling people where they can live, where they can work, how far they can drive – you know, on and on.

26:23 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, that‟s a very sort of fundamental – I mean, that‟s sort of above my pay grade. (Laughter.) I mean, that‟s a really basic issue about, you know, how involved should the government be in these energy markets and what‟s the costs and benefits of them being involved in that. I think it‟s a debate we ought to have.

26:53 CINDY KILKENNY: This is Cindy Kilkenny from Fairly Conservative. And I trained as a political scientist and I have to say it‟s definitely a wedge issue and it‟s very insightful. And I grew up in Oklahoma. My family – my brother is still in the oil patch and he‟s been, so I see both sides of this and I know how it‟s being used and it‟s just about what it redeems for whoever wants it at that point.

Um, I have a couple of questions. One is with regard to the information that we had the link to. On page nine, there‟s a second quarter earnings by industry there. Oil and gas is at 6.8 – do you expect that to climb up on the scale, given this pretty remarkable return on the third quarter?

27:31 MS. DOUGHER: Well, I‟m sure. We already have returns from about 14 of the industries so far. And their reported earning‟s about 9.6 cents on the dollar.

27:40 MS. KILKENNY: Okay, so 9.6. There was a lot of crackling earlier, and I missed some of the numbers. I heard 10.7, but I –

27:47 MS. DOUGHER: That was for the 24 of the 30 Dow Jones –

27:50 MS. KILKENNY: Okay, Dow Jones, so on average – but we don‟t know who else is shifting around there. I suspect we‟ll see some other shifting.

27:58 MS. DOUGHER: There‟ll still be a little bit more – we do have to wait for Chevron tomorrow, but generally once we have these 14 or 15, we get a pretty good idea of the earnings and it shouldn‟t change that much from the 9.6 that we‟re reporting. It may come down a little bit; I‟m not sure which way it will go. But it probably won‟t be that much different.

26:18 MS. KILKENNY: Well, not going down is the issue here. (Chuckles.) Not moving below – okay.

28:22 MR. PUGLIARESI: By the way, this gets back to the question on, you know, prices of gasoline. You know, our data show that – people always claim that the prices go up, but they don‟t come down as fast – but actually, we show in the last quarter – the last month – that gasoline prices actually fell at a much faster rate than crude, at least in the – and I can send this to you, Rayola, if you like – we have this compression of margins and refiners gasoline prices – some data we just pulled up, but –

28:56 MS. DOUGHER: Well, at least in the past month, that was so. I mean gas prices came down much faster than crude oil prices, but the hurricanes in September did lift those products –

29:06 MR. PUGLIARESI: Right, right. Well, that‟s where you get the volatility and I think that‟s why it happened that way.

29:09 MS. DOUGHER: That just depends on which point – (background noise, inaudible) – measured.

29:15 MR. PUGLIARESI: By the way, I think another issue people aren‟t thinking a lot about now is what happens to ethanol at these lower gasoline prices. I don‟t think anyone has really – I don‟t think the Congress has really confronted this enough, because we are now going to be getting very close to where – because, you know, after you get to 2 to 3 percent of the gasoline blend up now, where we are now at 7 percent – where ethanol is going head to head with gasoline, except it gets much poorer gas mileage, save for E-85 or something.

And you may be getting to the point where you cannot produce the corn – in other words, your cost of production for the corn – you can‟t deliver it at a price that allows someone to produce and distribute ethanol cost-effectively.

30:04 MS. KILKENNY: Well, where has corn gone, in relation to oil? That would imply that the price of corn would be going down, „cause I know that commodities – but I haven‟t watched it.

30:13 MR. PUGLIARESI: Corn has dropped like a stone.

30:15 MS. DOUGHER: AAA keeps track of these prices and the current price for ethanol is about $2.75 a gallon – that‟s adjusting for the BTU content, and regular gasoline is selling for about $2.55, so about .20 a gallon more right now.

30:33 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, actually, E-85, when you adjust it for MPG, always is more expensive than regular.

30:40 MS. DOUGHER: Right, well –

30:42 MR. RAPIER: Yeah, hi Robert Rapier here again. One comment on that, because I actually asked the EIA about this – the mandate – and the funny thing about ethanol is that the demand is guaranteed to go up, because it‟s mandated to go up. So even though gasoline demand is down, ethanol demand is – there‟s a floor level, and that floor level will increase on January 1st, 2010, 2011, and so forth – every year, it‟s going to increase. It doesn‟t mean anybody will make money at it, but the demand is going to go up.

31:16 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, under the man – this is a really good point – under the mandate, now you have to keep moving – ethanol has to keep moving up to, what – 15, 16 billion gallons a year at 10 percent of – which the Congress thought was 10 percent of the gasoline pool. But, actually, it‟s going to exceed 10 percent of the gasoline pool within the next couple of years, depending on what happens to gasoline demand – there‟s clearly a scenario.

And if you look – if you read around, you know, well some people are saying, well maybe we should move to E-12. The problem with E-12 is there‟s a – you have a mania, first, in the boat-owners already – but if you just – there‟s like $1 trillion of small engines out there; those guys will just go crazy – they just – and the manufacturers will pull the warranties. But this is the real dilemma with that: At the extensive margin, it‟s going to be very, very expensive to get ethanol blended everywhere.

And some guys are going to say well, you know, it‟s just not worth it to me and I‟ll just pay the – I‟ll just buy some RINs. And there‟s actually some scenarios out there where some guy in the Florida Keys is buying some RINs to get his obligated parties requirement and some guy in Iowa is dumping the ethanol in the river. I mean, I just think this is an issue that has to be revisited.

32:36 MR. STYLES: In fact, aren‟t we seeing – this is Geoff Styles again – aren‟t we seeing that whole market shift right now, because of the inversion of gasoline and ethanol prices where, until pretty recently, there was an incentive for refiners to over-blend – in other words to blend more ethanol than was legally required and we‟re seeing that in the statistics. Now you‟ve got gasoline priced under ethanol again, in fact in some places by more than the amount of the blender‟s credit, and part of the fallout that we‟re already seeing is, you know, perhaps the imminent bankruptcy filing of one of the biggest ethanol producers in the country, VeraSun.

33:14 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yes, I think that this is only the beginning. This issue is going to have to be revisited.

33:20 STEVE ATKINSON: Jane, Steve Atkinson from Conservative Voice.

33:22 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes, Steve, please go ahead.

33:34 MR. ATKINSON: Yeah, I‟m going to jump in here. First of all, a previous speaker, quote, “felt optimistic” about the chances of one of these presidential candidates. I do not share that optimism. And secondly –

33:41 MR. PUGLIARESI: I missed that comment. Who made that comment?

33:45 MR. ATKINSON: Steve Atkinson.

33:46 MR. PUGLIARESI: Okay. (Chuckles.)

33:49 MR. ATKINSON: For me, Ron also threw a key phrase out there earlier that really piqued my interest and that was – and it‟s just part of a phrase – consumer changes. For me, artificiality, that‟s my key operative word. And all the discussion thus far, to me, has been one of dealing with and addressing the after-effects of something that I feel is of supreme and paramount importance.

One, number one for me, as it relates to energy especially: the troubling nature of political meddling in the affairs of corporate entities. And that, of course, may take the form of tax increases, so-called alternative energy demands – or it could also manifest itself in pressures on the auto industry as a corollary to comply with the net effects of their demands. And I believe, then, that therefore, there are no so-called magical, silver-bullet answers to most of these questions. Consequently, I think it boils down for me, at least – the question I had, for giving this statement – how much of an impediment is this to sound energy policy development in the United States?

35:16 MS. VAN RYAN: I want to be sure I understand your question and that others do. You‟re saying that the tendency, in your view, of politicians to meddle in corporate affairs, whether it be in the energy industry or in the auto industry, perhaps could be an impediment to having a sound energy policy, correct?

35:36 MR. ATKINSON: Correct. I think the industry itself is forced to deal in a, quote, in the “after-effect” manner, of dealing with all of these pressures.

35:48 MR PUGLIARESI.: Here‟s the – let me fire here – if you think about this, you want – the reason that we have prices out there is that it helps us allocate capital to its most efficient use. To the extent that government intervene – the government has a view that it should intervene in this market based on some vague notions of what energy security is, or that the market‟s unable to transition to the fuels of the future at either fast enough or it doesn‟t know – the market can‟t pick the right fuels of the future – whatever that is. And if you go back to the ‟70s, there‟s plenty of dead carcasses around from the last attempt the government did at this.

So I do think you‟re right in the sense that the real cost to this is the Congress and those people who think we have to direct how we‟re going to transition and the pace at which we‟re going to transition to the fuels of the future, they may impose very high costs on the economy – lots of inefficiencies, and ultimately, we‟re just going to grow slower as a result of that. And we‟re going to have a lot of distortions and impediments to the kinds of investments we actually need to make. But to make that argument, you really have to believe that you can somehow educate the Congress in the way that capital markets should function and stuff, and it‟s really a hard job.

37:15 MR. ATKINSON: It may be a hard job, but how about this: You were talking about the inversion of pricing vis-à-vis ethanol and gasoline earlier. Gee, isn‟t it amazing. Something Congress might want to consider is that ethanol, which is free, mind you, of the subsidization of the enhanced food prices in America; if the inversion example is true, then would there not be a net benefit to applying a different strategy that would have the net effect of reducing food prices and therefore by removing that –

37:55 MR. PUGLIARESI: Right, the mandate is obviously a misguided policy. At least the blender‟s credit gave the market a chance to adjust against the implicit subsidy in it, but the mandate is binding – it doesn‟t really allow the market to adjust at all. You know, ethanol has been used for 30 years – Getty‟s been using it forever – but they used it when it was very valuable, for 2 to 3 percent of the gasoline pool, as an oxygenator and an octane booster. It‟s only when Congress intervened and said, no, no, you have to – the benefits of reducing net demand for gasoline are some huge number – they‟re so high, we‟re willing to pay any cost to expand ethanol production. That‟s just – frankly, that‟s a crazy way to do it.

38:44 MR. STYLES: This is Geoff Styles again. Can I just throw something in there, because it seems like the missing piece of this whole discussion is climate policy, because at the end of the day, the last couple of years, a lot of the measures that have been taken on energy really have been a form of back-door regulation relative to climate. And in the next year or two, it seems like we‟re likely to see more of a front-door approach on climate. How will that change all of these back-door approaches that have been tried over the last few years?

39:17 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I mean, first, all the climate folks and everything, they should have a little humility after the ethanol debacle because most of the major environmental groups are pulling away from ethanol because they think it‟s not even reducing global greenhouse gases net-net.

But here is the interesting question from a political point of view, going into next year. We‟re going to be probably in a recession or have very, very sluggish growth. We‟re going to have a huge deficit. We‟re going to have relatively moderate gasoline prices. And so how – what‟s the Congress going to do? I mean, the idea of cap-and-trade is – I mean, I think cap-and-trade – all this Fannie Mae – all this stuff is a way -- Congress wants to do things but it doesn‟t want to pay for it. But what happens when it becomes apparent that what Congress is planning to do is to replace $2.50 gallon gasoline with $3.50 a gallon gasoline? I mean, that‟s going to be the net effect of what they‟re going to try to do. I think you might see some political resistance to that. You may see a real stretch out in the enthusiasm for a lot of these onerous strategies that deal with climate.

40:31 MR. ATKINSON: That may in fact be dealt with at, say, a Hilton hotel in London, England on this very day. (Laughter.) They have to do something though.

40:40 MS. VAN RYAN: May I ask who – is that you, Steve?

40:43 MR. ATKINSON: Yes, it is. I‟m sorry.

40:45 MS. VAN RYAN: That‟s all right.

40:46 MR. ATKINSON: I just happen to think that in London today, unless the sidewalks are shoveled clear of the earliest snowfall in their history that – I have problems when it comes to discussions on the climate. I really do.

41: 05 CARTER WOOD: This is Carter Wood at the NAM. I just note in passing that over the last week, I‟ve seen three or four pieces bringing back up the idea of a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax or a $1.00-a-gallon gas tax. Now that the price of gas is falling again, what a wonderful opportunity it is to increase it. Most of those arguments are not environmental but are economic. That is, we can use the money, and fuel-efficiency more oriented, it seems to me. But anyway, it‟s kind of seasonal, I guess.

41:38 MR. PUGLIARESI: Right, but you know, the lower gasoline prices, Larry Goldstein, our former president of EPRI and now one of our directors, he came up with – I think it was – it depends on how you do it. But he came up with 250 to $300 billion. The lower gasoline prices may be just the liquidity and the stimulus package the economy needs.

41:59 MS. VAN RYAN: Do you have a comment on that, Rayola?

42:01 MS. DOUGHER: Oh, just in terms of API or the industry in terms of gas taxes, our policy has always been, if it is increased that it go toward the roads and that we use it in that way.

42:13 MS. KILKENNY: This is Cindy Kilkenny from Fairly Conservative. Does the industry have a response to Obama‟s plan for a windfall profits tax? Is there a written response?

42:21 MS. DOUGHER: A written one? I don‟t know if it‟s written. But we certainly don‟t approve of it. I mean, we really think that when you tax the industry, we‟ll have less money, less investment, less supply.

42:33 MS. KILKENNY: Yeah, well, I mean –

42:34 MS. DOUGHER: You set yourself up for a future with less supply and that would have its own adverse impact on prices too, probably.

42:45 MS. KILKENNY: Right, well, I mean, I know that‟s my response. But I just didn‟t know if there was anything to point to as to the industry showing history or that kind of thing.

42:54 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I suspect that they‟re going to get together and do the – this is Lou again. I mean, the industry is a huge contributor to the federal budget, huge. I was just shocked when I looked at the data last week. I‟m just surprised, all the effort in vilifying these guys, I mean –

43: 11 MS. KILKENNY: It‟s nice of you, considering how evil you are. But yeah.

43:14 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, it‟s amazing. (Chuckles.)

43:18 DEVIL‟S ADVOCATE: This is Devil‟s Advocate from Copious Dissent. Just on a quick related note to that. I‟ve heard a lot of stuff that – I mean, this may end up not mattering at all over the next week, but did Sarah Palin actually have a windfall profits tax in Alaska or was it something different, because I know Larry Kudlow said it wasn‟t. And then everyone said it was. And so, I don‟t know if that would be pushed regardless of what party gets elected.

43:40 MR. PUGLIARESI: I‟m guessing she renegotiated the severance taxes. But I don‟t know the answer.

43:46 MS. KILKENNY: Yeah, I‟ve actually done some work on that, and yes. But it‟s coming of Alaska‟s oil, so that‟s the way it goes, which is different than what might be considered a windfall tax –

43:57 MR. PUGLIARESI: Here‟s a question I have on offshore leasing. Offshore leasing has the potential to generate a lot of cash to the federal government. And I‟m wondering whether the financial pressures the government is going to find itself in next year, whether that might be a main motivator to open the program up and start to look at more prospects, because if they really do go with a pay-go program, this is one of the only sources I can see out there where you can get substantial revenues in a relatively short period of time through the bonus-bid process.

44: 34 MS. DOUGHER: Well, we keep our fingers crossed. But so far this year, we spent $6.8 billion just on the bonus bids alone. So that‟s quite a bit of money just for those new leases. In terms of royalties, last year it was $8.7 billion. So states, the federal government have a lot to gain by taking a serious look at this.

I think the problem for the industry moving forward is to have certainty, legislative certainty – even though the moratorium has been lifted, we have a number of members of Congress saying they‟re going to bring it back again.

45:08 MS. KILKENNY: It does not feel certain, that‟s true, yeah.

45:09 MS. DOUGHER: So you need to have that certainty going forward to make that investment. And if we don‟t have it, you‟re going to be very hesitant about going ahead with any exploration at all.

45:18 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah.

45:20 MR. PUGLIARESI: The issue actually, what the Congress doesn‟t even understand is that if you want people to make commitments to drill ships, to learn petroleum engineering, to do all these long-term things, what we ought to have is the largest possible inventory of opportunities as possible, partly because the whole geologic discovery process, the information is a real force multiplier in how you do something in other basins. And the notion that we should have parcel stuff and little bits and wait to see if someone finds something before they open up a little bit more is entirely the wrongheaded way to sort of maximize the value of the exploration process, including the revenues to the government.

46:09 MS. VAN RYAN: Any additional questions involving offshore drilling or bonus bids?

46:14 MR. BALCH: Well, one thing – this is Greg from The Barnyard. One thing I know is out here in California, there is over 2,000 known natural seeps off our coast that we know where the oil is. You know, it‟s not like it would take a long time to access that or to find it.

46:29 MR. PUGLIARESI: Right, actually, I heard that the city of Santa Barbara, because of two geologic studies, voted to increase drilling because the existing studies showed that the drilling was reducing the amount of natural seeps in Santa Barbara Channel.
(Cross talk.)

46:50 MR. BALCH: Sorry, I saw where some of these seeps leaked as much as a couple hundred barrels a day into the – some of these into environmentally sensitive areas.

47:01 MR. PUGLIARESI: According to the National Academy of Sciences, 63 percent of the petroleum loading into the marine environment is from natural seeps; less than 1 percent is from offshore operations. And some of the major companies claim that it‟s actually even less than that.

47:22 MS. DOUGHER: Well, I think the MMS shows that in the Gulf of Mexico something like one one-thousandth of 1 percent. And it‟s the seepage too it‟s much greater than any of the spills that occurred and that‟s where we had most of our operations. So you don‟t get much better than nature.

47:39 JOULES BURN: This is Joules Burn of the Oil Drum. And I have – I want to jump back to the economic discussion, because a couple of assumptions that seem to be swirling around with some of the discussions is that the lower gasoline prices and oil prices are sort of here to stay for the foreseeable future. When the – it seems that the recent drop in oil prices and gasoline prices has very much to do with the decreasing demand, which may have some economic reasons, but the economy in general – but also related to the previous high prices, which drove demand down. So we‟re in a situation where we have lower prices but less people are actually – less gasoline is being used.

So trying to move forward and into a situation where the economy might be growing at some point in the future would imply an up-tick in the usage. And is there – does the API believe that production will be increasing during that period to keep the prices low? Or is there a possibility of prices again going above $3.00 a gallon and higher, just based on the fact that more people, including the developing countries and China are using more gasoline?

49:12 MS. DOUGHER: We really don‟t have any forecast for the future. If we just think back to last summer, there were a number of analysts calling for $200 a barrel oil by Christmas. And here we are at 60, 65. So I think anyone would be pretty hesitant to make a forecast right now moving forward.

49:32 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, I mean, I do think you –

49:33 MS. DOUGHER: We‟re going to need the investments out there and we‟re going to need steady investment moving forward –

49:38 MR. PUGLIARESI: This is Lou again. Our view was that if you go to the beginning of the new millennium, 2002, 2003, actually you could make a forecast as to how much oil was going to be produced over the next 8 or 9 years just field-by-field analysis. And it wasn‟t that bad. And with some normally distributed errors – you might get a little bit here that fell off but a little bit of field that came on early.

And if you go through the analysis – I won‟t spend a lot of time on this – but everything that could go wrong went wrong. You know, our view is that this is a kind of silent disruption. And lots of production got hammered through a lot of different reasons – resource nationalism, civil strife, a failure of Bush to open up ANWR and the Congress, offshore leasing, the Iraq war. And so a lot of that production – so in a way, we went through a kind of disruption in terms of expectations. The path we were on – even though we have production sort of didn‟t really decline dramatically. It started to flatten out around 2006, 2007.

And of course, I agree, we were moving up a price curve in the sense that demand was expanding. But there‟s no reason – if you look sort of historically and you look at what‟s going on in the market, it‟s hard to believe that we should be up in the mid-150s range long-term. It‟s just too much that can happen below that.

51:06 MR. BURN: Well, one thing though that‟s sort of a bigger picture issue is there is a belief from certainly a lot of the voices on this call that a free-market economy is generally a stable thing. And all a government has to do is stay away and it‟s going to be this nice, stable, upwardly sailing vessel, which is just going to lift us all.

51:29 MR. PUGLIARESI: Well, I don‟t think that‟s what free-market economics says. It says that –

51:33 MR. BURN: Well, I think but there is the impression though that there will be less instability. And clearly in the last year, we‟ve had instability in all fronts. And you know, it‟s possible that instability is the norm as opposed to predicting that we‟re going to have moderate gas prices for the next year, for example. We might have big price swings in both directions again.

51:58 MR. PUGLIARESI: Of course, anything is possible. But clearly some of the instability is kind of self-inflicted. If you look at – not just the policies of the U.S. government but other governments. And obviously, probably there are more black swans out there than we expected.

52:18 MR. BURN: Well, another point is that – something that‟s not been mentioned in this call is the effect of speculation in the market, because the amount of dollars that is traded in a speculation market for oil vastly exceeds the amount of quantity that is there. I mean, by many orders of magnitude, it‟s a huge amount of money that‟s floating around looking for a place to land. And so, both moving into the market and moving out of the market can have a big impact on the price that is being paid, which feeds back into the demand. People will buy less when it‟s very expensive.

52:54 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yeah, but did you see the last CFTC report on this where they actually got all the trades? And I actually encourage people to look at that. I mean, I‟ll be very honest, our view is that these prices were driven by fundamentals of supply and demand. And the speculators didn‟t play. And remember, there‟s somebody – I don‟t quite understand. There‟s somebody on both sides of those deals. Now, maybe the bets all went one way. And they were not – I don‟t think they were quite leveraged the way the CDOs and these other things were. And the CFTC needs to show that. But it‟s really worth looking at it because they finally got all the data. And we have never been – we think the speculators might have had some modest effect at the margins here or there. But it‟s overwhelmed by the fundamentals.

53:42 MS. KILKENNY: Where would I find the data?

53:44 MR. PUGLIARESI: If you go to the CFTC website or if you e-mail me, we have a copy back at the office. And I‟ll e-mail it to you. But I think you can pull it right off the CFTC website. And it‟s a really interesting report. I mean, they finally got all the data. And then, there was a set of hearings, which also the transcriptions are worth looking at.

54:05 MR. PLANTING: This is Ron. Wasn‟t it true that they found that the so-called speculators were actually getting out of the market while prices were still rising?

54:14 MR. PUGLIARESI: Yes, yes. They have – actually got – I think they got 90-some odd percent of all the trades. It was really – it‟s really some of the best work they‟ve ever done.

54:26 MS. VAN RYAN: We‟ve been going about an hour now. Do we have any additional questions? Normally, we go about an hour and then close out the blogger conference calls. I do have a couple of questions that were sent to me by a blogger earlier who could not attend the blogger call. But we‟ve had a pretty lively discussion today, so I‟ll get back to him personally later. Is there anything else?

54:52 MS. KILKENNY: No, but if you come up with a statement on the windfall profits, do let me know.

54:57 MS. VAN RYAN: I‟ll do that. Thank you very much. Okay, we‟ll call it a day then. Thank you all for joining us. Again, we‟re going to post the audio file and transcript as quickly as we can. Thank you for joining us. Bye, everybody.

(END)

Energy Tomorrow