Dem.s At It Again. Right Church Wrong, Left Church Good.

Hey folks,

Here we go again. Right off the wires yesterday, I’m sure it will be news today, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) today announced a national campaign to inform churches about federal tax law forbidding partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. Some letters, totaling over 117,000, begin mailing today and will be sent to every house of worship in Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Missouri and Virginia.

Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director said,

"Dragging churches into partisan politics is just plain wrong. It violates tax law, it damages the integrity of religion and it harms our democracy. Dobson and other Religious Right leaders want to politicize America's pulpits. I urge religious leaders not to go along with it. Houses of worship that get drawn into Dobson's political machine could emerge with their tax-exempt status severely mangled."

Now you know they are getting desperate. I personally do not like Dobson. Never have. But this is NOT new. They tried this in 2000, 2004, now, I’m sure they will try it again. But what IS the problem here? OH it the "Right".

Yes folks, they are getting scared. They KNOW that most in this country have Conservative views. They KNOW that most people in this country still believe in morals. They KNOW that if the religious Right come together, the Left does not stand a chance.

But here is the problem with all this. THEY do it also. Just poorly. Remember Jessie Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton? Remember Hillary hopping church to church? Talking about how faithful she is. Remember the "Get out the vote" that put Bill Clinton speaking in churches in 2004? How about Al Gore speaking at Frank Church?

One of the funniest aspects of all this is the fact that while the Left cry foul, doing it themselves, they are working behind the scenes to "Get Religion". They have been doing this for a while. They just cannot seem to get it though. From the New York Times archives, November 17, 2004, Wednesday

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK (NYT); National Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 20, Column 1, 1532 words

"DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Some Democrats, bested by Republican campaign emphasizing Christian faith, are scrambling to shake off their secular image, stepping up efforts to organize 'religious left' and debating changes to how they approach cultural flashpoints of same-sex marriage and abortion; disagree about how to establish party's spiritual credentials; some play down need for changes, while others argue that Democrats need to rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language"

Again from the NYT archives,

February 11, 2005, Friday

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (NYT); National Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 20, Column 5, 1142 words

"DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Congressional Memo: Democrats are enlisting consultants, from church leaders to marketing guru and even linguist, to redefine themselves and refine message; use of word 'values' or value-laden phrases is proliferating on Capitol Hill, spinning out new morality play in which everything is cast in terms of right and wrong; Rep James E Clyburn is leading faith working group to encourage lawmakers to sprinkle references to God and religion into their speeches; but many are wary of tactic of backfiring if authenticity is missing"

They stepped it up in 2005, getting ready for this coming election, from MotherJones in 2005,

Interviewed By Michal Lumsden
March 10, 2005

"To say, as some have, that the 2004 presidential election was won and lost on "moral values" is probably an overstatement. It's nevertheless true that among church-going, God-fearing types who think the country has lost its moral bearings, George W. Bush enjoyed vastly more support than did his rival, John Kerry. Is there a lesson here for the Democrats?

Yes, there is, according to Jim Wallis, editor of the leftish religious magazine Sojourners, whose new book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, argues that Democrats, if they ever want to win an election, must learn how to talk about moral values, indeed, to talk the language of moral values, in a way that remains true to the party’s principles."

You CAN see what they are doing right? They cannot win on the issues. They cannot win against faith. So they first try to silence, then they try to fool. Look at the wordings here. "while others argue that Democrats need to rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language", "Democrats, if they ever want to win an election, must learn how to talk about moral values, indeed, to talk the language of moral values, in a way that remains true to the party’s principles.", "Rep James E Clyburn is leading faith working group to encourage lawmakers to sprinkle references to God and religion into their speeches."

You cannot have the Conservatives talking about politics in church, even know, did I mention, they do that as well, but you CAN have the LWL FAKE it? They REALLY do not get the concept. The Religious Right, or those with true faith are NOT faking. They truly believe in the Bible, and will not be fooled by "My favorite book in the New Testament is Job" {Howard Dean} or, "I have always been a women of faith" {Hillary Clinton} or, whatever other cockamamy, sorry excuse at an attempt they try.

Yes they will be threatening churches. They will be calling "unfair", whining, crying, and screaming foul. It will be news for a bit. Then the same thing will happen as it always does. They will fail and then blame you.
Peter

What the Democrats Are Really Focused On

Hey folks,

Good Monday morning to you. Yes, the big news today is the first female space thing, the stories that 14,000 "enemy combatants" are in a "legal vacuum", spinach, Pope, and the big one, President Bush to address the UN. All of these can be used by the LWL and even moderate Democrats to attack the President in one way or another. But what are they focused on today, behind closed doors at least? According to a new Rasmussen Poll


"Forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. Those are by far the best numbers for the President since mid-February.

The spike is fueled largely by a resurgence of support among the President's base. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans now offer their approval. At its low point earlier in the year, just 66% of the GOP faithful approved of his job performance."

The war in Iraq?

"Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Most Americans think our nation was changed for the worse since 9/11 and most support the President's call to try terrorist suspects through military tribunals."

Ths is not good news for the LWL. Actually it is the exact opposite of what they are going around the country telling you. Notice the numbers going up right before the election? This is because of what I told you before. Sad but true, most Americans do not care about politics, except for at election time. Now they are listening.

Couple that with another tell tale poll about Iran

"Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Americans believe that Iran is likely to develop nuclear weapons in the near future. Most doubt that anything can be done to prevent such a development.

These findings from the latest Rasmussen Reports poll come as officials of a United Nations' agency complained to the Bush Administration about a Congressional report on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Representatives from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called parts of the report "outrageous and dishonest," and suggested that misleading information about the true status of Iran's nuclear capabilities has been released to the public.

And the public is definitely interested. Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents report following the ongoing news about Iran's nuclear program closely with a plurality of 38% saying they have been following the story "very closely." Twenty-seven percent (27%) say they haven't been following the story closely.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of those surveyed believe that Iran's nuclear forays are for the development of weapons rather than energy (7%.) This is the same impression that is conveyed in the House report, which the IAEA refutes. The U.N. committee says it has evidence that Iran's nuclear facilities are producing uranium that is below weapons-grade quality.

While convinced of Iran's ill intent, only 40% of Americans believe it is possible to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons; 35% believe it is not.

Just 26% believe that diplomatic measures can convince Iran to stop."

Yes MOST Americans believe that our President is better at protecting us. His approval rating keep going up. Why do you think that so many negative articles, and attacks are increasing as well. The LWL, and the Mass Media Drones, HATE this. Remember, the Left had this whole thing won already. News Anchors were already calling Nancy Pelosi "Speaker of the House".

Look for the attacks to continue. Do not hold your breath for substance and plans. They have none. They say a lot about how much better they could do. But they fail to tell us how. America IS listening. What say you?
Peter

IWA for Sunday, September 17, 2002

Hey folks,

You know, I saw this on the NBC’s "Today Show" yesterday morning. I thought it was a joke, but then again, they have no sense of humor. So I started looking in to this a little further. Turns out to be true.

Allow me to introduce to you, Gallatin, Tennessee, Mayor Don Wright. He is a busy guy,

OCCUPATION: Author (Award Winning Historical Novels)The Woodsman, The Captives, The Last Plantation, Gone To Texas
President of Wright Properties, Inc
President of Wright Enterprises
1958-1961 AVCO (Aviation Corporation) Blueprint Reproducer
1962-1964 U. S. Army, Military Police 559th Honor Guard
1964-1982 Industrial Pipe fitter (welder, draftsman, foreman, general foreman, superintendent)
1982 – 1998 Author of 4 novels (as above)
1990-91 – President, Tennessee Writers Alliance
1992-1996 - Tennessee State Senator
1997 – present, Mayor of Gallatin

He has won many awards as well

AWARDS:
(2006) Idiot of the Week Award.
(2005) Named Mayor of the Year by the Sumner County Council of Governments
(2004) Named Mayor of the Year by the Sumner County Council of Governments
(2002) Sumner Civil Air Patrol Service Appreciation Award
(2001) Named Mayor of the Year by the Sumner County Council of Governments
(1998) Vena Stewart School Dedicated Volunteerism Service Award
(1998) National Rifle Association Defender of Second Amendment Award
(1997) Sumner County Board of Commissioners Certificate of Recognition
(1996) Little Senators Girls Softball Team Sponsor Appreciation Award (Hendersonville, TN)(1996) Tennessee Bicentennial House and Senate Joint Resolution Recognition, by State of Tennessee
(1995-1996) Governor’s Council on Agriculture and Forestry Appreciation Award
(1995) Kentucky Colonel
(1995) Awarded of Rank Tennessee Colonel
(1995) Friends in the Bend Appreciation Award for Acquiring Traffic Light at Douglas Bend
(1994) Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association Award of Lifetime Membership
(1994) Ridgetop Historical Society Service to the Community Award
(1994 and 1986) Gallatin Kiwanis Club Certificate of Appreciation
(1994) Worioto Regional Library Center and Libraries of Sumner and Robertson Counties Certificate of Appreciation for Support and Encouragement of Library Services
(1993) United Daughter s of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis Medal of Honor
(1992 and 1989) Hendersonville Noon Sertoma Certificate of Appreciation
(1991) Murfreesboro Library Awarded Honorary Life Member of Finebaugh Library
(1990) National Society of Son’s of the American Revolution Good Citizenship Medal
(1990) Gallatin Lion’s Club Certificate of Appreciation
(1987) Awarded Rank of Kentucky Colonel
(1986) Named Best Western Writer of the Year, New York City
(1986) Presented Key to the City of Hendersonville
(1986) Goodlettsville Homecoming Committee Certificate of Appreciation
(1978) Louisville, Kentucky Bicentennial Heritage Certificate of Appreciation

He seems like a really smart guy. So WHY would he not checkout EVERY aspect of those asking him to do a favor? It seems he was all too willing to say yes when "Hollywood" came a knocking. Mayor Wright says,

"They said it was family friendly. We've had a lot of movies filmed in this area during the past few years. In fact, I think Sally Field was in one of them. Anyhow, I thought it was good for business."

"I had no idea what the movie was about. They told me it was about a super hero woman and there was no nudity or offensive stuff in it. Other than that, I really didn't have a clue."

There in lies the problem. The name of the movie? "Thong Girl 3." LOL

Some advice Mayor Wright, get ALL information before agreeing to loan out your office again. How about simply the TITLE of the movie? You would think that this would at least be a clue.

Now I think he will recover from this with a few jabs and laughs. Like this one. But because of this little brain fart, congratulations Mayor Wright, for not at least asking for the title, you are the Idiot of the week.

By the way, did they offer you a part in the movie? Just curious.
Peter

Just My Thoughts {4}

Religion vs Faith

First the disclaimer. I repeat, the following contains Religion, faith, God, Jesus. What Jesus says about organized religion, {Not Positive} and the facts and location of where to find them, according to the Bible. If this type of thing offends you, then LEAVE now. I’ll see you tomorrow for the IWA. If you are truly interested in learning the way I see these things, and what the Bible actually says, then please continue. However, keep in mind, when you become offended, one, be offended at God, he said it. Two, I warned you. Three, you can stop reading the following at any time. You continue because you CHOSE to. I am not trying to convert you. I am not denouncing your right to believe as you will. I’m answering questions and speaking on how I see these things,


Hey folks,


Someone asked me, after having read the "Just My Thoughts {3}" ,

"Hey Pete, How do you reconcile those parts in the bible that you have stated with the following?: Exodus 23:4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. Proverbs 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good."

I promised a response to this, then a realization came into being that I was being unfair to those at the site where this question was posed. But I know the person asking the question comes here also so I will answer here and espouse my original post and attempt to further explain how I feel.

The simple fact is, Religion is not salvation. Just simply following ANY religion is not enough to guarantee entry into Heaven. There is a very distinct difference in following manmade traditions and having faith in God.

First to answer Marvin’s questions. Simply put, they can all be answered by one answer.

Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath for it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord."

It goes on to say that by doing so, you are actually cursing them. You release your anger and hatred to God, HE can and will do FAR more than you possibly could to them. But you would have to be alive. Jesus and the prophets were NOT talking about allowing your enemy to kill you.

Check out Matthew 15-1-15, Mark 7:1-13 Jesus spoke out against religion. In John 6:41-59 Jesus told of the TRUE way to God. In John 8:31-59, He spoke of the fact we are NOT all God’s children, but those who accept Him alone. No matter how religious you are. Romans 8 gives a micro-version of life and salvation. Walking in faith, and choosing not to. The difference in the two. Galatians1:11-17 Paul talks about the difference in faith vs. religion. As I said before,

He is talking about those who blindly follow manmade traditions and religion, without accepting him truly and learning what God, not man made traditions say about this or that. He is talking a personal relationship with HIM and faith in HIM. HE is the key.

If you use the key, you will then and ONLY then, open up the flood gates of Heaven that will grant you unconditional love and indescribable peace. Without using the key, you can not expect anything. Only if you use the key, accepting what Jesus did for you personally, can you say He knows you. We are all God’s creation, but to be a child of God, you must be adopted. You must go thought the process.

Yes Jesus loves you, heals the sick, works miracles, and died for YOU. There is no greater love than that. But the catalyst to receiving the benefits of belonging to that family is the adoption. He made it REALLY simple for you. A simple yes or no. I cannot do it for you. Jesus cannot do it for you, God himself, the devil, the little blue man on the moon, cannot do it for you, only YOU can.

You have to fully understand the difference in what God says about certain things, and what man says. You must take some time, more than an hour every other week or so if you have time on Sunday, to find out for yourself what God says. Read HIS Word. All the answers are there.
Peter

Anti-American Summit / NAM

Hey folks,

If there was any doubt as to why we NEED leadership that is willing and able to protect us, this is it. The anti-America summit. This summit was suppose to be hosed by Cuban President Fidel Castro, but he was too sick to participate.

Of corse "Little Hitler" is involved. He said,

"The United States is turning the Security Council into a platform for imposing its policies. ... We should reinforce NAM and it should play its role more efficiently," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the summit on Friday.

That’s right, he says the UN is U.S. dominated and simply a tool used to impose our will on other countries. The UN is nothing more than a waste of time, very anti-American itself, and a joke, plain and simple. Of corse, who do you think would love to be in charge of NAM? I wonder if he’ll shave his beard and keep a moustache.

You can get the full picture of NAM here at Wikipedia

Think about this, according to Wikipedia, they are 117 members of NAM, Among those are some that absolutely hate America. Let’s say for a second that "Little Hitler" is able to become the head of it. Do you feel comfortable having the LWL running this country? Do you feel comfortable in turning over YOUR security to appears and those that simply cannot see reality?

You are watching the rise to power of a new Hitler. You are watching the rise to power of the new Nazi party. You are watching those that want us dead, just because we breath, get more and more organized. As all this is taking place, you are watching a major political party ignore it, and completely attack their own leader, and country. Are you sure you want those with no other plan than "Get Bush" to take over? If your answer is yes, you may want to get used to saluting.
Peter

Pope Benedict XVI in Trouble With Jihad

Hey folks,

It appears that the Pope is in trouble with Islamic fascists. You see, the Pope spoke out against those that would twist the Islamic religion and Koran, to attempt to justify the killing of innocent lives. He denounced those that were conducting jihad, and killing themselfs for "god".

Now, according to the AFP they are upset with him.

"Pakistan's parliament unanimously called on Pope Benedict XVI to retract his controversial remarks linking Islam with violence, while the foreign office accused him of "ignorance".

The overwhelmingly Muslim country's national assembly passed a resolution proposed by a legislator from an alliance of hardline Islamic parties, officials said Friday.

"This House demands that the pope should retract his remarks in the interest of harmony between religions," said the resolution, a copy of which was read to AFP by a parliamentary official.

"The derogatory remarks of the pope about the philosophy of jihad and Prophet Mohammed have injured sentiments across the Muslim world and pose the danger of spreading acrimony among the religions."

Pope Benedict provoked an outcry with comments on Tuesday in a theological lecture in which he implicitly denounced connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or "holy war"."

What he did folks, is point out that Islamic fascists are not truly following the Koran, Mohamad, or the religion itself. What they are doing is twisting it to fit their insane notion that they are justified in slaughtering innocent lives, just because they do not follow Islam. What he did, in essence, is wonder why those true followers of Islam, do not speak out against those who mis-use their religion.

Then you have the foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam who saying,

"Anyone who says that there is anything inherently evil or inhuman about Islam only shows his own ignorance of this great religion," foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told AFP.

The ministry said Pope Benedict's remarks were "regrettable." "They widen the gulf between religions that we are working so hard to bridge," Aslam said.

"It also shows ignorance of history. It was certainly not Muslims who persecuted the followers of other religions," she said, adding that Islam was the most tolerant religion."

Yes Islam may have been Ms. Aslam, but that all changed when some took it, twisted it, and are now hiding behind it, to justify their actions.


I wonder if the LWL, or those anti war folks out there will have the testicular fortitude to stand with these people in denouncing the Pope. You know, as well as I, that if Ms. Aslam was speaking out and denouncing America, President Bush, or the Republicans in office, they would be lining up, salivating, drool dripping, sweat forming, adrenalin shaking, to get behind her. But we are talking about the Pope here. I wonder what they will do.
Peter

The IAEA is Iran’s Patsies





Hey folks,


How about a two for Thursday. I found some extra time today so here you go. I just caught this AP article

"A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms."

This is going to be all over the place tomorrow folks. The LWL will be attacking the Republicans and Bush for lying, playing politics, and creating another Iraq. I can hear them now. "You can fool us once Mr. President. But you cannot fool us again. Iran is NO threat. We will not allow you to do the same to Iran, as you did to Iraq." Three guesses who you think will be saying these things. It must be true. The UN said so.

"The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

OK. So why are the inspectors not allowed to inspect? Well according to Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee,

"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."

YES it does. If you dis-agree with "Little Hitler" and anyone else that hates Bush, you are wrong. According to them. The appeasement is mind boggling folks. But if you do not believe me, just read the last two paragraphs of this article.

"The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election."

Absolutely my point. ElBaradei hates Bush. He hates America. He would block any real attempts by our government to protect itself, because he WANTS us to fail. He shielded Saddam. He is attempting to shield "Little Hitler". He is protecting one that openly says he wants Israel wiped off the map. He wants us dead. He would give up halve his own country to make it happen. But a report that tells the truth about a threat against us is "outrageous and dishonest".

No condemnation of Iraq. No condemnation of Iran. No problem with sick and twisted terrorists. WE are the ones that are wrong. OK Mr. ElBaradei, you can go away now. You are as useless as the UN.
Peter

The Excuse Foundation.

Hey folks,

Mark my words. Note the calender. 55 days away, the foundation is being laid. USATODAY has two stories about it, NPR is running a story on it. A bunch of local papers are as well today. What’s the story? Voting machine "glitches".

The funny thing is when you read these stories, you find that they are not actually talking about the machines. They are talking about the poorly trained staff that will be there to operate them. Would this not be people "glitches"?

So why are they talking about this 55 days out? Is it because they want to have the people trained better so when this most important day comes, we will be ready? Well, if so, they do not say that. They just talk about all the problems they are having. USATODAY has a graphic depicting when the voting machines were changed by year.

Check it out here

Notice Florida is the earliest.{Smile}

They are doing this to give the Democrats a way out. There is so much more talk about it not being so much of a guarantee anymore. They are getting nervous. They are still publically stating that it’s a "lock", but behind closed doors? This is a different story. From 9-11 to democratic committees admitting to wrong doing, the way they treated Lieberman, to the new Rasmussen Report

"Forty-five percent (45%) of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

The President hasn't enjoyed a 45% approval rating since a couple of days in July. His ratings haven't been higher than 45% since February 22, 2006."

and

"Republican prospects for retaining the Senate received a boost yesterday in Rhode Island when Lincoln Chafee narrowly won his primary. While Chafee trails by two points in our most recent Rhode Island poll, he is at least competitive. Had Laffey won, the seat would have been shifted to the Democrats column in our Senate Balance of Power summary. In Maryland, the Democrats also nominated their strongest candidate. We will be polling in both of these states again soon. (see State-by-State Summary).


Rasmussen Reports now lists 49 seats as Republican or Leans Republican and 45 seats as Democrat or Leans Democrat. Six states are listed as Toss-Ups. The Toss-Up states are Tennessee, New Jersey, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and Rhode Island."

So is the Left coming out with plans and policies to counter this trend? Are they giving the American people an agenda to vote for? Nope. Of course not. They are laying a foundation for excuses as to why they do not win the House or Senate. We all know, it couldn’t possibly be their fault.
Peter

Yet Another Example. The Left Can’t Run on Policies

Hey folks,

Here is yet another example of the fact that the Left Wing Looneys can’t run on policies. They have none. So all they do is attack, legally or not, because they think you are stupid. The latest example, I guarantee not the last, is the whole Schwarzenegger thing.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had a privet conversation with his friend, and now the LWL come out and attempt to use it against him. They are running into some problems though they had not counted on.

First, they broke the law to get the recording, and got caught doing it. According to Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, Andrea Lynn Hoch, the sound file was stored in a password protected area. She said she forwarded the Internet Protocol address used to download the file to those who are conducting the investigation.

Second, and you have to love this one, noone was offended at the remarks. What was the offensive "Racial Slanders" uttered by Gov. Schwarzenegger ? He said that he thought that Bonnie Garcia, and Cubans and Puerto Ricans in general was "very hot'' because of a combination of what he calls "black blood'' and "Latino blood.'' NOONE including Bonnie Garcia was offended.

You know this is driving them nuts. But NOW during the investigation, we find out who leaked this story to the press. It was the Looneys. That’s right, Cathy Calfo, campaign manager for Democrat Phil Angelides, Schwarzenegger’s opponent, said she was unhappy that two campaign staffers had passed the audio clip to the Times without her knowledge. Angelides did not know about it, either.

Bunk. Pure bunk. She said,

"We're looking into it now, am I happy? No."

Of course not. You got caught. {LOL} Of course you are not happy. This is just another example of the fact that they cannot run on issues, policies, and plans. They have none.

Look, if you ran on substance, policies, and had a concise, attainable, plan, that you feel strongly and passionately about, I would maybe vote for you. If I agreed with your vision, I would stand behind you and vote for you all the way. So would most people. But they have nothing. So they simply attack.

You have to give the Repub.s credit. For the most part, even when they lose, they loose passionately. They have firm beliefs, plans, policies, and feel strongly about them. They stand for what they believe. They inform you of what you can expect if you where to vote them in. If they lose, they go down in flames steadfast in their beliefs.

But the LWL? All they want is power. Their "guaranteed" take over is no longer a "guarantee". More and more are starting to realize this. Yet, they still don’t get it.
Peter

Poll Shows Most Americans Know the Truth

Hey folks,

On a side note, according to Rush, only one minute, that’s right ONE minute of "The Path to 9-11" was cut out of the movie. Some words were changed around, but pretty much, the totalitarian of the meanings and movie itself remained the same. So kudos to ABC for not caving to the immense pressure put on the by the Clintonites.

But a new CNN poll shows that most Americans, 57 percent, say, they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

Wait a second, that’s not what the article wants you to believe though. That’s not the headline. What is the Headline? "Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11" You can read the whole short article here

Yes folks, more Americans blame Bush for 9-11. Can you say counter to movie? Can you say politics? If you just read the headline, you would think that most Americans are against Bush and the War. But this is not the case. Most Americans know the truth. There are animals out there that want us dead.

But the CNN report uses the word "fatalistic" {That would be fatalism >noun 1 the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable. 2 a submissive attitude to events, for those that need extra help in understanding} to describe these people. So are they saying the most Americans are submissive? Easily duped by the President? Is CNN calling you stupid?

Polls give numbers. The numbers are determined by how the questions are asked, whom the questions are asked to, and the wording of those numbers can determine a whole other meaning. In other words folks, the poll shows what the pollsters want. If not, they word it so it seems like it does. But if you get beyond the political rhetoric and simply look at the numbers, you may find that the poll, in some cases, says the opposite of what they claim.
Look at the numbers that Betty posted in the comment section.

"Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's up three points from a month ago,"

Stop!!!!! That is the number. 41 percent of Americans feel we are winning the war. According to this poll anyway. {Not sure where she got it from.} 41 percent. Now continue,,,

"but"

Stop!!!!! Translation, "We do not like this number or the fact it is on the rise. So we are going to spin it." Continue,,,

"the August figures matched the lowest level of confidence ever recorded on this question. Americans are also pessimistic about the situation in Iraq and just 33% give President Bush good or excellent ratings in this arena. Questions concerning the War on Terror and Iraq continue to reveal huge perception gaps between Republicans and Democrats."

You get the point. I will respond to her on this and other topics when time allows. Hopefully soon. You should checkout the comment sections more. They could get interesting. {Smile}

The point is folks, yesterday in the • LA Times • NY Times • The Hill Philadelphia Inquirer • Zogby: Santorum Surging in Pennsylvania Senate Race they are all saying how this may not be such an easy walk for the Democrats. Now CNN puts out a headline "Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9-11"?

You have to read through this stuff to see what is truly going on. But, the only opinion that matters is YOUR'S on election day. Then, and only then, will we truly know how America feels.
Peter

ABC Ran With It, Sort Of

Hey folks,

All the way up to the time, people sat and waited. Was "Charlie Brown" or a repeat of one of their shows, or maybe some sort of special coming on, or was ABC going to grow a set, and actually show the movie "The Path to 9-11"

Well, they did show night one. Now I cannot speak to the changes that were made, having not seen the original version. I will be tuning into "Rush" today at 12pm to see what he has to say. He saw the original uncut version.

According to this AP article


"ABC made several editing changes to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" following furious protests by Clinton administration officials that it fabricated scenes about their actions prior to the terrorist attacks."

Here are some of the changes according to this story.

"In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.

But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."

O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."

Another scene in the critics' cut pictured O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"

Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."

This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.

Another scene in the movie that depicted a team of CIA operatives poised outside of bin Laden's fortess in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially shortened from the original. Pictures of the waiting Afghanistan operatives are interspersed with those of officials in Washington, who had to approve the mission.

The original version depicted national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on CIA chief George Tenet as Tenet sought permission to attack bin Laden. The movie aired Sunday did not include Berger hanging up."

OK, here’s the problem, like this hang up scene. It really happened. So did the fact we had numerous time to get bin Laden. The time when we had him surrounded HAPPENED. The ex-President has come out, on tape, with his own words, said he had many opportunities to get him, he CHOSE not to. Why is it so hard to understand, that he WAS preoccupied? Not to mention the fact he was clueless when it came to national security.

The last two paragraphs are true.

"John Lehman, another Republican commission members, said on the ABC News show that he's told the film is equally harsh on the administrations of President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

"And if you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," Lehman said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."

Like a movie depicting Bush being assassinated. Did you hear President Bush protesting the movie? Threatening the makers? Have you heard President Bush complain about ANY of those who attack him on a daily bases? Do you remember him complaining about "Fahrenheit 9/11"? Do you remember President Bush complaining that he did not receive a preview? He doesn’t, because he doesn’t have to. His administration, and the legacy he leaves behind, is not build on media spin.

It should be really interesting to see the fall out today. The "Clintonites" will be in overdrive today. Then again, if you think about it. If you hear nothing, or very little today, then you will TRULY know, just how much ABC cut and changed. But I have a feeling it will be a busy day.
Peter

IWA for Sunday September 10, 2002

Hey folks,

Short and sweet today. THERE IS NO DOUBT!!!! None. Who the winner is this week. I just cannot believe this one folks.

LOL {Banging hand on desk} It appears that a 42-year-old man, identity withheld, driving an old Citroen in the Slovak town of Levice, had ignored a "give way" sign. He crashed into a bus.

Now I know I’ve been guilty of changing the radio station, lighting a cigarette, or picking up my coffee, and sometimes I take my eyes off the road. I’ve had some close calls in the years I’ve been driving. I know that the right thing to do is ALWAYS keep your eye on the road. Even the very best drivers have to watch out for the "other guy."

So what caused this driver’s attention to be diverted from the road?

"It's very likely he had auto-sex while driving, it is a matter of investigation. After the accident he was found lying in the seat, his pants were off and it (the pump) was placed on his penis," police officer Peter Polak told Reuters.

"I've never seen anything like this, nor have my colleagues," he added.

Talk about a bad day. LOL I’m sorry, I have nothing more to say about this one. {Wipe tear from eye} Congratulations "Pump Man" you ARE the Idiot of the Week.
Peter

Just My Thoughts {3}

Hey folks,


Today’s thought is more of an answer to a question that I have been asked for years now. In some form or another. I am going to warn you up front that Jesus, God, religion, and faith are the topics today. If this offends you, just leave now.

For those of you that are still here, the question that am honestly going to attempt to answer is, "What would Jesus do." It has been asked to me in many forms and many ways, covering a vast array of topics. It is usually asked for one of three reasons.


1- Someone discovers that I believe in Jesus, and the Bible being The word of God, Then they have heard me saying things like I understand the death penalty, or as of late, I understand the reason we are at war, or I understand if "torturing" one person would save thousands of lives, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. They are honestly confused or curious as to how I can see things this way.

2- They believe in God, Jesus, and have followed the teachings of their religion, and have always been taught the "Turn the Other Cheek" Jesus. The one that never gets angry. The one that would allow anyone do anything to him, including even death. Hence, Salvation.


3-{In most cases} the questioner does not believe in Jesus. Doesn’t believe in God. Has a disdain for anything even remotely Christian, and thinks that by asking this, using the "Turn the Other Cheek" Jesus, they are somehow "getting me". Catching me in hypocrisies.


The latest reason for this question is the war. The latest reason for this question is the President announcing the existence of secret prisons. As in most cases, the ones asking this question really do not believe in Jesus, God, or the Bible. They have a near hatred for Christianity and anyone who claims they have faith in God.

The answer, as far as I go, is both complicated for some to understand, but truly simplistic to me. It is based on the real Jesus, and what the Bible ACTUALLY says about Him. There are many places in The Word that points out that not only did Jesus get angry, but he did something about it. I will point out three.


The first, Matthew 21:18,19 tells the story of Jesus waking in the morning and was hungry. He saw a fig tree and walked to it only to find that it had no fruit. Jesus got angry. He said to the tree that it shall never bare anymore fruit. It withered and died as they watched. Jesus got angry at the tree for not doing what it should do, produce fruit, so he reacted to that failure. He did not walk away, and look for another tree. He dealt with the one the failed.


When Peter pointed this occurrence out later, Jesus did not say to him, do not do this. Do not react out of anger. He said, if he had faith in God, even he could say, not only to a tree, but an entire mountain to be moved and cast into the sea, and not doubt, he would have it. Mark 11


Second, the death of Lazarus. John 11:35-43. Jesus so loved Lazarus that when he heard of his death, Jesus wept. He became angry saying that this man should not have died. He went to the grave and raised Lazarus from the dead four days after he died. Did Jesus say, death is just part of life and we must learn to deal with it? No, he became angry and dealt with death directly.


Third, and the one I will concentrate mostly on in response to this question {about the war and torture} John 2:13-16 tells of how Jesus came upon a temple where he found "money changers" people buying and selling things. He saw this as them invading his house. Did he say, forgive them? Did he say let’s negociate with them? Did he ask them anything? No. He saw them invading his house, and attacking the reason for it being. He took a "scourge of cords" a whip basically, and drove them out. He turned over tables and destroy their things. I would say, he was angry. Wouldn’t you?


It is really simple. People invaded, and attacked. Not only did Jesus confront them, but he did so with a weapon. He caused destruction. If I see someone attempting to, or actually attacking our house, America, not only do I think Jesus would have no problem with us attacking them. With weapons. Jesus knew he could not reason with those there. So he simply did not waste the time trying. He dealt with them.

This "Turn the other cheek" Gandhi like Jesus is only half of the real Jesus. We learn in Sunday school that "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." But what so many people forget is the dividing rod. What so many people do not seem to realize, or choose not to accept is the key. You have to accept him, before he can accept you.


In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said,


"Not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that does the will of my Father who is in Heaven."


The plan of Salvation. Following God’s Word. Accepting Jesus’s sacrifice for yourself.


"Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? In your name cast out devils, and in your name done many wonderful works?


I will profess onto them, I never knew you, depart from me, you who work iniquity."


He is talking about those who blindly follow man made traditions and religion, without accepting him truly and learning what God, not man made traditions say about this or that. He is talking a personal relationship with HIM and faith in HIM. HE is the key.


If you use the key, you will then and ONLY then, open up the flood gates of Heaven that will grant you unconditional love and indescribable peace. Without using the key, you can not expect anything. Only if you use the key, accepting what Jesus did for you personally, can you say He knows you. We are all God’s creation, but to be a child of God, you must be adopted. You must go thought the process.


Yes Jesus loves you, heals the sick, works miracles, and died for YOU. There is no greater love than that. But the catalyst to receiving the benefits of belonging to that family is the adoption. He made it REALLY simple for you. A simple yes or no. I cannot do it for you. Jesus cannot do it for you, God himself, the devil, the little blue man on the moon, cannot do it for you, only YOU can.


Now my view on torture. First of all, you would have to define torture to me. Forced nudity? Things that do not seem to much worse than hazing? Sleep depravation? I’m not all that sure I would call this "torture". The way I see it, if making some one uncomfortable, embarrassed, or tired, saves another three thousand lives? I really do not think I have a problem with it. Jesus? Truth is, I do not know what His feelings on torture is. Neither do you. The topic is never discussed.


I’m sorry folks, but I really do not understand this. The very same guy, that some are upset over him being force to be naked, or kept awake for a few days, that would kill you, your spouse, kids, and attempt to wipe your very existence off the planet tomorrow if given the chance. Your crime against him? You breath.


Yes, I believe in Jesus, God and The Word. Yes I understand we are at war with those that want us dead. I have no problem in believing in this and the war. Jesus would not allow His house to be invaded, why would He be against us defending ours? He wouldn’t Yes, the all merciful and forgiving Jesus is real, but you have to ask for forgiveness to be forgiven.


I hope that may have answered your question, or at least help you to better understand my point of view on these things a little better.
Peter

Tell The Truth? Clinton?

Hey folks,

Good Saturday morning.


"I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report," Clinton told reporters in Arkansas on Thursday.

"They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradictory to the factual findings of the 9/11 commission. I just want people to tell the truth."

LOL They ARE telling the truth. They say some of the very same things that came out of your own mouth Mr. Clinton. YOU said YOU could have had him numerous times. YOU said YOU chose not to, for whatever excuse you are using today. YOU, former President Bill Clinton have admitted these things on tape.

This is completely unbelievable. Now according to Reuters, CNN, AP, USA, NYT, just about anywhere you want to look, you will see that they {ABC} are STILL "tinkering" with the mini-series. They are still editing it folks, Translation, the Clinton gang are attacking Free Speech. They are threatening them with their broadcast licence, and further retribution, if they {ABC} make them look bad. {By telling the truth} Where is the ACLU?

If ABC completely caves to the little winy, insecure, babies, that are so filled with fear that they will be "discovered" to be incompetent, this will truly be a sad day for free speech.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I have to go for now. Be back soon.
Peter

Sorry So Late, Major Computer Problems,

Yes folks,

I was greeted at 5 am this morning with MAJOR computer problems. I wanted to post the "Daily Article" at that time, so YOU could get it first thing as always, but just simply not possible. I’ve had someone working on it and we are back up and running. Since I wrote this last night, there is a WEALTH of more information about all this that I will have to add in later updates.

Now ABC Licence is being threatened. Now ABC is thinking about outright pulling it. Never to show it? I have a lot to say about that when time allows. But for now, here is your Daily Article for today.

Once again, sorry so late. It could not be avoided. Trust me on that one. I’m just NOW calming down. See you all tomorrow.
Peter

Bush Assassinated OK / Clinton Incompetent? Can’t Have That.

Hey folks,

A follow up on the story I told you about yesterday. The new "Path to 9-11" movie is really stirring up some ulcers on the Clinton side. The MMD {Mass Media Drones for those who need a little extra help in understanding} falling in line. You cannot make this stuff up. Like I said, Should be interesting to watch, I can’t wait. Should also be interesting to watch the fallout as well. I was wrong about that. Yes folks, I made a mistake. I forgot to mention the jump up.

Like I also said, make a movie about Bush, the CURRENT President being assassinated, that’s OK. That’s artistic. That’s freedom of speech. That is great, everyone should go to see the movie. But make a movie about how Clinton was incompetent, aiding in the 9-11 attacks out of sheer ignorance, I know, he was busy with other things, and you get what we are getting. What happened to be artistic? What happened to freedom of speech. What happened to a "must see"? Now it appears that ABC is having their broadcase license threatened.

There are WAY too many articles and news out lets out there reporting this to link to. I’m just going to highlight some quotes. And comment on this stupidity in general.

Get this, in the past week, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express their {LOL} concerns over this movie. What is their concern? STRICTLY one thing, the Clinton legacy. That’s it. They HAVE to be concerned. Their legacy is built on nothing more than media spin.

"By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," Lindsey and Band said in their letter.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

LOL this is too much. Translation folks, "Don’t make us look bad. We worked hard in covering this all up, change things around so we can blame Bush. After all Sandy Berger got paper cuts, where noone should EVER get paper cuts, trying to cover this up. You CAN"T show this."

They go on and on about how this and that never happened. We are suppose to believe them all NOW? Clinton lied under oath about having sex. You really think he wouldn’t lie about helping to cause three thousand American deaths and putting us in a WAR, through his complete incompetence?

Then you have former congressman Joe Scarborough trying to create a conspiracy. He said,

"ABC is refusing to provide a copy of the miniseries to President Clinton, his former National Security Advisor Sandy Burglar and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but has given Rush Limbaugh a copy of the tape. Bill Clinton was not allowed to watch this, but Rush Limbaugh says, Clinton's working behind the scenes to get the film reedited that Limbaugh saw."

He IS folks, and ABC caved. They are editing it as we speak.The Times reported that ABC was considering last-minute changes to the film.

"It is common practice to continue to make edits to strengthen a project right up to the broadcast date," Hope Hartman, an ABC spokeswoman, told the Times.

Especially when you cave in. The MMD guru must have had enough with the nagging.

I know, I know you are thinking. Well, CBS dropped a four hour miniseries about the Reagans in 2003, after Republican and conservative groups complained about its portrayal of the former President and First Lady. "The Reagans" later aired on cable's Showtime channel. Hey there you go. Leave the movie as is, you know, complete with the truth still intact, put it on Showtime. Then ABC is off the hook, and those who want to watch it, can see what it IS suppose to be like.

Now keep in mind this important fact, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and served as a consultant for the ABC miniseries, defended the production as politically balanced. He said,

"People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one." He is talking about day two, which noone has seen yet.


The movie focuses on the TERRORIST. Not placing sole blame on either party. But, some of the facts must be hitting home with some knee shaking, quivering, little looneys. They do not want this to even be put out. They want Robert Iger, to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

I’m not sure how much more of this one I can take. This is absolutely side busting funny. There HAS to be some truth to this. Why else would they be fighting so very hard to continue they coving up?

One of the real tell tail signs of why they are so upset about this, besides defending their spun legacy, is what some Democrats are actually saying. Same thing they are saying about President Bush announcing the "Secret Prisons".

Jane Harman (Democrat, California) said,

"I disagree with the timing of this rollout. I'd also point out that for years those of us who have taken an oath to protect classified information have never disclosed anything we know, and now on day one of the final two months leading up to the election, the president dumps it all out there and talks about 14 people who are, in my view, uh, serious, heinous criminals. So I'm not soft on any of these people, but what I am saying is that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to protect the Constitution, to protect the laws we've passed, and to make certain that whatever process applies to these people will, uh, in our eyes and the world's eyes, ah, seem to be fair."

She said, "I disagree with the timing of this rollout", and "and now on day one of the final two months leading up to the election, the president dumps it all out there and talks about 14 people who are, in my view, uh,"

Yes Mis Harman, "uh". President Bush pulled a fast one. Yes Mis. Harman, the docudrama is coming out two months before the elections. "Uh" Mis Harman? When did the 9-11 attacks occur?

Oh and the Guru word of the day seems to be "jujitsu", for those that might have missed that. Over and over again, in various outlets, "jujitsu" seems to be the definition of the President’s announcement. But no, they do not work together.

OFF TOPIC, OFF TOPIC. Sorry folks. Like I keep saying, it is amazing to me that a movie depicting the CURRENT, SITTING, President being assassinated is OK, but this movie, depicting the events leading up to the worst terrorist attack EVER on US soil is BAD. Needs to be pulled. Do not show that.

I’m way long here, so I have to go. I guarantee you this though, this, is not the end of the story. I hope ABC grows some, and puts it on as it was meant to be seen. I doubt it, but I would hope then that either via DVD or cable, they DO release the "unedited" version. Let the people decide AFTER they watch it.
Peter

"The Path to 9/11" Puts Fear Into Clintons

Hey folks,

Good morning. It’s Thursday, only one to go. No new information to the story we were following last night about the "standoff" with armed,,now no armed, people in a high school. The local Police Chief has some MAJOR explaining to do. More when and if that becomes available.

But here is an interesting story. Let’s see if this makes main stream news.

"The Path to 9/11," a six-hour miniseries scheduled to air September 10 and 11 on ABC, has certain former members of the Clinton administration in a panic.

The docudrama is thoroughly sourced and exposes information that former members of the Clinton administration had previously tried to suppress: that there was a failure on the part of the administration to respond to terrorism, inaction that ended up being partly to blame for the tragic events that took place on 9/11." Whole story here

According to the article,

"The miniseries stars Oscar nominee Harvey Keitel ("Pulp Fiction," "The Piano"), who plays the role of FBI agent John O'Neill. O'Neill is the FBI terrorism chief who attempted to convince the Clinton administration that it needed to deal with the danger that Osama bin Laden posed.

Ironically, after leaving the FBI, O'Neill took the job of security director for the World Trade Center. Along with thousands of others he died on that fateful September day."

Then were have a "big surprise",

"Because the program specifically deals with the Clinton administration's failure to act when bin Laden was offered, a left-wing outcry has erupted on the Internet along with attempts to vilify the miniseries before it is even shown."

Of course. Why would this surprise anybody. Now those the created the movie claim that,

"It stated that the series "is not a documentary," nor is it "a right wing agenda movie."

"The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush,"

Yes, but it's OK to have a movie depicting the murder of Bush. Right?

LOL, the article also reminds you of some of the bizarre things that took place during the investigation like "Sandy Berger's bizarre and illegal behavior (the actions in which the former national security adviser from the Clinton administration stuffed classified documents into his pants and socks) actually occurred while the commission was in the midst of conducting its investigation."

Also lays out the times that President Clinton admitted he could have had bin Laden. Think about this folks, if Clinton DID take him when offered, 9-11 would have never happened. We would not be at war now.

I love the last paragraph,

"A combination of obfuscation by some committee members and a mainstream media bent on blaming Bush has prevented the real trail, which leads from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 9/11 tragedy, from seeing the light of day.

"Path" may provide some long-awaited illumination to an event that has been partially shrouded in mystery — until now."

OK two. Should be interesting to watch, I can’t wait. Should also be interesting to watch the fallout as well.
Peter

Update 2 Maybe More Accuracy in the AM

Hey folks,

Well, this is interesting. Now according to FoxNews

GANADO, Ariz. — A high school in northeastern Arizona was locked down as a precaution and there was no standoff with armed people inside as earlier reported by the local police chief, an FBI spokeswoman said.

A report that six armed people were holed up at Ganado High School on Wednesday on the nation's largest Indian reservation turned out to be false after authorities said they had evacuated students, said Deborah McCarley, a spokeswoman for the FBI.

"They are investigating the allegations there was a student or students that have or had weapons on school grounds today," McCarley said.

McCarley said she knew of no weapons that were found at the school.

Maybe in the morning we’ll get more accurate information.
Peter

School Update,


According to FoxNews


The school was bringing some students out by bus, said Selena Manychildren, a spokeswoman for the emergency services department of the Navajo Nation, where the school is located. The students were headed to a nearby building,

It's not known how many students were inside the school.

About six parents were waiting word at the Cornfield Chapter House, which is 15 miles from the high school.

Marilyn Begay, an office specialist at the house, was counseling concerned parents while worrying about her 16-year-old son, a student at Ganado High. Begay said her son usually arrives home at mid-afternoon by school bus. When he did not show up, a panicked Begay called another parent and heard about a possible hostage situation at the school.

Begay is unsure if her son is safe and said the incident should have school administrators rethinking campus security.

"I have brought this up before. They don't have enough security. It's pretty sad that our kids are not being watched. There's supposed to be security everywhere in the school building which I kind of requested."

In the meantime, Begay is hoping to hear news from the school or her 21-year-old daughter, who drove out to the scene.

Ganado, a community of 1,500 people on Navajo Nation land, is 315 miles northeast of Phoenix.

Still waiting to see more info..
Peter

Breaking News, Six Armed Person Holding Students Hostage,

Hey folks,

Just stopped in to respond to Betty, I see that there is breaking news. Right now, six people, uncertain if they are students or adults, said to be a male is armed with a gun, while five females have knives, are held up at Ganado High School in northeastern Arizona according to Jim Benally, police chief for Window Rock, a nearby community.

According to authorities, the incident began around mid-afternoon and that police sealed off the area around the school.

Looking for more information, and will bring you updates if they become available before I leave tonight.
Peter