The Continuing Quest To Lose The War

Hey folks,

I just posted the President’s Rose Garden Speech from yesterday. Some highlights?

“It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed.”

This is not going to happen. They suffer, to greatly, from the effects of BDS. They have to lose this war. If America wins, they are done politically. They are fighting for their very survival. They HAVE to do everything they can to cause surrender and defeat, without putting the blame on them.

“In February, I submitted to Congress a Defense Department spending bill for the upcoming fiscal year that will provide funds to upgrade our equipment for our troops in Iraq and provides a pay raise for our military -- it's a comprehensive spending request that Congress has failed to act on. Instead, the Democratic leaders chose to have a political debate on a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The House and Senate are now scheduled to leave for their August recess before passing a bill to support our troops and their missions. Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our troops fighting there.”

Notice that the LWL have said “How dare the Iraqi Government take time off while we are at war there. Uh, see you after our summer break.”

They do not want to support the troops. They want us to lose. But again, they want the blame on YOU Mr. President, not on them. If they truly believed that surrender and leaving the bloodbath that follows was as popular as the Mass Media reports, they would just cut the funding totally and bring the troops home.

As for them coming back with less than a month before the funds run out? They did this before. This is not new. Same old garbage they keep doing over and over.

“Just this week, our military forces announced the capture of one of al Qaeda's top Iraqi leaders. He helped to form what al Qaeda calls the Islamic State in Iraq, in an attempt to replicate what the Taliban had created in Afghanistan. Today that leader is under arrest, and his followers are under siege.”

They just ignore progress. It doesn’t fit their mission.

“They confirmed General David Petraeus as commander of our forces without a single dissenting vote. And now, barely a month after his strategy became fully operational, many of those same senators are saying that that strategy has failed.”

Again, they cannot have success. They have even come out and said, we will not believe the report in September no matter what it says. So they have become completely worthless and meaningless. This do nothing Congress is more of a danger to the American people, and the people of Iraq than some of the failed terrorist attacks.

“Failure in Iraq would allow terrorists to operate from a safe haven with access to the world's third largest oil reserves. Failure in Iraq would increase the probability that at some later date, American troops would have to return to Iraq to confront an enemy more dangerous and more entrenched. Failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal to America's enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat.”

They do not care. They see failure in Iraq as a political tool to “get” you Mr. President.

LWL member and Traitor Pelosi’s response?

"The partisan attacks by President Bush only demonstrate his administration's unwillingness to work with Congress to give our men and women in uniform the support they deserve, including a new direction in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

WRONG! You are the partisan one. YOU are the Surrender Money. You are nothing but an impotent and unimportant tool of the Looney base. The Moveon.org type. YOU are bought and paid for. Owned by the likes of George Soros.

Then you have this by the AP-House to defy Bush with defense bill By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

House Democrats next week will introduce a $460 billion military spending bill they will use to challenge the war in Iraq, try to close Guantanamo Bay prison and increase oversight of defense contractors.

The annual legislation is considered a must-pass bill to fund the military's fleet of vehicles and aircraft, research efforts and servicemember payrolls. It covers the 2008 budget year that begins Oct. 1.

You see the same old tactic here don’t you? {Sigh} This is getting old. Sad thing is some are still believing the bunk.

Overall, the bill is on track to give President Bush much of what he wants. The measure includes nearly $100 billion in procurement spending and would fund several of the Pentagon's big-ticket items, including $3.2 billion to buy 20 F-22 Raptor aircraft.

It also would provide $1.6 billion more than Bush wanted for shipbuilding to buy five new Navy ships; $1.1 billion extra for an eighth Army brigade of Stryker vehicles; and $705 million more than requested for development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The House Appropriations Committee planned to review the bill Wednesday, with floor debate the following week. Details of the proposal were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

The measure does not include Bush's 2008 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats said they wanted to consider that money in separate legislation this September — a tactic that leaves open the possibility of refusing to fund the war or attaching strings to the money if progress in Iraq is not made by then.

They give more than what the President asks for, but then they stick in things they KNOW he will not accept. Therefore, when he vetos the bill they can say, “Hey, we gave him more than he wanted. We TRIED to support the troops. It’s all Bush’s fault.”

But Democratic leaders say the annual spending measure is likely to become a magnet for amendments intended to end the Iraq war, including a proposal ordering troop withdrawals.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., also was expected to propose cutting Bush's budget for Guantanamo Bay prison in half, beating the administration to the punch in shutting the facility for terror detainees. The prison's annual operating budget is $125 million.

The White House says Bush has already decided to close the U.S. prison in Cuba and transfer more than 370 terrorism suspects elsewhere, possibly including the maximum-security military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Halving the prison's budget would keep it afloat for part of the year, giving the administration time to transfer the detainees, Democrats say.

He already decided and annouced he was closing it. The Democrats, make that the LWL, will try to take credit for closing it, but they had NOTHING to do with it.

Remember what I said folks, they will give President Bush MORE than he asked, then when he vetos the bill, they will attempt to get you to believe it’s his fault. If their little bill makes it to his desk, and he vetos it, look for pork, timetables, and attempts to seize control. It should be, as usual, plain as day. They have to let their Looney base know that they are attempting to lose the war.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Bush: Dems debates delay key troop funds
AP-House to defy Bush with defense bill

Pelosi’s First Failure or Signs of True Bipartisanship

Hey folks,

Well this is interesting. Some see this as Speaker to be Pelosi’s first major defeat. But could this not be a sign of true bipartisanship? According to Reuters,

"Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first woman to head the U.S. House of Representatives, suffered an embarrassing defeat on Thursday when fellow Democrats rejected her choice of a key foe of the Iraq war as her deputy.

Steny Hoyer, a moderate Maryland Democrat, easily defeated Pennsylvania's John Murtha, a leading proponent of a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, to become the next House majority leader.

A week after Democrats won control of Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans, the leadership election raised new questions about the clout and hardball style of Pelosi, a California liberal.

Emerging from closed-door balloting that capped a bruising intraparty fight, Pelosi tried to put the matter behind her.

"We've had our differences in our party. We have come together," Pelosi told reporters. "And now that's over."

She said,

"I stand very, very proudly behind my endorsement of Mr. Murtha," Pelosi said. "As I said in my letter to members on Sunday -- I believe the biggest ethical challenge facing our country is the war in Iraq."

"It must be stopped, and I thought that Mr. Murtha's elevation to a leadership position would serve that purpose," Pelosi said.

STOP! Hold on a second. Did she not just say, "Yes he is corrupt, be he will help me to get us out of Iraq, declaring the defeat "Bush’s fault" so I do not care?"What happened to ethics reform?

So who is Steny Hoyer? The MODERATE Maryland Democrat who beat LWL extremely corrupt John Murtha by a margin of 149-86? One, he is a Moderate. He has been representing Maryland’s 5 congressional district since 1981.

"He is now the longest-serving House member from Southern Maryland in history, as well as the highest-ranking member of Congress in Maryland history.

Hoyer has served as Chair of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-ranking position among House Democrats, from 1989 to 1994; the former Co-Chair (and a current member) of the Democratic Steering Committee; and as the chief candidate recruiter for House Democrats from 1995 to 2000. He also served as Deputy Majority Whip from 1987 to 1989. On November 14, 2002, Rep. Hoyer was unanimously elected by his colleagues in the Democratic Caucus to serve as the House Democratic Minority Whip, the second-highest-ranking position among House Democrats.

In Congress, Steny Hoyer has built a reputation as a defender of Federal employees and a leader on education and human and civil rights issues. He is perhaps best known for serving as the lead House sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 29, 2002, and for sponsoring the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 when Tony Coelho was forced to resign."

Here is an interesting tidbit,

In 2005, Hoyer "voted against the Goodlatte Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Goodlatte Amendment would eliminate the visa lottery. This is a program that each year gives another 50,000 green cards to people without any regard to their humanitarian need or to what they might offer the country or to their having any family connections in the United States. It is a program that promotes massive illegal migration by people who think they may some day win the lottery and be allowed to stay in the United States. The bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform under the leadership of the late Barbara Jordan recommended eliminating the visa lottery. The Goodlatte Amendment passed by a vote of 273 to 148."

Also in 2005, "Rep. Hoyer voted in favor of the Stearns Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, ntiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Stearns Amendment prohibits any alien from being granted legal immigration status of any kind until criminal record databases and terrorist watch lists are checked, and it is confirmed that no fraud has occurred. This amendment would subject each and every individual who seeks any sort of legal immigration status to a criminal background check and a review of terrorist watch lists to ensure that the United States only grants immigration status those who do not wish our citizens harm. The Stearns Amendment passed by a vote of 420 to 0."

So we have an LWL diehard Liberal Nancy Pelosi in command of the House with her second in command a MODERATE Democrat who does not agree with her on many issues. Should be interesting to watch.

This also brings up another point of interest to think about. What if, these young blood Moderate Democrats that have been elected in, ACTUALLY start to get things done. Follow me on this. What if, big IF, they can work in a bipartisan way with the Moderate Republicans. This would show the American people what I have been saying. Together we can accomplish anything. It would also show the American people that the LWL is no way to go. Neither is the far Right fringe. This would set up a guarantee, landslide victory for a Moderate President in 08. Someone like Lieberman, or Giuliani would beat someone like Clinton hands down. May even open the cracked door that much further for a third party.

They, the Moderate Democrats, have one pertinacious fight ahead if they are going to do this. Not only will they have to fight with the Right, but they will have to avoid being eaten by their own leaders, and the dealings with the MMD. But if the do, this may very well be the beginning of restoration the real Democratic Party. That would not be such a bad thing.

Good luck Rep. Hoyer, You will be needing it.{Smile}
Peter


Sources:
Reuters -"Democrats elect Hoyer House leader"
Wikipedia
Help America Vote Act
ADA
Numbers USA

IWA For Sunday 20109

"Chirica" Population Control, Pelosi's Stimulus Idea?

Hey folks,

Here is a brief history of the Chinese Population Control Program

August 1956, vigorous propaganda support was given to the Ministry of Public Health's mass birth control efforts. These efforts, however, had little impact on fertility. After the interval of the Great Leap Forward, Chinese leaders again saw rapid population growth as an obstacle to development, and their interest in birth control revived. In the early 1960s, propaganda, somewhat more muted than during the first campaign, emphasized the virtues of late marriage. Birth control offices were set up in the central government and some provinciallevel governments in 1964. The second campaign was particularly successful in the cities, where the birth rate was cut in half during the 1963-66 period. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution brought the program to a halt, however.

In 1972 and 1973 the party mobilized its resources for a nationwide birth control campaign administered by a group in the State Council. Committees to oversee birth control activities were established at all administrative levels and in various collective enterprises. This extensive and seemingly effective network covered both the rural and the urban population. In urban areas public security headquarters included population control sections. In rural areas the country's "barefoot doctors" distributed information and contraceptives to people's commun members. By 1973 Mao Zedong was personally identified with the family planning movement, signifying a greater leadership commitment to controlled population growth than ever before. Yet until several years after Mao's death in 1976, the leadership was reluctant to put forth directly the rationale that population control was necessary for economic growth and improved living standards.

Population growth targets were set for both administrative units and individual families. In the mid-1970s the maximum recommended family size was two children in cities and three or four in the country. Since 1979 the government has advocated a one child limit for both rural and urban areas and has generally set a maximum of two children in special circumstances. As of 1986 the policy for minority nationalities was two children per couple, three in special circumstances, and no limit for ethnic groups with very small populations. The overall goal of the one-child policy was to keep the total population within 1.2 billion through the year 2000, on the premise that the Four Modernizations program would be of little value if population growth was not brought under control.

The one-child policy was a highly ambitious population control program. Like previous programs of the 1960s and 1970s, the one child policy employed a combination of propaganda, social pressure, and in some cases coercion. The one-child policy was unique, however, in that it linked reproduction with economic cost or benefit.

Under the one-child program, a sophisticated system rewarded those who observed the policy and penalized those who did not. Couples with only one child were given a "one-child certificate" entitling them to such benefits as cash bonuses, longer maternity leave, better child care, and preferential housing assignments. In return, they were required to pledge that they would not have more children. In the countryside, there was great pressure to adhere to the one-child limit. Because the rural population accounted for approximately 60 percent of the total, the effectiveness of the one-child policy in rural areas was considered the key to the success or failure of the program as a whole.

In rural areas the day-to-day work of family planning was done by cadres at the team and brigade levels who were responsible for women's affairs and by health workers. The women's team leader made regular household visits to keep track of the status of each family under her jurisdiction and collected information on which women were using contraceptives, the methods used, and which had become pregnant. She then reported to the brigade women's leader, who documented the information and took it to a monthly meeting of the commune birth-planning committee. According to reports, ceilings or quotas had to be adhered to; to satisfy these cutoffs, unmarried young people were persuaded to postpone marriage, couples without children were advised to "wait their turn," women with unauthorized pregnancies were pressured to have abortions, and those who already had children were urged to use contraception or undergo sterilization. Couples with more than one child were exhorted to be sterilized.

The one-child policy enjoyed much greater success in urban than in rural areas. Even without state intervention, there were compelling reasons for urban couples to limit the family to a single child. Raising a child required a significant portion of family income, and in the cities a child did not become an economic asset until he or she entered the work force at age sixteen. Couples with only one child were given preferential treatment in housing allocation. In addition, because city dwellers who were employed in state enterprises received pensions after retirement, the sex of their first child was less important to them than it was to those in rural areas.

Numerous reports surfaced of coercive measures used to achieve the desired results of the one-child policy. The alleged methods ranged from intense psychological pressure to the use of physical force, including some grisly accounts of forced abortions and infanticide. Chinese officials admitted that isolated, uncondoned abuses of the program occurred and that they condemned such acts, but they insisted that the family planning program was administered on a voluntary basis using persuasion and economic measures only. International reaction to the allegations were mixed. The UN Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Association were generally supportive of China's family planning program. The United States Agency for International Development, however, withdrew US$10 million from the Fund in March 1985 based on allegations that coercion had been used.

Here is Speaker of the House Pelosi. The following exchange between Pelosi and George Stephanopoulos came on Sunday morning last week, during ABC's THIS WEEK:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

You can see video of this exchange below.....


So I guess that Pelosi is not the innovator of this concept of telling the poor and undesirable of the population that they are not to have kids. She is following the Chinese Population Control Method. She is PROUD of it. Why do these people, the LWL {Left Wing Loons} LOVE Communism so much? Power, control, and money.

Seriously folks, Pelsoi's plans are those of one of the biggest human rights violators on the planet. China. She wants the "Chirica" China / America Population Control Program here in our country.

No to his credit, President Obama asked that this be cut from the Pork Bill, however, he DID sign an Executive Order saying that YOUR tax monies CAN go back to China to help them with their programs. It will go to Planned Parenthood, who DOES operate in China. He also did not say that this was wrong. He said, "Now is not the time for this."

"While [Obama] agrees that greater access to family planning is good policy, the president believes that the funding for it does not belong in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs according to Steve Erlet of LifeNews.com

Congratulations Pelosi, for once again showing us who the New Liberal Party really is, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. Aren't you glad that your Mother did not chose to put you off, or kill you, because she would have saved money? Sorry Nancy, but I would prefer China be China, and America continues to be free.
Peter

Sources:
Country Studies US / China - Chinese Population Control
The Moral Collapse Of America - The Economic Stimulus: Nancy Pelosi's "Birth Control" Bailout

First Murtha, Now Hastings.

Hey folks,

First Murtha, now Hastings. Speaker To Be Pelosi is not batting a thousand. One also would have to seriously start to question her choices. First she said, they would be the most ethical governing body ever, then she endorses Murtha? One of the most unethical people in government? After the brutal loss, she said,

"I stand very, very proudly behind my endorsement of Mr. Murtha," Pelosi said. "As I said in my letter to members on Sunday -- I believe the biggest ethical challenge facing our country is the war in Iraq."

"It must be stopped, and I thought that Mr. Murtha's elevation to a leadership position would serve that purpose," Pelosi said.

Basically she said, "Yes I know he’s corrupt, but he would help us to get out of Iraq and blame Bush for it, so I do not care." Then she turns around and taps Rep. Alcee Hastings for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee. This guy is was impeached and REMOVED from his judgeship, Pelosi voted for it as well. Now she wanted him as the head of intelligence? Well, not any more I guess.

"In a decision that could roil Democratic unity in the new House, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi passed over Rep. Alcee Hastings Tuesday for the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.

Hastings, currently the No. 2 Democrat on the panel, had been aggressively making a case for the top position, supported by members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Critics pointed out that he had been impeached when he was a federal judge and said naming him to such a sensitive post would be a mistake just as the Democrats take over House control pledging reforms."

You think? What is Speaker To Be Pelosi saying now?

"Pelosi said in a statement that while she ``would select someone else,'' Hastings ``has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so.''

Pelosi is still considering other candidates for the chairman's job, including Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, Norman Dicks of Washington, Rush Holt of New Jersey and Sanford Bishop of Georgia, according to a Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

So two strikes and no balls for Pelosi. I wonder what her next move will be. How does Hastings feel about it?

"I am obviously disappointed with this decision," Hastings, D-Fla., said in a statement thanking his supporters. "I will be seeking better and bigger opportunities in a Democratic Congress."

Then he ended his statement with, "Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet." Sorry Mr. Hastings, but I do not think God had anything to do with it. You did. But soliciting bribes.

While the Democrats continue to attempt to form their leadership, they continue to push for Iran’s help in Iraq. I just told you yesterday,

"Yes folks, "Little Hitler," just like the original, is on the rise. He is arming. He is threatening. Given the opportunity, he will carry it out. Just like the original. Instead of waiting until it was too late, like we did with the original, some here want to HELP him. Unbelievable."

Well, according to the AP,

"Bush has been coming under increasing pressure, both overseas and at home, to reach out more to other countries, particularly to Syria and Iran to help with a solution in Iraq.

Such a recommendation may be among those issued by the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group is expected to finish its work next month."

Now you have this bad news for the LWL, and the cut and run crowd.

"The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday unanimously renewed the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq through the end of 2007, granting a request from the Baghdad government."

STOP!! At request from the Baghdad Government? Unanimously renewed?

"U.S. Ambassador John Bolton welcomed the vote a day ahead of planned talks in Jordan between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on how to bring violence under control and whether Iran and Syria could help.

The vote showed all countries in the region that the Security Council strongly backed "stability in Iraq and continued progress toward democracy," Bolton said. "We all share the same objective and I think that is something the neighboring countries need to take into account.""

Finally someone is starting to make sense. Stability and democracy. Not bad things. Now if they can get their leadership squared away, maybe the new Democrat party can stop looking for "Little Hitler’s" assistance and try working in a truly bipartisan way to improve the situation in Iraq.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters-"UN council extends U.S.-led force in Iraq one year"
AP-"Pelosi passes Hastings for Intel chair"
AP-"Bush nixes suggestions Iraq in civil war"
Bloomberg.com- "Hastings Won't Lead House Intelligence Committee"
Me- "Pelosi’s First Failure or Signs of True Bipartisanship"

What The President Said

Hey folks,

Yesterday I posted the President’s radio address and I said, I love the way he is starting to get a little more, well, Presidential. He is getting more and more forceful with those in Congress that have chosen a path toward our loss in Iraq. Here is what I mean.

The President said,

"This week I extended an invitation to congressional leaders of both parties to come to the White House so we can discuss the emergency war funding our troops are waiting for. When we meet on Wednesday, I look forward to hearing how Members of Congress plan to meet their responsibilities and provide our troops with the funding they need."

Translation. I’m tired of playing games with our soldiers lives because they just want to play politics instead of doing what is right.

"Supporting our troops is a solemn responsibility of all elected officials in Washington, D.C. So 68 days ago, I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill that would provide the vital funds needed for our troops on the front lines. But instead of approving this funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 68 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops. They passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders and set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, giving our enemies the victory they desperately want."

I LOVE this statement. Again, we are in a war, you are playing games. Folks, he just came right out and said that they, the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} WANT us to lose. Can you hear the anger in this next statement?

"The Democrats' bills also spend billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war, such as funding for tours of the United States Capitol and for peanut storage. And after passing these unacceptable bills in the House and Senate, Democratic leaders then chose to leave town without sending any legislation to my desk."

Because not only are they Traitors, they are also cowards.

"The Senate came back to Washington earlier this week, but the House is still on its Easter recess. Meanwhile, our troops are waiting for the funds. And to cover the shortfall, our military may be forced to consider what Army General Pete Schoomaker has called "increasingly draconian measures.""

They think that if they, the LWL, delay funding, this would mean the President would have no choice but to surrender to the enemy. Not true. The President continued,

"In the next few days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to make up for the gaps caused by Congress' failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

This $1.6 billion in transfer comes on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems, so we can continue to fund programs that protect our troops from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be."

You see folks, what he said here is that Congress is FULLY aware of what is going on. They were TOLD that if they do not fund this, the money needed will come from elsewhere. They STILL chose to do it. They still choose to continue to withhold the funds. They ARE hurting the troops in the field and the ones here at home and their families, and pretty much doing a lot of damage to our troops as a whole. So the next time that they say, "We support the troops" {By the way, notice they have pretty much stopped saying that?} you can know the truth. The TRUTH is they do NOT support the troops. They do NOT care about them. They are nothing but pawns to them.

"I recognize that Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq, and we should vigorously debate those differences. But our troops should not be trapped in the middle. They have been waiting for this money long enough. Congress must now work quickly and pass a clean bill that funds our troops, without artificial time lines for withdrawal, without handcuffing our generals on the ground, and without extraneous domestic spending."

PAWNS! What I have been telling you. Also what have I been telling you about is what the American people wanted? Remember I have been telling you that they voted for a "New Direction" in Iraq. We were losing. Nobody wants to lose. They did NOT vote for cut, run, and surrender. But a new direction. That is what they are getting right now. We ARE WINNING . The surge is working. President Bush tells Congress the same thing. However, he takes it a step further. The President puts it this way.

"When you live in Washington, it's easy to get caught up in the complexities of legislative procedure. But for the American people, this is not a complicated debate. When Americans went to the polls last November, they did not vote for politicians to substitute their judgment for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. And they certainly did not vote to make peanut storage projects part of the funding for our troops. The American people voted for change in Iraq, and that is exactly what our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is working to achieve. And they expect their elected leaders to support our men and women on the front lines, so they have every resource they need to complete their mission.


We owe it to the American people and to our troops and their families to deliver our full support. I will continue working with Republicans and responsible Democrats to do just that. I call on Members of Congress to put partisanship on hold, resolve their differences, and send me a clean bill that gets our troops the funds they need."

THIS is great! He said, "When Americans went to the polls last November, they did not vote for politicians to substitute their judgment for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. And they certainly did not vote to make peanut storage projects part of the funding for our troops." This is true. Regardless of what some in the mass media and the LWL tell you. YOU should know that.

However, this is the statement that speaks VOLUMES of where the President is right know with Congress. It also could signify that the President MAY be looking into options. Read this "We owe it to the American people and to our troops and their familiesto deliver our full support. I will continue working with Republicans andresponsible Democrats to do just that." Did you catch it? He said, "I will continue working with Republicans and responsible Democrats to do just that."

"Responsible democrats?" Now since I signed off yesterday, I have pretty much been away from the news. I’m not sure if they were intelligent enough to pick up on what he just said there. But I’m sure that when someone points this out, they should have a comment on it. What the President just said is,

"If you {the LWL leaders} continue to travel around the world, attempting to create your own foreign policies, which is un-Constitutional, I will not work with you. If you continue to meet with America’s enemies in the time of war, which undermines me as the President, and the current American foreign policy, which is un-Constitutional for you to do, I will not work with you. If you continue to use our troops as pawns, I will not work with you. If you, continue to seek out ways to force surrender, I will not work with you. If you, continue to show the world how ignorant you are, I will not work with you."

I wish he would just actually come out and say it like I just translated it. Most Liberals need things spelled out for them. I wish he would just, make that ANYONE in power, would just call for some investigations into Pelosi’s actions. Into Reid’s actions. If we had an investigation, I could almost guarantee that they have, and continue to do things that would be the VERY DEFINITION of Treason. They should be treated as the Traitors they are. But this is a good first step.

Folks, if you have ANY doubt whatsoever, of what will happen in 08 if an LWL member take over the White House, just LOOK at what we got now. They did not run on anything. The Mass Media reported what they were told to report by Soros and others. The American people were lied to time and time again. There were enough Sheepeople out there to vote in people they could not even name or pick out in a picture. We got what we got now. If, by some dark miracle, they can pull it off again, and take over the White House in 08?


Look at what Hillary said.

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.

Obama? I do not feel that he is strong enough to stand up to these people. I feel if he was to take office with them allowed to continue, you may very well get the first female President. Her name would be Pelosi.

To put it into the words of a friend of ours here at the OPN, "Clinton thinks she's President already.With her at the helm can the end of the US as we know it be far off.?" Great question. One I do not really care to find out the answer to.

We have a long way to go folks. But the President’s Radio address is a good first step.
Peter



Souce:

White House Press Office.

The Movement Is Growing

Hey folks,

It seems the movement is growing. More and more people are starting to get more and more serious in dealing with Traitor Reid. No I haven’t heard from the White House yet, if ever, but I have noticed a lot more people calling Reid to step down or be removed. You heard it here first folks. I told you what would happen if they take over. I warned you that the Democrat party was completely taken over by the LWL {Left Wing Looney fringe} I started to tell you that they were walking a very thin line between practicing their freedom of speech and Treason. I told you when they crossed that line. I have been saying now for a while that Reid and Pelosi are committing treason and need to step down or be dealt with for what they are. Now?

On the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman gave a great speech pointing out the idiocies of Traitor Reid. Way to go Joe. A Republican Senator started calling for Reid to resign. The Washington Post has this opinion piece by David Broder.

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered Harry Reid, give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

He pointed out.

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Now many more people are coming out and getting brave enough to say what needs to be said. I want to share this with you folks. This is from Family Security Foundation, by Pamela Meister.

Traitor, n. One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed what many Americans have suspected for some time now: that the Democrat Party is not only weak on defense, but weak on national pride.

Reid stated that, "I believe myself that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the President knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

Reid’s fellow Democrats were curiously silent regarding this proclamation from on high, except for florid Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, who came to Reid’s defense. "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration."

As a result of the backlash by the White House and Republicans, Reid tried to backpedal, saying he meant that we would lose only if we continue to follow the "president’s path." But it’s not so easy to fool the people in this age of instant communication and new media. Reid cooked his own goose by saying exactly what he meant.

Meanwhile, despite their constant carping and criticizing of the progress in Iraq, it seems that Democrat leaders are more interested in dishing dirt than getting the real scoop on what’s happening. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who recently traveled to Syria against the wishes of the White House) and other top House Democrats passed on attending a bipartisan video briefing on Iraq by General David Petraeus back in March, as did Senate Democrats. The only exception was Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, whose voice has been one of the only ones on the left saying that the funding rug should not be pulled out from under our troops.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

One of the few constant voices of reason on the left has been that of Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Targeted by far-left bloggers and 527 groups during the 2006 election because of his unwavering support of our mission in Iraq and the war against Islamofascism, Lieberman lost the primary to newcomer Ned Lamont, only to win the general election by a large margin as an independent. (Hint to would-be candidates: elections are rarely won on one-issue platforms, especially against popular incumbents.) Lieberman, who still officially caucuses with Democrats on many issues, was quick to take Harry Reid to task over his treasonous "the war is lost" comments.

"With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid’s statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there. Al Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to re-ignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq. The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week’s atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them. This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

We live in interesting times when Democrats embrace not those who would have us win armed conflicts against brutal enemies, but those who would rather we tuck our tails and run at the first opportunity in the name of political expediency. During last year’s campaign, Lieberman was dropped like a hot potato by his Democrat colleagues. One of those who turned on Lieberman was fellow Connecticut senator Chris Dodd, who is now a candidate for president. It wasn’t until he won re-election as an independent (thus making his vote important in a slim majority situation) that Democrats again began to speak of Lieberman as a friend and associate. The term "fair weather friends" certainly takes on new meaning in Washington D.C.

Like President Bush, Lieberman has never faltered in his belief that a strong offense against Islamofascists is essential for not only America’s survival, but for that of all of Western civilization. He has taken a lot of political heat for it, but refuses to water down his views in order to appease the appeasers on the left. Saying what you mean and standing by it shows true character. Joe Lieberman has it. Harry Reid, who felt he had to "clarify" his remarks last week, does not.

Over the past four years, we have had to listen to many Democrats make unconscionable remarks regarding the war. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois likened our soldiers to Nazis. Sen. Ted Kennedy said that, under American control, Abu Ghraib represented "Saddam’s torture chambers re-opened under new management – U.S. management." Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania said Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" in Haditha. He made these atrocious, unfounded statements even before the military could begin conducting an investigation. DNC chairman Howard Dean said the idea that we will win in Iraq is "plain wrong." This continual degrading of our troops by liberal Democrats goes on and on and on. Yet none of these people have truly been taken to task for their remarks. As they pander to the anti-war, far-left wing of their party, Democrats continue on their crash course toward what they hope will be a White House victory in 2008 – long-term consequences be damned.

Former Senate Majority Trent Lott (R-MS) was forced to step down when he made a comment at a birthday party that many interpreted as being racist. Words indeed do have consequences. (Just ask Don Imus.) What of Harry Reid, whose words at a press conference last week were much more serious in that he gave hope and comfort to our enemies? What consequences will he have to face as a result? If the aftermath of Nancy Pelosi’s ill-advised trip to Syria in a foreign policy role is any indication, Reid doesn’t have much to worry about. Smug agreement by his fellow Democrats and a lack of gumption in the Republican Party means that Reid, in spite of declarations that would make even the likes of Benedict Arnold blush, will continue to be in a position to try to make President Bush look like a fool at the expense of our national security. Al Qaeda likely now is planning to simply hold on until America finally tires of war and partisan bickering and pulls the troops out. Then the real blood bath can begin, in Iraq and wherever else these terrorist thugs hold sway.

Harry Reid should be called upon to step down as Senate Majority Leader, before he can do more damage – if that’s even possible. But Reid’s rhetoric, like that of his counterpart in the House, shows that he has no honor. Winning in Washington has blinded them both to winning in Iraq.


Yes folks, the movement is growing. Gaining speed. Gaining power. We cannot stop until the Traitors step down or are removed. If we allow them the freedom they have now, to do ANYTHING without question nor accountability, they can and very well MAY, destroy this country. I warned you about this. Now others are starting to join with my voice. We MUST deal with these Traitors before it is too late.
Peter


Sources:
The Washington Post Opinion -The Democrats' Gonzales
Exclusive: Harry Reid Should Step Down…But He Won’t
LA Times -Petraeus: Situation in Iraq will get harder before it gets easier

Hillary Backing Pelosi's "Chirica" Plan

Transcript of Hillary's ICPD Speech

Hey folks,

You really can't make this stuff up. I know, I know, it's Transcript Weekend here, but you have to hear this, and you HAD to understand what it really means. Hillary delivered a major speech Friday to mark the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Here is Hillary.

Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

My goodness, thank you. Wow, this is a wonderful occasion. Several of us were quite nervous when we saw the snow start last night, so I’m delighted the sun is out and shining on all of you here as we gather for this commemoration of the 15th anniversary of the groundbreaking gathering and agreement in Cairo.

When I think about that and the thousands of people who were part of it who came together to declare with one voice that reproductive healthcare is critical to the health of women, and that women’s health is essential to the prosperity and opportunity of all, to the stability of families and communities, and the sustainability and development of nations, it makes me nostalgic for conferences that are held that actually produce results – (laughter) – and give us a framework for moving forward. There is no doubt in my mind that the work that was done and the commitments that were made in Cairo are still really the bulwark of what we intend to be doing and are expected to do on behalf of women and girls.

The year 2015 is the target year. Part of the reason we wanted to have this commemoration is not only to look backwards, but to look forward. What is it we will do between now and 2015? Remember what was expected of us. All governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right. We will dramatically reduce infant, child, and maternal mortality. We will open the doors of education to all citizens, but especially to girls and women.

OK STOP! Translation, ABORTION. Continue

It is somewhat hard to believe in retrospect that Cairo was the first ever global forum that recognized the connection between women’s health, the quality of women’s lives, and human progress on a broader scale. So I am delighted to join you in marking this landmark event, but more importantly, to asking you to join with us in rededicating ourselves to the goals that we embraced 15 years ago. They remain critical and they remain unfilled.

We have not made it a Legal RIGHT for Women to get abortions at will, at any time, for any reason. Funding for Abortions is still in Obamacare folks.

I’ve had the honor and privilege as I look around this audience of knowing many of you, some of you for a very long time. And I know how committed many of you have been and continue to be. We have made measurable progress since 1994 in improving the health and the lives of women and children, especially girls. For example, the use of modern contraceptives worldwide has increased from under 10 percent in the 1960s to 43 percent in 2008. We have greater access to neo-natal care, including medicines that prevent the spread of HIV from mother to child. We’ve significantly increased child survival rates. The number of girls enrolled in schools around the world has gone up. And we’ve come closer to a less measurable but still critical goal: The integration of gender into a range of global programs, including our efforts through the United Nations to bring an end to sexual and gender-based violence in places of conflict.

However, vast inequities remain. Too often, still today in 2010, women and girls bear the burdens of regional and global crises, whether it’s an economic downturn or climate change or political instability. They still are the majority of the world’s poor, unschooled, unhealthy, and underfed. They are rarely the cause of violent consequences, but increasingly – of violent conflicts, but increasingly they bear the consequences of such conflicts. We’ve seen that from the Congo to Bosnia to Burma. And 15 years after the Cairo conference, far too many women still have little or no access to reproductive health services, including family planning and maternal healthcare.

Sounds good, but they do not really care about these Women's daily lives, with the exception of Abortion. Why? I'll get to that in a second.

When we look at this deficit in healthcare for women, we can see what it means in terms of lost productivity, lost resources, and lost lives. Nearly half the women in the developing world deliver their babies without a nurse, a midwife, a doctor, or access to crucial medical care. Global rates of maternal mortality remain perilously high; one woman dies every minute of every day in pregnancy or childbirth, and for every woman who dies, another 20 suffer from injury, infection, or disease every minute.

Sounds compassionate. Doesn't it?

More than 215 million women worldwide lack access to the modern forms of contraception, and this contributes to the nearly 20 million unsafe abortions that take place very year. Sexually transmitted diseases, of course including, but not limited to, HIV and AIDS, claim millions of lives annually among women. Fistula destroys the lives of millions, and it is often the result of pregnancies that occur when a girl is too young. An estimated 70 million – that is 70 million women and girls worldwide – have been subjected to female genital cutting, a procedure that is not only painful and traumatic but is also the source of infections and increased risks of injury during childbirth.

Now, as those of us gathered in the Ben Franklin Room on the eight floor of the State Department know very well, the topic of reproductive health is subject to a great deal of debate. But I think we should all agree that these numbers are not only grim, but after 15 years, they are intolerable. For if we believe that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, then we cannot accept the ongoing marginalization of half the world’s population. We cannot accept it morally, politically, socially, or economically. (Applause)

So we’re here today to examine the distance that remains to be traveled before the world fully realizes the ICPD goals. This is a journey that the Obama Administration and the United States Government will travel with you. But we need to travel quickly, because we only have five years to meet our original goals.

For the health statistics that I just mentioned point to a broader impact. There’s a direct connection between a woman’s ability to plan her family, space her pregnancies, and give birth safely, and her ability to get an education, work outside the home, support her family, and participate fully in the life of her community.

Typical Feminist Liberation BS. Women are to important to give Birth. It is BAD to be a Mother. It hinders Women. ETC. But that's not it.

When a girl becomes a mother before she becomes literate, when a woman gives birth alone and is left with a permanent disability, when a mother toils daily to feed her large family but cannot convince her husband to agree to contraception, these struggles represent suffering that can and should be avoided. They represent potential that goes unfulfilled. And they also represent an opportunity to extend critical help to women worldwide and the children who depend on them.

Investing in the health of women, adolescents, and girls is not only the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do. That is why we are integrating women’s issues as key elements of our foreign policy agenda and in, especially, our Global Health Initiative and our Global Food Security Initiative. That is why we saw the first appointment of an ambassador for global women issues, and it didn’t take me long to decide who should fill that position. It is why we are launching women’s entrepreneurial efforts through Pathways to Prosperity in Latin America, to ensure that prosperity is spread more broadly, including to women. It is why we are working with religious leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan to increase access to information about family planning and preventive healthcare.

We are doing all of these things because we have seen that when women and girls have the tools to stay healthy and the opportunity to contribute to their families’ well-being, they flourish and so do the people around them.

Consider this one story from Uganda, where USAID works with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to provide reproductive health services, education, and skills training to low-income women. Among their clients are a group of teenage girls who call themselves the “Moonlight Stars.” Their parents are dead, leaving them the sole providers for their younger brothers and sisters, without any other options, they were working as prostitutes. Through this USAID-funded program, they gained access to condoms and comprehensive sex education to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. They also began taking classes in sewing and knitting and other kinds of skills that could be used to help support their siblings without endangering their physical or emotional well-being. And thanks to this job training and the support that accompanied it, many of the Moonlight Stars have left prostitution behind and embarked on a new path of opportunity for themselves and their families.

Which is GREAT.

While investing in women lifts many lives, the inverse is also true. In societies where women’s rights and roles are denied, girls are forbidden from attending school or they pay a very heavy price to try to do so. Few have the right to decide whether or when to get married or become mothers. Poverty, political oppression, and even violent extremism often follow.

Maternal and child health are particularly important indicators of broader progress. In recent years, we’ve learned more about the conditions that accompany political unrest. It turns out that one of the most constant predictors for political upheaval is the rate of infant mortality. In places where the rate of infant mortality is high, the quality of life is low because investment in and access to healthcare are often out of reach. And that breeds the kind of frustration, hopelessness, and anger that we’ve seen. We also know that child mortality is closely connected with maternal mortality. When a mother dies, her children are at much greater risk of dying as well.

These struggles can’t be separated, and neither can their solutions. In the Obama Administration, we are convinced of the value of investing in women and girls, and we understand there is a direct line between a woman’s reproductive health and her ability to lead a productive, fulfilling life. And therefore, we believe investing in the potential of women and girls is the smartest investment we can make. It is connected to every problem on anyone’s mind around the world today. (Applause.)

Again, Motherhood is bad. Doesn't come right out and say it, but that is exactly what she means.

So we are rededicating ourselves to the global efforts to improve reproductive health for women and girls. Under the leadership of this Administration, we are committed to meeting the Cairo goals. We’re committed to working in partnership with all of you. One of President Obama’s first actions in office was to overturn the Mexico City policy, which greatly limited our ability to fund family planning programs. (Applause.)

Abortions.

We have pledged new funding, new programs, and a renewed commitment to achieve Millennium Development Goal Five, namely a [three-fourths] reduction in global maternal mortality, and universal access to reproductive healthcare. This goal is, again, critical to and interconnected with every other millennium development goal. But the world has made less progress toward fulfilling that goal than any other.

This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. (Applause.) The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. (Applause.)

That's $648 Million of YOUR money to pay for Abortions in other Countries.

In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health. It will address interrelated health challenges together, for example, by integrating family planning, maternal health services, and HIV/AIDS screening and treatment, so that women receiving reproductive care will also receive HIV counseling, and will be referred to an HIV clinic if they need one.

Another $63 BILLION of your money. That we do not have.

We’re now seeing the rise of the largest youth generation in the history of the world. They need and deserve to know how to stay healthy, and through this initiative, we will be providing critical information to them. The Global Health Initiative will also focus on helping countries strengthen their own health systems. We want to build sustainable health systems in countries. And it will ensure that all of our global health programs, including nutrition, malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS are designed to meet the needs of women and girls, including by taking into account the many social and economic factors that have an impact on their health from sexual coercion to domestic violence to pervasive gender inequities.

You know that HIV/AIDS is now morphing into a women’s disease, and increasingly younger and younger women in many, many poor countries are infected. We know that expanding access to contraception helps only if women are empowered to use it, that protecting oneself from HIV is harder when one’s life depends on staying in a man’s good favor, and that all the prenatal care in the world won’t protect a mother and child from an abusive home. Promoting women’s health and children’s health means improving the quality of their lives on many levels, and it also means reaching out to men and boys to encourage them to become advocates and allies.

So we have our work cut out for us, but we have an excellent roadmap in the Cairo program of action and a worthy target in the Millennium Development Goal Number Five. And we’re going to need your help. In everything that we’re doing in the Department and at USAID, we are injecting the needs and the roles of women and girls. We’re asking for how women and girls can play more of a role in their societies, be more involved in peacemaking and peacekeeping, assist in mitigating against and preventing climate change. Just across the board, we are making it clear that there has to be special attention paid to the needs of women and girls. It’s in America’s national security interests to do so.

OK. HERE is the real meaning behind all this. I know we are going to go REAL Long here. Sorry to all my friends out there that love to repost. You have to pay attention to the following.

I want to close with the story of one woman whose life was transformed by the work that the people in this room do every single day. Caroline Ditina is a young woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo who for years endured the shame and ostracism caused by obstetric fistula. Eventually, she found her way to a clinic supported by the UN Population Fund, and she finally received the surgery, care, and emotional support she needed to heal. Then she started speaking out about her experience to fight the stigma and to let other women know that even in isolated places, treatment is possible.

Her message has traveled the world. Two years ago, she came to Washington and urged members of Congress to support maternal health programs worldwide. And today, the United States is proud once again to support the work of the UN Population Fund. But one advocate, even one with such passion and commitment, can only do so much. Every woman everywhere deserves high-quality care not only at her most vulnerable hour, but at every single stage of life. That’s our goal and that’s our responsibility.

Our responsibility? UN Population Fund?

It is also a matter of simple equity and fairness. I’ve been in many places in many parts of the world where the rich, the educated, the well off, the connected, the powerful, the elite had access to every single form of healthcare. And yet it was denied – denied by law, denied by culture, denied by taboo, denied by regulation, denied by resources to the vast majority of women in the same societies. That is unacceptable.

So part of what we need to do is not only provide services to those who need them, but to change the minds and attitudes of those who can be responsible for delivering those services in countries around the world. I have said in many different settings on, I guess, every continent except Antarctica that the rights that women who have a position in society are able to command cannot, therefore, be denied to the women who live down the street or care for their children or clean their homes or plant their crops, and that we have to do a better job of making the equity argument on behalf of girls and women, and particularly on behalf of the Cairo agenda.

I’m very optimistic and very committed that we can do this together, and I am very grateful for what so many of you have done for so many years. You have ridden the ups and you have survived the downs. You have worked in favorable political environments and unfavorable ones. You have seen the Mexico City policy come and go, and you have stayed true. You’ve stayed true to your commitment, your passion, your belief that every single child in this country – boy or girl – deserves a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential.

I just want to urge that we do not grow weary. I don’t about you, but sometimes it can seem a little bit hard to take. It is also self-evident; it seems so obvious to the rest of us that this needs to be done, and we keep encountering obstacles of every shape and size. But please, stay with us and let’s try to create institutional and structural change that does not get wiped away when the political winds blow. Let’s try to create markets for these goods and ways of funding them and educational and instructional programs along with our commitment to serve that will give women everywhere a chance to take their own lives and their own futures into their own hands.

It is now my great pleasure – you’ve met two of my wonderful team members. I want to introduce two more whom I see. One is Raj Shah, Dr. Raj Shah, our new superb Administrator of USAID. (Applause.) Raj, come here. Come here, Raj. (Applause.)

We want you to get to meet him if you don’t know him. We want you to support him as he makes the changes that are necessary to put USAID back in the forefront of world development agencies.

And now it’s my honor to introduce our Under Secretary Maria Otero. And maybe, Maria, you and Raj could say a few words to close out the program. (Applause.)

Blah, blah, blah. It sounds great doesn't it? But it's really only about one thing here. Abortion. Why? It will save Governments money, and it will save the Planet. Of course the ICPD is happy.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a major speech today to mark the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Her strong message showed top-level U.S. Government support for the ICPD and other such UN goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, by 2015. These include achieving universal access to reproductive healthcare (RH) and education (especially for girls), and reductions in maternal and child mortality.

But Secretary Clinton's address today indicated much more - a commitment to women and girls' health and progress worldwide, which in turn relates to development and climate change. "It signals a critical five-year window to not only achieve the ICPD objectives, but also make tremendous gains on global environmental and climate sustainability," said Vicky Markham, Director of the Center for Environment and Population (CEP).

Are you getting this?

This is because the world's environment and development issues are inextricably linked so new, strong U.S. commitment to the ICPD's principles is also critical to achieving environmental sustainability worldwide. Now, changes to global climate, water and forest resources, species' habitat and biological diversity are all occurring in unprecedented ways from human activities. "Strong, clear U.S. leadership to achieve the ICPD goals for women's health and equality is one sure way to maintain an important balance between people and nature on our finite planet," said Ms. Markham.

Secretary Clinton paved the way for renewed U.S. leadership on the ICPD for the development reasons mentioned above and as a viable means to achieving environmental sustainability - that is, to help curb climate change, provide clean water to the 1 billion that lack access to it, restore forests as "carbon sinks" and habitat to numerous plants and animals, and begin to alter land use and rapid sprawling development which leads to increased use of fossil fuels and climate change.

While many international forums have reaffirmed the ICPD "Cairo Consensus", including the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women and the UN Millennium Development Goals, the U.S. has fallen behind in its leadership on these reproductive health issues. Paralleled with this is the lack of strong U.S. leadership on key environmental treaties on climate, water and biodiversity.

But, change is in the air. Secretary Clinton's compelling support now indicates the U.S. is poised to take a leadership role on critical RH/FP, education and maternal and child health issues. The U.S. needs to show similar leadership on global climate, water, forests and biodiversity issues. "When combined, U.S. leadership on the ICPD and major environmental treaties and commitments to sustainability are all mutually reinforcing, representing renewed commitment to these cornerstones of population and development policies for the international community," said Ms. Markham.

Recent polls show that a majority of Americans across the ideological spectrum strongly support the principles in the worldwide consensus reached at the ICPD, including providing voluntary family planning and reproductive health services. Likewise, polls show they support environmental sustainability.

That is COMPLETELY untrue. Completely untrue.

Millions of lives have been improved and saved through effective and affordable reproductive health programs, which have proven to prevent the deaths of women and children, reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, grow economies, and preserve natural resources.

"Secretary Clinton today provided a much needed boost to a decade's lag on promoting women's and girl's issues as key components of international development and environmental stability. Now let's join her, and take it down the home stretch to 2015," Ms. Markham said.

For more information go to www.ICPD2015.org and www.cepnet.org.

Reuters had a story Fri Sep 18, 2009, Contraception vital in climate change fight: expert This is what Liberal REALLY think.

Leo Bryant, a lead researcher on a World Health Organisation study on population growth and climate change, said the stigma attached to birth control in both developing and developed countries was hindering vital progress.

"We are certainly not advocating that governments should start telling people how many children they can have," said Bryant, an advocacy manager at the family planning group Marie Stopes International, who wrote a commentary in the Lancet medical journal on Friday.

You would LOVE to. Pelsoi even said so. It will save money if these poor and undesirable people would just stop having kids. Now we learn, it will also save the planet.

"The ability to choose your family size...is a fundamental human right. But lack of access to family planning means millions of people in developing countries don't have that right," he told Reuters.

Bryant's study of climate change adaptation plans by governments in the world's 40 poorest countries showed that almost all of them link rapid population growth to environmental impact, but only six had proposed steps to tackle it.

"Acknowledgement of the problem is widespread, but resolve to address seems to be very much a minority sport," he said.

Bryant said 200 million women across the world want contraceptives, but cannot get them. Addressing this need would slow population growth and reduce demographic pressure on the environment.

In most countries with good access to birth control, average family sizes shrink dramatically within a generation, he said. But policymakers in rich donor nations are wary of talking about contraception for fear of being accused of advocating draconian ideas like sterilization or one-child policies.

Bryant's comments echo those by the head of Britain's science academy Martin Rees, who told Reuters this month that the stigma holding women back from getting access to birth control must be removed to reduce the impact of rising populations on climate change.

The world's population is forecast to rise by one third to more than 9 billion people by 2050, with 95 percent of this growth in developing countries.

In a study to be published in the WHO Bulletin in November, Bryant and colleagues said that population growth in poorer nations was unlikely to increase global warming significantly, as their carbon emissions are relatively low. But overpopulation combined with climate change would worsen living conditions by degrading natural resources, they said.

Climate change can also not only cause more natural disasters such as storms, but force people to live in areas at risk of floods, drought and disease.

Bryant said health policies targeting family planning must be combined projects to educate people about sustainable farming and land management.

"Then the gains that you make in environmental sustainability in the immediate term are going to be protected in the long term against a rapidly growing population," he said.

"Chirica" Population Control, Pelosi's Stimulus Idea?

Here is a brief history of the Chinese Population Control Program

August 1956, vigorous propaganda support was given to the Ministry of Public Health's mass birth control efforts. These efforts, however, had little impact on fertility. After the interval of the Great Leap Forward, Chinese leaders again saw rapid population growth as an obstacle to development, and their interest in birth control revived. In the early 1960s, propaganda, somewhat more muted than during the first campaign, emphasized the virtues of late marriage. Birth control offices were set up in the central government and some provinciallevel governments in 1964. The second campaign was particularly successful in the cities, where the birth rate was cut in half during the 1963-66 period. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution brought the program to a halt, however.

In 1972 and 1973 the party mobilized its resources for a nationwide birth control campaign administered by a group in the State Council. Committees to oversee birth control activities were established at all administrative levels and in various collective enterprises. This extensive and seemingly effective network covered both the rural and the urban population. In urban areas public security headquarters included population control sections. In rural areas the country's "barefoot doctors" distributed information and contraceptives to people's commun members. By 1973 Mao Zedong was personally identified with the family planning movement, signifying a greater leadership commitment to controlled population growth than ever before. Yet until several years after Mao's death in 1976, the leadership was reluctant to put forth directly the rationale that population control was necessary for economic growth and improved living standards.

Population growth targets were set for both administrative units and individual families. In the mid-1970s the maximum recommended family size was two children in cities and three or four in the country. Since 1979 the government has advocated a one child limit for both rural and urban areas and has generally set a maximum of two children in special circumstances. As of 1986 the policy for minority nationalities was two children per couple, three in special circumstances, and no limit for ethnic groups with very small populations. The overall goal of the one-child policy was to keep the total population within 1.2 billion through the year 2000, on the premise that the Four Modernizations program would be of little value if population growth was not brought under control.

The one-child policy was a highly ambitious population control program. Like previous programs of the 1960s and 1970s, the one child policy employed a combination of propaganda, social pressure, and in some cases coercion. The one-child policy was unique, however, in that it linked reproduction with economic cost or benefit.

Under the one-child program, a sophisticated system rewarded those who observed the policy and penalized those who did not. Couples with only one child were given a "one-child certificate" entitling them to such benefits as cash bonuses, longer maternity leave, better child care, and preferential housing assignments. In return, they were required to pledge that they would not have more children. In the countryside, there was great pressure to adhere to the one-child limit. Because the rural population accounted for approximately 60 percent of the total, the effectiveness of the one-child policy in rural areas was considered the key to the success or failure of the program as a whole.

In rural areas the day-to-day work of family planning was done by cadres at the team and brigade levels who were responsible for women's affairs and by health workers. The women's team leader made regular household visits to keep track of the status of each family under her jurisdiction and collected information on which women were using contraceptives, the methods used, and which had become pregnant. She then reported to the brigade women's leader, who documented the information and took it to a monthly meeting of the commune birth-planning committee. According to reports, ceilings or quotas had to be adhered to; to satisfy these cutoffs, unmarried young people were persuaded to postpone marriage, couples without children were advised to "wait their turn," women with unauthorized pregnancies were pressured to have abortions, and those who already had children were urged to use contraception or undergo sterilization. Couples with more than one child were exhorted to be sterilized.

The one-child policy enjoyed much greater success in urban than in rural areas. Even without state intervention, there were compelling reasons for urban couples to limit the family to a single child. Raising a child required a significant portion of family income, and in the cities a child did not become an economic asset until he or she entered the work force at age sixteen. Couples with only one child were given preferential treatment in housing allocation. In addition, because city dwellers who were employed in state enterprises received pensions after retirement, the sex of their first child was less important to them than it was to those in rural areas.

Numerous reports surfaced of coercive measures used to achieve the desired results of the one-child policy. The alleged methods ranged from intense psychological pressure to the use of physical force, including some grisly accounts of forced abortions and infanticide. Chinese officials admitted that isolated, uncondoned abuses of the program occurred and that they condemned such acts, but they insisted that the family planning program was administered on a voluntary basis using persuasion and economic measures only. International reaction to the allegations were mixed. The UN Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Association were generally supportive of China's family planning program. The United States Agency for International Development, however, withdrew US$10 million from the Fund in March 1985 based on allegations that coercion had been used.

Here is Speaker of the House Pelosi. The following exchange between Pelosi and George Stephanopoulos came on Sunday morning last week, during ABC's THIS WEEK:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Not only would Pelosi and the Libs HERE love to enact something like this in America, they want to do it around the world. {Laughing} Want to save the Planet? Wear a Condom, or if need be, get an Abortion. What ever you do, just do not have any more kids. Don't worry, if you can't, others will pay for it. Even if you live in another country.
Peter

Sources:
White House Press Office
Center for Environment and Population
Reuters - Contraception vital in climate change fight: expert