Now We Know Why Those Cookies Are So Addicting

You Can't Make This Stuff Up For 071808

Hey folks,

Remember I will not be here at all this Weekend, I will be enjoying my Son Joshua's third Birthday, so I found this and thought it would most definitely apply to the YCMTSU category.

NOW we know why those cookies are so addicting. I love the Thin Mints. One of my other favorites are those with the Coconut. I just can not wait until that time of year. I'm truly addicted to those little boxes of joy that come right to my door. Yup, I'm talking about Girl Scout Cookies. I buy two to four boxes every year. Once the box is open, the box is gone.

I know quite a few people that absolutely love this time of year. Now, most likely for safety reasons, most Girls Scout troops do not come and knock on your door. Here in South Florida, most of the time, you can find them sitting outside of Grocery Stores selling their cookies there. That is even better. You do not have to order and wait. You can buy the boxes right there and go home and enjoy. Or, if you are like me, enjoy on the way home. {Smile}

So why do so many people LOVE them so much? Well, I guess this might answer that long asked question. According to AOL / AP News - Marijuana Farm Busted on Scout Camp

WARSAW, Ind. (July 16) - Police found thousands of marijuana plants being grown in a remote part of a Girl Scout camp, according to court documents and a scout official.

Officials at Camp Ella J. Logan were dismayed when they found out what had happened, said Sherri Weidman, chief executive of the Limberlost Girl Scout Council.

"Oh no. They found our secret ingredient."

Police found the hidden marijuana farm with plants in various stages of cultivation in a wooded swampy area of Kosciusko County, according to documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court in South Bend. Some of the plants were growing on land belonging to a local resident, while the bulk - about 5,000 plants - were growing on camp land. State troopers in an airplane spotted the plots.

Mario Comacho, 44, Mariano Gonzales, 38, and a juvenile were arrested last week after police found the farm. Comacho and Gonzales, both of Goshen, appeared for an initial hearing Monday in federal court on charges of possession of more than 1,000 marijuana plants with the intent to distribute. Neither man had an attorney, according to court documents.

Johnny Coy, who owns part of the land where the pot was found growing, said he wasn't aware of the operation and rarely visits the swampy area.

Weidman said the area was in a remote part of the 220-acre camp accessible only by wading through the muck or taking a canoe. The land was bought by the council to provide a safety buffer, she said.

Parents of campers were informed of the discovery when they picked up their children.

So there you have it folks. It's not your fault. You really ARE addicted to the cookies. Since it is not your fault, feel free to eat all you like. {Smile}

See you tomorrow for the From the Emails Segment.
Peter

Sources:
AOL / AP News - Marijuana Farm Busted on Scout Camp

Everyone But Congress Gets It

Price falls, Elders Speak.

Hey folks,

Did you see what happened to the price of oil when the President gave that Press Conference yesterday? It fell nearly $8.00 dollars. It squeaked back up a bit, but at the end of the day, it was down $6.44 over all.

Most people get it. Remember what I have been telling you? Just the mere possibility of us drilling our own oil will bring the price down. A call to do so? Not so much. But when the President of the United States stands up and says we WILL. The Congress is growing increasingly out numbered, and it appears that they cannot hold out much longer, the price at the pumps PLUMMETED!

Now Nancey Pelosi knows this. They all do. But they will NEVER tell you this is why. She said this yesterday.

"Today, the price of oil per barrel dropped $6.44 in one day -- the second highest one-day drop in history -- when the Federal Reserve Chairman predicted lower U.S. oil consumption. The biggest drop in history came 17 years ago, when President George H.W. Bush released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1991 and the price per barrel dropped 34 percent in one day.

President Bush tells us that there are no quick fixes -- but history proves otherwise. President Bush should free our oil by releasing a small amount of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and bring the price down further. Obstinance does nothing to help Americans struggling with record gas prices and a host of economic concerns."

That is without adding one drop of oil. NOT ONE DROP. That is from the mere mention of the possibility of us getting our own to use. Using OUR own resources that by all means, is MORE than that of all the Mid- East Countries combined. Imagine if we actually WERE drilling.

Even some retired "Experts" on BOTH sides get it. According to the AP- Energy tsunami coming, ex-policymakers warn

A bipartisan group of 27 elder statesmen is sending an open letter to both presidential candidates and every member of Congress saying the country faces "a long-term energy crisis" that threatens the security and prosperity of future generations if swift action isn't taken.

The group includes Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and six other former secretaries of state or defense, former senators of both parties and a half dozen former senior White House advisers and other Cabinet officers for both Republican and Democratic presidents.

"We must re-examine outdated and entrenched positions," the group says in the letter to be sent Wednesday to the campaigns of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and to his GOP rival John McCain, as well as members of Congress and all 50 governors.

"...Foremost we must rise above a partisan differences and be united in our efforts," they wrote.

They talk about what I have been saying. WE CAN DO BOTH. We can drill here, drill now, and pay less, WHILE we search out new and Alternative Energy Sources.

But retired Marine General James Jones, the institute's president, said the call to action reflects broad, bipartisan views and doesn't lean on one party or the other.

"There's an energy tsunami coming, and when you see it coming you better get on top of the wave, or you're going to get crushed by it," he said in an interview.

"We demand more energy and complain about high prices, but we restrict energy exploration and production. We embrace the promise of energy efficiency, but we are slow to make adjustments in our energy-intensive lifestyles," the letter says.

I love this.

Production of electricity, for example, is taken "almost for granted." At the same time, people oppose new power plants and don't want to invest adequately in energy technology research, the writers say.

In other words folks, saying something is bad and that there is a better way, yet not offering REAL solutions, is nothing more than pipe dreams and wonders. NOT SOLUTIONS.

Other senders of the letter include former Secretaries of State James A. Baker and George Shultz, former Defense Secretaries Frank Carlucci, William Cohen, William Perry and James Schlesinger; former senior White House advisers Howard Baker, Robert "Bud" McFarlane, Kenneth Duberstein and Brent Scowcroft; former Energy Secretaries James Watkins and Spencer Abraham; former CIA Director James Woolsey; former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans; former Democratic Sens. J. Bennett Johnston, Sam Nunn and Charles Robb; and former Republican Sen. George Allen.

Folks, EVERYONE is starting to get this. EVERYONE that is except Congress that are now the only ones standing in the way. When you go to the pump today remember one's fault it is that you are paying what you are. Remember yesterday's oil price plummet and WHY it happened. Realize that adding more oil to the market WILL WORK. Then go home and call your Congress person and say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. LIFT THE BAN ON DRILLING! Or make no mistake about it. WE will throw you out on your ARSE that you seems to refuse to get off of and do something about this. My kid needs to eat today. I need to go to work. It should not cost me a hundred dollars to fill my tank.
Peter

Sources:
Office of the Speaker of The House
AP - Energy tsunami coming, ex-policymakers

Press Conference by the President 071508

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
10:22 AM EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. It's been a difficult time for many American families who are coping with declining housing values and high gasoline prices. This week my administration took steps to help address both these challenges.

To help address challenges in the housing and financial markets, we announced temporary steps to help stabilize them and increase confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two enterprises play a central role in our housing finance system, so Treasury Paulson has worked with the Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke so that the companies and the government regulators -- put the companies and the government regulators on a plan to strengthen these enterprises. We must ensure they can continue providing access to mortgage credit during this time of financial stress.

I appreciate the positive reaction this plan has received from many members of Congress. I urge members to move quickly to enact the plan in its entirety, along with the good oversight legislation that we have recommended for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is a part of a -- should be part of the housing package that is moving its way through the Congress. And I hope they move quickly. The newly proposed authorities will be temporary and used only if needed. And as we work to maintain the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we'll work to ensure that they remain shareholder-owned companies.

To help address the pressure on gasoline prices my administration took action this week to clear the way for offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. It's what's called OCS. Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s; I've called on Congress to remove the ban. There was also an executive prohibition on exploration, offshore exploration. So yesterday, I issued a memorandum to lift this executive prohibition. With this action, the executive branch's restrictions have been removed, and this means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress. Bringing OCS resources online is going to take time, which means that the need for congressional action is urgent. The sooner Congress lifts the ban, the sooner we can get these resources from the ocean floor to refineries, to the gas pump.

Democratic leaders have been delaying action on offshore exploration and now they have an opportunity to show that they finally heard the frustrations of the American people. They should match the action I have taken, repeal the congressional ban and pass legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration.

Congress needs also to pass bills to fund our government in a fiscally responsible way. I was disappointed to learn the Democratic leaders in the House postponed committee consideration of the defense appropriations bill, and they did so yesterday. They failed to get a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills to my desk. In fact, this is the latest that both the House and the Senate have failed to pass any of their annual spending bills in more than two decades.

There are just 26 legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year. This means that to get their fundamental job done, Congress would have to pass a spending bill nearly every other day. This is not a record to be proud of, and I think the American people deserve better.

Our citizens are rightly concerned about the difficulties in the housing markets and high gasoline prices and the failure of the Democratic Congress to address these and other pressing issues. Yet despite the challenges we face, our economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience. While the unemployment rate has risen, it remains at 5.5 percent, which is still low by historical standards. And the economy continued to grow in the first quarter of this year. The growth is slower than we would have liked, but it was growth nonetheless.

We saw the signs of a slowdown early and enacted a bipartisan economic stimulus package. We've now delivered more than $91 billion in tax relief to more than 112 million American households this year. It's going to take some time before we feel the full benefit of the stimulus package, but the early signs are encouraging. Retails sales were up in May and June, and should contribute, and will contribute, to economic growth. In the months ahead we expect more Americans to take advantage of these stimulus payments and inject new energy into our economy.

The bottom line is this: We're going through a tough time, but our economy has continued growing, consumers are spending, businesses are investing, exports continue increasing, and American productivity remains strong. We can have confidence in the long-term foundation of our economy, and I believe we will come through this challenge stronger than ever before.

And now I'll be glad to take some questions from you. Mr. Hunt.

Q Mr. President, are America's banks in trouble? And does the rescue of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac [sic] make more bailouts inevitable by sending the message that there are some institutions that are too big to fail and that it's okay to take risks?

THE PRESIDENT: First, let me talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A lot of people in the country probably don't understand how important they are to the mortgage markets. And it's really important for people to have confidence in the mortgage markets and that there be stability in the mortgage markets. And that's why Secretary Paulson announced the plan this weekend, which says that he needs authorities from the Congress to come up with a line of credit for these institutions, if needed, and that he ought to have the authority to invest capital, if needed.

And so the purpose was to send a clear signal that, one, we understand how important these institutions are to the mortgage markets, and two, to kind of calm nerves. The truth of the matter is, by laying this out, it is -- makes it less likely we'll need to use this kind of authority to begin with, which, by the way, is temporary authority.

As you -- talked about banks. Now, if you're a commercial bank in America and your deposit -- and you have a deposit in a commercial bank in America, your deposit is insured by the federal government up to $100,000. And so, therefore, when you hear nervousness about your bank, you know, people start talking about how nervous they are about your bank's condition -- the depositor must understand that the federal government through the FDIC stands behind the deposit up to $100,000. And therefore, which leads me to say that if you're a depositor, you're in -- you're protected by the federal government.

I happened to witness a bank run in Midland, Texas, one time. I'll never forget the guy standing in the bank lobby saying, your deposits are good. We got you insured. You don't have to worry about it if you got less than $100,000 in the bank. The problem was, people didn't hear. And there's a -- became a nervousness. My hope is, is that people take a deep breath and realize that their deposits are protected by our government.

So these are two different instances -- mortgage markets on the one hand, banking on the other.

Q And banking -- do you think the system is in trouble?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the system basically is sound, I truly do. And I understand there's a lot of nervousness. And -- but the economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like, but -- and to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move. That's one thing about this administration, we're not afraid of making tough decisions. And I thought the decision that Secretary Paulson recommended on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the right decision.

Matt.

Q Mr. President, you mentioned the latest retail sales, but they actually show a smaller boost than economists had expected from the government rebate -- rebate checks. Given the latest economic data, are you still insisting that the United States is not headed for a recession? And are you willing to consider a second stimulus package if needed?

THE PRESIDENT: Matt, all I can tell you is we grew in the first quarter. I can remember holding a press conference here and that same question came about, assuming that we weren't going to grow. But we showed growth. It's not the growth we'd like; we'd like stronger growth. And there are some things we can do. One is wait for the stimulus package to fully kick in and not raise taxes. If the Democratic leaders had their way in Congress, they would raise taxes, which would be the absolute wrong thing to do.

Secondly, they can pass housing legislation that reforms FHA, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And by the way, a part of that, as I mentioned in my opening statement, a part of that reform will be a strong regulator to help these institutions stay focused on the core mission, which is mortgages.

They can pass energy legislation. I readily concede that, you know, it's not going to produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it is going to change the psychology that demand will constantly outstrip supply. As I said in my remarks, it's going to take a while to get these reserves on line. But it won't take a while to send a signal to the world that we're willing to use new technologies to find oil reserves here at home.

And the other thing Congress can do is work on trade legislation. One of the positives in the economy right now is the fact that we're selling more goods overseas, and they need to open up markets to Colombia and South Korea and Panama.

John.

Q Mr. President, just to follow up with Terry's question a little bit. You talked about the mortgage markets and banks. Are there other entities in the economy that are so crucial to the stability and confidence in the economy -- I'm thinking particularly of General Motors, which today is cutting jobs, announcing they're going into the credit market to raise billions of dollars -- are there other entities that are so crucial to stability that require government action to show support for them?

THE PRESIDENT: Government action -- if you're talking about bailing out -- if your question is, should the government bail out private enterprise, the answer is, no, it shouldn't. And by the way, the decisions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- I hear some say "bailout" -- I don't think it's a bailout. The shareholders still own the company. That's why I said we want this to continue to be a shareholder-owned company.

In this case, there is a feeling that the government will stand behind mortgages through these two entities. And therefore, we felt a special need to step up and say that we are going to provide, if needed, temporary assistance through either debt or capital.

In terms of private enterprises, no, I don't think the government ought to be involved with bailing out companies. I think the government ought to create the conditions so that companies can survive. And I've listed four. And one of the things I'm deeply troubled about is people who feel like it's okay to raise taxes during these times. And it would be a huge mistake to raise taxes right now.

Plante.

Q Mr. President, you just said twice that the -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should remain shareholder-owned companies. If that's the case, because of the implicit government guarantee that they have, or that is understood, and has been understood by the markets, their exposure is higher and their reserves are lower than any normal business's. Should they be privatized altogether and be subject to normal business rules?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the first step is to make sure that there's confidence and stability in the mortgage markets through the actions that we have taken. Secondly, we strongly believe there ought to be a regulator. That's something -- this is the position I have been advocating for a long time. And the reason why is it's going to be very important for these institutions to focus on their core mission, which is to provide refinancing for the mortgage industry. And hopefully these measures will instill the confidence in the people. And we'll see how things go.

Q But they should still have that public guarantee then?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, there is an implicit guarantee, as you said. They ought to be focusing on the missions they're expected to do. We have advocated reform for a long period of time. But these need to remain private enterprises, and that's what our message is.

Q Mr. President, in February you were asked about Americans facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline and you said you hadn't heard of that at the time. Gas prices --

THE PRESIDENT: Aware of it now.

Q Gas prices are now approaching $5 a gallon in some parts of the country. Offshore oil exploration is obviously a long-term approach. What is the short-term advice for Americans? What can you do now to help them?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, there is a psychology in the oil market that basically says, supplies are going to stay stagnant while demand rises. And that's reflected somewhat in the price of crude oil. Gasoline prices are reflected -- the amount of a gasoline price at the pump is reflected in the price of crude oil. And therefore, it seems like it makes sense to me to say to the world that we're going to use new technologies to explore for oil and gas in the United States -- offshore oil, ANWR, oil shale projects -- to help change the psychology, to send a clear message that the supplies of oil will increase.

Secondly, obviously good conservation measures matter. I've been reading a lot about how the automobile companies are beginning to adjust -- people -- consumers are beginning to say, wait a minute, I don't want a gas guzzler anymore, I want a smaller car. So the two need to go hand in hand. There is no immediate fix. This took us a while to get in this problem; there is no short-term solution. I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand -- but the President doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, low gas. It took us a while to get here and we need to have a good strategy to get out of it.

Q But you do have the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. What about opening that?

THE PRESIDENT: The Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve is for, you know, emergencies. But that doesn't address the fundamental issue. And we need to address the fundamental issue, which I, frankly, have been talking about since I first became President -- which is a combination of using technology to have alternative sources of energy, but at the same time finding oil and gas here at home. And now is the time to get it done. I heard somebody say, well, it's going to take seven years. Well, if we'd have done it seven years ago we'd be having a different conversation today. I'm not suggesting it would have completely created -- you know, changed the dynamics in the world, but it certainly would have been -- we'd have been using more of our own oil and sending less money overseas.

Yes, Ed.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is a good morning.

Q It is.

THE PRESIDENT: Every day is a good morning when you get to serve the country.

Q Absolutely. And we know you prize loyalty, so I wonder whether you felt betrayed by Scott McClellan's assessment of the war in Iraq? And moving forward, since there have been positive signs on the ground in Iraq, Senator Obama is about to take a trip there -- what would be your advice to him as he tries to assess the situation on the ground?

THE PRESIDENT: I have had no comment on -- no comment now on Scott's book.

Secondly, I would ask him to listen carefully to Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus. It's -- there's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with the considered judgment of the commanders. That's why I strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It's kind of like an arbitrary thing, you know -- "We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon polls and politics, and we're going to impose this on people" -- as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter. The Iraqis have invited us to be there. But they share a goal with us, which is to get our combat troops out, as conditions permit. Matter of fact, that's what we're doing. Return on success has been the strategy of this administration, and our troops are coming home, but based upon success.

And so I would ask whoever goes there, whatever elected official goes there, to listen carefully to what is taking place, and understand that the best way to go forward is to listen to the parties who are actually on the ground. And that's hard to do. I understand for some in Washington there's a lot of pressure; you got these groups out there -- MoveOn.org, you know, banging away on these candidates, and it's hard to kind of divorce yourself from the politics.

And so I'm glad -- I'm glad all the -- a lot of these elected officials are going over there, because they'll get an interesting -- they'll get an interesting insight, something that you don't get from just reading your wonderful newspapers or listening to your TV shows.

John.

THE PRESIDENT: You call them TV shows? Newscasts, yes.

Q Following up on the question about oil, in the past, when oil prices have gone up a lot, they've wound up going down a lot afterward. But I wonder if you're able to say that oil prices in the future are going to come down a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I can't predict, John. I mean, look, my attitude is, is that unless there is a focused effort -- in the short term -- unless there's a focused effort to bring more supplies to market, there's going to be a lot of upward pressure on price. We got 85 million barrels a day and -- of demand and 86 million barrels of production. And it's just -- it's too narrow a spread, it seems like to me.

Now, I'm encouraged by, you know, the Caspian Basin exploration. I'm encouraged that the Saudis are reinvesting a lot into their older fields. And remember, some of these oil fields get on the decline rate, which requires a lot of investment to keep their production up to previous levels. So one thing we look at is how much money is being reinvested in some of those fields. I'm encouraged by that.

I am discouraged by the fact that some nations subsidize the purchases of product, like gasoline, which, therefore, means that demand may not be causing the market to adjust as rapidly as we'd like. I was heartened by the fact that the Chinese the other day announced that they're going to start reducing some of their subsidies, which all of a sudden you may have some, you know, demand-driven changes in the overall balance.

But, look, if we conserve and find more energy, we will done -- have done our part to address, you know, the global market right now. And the other thing is that this is just a transition period. I mean, all of us want to get away from reliance upon hydrocarbons, but it's not going to happen overnight. One of these days people are going to be using battery technologies in their cars. You've heard me say this a lot. I'm confident it's going to happen. And the throw-away line, of course, is that your car won't have to look like a golf cart.

But the question then becomes, where are we going to get electricity? And that's why I'm a big believer in nuclear power, to be able to make us less dependent on oil and better stewards of the environment. But there is a transition period during the hydrocarbon era, and it hasn't ended yet, as our people now know. Gasoline prices are high.

Again, I don't want to be a "I told you so," but if you go back and look at the strategy we put out early on in this administration, we understood what was coming. We knew the markets were going to be tight. And therefore, we called for additional exploration at home, plus what has been happening, which is an acceleration of new technologies -- including ethanol technologies -- to get us less dependent on crude oil from overseas.

Let's see here, Steven Lee. Steven Lee.

Q Mr. President, thank you. I wonder in light of the Supreme Court's decision if you could tell us what you plan to do with Guantanamo?

THE PRESIDENT: Steven Lee, we're still analyzing -- "we" being the Justice Department -- are still analyzing the effects of the decision, which, as you know, I disagreed with. And secondly, we're working with members of Congress on a way forward. This is a very complicated case; it complicated the situation in Guantanamo.

My view all along has been either send them back home, or give them a chance to have a day in court. I still believe that makes sense. We're just trying to figure out how to do so in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Eggen.

Q Mr. President, last week China joined Russia in blocking the sanctions -- Mugabe and Zimbabwe. I can't imagine it's pleased you very much. Do you have any reaction to -- particularly the Chinese move? And also, where do you go from here to try to make sure that the regime doesn't --

THE PRESIDENT: You read my reaction right, I was displeased. We spent a lot of time on this subject at the G8, and there was great concern by most of the nations there -- well, with the G8 nations that were there -- about what was taking place in Zimbabwe. And it's, frankly, unacceptable, and it should be unacceptable to a lot of folks.

And so we discussed the need for, you know, U.N. Security Council resolutions. And I was disappointed that the Russians vetoed. I didn't -- I hadn't spent any time with the Chinese leader talking about -- specifically talking about any Security Council resolutions; I had with President Medvedev.

And so I think the thing we need to do now is for us to analyze whether or not we can have some more bilateral sanctions on regime leaders. After all, these sanctions were not against the Zimbabwe people; these were against the people that -- in the Mugabe regime that made the decisions it made. We got the Treasury Department and State Department -- are now working on a potential -- potential U.S. action.

Bret.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I have a two-part question on the war, in light of increasing violence in Afghanistan. Do you believe current U.S. troop levels in Iraq are hindering efforts to put more U.S. troops into Afghanistan?

And secondly, this morning in his prepared remarks, Senator Obama will say this: "By any measure, our single-minded, open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe. In fact, as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq and it never was."

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as you know, I'm loathe to respond to a particular presidential candidate, and so I will try not to. My view is, is that the war on terror is being fought out on two simultaneous fronts that are noted -- noticeable to the American people, and on other fronts that aren't. And so the first question that anybody running for President gets: Is this a war? Or is this like law enforcement? Is it a -- does this require full use of U.S. assets in order to protect the American people? As you know, I made the decision that it does require those assets.

Secondly, that these are two very important fronts, both of which are important to the future of the country. And therefore, we got to succeed in both. Thirdly, one front right now is going better than the other, and that's Iraq, where we're succeeding, and our troops are coming home based upon success. And Afghanistan is a tough fight. It's a tough fight because, one, this is a state that had been just ravaged by previous wars, and there wasn't a lot of central government outreach to the people.

Secondly, there is a tough enemy, and they're brutal, and they kill at the drop of a hat in order to affect behavior. It's a little bit reminiscent of what was taking place in Iraq a couple of years ago, where the enemy knows that they can affect the mentality of the American people if they just continue to kill innocent folks. And they have no disregard [sic] for human life. And it's really important we succeed there, as well as in Iraq. We do not want the enemy to have safe haven. Of course -- unless, of course, your attitude is, this isn't a war. So if that's the case, it wouldn't matter whether we succeed or not.

But it is a two-front war. And I say there's other fronts, but there's other fronts where we're taking covert actions, for example.

Go ahead.

Q Should Americans expect a troop surge in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: We are surging troops in Afghanistan this way, and committed --

Q Even more?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll analyze the situation, of course, make a determination based upon the conditions on the ground. But we did surge troops. We surged troops. France surged troops. I said in Bucharest, we'll add more troops. And then, of course, we got to make sure the strategy works -- you know, have a counter-insurgency strategy that not only provides security but also provides economic follow-up after the security has been enhanced.

The question really facing the country is, will we have the patience and the determination to succeed in these very difficult theaters? And I understand exhaustion and I understand people getting tired and -- but I would hope that whoever follows me understands that we're at war, and now is not the time to give up in the struggle against this enemy; and that while there hasn't been an attack on the homeland, that's not to say people don't want to attack us. And safe havens become very dangerous for the American people, and we've got to deny safe haven, and at the same, win the struggle by advancing democracy.

This is an ideological struggle we're involved in. These people kill for a reason. They want us to leave. They want us to -- you know, not push back. They don't want democracy to succeed. And yet if given a chance, democracy will succeed. And so these two theaters are the big challenge of the time and the war itself is the challenge.

Yes, Roger.

Q Thank you, sir. I want to follow up on Matt's question about a second economic stimulus --

THE PRESIDENT: On whose question?

Q Matt's question about a second economic stimulus package.

THE PRESIDENT: Brilliant question. Now they're going to start quoting you, you know. Congratulations. (Laughter.)

Q Maybe I missed it, but did you rule out one or --

THE PRESIDENT: I said we ought to see how this one, first one works. Let it run its course.

Q Is it too late to consider a second one in your administration?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, we -- we're always open-minded to things, but I -- let's see how this stimulus package works and let us deal with the housing market with a good piece of housing legislation, and the energy issue with good energy legislation, and the trade issue with good trade legislation.

People say, aww, man, you're running out of time, nothing is going to happen. I'll remind people what did happen: We got a good troop funding bill with no strings; got a GI Bill; we got FISA. What can we get done? We can get good housing legislation done. We can get good energy legislation done. We can get trade bills done. I mean, there's plenty of time to get action with the United States Congress, and they need to move quickly. We can get judges approved.

And so I'm -- we'll see what happens up there. I'm confident if they put their mind to it we can get good legislation.

Let's see here -- yes, Mark.

Q Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and will continue long through the campaign and into the next administration -- one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?

THE PRESIDENT: They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done, is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars, they want to conserve. But the consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works.

Secondly, we have worked with Congress to change CAFE standards, and had a mandatory alternative fuel requirement.

So no question about what you just said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to save, is to conserve. And as you notice my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks.

Q But you don't see the need to ask -- you don't see the value of your calling for a campaign --

THE PRESIDENT: I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there's some easy steps people can take. You know, if they're not in their home, they don't keep their air-conditioning running. There's a lot of things people can do.

But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money, or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.

And as much as I regret that the gasoline prices are high -- and they are -- I also understand that people are going to make adjustments to meet their own needs. And I suspect you'll see, in the whole, Americans using less gasoline. I bet that's going to happen. And in the meantime, technologies will be coming on the market that will enable them to drive and save money, compared to the automobiles they're using before. And as you notice, the automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home as consumer demand changes. And the great thing about our system, it is the consumer that drives our system; it's the individual American and their collection that end up driving the economy.

Yes, Ann.

Q Could I follow up on a couple of points, please?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

Q `You never mention oil companies. Are you confident that American oil producers are tapping all of the sources they have out there, including offshore? And on Iraq, will you sign an interim agreement with Prime Minister Maliki on American operations in Iraq, leaving it to your successor to do a more permanent agreement?

THE PRESIDENT: There are -- let me start with Iraq. We're in the process of working on a strategic framework agreement with the Iraqi government that will talk about cooperation on a variety of fronts -- diplomacy, economics, justice. Part of that agreement is a security agreement, and I believe that -- you know, they want to have an aspirational goal as to how quickly the transition to what we have called overwatch takes place. Overwatch will mean that the U.S. will be in a training mission, logistical support as well as special ops.

In order for our troops to be in a foreign country, there must be an understanding with the government. There must be authorities to operate, as well as protections for our troops. We're in the process of negotiating that, as well. And it needs to be done prior to the year because -- unless, of course, the U.N. mandate is extended. And so there are two aspects to the agreement -- people seem to conflate the two -- and we're working both of them simultaneously.

Let's see here.

Q American oil producers?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, what was the question again on that?

Q You talked about offshore --

THE PRESIDENT: What about them -- do I think they're investing capital to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel? Absolutely. Take an offshore exploration company. First of all, it costs a lot of money to buy the lease, so they tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of money to do the geophysics, to determine what the structure may or may not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. Now, first of all, in a federal offshore lease, if you're not exploring within a set period of time, you lose your bonus; you lose the amount of money that you paid to get the lease in the first place.

And once you explore, your first exploratory, if you happen to find oil or gas, it is -- you'll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up. And it becomes in your interest, your economic interest, to continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per-barrel basis. And so I -- I think -- I think they're exploring. And hopefully a lot of people continue to explore so that the supply of oil worldwide increases relative to demand.

Now, people say, what about the speculators? I think you can't help but notice there is some volatility in price in the marketplace, which obviously there are some people in the -- buying and selling on a daily basis. On the other hand, the fundamentals are what's really driving the long-term price of oil, and that is, demand for oil has increased, and supply has not kept up with it. And so part of our strategy in our country has got to be to say, okay, here are some suspected reserves and that we ought to go after them in an environmentally friendly way.

A buddy of mine said, well, what about the reefs? So I'm concerned about the reefs. I'm a fisherman, I like to fish, reefs are important for fisheries. But the technology is such that you can protect the reefs. You don't have to drill on top of a reef. You can drill away from a reef and then have a horizontal hole to help you explore a reservoir.

It's like in Alaska. You know, in the old days, you would have had to have -- if you ever go out to West Texas, you'll see, there's like a rig every 20 acres, depending upon the formation. In Alaska you can have one pad with a lot of horizontal drilling, which enables you to exploit the resources in a way that doesn't damage the environment. These are new technologies that have come to be, and yet we've got an old energy policy that hasn't recognized how the industry has changed. And now is the time to get people to recognize how the industry has changed.

April.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Two questions. One on energy and another on Sudan.

THE PRESIDENT: On what?

Q Not energy, I'm sorry, the economy. When, in your guesstimation, will this country see a turnaround as relates to the softening economy? When will it become strong again?

And also, on the Sudan, the Sudanese government is looking to the United Nations for help in this situation with the ICC. And this is a body that they have ignored before. What are your thoughts about what's happening with the Sudan?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're not a member of the ICC, so we'll see how that plays out.

My thought on Sudan is, is that the United Nations needs to work with this current government to get those troops in to help save lives -- AU hybrid force. I talked to Williamson, who's the Special Envoy to Sudan, yesterday. There's two aspects to the Sudanese issue. One is the north-south agreement, and he was talking about the need to make sure that there is a clear understanding about how oil revenues will be shared between north and south in a certain part of the border region there, so as to make sure that there is -- that this agreement that Ambassador Danforth negotiated stays intact and stays full.

And the other aspect, obviously, is Darfur. And that's a very, very complex issue. We're trying to make -- we're trying to work with the rebel groups so that they speak more with one voice. We're trying to work with Bashir to make sure he understands that there will be continued sanctions if he doesn't move forward. We're trying to help get this -- AU troops in Africa, throughout Africa into Sudan. And we're working with the French on the issue of Chad.

And it's a complex situation, and sadly enough, innocent people are being displaced and are losing their life. And it's very difficult and unacceptable. And as you know, I made the decision not to unilaterally send troops. Once that decision was made, then we had to reply upon the United Nations. And I brought this issue up at the G8 with our partners there. There's the same sense of consternation and the same sense of frustration that things haven't moved quicker. I talked to Ban Ki-moon about the issue and he told me -- I think he told me that by the end of this year a full complement of AU troops will be there. Then the question is, will the government help expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid?

Anyway, the other question?

Q Yes, the other question --

THE PRESIDENT: When will the economy turn around?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not an economist, but I do believe that we're growing. And I can remember this press conference here where people yelling "recession this, recession that" -- as if you're economists. And I'm an optimist. I believe there's a lot of positive things for our economy. But I will tell you it's not growing the way it should and I'm sorry people are paying as high gasoline prices as they are. And all I know is good policy will help expedite a -- will strengthen our economy.

Q Do you think it will change before you leave office?

THE PRESIDENT: I certainly hope it changes tomorrow. But it's -- I'm also realistic to know things don't change on a dime. But nevertheless, the economy is growing. There's obviously financial uncertainty. We've talked about the decisions on the GSEs here. People need to know that if they've got a deposit in a commercial bank the government will make good up to $100,000 worth of their deposit. There's no question it's a time of uncertainty. There's a lot of events taking place at the same time. But we can pass some good law to help expedite the recovery.

One such law is a good piece of housing legislation. The Congress needs to get moving on it. Another such law is to send a signal that we're willing to explore for oil here at home. I fully understand that this is a transition period away from hydrocarbon, but we ought to be wise about how we use our own resources. I think it would be a powerful signal if we announce that we're going to really get after it when it comes to oil shale. There's enormous reserves in the western states. And I think if the world saw that we're willing to put a focused, concerted effort on using new technologies to bring those reserves to bear, which would then relieve some pressure on gasoline prices, it would have an impact.

The other thing is, is that -- I'm sure you know this, April, but we haven't built a refinery, a new refinery in the United States since the early '70s. It makes no sense. And yet you try to get one permitted, it is unbelievably difficult to do. People aren't willing to risk capital if they're deeply concerned about how their capital is going to be tied up in lawsuits or regulations. And we import a lot of gasoline, refined product from overseas.

So there's some things we can do to send signals that it's important that we can get the economy -- take advantage of the positive aspects and get it moving stronger again.

The other thing is trade. It is -- I don't understand the decision on the Colombia free trade market -- free trade agreement. The Congress has given preferential treatment to goods coming out of Colombia through the Andean Trade Preference Act. In other words, Colombia businesses can sell into our country relatively duty free. And yet we don't have the same -- we don't get the same treatment. Now, why does that make sense? It doesn't.

Trade, our trade or exports have helped keep the economy growing, April, as paltry as it may be. Doesn't it make sense for us to continue to open up further opportunities to sell goods? I think it does. I do not understand why it's okay for Colombia to be able to sell into our country close to duty free, and we don't have the same advantage. And secondly, turning our back on somebody like Uribe makes no sense at all. He is a courageous fighter against terrorists. And yet our Congress won't even bring up a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Anyway, it's -- politics is just choking good sense. And the other thing is, is that once we get moving on Colombia, we need to get moving on Panama and South Korea. It's in our country's interest we do that.

Olivier. Olivier.

Q Yes, sir. Can I follow up on --

MS. PERINO: He looks like -- (Laughter.)

Q Following up on Bret Baier's question --

MS. PERINO: -- Olivier. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I know who Olivier is. I was just winking at Myers, you know. (Laughter.) Yes, Olivier.

Q Thank you, sir. Following up on Bret Baier's question --

THE PRESIDENT: What was the question, Olivier? I'm 62, I'm having trouble remembering a lot of things.

Q It was about Afghanistan, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Good, yes.

Q Okay. Afghan President --

THE PRESIDENT: I remember it now.

Q Afghan President Hamid Karzai has blamed Pakistan's intelligence services for a recent terrorist attack in his country, and recent reporting suggests that al Qaeda has regrouped to pre-September 11th levels along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Is President Karzai correct, and do you think the new President -- the new government in Pakistan is willing and is able to fight the terrorists?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, we'll investigate his charge and we'll work with his service to get to the bottom of his allegation. No question, however, that some extremists are coming out of parts of Pakistan into Afghanistan. And that's troubling to us, it's troubling to Afghanistan, and it should be troubling to Pakistan. We share a common enemy: That would be extremists who use violence to either disrupt democracy or prevent democracy from taking hold.

Al Qaeda is -- they're there. We have hurt al Qaeda hard -- hit them hard, and hurt them in -- around the world, including in Pakistan. And we will continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda -- with our Pakistan friends.

I certainly hope that the government understands the dangers of extremists moving in their country. I think they do. As a matter of fact, we'll have an opportunity to explore that further on Monday with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally, Pakistan is a friend. And I repeat: All three countries, United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan, share a common enemy.

I remember very well the meeting I had at the White House with President Musharraf and President Karzai. And we talked about the need for cross-border cooperation to prevent dangerous elements from training and coming into Afghanistan, and then, by the way, returning home with a skill level that could be used against the government.

And there was some hopeful progress made. Obviously it's still a tough fight there. And we were heartened by the provincial elections in that part of the world. We will continue to work to help the government, on the one hand, deal with extremists; and on the other hand, have a counter -- effective counterinsurgency kind of strategy that uses aid to foster economic development. And it's a challenge. And the three of us working together can deal with the challenge a lot better than if we don't work together.

Okay, I've enjoyed it. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.

End: 11:04 AM EST



See Video HERE

President Bush Does The Right Thing, Now The Dems Turn

Now it is only the Democrats keeping you from paying over $4 dollars at the pump

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to you. Last night I posted the Video and text of the speech given by President Bush about his lifting the Executive Order to allow OSD {Off Shore Drilling} and the fact that it is only the Democrats standing in the way of us getting and using our own resources. It is the Democrats that are now keeping the price above $4.00 dollars at the pump. While they give us NO REAL answers, pipe dreams and wonders, we continue to pay more than we need to. We continue to be dependant on foreign oil. We continue to have the energy crises we have today.

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt said this.

"With the president's decision today to lift the ban on the responsible development of America's deep-ocean energy, only one obstacle remains between the American people and accessing the abundant reserves of homegrown energy that are rightfully theirs: Democrats in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, reports indicate the only energy-related legislation we'll see this week is a bill to 'unlock' an energy field we've already been exploring for 25 years, along with an effort to advance the once-failed, and thoroughly discredited 'Use It or Lose It' language. Needless to say, neither plan will help the millions of American families struggling in a world of $4 gas, $150 oil, and prohibitively high electricity rates.

Back in 1990 when this executive ban was first established, oil sold for $18 and $1.20 could get you a gallon of gas just about anywhere in the country. Almost a generation later, our nation's energy outlook has changed more than anyone could've predicted back then - but reflexive Democratic arguments against responsible, homegrown energy production have not.

Enough is enough. It's long-past time for this country to take a meaningful step toward the achievement of genuine energy security. The president did his part today. Now it's time for Congress to finally act."

He is right. American Chemistry Council (ACC) President & CEO Jack N. Gerard issued the following statement:

"Today's historic announcement by President Bush is a positive sign of change and a significant step in the right direction for U.S. energy policy. While today's action alone does not solve the problem, it takes us one step closer to a comprehensive solution and a more affordable, secure energy future. We're encouraged not only by today's news, but also the important bipartisan talks taking place in the House and Senate among lawmakers exploring energy legislation that could include domestic supply."

Why do we have a bipartisan movement growing in the House and Senate? Because of YOU. Because YOU keep telling the Representatives and Senators that YOU want this. You WANT them to stop the game playing and the day dreaming and actually DO something. YOU are tired of dropping a hundred dollars every time you fill up. YOU know it does not have to be that way, and YOU know that it is them FORCING you to.

"Clearly, the ground is shifting on energy policy. As the crisis has grown, as it has become clear to Americans that the United States is jeopardizing our own economy and our ability to compete globally by not moving forward with expanded domestic energy development, and as poll after poll have shown that more than two-thirds of Americans support it, we've seen growing interest in this issue among lawmakers of both parties. We strongly encourage the House and Senate to continue exploring comprehensive energy legislation that includes efficiency; diversity, including renewables and other lower-emission sources and technologies; and expanded domestic energy supply."

Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) President and CEO Robbie Diamond said this.

"Today's action by the president is yet another sign that the American people understand that the status quo is unacceptable and are demanding that their leaders address the fundamental issues of energy supply and demand. Now the buck truly stops with Congress: they still must lift their moratorium before production or even exploration can commence. Democrats were crucial last year in helping to pass legislation to reduce demand, but that is only half the job; now it is time to address supply. We remain hopeful that both parties will act swiftly, and that this progress indicates a turn away from the half-measures that have until now too often substituted for comprehensive, effective energy policy.

We must also remember that increasing our domestic production of oil and natural gas is only one component of a comprehensive solution to our energy security vulnerabilities. Demand reductions, increased funding for research and development, advanced biofuels, and eventually electrification of the transportation sector are all elements that must come together for us to truly end our destructive dependence on oil."

As I have been telling you. We really can do both at the same time. What is the Democrat response? What did you expect? Speaker of the LWL, I mean House, said this.

"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil.

The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas.

If the President wants to bring down prices in the next two weeks, not the next two decades, he should free our oil by releasing a small portion of the more than 700 million barrels of oil we have put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

It's time to tell the oil industry: 'You already have millions of acres to drill. Use it or lose it.'"

{Sigh} THERE IS NO OIL THERE. Same old tire lies and idiocies. Once again, those that are beholden to the Envionuts in Congress, stand in the way of solving the problem.

OK let me ask you this. I give you two addresses. It will cost you about ten grand to get to either. I tell you, address one, may or may not contain a briefcase with possibility one million dollars. Maybe more, maybe less. Maybe. Address two ABSOLUTELLY contains a briefcase with ten million dollars. Maybe even MORE. Which address are you going to invest your Ten Thousand dollars into going to? EXACTLY.

But here is the problem. I tell you, show you proof that these briefcases exist, then I tell you, you know what, forget address two. Just spend your money on address one and go get the case, that may or may not be there. I decided, you do not need to go to the sure thing.

THIS is what Congress is telling US. Not the Big Oil Companies. US. WE are the ones paying for the trip. WE are the ones that will benefit from it. WE are the ones that need to tell Congress, LET US GO WHERE WE KNOW THE OIL IS. LET US STOP PAYING UNNESSARY AND OUTRAGOUS ENERGY COSTS. STOP PLAYING GAMES.
Peter

Sources:
President Bush
Office of the House Minority Whip Roy Blunt
Office of The Speaker of the House
American Chemistry Council (ACC) President
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) President
Commonsense

President Bush Lifts Executive Order Banning Off Shore Drilling

Now it is CLEARLY only the Democrats blocking the way.

Hey folks,

Good Monday Evening. I'll see you in the morning to discuss this further, but right now, here is the President of the United States. VIDEO

President Bush: "Good afternoon. Across the country, Americans are concerned about the high price of gasoline. Every one of our citizens who drives to work, or takes a family vacation, or runs a small business is feeling the squeeze of rising prices at the pump.

To reduce pressure on prices we must continue to implement good conservation policies, and we need to increase the supply of oil, especially here at home. For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying at the pump. When members of Congress were home over the Fourth of July recess, they heard a clear message from their constituents: We need to take action now to expand domestic oil production.

One of the most important steps we can take to expand American oil production is to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, or what's called the OCS. But Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Experts believe that these restricted areas of the OCS could eventually produce nearly 10 years' worth of America's current annual oil production. And advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills.

Last month, I asked Congress to lift this legislative ban and allow the exploration and development of offshore oil resources. I committed to lift an executive prohibition on this exploration if Congress did so, tailoring my executive action to match what Congress passed. It's been almost a month since I urged Congress to act -- and they've done nothing. They've not moved any legislation. And as the Democratically-controlled Congress has sat idle, gas prices have continued to increase.

Failure to act is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the American people. So today, I've issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.

Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court. Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I've taken today, repealing the congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration. This legislation must allow states to have a say in what happens off their shores, provides a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure the environment is protected.

This legislation should also take other essential steps to expand domestic production: Congress should clear the way for our nation to tap into the extraordinary potential of oil shale, which could provide Americans with domestic oil supplies that are equal to more than a century's worth of current oil imports. Congress should permit exploration in currently restricted areas of northern Alaska, which could produce roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Congress should expand and enhance our domestic refining capacity, so that America will no longer have to import millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad.

The time for action is now. This is a difficult period for millions of American families. Every extra dollar they have to spend because of high gas prices is one dollar less they can use to put food on the table or send a child to school. And they are rightly angered by Congress' failure to enact common-sense solutions. Today, I've taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS. All that remains is for the Democratic leaders in Congress to allow a vote. The American people are watching the numbers climb higher and higher at the pump -- and they're waiting to see what the Congress will do.

Thank you."

See you in the Morning.
Peter

Sources:
White House Press Office
VIDEO - President Bush lifts Executive Order on Drilling

Bill Clinton Pulling The Race Card?

Sure Sounds Like It

Hey folks,

What does this even mean? Seriously. To me it sounds an awful lot like he was talking about race. I want you to think about this for a second. Imagine right now if John McCain or ANY MEMEMBER of the Republican Party said this.

"If we don't, in the words of President Roosevelt, dark will be the future," he said. "I'm betting on light — I hope you are, too."

We have an election coming up with the first viable Black Candidate going against a Candidate that could not be more White. But it was not McCain nor a Republican that said this. It was Bill Clinton. According to the AP -Bill Clinton warns of growing polarization By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer Sat Jul 12, 11:52 PM ET

Former President Bill Clinton warned Saturday that the country is becoming increasingly polarized despite the historic nature of the Democratic primary.

Speaking at the National Governors Association's semiannual meeting, Clinton noted that on the one hand, following the early stages of the Democratic primary, "the surviving candidates were an African-American man and a woman."

A White Woman.

Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, battled for the Democratic nomination into June with fellow Democrat Barack Obama, son of a white mother and black father.

Why bring in the race of his parents? Who cares? He is Black. Right? Is he not Black enough because his Mother was White? Is he? What is the point?

But this achievement was overshadowed by a growing distance between Americans, said Clinton.

"Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference," Clinton said.

What does like mindedness mean? They both were basically saying the same thing. The only difference between the two was how far into Socialism they want to take this country. Sex. Race.

Clinton developed his 44-minute speech from themes he said he drew from a new book, "The Big Sort," by Bill Bishop.

He cited statistics compiled by Bishop that found that in the 1976 presidential election, only 20 percent of the nation's counties voted for Jimmy Carter or President Ford by more than a 20 percent margin.

By contrast, 48 percent of the nation's counties in 2004 voted for John Kerry or President Bush by more than 20 points, Clinton said.

"We were sorting ourselves out by choosing to live with people that we agree with," Clinton said.

Clinton has often meshed big picture admonitions with new books whose ideas he admires. He drew similar conclusions in 2000 following the publication of Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone," on the decline of civic engagement in the United States.

Among the approximately two dozen active governors in attendance Saturday were some of the 11 who backed Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gov. Timothy Kaine of Virginia said he wasn't worried about how President Clinton might view his support for Obama.

"We're human beings, too, so there are feelings, but we understand this is a team sport, and we come back together as a team," Kaine said.

After weeks of not speaking to each other, Obama last month reached out to President Clinton and asked him for help winning the White House. Clinton had portrayed Obama as too inexperienced to be president.

Among other things.

Clinton concluded his speech by reminding governors, who are marking the association's centennial, that the issues they face today are similar to problems President Teddy Roosevelt grappled with a century ago.

Those include inequality among rich and poor, immigration and energy policy.

So, redistribution of wealth, Universal Health care Amnesty, and Global Warming BS.

If those issues are dealt with, "We're about to go into the most exciting period of human history," Clinton said.

Yeah, the country could turn into the USSA The United Socialist States of America.

"If we don't, in the words of President Roosevelt, dark will be the future," he said. "I'm betting on light — I hope you are, too."

So what does this statement mean? Does it mean that if we do not quire a bigger government with more control and power in your private lives, we will become a dark country? The only way to save us is the government? Or is there another meaning behind this statement? Could Hilary still be holding out hope? Could he be sending a message? I do not know, but it sure sounds like a race based statement to me. I could of course be wrong.
Peter

Source:
AP -Bill Clinton warns of growing polarization

God Speed Tony Snow

You Will Be Missed.



Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, died Saturday after a long bout with cancer. He was 53.

A syndicated columnist, editor, TV anchor, radio show host and musician, Snow worked in nearly every medium in a career that spanned more than 30 years.

May his family receive the peace and comfort in their time of need. You are in our hearts and prayers. Tony will be missed by millions.
Peter

Preview For Sunday 071308

Coming up today 071308

Hey folks,

Happy Sunday to you. Coming right up today is:

The President again pushing Congress to get off their duffs and actually DO something about the gas Prices. They continue to play games.

Did you know that in 588 pages of report the EPA "made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health or welfare?" Yet there are some that want a bigger and more intrusive Government ANYWAY.

PC is going wild. Two different stories about this. In the YCMTSU segment, we will look at the fact that these New Liberal Offspring have NO sense of humour whatsoever.

Then, as always, we will wrap things up with the IWA. By the way, a quick question for you. "Black Hole"

A- A scientific terminology to describe an ACTUAL phenomenon?
B- Something you only see in SIFI Movies?
C- A Racist Statement?

This is all coming right up. Just a quick note. I have not worked out the details yet, but I will not be here next weekend. July 19, Saturday, is my Son Joshua's THRID Birthday. We are throwing him a party on the 20th at Indian River State Park. It's one of those parks that have one of those big Water Fountains that the kids can play in. It will be fun for all. However, needless to say, I will not be online at all this Weekend. That would just be wrong. So I may, time willing, be posting some of the segments during the week. Maybe not. Depends on the news and time. Hey, think of it this way, If I cannot get to it, the Idiots have another freebie Weekend off. {Smile} I will let you know.

That is next Weekend. I am here today, and we are fully loaded. Sit back, get ready, here we go.
Peter

President Bush and over 70 Percent Of Americans Are Right

It's the Democrats that are trying to give the same old tried and incorrect information.

Hey folks

You know, this really is getting sad. It's pathetic that the Democrat Leadership continue to fight, not only against President Bush, but YOU. They are the ones standing in the way of us getting and using our own resources. In light of the fact that most of you, most polls are now showing like 70 percent of you, NOW agree that we need to DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS. 1,323,189 of you have now signed the Petition.

The President keeps calling on Congress to stop playing games and do something. They, keep giving us the same old rhetoric and lies. They keep giving us pipe dreams and wonders. No real solutions. No details of how to bring them about. NOTHING. According to the AP - Bush, Democrats bicker over soaring energy prices By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 55 minutes ago

President Bush on Saturday tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.

He did not TRY to pin the blame on them Mr. Hunt. They ARE to blame.

"It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens," the president said. "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better."

With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, Bush and his Republican allies think Americans are more willing to allow drilling offshore and in an Alaska wildlife refuge that environmentalists have fought successfully for decades to protect. Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center in late June said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came among political liberals.

PEW is a more Liberal group. June? Today more than 70 percent and climbing with most surveys.

Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil.

YOU, Mr. Hunt are asking this as well. But if YOU, Mr. Hunt, did your job you would know that there really is NOT all this area leased and even less if ANY that actually HAVE oil.

"Americans are fed up every time they go to fill up and they're right to demand action. But instead of a serious response, President Bush and his allies simply repeat the same old line more drilling," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address.

"Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will."

{Sigh} Where is the oil on these acres?

"But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices," Van Hollen said. "We cannot drill our way to energy independence."

That is the script right there. "We can't drill our way out of this." Just keep saying this without offering any possibilities, real solutions, and or, DETAILS of how, when, and why, we can use. Maybe if you say it enough, they will believe you.

He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it is full and "America's rainy day is now." And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil.

WHAT? HOW? WHEN? CAN WE? WHY? Details are good.

Bush said that Democrats are at fault and that "Americans are increasingly frustrated with Congress' failure to take action.

"One of the factors driving up high gas prices is that many of our oil deposits here in the United States have been put off-limits for exploration and production. Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have been repeatedly rejected by Democrats in Congress."

Absolutely.

Bush repeated his call for Congress to lift the restrictions, including a ban on offshore drilling. A succession of presidents from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current president have sided against drilling in these waters as has Congress each year for 27 years, seeking to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

(This version CORRECTS that Bush and allies think Americans `more willing to allow' drilling. Moving on general news and financial services. AP Video.)

Folks, just the mention of us drilling brought the price down. The Speculators freaked a little and the price went into a nose dive. Then Congress stood up and blocked this, price went UP. This is Congresses fault. We can Drill and find alternative sources of energy at the same time. We really can. As long as the Democrats get the hell out of the way.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Bush, Democrats bicker over soaring energy prices

H.S. For Sunday 071308

EPA Finds No Evidence of Threat?

Hey folks,

More GWBS. More PUSH for you to buy this garbage from the Mainstreme Media. Just this first sentence in this AP piece blames Bush. But this is really NOT the case in point. From the AP - White House rejects regulating greenhouse gases By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Sat Jul 12, 1:26 AM ET Hell, just the headline gets the Loonies attention.

The Bush administration, dismissing the recommendations of its top experts, rejected regulating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming Friday, saying it would cripple the U.S. economy.

Which if we did what some of the Evionuts want, it WOULD cripple the economy. The only people that would be able to live as they are now would be the super rich that can afford to buy into the whole Carbon Credit Bunk.

In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection Agency made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health or welfare, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.

WAIT! Read that again. The EPA made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health or welfare. They FOUND NO EVINDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A THREAT! So WHY would we risk crippling the economy for NOTHING?

The White House on Thursday rejected the EPA's suggestion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change. The EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with global warming.

"If our nation is truly serious about regulating greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job," EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told reporters. "It is really at the feet of Congress."

So what does that even mean?

White House press secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush is committed to further reductions but that there is a "right way and a wrong way to deal with climate change."

Or the non-existent Global Warming threat. Hysteria makes not reality of a threat.

The wrong way is "to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills and the cost of energy for American businesses," she said. "The right way, as the president has proposed, is to invest in new technologies."

While drilling for our own sources of energy. We really can bring the prices down and find ways to free ourselves from Oil all together at the same time.

At the just concluded G-8 summit at Toyako, Japan, Bush and other world leaders called for a voluntary 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide by 2050 but offered no specifics on how to do it.

By the way, have you noticed that the Envionuts NEVER offer any specifics? Nor does the Democratic Leadership. They just talk pipe dreams and wonders, yet offer NO REAL SOLUTIONS.

In a setback for Bush, the Supreme Court ruled last year that the government had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. Bush has consistently opposed doing that.

It has not been settled folks. Not even in the GW community.

Congress hasn't found the will to do much about the problem either. Supporters of regulating greenhouse gases could get only 48 votes in the 100-member Senate last month. The House has held several hearings on the problem but no votes on any bill addressing it. Both major presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have endorsed variations of the approach rejected by the Senate.

In its voluminous document, the EPA laid out a buffet of options on how to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, ships, trains, power plants, factories and refineries. On Friday, Johnson called the proposals drafted by his staff as "putting a square peg into a round hole" and he said moving forward would be irresponsible.

"One point is clear: The potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land," Johnson wrote in the document's preface Friday.

Bigger and more intrusive Government.

Attorneys general from several states called the administration's findings inadequate.

"While we appreciate the effort that EPA staff made in putting together today's documents, the time has long passed for open-ended pondering — what we need now is action," said Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, which initiated the Supreme Court case.

OK. DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS!

The EPA said it had encountered resistance from the Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Transportation departments, as well as the White House, that made it "impossible" to respond in a timely fashion to the Supreme Court decision.

"Our agencies have serious concerns with this suggestion because it does not fairly recognize the enormous — and, we believe, insurmountable — burdens, difficulties, and costs, and likely limited benefits, of using the Clean Air Act" to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the secretaries of the four agencies wrote to the White House on Wednesday.

Discussing the benefits from reducing greenhouse gases, the EPA said doing nothing more than increasing fuel efficiency standards under last year's energy bill will reduce the harmful effects of global warming by $340 billion to $830 billion over the next three decades.

PROVE IT!

In a May draft of Friday's notice, the EPA had put the benefits to society of further reducing greenhouse gases at $2 trillion.

Friday's action caps months of often tense negotiations between EPA scientists and the White House over how to address global warming under the major federal air pollution law. It ended with the White House and other agencies citing "extraordinary circumstances" and refusing to review the draft forwarded in June by EPA scientists.

The document released Friday is much more cautious than a determination made in December by the agency that found greenhouse gases endangered welfare, and it also appears to counteract findings of drafts released in May and June that found the Clean Air Act could be an effective tool for reducing greenhouse gases.

"EPA's approach to this has been completely thrown out by the White House, which is only attempting to stall any kind of cleanup," said Frank O'Donnell," president of Clean Air Watch, an environmental advocacy group. "It sounds like the Bush administration is trying to ignore the Supreme Court and to pretend it doesn't exist."

IDIOT! There is NO GLOBAL WARMING THREAT.

Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming, called the administration's findings "the bureaucratic equivalent of saying that the dog ate your homework."

"The White House has taken an earnest attempt by their own climate experts to respond to the Supreme Court's mandate to address global warming pollution and turned it into a Frankenstein's monster," said Markey, D-Mass.

Industry groups still expressed concern Friday over some of the suggestions included in the document, which will be the basis for a future action rule under a new president more inclined to take tougher action to address global warming.

"Our point on this is that EPA has set forth a road map which literally throws the entire way which we manage the environment and economy in complete turmoil," said Bill Kovacs, vice president of the Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yes folks, even though even the "EXPERTS" cannot find a risk to health and well being, some still want bigger and more intrusive government. They want more regulations on the Free Market, more of your tax money, more control over your personal lives, ETC. Got to love the Chicken Little Crowd.
Peter

Sources:
AP- White House rejects regulating greenhouse gases