Global Warming Religion 2007

The Green Movement has the EXACT Characteristics as Religion

Hey folks,

• EIB Official Climatologist Dr. Spencer: UN IPCC Process 'is Dangerous for the Progress of Science'
• Climate Depot: Exclusive - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up
• AP: Upfront Money Needed to Ease UN Climate Deal
• American Thinker: CRU Emails Were Leaked Before They Were Hacked - Thomas Lifson
• UK Times: Climate Change Data Dumped
• UK Telegraph: Leaked Climate Change Emails 'Won't Bias UN Global Warning Body' Says Chairman
• Canada Free Press: Let the Great Global Warming Cover-Up Begin!
• Detroit News: Climategate Prof Raked in $22.6 Million in Grants
• University of East Anglia: CRU Key to Setting Environmental Agenda
• FOXNews: Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker inGlobal Environmental Talks - George Russell
• ClimateDepot: Geologist 'appalled' at NYT's Krugman:
• MichaelCrichton.com : Environmentalism as Religion
• Sweetness & Light: IPCC Head: Tax Unsustainable Lifestyles
• UK Scotsman: Warming will 'Wipe Out Billions'
• Canada Free Press: The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
• Compilation of key ClimateGate emails
• NewsBusters: ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job
• Wall Street Journal: Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'

OK, I thought. What is this? Then I saw the note on the bottom. It appears that these are the links for a segment on the Rush Limbaugh Radio show. I got this Monday or Tuesday I guess.

Seems he was talking about how the State Run Media is kicking it into overdrive to attempt to continue the SCAM that is Global Warming. They seem to be doing everything that they can to IGNORE the fact that the Scammers, I will no longer call them Scientists, because they are not worthy to be called Scientist, the Scammers got caught SCAMMING. They seems to be doing everything they can to ignore the Scammers own words as to how the Earth is not rising in temperature, the Sea Levels are not rising, the ice is not melting, and there is NO Global Warming. No, in light of all this, they CHOSE to attempt to scare people into complacency in accepting the SCAM.

Then this, "Rush then went into a whole thing about how Global Warming is a Religion. He even said he was the first to say it. But we know differently. Don't we?"

Well, I do not know about that. I DID compare it to Religion way back in 2007. Now I do not know if he said it prior to that or not. But here is what I said Tuesday, May 08, 2007

The Religion of Global Warming.

Hey folks,

It’s Tuesday. At least it’s another day closer to the Weekend if nothing else. I have been arguing with a few people over the past half year or so, that Global Warming is not fact. There is NO Global Warming. There are those that say that due to a "consensus," it has to be true.

I have been arguing that Global Warming is a religion to these people. I’ve been told, that is ridiculous. I’ve been asked how I can say that. Simple.

These people that believe in Global Warming, have no God. Mother Earth is their God. Well, OK, let me break it down for you.

Christianity {Just picking one} has a God. Christianity has Heaven and Hell. To get to Heaven, you have to accept the Savior. Follow what he says. Do His will. Give of yourself. If you sin, and do not become repentant, you go to Hell.

GW has Mother earth. GW has a savior. Al Gore. You must do what he says, follow his commandments. If you do, you will go to heaven. A clean, and healthy earth. One that will grant you long life and life for your children. You have to give of yourself, your money. You have to buy carbon offsets from the companies that are being set up. Like the one Al Gore owns. The one he buys {Cough} from. Then you can be absolved of your sins. But if you sin, say fail to change your light bulbs, then you are evil. You will go to hell. A dead earth that will destroy you and generations to come.

Both are absolutes. There is no questioning. No debating. Both are facts that the followers will fight to their dying breath to convert you. Neither will be swayed from their convictions. To true believers, it is insane that you do not see the "reality" of the situation.

Some of you out there, STILL question that Global Warming is a religion? Well, the GW messiah just confirmed it on Saturday. According to KENS 5 out of San Antonio -Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming

Playing equal parts visionary, cheerleader and comedian, Al Gore brought his message of how to fight global warming to a capacity crowd of receptive architects Saturday in San Antonio.

Don’t forget messiah

The former vice president referred continually to a "new way of thinking" that is emerging in the country and offered hope in the battle to control the effects global warming will have on the planet.

"It's in part a spiritual crisis," Gore told the crowd in the Convention Center at the American Institute of Architects national convention. "It's a crisis of our own self-definition — who we are. Are we creatures destined to destroy our own species? Clearly not."

"It’s in part SPIRITUAL?""It's a crisis of our own self-definition — who we are." YES Brother, I hear ya.

Then the article continues as ABSOLUTE FACT. Even if it’s not even close to being PROVEN fact.

Global warming is the heating of the Earth caused in large part by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most scientists agree such warming and the changing climate that comes with it will likely cause a number of problems and crises this century, particularly in developing countries that have few resources to combat the effects.

These looming problems involve flooding and severe coastal erosion from rising seas and increasingly severe storms, more common and prolonged drought, and changes in the growing seasons and migration patterns of many wild species.

Gore told the architects they are in a unique position to help solve the problems by continuing to push building standards and methods that conserve energy and water. The message was in line with the focus of this year's AIA conference, titled "Growing Beyond Green."

YES! We must not stop. We must fight the good fight. "Growing beyond the green", uh, whatever that means.

Gore, seen by some as a polarizing political figure, has long championed environmental issues. In 1992, he wrote the best-selling book "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit," and he won an Academy Award this year for his film "An Inconvenient Truth."

His speech was often interrupted by thunderous applause and explosive laughter from the several thousand architects who packed the Convention Center's ballroom.

And AMENS!

"I used to be the next president of the United States," Gore deadpanned to the laughing crowd as he introduced himself. "I don't find that funny. Put yourself in my position. I flew in Air Force Two for eight years. Now I have to take off my shoes to get on an airplane."

Do you REALLY take off your shoes before getting in YOUR privet jet? I doubt it. OH that was a joke. Ha ha.

Yes folks, there you have it. You MUST Convert or meet the end. You have to be GREEN, or you will cease to be at all. Bow ladies and gentleman, at the alter of Global Warming.

NOT!

WAIT!! I almost missed this. Get this last paragraph.

On the request of Gore's media handlers, Saturday's event was closed to the media. Because of the importance of the issue and Gore's status, the San Antonio Express-News chose to cover it anyway.

{Laughing hard, banging hand on desk, wiping tear from eye.} Oh I have to go. See you tomorrow.

Since then, we have learned that most Scientist do NOT agree. There is NO consensus. It is a SCAM. The Scammers have been found out. None of what we have been told for years is true. The Earth is NOT even warming. Yet we are getting the headlines above in an increased fashion and even more dire at that. Warming will "wipe out billions." "Upfront Money Needed to Ease UN Climate Deal." We must act NOW. Etc.

Yet they still want to push this. They are still warning you that you are going to die.There are still some BELIEVING all this garbage. Just like Religious Fanatics, it does not matter what they are told, they will believe what they believe.

We already talked about the psychology of Brainwashing people in to thinking "Green."

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

They get frequent positive feedback for effort.

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

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

They being YOU. The SCAMMERS have made YOU a target. A Mark. Just like a Cult, they use the same tactics. They want you to give yourself one hundred percent over to them. You must think as they say. Do as they say. Be totally devoted to THEM. Do not question. Do not disobey. Just like a Cult, it is all a SCAM. They do not follow their own rules. They get rich while YOU give up everything.

I do not know if it was I or Rush that made this comparison first. It really doesn't matter. Not being a 24-7 member I do not have access to his Show Archives. I really do not care to check either way. But no matter who made the first comparison between Religion and Global Warming, they, we, are right. Do not drink the Cool Aid folks. Do not drink the Cool Aid.
Peter

Sources:
OPNtalk- The Religion of Global Warming

Copenhagen Will Create What They Are Fighting Against

Patrick Michaels Of Cato Has It Right

Hey folks,

More GWBS, but GOOD questions. I loved this. It's from Yournews.com, / Reuters- Copenhagen's 'footprint' and the 'inconvenient scandal' 120509 7:30AM

Talk about your global warming... When an estimated 16,500 delegates, activists and reporters descend upon Copenhagen Monday for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, a lot of hot air will follow.

{Laughing}

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (Reuters/YN) - The U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, roughly the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.

The same amount, if you accept the premise, which as you all know I don't, that an entire country creates in a YEAR, they will do in 12 days.

Those greenhouse gas emissions are comprised of two parts: international travel and local emissions from hotels and transportation venues. Organizers will also reportedly lay 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet, along with more than 200,000 meals to be served and 200,000 cups of coffee.

The conference will leave an enormous carbon footprint, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow for environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

“It will be huge,” Michaels said of the environmental toll. “Where is video conferencing when we need it? An equally important question is what will be accomplished here?”

They would not be able to party together with Video Conferencing, and, NOTHING. This should be cancelled anyway now that the Scammers got caught with their pants down.

Approximately 140 aircraft carrying world leaders, heads of state and VIPs will land in Copenhagen, the U.N. estimates — although 95 percent of departures from Copenhagen Airport will be “green departures,” which allow airplanes to climb continuously to their optimal operating level, enabling them to reach planned routes sooner than usual. The result, according to the U.N., is saved time, fuel and carbon emissions.

{Laughing} Up, up, and away. Why do they not just KEEP going into space. That would save the planet a lot of Hot Air.

But Michaels wonders why attendees, particularly those in Europe, can't ride the rails into Copenhagen.

“That’s the way I get to New York,” Michaels said. “There’s nothing new here. There’s always been a lot of hypocrisy amongst the climate change political community."

Some are, but the MAJORITY are not.

"Prince Charles goes around the world in a private jet, telling everyone else they need to ration their carbon dioxide. Please.”

You tell them Patrick!

Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, acknowledged the “level of hypocrisy” regarding the conference and its emissions, but he said living in modernity mandates some sort of measurable carbon footprint. The question, he said, is if the carbon footprint left behind is desirable and efficient.

“It is ironic that you’ll have all these pronouncements made and very little action,” London said. “What are [China and India] going to do? So what are we talking about here?”

Here is my prediction. They will agree to talk more in the future. NOTHING will be signed, or implemented here. Just talk. IT'S ALL A SCAM ANYWAY!

To minimize the conference’s carbon footprint, the U.N. says the main venue, The Bella Center, aims to reach a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. To reach that goal, delegates have been urged to use public transportation to the site, to drink water from the tap instead of plastic bottles, and to minimize paper waste. Hotel owners have been asked to offer rooms that have been certified as environment-friendly.

Idiots. All show folks.

Despite those efforts, Michaels said he expects little if any firm proposals to come out of the conference, which aims to produce a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

“It will not produce a concrete agreement on climate change, meaning a universally-accepted international agreement with targets and timetables,” Michaels said. “It will, however, produce a statement that there’s been a breakthrough even though there will not have been.”

What I said. {Smile}

President Obama will travel to the Danish capital on Dec. 9 to offer his goal of cutting emissions 17 percent by 2020, in line with a bill passed by the House in June and slightly less than a 20-percent decrease proposed in the Senate.

“The president going to Copenhagen will give positive momentum to the negotiations,” Michael Froman, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for international economies, told reporters last month. “We think it will enhance prospects for success.”

We have a President that either is to stupid to understand that this is all a SCAM, or a President who KNOWS it is a SCAM and is USING it to gain UNCONSTITUTIONAL, power, control, and money, from the American people, and EVEN possibly turn over American Sovereignty to the UN. I will let you chose which is worse. They BOTH have the same outcome.

Yet, the State Run Media STILL refuses to acknowledge the fact that the SCAM has been exploded all over the world. They still fail to ask the question I just asked. Is the President a Dunce, or is he Diabolical?

Joined by up to seven cabinet members, Obama will also propose reducing emissions by 83 percent by 2050 and a 30 percent reduction in 2005 levels by 2025. China and India have said industrialized countries like the United States — the biggest greenhouse gas producer among developed nations — must be willing to slash carbon output 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels if it expects poorer economies to agree to long-term goals.

What? No WAIT! CHINA is the biggest greenhouse gas producer among developed nations. Not the US! The writer of this piece should check out the facts. Oh, yeah, never-mind.

Some in Hollywood Say Gore Should Lose Oscar Over Climategate

Just days ahead of an international climate change conference, global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by an inconvenient scandal -- one that's reverberated all the way back to Hollywood.

Two conservative screenwriters say Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.

You THINK? The Nobel Peace Prize as well.

The former vice president earned the Oscar in 2007 for his climate change manifesto "An Inconvenient Truth." He later went on to earn a Nobel Peace Prize and become one of the world's leading authorities on global warming.

But Roger Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, put out a statement Thursday calling for the Academy to take it all back in light of the controversy skeptics have dubbed Climate-Gate.

"I personally call for the Academy to rescind this Oscar," Simon said. "In the history of the Academy ... not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. ... I think they should rescind this one."

They won't.

Though their demand will almost certainly not be met, it marks the latest effort by conservatives to draw attention to the controversy in the run-up to an international climate change conference next week in Copenhagen -- where Gore just canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are demanding hearings on the topic, after leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit showed scientists appearing to discuss manipulating climate change data.

If they get it, it will be all show. The Loons on the Left want to lock up the "Whistle-blower/s" that leaked them. They have no desire to actually get to the truth.

Simon is the founder of Pajamas Media, whose Web site posted the Gore criticism Thursday. Chetwynd is a screenwriter.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group. The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Running scared and attempting to regroup.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

United Nations Now Says Will Investigate Leaked Emails

On with the show.

The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate official said Friday. It is known however that persons involved in the scandal have intimate ties to the IPCC, with one of the primary scientists accused of manipulating climate data being a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.

“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for assessing climate change science,” reports the Daily Mail.

IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri told the BBC the claims were serious and he wanted them investigated.

“We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it,’ he said.”

“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.”

And attempt to find a way to deny it. THE SCAMMERS ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES!!!! You are to believe whatever they find?

One of the primary climategate suspects, Kevin Trenberth, is a lead IPCC author, having been influential in crafting the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports.

Professor Phil Jones, who infamously wrote of the need to “hide the decline” in global warming, is also a primary IPCC contributor, having been in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.

In addition, another climategate suspect, Michael Mann, was the creator of the debunked “hockey stick” graph, which was “Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher than they are today.”

“As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title “former civil servant” does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants” who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along,” writes Anthony Watts.

WOW Naming names? I'm impressed.

Russell has pitched himself as someone with “no links to either the university or the climate science community,” yet he is firmly a member of the academic establishment, being the former Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow.

The The Royal Society of Edinburgh has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%.

This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.

A February 2009 response to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill outlines the organization’s staunch advocacy for the hypothesis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

I said it before, I'll say it again, the only thing that is man-made about Global Warming, is the SCAM that IS Global Warming.

Earlier this year, The Royal Society of Edinburgh elected Professor Peter Smith to become one of its members. Smith is the Convening Lead Author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. He has also been a lead author for numerous other IPCC reports over the past thirteen years.

E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

In an interview with BBC radio, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said the issue raised by the e-mails was serious and said "we will look into it in detail,"

"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet."

The University of East Anglia has defended the integrity of the science published by the climate unit and its researchers, but on Thursday said it would investigate whether some of the data had been fudged. Phil Jones, the director of the unit, stepped down earlier in the week pending the result of the investigation.

East Anglia said its review will examine the e-mails and other information "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."

IT SPELLS OUT HOW!!!! Of course it,,again, never-mind.

The theft of the e-mails and their publication online — only weeks before the U.N. summit on global warming — has been politically explosive, even if researchers say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. It's total BS.

Britain's Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, acknowledged the revelations may have an impact on the Copenhagen talks on a new global emissions reduction pact, but dismissed as "flat Earth-ers" critics who claim the e-mails are proof the case for man-made climate change is exaggerated.

"We need maximum transparency including about all the data but it's also very, very important to say one chain of e-mails, potentially misrepresented, does not undo the global science," Miliband said Friday. "I think we want to send a very clear message to people about that."

"There will be people that want to use this to try and undermine the science and we're not going to let them," he said.

THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN IT! Scaryence. But no REAL Science.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked e-mails in a hearing Wednesday in Washington, but the scientists countered that the e-mails don't change the fact that the earth is warming.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Jane, you are an Idiot. There can not be a consensus with REAL Science. Well, there can be, but there really isn't. There are MORE Scientist that are saying it's a SCAM than there are saying it's real NOW.

She said the e-mails don't address data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which both keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.

{Sigh} Wake up people. Wake up.
Peter

Sources:
Yournews.com, / Reuters- Copenhagen's 'footprint' and the 'inconvenient scandal'

Now You Are Hicks, Ignorant, And ANGRY

Health and Science 120609

Hey folks,

In our health and Science segment this week, we are going to be looking at this new study. My first concept when reading this was "Great. Now You Are Hicks, Ignorant, And ANGRY. You bitter clingers that cling to your Bibles and Guns. You Christians out there that hate everyone that does not like you. Now this proves that it is because you are less educated." But as I think about it, I really find myself wondering in what direction they are going to go with this. There are many that they could.

According to Live Science- Study Reveals the Angriest Americans Andrea Thompson Senior Writer LiveScience.com – Thu Dec 3, 2:35 pm ET

Anger is more likely among the young, those with children at home, and the less educated, a new study finds.

{Laughing} So you dumb morons that believe in family, stay at home Moms, and would rather actually EARN a living, are the most angry people. You do not know any better.

A national survey of 1,800 Americans aged 18 and older questioned participants on how and when they feel angry in order to build "a broader social portrait of anger in the United States," said study researcher Scott Schieman, now at the University of Toronto.

These angry emotions range from mild annoyance to yelling and feelings of outrage.

That's terrible. You mean anger is an normal emotion?

While anger is a normal human emotion, it could be detrimental if you hold on to it too long. And those who express their anger might actually live longer than those who keep it bottled in, one study found.

So it's GOOD for you. You mean that IED is GOOD for you?

The results of the survey, conducted in 2005 and to be published next year, showed several key connections to anger.

2005? So why now? You always have to wonder what the agenda is with these people.

For one, people under 30 experienced anger of all forms or intensities more frequently than did older adults. This was mainly due to the fact that young people are more likely to be affected by three core stressors that can trigger angry feelings, Schieman said:

Time pressures
Economic hardship
Interpersonal conflict at the workplace

Time pressures had the strongest link to anger, especially low-grade versions termed "feelings of annoyance," the study found.

Work BAD!

Those who were under financial strain tended to report higher levels of anger, a connection that could be particularly important in today's flagging economy, Schieman noted. The financial influence tended to be stronger among women and younger adults.

Poorly paid work REALLY Bad. Wait, would that not mean Obama and Crew's Economic Policy is REALLY ticking some off? Nah, not his fault that they fall into these categories. Right? They are just angry naturally.

Having children was also associated with angry feelings and behaviors, such as yelling, particularly in women, the survey found.

So the more you have, the worst it is for you? Get the point?

"There's obviously a lot of joys and benefits that come with parenthood," but other aspects of parenting, such as having to discipline a misbehaving child, can cause feelings of anger and annoyance, Schieman said.

So don't discipline them?

Those with fewer years of education were also more likely to report feelings of anger and were less likely to respond proactively in a situation that made them angry (for example, talking about what made them angry).

Psychobabble

"It underscores the power of getting more education," Schieman said. Education has been linked to feeling more self-control, which could be why those with more education tend to manage their anger more proactively, he told LiveScience.

OK? So the Elite amongst us are the most happy?

Schieman's findings will be detailed in a chapter of the forthcoming International Handbook of Anger, to be released in January 2010.

Sorry, but most Liberals I know, actually, the most "Highly Educated" people I know regardless of their Political affiliations, are the most ANGRY people I know. Working countless hours just to get the next paycheck is not healthy for you either. A wise man once said to me, "You know, it really is sad. People spend most of their lives trying to stay one step ahead of the grave, and the majority of the time, THAT is what puts them there."

So you see, there are MANY different ways that they can go with this. There is a purpose for it coming out now. There always is. However, as I see it, anger is just a normal emotion. Yes, some need help controlling it, but I'm not sure you can issue a blanket statement like Poor, stay at home, high school graduated Females are angrier than say a well to do, highly educated Male. That would be chauvinistic, would it not?
Peter

Sources:
Live Science- Study Reveals the Angriest Americans

IWA For Sunday 120609

Along with a Possible NEW Award, at the same time.

Hey folks,

That's right, it's Sunday, so time for the IWA. However, this week, not only am I awarding the Idiot of the Week, I may be adding a NEW Award, the DLA. The Display of Logic Award.

OK. So we know that the LWL {Left Wing Loons} are on a quest for tyranny. There is NO doubt about that. The are throwing so many things out there that they are hoping most will not be able to keep up. This will cause at least SOME of the garbage to stick with no one watching.

Seriously, Obamacare, Cap and Tax, more regulation in PRIVATE Industries, Bigger Government, Stem Cell Research, which the got by the way, in case you missed it, and everything else they are working on behind the scenes. Fairness Doctrine, Cut in Nursing Home, Medicare, Hospital Funding, Term Limits review, ETC. They are throwing their Socialistic agenda at us from EVERY direction HOPING that they can get some stuff through before anyone can notice, and AFTER it is to late to do anything about it. That will not happen as long as people like ME, and the rest of the New Media is watching. It's hard to keep up with these Idiots, I'll give them that.

This is why they want to SHUT DOWN the New Media. They want to silence Talk Radio, control the Internet, and keep YOU from discovering what they are actually doing. The only thing that has stopped them from doing, well, uh, ANYTHING, is YOU. YOU finding out the TRUTH of what they are TRYING to do, and YOU stopping them. YOU are not learning this from the State Run Media. The MMD {Mass Media Drones} YOU are learning it from the New Media. Talk Radio, Blogs, The Internet in general. Conservative Papers {Which are surging in business while the Senate debates using YOUR tax money to FUND Liberal Rags like the New York Times}are actually printing the TRUTH about what they are doing. Not the NYT, Or LAT. Cable News IS reporting the TRUTH. But not the Nightly News. Not CNN, NBC, ABC. Blogs post the TRUTH, but not those "highly trained and ethical unbiased Journalist" working for major News Outlets, or those "Blogs" funded with Millions of dollars from people like Soros.

Here is the type of thing I'm talking about. Even when they report something, they SPIN it to be good, further push the agenda in a positive light, yet fail to actually look into FACTS and TRUTH about if it is even Constitutional.

According to the AP- Senate takes aim at insurance executive pay By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Democratic senators are taking aim at insurance industry executive pay as they jockey for advantage in a rare weekend session to debate President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Republicans are showcasing the bill's cuts to Medicare, seeking to undermine support for the legislation among seniors and others as partisan debate rages over the sweeping remake of one-sixth of the nation's economy.

That is all true. We KNOW that they want to take over Healthcare, AKA, "one-sixth of the nation's economy" and THEY want to control every aspect of your life from Cradle to the Grave. They can't run the programs they have now.

Both sides were bracing for more grueling and unpredictable debates and negotiations Saturday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., racing the clock to complete action on the 2,000-plus page bill by Christmas.

A GREAT Christmas present to give America, would be to KILL this Bill!

The nearly $1 trillion {Uh, NO. That would be TWO Trillion or more. Senator Reid said so} legislation would provide insurance coverage to more than 30 million {No, 10 million} more people over the next decade with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance. New insurance purchasing marketplaces would be set up, lower-income people would get subsidies, the federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be expanded and unpopular insurance company practices such as yanking coverage when someone gets sick would be banned.

None of that is true.

The biggest problem for Reid: getting agreement among his own Democrats on the divisive issues of abortion and a government insurance plan to compete against the private market.

He needs all 60 members of his caucus to agree, but several moderates are balking.

"Abortion and public option are really the major obstacles at this point," said the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Yeah, not to mention a VAST Majority in this country are HAPPY with their Healthcare NOW. They do not want ANY of this garbage.

Talks to find common ground on those issues are happening behind the scenes, but coloring the public action. Democratic leaders were giving the spotlight Saturday to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. — a key moderate with a difficult re-election next year — to propose an amendment that would limit insurance executives' tax deductible salaries to the same amount the U.S. president makes — currently $400,000.

The bill already includes a limit of $500,000 added by Lincoln earlier, so the new amendment doesn't represent a major change, though it does add a provision directing the expected $650 million in revenue to the Medicare trust fund.

It also gives Lincoln something to brag about as her poll numbers sag back home.

Yup. Our Idiot of the Week. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. Here we go again folks. The Federal Government attempting to dictate to PRIVATE Industries what they can PAY their own people. They think this is cause for BRAGGING, and they think this will get them reelected. Right from the Lib. Playbook. Class Warfare 101. Problem is, neither the Senate, NOR the President, have a Constitutional RIGHT to do any of this. Here is our Idiot herself.

"Without this change every Arkansas taxpayer and every U.S. taxpayer subsidizes these big insurance executives' unlimited salaries and compensation packages at the same time the companies are denying coverage to hardworking Americans," Lincoln said.

Shut up. It is Obama and the Crew, like YOU Senator, that are forcing and attempting to force EVERY American to pay YOU. To pay for YOUR insane and out of control agendas. YOU and Obama and the rest of the Crew, are attempting to FORCE people to pay for Abortion, Illegals, and everyone who may not even WANT Insurance to begin with. It is YOU that are putting our children, and their children in debt. NOTHING has worked so far with all that spending. NOTHING. Yet YOU want people to believe YOU care? No wonder you are facing "a difficult re-election next year." You ALL should be thrown out of office. Freedom SHOULD prevail.

Lincoln is among a few senators whose votes are uncertain but necessary for Reid. She reiterated her opposition Thursday to the government-run insurance plan in the bill, and despite numerous talks among liberals and moderates to find a compromise, Lincoln said she hadn't seen anything she could support yet.

Although the Idiot, she KNOWS, as many do, that if she Votes for it, she will be out without a doubt about it.

Republicans again devoted their Saturday radio address to criticizing the legislation, this week over a topic debated earlier — preventive care for women. That became an issue after a government advisory panel recommended against regular mammograms for women in their 40s. One of the votes the Senate cast this week was to safeguard coverage of mammograms.

Let's not forget about the Pap Smears as well folks. Those are not important anymore either. According to the LWL. And HERE is our DLA Winner. Our first ever "Display of Logic Award" Winner.

Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard Co. chief executive, breast cancer survivor and a Republican candidate running for the U.S. Senate seat from California now held by Democrat Barbara Boxer, delivered the address. She said that the recommendation on mammograms was an early taste of what could happen under the Democrats' plan.

"We wonder if we are heading down a path where the federal government will at first suggest and then mandate new standards for prevention and treatment," Fiorina said. "Do we really want government bureaucrats rather than doctors dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer?"

YES. Thank you. I hope she beats the hell out of Boxer in the Polling both. WE NEED intelligent, brave, and SANE people Voted into Office next year, instead of the LWL we have now.

Now here is something I found interesting. They keep telling us that this Bill will not cut Medicare. It will not effect Seniors. Blah, blah, blah. However?

Republicans planned to use the sixth day of debate on the bill to offer the third in a series of amendments highlighting the legislation's more than $400 billion in cuts in projected Medicare spending to private insurance companies, hospitals and other providers.

This time Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., will try to eliminate $42 billion in cuts in Medicare payments to home health agencies. The retirees group AARP supports the overall Medicare cuts as getting at inefficiencies and overpayments in the program, so Democrats have political cover to keep them in the bill.

That's why MILLIONS of people are LEAVING AARP. They are nothing but a front Group for the Libs. That is why NEW Over 50 groups are sprouting up all over the place. Soon the AARP will be just like the NYT, they will; need funding from the Government just to continue to exist and they will cater to a small group of Liberals, and the ignorant.

Nonetheless, Republicans are doing all they can to force Democrats to cast politically risky votes.

GOOD!

On Friday, Republicans tried to restore $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, the private insurance plan that provides seniors with better benefits than the traditional program. Democrats say the government is wasting money overpaying the plans, and the effort failed 57-41.

Separately, the Senate turned back a Republican effort to eliminate a long-term care insurance program to help seniors and the disabled, but the vote exposed the difficulties Democratic leaders face in persuading their own moderates to remain united. Eleven Democrats voted with Republicans, who warned that the new program would turn into a drain on the federal budget.

It would also include the "End of year consulting" AKA Death Panel.

Folks, I know some of you actually believe that there is no difference in our Health Insurance companies telling you want you can and can't get in medical treatments, and the Government making those decisions. BIG Mistake.

First, and the biggest, if your Insurance Company tells you no, you can find another way to get it anyway. Pay for it yourself, do a fundraiser, payment plan with Doc Directly, or whatever. If the Government controls every aspect of Healthcare, you have NO choice.

Second, your Insurance Company is figuring against the cost of thousands. The Government will be figuring you into about 308 million. What may not be to expensive for your Private Health Insurer, WILL be to expensive for the Government. I know, I know, that goes against the conventional wisdom. "Well the more people that are paying into it the more there will be to pay for things." Problem is, Many of those MILLIONS will NOT be paying into it. YOU will be. Along with the Taxes on EVERYTHING else they want to steal from you.

Third, it will then become the Governments Job to set the standards. Not varying Companies. Some cover this but not that. Others cover that but not this. Allowing YOU to shop for the best that meets YOUR individual needs. There will be only ONE, and THEY will have a one size fits all approach.

So congratulations to BOTH our Winners. First, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark, our Idiot of the Week for thinking that the Federal Government should control the PAY of yet another Private industry. Then Congratulation to our first ever DLA Winner, Carly Fiorina, for showing us that there really are Sane and Logical people, who are bold enough to tell the truth, and seek office at the same time. Let's hope this will translate to Bye Bye Boxer.

Have a great day folks. See ya soon.
Peter

Sources:
AP- Senate takes aim at insurance executive pay

Senate Leader Reid Anti Abortion

"Do you believe this?"

Hey folks,

Happy Friday to you. Time to go to the Emails. I was asked, "Do you believe this? Harry Reid is Anti- Abortion, or I guess that would make him Pro-Life?"

Uh, no. No I do not believe this. I think that Reid and the rest of the Kooks, are starting to get scared to death about the fall out of them actually passing Obamacare. I think they would lie about anything to attempt to appease as many and get their agendas passed. They ARE liars. They really can not come out one hundred percent honestly about who and what they are. They DO have to lie about it.

They have been more open about it. Feeling emboldened by Obama winning. However, the more and more people wake up, the more and more they realize, there are not enough Kooks, and ignorant Voters to keep them in office. With 2010 just around the corner and a third of the Senate, including Harry Reid, and one hundred percent of the House up for reelection, they are forced to go back to lying about who they are and what they are trying to do.

I know some of you are going "What? Harry Reid Pro-Life? What? Where did that come from?" Well, here it is.

Harry Reid Responds to Critics of Abortion Funding in Senate Health Care Bill by Saying He Opposes Abortion Thursday, December 03, 2009 By Karen Schuberg

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), author of the Senate health-care bill that permits taxpayer dollars to go to insurance plans which cover abortion, responded to letters protesting the abortion funding in the bill with a letter of his own saying that he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when there is a threat to the life of the mother.

A part of the letter Reid's office recently sent to critics objecting to the abortion funding in his bill reads: “Thank you for contacting me about health care reform and abortion. I appreciate hearing from you.”

“I noted your specific comments related to health care reform and abortion. I oppose abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.”

“As the Senate Majority Leader and the senior senator from Nevada, I am committed to working to find common ground that brings our nation together while respecting both the views of those who differ as well as the values many of us hold deeply. Please know that as we move forward, I will keep your ideas and concerns in mind. It is my hope that we can make affordable, comprehensive health care coverage a reality for so many Americans who are currently struggling to pay their medical bills, and make ends meet.”

Reid’s health-care reform bill, which he released Nov. 18, allows the public option to include abortion coverage, permits federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover abortion, and even mandates that the secretary of health and human services make certain that at least one insurance plan available in the insurance exchange where people will buy insurance with federal subsidies covers abortion. The abortion language in Reid's bill mirrors the abortion language that was in the House health care bill before it was superceded by an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) that prohibits any tax dollars from going to health insurance plans that cover abortion.

In an interview with CNSNews.com on Nov. 1, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that Reid was aware of a pro-life amendment that Hatch has proposed adding to the bill, and that he believed Reid would “be on our side on this.” Hatch's Senate amendment mirrors Stupak's amendment in the House.



CNSNews.com: Have you spoken to Senate Majority Leader Reid about your amendment?

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): Yes, he knows about it, and I believe Harry Reid would be on our side on this.

Reid’s office did not respond to inquires from CNSNews.com about whether the majority leader supports the Hatch amendment and if he does--as his letter and Hatch’s response indicate--why Reid authored a bill that permits taxpayer funding of abortion.

Hatch’s amendment would prohibit federal dollars from funding abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother.

The amendment was defeated both in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (on a 12-11 vote) and in the Senate Finance Committee (13-10).

Copy of Letter Over Signature of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

November 26, 2009

Dear ___________:

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform and abortion. I appreciate hearing from you.

In America today, concerns about our health care system have been rightly brought to the forefront of the national consciousness. Many of us are familiar with the reports of 47 million uninsured Americans, escalating prescription drug prices, and declining health insurance benefits. Unfortunately, for too many across Nevada and the country, these facts and statistics are not anonymous findings removed from daily life. As a fellow Nevadan, and as the Senate Majority Leader, I know that millions are struggling with the reality of America's health care crisis.

Amid our health care crisis, however, I believe there are opportunities for members of Congress, the President and his Administration, the private sector, and other stakeholders to work together for the benefit of the American people. It is my hope that the solutions we develop and enact will ensure quality, affordable health care coverage for all Americans-regardless of their age, income, employment, or health status.

I noted your specific comments related to health care reform and abortion. I oppose abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk. As the Senate Majority Leader and the senior senator from Nevada, I am committed to working to find common ground that brings our nation together while respecting both the views of those who differ as well as the values many of us hold deeply. Please know that as we move forward, I will keep your ideas and concerns in mind. It is my hope that we can make affordable, comprehensive health coverage a reality for so many Americans who are currently struggling to pay their medical bills, and make ends meet.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Link: CNSNews.com - Harry Reid Responds to Critics of Abortion Funding in Senate Health Care Bill by Saying He Opposes Abortion

They even have a link to sign up for their daily News Letter. I did.

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

I guess we will have to wait and see what will happen when this comes to a Vote. Will the Amendment be there? Will Reid back what he SAYS he is against? Do I believe this? No. I think he will say anything he has to.

Have a GREAT Weekend. See you Sunday.
Peter

Note: From The Emails is a weekly Segment every Friday, or occasionally anytime, that appears here at the OPNTalk Blog. Please feel free to Email any Articles, Comments, Thoughts, Whatever, that you may like to share to opntalk@gmail.com As always, you never know what you may see here.

Obama's Speech Predictable and Pathetic

Praises Our Enemies, Blames Bush, Tells Troops, "We can't afford you."

Hey folks,

I just posted the entire Obama West Point Speech. If you saw it last night, you already know it was predictable and pathetic.

First, this type of announcement by a President, should go something like this.

Lights come on, President sitting at his Desk in the Oval Office.

"Good evening. We have a request by our Lead Commander on the Ground in the War Zone, For more Troop support. He has sent me a report detailing the need for more Troops due to the escalate in Violence and Attacks on our Troops who are fighting there. He gave me a clear cut plan, and one that I'm sure has a great chance at achieving Victory. I am sending him the number of Troops he requested.

This is an enemy that killed 3000 Americans, while they we going about the normal daily routines. 9-11 will never be forgotten and we will make sure that we do ANY and EVERY thing that we need to, to ensure that another 9-11 NEVER happens again.

Thank you.

God Bless our Troops. Our men and women who have volunteered to pay the ultimate price to keep this country safe. God bless their families. And God bless the United States of America."

Picture goes dark, "We know join our regularly scheduled broadcast, already in progress."

But that's not what Obama did. Obama, flies to West Point Military Academe to give the impression that he is Pro Military. He used our young Men and Women as backdrops, props, to give the illusion that he cares.

Then he goes on with his speech.

In it, he DOES remind everyone of 9-11. An attempt to satisfy those that WILL never forget. Then he says this.

"As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."

I really am starting to wonder about that. Seems EVERY attack, long in history, with the exception of WW2, have been by Muslims. Where is the proof that Islam IS a religion of piece, and why would our President call it " one of the world's great religions?" Is it, in his eyes, greater than say Christianity? Judaism? You know, what this country was founded on? Then he blames Bush. {Sigh} Blah, blah, blah.

"Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here."

You just did, you Moron.

"It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world."

Then THIS outright LIE!

"Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period."

Absolute BS. Over 100 days ago, your Commander on the ground cried out to you for more Troops. 105 US Service Men and Women have been killed, while you partied with "Earth Wind and Fire" in the White House, played Golf, and attended $30,000 a plate fundraisers. Your Commander says he needs 40,000 extra Troops. You said this.

"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."

Really? So no matter what, in 18 months the Troops will start coming home? Really? So all the enemy needs to do is be patient? Brilliant.

More Blame Bush Iraq garbage.

"I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war."

I, I, I, I, I, did a lot of photo opts. He did get this right.

"This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region."

This would be a whole lot easier if Obama would stop offending our Allies. He said this.

"And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world."

Stop offending our long time friends and MAYBE they would be more willing to help out. Don't ya think?

"In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust."

Wasn't it YOU Obama would talked about invading Pakistan during your campaign? Change of heart?

Addressing some of the Kooks, He gets THIS right as well.

"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."

To another group of Kooks that want to just leave the Troop level where it is today, to hell with the fact they are being KILLED.

"Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over."

Then I have a question.

"Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan."

You just went on and on about how we can not leave. Your RIGHT. So they do not meet this 18 month goal? Then what? We do what you just said we can't do? Then he said that his decision to stay there will be based on cost and how it will effect Obamacare and his other agendas. I'm not kidding. Here is something you may not hear that much about in all the praises of how Brilliant this Speech was. He said this.

"I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.""

"Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."

So if you start costing me more than I can spend and still do the things I want, screw you. Is THAT what he just said to the Troops?

"And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks."

Were you not on the same band wagon calling Bush a terrorist because of programs like the Wire Tapping? Did you know say that the CIA were shipping people of and torturing them. Were you not one of the ones that want to END Homeland Security? Now you say we must INVEST in it? Do not worry folks, I know that Homeland Security is only a front for Obama to funnel money to friends.

Then more Blah, blah, blah. Bush Tortured, America will be better and we will live in a Nuke Free world. Then Franklin Roosevelt again. Then 9-11 again. Then we will have peace again.

Like I said, predictable and pathetic.
Peter

President Obama's West Point Speech on Afghanistan

FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Speech on Afghanistan 120109

Obama: "Good evening.

To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less. This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war.

Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them. We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.) This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes." (Applause.)

"Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America." (Applause.) "Thank you very much. Thank you." (Applause.)

R.I. Diving In With YOUR Money

From The Energy Front.

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to you. We already know that Wind Power is a Dream of the "Green" Movement. We already know, that there are a lot of obstacles to over come with Wind Energy.

One, Wind is not constant. In Texas, in 2008, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said the grid’s frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.

In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the West from North Texas.

ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below 2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750 MW.

At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency’s Web site.

What powers them when the Wind is not blowing? Oil.

Two, the largest single turbine available today can only provide enough electricity for 475 homes, when running at full capacity. Do the math. How many will be needed for an entire State? The Whole country?

Three, another disadvantage of Wind Power is the effect on the Environment. Birds like strong winds. It is very common for migrating Birds to fly into Wind Turbines and get killed. Wind Farms can also disturb your Television reception if you live in the surrounding area. Create Noise Pollution, and be unsightly. As we have talked about before, it is cheaper to put them up, than it is to take them down. So in a lot of cases, they are just abandoned where they sit.

Then of course, the COST. The Cost to install them, lay the Grid, and maintain them. Run them when the Wind is not blowing. Even the Wind Godfather himself, T. Boone Pickens seems to have backed off Wind and is now hocking Natural Gas. So who is going to pay for these attempts to make it work? YOU. In most cases, YOU WILL be paying for them.

Take R.I.. Lawrence R. Kunkel began work Monday as Governor Carcieri’s Senior Policy Director on Renewable Energy with primary responsibility for overseeing plans to build an offshore Wind Farm off Block Island.

Yup. RI is going to dive right in there. According to the Providence Journal - R.I. offshore energy chief starts job 01:00 AM EST on Monday, November 30, 2009 By Lynn Arditi Journal Staff Writer

The $91,584-a-year job is paid entirely with federal funds, said Carcieri’s spokeswoman, Amy Kempe.

That means YOU. It doesn't matter if you live in R.I. or not, YOU, will be paying his Salary.

Kunkel, 53, of Warwick, is a graduate of Providence College who earned a master’s degree in social sciences (economics) from the University of Chicago. He has worked as chief economist and director of corporate strategy for the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, New York Life Insurance Company and Ryan Edwards Global Strategic Advisors, according to a description on the Web site of Opel Solar International Inc., a company where he serves as a board member.

Oh. So he is well skilled at building a Wind Farm I guess. Right? He will oversee all this, and he will be placed in charge of spending YOUR Money on an already likely failure.

In his new role, Kunkel will be responsible for overseeing plans by a New Jersey start-up, Deepwater Wind, to create an offshore wind farm with 100 turbines off Block Island. The project has been celebrated by the governor, who has said that Rhode Island’s offshore wind farm would be the first of its kind in the country.

So 100 Turbines? How much does each one cost? How about the costly storage? The Grid? At the most, this MAY be able to supply 47500 people. At BEST. Ask ERCOT what happens at worst. Then what about seepage? Leakage? Pollution FROM these Turbines? What happens if a Storm comes along? Where are all the Environmental Studies on the effects of this Farm and the Environment?

The state Office of Energy Resources, which oversees energy project and policy, has been without its top official since July 24, when Andrew C. Dzykewicz resigned from his $108,528-a-year post to pursue opportunities in the private sector.

Why? What did HE know? And this is just a stupid statement here.

Kunkel is “not a replacement for Andy [Dzykewicz],” Kempe said.

{Laughing} What?

Kunkel will answer directly to the governor.

Of course, and FEDERAL FUNDS will be used to pay him, and pay for the project. YOU will be paying for R.I. to experiment on this most likely already failed endeavor. Instead of investing what we KNOW will work and is safe, R.I. is going to, based on what we already know is a SCAM, going to play "Green," and throw Billions of dollars away. Should be interesting to watch though. We'll have to wait and see if this does anything positive at all.
Peter

Sources:

Providence Journal - R.I. offshore energy chief starts job