Saturday, January 31, 2009

A Little Edumacation for The Naysayer

Here is just some basic info I could put together at a glance. I do understand that it will be above most of your heads.

API Access Counter The development of America’s vast domestic oil and natural gas resources that had been kept off-limits by Congress for decades could generate more government revenue, create new jobs and significantly boost domestic production. Want to learn more about increased production, decreased imports, and the cars and homes that could be powered by untapped U.S. resources? The API Access Counter enables you to explore resources and regions to understand the benefits of increased energy exploration.

Off-limits US oil, gas worth $1.7 trillion to government: study

Karen Matusic 202.682.8118
WASHINGTON – The development of America’s vast domestic oil and natural gas resources that had been kept off-limits by Congress for decades could generate more than $1.7 trillion in government revenue, create thousands of new jobs and enhance the nation’s energy security by significantly boosting domestic production, a study released Monday shows.
The ICF International study, commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API), shows that developing the offshore areas that had been subject to Congressional moratoria until recently, as well as the resources in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a small portion of currently unavailable federal lands in the Rockies, would lift U.S. crude oil production by as much as 2 million barrels per day in 2030, offsetting nearly a fifth of the nation’s imports. Natural gas production could increase by 5.34 billion cubic feet per day, or the equivalent of 61 percent of the expected natural gas imports in 2030.
The study also estimates that the development of all U.S. oil and natural gas resources on federal lands could exceed $4 trillion over the life of the resources.
“This study underscores how the oil and natural gas industry can enhance America’s energy security and help solve our economic problems by increasing production of our nation’s vast oil and natural gas resources,” said API President and CEO Jack N. Gerard. “The U.S. oil and natural gas industry supports more than six million jobs, and more drilling for oil and natural gas will mean more energy for America, more well-paying jobs, and trillions of dollars of much-needed revenues that will help federal, state and local governments pay for critical services.”
According to the ICF study, U.S. crude oil production would rise by 36% by 2030 if development is permitted in the studied areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR and the Rockies and domestic natural gas production would rise by 10%. By 2030, this activity would create 160,000 jobs.
API is the industry’s national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Global professional services company ICF International partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in energy, climate change, environment, transportation, social programs, health, defense, and emergency management.
Summary ReportSize: 58 KB Date: December 8, 2008
Final ReportSize: 812 KB Date: December 8, 2008
Wondering what's going on with American energy and where our country is headed? Click here to find out the truth about oil and gas, and what it means for America's energy and economic future.
Here is a state by state map on different R&D taking place in the US.
The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
What's the problem then? Why aren't oil companies jumping to pump the black gold? Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, there is no cabal of oil companies and foreign governments blocking the way, bottling up U.S. oil production. The reality is much more mundane. Those untapped reserves are located in places that either Uncle Sam has put off-limits for environmental reasons or are too costly to get -- or a combination of both.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

My Bipartisan Stimulus

Let's cut taxes, as I want, and spend more, as Obama would like.


There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

What the GOP's hostility to Obama's stimulus plan portends.

The Party Of Goldwater?
What the GOP's hostility to Obama's stimulus plan portends.

By Michael Hirsh Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 29, 2009 Updated: 12:22 p.m. ET Jan 29, 2009

Is it possible history is repeating itself? As House Republicans defy President Obama over his stimulus package, the party seems to be reverting to form after decades of overreaching ambition and outsized growth; think of the GOP, perhaps, as the Citigroup of politics. Many Republicans seem resigned—even content—to go back to being the party of Barry Goldwater. In other words: We don't care if we're marginalized. In our hearts we know we're right. Never mind that the party suffered terrible defeats in 2008 and 2006, some thoughtful Republicans (mainly on the Senate side, like Lindsay Graham, as well as intellectuals such as David Frum) have been fretting for some time that the GOP base is getting too narrow. These days, you hear little talk of Karl Rove's bigger tent or reinventing conservatism. Quite the opposite: it seems as though the party has decided to go back to basics. The message they're sending: "We don't care if Obama won or that he's popular; let's just wait until the country sees the truth again, as old Barry did. Until then, we'll be happy to be the righteous minority again, proudly willing to go down in flames for our beliefs: government spending never works, and tax cuts always do. Keynesian stimulus is for liberal witch doctors."

Until this moment, we have had an uneasy bipartisan consensus over how to solve the financial and economic crisis. As we saw with the approval of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) last fall, most Republicans reluctantly went along with Bush's decision to "chunk" his "free-market principles," as he described the move. No more. True, Wednesday's unanimous GOP vote against the $819 billion stimulus package was partly driven by the peculiar politics of the Hill. Some House Republicans wanted to send a "message" to Obama, and they may come around and vote for the final bill after the Senate approves its version. But for many Republicans the vote reaffirmed the old philosophical divide. Never mind that Obama reached out, lunched with GOP leaders on the Hill, and pressed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to drop family planning and National Mall renovation. Not a single House Republican could bring himself or herself to vote with the president on a measure to prevent what could become the most serious recession since the 1930s.

Granted, there are some substantive problems with the House bill. Even Martin Feldstein, President Reagan's former chief economist, is in favor of a stimulus but says he can't support this particular measure. The tax cuts are too small and not targeted enough, and the spending portion won't create enough jobs, Feldstein argues in Thursday's Washington Post. Many Democrats are also unhappy with the paucity of infrastructure projects, among other things. But for many Republicans, the simple fact that the bill didn't contain 100 percent tax cuts and zero government spending appeared to be enough to prompt a "no" vote.

This is part of what is becoming a familiar political cycle. After the disastrous presidency of Herbert Hoover and the advent of the Great Depression, conservatives fell into a 50-year funk. Even their presidents didn't do right by them: Eisenhower was never considered a true believer, and Nixon drove way off the reservation by declaring himself a Keynesian. Robert Taft and a handful of others kept the flame alive, handing the minority torch off to Goldwater in the 1960s. That was how long it took for the New Deal era to play itself out—which ultimately it did. The Democrats' long dominance bred too much statist thinking, just as Hoover's Republicans had gone too far in favor of a laissez-faire approach to markets. An oversimplistic faith in Keynesianism contributed to decades of government gigantism and Democratic misrule (or as it was known back then, "stagflation"). That in turn led to the counterrevolution that ultimately brought Ronald Reagan to power in 1980, declaring "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Now two decades of runaway Reaganism—an excess of free-market zeal—have prompted the biggest government intervention since the New Deal. Cue the Keynesians again, and a Democratic resurgence. Responding to this ideological stimuli, the Republicans seem to be rooting around in their closets for their Barry pins.

In his Inaugural Address, Obama proclaimed "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." He said he wanted to move beyond "stale political arguments … The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." That sounded about right to me, at least in terms of dealing with the crisis nature of the times. It is also smart, at this dire moment, to be trying to learn a few lessons from the past. Obviously we don't want to go back to the excesses of the long era of Democratic dominance and overspending—the New Deal-Great Society/Vietnam continuum—but neither can we simply return to the Republican era of Reaganite deregulation (especially of financial markets). It's clear we need to do some serious rethinking of the best ways to make capitalism work, moving beyond both FDR and Reagan.

But reaching a new consensus would require a reassessment of basic premises, and it appears, at least for the moment, that there will be very little of that. The emerging Republican consensus suggests that Bush grew so unpopular because he strayed from, rather than stood behind, the old GOP verities by creating a vast national-security state and giant deficits. Hence the Republicans are flocking to a proposal by the House Republican Study Committee calling for no new government spending at all, and nothing but tax cuts instead. A little over a week after Obama's inauguration, "stale" political arguments again rule the day. So much for the post-partisan era.

Monday, January 26, 2009

The Stimulas Shaped Like a Pig

This massive pacage of PORK does NOTHING to infuse jobs into the system for the first 2 years. It is the largest pork barrel grab of our money the Government has ever tried. It will throw the country into a depresion and the first real big infusion of cash just happens to kick in right before the next midterm elections.

Government caused this collapse by injecting socialism into the capitalist system. Lending money to people who should never have qualified. Now Government is going to FIX the problem by injecting more socialism into the system to fix what the first injection caused.

It's time for Pitchforks and Torches

Obama Stimulus Package Breakdown
January 26, 2009 - 11:16 ET

What is the money being spent on-general breakdown between infrastructure, tax cuts, etc…?

Some highlights of the package, by the numbers:

• $825 billion total (as of 1/15/09)
• $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.
• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions)
• $ 90 billion for infrastructure
• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states
• $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks
• $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources
• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology)
• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments."
• $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas)
• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
• $ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."

[Source: Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009]

Here is a further breakdown of the package:

NOTE: The following are highlights of the package; for the full 13-page summary from the Appropriations Committee, click here:

(as of 1/15/09)

$32 billion: Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
$16 billion: Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion: Funding to weatherize modest-income homes

Science and Technology
$10 billion: Science facilities
$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas

$30 billion: Transportation projects
$31 billion: Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion: Water projects
$10 billion: Rail and mass transit projects

$41 billion: Grants to local school districts
$79 billion: State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion: School modernization ($15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500; $6 billion for higher education modernization)

Health Care
$39 billion: Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$87 billion: Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion: Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4.1 billion: Preventative care

Jobless Benefits
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training.
$39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid.
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.



*$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion.
*Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor.
*Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children
*A $2,500 college tuition tax credit.
*Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time.


*An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two.
*Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
*Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases.
*Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans

[Sources: Associated Press: Highlights of Senate economic stimulus plan; January 23, 2009; WSJ: Stimulus Package Unveiled; January 16, 2009; Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009]
When is the money being is going to be spent, and on what?

The government wouldn't be able to spend at least one-fourth of a proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan until after 2010, according to a preliminary report by the Congressional Business Office that suggests it may take longer than expected to boost the economy. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said. About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019.

• Less than $5 billion of the $30 billion set aside for highway spending would be spent within the next two years, the CBO said.

• Only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent.

• Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half.

• About $907 million of a $6 billion plan to expand broadband access in rural and other underserved areas would be spent by 2011, CBO said.

• Just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year.

• $275 billion worth of tax cuts to 95 percent of filers and a huge infusion of help for state governments is to be distributed into the economy more quickly.

[Note: The CBO's analysis applied only to 40 percent of the overall stimulus bill, and doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts; a CBO report outlining all of its costs is expected in the next week or so.]

The Obama administration said $3 of every $4 in the package should be spent within 18 months to have maximum impact on jobs and taxpayers; if House or Senate versions of the bill do not spend the money as quickly, the White House will work with lawmakers to achieve the goal of spending 75% of the overall package over the next year and a half.

[Source: AP: Three-quarters of stimulus to go in 18 months; January 22, 2009; Bloomberg News: Much of Stimulus Wont Be Spent Before 2011, CBO Says; January 20, 2009; link]

Who will be spending the money? Will the states be receiving any money to spend, community organizations? Churches?

The economic stimulus plan now moving through Congress would shower billions of federal dollars on state and local governments desperate for cash:

• The House stimulus bill includes an extra $87 billion in federal aid to state Medicaid programs.

• It allots some $120 billion to boost state and city education programs.

• There's $4 billion for state and local anticrime initiatives in the legislation, not to mention $30-plus billion for highways and other infrastructure projects.

• $6.9 billion to help state and local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions.

• $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the Federal government reimburses all states by 4.8 percent, with extra relief tied to rates of unemployment.

• $120 billion to states and school districts to stabilize budgets and prevent tax increases and deep cuts to critical education programs.

Overall, about one-quarter of the entire $825 billion recovery package would be devoted to activities crucial to governors, mayors, and local school boards - making them among the plans biggest beneficiaries.

[Sources: Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009; Reuters: Roads, energy, states win in US stimulus plan;15 January 2009; Christian Science Monitor: States to win big in stimulus sweepstakes; House bill allots almost one-quarter of the $825 billion recovery package to states, localities. How will that boost the economy?; January 25, 2009; Link]

Monday, January 19, 2009


Today We in the US Celebrate a Great Man
The first speech is his most famous, and is 17 min long, the second was his last and is 1 min long.

Posted on Monday, January 19, 2009
Finally a Correction of Justice
Bush commutes sentences of former US border agents

Jan 19 01:03 PM US/Eastern


Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration.
Bush's decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.
Rancor over their convictions, sentencing and firings has simmered ever since the shooting occurred in 2005.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Apparently Some Things Won't Change

Like just because a Black man is going to be President we still need affirmitive action, and Bush Derangement Syndrone still affects the Democrats.

Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials

The House speaker suggests to "FOXNews Sunday" that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions of Bush administration officials, saying they may not "have a right to ignore" them.

I really loved this interview it showed more and more how much fun the next 4yrs are going to be.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities."

President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.

"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he told ABC News a week ago. "On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

Pelosi, during the interview in her ceremonial office, said there is merit in both arguments.

"I don't think that Mr. Obama and Mr. Conyers are that far apart," she said. "There are different subjects and you treat them differently."

She hinted that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions, even if they are politically unpopular, adding: "That's not up to us to say that doesn't matter anymore."

"We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed," she added. "I want to see the truth come forth."

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The Consensus....LOL

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large
and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many
sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change
indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather
soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions
for the next 100,000 years.

That is the first paragraph in a 3 page story in Pravda. You just have to laugh. Where is the consensus, I thought it was decided the Earth is warming and it's mans fault.

Oh that's right it's not Global Warming anymore it's Climate Change. So make up your mind are we going to burn or freeze. Either way it's all caused by the less than 1% of our bad breath in the atmosphere.

In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate
forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "…
must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component
of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due
to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends,
because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and
longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the
results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards
extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

During the
1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began
promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2,
produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since
the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually
become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their
acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to
make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

So much for "Consensus", this weekend my girls are very upset because they wanted to go sledding. The "Forecast" was for 6 to 8 inches of snow. Well we got less than a half inch, it didn't even cover the grass on the lawn. Yet 50 years from now unless we kill all the pigs and cows and stop burning everything. Were all gonna cook or freeze.

Tonight's forecast Dark continued dark with widely scattered light at Dawn...LOL

Thursday, January 08, 2009

The Idiot who caused the problem

An Unnecessary War

By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 8, 2009; Page A15

I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided. (yeah Jimmy if you arranged for the Gazans to have nukes or biological weapons they could have killed all those pesky Jews by now)

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action. (so why didn't you go to the Gazans or the UN and demand them to cease or push for harder sanctions)

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza. (maybe because they were firing missiles everyday into Israel from Gaza, the Jews ain't bombing the west bank ya git, not to mention Hamas's charter states no peace until the complete destruction of Israel)

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day. (that's a lie food and medicine were allowed through in bounty, not to mention the thriving agriculture business that existed in Gaza at the pullout that the Gazans destroyed, committing themselves to aid rather than trade)

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens. (Supplies were always delivered and non-committal is a nice way of saying they told you to f**k off, you also fail to mention that they refused to cease firing rockets endlessly into Israel)

After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government. (the hamass leaders must laugh their ass off every time this fool shows up)

Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, (THANK GOD) we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily). (and the sea would part and give forth wealth and riches)

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza. (What is a defensive tunnel, is it defensive because the missiles of terror are brought through it and to defend Islam all jews must die ? so there fore the tunnel is defensive)

On another visit to Syria in mid-December, (Which is illegal for you to even visit) I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted. (All unsanctioned negotiations that he was asked not to get involved in, but he knows best remember it was his wisdom that installed the Mad Mullahs in Iran)

After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, (where were the International efforts for a cease fire from 3 years of the jews being shelled) with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. (maybe because that's where the missiles and terrorists were hiding, ya think) This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators. (I'm playing the worlds smallest violen for the worlds smallest sob story)

The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, (He's wishing for a jewish failure, and actually put it in print) Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace. (When was the last time this man was checked for alsheimers or any other brain ailment?)

The writer was president from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a nongovernmental organization advancing peace and health worldwide, in 1982.

Ex President Carter Was an asshole and disaster as a President. His Interference in foreign policy matters over and over , since leaving office has led to one disaster after another. The Founding of the first Terrorist state was his child and the war we are fighting now can be laid directly at his feat. The fact that a paper will print this fools word only ads to my disdain for the printed media. My advice sit down and shut up you ole senile goat.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Turkey holds suspicious Iran-Venezuela shipment, but that's OK lets talk!

Or Better Titled an Idiot at the Helm

Associated Press Writer Suzan Fraser in Ankara contributed to this report

ANKARA, Turkey – Turkey was holding a suspicious shipment bound for Venezuela from Iran because it contained lab equipment capable of producing explosives, a customs official said Tuesday.
Suleyman Tosun, a customs official at the Mediterranean port of Mersin, said military experts were asked to examine the material, which was seized last month, and decide whether to let the shipment to go to Venezuela.
Authorities detected the equipment during a search of 22 containers labeled "tractor parts," Tosun said. They were brought to Mersin by trucks from neighboring Iran, he said. Turkey's Interior Ministry said an investigation was under way.

So as Iran Smuggles a weapons factory to Chavez, and the Russians use Venezuala as a base to do navel war games in our back pond, ad the fact that this idiot supplies us with 1/7th of our oil imports. The Mesiah wants to use him as his first attempt as "The Negotiator". Well maybe a failure dealing with a miner thug will clear the dope from his brain.

Obama May Use Chavez as Test for Talking With Foes
Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- In a mirrored office tower overlooking Caracas, a top Venezuelan official says his government is ready to accept Barack Obama’s offer to talk with U.S. adversaries -- if the president-elect scraps George W. Bush’s division of the world into friends and foes.

Such categories are “simplistic,” says Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela’s former envoy to Washington. “Why do nations have to be friends? What we have to do is sit down and discuss issues.”

Venezuela may provide a useful first test for Obama’s pledge to engage rather than isolate antagonists. While President Hugo Chavez is one of Washington’s noisiest critics, frayed relations would likely be easier to mend than those with nations such as Iran and Cuba, whose leaders are even more hostile toward the U.S., but that's OK

Monday, January 05, 2009

Another Piece of Obama Brilliance

Leon Panetta is Obama's pick for CIA director
Former California congressman and Clinton aide has little experience with spy agencies. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicates she might oppose the pick.
Obama picks another Clinton Hack for a high ranking position, I wonder if he even realizes how this pick will help Hillary in her plans with the state dept.
His new intelligence committee director is not even pleased.

Panetta, who was chief of staff to President Clinton, is regarded as a bright political operative and highly capable manager. But if confirmed by the Senate, he would be among the few directors in agency history with no prior experience at one of the nation's spy services.

Here is the comments from NROs Corner.

Panetta, Obama, and the Senate [Byron York]
On Panetta — in addition to opinions in The Corner, there is the ever-so-slightly more important opinion of the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA Director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read. My position has consistently been that I believe the Agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.

Ouch. It is interesting that Obama would settle on a CIA director without even giving a heads-up to the Intelligence Committee chairman, especially one of his own party. Word is Obama didn't tell outgoing chairman Jay Rockefeller, either.
Add to that this piece:

A Viper @ Obama's Bosom

Clinton moves to widen role of State Department

WASHINGTON: Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis. (in other words implementing Clinton NOT Obama Policy)

Clinton is recruiting Jacob Lew, the budget director under President Bill Clinton, as one of two deputies, according to people close to the Obama transition team. Lew's focus, they said, would be on increasing the share of financing that goes to the diplomatic corps. (cut straight out of the military budget)

He and James Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, are to be Hillary Clinton's chief lieutenants. (a team designed to undermine the WOT)

Nominations of deputy secretaries, like Clinton's, would be subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The incoming administration is also likely to name several envoys, officials said, reviving a practice of the Clinton administration, when Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross and other diplomats played a central role in mediating disputes in the Balkans and the Middle East. (and not one will be appointed without Clinton's approval, or they will have no power ET all if not her choice)

As Clinton puts together her senior team, officials said, she is also trying to carve out a bigger role for the State Department in economic affairs, where the Treasury has dominated during the Bush years. She has sought advice from Laura D'Andrea Tyson, an economist who headed Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. (sounds like the formation of an unvoted for alternate government)

The steps seem intended to strengthen the role of diplomacy after a long stretch, particularly under Secretary of State Colin Powell, in which the Pentagon, the vice president's office and even the intelligence agencies held considerable sway over U.S. foreign policy. (in other words nothing regarding the war gets done without Hillary's power)

Given Hillary Clinton's prominence, expanding the department's portfolio could bring on conflict with other powerful cabinet members. (no shit really?)

Clinton and President-elect Barack Obama have not settled on specific envoys or missions, although Ross's name has been mentioned as a possible Middle East envoy, as have those of Holbrooke and Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel.

The Bush administration has made relatively little use of special envoys. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has personally handled most peacemaking initiatives, which has meant a punishing schedule of Middle East missions, often with meager results. (Hillary will only go if a victory is eminent or she has to put someones balls in her lock box)

"There's no question that there is a reinvention of the wheel here," said Aaron David Miller, a public policy analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "But it's geared not so much as a reaction to Bush as to a fairly astute analysis of what's going to work in foreign policy." (according to the Clinton's, who let terror build around the entire world)

With so many problems, including Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, Miller said it made sense for the White House to farm out some of the diplomatic heavy lifting. (like they have a choice or a clue)

In addition to the Middle East, one Democratic foreign policy adviser said, Holbrooke might be considered for an appointment as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and possibly Iran. The adviser said the decision had not been made. (already the assumption that we will negotiate with the terrorists in Iran)

A transition official dismissed as "speculation" reports in Indian newspapers that Obama was considering appointing Bill Clinton as a special envoy to deal with Kashmir issues.

But another transition official confirmed that Obama's foreign policy advisers were discussing the possibility of appointing a special envoy to India. Steinberg, who is the dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, would probably coordinate the work of any special envoys, the official said. (no envoy gets approved with out the Hilda beasts nod)

The recruitment of Lew - for a position that was not filled in the Bush administration - suggests that Hillary Clinton is determined to win a larger share of financial resources for the department. Lew, a well-connected figure who was once an aide to the House speaker Thomas O'Neill, now works for Citigroup in a unit that oversees hedge funds. (ahh yes more money to funnel to the beast)

"If we're going to re-establish diplomacy as the critical tool in America's arsenal," a senior transition official said, "you need someone who can work both the budget and management side. He has very strong relations on the Hill; he knows the inner workings of how to manage a big enterprise." (so no more military just diplomats, sounds like the perfect plan for the terrorists to rebuild their strength)

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private, said Clinton was being supported in her push for more resources by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and by Obama's incoming national security adviser, General James Jones Jr. (both strong supporters in Diplomacy or do nothing rhetoric)

For years, some Pentagon officials have complained that jobs like the economic reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the military's burden when they could have been handled by a robust foreign service. (bullshit)

"The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there," the official said. "We're looking to have a State Department that has what it needs." (notice no one is quoted for that statement)

Clinton's push for a more vigorous economic team, one of her advisers said, stems from her conviction that the State Department needs to play a part in the recovery from the global financial crisis. (yeah full involvement in flowing American tax dollars to buy off terrorist, except it doesn't work)

Economic issues also underpin some of the most important diplomatic relationships, notably with China. (maybe she'll sell them some more missile technology)

In recent years, the Treasury Department, led by Henry Paulson Jr., has dominated policy toward China. Paulson leads a "strategic economic dialogue" with China that involves several agencies. It is not yet clear who will pick up that role in the Obama administration, although Vice President-elect Joseph Biden Jr. is frequently mentioned as a possibility. (yeah will see)

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Screw The Environmental Cases

Today the perfect argument for the US to develop the trillions of barrel of our own oil resources was provided for us. Between the N Dakota field, The Coloradan fields, The Capped fields in Texas and Missouri. Not to mention the Coal to OIl in Pennsylvania and half the rest of the country.

The US has the resources to not only supply ourselves but our ALLIES in Europe as well.

Today Cut oil sales to Israel's backers-Iranian commander called for ALL oil exporting countries to cease exports to any nation that supports Israel. So except for France I guess if the Iranians get to finish their Bomb were all held hostage to the choice that we let another Hollocost take place or we get no fuel.

Is this really the position we want to be in?

Saturday, January 03, 2009

An Article That Raises a Few Questions

Iran official meets Hamas chief in Syria
Saturday, 03 January 2009
Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 03 - A senior Iranian official on Saturday met with the head of the militant Islamist Palestinian group Hamas as the group’s standoff with Israel entered into its second week. (why would Iran be meeting with Hamas, especially this official?)

Saeed Jalili, Secretary-General of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, met in Damascus with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, the government-run news agency Fars reported.

Jalili blasted Arab countries which “encouraged the Zionist regime [Israel] to attack” through their “silence”. (beware all that is not Persia or am I just imagining a veiled threat?)

Jalili met separately with Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah, the head of the militant group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in Damascus. Shahllah is on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most wanted list with a $5 million bounty for information leading to his arrest. (I'm sure they were just having coffee and donuts)

“With its latest crimes in Gaza, the Zionist regime has come one step closer to annihilation”, Jalili told Shallah, according to Fars. (so they threaten Israel again with annihilation as their Minister of nuclear weapons meets with Hamas)

U.S. President George W. Bush in his weekly radio addressed blamed Hamas for the violence in Gaza and southern Israel, after a week of Israeli air strikes and Hamas rocket attacks.

Earlier this week, the main Iranian resistance coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, urged the international community to condemn Tehran’s “warmongering and fundamentalist meddling in Palestine”. (yeah I bet the people in that group aren't hiding in fear of their lives)

“The Iranian Resistance strongly condemns Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip and the killing of innocent civilians, in particular women and children”, it said, adding, “The mullahs’ ruling Iran are benefiting the most from this conflict and the crisis brewing in the region”. (crises what crises?)

“Facing fierce resentment and isolation at home, the mullahs’ regime believes that it can prolong its existence by exporting terror and fundamentalism abroad and taking advantage of the situation in Palestine and dominating the region”, the NCRI said. (especially if Israel is nuked)

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday left for New York where he plans to seek United Nations support to end the standoff. (yeah he's just fleeing the country)

The Iranians are dictating to Hamass exactly what and how to proceed. I'm sure there will be a move from Lebenon very shortly. If Iran puts a nuke in the hands of Hamass, and it's used, will the world condemn Iran? Hell will half the people on this Blog?