dprin339's Blog

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

By Greg Gutfeld FNC

Following Barack Obama's campaign is like watching a friend of yours dump a psychotic girlfriend. In this case, Obama is the friend and the crazy, soon-to-be ex is the left.

In the beginning, Obama could indulge the crazies over at The Huffington Post and MoveOn.org simply because, back then, the rest of America wasn't paying attention.

But now that he has the nomination and people are actually listening, he's dropping the Wesley Clarks of the world like bug-infested potatoes. Now, among the normal, Obama can no longer hold onto all those nutty beliefs, which means, he must turn right.

I've said it before: The Democrats know you can't run left because you'll lose. Which is funny when you think about it: The only way your party can win, is to run from your party's beliefs.

So far, Obama has flipped on the death penalty and thinks guns are peachy. He's accepted the Foreign Surveillance Act and he's no longer entertaining high tea with Ahmadinejad. And now he's blasted MoveOn.org for calling General Petraeus a traitor. His crazy ex-girlfriend must be cutting up his underwear.

But it's not over yet. Just wait until Obama returns from Iraq speaking about how the violence has decreased and that the surge is working. At this point he will embrace the phrase his lefty brethren mocked so well -- "stay the course" -- and acknowledge that we are, in effect, winning the war. Once he abandons his idiotic stance on the capital gains tax, the makeover will be almost complete.

So sit back and enjoy it, as the unbalanced ex-girlfriend roils in her basement apartment, blogging about her heartbreak, as the rest of us realize that Obama isn't running against McCain, he's turning into him.

By SAMEER N. YACOUB – 22 hours ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — The Iraqi government opened six oil fields to international bidding Monday as the nation attempts to boost daily production by 60 percent.

The potential participation of big Western companies like BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total SA in Iraq's oil industry has been criticized in recent weeks following published reports that several were close to signing no-bid contracts with the Iraqi government.

There was an immediate outcry over perceptions that the U.S. did invade Iraq to gain access to its massive oil reserves and there was no announcement of contracts Monday by Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani.

He did, however, name 35 companies that would be qualified to bid on service contracts for the oil fields of Rumeila, Zubair, Qurna West, Maysan, Kirkuk and Bay Hassan.

"These fields were chosen because their production can be raised in a short time and at a low cost," said al-Shahristani.

All of the fields are currently producing oil, and al-Shahristani said the new contracts would raise Iraq's production by 1.5 million barrels per day. Iraq currently produces 2.5 million barrels per day and hopes to raise that to 4.5 million by 2013.

The Bush administration indicated last week that it had no plans to interfere with negotiations between Iraq and Western oil giants and on Monday, the State Department said Iraq was acting alone.

"There is no U.S. government involvement in any decision in any way being taken in any form by the Iraqi oil ministry or any other ministry on these fundamental issues," said spokesman Tom Casey. "These are decisions that a sovereign Iraqi government and sovereign Iraqi officials are making on their own."

Casey likened the role of the U.S. "technical support people" to that of a lawyer whose client wants to draft a will. The client makes the decisions about who gets what and the lawyer provides advice and expertise, Casey said.

Major oil companies also distanced themselves from talk of no-bid deals that provide access to Iraqi oil.

"We have been providing services to Iraq from outside the country for a number of years," Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP. "We submitted a study of the Rumeila fields several years ago and if the discussions do lead to deal, they will focus on the technical services in that report. We need to clarify — this is not about access to the country's oil resources, or exploration. It's a management contract, to provide technical resources."

Greater oil production is key to rebuilding Iraq's devastated infrastructure and delivering energy to the country.

But the lack of security and the absence of a new legislation to manage the industry have hampered development of the oil industry.

A reduction in violence in recent months has allowed the country to boost production to its highest level since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

At the same time, record oil prices that surpassed $143 per barrel Monday have made Iraq's vast untapped reserves even more tempting to foreign companies. Iraq has an estimated 115 billion barrels of oil reserves and some 112 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the government.

Al-Shahristani said Monday that the country would also open up the natural gas fields of Akkaz and Mansouriyah for bidding.

Every company involved in the bidding process must have an Iraqi partner and must give 25 percent of the value of the contract to Iraqi companies, said al-Shahristani.

Western participation in Iraq's oil industry, especially by American companies, has been a contentious issue ever since U.S.-led forces toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, last week asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to try to block any oil deals.

Until Baghdad agrees on how to divide the nation's oil revenues, the presence of Western companies — including U.S.-based Exxon Mobil — will heighten tensions among Iraq's feuding sectarian groups "at the same time that American service members are fighting night and day to reduce the levels of violence," they wrote.

"This is clearly a matter of national security, which we believe should trump any and all commercial interests," the senators added.

On Monday The New York Times reported that a small U.S. State Department team helped draw up contracts between the Oil Ministry and the five major oil companies. The newspaper quoted a senior State Department official as saying the team provided technical support to an understaffed Iraqi ministry.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh denied the country had ever considered a no-bid process, saying "there was never any intention to award the contracts without a tender."

Al-Dabbagh denied American influence on the Iraqi government's oil decisions, saying "politics does not come into this."

"There is no preferential treatment for anyone, no matter who," said al-Dabbagh.

A TRUE AMERICAN


It is time to change from REDNECK humor to TRUE AMERICAN Humor!

Only it isn't seen as HUMOR, but the correct way to LIVE YOUR LIFE ! If you feel the same, pass this on to your True American friends. Y'all know who they are...

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You still say 'Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never burned an American flag.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

If you got this email from me, it is because I believe that you, like me, have just enough TRUE AMERICAN in you to have the same beliefs as those talked about in this email.

God Bless the U S A ! Amen

AND PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN ENGLISH.

Friday, June 27, 2008

By David MacDougall Eric Stewart

There was a time when Iraqi Airways criss-crossed the globe, operating flights from Baghdad to cosmopolitan destinations including Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, Paris, Bombay and a host of other cities.

But that was nearly three decades ago — before the economically ruinous Iran-Iraq war, two other wars involving the United States and its allies, a no-fly zone and crippling U.N. sanctions.

The long slide into decay was both painful and inevitable. By the time Saddam Hussein was toppled from power in 2003, numerous abandoned Iraqi Airways jets sat rusting on the tarmac in at least three regional airports, and the company was locked in a bitter legal dispute with the government of Kuwait over assets looted during the first Gulf War.

These days, things are starting to look better for the airline. A colossal $5.5 billion contract between Iraqi Airways and Boeing — among the largest the fledgling Iraqi government has funded to date — was recently signed to foster its expansion.

It was an important moment in the country's post-war development — and its significance was underscored by the presence of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other dignitaries at the contract-signing ceremony last month. The multi-billion dollar order shows a confidence in growth that was not evident even a year ago.

That jewel in Iraqi Airways' crown will buy 50 new and second-hand jets from Boeing and Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier, including 10 of Boeing's 787 Dreamliners.

The first Bombardier plane will be delivered to the airline in August, according to Iraqi Airways director general Capt. Kifah Hassan Jabar, and more will follow.

"Every two months, we will deliver another aircraft," he told FOX News. The whole fleet of planes will arrive by 2018 under the agreement between Boeing and the government of Iraq.

This new era of expansion for Iraq's national carrier has ruffled some feathers, however.

Boeing's main rival, the European consortium Airbus Industries, was not invited to bid for the Iraqi Airways contract, even though many other regional airlines operate its planes.

Kifah explained the exclusion of Airbus by detailing the legacy between Iraqi Airways and Boeing. The airline has a longstanding relationship with Boeing dating back to 1974, he said.

"The first 747 jumbo was operated by Iraqi Airways. All our pilots, our present pilots and engineers, were from Boeing," said Kifah. "We're looking forward to having the same with Boeing in the future."

And in that vein, Iraqi Airways is pushing forward.

Its new management team and new routes, freshly leased aircraft and passenger counts that would make other carriers jealous have helped boost business at the perennially down-at-the-heel state-owned enterprise.

While many airlines are cutting back services — or even going bankrupt — due to high fuel prices, lower passenger returns and rising operating costs, Iraqi Airways remains somewhat shielded by those market forces because it's part of a state-run organization.

The airline boasts some impressive numbers. Its most popular route, a daily service to Dubai, is 98 to 100 percent sold out.

But Iraqi Airways also has hurdles to overcome — for one, the company's late re-entry into an already crowded regional market.

Since the carrier last offered full-service flights, the Middle Eastern airline sector has grown to be much more lucrative and competitive.

Well-known brand name carriers like Emirates, Gulf Air and Royal Jordanian are long established.

More recent expansion by Ethihad and Qatar Airways give travelers (especially premium passengers) little reason to fly with Iraqi Airways — which is often jokingly called "Inshallah (God Willing) Airlines."

"Frankly speaking, we cannot compete with them for the next few years for many reasons," Kifah said. "They are well established and well supported by their governments."

For the time being, however, Iraqi Airways has something of a monopoly on operations by national flag-carriers at Baghdad International Airport.

Kifah doesn't think that Emirates, for example, will be competing on the high-yield Baghdad-Dubai route for some time to come. And demand for flights aboard the war-torn country's national airline is already particularly strong in Iraqi immigrant communities in Scandinavia, Germany, Britain and the United States.

"The Iraqis, for one reason or another, they are very keen to fly with Iraqi Airways," he told FOX News. "I cannot say why exactly, but I think they like their national carrier and try to support it in some way or another."

Theistic Evolution is the Biblical account made to complement the false doctrine of organic evolution. It means more than just change or variation within a kind. It means just what atheistic evolutionists say it means, that the present creatures of today's world are the modified descendants of organisms which preceded them and that these same creatures have developed from an inanimate or nonliving source. Theistic comes from the Greek word Theos, which means God, and many intellectuals have assumed that this is "the way God did it". This term would also include threshold evolution, progressive creation, and similar concepts.

It seems that more of our young people stand in danger of accepting theistic evolution than in their acceptance of the view that leaves God out. Many seem to feel that they can still be religious and even admit faith in God and yet accept all that modern evolutionary science teaches as to the origin of this world and man upon it. Thus, a compromise is made which is fatal to any firm convictions concerning the Genesis account of creation.

Theistic evolution is not in harmony with God's word, but it is in total conflict with the Bible. Charles Darwin, the author of The Origin of Species was himself a theistic evolutionist for he could never quite get rid of the idea of God. He wrote in his first edition of the Origin, "There is a grandeur in this view of life that the creator breathed into several forms, or into one, the breath of life, and these have gone cycling on, giving rise to forms most beautiful and most wonderful to behold" (Origin of Species, 1956, J.M.Dent Co.). Now, however, there is a significant body of scientists who have reacted healthily against this trend and have insisted on the full reliability of the Biblical account of creation.

Let me mention two or three areas in the scientific disciplines which show the superiority of creation over evolution. When the best known of all the law of biology - that of life from life, or biogenesis - is mentioned, the Bible is surely correct when it intones throughout the entire first chapter of Genesis, "Each after its own kind". Each organism gives rise to others essentially like itself. Although changes may occur, they are not changes without limits. In the realm of origins, evolutionists who get the process started must fall back upon a disproven doctrine: the idea that living things are generated from non-living, or spontaneous generation. Many prominent theistic evolutionists allow God to make some large macromolecule and then leave the rest to evolutionary process. Evolution, or the commonly accepted idea of ameoba-to-man thesis, is neither fact, theory nor hypothesis. It is a belief, a faith in the religion of naturalism and scientific humanism. It contradicts what Christ said in Matthew 19:4 in which he endorsed the Genesis account of the creation when he said, "Have you not read that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female?". If God made them, why would he want to take such an infinitely long time, stretching out over aeons of time, just to make a man and a woman? Yet this is the compromise that many would make to make evolution respectable to religious people.

A close parallel with this situation existed -long ago among God's people. When the pagan Canaanite religion, with its worship of the host of heaven and Baal the Sun God were being mixed with the worship of Jehovah, the true and living God, Elijah cried out to the assembled prophets of Baal as well as to the people of Israel, "How long halt you between two opinions? If Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him" I Kings 18:18-21.

Our decision then is basically one as to whether we shall try to believe the statements of the scriptures to match the current human theories and opinions, or whether we shall insist that God's Word is still right. The real question is not whether or not we believe in evolution, but rather relates to who is on the throne in our hearts - God or man. A simple reading of the first two chapters of the book of Genesis reveals so many contradictions between the Bible account of creation and the theory of evolution that our eyes must be closed very tightly in order not to see them.

Some obvious examples are as follows: The Bible disagrees with the theory of evolution by saying that land plants were created before water life (Gen.1:11,20); that green plants were created before the sun (Gen.1:11,16); that land plants were created before they grew in the earth (Gen. 2:5); that before Adam was made alive he had nostrils (Gen. 2:7); that the male was created before the female (Gen. 2:23); that the very first man had a language and could speak freely (Gen. 2:23). These are only a few of the obvious contradictions between the account of the Bible and the theory of evolution.

A common rule for understanding any book, including the Bible, is that its language is to be accepted as being literal unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is not the slightest evidence that the Genesis account should be accepted as only a figurative story. It is, on the contrary, supported by numerous similar scriptures in the New Testament, such as I Timothy 2:13, Romans 5:12-14; I Corinthians 15:22; Luke 3:23-38; Mark 10:6. But if we choose to take the position that the Genesis account is figurative even without evidence, then we must wrestle with the question, when do the statements of the Bible become accurate and real? If Adam was not literally a real person, was Noah real? was Abraham? was Moses? was Christ? The theory of theistic evolution is a dead end road to a shattered faith.

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 6/25/08 6:53 PM EST

Text Size:    

When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.

Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots — a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers.

Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes.

His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system — and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him — the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing.

FISA, however, was different. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administration’s activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable.

“It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”

Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

 “I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” he said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

Already, Blue America PAC, a liberal online fundraising group, says it has raised more than $320,000 to fund activities “holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber-stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regime’s agenda.”

MoveOn.org has called upon its members to pressure Obama to “keep his word” and block the bill. Obama gave no indication that he would support a filibuster, and a press aide did not respond to requests for clarification on this point.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected the filibuster attempt Wednesday, voting 80-15 to end debate and move to final passage Thursday. Obama, who was not present for Wednesday's test vote, is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision. But even if the effort fails, as it has in the past, Obama would likely back the underlying bill.

By taking this position, Obama is threading the needle between Republican charges that he is weak on security and the desires of the Democratic base. To allay critics’ claims that he is giving a pass to the Bush administration, Obama aides pointed to a provision in the bill that requires an inspector general’s review of the surveillance program.

“It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the inspectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”

Obama’s statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

But Obama told reporters Wednesday that the bill has changed from when that pledge was made, saying the latest version satisfied several of his concerns.

Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant who supports Obama and former longtime aide to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Obama now needs to stand by his support of the bill, given Republican efforts to brand Obama as a “reflexive, partisan liberal.” “This is really an important initial test for Obama,” he said.

“People will be looking at this to see whether he has the strength and independence to stand up to his friends and a significant support base and say, ‘I think this is right, and I am going to hold firm in my position.’”

The Netroots will be watching Thursday as the Senate considers the bill — and whether Obama simply casts his vote or whether he takes a strong stand in a floor speech.

“The fear out there is that Obama is going to fail to live up to expectations on key issues, and that reinforces the notion that ‘uh-oh, we picked the wrong candidate,’ when the focus should really be on the fact that the Bush administration broke the law with the help of private companies,” said Warren Street, a blogger at the Blue Girl, Red State blog.

For those of you who don’t know what “netroots” is, (I didn’t either) it’s a group of bloggers sponsored by: MyDD, DailyKos & the Swing State Project   (all funded by none other than George Soros)

Here it comes ladies & gentlemen! The mass exodus from the “Messiah” as they all end up disillusioned & disappointed by him & his lies.

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 6/25/08 6:53 PM EST

Text Size:    

When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.

Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots — a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers.

Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes.

His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system — and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him — the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing.

FISA, however, was different. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administration’s activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable.

“It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”

Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

 “I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” he said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

Already, Blue America PAC, a liberal online fundraising group, says it has raised more than $320,000 to fund activities “holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber-stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regime’s agenda.”

MoveOn.org has called upon its members to pressure Obama to “keep his word” and block the bill. Obama gave no indication that he would support a filibuster, and a press aide did not respond to requests for clarification on this point.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected the filibuster attempt Wednesday, voting 80-15 to end debate and move to final passage Thursday. Obama, who was not present for Wednesday's test vote, is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision. But even if the effort fails, as it has in the past, Obama would likely back the underlying bill.

By taking this position, Obama is threading the needle between Republican charges that he is weak on security and the desires of the Democratic base. To allay critics’ claims that he is giving a pass to the Bush administration, Obama aides pointed to a provision in the bill that requires an inspector general’s review of the surveillance program.

“It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the inspectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”

Obama’s statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

But Obama told reporters Wednesday that the bill has changed from when that pledge was made, saying the latest version satisfied several of his concerns.

Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant who supports Obama and former longtime aide to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Obama now needs to stand by his support of the bill, given Republican efforts to brand Obama as a “reflexive, partisan liberal.” “This is really an important initial test for Obama,” he said.

“People will be looking at this to see whether he has the strength and independence to stand up to his friends and a significant support base and say, ‘I think this is right, and I am going to hold firm in my position.’”

The Netroots will be watching Thursday as the Senate considers the bill — and whether Obama simply casts his vote or whether he takes a strong stand in a floor speech.

“The fear out there is that Obama is going to fail to live up to expectations on key issues, and that reinforces the notion that ‘uh-oh, we picked the wrong candidate,’ when the focus should really be on the fact that the Bush administration broke the law with the help of private companies,” said Warren Street, a blogger at the Blue Girl, Red State blog.

For those of you who don’t know what “netroots” is, (I didn’t either) it’s a group of bloggers sponsored by: MyDD, DailyKos & the Swing State Project   (all funded by none other than George Soros)

Here it comes ladies & gentlemen! The mass exodus from the “Messiah” as they all end up disillusioned & disappointed by him & his lies.

June 25, 2008
by John Gizzi, Political Editor, Human Events

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.  In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation.  She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall.  There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation.

June 25, 2008
by John Gizzi, Political Editor, Human Events

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.  In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation.  She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall.  There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

1. The Gore “victory” rally isn’t celebrating a Florida win. It was held before the polls had even opened.  (funny, isn’t that similar to the global warming debates? They have already been held, they are over & they WON?)

2. Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.

3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

4. Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistak-enly disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.

5. Bush’s Presidency before 9/11 was not in serious trouble. No commentator said that he looked like a lame-duck presi-dent. Congress had passed his #1 bill (the tax cut) and was on the way to passing his #2 bill (the education bill). The scene at the end of the movie in which Bush tells a rich audi-ence “I call you my base,” was from an October 2000 charity fundraiser and, as is the custom at the fund-raiser, made fun of themselves.

6. “In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.” As the Washington Post reported, the figure includes weekends, and includes time in “vacation locations” such as Camp David, where Bush was working—as when he met with Tony Blair.

7. In the golf course scene (about the middle of the movie), Bush had just heard about a terrorist attack on Israel. He called the press together to make a quick statement con-demning the terrorism against Israel. He was not speaking about attacks on the United States.

8. There is no evidence that Bush did not read the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing about al Qaeda.

9. He never claimed that the title’s “vagueness” was an excuse for not reading it.

10. The Briefing did not say “said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” It said that the FBI has “not been able to corroborate” such a threat.

11. The Saudis left the U.S. only after air travel was opened for the general public.

12. According to Richard Clarke and the September 11 Commission, Clarke personally approved the Saudi departures, and the decision went no higher in the chain of command.

13. Moore lied to a TV reporter in claiming that Fahrenheit discloses Clarke’s decision to the audience. Clarke called the Saudi exit material in Fahrenheit a “mistake” by Moore.

14. Contrary to what Fahrenheit claims, the September 11 Commission found that many Saudis were asked “detailed questions” before being allowed to leave.

15. James Bath did not invest bin Laden family money in Bush’s energy company Arbusto. He invested his own money.

16. Bath’s name was blacked-out from an Alabama National Guard record released by the White House—as required by federal law, which prohibits the disclosure of health-related personal information.

17. Prince Bandar has way too much influence on the U.S. government, as Fahrenheit shows, but American coddling of the Saudi tyranny is a long-standing bi-partisan tradition, not a Bush invention.

18. Harken Energy: Bush only sold the stock after company lawyers told him it was OK.

19. The reason that Bush “beat the rap” was because there was no evidence he had engaged in insider trading.

20. The Carlyle Group is not a Bush playground. Many Bush opponents are investors, including George Soros.

21. The Bush administration dealt Carlyle a huge financial blow by canceling the Crusader, one of the few weapons cancellations in the Bush administration.

22. The bin Ladens dropped out of Carlyle before the stock sale. Of the 1.4 billion that the Saudis invested in companies with Bush connections, the vast majority of the money was invested in Carlyle before George H.W. Bush joined the firm.

23. Craig Unger claims that the Saudis have $860 billion invested in the U.S. The figure appears in his book House of Bush, House of Saud, but neither of Unger’s cited sources support such a large figure.

24. Moore claims that the Saudis “own 7% of America.” But even if you believe Unger’s fictitious $860 billion figure, the Saudis own only about 7% of total foreign investment

in America, which is over 10 trillion dollars. Only if all of America were owned by foreigners could Moore’s claim be correct.

25. The Saudi embassy does not receive special protection. It is not the only foreign embassy which is guarded by the U.S. Secret Service. An international treaty signed by the U.S. requires the U.S. to protect any embassy which asks for protection.

26. Moore’s insinuation that Bush runs U.S. foreign policy according to Saudi instructions is contradicted by the Afghanistan invasion (which toppled the Taliban regime which the Saudis strongly supported), and by the Iraq War (which the Saudis opposed, in part because Iraqi oil will compete with Saudi oil).

27. As Governor of Texas, Bush never met with Taliban representatives.

28. The proposed Unocal pipeline was supported by the Clinton administration, but Unocal abandoned the pipeline idea in 1998.

29. The new Afghani government has signed a protocol to build a pipeline, but it is an entirely different pipeline, in a location hundreds of miles distant from the Unocal proposal.

30. Construction has not begun on the new pipeline. Although Moore claims that “Enron stood to benefit” from the pipeline, Enron has never had any participation in either pipeline.

31. The Bush administration did not “welcome” Taliban diplomats in March 2001, but instead condemned them for failing to hand over Osama bin Laden.

32. Despite Moore’s pose in the movie, he opposed the Afghanistan War, and—in December 2002—claimed that Osama bin Laden might be innocent.

33. In claiming that the Afghanistan invasion was a mere ruse to protect the Saudis, Moore omits the results of liberation in Afghanistan: destruction of al Qaeda training camps, the creation of free elections, more freedom for women, and the homecoming of 1.5 million refugees from the Taliban.

34. The various quotes about Bush administration cooperation with the September 11 Commission have been resequenced to create a false impression. In July 2003, Chairman Kean complained about lack of cooperation. In February 2004, Bush said that the White House had given extraordinary cooperation. Kean agreed, and praised the White House for providing “unprecedented” access.

35. John Ashcroft didn’t really lose a Senate election to a “dead guy.” Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash a few weeks before the election, and the Missouri Governor had promised to appoint Carnahan’s widow Jean Carnahan if voters pulled the lever for Mel Carnahan.

36. The FBI did not “know” about al Qaeda suspects who were attending flight training schools. The information was never passed above the level of one field office.

37. Ashcroft did not cut overall counter-terrorism funding. He only proposed a one-year cut in a particular program that already had two years of unspent money.

38. Rep. Porter Goss says he has an “800 number,” and the Fahrenheit caption says “He’s lying.” Goss does have a tollfree number, although the prefix is 877.

39. Moore say Saddam’s Iraq “had never murdered a single American citizen.” In fact, Saddam paid for terrorist bombers in Israel who murdered Americans, along with people of other nationalities. Saddam also sheltered the American-killing terrorist Abu Nidal, and the bomb-maker for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

40. In addition, Saddam ordered assassination attempts against former President Bush and against U.S. diplomats in the Philippines.

41. Moore claims that the Saddam regime “never threatened to attack the United States.” In fact, in 1997 the regime publicly ordered: “American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.” On the first anniversary of September 11, Saddam's regime called for suicide attacks on Americans.

42. Moore claims that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. In fact, there is an extensive record of collaboration although—as the September 11 Commission announced—there is no proof that Saddam participated beforehand in al Qaeda attacks on America.

43. Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on

Nov. 28, 2003:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the

nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."

44. Moore portrays pre-liberation Iraq as a happy nation of kite-flying and weddings. In fact, a sixth of the population had fled Saddam’s tyranny. The United Nations and Amnesty International condemned “the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror.’’

45. The only Iraqi casualties which Moore shows are civilians, although military casualties far outnumbered civilian.

46. When showing pictures of buildings being blown up, Moore does not reveal that many of them were military buildings, and civilians were never allowed anywhere near them.

47. A humorous sequence making fun of tiny countries in the Iraq liberation Coalition does not even mention the major countries in the Coalition, such as the U.K., Australia, Italy, and Japan.Not a deceit, but mean-spirited and exploitive: The footage of the funeral of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone at Arlington National Cemetery appears without his family's permission, and over their vehement objection. Major Stone strongly believed in the Iraq mission, as does his family. The footage of Massachusetts National Guardsman Peter Damon, who is undergoing therapy at Walter Reed Army Medical Center is also used without his permission.

48. Despite Moore’s claims, American media have not been mindlessly supportive of the Iraq war. For example, Peter Jennings has been extremely critical. The evidence that Moore offers to portray Jennings as a war supporter is a clip of Jennings reporting in April 2003 that Saddam’s army had collapsed—which was true.

49. The scene of American soldiers making fun of a man underneath a sheet is not torture of a prisoner of war. They are making fun of a drunk who passed out in the street.

50. Moore reports that Bush proposed closing some Veteran’s hospitals. But he also proposed opening other veteran’s hospitals.

51. Bush once opposed renewing a special bonus of $75/ month for soldiers in “imminent danger zones.” Moore claims that Bush proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 1/3; but a soldier's pay and benefits is over $27,000 per year, even at low enlisted grades.

52. While making false claims about a Bush pay cut, Moore omits the fact that Bush sought and won a 3.7% military pay raise in 2003.

53. Moore claims that only one Congressman has a child in Iraq. Actually, two do. (Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of S.D., and Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California.) Also, John Ashcroft has a son on a naval ship in the Persian Gulf.

54. Fahrenheit deceptively cut the footage of Rep. Mark Kennedy to make it look like Kennedy rebuffed Moore’s request to help enlist Congressional children. In fact, Kennedy said it was a good idea, and offered to help.

55. Fahrenheit shows Rep. Michael Castle walking past Moore. But Rep. Castle is childless.

56. Based on Census Bureau data, Congressional families are more likely than other families to have children serving in Iraq.

57. Moore calls Flint, Michigan, “my hometown.” In fact, he grew up in Davison, a much wealthier and much whiter suburb.

58. In Fahrenheit, Moore pretends to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq-the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria-who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq. Here is what Moore said on April 14, 2004, about the forces who are killing Americans and trying to impose totalitarian rule on Iraq: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” Do you really think that someone who wants Iraq to be ruled by Islamist or Ba’athist tyranny, and who deliberately kills innocent civilians with car bombs, is like the American Minutemen?

59. As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore’s Middle East distributor, Front Row, is accepting the terrorist assistance: “In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although [Front Row’s Managing Director Giancarlo] Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, ‘we can’t go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.’” (Nancy Tartaglione, “Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically in Middle East,” Screen Daily.com, June 9, 2004. The story is discussed in Samantha Ellis, “Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah,” The Guardian (London), June 17, 2004.) Slate.com (6/24/04) followed up on the story, and reported: “Gianluca Chacra, the managing director of Front Row Entertainment, the movie’s distributor in the United Arab Emirates, confirms that Lebanese student members of Hezbollah ‘have asked us if there’s any way they could support the film.’ Chacra was unfazed, even excited, about their offer. ‘Having the support of such an entity in Lebanon is quite significant for that market and not at all controversial. I think it’s quite natural.’” Do you think it’s patriotic to accept help from a terrorist organization which has killed and kidnapped hundreds of Americans, which works with al Qaeda and other terrorists, and which is currently aiding the killing of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? American patriotism can include presenting honest arguments against a particular American military policy. Hateriotism is the spreading of vicious lies against American soldiers and in favor of tyrants.

It’s not unpatriotic to criticize a war or particular wartime policies. But how many patriots do you know who take aid from terrorists who kill Americans? This essay comes from the Independence Institute, a thinktank in Colorado which is founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence (www.independenceinstitute. org). The author, Dave Kopel, is a life-long Democrat who endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. He supports some but not all aspects of the current war on terror

BY Michael Saul and Celeste Katz
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Friday, June 20th 2008, 8:20 PM

Barack Obama introduced his own take on the presidential seal on Friday.

Yes, he can. But, really: Oh, no, he didn't!

Barack Obama's presidential campaign raised eyebrows and elicited snickers Friday when it unveiled the Obamamania version of the presidential seal.

At a meeting with Democratic governors in Chicago, Obama sat behind a rostrum with a seal that looked not-so-coincidentally like the official seal of the President of the United States.

Featuring an eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, the seal contained a Latin phrase for a touch of gravitas that roughly translates to "Yes, We Can."

Asked to explain the new seal, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "It's a mix of presidential politics and a call for hope and change."

Snarked John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, "I think we can all agree that we need presidential candidates that are serious enough not to play make-believe on the campaign trail."

"It's laughable, ridiculous, preposterous and revealing all at the same time," Bounds said.