KirtFalcon

I stand by my comments and fully understand where General Pace is coming from on this. Anyone who has spent 20+ years in the military and has shared "close quarters" with several men during deployments understands that the negative impact on gays openly serving in the miltary would far outweigh any possible benefits. There are also times when national security and military discipline has to trump civilian rights. No one is forcing you to serve, but if you choose to serve you must understand you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and you don't have the same rights as ordinary citizens.

I think they should go back to the policy they had BEFORE "don't ask, don't tell"!!!!! They SHOULD ask and then BOOT them out if they have positive evidence! :whistle: He can't say so and keep his job, but I'll bet Gen Pace agrees with me!!!!:w00t:

The worse thing about TMF Rose Stadium is the congestion on the visitors side between the stands and the concession area. It's madness trying to get to the concession stand andor bathrooms and back to your seat. The people waiting in line for the concessions completely block the path of everyone trying to pass through. It's MADNESS!!! I don't know how they could fix the problem without major changes. The home side doesn't have this problem.

The American Thinker March 13, 2007 By William Tate Satire "Welcome to the Nevada Democratic Party presidential debate. My Name is Tim Russert and I'll be you moderator tonight--" "Excuse me, Tim." "Yes, candidate Edwards?" "As you know, Tim, we simply refuse to appear on any media outlet that doesn't present a lib... uh, a fair perspective of this election. And I'm afraid that, before we continue, we need to establish your credentials." "I'm the Washington bureau chief of NBC News and the host of Meet the Press." "All well and good, Tim, but I was referring to your background in politics." "Well, Mister Edwards, I used to work for Democratic Senator Daniel Moynhihan." "I don't know if that passes muster, Tim. Moynihan could be kind of independent. Anything else?" "I also worked for Mario Cuomo." "More like it! He's a true Democrat." "Oh, and I waived my normally sacrosanct journalistic responsibility to protect my sources in order to help convict Scooter Libby." "Well, okay. We'll let you proceed ... for now." "Thank you so much, Mister Edwards. I won't let you down. I promise. Joining me on tonight's panel is the host of ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos." "Good evening, Tim." "Uh, Tim?" "Yes, Mister Edwards?" "Before we proceed, I'm afraid, Mister Stephanopolous, that we need to establish your credentials to ask non-biased questions of presidential candidates." "Well, I don't really have too many journalistic credentials, Mister Edwards." "We don't care about that, George. What about your politics?" "I served as a senior advisor to President Clinton." "Is that all?" "I helped him get elected." "Hmm. I'll have to think about that." "While you're doing that, candidate Edwards, let me introduce the other member of tonight's panel, my colleague at NBC News, Chris Matthews. Chris is the host of..." "Tim?" "Yes, Mister Edwards?" "I think we need to establish--" "I know, the credentials..." "I was an aide to Tip O'Neill, you southern nitwit. You simply can't get more Democrat than that." "Just one job, Chris?" "I was a speech writer for President Carter, pretty boy." "Oh. I guess you're okay." "Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we can't make similar introductions for the rest of our unbiased panel, which includes representatives from the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, PBS, CNN, NPR, Time, Newsweek, and, at the far end down there, the one in the red dress, Helen Thomas." "George W. Bush is still the worst president ever, Tim!" "Yes, well. Thank you Helen. We'll start with opening statements from our selected candidates. The order of those statements was determined by random drawing--" "Tim?" "Again, Mister Edwards?" "I would like to make a formal protest to the results of that drawing. My campaign staff has determined that it was conducted by someone who we suspect may have once watched the Fox News Channel." "Your protest is duly noted. Now, we'll start with the opening statement of candidate Edwards." "Thanks, Tim. Let me start by stating how glad I am that we are able to have this debate in front of such an unbiased media panel. As candidates for the highest office in the land, we have an obligation to talk to everyone ... so long as they agree with us." "Candidate Obama?" "This nation is at a critical point in its history, Tim. This election presents us with a clear choice: to appear on the Fox News Channel, or not. I, for one, want to inspire America ... to avoid FNC." "Candidate Clinton." "Tim, unlike my opponents, I actually have experience in dealing with the country's problems. I have avoided Fox News Channel for years. But that's not all. I'd like to announce tonight that my attorneys have filed suit to prevent FNC from saying my name or showing my picture on air ... unless the face is blurred, and then only from the waist up." "Alright, it's time for our unbiased panelists to ask questions. George?" "This question is for all the candidates, Tim. Candidates, who do you think is more evil: Satan or George W. Bush?" "Bush." "Bush." "Bush." "Uh, Tim?" "Yes, Mister Edwards?" "Could I amend my response? Bush ... and the Fox News Channel." "Now an unbiased question from Chris Matthews." "Alright, you slack-jawed spineless substitute for real Democrats, the current administration has run roughshod over the constitution, which leads me to ask, which part of the constitution is most important to you? Senator Obama?" "All of it, Chris. But especially the part that allows senators to make money in their blind trusts." "Senator Clinton?" "Well, Chris, I have studied the constitution extensively looking for legal loopholes ... uh ... I mean, overlooked details, and I find the part that allows presidents to grant pardons to be very important." "Mister Edwards?" "Why the right to free speech, of course. William Tate is a former award-winning broadcast journalist. He is a writer and researcher who lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

March 13, 2007 Schumer's amnesia Clarice Feldman Macsmind notes the utter hypocrisy of Schumer's criticism of Republicans for making inquiries of US Attorneys about ongoing investigations First to the microphone, Senator (never been to Walter Reed but if you hum a few bars I'll fake it) Schumer is ranting about the firing of US prosecutors, and especially expressing shock about Republican Senators contacting prosecutors to inquire about prosecutions. You mean like this Chucky? January 22, 2004 The Honorable James Comey United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Deputy Attorney General Comey: I write to request an update on the investigation into allegations that senior administration officials committed a federal felony by leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative. The investigation has been underway for four months now and we have received no meaningful reports regarding the progress you are making. I realize there are limitations on information that can be disclosed regarding an ongoing criminal investigation, but, as we have discussed, a prosecutor has the responsibility to assure public confidence in criminal investigations, especially those of such a serious nature. In the wake of recent calls by former intelligence operatives for a Congressional investigation, I write to ask that you publicly answer several questions regarding the progress you are making: Has a grand jury been empaneled in this case? Have members of the White House staff signed waivers, permitting journalists to discuss confidential communications? If so, what percent of the White House staff has signed such waivers? Has anyone who has been asked to sign such a waiver refused to do so? Have journalists been interviewed as part of the investigation? Has any journalist who has been released from confidentiality (assuming any has), refused to answer questions regarding previously confidential communications? Were White House staffers ordered as a condition of employment to submit to interviews? Has anyone asked for or been offered immunity? If so, how many individuals fit in each category and what types of immunity have been asked for and offered to each? What other information can you provide us regarding the progress you are making with this investigation? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Charles E. Schumer United States Senator

The tax cuts have revived the economy. Now then, if we could just get the spending under control, it would go a long way toward balancing the budget. :thumbsup:

Federal deficit down sharply this period By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON - The deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending. The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year. That improvement came even though the deficit in February hit $120 billion, up 0.6 percent from last February's deficit of $119.2 billion. The government had larger-than-expected surpluses in December and January. For the budget year that began Oct. 1, revenues are up by 9.3 percent to a record $954.4 billion. Spending for the period also set a record at $1.117 trillion, but that 2.3 percent rise was slower than the growth in revenues, resulting in a lower deficit. The Bush administration is forecasting that the deficit for this year will total $244 billion, a slight improvement from the $248.2 billion actual deficit for the 20006. However, the Congressional Budget Office is more optimistic, forecasting that the deficit for the current budget year should decline to $214 billion. That forecast assumes that Congress will approve President Bush's supplemental spending request for the war in Iraq. The $248.2 billion deficit for 2006 was the smallest deficit in four years and down significantly from the all-time high, in dollar terms, of $413 billion in 2004.

If the Republicans had any gonads they would haul Fitzgerald before congress and demand answers about this partisan political charade and his spending millions of dollars on this ridiculous trial knowing that Libby wasn't the leaker and no crime was committed. :thumbdown:

Great news for private citizens who want to protect themselves! - KF Mar 09 4:10 PM US/Eastern By BRETT ZONGKER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock. In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection. "The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state. The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. "I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. He said the D.C. circuit is historically influential with the Supreme Court because it often deals with constitutional questions. "You also have a very well-reasoned opinion, both in the majority and the dissent," Turley said. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope. Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment." Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said the decision gives the district "a crack in the door to join the rest of the country in full constitutional freedom." A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office declined to comment on the ruling.

If they want to impress me, they will have to win 4 out of 7 in their final series of the season! Regular season games don't mean that much. :whistle:

The American Thinker March 08, 2007 By J. Peter Mulhern Scooter Libby is a convicted perjurer because the United States Department of Justice grossly abused its power and because politics short-circuited all the safeguards that are supposed to prevent such abuses. This is one of the most appalling perversions of a civilized judicial system since France sent Alfred Dreyfus to Devil's Island because the ruling elite didn't like Jews. If the appellate and executive review processes fail as badly as the investigative and trial processes did in Libby's case, Libby will go to a federal penitentiary because Democrats don't like Republicans. There is enough shame in this outcome to go around. Patrick Fitzgerald is a disgrace both to the legal profession and to the human race. His partisan allies, such as Senator Chuck Schumer and certain nameless bureaucrats at the CIA, are beneath contempt. The jury was unfit for its task, because it was apparently both prejudiced and intellectually incapable of noticing that the prosecution had no case. The trial judge lacked either the wit to see a gross miscarriage of justice unfolding before his eyes or the courage to stop it. But ultimate responsibility for Fitzgerald's outrageous misconduct lies with his boss. George W. Bush could have stopped Fitzgerald's farce at any time. He could stop it today. He doesn't even need to use the pardon power, at least not yet. Fitzgerald serves at the President's pleasure Mr. Bush has every reason to be severely displeased. The President could simply fire him and, for good measure, order the DOJ to start an investigation into Fitzgerald's misconduct in the Libby matter. President Bush could then instruct Fitzgerald's replacement to join Libby's defense in its motion for a new trial. If the court grants that motion the DOJ could then offer Libby its apologies and withdraw the prosecution. If it doesn't the DOJ could join in Libby's appeal. If that fails then the pardon power lies in reserve. The President has ample grounds for such action. Fitzgerald repeatedly lied, both in court and out, about the nature of his investigation in a successful effort to convince the jury that Libby had something to hide. Worse yet he pursued a criminal investigation when he had no reason even to suspect that any crime had been committed. This is the core of horrible prosecutorial abuse. In this situation there can be no legally sufficient conviction for perjury or false statements. The evidence against Libby falls far short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that he lied about anything to anyone. Differing recollections about the details and chronology of trivial events prove nothing. The Libby prosecution rested on the undefended and indefensible assumption that Libby and the rest of Washington's movers and shakers were obsessed with the identity of an obscure bureaucrat with a tangential connection to a small controversy on the fringes of important events. In reality, neither Libby nor anyone else connected with the case had reliable recall about who said what to whom regarding Valerie Plame because the subject was not particularly important to anyone until enemies of the administration at the CIA and the DOJ manufactured a criminal investigation out of it. Diverging recollections about who said what when to whom about Joe Wilson's wife are particularly useless as evidence of perjury because nobody had any motive to lie on the subject, least of all Scooter Libby. There was nothing criminal or dishonorable about discussing Valerie Plame's identity or her job at the CIA with reporters or anyone else. There is no statute imposing criminal liability for such conversations. Patrick Fitzgerald's unsupported assertions notwithstanding, there is no information in the public domain which even establishes that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA was classified. It is a federal crime to transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" to any unauthorized person. 18 U.S.C. Section 793 (d). Valerie Plame's identity might have been remotely related to our national defense but nobody has ever had any reason to believe that the information that she was a desk jockey at the CIA "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." It is a federal crime intentionally to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence agent when the government is taking affirmative steps to protect her identity. 50 U.S.C. Section 421. But Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent and the government wasn't trying to protect her identity. There was never any prospect of a prosecution under Section 421. Patrick Fitzgerald fulminated in court about a cloud over the Vice President in an effort to suggest that there was something dark and sinister about administration officials discussing Valerie Plame with reporters after her husband injected her into a national controversy. That suggestion is pure left-wing fantasy. In sum, the evidence against Libby was that his memory of the sequence and details of perfectly innocent events of no great importance differed from that of other witnesses. The judge who let this case go to the jury is one or more of the following: a nitwit, a coward, and/or a partisan hack. The jury that convicted was prejudiced, stupid or both. But the jury did convict so why recap all this now? Because the same facts which show that Fitzgerald didn't prove his perjury charge also show that his charge was and is inadequate as a matter of law. Fitzgerald never had any reason to believe that there was a crime to be solved in the "CIA leak case." Nothing in the U.S. code purports to make talking about Valerie Plame a crime. Fitzgerald never had any legitimate grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation because he never had even the theoretical possibility of a crime to investigate. His own conduct strongly suggests that he knew this from the beginning. If Fitzgerald really believed that there was something criminal about revealing Valerie Plame's identity he would have filed charges against at least two defendants on the day he took over the case. Richard Armitage and Robert Novak were both guilty of discussing Plame and Fitzgerald knew it on day one. But he filed no charges. Why not? Probably because he knew that neither Armitage nor Novak nor anyone else had violated any law by talking about Valerie Plame. Since Fitzgerald had no crime to investigate, the sole purpose of his investigation, even before it became his, was to keep asking questions until discrepancies in the testimony made it possible to convince a bent jury that somebody important lied under oath. This despicable game is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and it cannot result in a lawful conviction for perjury. Prosecutors can sometimes make out a perjury case even when an investigation, undertaken and pursued in good faith, fails to produce enough evidence to charge anyone with any other crime. But they cannot legally pursue an investigation solely as a means to manufacture evidence of a process crime such as perjury. That is a form of entrapment known in the trade as a perjury trap. A prosecutor who sets such a trap is lower than catfish and twice as repulsive. The President is responsible when his employees sink so low. When a federal prosecutor abuses power it is the President's power he is abusing. There is no indication that President Bush understands this. More than half way through his second term the President still hasn't been able to take control of his own government. The Libby case reached its sad conclusion because the elements within both the CIA and the DOJ used some of the President's own powers to attack him. Still he does nothing. Firing Fitzgerald would be an excellent place to start. J. Peter Mulhern is a lawyer in the Washington, DC area.

Newt just doesn't sound very presidential. :turned:

I thought Perrillooser was in some kind of big trouble with the FEDs. Is the investigation still ongoing? Is he off the hook?

PRO CAREER: Finished rookie season as Bears third leading rusher, totaling 272 yards on 67 carries and 4.1 yards per carry... Played exclusively as the featured back in second half at NO (11/6) and 1st half vs. SF (11/13) totaling 129 yards on 26 carries (5.0 ypc) before a knee injury sidelined him for the next 6 games. CAREER TRANSACTIONS: Entered NFL as a first-round selection (4th overall) by Chicago in the 2005 NFL Draft... Signed with Bears (8/28/05). SIGNED THROUGH 2009 2005 SEASON: Tallied 272 yards averaging 4.1 yards per carry on 67 carries and gained 3 yards on only reception of season... His nine games played consisted of Games 1-2, 4-8, 16 as a reserve RB and a start at RB in Game 9; DNP Game 3; Inactive due to knee injury Games 10-15... Increased workload vs. DET (9/18) rushing 16 times for 49 yards including gains of 19 and 13 yards... Gained 35 yards on 3 carries at DET (10/30), all in overtime, including a game-long 25-yard scamper... Led Bears with season-high 79 rushing yards on 14 carries, all in 2nd half, at NO (11/6) including runs of 27 and 36 yards... Started first NFL game vs. SF (11/13) and gained 50 yards on 12 carries before leaving game after injuring right knee in 2nd quarter... Rushed 9 times for 35 yards at MIN (1/1) in return to the lineup. GAMES PLAYED-STARTED: 9-1 COLLEGE: Four-year starter at Texas (2001-04) finished career as sixth-leading rusher in NCAA Division I-A history and second-leading rusher in Longhorn history... In 49 games, rushed for 5,540 yards on 1,112 carries with 64 TDs... Just the fifth back in NCAA history to rush for over 1,000 yards in all four seasons and his 64 TDs were the third-most in NCAA history... Set an NCAA record by scoring at least once in 37 games... Led Texas to 25-0 record when rushing for over 100 yards... Caught 69 career passes for 621 yards and 3 TDs... Second in school history with 6,161 all-purpose yards and 404 points, the fourth-most points by a non-kicker in NCAA history... One of three players in NCAA history to rush for 5,000 yards and score 400 points in a career... Recipient of 2004 Doak Walker Award and Cingular ABC Sports All-America Player of the Year Award after rushing for 1,834 yards (No. 3 on Texas single-season list) and 19 TDs with 22 receptions for 179 yards as a senior... Started every game and was a semifinalist for the Maxwell Award while receiving first-team All-America honors from ESPN and Sports Illustrated, Unanimous first-team All-Big 12 selection and conference Co-Offensive Player of the Year... As a junior, was a first-team All-Big 12 honoree after becoming the first player in school history to rush for over 1,000 yards in three consecutive seasons, totaling 1,360 yards on 258 carries and 21 TDs (No. 3 on Texas single-season list)... Earned a spot on Texas' Athletic Director's Academic Honor Roll, was named the team's outstanding offensive back and received the Darrell Royal Most Valuable Offensive Player Award... Earned second-team All-Big 12 honors from the AP after collecting 1,293 yards on 305 carries with 12 TDs during sophomore season, playing most of season with cracked ribs and turf toe without missing any games... Named team MVP and Freshman All-American after totaling 1,053 yards and 13 TDs on 223 carries as an immediate starter... Missed action late in the year with a pinched nerve in his neck, including sitting out the Holiday Bowl... Majored in social work.

You liberals can continue to have the wool pulled over your eyes about how corrupt the Clintons were. There are plenty of documented reports of exactly what this article is bringing back to light. If the Republicans weren't so gutless, they would demand an investigation. They won't because there is probably a lot of skeletons in their own closets too. It's a shame this level of corruption is allowed to go unchallenged. I wouldn't be surprised to see some brave soul who wants to do the right thing bring these charges out in public before the 08 elections to stop Hillary! :blink:

Benson is too injury prone to take on the bulk of the carries for the entire year. He won't hold up physically. These days, teams need at least two good running backs because they are going to get dinged up. Who are the Bears going to use when Benson gets hurt (notice I said when, not if)? They should have kept both of them! :whistle:

Thomas Jones was their best all-around running back. Benson, in my opinion, is not the same caliber back as Jones and I doubt will be able to hold up for long as their feature back. I look for their running game to drop off next year, unless they have their eyes on drafting a young stud that can play right away or are looking to make a trade for another top-ranked running back. I just don't believe Benson can handle the role as well as Jones did.

Did anyone mention Ryan played on a lot of bad teams? :w00t:

I just bought the season 5 CDs on Ebay. I have watched eight episodes so far. I can't believe I never watched this show before this season, :banging: it's one of the best TV shows I have ever seen.

Had Clinton been a Republican, the liberal media and the Dim-o-crats would have been relentless demanding impeachment and removal from office. Since he was their "golden boy" it was buried on the back pages or totally ignored. The spineless Republicans should have demanded accountability! If they had done their duty, we wouldn't be dealing with Hillary in the Senate, much less as a presidential candidate now!

I'm waiting for her to show up in Atlanta with a Braves cap on claiming "I've always been a Braves fan!" :w00t: :whome::w00t:

Hillary's Lost Memories Charles R. Smith Monday, March 5, 2007 HILLARY'S LOST MEMORIES RIADY DOES NOT EXIST Hillary Clinton may have her share of enemies, but she also has many friends. These friends seem bound and determined to whitewash the documented history of Hillary as she campaigns for president. For example, the one prominent name missing from Hillary's list of friends is the Riady family. Mrs. Clinton failed to mention the Riady family at all in her tell-all book. The Riadys were not some fictional family of Clinton supporters made up by right-wing fanatics. If you were to judge from the media, one would get the impression that the Riadys were not present in the Clinton lifeline much less visited (and stayed) in the White House on a regular basis. Hillary Clinton certainly overlooked listing the table settings and menu for White House dinners with the Riadys. The Riadys knew the Clintons from their Arkansas years when the Indonesian billionaire Moctar bought out the Worthen Little Rock bank. Moctar and his son James were close to Bill and Hillary through 1992 and into the White House. Moctar owned Wide World Travel — the firm selected by Hillary Clinton to replace the White House travel office — after she accused the professional staff of criminal activity and had them fired with much fanfare and a fake FBI investigation. The Clinton close friendship with the Riady family is also well documented inside criminal records. James Riady pled guilty for passing illegal donations to the Clinton political campaigns. The Riady family, including its businesses and partners, donated more than $700,000 to the Democrats between 1991 and 1996. The link between the Clintons and the Riadys is also well documented on film and video. The video evidence comes in the form of the Riady gardener trying to hand Bill Clinton a check while uttering the words "James Riady sent me." Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata fled the country after passing the illegal money to Bill Clinton. Arief was a gardener in Virginia working for the Riady family, yet he managed to scrape up $450,000 to donate to the DNC. Soraya's father, Hashim Ning, was a business partner of Moctar Riady and the Lippo Group in Indonesia, and he wired $500,000, which the couple used to make the $450,000 payoff to Bill. Evidently the Wiriadinatas kept $50,000 before heading over the border. James Riady was one of those that met with the Clintons at the White House, along with John Huang, to talk about the problems of Hillary's law firm associate — one Webb Hubbell. In fact, James went to the White House 10 times between June 21 and June 27, 1994. Shortly thereafter, $100,000 came from his company to Webb Hubbell who was about to be indicted. Hubbell was later convicted in 1994 for fraud. The connections between the Riadys and the Clintons have a much more sinister theme than simple foreign money inside the U.S. elections. Testimony before the U.S. Senate revealed Moctar Riady's involvement in Chinese espionage. The Senate report on campaign finances accused the Riady family of having a long-term relationship with the Communist Chinese intelligence agency. Senate testimony revealed the Lippo Group is in fact a joint venture of China Resources, a trading and holding company "wholly owned" by the Chinese communist government and used as a front for Chinese espionage operations. According to a 1998 CIA report presented to Sen. Thompson, R. Tenn., "James and Moctar Riady have had a long term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency. The relationship is based on mutual benefit with the Riadys receiving assistance in finding business opportunities in exchange for large sums of money and other help. "The Chinese intelligence agency seeks to locate and develop relationships with information collectors, particularly with close association to the U.S. government." Another sweet connection between the Riady family and the Clinton family is John Huang. In 1993, John Huang was very close to the Clintons, having worked with both Bill and Hillary during the Arkansas years at the part Indonesian owned Worthen Bank. Mrs. Clinton reportedly insisted that John Huang be given a position with secret clearance at the U.S. Commerce Department under Ron Brown. However, Indonesian billionaire Moctar Riady and James Riady paid Huang very well at Lippo Bank, much more than any income he could legally earn at the Commerce Department. When Huang left Lippo for the Clinton administration, he bravely took a major cut in pay and a secret clearance. John Huang dabbled in defense secrets while serving in the Commerce Department. Huang was briefed on arms sales to Kuwait, UAE and South Korea. Immediately after each briefing, Huang would walk across the street from the Commerce Department to a firm owned by Jackson Stephens, an old Arkansas friend of President Clinton, and place long distance calls back to Indonesia and the Lippo Group. Huang also had volumes of documents detailing the payments made to the Indonesian ruler Suharto and his family. In fact, Huang met with the CIA and discussed these deals behind closed doors. These payments were labeled "First Family involvement" in some Commerce documents but in official State Department transcripts often referred to the payments as "corruption, collusion and nepotism." In 1999, John Huang pled guilty to Federal charges of making illegal political contributions to the Clinton campaign. In September 2002, the Federal Election Commission fined John Huang $95,000 for illegal contributions to the 1996 re-election campaign of Clinton. More importantly, Huang took the Fifth Amendment more than two thousand times when asked if he had ties to Chinese intelligence. The Clinton ties to the Riady family, and its links to Chinese espionage are more than documented facts. To prove my point, I need only to cite photographic evidence. The picture of Hillary with Moctar Riady is certainly damning evidence of a relationship that spanned several bank accounts and two decades of corruption. Mrs. Clinton managed to declare under oath that she could either not recall, not remember or simply forgot the entire 1990s. In fact, Mrs. Clinton holds the record of forgetting 250 times while under oath. Hillary Clinton not only knew the Riadys but took their money as well. Bimbo eruptions and lying under oath are minor factors in the history of the Clintons. However, the one name Hillary wants us all to forget is not Monica — it's Riady.

I have spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle East while in the Air Force and I can assure you this is much more than an "isolated situation in one or two families". While they might not ALL aspire to be martyrs, their children are indoctrinated with the seeds of hatred for people outside their religion. Most never go beyond openly distrusting us, but the ground work has been laid at an early age for them to join the radical Islamic movement easier than you might believe. Whether our government wants to accept it or not, we are at war with a radical extremist religion that hates us and wants to kill us. I don't believe we can negotiate with them either. The only real solution is to somehow reach their young people before they are brainwashed, sadly I don't think we have the answer to how that might be accomplished. :whistle:

February 28, 2007 Why the Gore Story Matters Filed under: eco-friendly, Al Gore, global warming, Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Bill Hobbs @ 10:49 am As the controversy over global warming doomsayer Al Gore’s voracious energy-eater mansion rolls on, there’s an angle I think merits deeper investigation than it is currently getting. While much of the focus has been on whether or not Gore is an environmental hypocrite, the story has raised the profile of the role of “carbon offsets” in achieving a “greener,” more environmentally friendly world. In its original story, The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville reported that Gore buys “carbon offsets” to compensate for his home’s use of energy from carbon-based fuels. What is a “carbon offset,” exactly? Essentially, it’s a payment someone makes to an environmentally friendly entity to compensate for personally using non-green energy. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset “is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.” Wikipedia goes on to explain that “a wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits.” So far, so good. So, where does Gore buy his ‘carbon offsets’? According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman: Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe… As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks. And it is not clear at all that Gore’s stock purchases - excuse me, “carbon offsets” purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ “greenhouse gases” - into the atmosphere. As the news media swarmed around the story of Gore’s gargantuan energy consumption yesterday, Gore’s people touted his purchase of “carbon offsets” as evidence that he lives a “carbon-neutral” lifestyle, but the truth is Gore’s home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources. But do Gore’s “carbon offsets” payments really compensate for his big non-green power usage? Wikipedia again: The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming. The appeal of becoming “carbon neutral” has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one’s own fossil-fuel consumption. However, the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation. Did you get that? Carbon offsets are an “alternative to reducing one’s own fossil-fuel consumption” and yet “the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.” One way to misrepresent things: Tell a newspaper your stock purchases are really purchases of “carbon offsets.” Gore travels the nation and the world blaming man’s use of carbon-based energy for global warming - burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts are being rewarded. Politically, he’s helped put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda. And that has driven up the perceived prospects and in many cases the stock value of companies viewed as “green” or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples’ money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management’s holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.) As one commenter posting on a few blogs covering the Gore story yesterday put it: Hmmm. The Goracle is chairman and a founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, a boutique international investment firm that invests other peoples’ money, for a fee, into the stocks of ‘green’ companies. … So when Al beats the drum for possible future global warming, he’s also drumming up business. And profiting from hyping the “global warming” crisis. In a nutshell, Gore consumes large amounts of carbon-based electricity while he trumpets the global warming crisis that drives up the value of “green” companies like the ones in which he buys carbon offsets invests in their stocks. And “carbon offsets” are a dodgy way for someone to claim to be carbon-neutral even as they consume large amounts of carbon-based energy. The notion that selling carbon offsets actually helps the environment is taken as a given by those who sell them and by those who buy them, but at this point it is unproven. While some bloggers and pundits have likened “carbon offsets” to the “indulgences” the pre-Reformation Catholic Church sold to the wealthy so they could continue to sin (see video at end of this post), the writer of the blog The Virginian says carbon offsets are more like the “sumptuary laws” of medieval times, laws that regulated and reinforced social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures. In the Late Middle Ages sumptuary laws were instated as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the up-and-coming bourgeoisie of medieval cities. … The danger is that the use of “carbon offsets” will create two things that re morally monstrous: a de-facto sumptuary law and the impoverishments of the poor and powerless of this planet. The creation of an aristocratic elite that differentiates itself from the hoi polloi by its ability to buy “carbon offsets” while the rest of the planet is forced by environmental laws into a smaller and smaller carbon straightjacket is not so far fetched. Read the whole thing. None of this should be construed as me not believing in global warming. I do believe the planet is getting warmer. I don’t necessarily agree that man’s activities are the primary or even significant cause of that warming - after all, the Earth warmed up significantly centuries before the Industrial Age, and there is plenty of evidence that cyclical solar activity impacts the earth’s temperatures. But burning fossil fuels is stupid even if it doesn’t contribute a whit to global warming - petroleum can be used to make products that are much more valuable than gasoline and jet fuel, and even if carbon pollution doesn’t cause global warming, it is pollution that makes the air we breathe dirty and fouls the land and the water. And then of course there’s that whole problem of the geopolitical issues of oil and that related problem of buying oil from societies from whence come people who want to kill us. As the story evolves, it should move away from Gore’s “Gulfstream Liberal” hypocrisy and on to more important questions such as the efficacy of “carbon offsets,” and a variety of other economy-oriented policy issues that impact the environment, such as whether market-based solutions or government-planned approaches are more likely to foster the technology innovation and lifestyle choice changes that benefit the environment. Hypocrisy, after all, abounds. Even Gore’s huge electric power usage at his Nashville home isn’t the only example of how the prophet of environmental doom hasn’t always lived as if he believes his message. During the eight years Gore was vice president, he voted in four national elections. Every single time, he and his entourage and security detail and accompanying media flew to Nashville on a large government jet, burning thousands of gallons of fossil fuels and pumping huge amounts of carbon emissions directly into the earth’s atmosphere, and then rode in a caravan of fossil fuel-burning vehicles from Nashville International Airport about 40 miles east on I-40 to Carthage, Tennessee, so the local and national TV cameras could get video of him at the voting booth. And then the whole caravan headed back to Nashville for the plane ride back to DC. Traffic had to be halted on Nashville’s interstates and side streets every time - sometimes during rush hour - idling thousand of vehicles that just sat there, burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon pollution, just so Gore could create a media photo-op. He could have instead voted by mailing in an absentee ballot - that would have been the “green” thing to do - and a skillful press aide could easily have turned that into a widely publicized pro-green photo-op. And, finally, for laughs, Jim Treacher’s house of bloggage The Daily Gut has this to say about Gore’s electric usage: It’s great that he’s using solar panels and all that, but notice he’s not disputing how huge his electric bill still is. What the hell is he doing in there? Is he a Terminator from the future and requires constant recharging? (That would explain pretty much everything.) Yes it would. UPDATE: Via the blog on the website of carbon offsets marketer TerraPass I found a recent New York Times story that is skeptical of carbon offsets. Some carbon-offset firms have begun to acknowledge that certain investments like tree-planting may be ineffective, and they are shifting their focus to what they say is reliable activity, like wind turbines, cleaner burning stoves, or buying up credits that otherwise would allow companies to pollute. Still, as demand for greener living grows, the number of companies jumping into the game has multiplied. At least 60 companies sold offsets worth about $110 million to consumers in Europe and North America in 2006, up from only about a dozen selling offsets worth $6 million in 2004, according to Abyd Karmali of ICF International.Yet another perverse effect, say critics, is that some types of carbon-offset initiatives may actually slow the changes aimed at coping with global warming by prolonging consumers’ dependence on oil, coal and gas, and encouraging them to take more short-haul flights and drive bigger cars than they would otherwise have done. Climate Care, for example, has linked up with Land Rover, a maker of sport utility vehicles, to help the company offset its own emissions. As part of a promotional program, Climate Care also helps purchasers of new Land Rovers offset their first 45,000 miles of driving. In that way, the program may actually help sell “larger cars with higher emissions” and thus contribute more to global warming, according to Mary Taylor, a campaigner with the energy and climate team at Friends of the Earth. The words “snake oil” come to mind… Too bad that $110 million that well-intentioned but gullible folks spent on “carbon offsets” couldn’t have been invested in developing hydrogen fuel-cell technology closer to the point that it can replace the internal combustion engine. That’s a “carbon offset” that will actually make a difference.

aLGore liberal "carbon offset" logic: Fly around in private jets, own 3 mansions, pay $30,000 electricity bills, drive gas guzzling SUVs while preaching doom and gloomconserve or destroy the planet to all the "common people". Buy a few "carbon offsets" used to plant some trees that will mature in 25-30 years hoping to offset his own massive energy consumptionpollution so he can "feel good" about himself and excuse his own non-compliance!!! :coocoo: