If Pelosi told the Dalai Lama that independance is "OFF THE TABLE"
What about the Democracy that we have been fighting for here for years?

I truly sympathize with the peaceful protesters in Tibet. Godspeed to them all.

Mr. Representative, what about the crackdown on our freedoms? I suppose it is "sexier" to be with the Dalai Lama than to stay in the House or Senate and fight for the rights of the average American citizen. What about "Shedding a bright light on what is happening inside America?"

Or perhaps we American citizens should watch the horror in Tibet and know we will be the next victims of a government who view our Constitution as no more than a "god-damn piece of paper, right along with the infamous cheney "so what" phrase.

My message to you is to take the log out of your own eye, before you try to take the splinter of out your neighbors. Our "envoys for peace" can offer nothing to the people of Tibet---not even the strength of their convictions--for they have been shown to have none.
In my view, the visit dishonored the Tibetans' sacrifices they have received because of their belief in peaceful resistance and struggle for democracy, as the visit was a sham.

Remove the log---Open your eyes, Sir, and see what is happening right here under your very nose, and you are allowing it.

Carole J Gilbert

Coke dealers, Heorin pushers, Crack sellers...the Bush pardons...

I am not sure how Bush (more likely his handlers) selected the following people for the rare Bush pardon, but I find the crimes of those selected most interesting. My comments about each person are pure speculation, but something to consider nevertheless:

William Marcus McDonald Wetumpka, Alabama
Offense: Distribution of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, use of cocaine, possession of cocaine, use of marijuana; Article 134, U.C.M.J.

Sentence: May 2, 1984; U.S. Air Force general court-martial convened at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia; four years confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $300 pay per month for four years, reduction in rank to basic airman, and a bad conduct discharge.

So, an Air Force officer is running coke, during the period of Iran- Contra (not saying as part of Iran Contra, just the time-frame). I cannot find much on McDonald. Was he wrongly convicted? What is the reason for the pardon? He only got four years for distributing coke? Wow, assuming this guy was rightly convicted, seems to me that he got off rather light to begin with.

Robert Michael Milroy Cinnaminson, New Jersey
Offense: Importation of heroin; 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(a)(1), 952(a), and 843(b).
Sentence: April 2, 1975; Eastern District of Virginia; seven and one-half years imprisonment, six years special parole, and three years probation.

Again, the time-frame of the sentence is most intriguing. Again, the same questions apply with regard to why this man was pardoned.

William L. Baker Spokane, Washington
Offense: Distribution of a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(2); falsifying records, 21 U.S.C. §§ 827(a)(3), 843(a)(4).
Sentence: July 15, 1980; District of Wyoming; 24 months imprisonment, one year special parole.

Not a clue what this guy is about or why someone who served a two year sentence 28 years ago needs a pardon now. Was he wrongly convicted?

William Bruce Butt London, Kentucky
Offense: Bank embezzlement; 18 U.S.C. § 656.
Sentence: June 20, 1990; Eastern District of Kentucky; three years probation.

Okay, this guy never put a foot in jail. He got probation almost 20 years ago. But the time-frame would place this guy in the period of the S&L scandals. I am of course speculating, but since we are not yet given the reason for this and the other pardons, speculation will have to do for now - and a bit of Google-digging I think.

Mariano Garza Caballero Brownsville, Texas
Offense: Dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license; 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and (2).
Sentence: November 1, 1984; Southern District of Texas; 34 days imprisonment, four years probation, and a $1,000 fine.

This guy spent 34 days in jail over 20 years ago. Again, I have to ask why this man needs a pardon. Was he wrongly convicted?

Anthony C. Foglio, Santee, California aka Tony Foley
Offense: Distribution of marijuana; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Sentence:
October 15, 1996; Northern District of West Virginia; three years probation.

Yet another guy who appears to have served no jail time. Does anyone find this odd?

Carl Harry Hachmeister Denton, Texas
Offense: Conspiracy (to commit wire and mail fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Sentence: January 22, 1985; District of Utah; three years probation and $39,330 restitution.

And again another person who serves no jail time over 20 years ago.

Among all of the more pressing cases of people sitting on death row, our president pardons mostly drug dealers, an arms dealer, and an embezzler and fraudster, all of whom spent little to no time in prison to begin with, 20+ years ago at that. What, there were no better and more urgent candidates to pardon?

On a side note, two guys selling bird parts were pardoned as well. I think we need to do some digging into these people. Who suggested them and why? Consider the countless cases of wrongful conviction, or civil liberties violations, or an extreme sentence for a non-violent crime. Surely there are plenty of people who would be better served by a pardon, as would justice, no?
click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

What about "shedding a bright light" on the crap that is going on right underneath your noses? Last I heard, the Chinese were living under a communist dictatorship. Under that form of government, you sort of expect them to be harsh and insensitive, and to ignore the inalienable rights of their citizens.

But this is America, Goddamn it!!! Why do you persist on allowing the Bush Adminstration to get away with that same sort of shit in a representative democracy?

Bite me, Nancy Pelosi, and John Conyers too.

Impeachment: I don't care if they try and fail. I only care if they fail to try.

HYPOCRISY is/are U.S.

==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N !!!

the 110th Congress has piddled away enough time that there will be no soft landing for the REALLY important issues at hand: Been on the bread line yet? Food crisis sneaks up on world.

Remember the debate I started in August of 2005?

Comment #84: Reed31463 said on 8/9/05 @ 7:25am ET...

Energy: The Choices for The Future of Mankind

Let this article leave no doubt:

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/08/09/afx2176025.html

We are at peak oil this year. The energy bill signed today should commemorate the event.

Our very existence in this society depends upon this commodity. This energy bill will ensure that the US will continue to receive it's "fair share" of it. Tanker ships leaving the Persian Gulf will be escorted to the Atlantic. (Thanks USN).

NOW begins a period where global demand will continue to increase at a rate of at least 2% per year and production will decrease 3% per year leaving a net 5% per year difference between supply and demand. Each year following, another 5% difference will be added.

For every 5% difference in supply and demand, an estimated 400% price inflation will occur across the board. So for example say gas today is $2/gal. It will be $8/gal next year. And $32/gal the following year, and $128/gal the next. In three years, can you afford that?

The administration is, right now, secretly making choices for us without a national debate. They are capturing and seizing by force, the one commodity that powers our nation and the global economy; oil.

This is much like the Sci-fi series by Frank Hebert, Dune. "He who controls the spice, controls the universe."

Choices for the future need to be addressed NOW!!!!!!

There needs to be national/international debate on energy, because the lives of FOUR BILLION people hang in the balance!

Once we, humans, have wrung the last drops of hydrocarbon fuel from the ground, including the ANWR reserve, this brief spurt in the history of man will be over, forever. Petroleum man will be no more. The economy will have collapsed and cities will be empty shells with "no power".

We will be left with three choices; coal, nuclear, and renewables.

We must debate. We must make choices. Currently, we can do neither. The information is suppressed by the greedy and overpriveledged. We don't have time to wait three years!

We must make choices now! Do we want justice and the ending this cabal or do we want injustice and the starvation deaths of FOUR BILLION souls.

I've made my choices. Have you?

Comment #95: Ohiodem1 said on 8/9/05 @ 1:46pm ET...

Reed # 84 – the price inflation in oil products will not be as you described it.

(snip)

“NOW begins a period where global demand will continue to increase at a rate of at least 2% per year and production will decrease 3% per year leaving a net 5% per year difference between supply and demand. Each year following, another 5% difference will be added.

For every 5% difference in supply and demand, an estimated 400% price inflation will occur across the board. So for example say gas today is $2/gal. It will be $8/gal next year. And $32/gal the following year, and $128/gal the next. In three years, can you afford that?”

(snip)

A doubling of inflation due to a mismatch between supply and demand would look more like an increase from (hypothetical numbers) say $1.00 per gallon in the base year, to $1.10 per gallon in year 2, due to a 10% inflation. In year 3, the inflation per cent doubles to 20 per cent due to the mismatch between supply and demand, and the price in year 3 is $1.32 due to the doubling of the inflation rate. Year 4 would see a price of $1.84.

The market would respond over the long term by changing the demand dynamics which attempts to reduce demand by one of several methods. 1) Change industrial processes to become more efficient and demand less of a specific fuel, 2) change to a different fuel, 3) have consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars, 4) change travel behavior by planning more efficient trips and use of fuel. There are more, but no need to list them all.

The supply side of the market would respond by more vigorous exploration of oil to increase proved reserves. The oil business to a great degree revolves around the concept of proved reserves, which provides a measure of how much oil can be extracted in a given year. Another source of oil is to go back to existing fields and develop technology to improve the ability to extract oil from old finds. I have read statistics that indicate that old fields still have more than 30 to 50 per cent of the oil that was there from the time before they were drilled in the first place, but the oil business has moved on to wells where the oil is easier to extract.

Other market responses to increased demand over the ability to supply the market would be the extraction of Western US and Canadian oil shales. This is a vast supply and there has been much expensive research over a very long period of time to develop the technology for this extraction. The down side here is that the shales would need to be strip mined, which does not bother Republicans. Sorry to get political in a purely economic discussion.

Anyway the market would respond by the development of new proved reserves, then extraction of the proved reserves (the only to REALLY prove a reserve is to drill test wells, and well if you have a producing well, the oil extraction industry is ready to invest more in a proven reserve.

Governmental actions to reduce oil demand can be to develop energy policies that encourage conservation or alternative fuels. Additional actions can be to subsidize oil and gas exploration, create tax incentives for exploration or creation of alternative sources (wind, solar, biomass, oil shale, extra deep seabed, extra deep landmass drilling (vast reserves of natural gas are believed to be about 20,000 feet deep according to an old report I read from the “Potential Gas Committee” of a congressional natural resource group), nuclear, etc.

Additional governmental actions to reduce demand is to use economic policy to start a significant recession, which reduced demand for everything. Just a thought.

My conclusion is that a 400% inflation in oil price is unsustainable in world markets, because it would shut down the entire economy of the entire world. All the governments of the world would intervene to take decisive actions that would be necessary to keep the world economy intact. The Bush administration may not want to go along, but the entire world would have to act to protect themselves.

The only thing that could cause the kind of price escalation you describe is a hyperinflation scenario, which can be a consequence of years and years of unsustainable and massive government debt. When the time to pay the loans back, hyperinflation can result. But we do not have that situation in America, do we?

OD1

And it continued in April 2006.

Comment #6: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 1:31pm ET...

Here is something interesting:

"Source: UPI
Expert sees refineries as key to gas woes

Date: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:45:55 AM EST

WASHINGTON, April 21 (UPI) -- A California energy expert sees a worsening supply-and-demand balance as a major reason for skyrocketing gas prices

Severin Borenstein, a director of the University of California Energy Institute, observed an almost 11-cent hike in five hours for unleaded gasoline at a Shell station and said: "The oil side is one piece of this. The refining side is another piece of this."

Oil prices are soaring, with the price of crude at more than $70 a barrel, working out to more than $1.70 a gallon, more than half the cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. Then comes the cost of refining, about twice the average levels over the past five years.

"What's going on is just a continued reflection of the worsening supply-and-demand balance," Borenstein told The Washington Post. "We have not been building refineries, demand continues to grow and supply is not keeping up with it."

--
Copyright 2006 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
--"

Now, let me ask you this; If you can build a state of the art refinery with externalities minimized (externalities are pollution, noise, etc.) for about $5 B, and the oil company earned $36 B in just one year, why don't the oil companies decide to put that enormous store of capital to work and build 5 large refineries, two geographically dispersed on both the East and West coasts, and one in the Gulf? They cannot claim they are too poor to afford them. Building capacity should be a good investment in increased profit potential for the forseeable future. The shareholders should demand this of their Boards of Directors, and oil company management.

The refiners will use the excuse that the environmental wackos won't let them build refineries.

This is an excuse. The bottom line appears to be that if they can squeeze existing refining capacity to the max, and that keeps prices high, then there is no need to invest in capacity.

Another dirty little secret is that in some cases, refining is outsourced, in that refined products produced elsewhere in low wage, low environmental regulated places can refine and ship refined products into our ports, and this has the effect of making some additional capacity un-necessary, allowing the refiners to have it both ways, they can complain about the environmental wackos, and say that refining capacity would only be there if the wackos would only let them. They then get to claim that we are at the edge of capacity, and blaming it on someone else.

JC - Why doesn't Congress explore this as part of an energy policy review? Oh, yes, please see if you can get Cheney to release the notes, transcripts, working papers, and members of the group who created the Cheney/Bush "Energy" policy.

Comment #15: Reed31463 said on 4/21/06 @ 5:27pm ET...

This Feb 20, 2005 article places the price of oil at over $45/bbl. At close yesterday April 20th, 2006, oil was $74.45. Therefore the price has increased 65% in 14 months. You can't get blood from a turnip.

Damaged Oilfields?

Once difficult to recover oil is bypassed with water, it essentially becomes unrecoverable.

It is rumored that Ghawar oilfield in Saudi Arabia, the single largest in the world, is now producing 40% water from some well heads. When this field starts to go into decline, the impact will be significant. To understand the size of this super-giant oilfield and the impact it has on world oil supplies, it is necessary to state Ghawar's proven reserves with reference to global proven reserves. Ghawar makes up 1/8th of the total world's reserves.

But unfortunately, ARAMCO is very secretive with information. One of the missions of Brewster-Jennings, besides tracking WMD development in Iraq and Iran, was to verify ARAMCO's data.

Ahh, but Valerie Plame was just a desk jockey, so no harm done there.

Simmons International briefing to CSIS

BTW, CSIS is a conservative think tank with members from PNAC and Congress, to include Henry Kissenger, Ziebnew Brzezinski, R. James Woolsey, and Robin Nesbitt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the correct link from the previous thread where I messed up and duplicated my link. Oh well, I guess that means I am human and can admit my mistake. This link requires powerpoint. I looked at the HTML link, but it made no sense.

Oil Production History & Depletion This link requires Powerpoint.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most countries are in production decline. The US production has declined every year since 1970 and Saudi Arabia may have already passed peak production. Iran, though still a net exported, is probably at their "second" peak, and is now entering their final decline. Iraq is the country with the largest potential to increase production capacity.

1956 Research Paper, Page 32 of 57.
Note the uncanny accuracy of US crude oil production. Also note, the estimate for global crude oil production peak assumed consumption and production rates would remain unchanged. However, in 1970's there were three separate artificial cuts in production. This has affected the timing on the arrival of the global peak production.

However, with proven mathematical accuracy, I put my trust in M. King Hubbert's original year 2000 peak. Then I modified it by adding the number of years of the oil embargoes: 5. That puts the global oil peak occurring in 2005.

This information has been known since 1956. Hubbert also offered his vision for a way out of the hydrocarbon energy trap. On page 38 of 57 he suggests converting coal to liquid petroleum products. (Why is research just starting?)

Nuclear energy is also covered. Read this research paper first, starting on page 39 of 57, before listening to anyone describe the number of years of potential fissionable energy available. It is not 50 to 100 years, as some would have you believe.

In conclusion, you must absolutely read the Timeline Perspective starting on page 52. For 1956, the accuracy, estimates, calculations, and philosophical insight is truly amazing. Advice mankind has ignored. Now fifty years later, we teeter on the brink of fascism and we are nowhere nearer a solution then we were in 1956. Where has the time gone? Why did it have to be this way? Thank you America.

Comment #16: Ohiodem1 said on 4/21/06 @ 5:30pm ET...

Wow! That was off topic.

......

Comment #19: Reed31463 said on 4/21/06 @ 5:27pm ET...

This is all inter-related: energy to support our lifestyle and those that want to control the energy supply, our lives and the world.

Iran is the second largest oil exporter and the last piece of the oil "horseshoe of endowment." They can see the "wrongness" in complete oil dependence, such as the position we are in now.

Scott Ritter has a few words about Iran's nuclear program. The first four paragraph's make sense, after that his republicant programming takes over and starts babbling nonsense.

Building new refineries is not a solution. Oil supplies around the world are tight, and it is not for a lack of refining capacity. It is due to the fact that demand has outpaced supply.

When half of the worlds supply of oil is gone, the rate that "earl" will come outta da ground will fall off at 3% per year.

What will happen to demand? Will it drop? No, it will continue to climb.

We are hooked like junkies needing our oil fix, only the "earl" companies are the pushers in this deal. With Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Dubai "under our wing", Iraq under military control...sort of; Iran becomes the last piece of the puzzle for control of the "horseshoe of endowment."

Once control of the largest oil producing countries are secured, the "earl" companies will have their ultimate dream. A monopoly on the "drug of choice" that the world has come to depend upon: oil.

Because Iran is developing their future energy infrastructure, this goes against the neo-con agenda of control. It will free Iran from the clutches of big oil.

Let there be no doubt, this is a matter of supply and demand. There is no magic supply waiting to be developed. It's done and Iran is just a piece of their puzzle.

They continue down this road hoping to hang on long enough until the chaos starts. And it is starting people. One of the guests on Lou Dobbs the other night asked the correct last question. Where are those people that made up the Office of Special Plans? They are still behind the scenes peddling influence.

Hypothetical: Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted of war crimes? What happens to all the beneficiaries of these guys: big oil, main stream media, military-industrial complex, and investment bankers? Their money influence will still exist. They live to corrupt again?

That was two and a half years ago. What is the average price per gallon then, $1.00? Gas is now what $3.20 - $3.40 per gallon. What scenario looks to be panning out?

Do you think that I was exaggerating when I stated that if nothing is done, famine resulting in the death of FOUR BILLION humans will result?

Congressman,

What good will the powers of an imperial presidency be to a Democratic president when he/she will inherit the coming chaos?

A Petition...

We the undersigned agree with and call upon Congress to raise debate, vote upon, and proffer to The Senate the following Article of Impeachment:

"On or about March 16th, 2008, George W. Bush, both personally and through his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, caused to be provided to JP Morgan/Chase a bribe(1) ultimately flowing from the United States Treasury in an amount not to exceed $30 billion dollars US, via The Federal Reserve, in order to induce JP Morgan/Chase to assume the liabilities and assets of Bear Stearns and Company at a price not determined in the free market or via public bidding, in violation of the limitations expressly set forth in The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 12 USC Ch 6."

We believe the Federal Reserve “bailout” of Bear Stearns on March 16th constituted an unlawful act as it was in effect granting a payment of up to $30 billion US Dollars by The Federal Reserve to JP Morgan/Chase as part of the inducement to purchase Bear Stearns and Company.

The Federal Reserve proffered to the world that this was a “loan”, but we believe in fact it is no such thing. A loan that is “non-recourse”; in other words, there is no obligation upon the acquiring company (JP Morgan) to repay the loan should the posted collateral decrease in value or turn out to be worthless, is not a loan at all. It is in fact a payment conditional upon the default of the underlying collateral, and thus, we the undersigned believe, constitutes in fact and in law an act of bribery.

Such a proffering of a public “backstop” would be legitimate when authorized by an explicit prior act of Congress, however, Congress has passed no law authorizing this action. Under the plain language of The Federal Reserve Act, The Fed is authorized to make loans under “exigent” circumstances to non-bank organizations (of which Bear Stears was), however, it is not authorized to make direct payments to “prop up” a failing organization nor is it authorized to make payments to enrich one private enterprise at the expense of another, or at the expense, either potential or realized, of the United States Treasury.

We call upon Congress to force the immediate cancellation of the Bear Stearns transaction as an unlawful act, and should The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury refuse to do so, to bring the above article of impeachment.

(1) Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering , giving , receiving , or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty .

==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!

Q U E S T I O N:
No matter WHO gets elected to be the next reigning president of the USA in 2008, once ascended, if they order/authorize the use of torture, warrantless wiretaps upon Americans by corporate america, the use of the U.S. DoJ as a tool, etc.
... Would John prosecute? How about an unauthorized attack against Iran?

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

Neither Clinton nor Obama has a real plan to end the occupation of Iraq, but they could be forced to change position

By Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill

25/03/08 "The Guardian" -- -- 'So?" So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course by polls." A few days later, his attitude, about the fact that the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000, displayed similar levels of sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the vice-president told ABC news.

This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the US anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling. Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent rallies and vigils.

When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet, five years on, US leaders are still shrugging: "So?"

That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.

Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices - from MoveOn.org to the Nation, the magazine we both write for - have gone down this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway US policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions, thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.

Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of "unity", it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed.

For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Democrats have received 52% of the defence industry's political donations in this election cycle - up from a low of 32% in 1996. That money is about shaping foreign policy and, so far, it appears to be well spent.

While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive green zone, including the monstrous US embassy, and to retain US control of Baghdad airport.

more here
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...