Wednesday, September 13, 2006

What Pisses me BS conservatives !

This is the problem these folk think that with men and women fighting overseas they should take the time make silly fucking jokes about Democrats. It reflects the problem with the entire country we dont have any values anymore. People tell themselves they are Republicans but they are are carpet baggers squatting on the memory of the great republican leaders of the past.

War"? We are not at war here. We are operating as the de facto security arm of the Iraqi government. As bad as Hitler ? fuck me must we bring Hitler up every time we need to look for justification it’s absolute BS. Hitler and Saddam have absolutely nothing to do with each other, did we invade Stalin, Mao, Castro, Tito ? .

Republicans want credit for Iraq ? the most incompetent military catastrophe since in US history?

Fuck I would be happy to re hire Saddam and tell him to clean the place up !. You say OMG well at least most people could live in peace when he was in power. He is responsbile fo genocide ? What the fuck have we been doing there of the last 4 year? Genocide by incompetence? If this is the war on terror the Bsuh is Genreal Custer!

Those of you who are repbulcians who support politicians who lead our brave men and women so incompetently? .I dont give a fuck about whether Saddam killed people or was a bad man (boo hoo) . I also don’t give a fuck about what the democrats say ! I care about what conservatives say ! and the conservatives I see who are leading us have not one sceric of morale fibre , they are liars theives and villians.

If you guys want to engage in a debate with the mental patients then go for it but its mute it’s a bullshit debate it takes us away from holding the government responsible and it puts conservatism at risk of being totally thrown out of office.

You guys are defending the indefensible and diverting your real beliefs for party political reasons. Are we really going to invade every tin pot dictator in the world on the basis that they aren’t democratic, or they kill or torture their own people. Even if we bring back the draft are we really planning to invade Iran, North Korea, Pakistan as well?etc etc etc. We have neither the resources nor the will to become the bleeding heart savior of the world its hopelessly naïve and plain stupid.

Nor do we have the leadership that in anyway could pull it off. The truth is I think you guys should have a good look at yourselves. None of you believe that we are being led in a competent manner, none of you believe that this government is truly a reflection of your beliefs or values. All of your harbor deep deep questions about the integrity of this administration. Do you guys really think this is a war with the democrats ? The truth is all the present politicians are completely incompetent lying sell outs who don’t deserve to be in office. The entire American system has been subverted by money and lobby groups intent on controlling the country for own benefits. If this is really a fight for the survival of civilization then GWB you have made a piss poor effort to date. If we are serious we should ban all lobbyists and large political donations and make our leaders convince us the old fashioned way. Make em stand and deliver the old way make em do things for the people instead of large corporations.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

What pisses me OFF ! (shonky non profits and shonky board directors)Open letter to Enlightennext Inc Board Directors

Open letter to

Enlightennext Inc Board Directors
Non Profit 22-2951275

Impersonal Enlightenment Fellowship Inc
850 Summer StreetLee MA 01238Lenox MA
Andrew Cohen
Cathy Snow
Robert Voss
Jeffrey Carreria
Gerard Senai

The Board directors of Impersonal Enlightenment Fellowship Inc are by definition fiduciaries, this is a legal duty that takes precedence over the narrower roles you may also play within the community of Andrew Cohen.

As fiduciaries, you are each responsible for setting the strategic direction and policies for Enlightennext to achieve its mission .

You represent Elightennext Inc to the public and are answerable to it. Unlike any volunteer, advisor or special-interest member, you are "legally" accountable for the effective and appropriate use of the nonprofit’s monetary and human resources and for the health, sustainability, and vitality of the organization.

Because of your special responsibilities, fiduciaries are called upon to ask the difficult questions and to make hard, even unpopular decisions.

It is the board that may have to prompt the executive director to consider budgetary cuts, to shift direction to meet changing community needs, or to think more strategically about potential growth opportunities. It is the board that is legally responsible for ensuring that Elightennext is forfilling its legal and statutary obligations as a registered non profit organisation.
It is the board that must decide to ask an executive director to step aside.

Fiduciaries are also responsible for the board’s own health, effectiveness, and sustainability. A well-organized, engaged board can carry out its oversight duties effectively, while a dysfunctional or passive board cannot.

Part of the board’s role then, is to structure itself appropriately, recruit and replenish its membership, orient new members to their critical role as fiduciaries, train and develop its leaders, and provide for succession planning.

The board, too, may need to decide to ask its board chair to step down, an under-performing board member to resign, or to revamp its board’s governance or committee structure to meet changing needs.

Ultimately, a director is more than just a volunteer, or advisor, an ambassador or advocate. Although these roles are all important, they are only pieces of the overall charge – as a fiduciary on behalf of the public.
The board must – first and foremost – be able to recognize and describe its accountability, asking the questions: How does our organization define its community? Who is our constituency? Who are we accountable to? Any member of the public may ask you for this information.

Why ask these particular questions first? In an alarming study of boards in New York and Connecticut published in The Nonprofit Quarterly (Summer 2002), Judith Miller found that when nonprofit board members were asked about their perspectives on accountability, over 70% of them believed that they were accountable only to their fellow board members, or to no one at all.

Miller also addressed the “dual ownership” responsibility that nonprofit boards have: board members have both a legal responsibility to discharge a public benefit/purpose, and an ethical obligation to meet the expectations of those on whose behalf the organization exists. John Carver, one of the founders of the more traditional policy-governance model, uses the term “moral ownership” to describe this dual role.

How can a board assume “moral ownership” if it is not clear who, in fact, it is accountable to?
May I sugesst that in this regard both members and ex members still share "moral ownership" of Elightennext Inc.

Further that as Board Members you expected to determine Elightenext Inc's policies and procedures . They are the safety steps you take to ensure your ultimate service works smoothly. Without them, if anything goes wrong , you can expect your critics to look for your policies and procedures — and to blame the board if they are not in place.

So what kind of policies and procedures should you have? Although they will vary somewhat according to the size and type of organization, here are some suggestions:

Board policies
Board job descriptions
Board self-evaluation
Board nomination process
Conflict of interest policy
Confidentiality policy
Personnel policies
Hiring and firing policies
Harassment policies
Whistleblower policy
Conflict of interest and confidentiality policies
Others Document destruction policy
Code of Ethics

I request that these policies be published immediately and for you to advise the owners of their location so that interested parties and members of the public may view these documents. Please send these documents to

The conflict of interest policies are especially important.

These policies will help avoid intermediate sanctions penalties — and the headlines of your local paper or people like Bill Oreilly taking an interest in your affairs. The IRS considers these policies so important that it now requires organizations seeking tax-exemption to submit conflict of interest policies along with their Forms 1023.

Significant and serious allegations have been raised with respect to the proper conduct by directors of Enlightennext Inc of their fiduciary responsibilities. We ask those directors to respond to those concerns or we seek the investigation of the Attorney General so that the public may be satisfied as to the proper operation of Impersonal Enlightenment Fellowship Inc.

A public charity is an entity that is nonprofit, which has a primary purpose to provide assistance or service benefiting an indefinite portion of the public other than the nonprofit's own membership. In addition to philanthropic organizations and foundations, a few examples of public charities include nonprofit hospitals, universities and schools, churches, social service providers, museums, cultural organizations, and youth sports organizations.
Charities provide vital services in our communities.

They also enjoy certain benefits due to their tax exempt status, and assume certain obligations as a result of those benefits.

The Attorney General's responsibility to represent the public interest in the proper use and solicitation of charitable funds includes the authority to take steps, including lawsuits, to ensure that charities are meeting donors' expectations, that charitable donations are not diverted or wasted, and that charities are acting as responsible stewards of their assets.

The Attorney General's authority includes protecting the public from both fraudulent or deceptive fund-raising practices and the misapplication of donated funds. In addition, the Attorney General has authority to ensure that charity officials fulfill their fiduciary duties of loyalty to the charity and of due care in properly seeing that the charities carry out their mission.

As such I have copied this email to David Capeless District Attorney and representative of the Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly .

We are seeking that the Attorney General make further investigations so that ascertain whether this non profit is being properly conducted according to law.

Att David CapelessDistrict Attorney OFFICE ADDRESS: 7 North StreetP.O. Box 1969Pittsfield, MA 01202-1969 PHONE: (413) 443-5951 FAX: (413) 499-6349

A registered copy of this letter has been sent to the Attorney General Tom Reilly , District Attorney David Copeless, Enlightennext Inc Directors (Andrew Cohen,Cathy Snow,Robert Voss,Jeffrey Carreria,Gerard Senai) and Fox Television (Bill Oreilly)

Monday, March 27, 2006

What Pisses me OFF! (Andrew Cohen so I wrote to Bill Oreilly)

A Call To Action And A Letter To Bill O’Reilly

P.O.’ed Old Man Leads The WayRecently, a new contributor to What Enlightenment??! has been leading a rousing call to action against the authoritarian abuse and exploitation of followers by self-styled "guru" Andrew Cohen.

P.O.'ed Old Man explained that he is the grandfather of a victim of Cohen's manipulation and abuse. PO'ed felt most of us were making a mistake--we shouldn't just get mad, we should do something about it:
My grand daughter spent 5 years with Andrew and she never spoke a word to me during that time. I read some of his stuff and I think you folks miss the point , there is a lot of fancy language around what he says but he seems to me to be simply a fraud who takes advantage of people. My grand daughter now visits me all the time, she’s not very well, though. Andrew took a beautiful women and turned her into a fearful depressed person, it’s like he sucked the spirit out of her and left only a confused shell.I appreciate all of your contributions I have read them all it makes me sad to see what’s happened to my grand daughter, really sad that a life has been so destroyed by someone she chose to put trust in. I hope one day someone finds a way of stopping him. P.O.'ed suggested in another comment going after Cohen's "Achilles heel"—his financial exploitation of followers. He explained he would do it himself, but for his advanced age:
These kinds of cults always have a shadow side. Some of this shadow is exposed through this blog, I am sure there are more lies and deceit below the surface. People who act like this are usually projecting some hidden truths.

My bet is that his financial model is very tightly controlled. No one really knows what’s happening except for a few (probably outside the community), these accountants and lawyers would have created not for profit trusts that are under the control of Andrew, these trusts are the then siphoned by way of special charges for consultancy , dubious outside services .My grand daughter was continuously asked for money, she gave over some $28,000 in the last 2 years.

The focus on financial donation I believe shows his weakness. I believe an IRS audit and exposure of how his multi million dollar empire is run would go a long way toward bringing his evil empire down.If I was younger I would do it myself. In further posted comments, P.O.'ed got quite specific in his recommendations for how former Cohen followers could empower themselves and stop further abuse by Cohen, suggesting the questions that should be asked, and a course of action to get an investigation started:

Does he for instance draw down as a cost of providing leadership services?Does he pay his wife a wage?Are the charges that make up the costs reasonable expenses?Are assets sold to third parties for below market rates ?Are assets bought from third parties at above market rates?Who are the directors of the non profit trust ? What are their fees for such services? The laws and compliance issues around not for profits require substantial paperwork and compliance to federal laws, from what I have told he seems to have an obsession with money so I wouldn’t be surprised that this might be the key to his undoing. all you need is a tenacious accountant most of the stuff you need can be found on the public record.

There are other things you could find out as well. there maybe directors who are also benefit from his favor at the magazine. These directors could be targeted (for instance the spiral dynamics guy). If I was younger I would do it myself.I have some experience here and I find it odd that he qualifies under the federal laws required for non profits, in fact I would be amazed if he did.

If doesn’t provide any community services of any substance. the fact that he writes books hardly qualifies him under federal law nor does running a commune.So I would be interested in any comments that specifically outline the structure of his organization and financial affairs. I have read back through here and apart from the summary liabilities, income and assets I have not detected a lot of depth in understanding in these issues by the ex members.Does he keep these issues separate?Does he employ outsiders in order to quarantine knowledge of these issues from members?

If it’s all been explored before fair enough, my apologies

I think you should all petition the IRS to ask for a full investigation of the activities and accounts of the organizationIRS at 1-800-829-0433I think you should also contact the Congressman John Oliver and alert them to this website and request an investigation. of you who have more serious cases of abuse should take the time make a sworn statement to accompany a personal letter to Congressman Oliver.You should also send sworn statements to Senator John Kerry and Edward KennedyFolks this is America believe in the system, believe in your cause and make the effort. I will have my granddaughter to do the same.Hal, I would also suggest you print this blog with accompanying financial statements and send to every news organization in the country requesting and investigation .Cohen’s story would make very good press as he is living like a billionaire. The mansions, international travel and cars make good press. 60 minutes would make him look like the greedy cruel man you have all found him to be.Only then will many of you get the peace that you deserve.To make it easy for anyone who wants to take P.O.'ed up on his call to action, in a subsequent posted comment, he provided us with more numbers to call:
Call the IRS today and request they investigate EnlightenNext Inc for fraud at 1-800-829-0433. Call Congressman John Oliver 202-225-5335 and request he investigate the non profit status on Enlightennext Inc and the fraudulent practices of self proclaimed guru Andrew Cohen. But, despite his age, P.O.'ed isn't stopping there. Showing the fortitude, tenacity and just plain guts that must have helped this vet get through many tough scrapes before in his long life—and calling to mind the "we're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" attitude that it takes to stop a shameless manipulator and abuser like Cohen, now P.O.'ed has written to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, calling for Cohen's harmful antics to be publicized and the public warned by putting him on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone." P.O.'ed is an example to all of us of how not to lie down for abusers and exploiters like Cohen, but get up and do something about them. His letter to O'Reilly, which he copied to us and asked me to post, is reproduced below:Letter To Bill O'Reillyby P.O.'ed Old ManDear Bill,I am 81 year old retired war vet I enjoy your show and watch it every day .About 9 years ago my grand daughter joined a cult run by self styled guru Andrew Cohen. During the time she was in the cult she never spoke to myself or her parents. About 4 years ago she eventually realized that the leader was a manipulative and abusive person and left. When she tried to leave she was subject to harassment and physical abuse. Since then she has tried to take her own life but the worst seems to be over. Her doctor attributes her bipolar disorder to the shocking abuse she received directly at the hands of Andrew Cohen.My granddaughter is not alone. Literally hundreds of people have suffered a the hands of this so called guru. A victim’s site called What Enlightenment??! can be found at this URL:http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.comand herehttp://essentialwhatenlightenment.blogspot.comPlease read the stories of these people carefully and you will see a deplorable pattern of abuse that literally goes back 2 decades. Even his mother wrote a damning book on the her son: there have been many other books from ex cult members. You can find a good summary of his history here: travels the world, drives luxury cars and lives on a 220 acre estate in Lenox, MA, all under the umbrella of a non profit organization called Enlightennext Inc. I have provided links to this cult leader’s financial returns below. This guru pays himself exorbitant wages and director’s fees while his followers (volunteers) get paid nothing. This man is laughing at America, he is destroying people’s lives and dodges taxes by abusing the purpose of his non profit tax structure.Bill, I fought for America and this isn’t the America I fought for and its not the America many of my fallen friends fought to protect. This guy is laughing at us all!Please do an old man a favor and put this guy in the “No Spin” zone for me.This guy needs to be stopped and the laws need to be changed so people cannot abuse the non profit protection designed to protect bono fide charities. I am getting a little old to take part but I am sure you can find plenty of ex cult members. I have asked the ones who would like to provide information to email you directly. I think seeing justice done would help my granddaughter heal. Thanks in advance. Put the bastard on full cycle and spin him good.ENLIGHTENNEXT INCP.O. Box 2360Lenox, MA 01240MissionSPIRITUAL TEACHING AND COUNSELING.ProgramsTO PROVIDE SPIRITUAL SEMINARS, PUBLICATIONS AND COUNSELING.20042004 Guidestar Financial Docs20032003 Guidestar Financial Docs20022002 Guidestar Financial DocsThe following are links to the UK financial reports Hal please copy this to the site minus my email address and identification details . I want everyone who wants to participate to email Bill O’Reilly asap. I feel comfortable the Bill will pick this up and run with it and even if he doesn’t somebody at Fox will. I want to put this guy behind bars where he belongs.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

What pisses me OFF (Intervening in everyone elses foreign affairs)

You can't go past George Washingtons advice on foreign affairs.


Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?

It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. (our conduct should be above all others)

Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. (we should remain neutral )

The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Antipathy in one Nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.

The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of nations has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. (America's blind support of Israel)

It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions: by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base of foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? `Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that `tis folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. 'Tis an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

Monday, March 20, 2006

What Pisses me OFF (America is mentally ill)

Some people wont like this post but stick with it , it's meant to provoke discussion and thought.

I believe America is in the grip of a collective mental disorder. I see it as a form of provoked insanity. Most Americans believe the USA leads the world with form of national exceptionalism and virtuous hegemony . We believe we are a great nation but there is something awfully wrong with this belief, it just doesn't bear examination. The left in this country (and there are allot of them ) seem to hate their own country. The story about the Taliban signing up to Yale is a great example WTF ! (my Grandson taught me that one) that's surely crazy bye anyone's point of view. ...............(anyone that's sane anyway) But its not just the left!, the right seems to have lost its marbles as well !. The Dubai Ports deal is the craziest thing I have heard. I watched one conservative after another trying to justify handing over our ports to a family in Dubai. (WTF!) .

Bushes ravings about the end of tyranny and the US leading the free world reflects a national megalomania that is only aware of a delusionary popularity between the national myth and the reality. Is he living in the same country as me ????? We are witnessing the disintegration of America. We export all our jobs to India or China, then borrow money from the same folk so we can buy back what they make, and in our spare time we take on all the worlds problems single handedly (and get hated for it). Meanwhile our countries getting over run by South Americans and we just see hear and worry about whether Iraqis are felling happy or sad. WTF its all sounding like crazy talk.

.............that's not to mention the $35 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Watching condo Rice last night on TV there is this assumption that the US are here to play this grandiose role in the future of the world. The difficulty that some of us in the USA see , in this grandiose vision and role is that the US model doesn't reflect something that many of us feel should be replicated anywhere at all (well not at the moment maybe 30 years ago) . .............And before you folk on the right arc up about me saying that, take a long time to ponder what you see. Look around watch the filth on television, the internet, the pork barreling, schooling, education, crime, abortion, drugs, illegals its all falling apart , everything is getting worse not better.

We talk about America the great country and I believe it is but something has gone terribly wrong and it seems to be happening right across the board. There about a dozen politicians in this country who I would trust to run the country, most of them are Replublicans like Ron Paul, Roscoe Bartlett, Chuck Hagel, Wayne Gilchrest and McCain seem to be pushing back in sensible direction, they seem to stand for the values that made America great. But maybe we have telling ourselves we have been great for to long. My father used to scold me when I told anyone I was great , boasting was never considered a mark of character in those days myabe it should not be seen as a mark of character for a nation.

My reading of the American fear of the Muslim / Islamic is that its just the latest manifestation some kind of psychosis. We seem to fear another 9/11 but we oddly think that going to Iraq will protect us from them but we still leave the borders open to anyone with a spade and miners lamp? . Rumsfeld and Co basically invented the Islamic threat to fight the USSR in Afghanistan and their little Islamic Frankenstiens got away on them.

The have created a level of national fear that suited their ends but failed to respond to the real threat ot our homeland. My view is that the American system has significant instability built into its sociology that if displayed in an individual would be considered mental illness.

Republicans once stood for five principles

1. Balanced Budget
2. Constitutional Government
3. Personal Liberty and privacy
4. Non interventionist foreign policy
5. States Rights

WTF! is going on here. Is the ending of tyranny in the world a conservative idea or is it liberal ? Conservative ideas a re achievable, is ending tyranny achievable ? ...........or is this a undefinable goal and have really gone to WAR with this as a goal ? It is not conservative to fight wars in far away lands while borrowing $9 trillion from your enemies to do it.

American exceptionalism echoes a collective form Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
NPD is characterized by inflexible, deeply ingrained, maladaptive patterns of adjustment to life that cause either subjective distress or significant impairment of adaptive functioning within the world that they find themselves. I wonder if it's the greater manifestation of Tofflers "future shock" where people become so stressed by a changing world that as a collective they become a dysfunctional culture.

It was Kantor who first described Narcissistic Personality Disorder , when you read through the clinical description its not hard to tick the boxes.

Kantor (1992, pp. 203-204) describes the clinical characteristics of NPD as:

* inordinate self-pride; * self-concern; * an exaggeration of the importance of one's experiences and feelings; * ideas of perfection; * a reluctance to accept blame or criticism; * absence of altruism although gestures may be made for the sake of appearance; * empathy deficit; and, * grandiosity. The idea takes a bit consideration to fully understand , essentialy it means that major sector of our society (on both left and right) has lots its bearings to their traditonal beliefs and values.

My father used to have a saying that he said so often it became a family joke. He used to say , " son if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, dont go calling it a swan, say "thats a #$&^ing duck"

He meant that wahtever we were looking at we should show the courage to see what we see rather what we want to see and that the simplist explanation was usually the right one.

Now my description above about NPD is just speculative, the idea is just to make you think. I dont pretend to be a pyschitrist in fact I have no time for such things. But I do think we need to take a close look at what is in front of our eyes. There is something quacking really loud in front of us. I am not sure what it is but I dont like it. So look around what is really in front of us ? What are we all seeing ? are we looking at a duck ? but telling ourselves that it's a swan?

Many many years ago in Phoenix I worked for a Republican by the name of Barry Goldwater. He died before he could see all this happening to America. I often pretend I am looking at things through his eyes, he wouldnt have minced words (and he was good at spotting ducks). I think he would be saying, "Bill, its a damn duck"!.

I am sorry to say the conservatives in this country need to take a huge step (back in time) to the right and they will have to try and bring the middle along with them.

What Pisses me OFF (The Taliban enrolling at YALE!)

Something must be in the Kool-Aid at Yale University. The ivy-covered gates that once enclosed one of America’s most distinguished universities now contain a collection of military-hating leftist radicals, whose disdain for America knows no bounds. I am seriously starting to wonder whether the Prozac Nation has gone nuts. Ok the left is crazy but why is this allowed to happen at all. All government funding for Yale should be withdrawn. If Republicans are serious we must deal wit these leftist schools, they are poisoning the minds of the future leaders of America.

No other school where the administration has banned the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps since 1969, has driven recruiters off campus and actually sued the United States government to keep the military away is interested in the welfare of America.

Although Yale is not the only elitist college to spit in the face of men and women in uniform, they recently stooped to a new low.

Last fall, while the American military that was denied access to Yale and were off fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, Yale University was busy celebrating the arrival of their newest student, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the former Deputy Foreign Secretary of the Taliban. He was admitted into a non-degree program, with a chance to gain full degree-seeking status in 2006. “In some ways I’m the luckiest person in the world,” Hashemi told the New York Times on February 26.

“I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale.”
That’s right, a high-ranking official of the brutal Taliban, the terrorist regime that harbored Osama Bin Laden, is now kicking back and relaxing at Yale! Of course, it doesn’t matter to the leftist administration that Hashemi only has a fourth-grade education, never took the SATs and is totally academically unfit to attend any college, let alone an elite institution like Yale which only accepts ten percent
of applicants.

Apparently, Hashemi was too good of a catch for Yale to let him get away. According to the New York Times, Yale had “another foreigner of Hashemi’s caliber apply for special-student status.” Said former Dean of Admissions Richard Shaw, “We lost him to Harvard. I don’t want that to happen again.”

Who could that have been? One of Slobodan Milosevich’s ethnic cleansers? Maybe a lieutenant of Bin Laden’s? Perhaps a protégé of Idi Amin?
Shaw gushed that his admissions interview with Hashemi “was one of the most interesting I’ve ever had,” and told the Times, “This is a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world.”
Isn’t that awesome? The spokesman for the Taliban is here to educate America about how we need to cut off the fingers of women who wear nail polish, encourage husbands to beat their wives and publicly torture and murder homosexuals, all with the help and support of Yale University.

That he was granted a student visa is criminal, and Yale publicly flaunting his admission is sickening and hypocritical. The university administration’s alleged reason for suing to ban military recruitment on campus was that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy supposedly violates the civil rights of homosexuals. Now Yale is proud as a peacock to parade around their new poster boy, whose policy on gays was to stone them.
While Yale certainly should accept students regardless of ideology, leaping at the chance to enroll a woman-beating, gay-torturing, terror-linked, former Taliban officer with a fourth grade education, while banning the ROTC, is a slap in the face to America and the Armed Forces still fighting the Taliban.

What Pisses me OFF (Not having the commitment to win a war once we go to war)

I think Haig is right we either should leave Iraq (that doent look to be an option) or we go win the war and do it properly. This current situation is going to end up like Vietnam if we let it. If you remember what happened last time the loss in Vietnam swept in the all the liberal BS from which we never recovered.

Bush needs to kick start his term. He should sack Rumsfeld and Cheney and bring on real military experience into both jobs. Cheney is a crook and Rumsfeld doesnt listen to his military. Then bring draft and send 500,000-1,000,000 into battle and throw everything we have at Syria and Iran. I am sick of this country fighting on it knees. This might scare the shit it out of some people but its actually allot lot less risky to do this properly. If this is really an argument between religous freedom and the religious state (shai) then lets put an end to the religous state. Are we really ending tryanny and promoting democracy if we encourage a hybrid Islamic democracy where the "state and religion" are married together , thats not democracy how can democracy exist where there are religous leaders watching over the shoulders of elected officials.

If you really want to end tyranny you can't go half way.

If it really is America's destiny to do this then we have to step up to the plate or retire , we are currently living in geo politcal no mans land and its never going to get better until we choose a direction. I lived through WW2 there is a big difference between how we all pulled together then and how we have gone to war this time.

BOSTON Mar 11, 2006 (AP)— Former Nixon adviser Alexander Haig said Saturday military leaders in Iraq are repeating a mistake made in Vietnam by not applying the full force of the military to win the war.

"Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don't do it," Haig said. "We're in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven't learned very much."

The comments by Haig, Nixon's chief of staff and also a secretary of state under President Reagan, came at a conference at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum examining the Vietnam War and the American Presidency.

The conference brought together advisers from the Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy administrations, and talk turned to Iraq where the panelists saw parallels with Vietnam.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

What Pisses me OFF ! (Afghans to sentence Christian convert to death)

This story deserves much more attention than it's getting. Via VOA News (Below the Beltway):

I got up this morning late and read this and I got really pissed off. Has the world gone mad ? An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country's strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan's new constitution and democratic government

So what are we doing it all for ? Read this !!!!!! it's damn stupid we free a country introduce a democratic process and they essentially keep the stuff the Taliban were famous for...........if you swap from Islam to Christianity they can put you to death ?!?! This is in Afghanistan right ? So tell me how this is ending tryanny and creating freedom ?

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings. Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.
He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

Friday, March 17, 2006

What Really Pisses me OFF! (Israel has hyjacked US Foreign Policy)

Americans act like the Israel is another state of the UNION. Israel spends millions managing US politicians and influencing our foreign policy. They dont pay taxes, they dont vote but they act like our interests are the same as there interests. Israel needs to stand on its own two feet and American politicians should only serve the American people that elect them. If they want to become Americans then I am happy to do their fighting until then they should be encouraged to become independant. I have nothing against Israel but America is running out of money and we wont be able to afford this level of spending forever. This is a fact of life America has +40 trillion in unfunded liabilites as our population ages we wont be able to afford to maintain the same military capability in 5 years. We owe to the Israelies to tell them now so they can prepare.

lTwo professors from Harvard University and the University of Chicago have just released an 81-page study on "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" that concludes that the "overall thrust of U.S. policy in the [Middle East] is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'"The study is currently available as a Harvard "working paper" with extensive footnotes or as a shorter version published in the London Review of Books.The authors systematically examine the facts of the U.S.-Israel relationship, concluding that Israel is neither a strategic asset nor a "compelling moral case for sustained U.S. backing," and point a finger squarely at the Israel lobby for "[managing] to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical."

The authors examine the entire scope of the Israel lobby's efforts, from its intimidation of the press, think tanks and academia into presenting a misleading image of Israel to its success at co-opting the Congress and the Executive Branch into implementing Israel's policy aims.The paper is significant not just for its substance but also for the fact that it was published at all. The authors note in their section on the lobby's intimidation of the press: "Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one."Stephen Walt is Academic Dean and Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

His latest book is "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy" (W. W. Norton & Co., 2005). According to his faculty website, he has previously worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, in addition to consulting for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the National Defense University.John Mearsheimer is a Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, where he is an authority on security affairs and international politics. He graduated from West Point in 1970 and served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force.Both authors previously wrote "An Unnecessary War," which argued against invading Iraq, in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy magazine.

What Pisses me OFF ! (American is not listening to Roscoe Bartlett)

What Pisses me off is the Republican Party if full of fine men who have got the guts to lead rather than follow the Bush Cabal . Read every word of Roscoe Bartlett's speech then read it again this guy is telling us about something will destroy American prosperity in less than than a decade. This is just as important as winning WW2!!!!

Published on 16 Mar 2006 by US Congress. Archived on 16 Mar 2006.
Bartlett: Peak Oil in Congress - one year on
by Rep's Roscoe Bartlett & Wayne Gilchrest

This is a transcript of a speech given before the US House of Representatives on 14th March 2006.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. /Bartlett/) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic event for me personally because it was just one year ago this date that I first came to this floor to talk about the subject of peak oil.

As a matter of fact, that subject was so new that when we were preparing to give that first talk, we were debating should we talk about the great rollover or should we talk about peak oil.The great rollover refers to that peak of the curve when it rolls over and you start down the other side of that consumption curve, which is the availability curve of oil. We finally decided that the proper designation to use was ``peak oil,'' and I guess that most other people who are talking about this subject have decided the same thing, because in this year,

Mr. Speaker, just about everybody is talking about peak oil.We looked at the statistics for last year and found that oil has increased about $10 a barrel, about 52 or 53 last year, 62 or 63 this year. Gasoline, I think, was about $2.05 last year. Now it is up and down a little, but $2.35, $2.45. Local stations where I live it is now $2.45.A couple of very interesting things have happened in this last year. Oh, I have another document here, Mr. Speaker, which is about another very historic event; and it was 50 years ago, the 8th of this month, and I am sorry that I didn't know that date last year or I would have tried to do my first Special Order on peak oil on the 8th of March, because it was just 50 years ago on the 8th of March that M. King Hubbert gave his very famous talk at the spring meeting of the Southern District of the Division of Production of the American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas. And this was a startling article. It is now very historic.

This was in 1956.In that speech, he predicted that the United States would peak in its oil consumption in about 1970. He did that with words. He did that with graphs, and he showed the graphs of the use of oil up to that time in 1956 and how much oil he thought that the United States would find and, therefore, when we would peak in oil production.He was able to do this, Mr. Speaker, because he had watched the exploitation and exhaustion of individual oil fields, and he found that they all followed a very similar pattern. The oil production increased until it reached a maximum.

That maximum production was, for most fields, about the halfway point of all the oil that you would get out of the field. And after reaching that maximum, no matter how vigorously you pumped that field, the production fell off steadily until at the end of the exhaustion of the field it reached a zero. And he theorized that if he knew how many individual fields there were in the United States, he could predict when the United States would peak in oil discovery.This is a long paper with a lot of math in it. This wasn't just some intelligent guesses from looking at the data. He did a lot of mathematical analysis. Here is one of his graphs, for instance; and we have a larger one that we will show you in a minute. But this graph shows that he expected a peak about 1970.

That was 14 years after he made this prediction.So this tonight for me is a historic event because it is 1 year since I gave the first speech here on this subject. Since then I have given nine others. This will be the 10th since then and the 11th overall.About the time I started this, 30 prominent members of our society, and let me put up a chart that shows that here for just a moment and then we will come back to two things that have happened in this year, which are really very interesting.These numbers encouraged 30 prominent members of our society, including Boyden Gray and McFarland and Jim Woolsey and Frank Gaffney and 26 others, a number of retired four-star admirals and generals, to write a letter to the President saying, Mr. President, the fact that we have only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves and we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, and import about two-thirds of what we use, is a totally unacceptable national security risk; and, Mr. President, we have to do something about that.[Time: 20:00]I just want to show one chart here.

Then I will introduce my colleague, and I will read a little paragraph from a recent report before doing that.This is the curve that M. King Hubbert predicted in this article, reprinted here from 50 years ago, an article and a speech. The smooth green curve here was his prediction. The larger symbols, where the actual data points, and you see that right on target, we peaked in about 1970.The red curve is the Soviet Union. They had a bit more oil than we. They peaked a little bit after us. Then they kind of fell apart when the Soviet Union dissolved, and they did not reach their potential. There will be a second little peak now, but they are nowhere near their former peak. They reached peak oil some time ago.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I think 33 of the 45 countries in the world that produce oil have already passed their peak. Many others are at their peak or rapidly approaching it.I want to read briefly from a new study, and this is one of the two really interesting things that have happened in the past year. One was a study by SAIC funded by the Department of Energy. I have some charts in a few moments that I will show, some of the comments that they made. There is another study that has just come out. Although this is not a brand-new study, the date on this study is September 2005. This is dated September 2005; but for some reason, it has not been released from the Pentagon.This was done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and I am going to read from it a little later.

Ordinarily, I don't read, but I haven't had time to make charts of this. I think this is so interesting and so startling, and it just came out. Yesterday, I think, may have been the first day; and for most people today, this was the first day they could get a hold of it.Mr. Speaker, let me read you something, from that article and this will introduce my colleague, /Wayne Gilchrest/, who said he would be happy to come down and join me in this talk, if he could talk about global warming. I said, /Wayne/, that is exactly what the Corps of Engineers was talking about.Let me read what they said here: ``Worldwide consumption of fossil fuels and its coincident and environmental impact continues to grow.'' The Earth's endowment of natural resources are depleting at an alarming rate, exponentially faster than the biosphere's ability to replenish them.Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that this is not an article from some environmental journal.

This is from a report, which has kind of been kept under cover now since last September, just released. I think that it was inadvertently released, by the way. But now that it is out, you can get a copy of it. This was done by the Corps of Engineers. This is a U.S. Army publication. The Earth's endowment of natural resources are depleting at an alarming rate, exponentially faster than the biosphere's ability to replenish them. It took nature 100 million years to create the energy the world uses in 1 year. Fuel consumption affects the global climate with the production of greenhouse gases and localized production of acid rain, low-lying ozone, and smog.Mr. Speaker, this is not from some environmental journal; this is from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mining and production of fuels destroy the ecosystems and biodiversity.

The loss of habitat is leading to localized extinction of species. This reduction of biodiversity results in greater vulnerability of the planet to ecological stresses.Mr. Speaker, I would like to digress for just a moment to note how wise this observation is. There may be a species that you don't think has much environmental impact; but when you lose that, you have lost a gene pool that for one reason or another we may need to go back to in the future.I just want to give one little example of this in agriculture. To produce hybrid corn, you have to have male and female. You have to take the tassels, that is the male part of the corn. You have to take the tassels off the top parts of the stalks whose ears you want fertilized by the male from the other corn.For many years they hired college students to go through and break the tassels off, always a chore because some came out later and you could not have a tassel here or there which was going to fertilize the other ears, the female part of the silk.They discovered what they call a Texas male-sterile cytoplasm.

When they put this gene in the corn, the male was sterile. They didn't have to go through the field and pull off these tassels. There was a blight, I think it was, that struck all plants that had the Texas male-sterile cytoplasm. We couldn't produce any hybrid corn the way we ordinarily produce it.If it weren't for Hawaii, where we could go to produce two generations of corn, you see, we had to go back to the old gene pool that we were no longer using. We went back to that older gene pool, and they went to Hawaii where you could produce two crops of corn in 1 year.Over the winter season, they produced two crops of corn so that we would have enough seed so that we could do the planting in this country, but still the seed was somewhat scarce and considerably more expensive.

This reduction of biodiversity, they said, results in greater vulnerability of the plants to ecologic stress. If the gene pool is not there, you cannot go to that gene pool for more diversity.Waste from nuclear power generation plants is accumulating, and no viable means exist to safely and effectively dispose of them. Current energy policies and consumption practices are not sustainable. They clearly limit, boy, this is quite a statement, they clearly limit and potentially eliminate options for future generations. Mr. Speaker, just think for a moment what they are saying.

They clearly limit and potentially eliminate options for future generations.Mr. /Gilchrest/, a discussion of climate change and global warming is perfectly appropriate and anticipated by this report from the Corps of Engineers.I would yield to you, sir. Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.Mr. Speaker, just to support Dr. /Bartlett/'s assertions on peak oil that he has so eloquently and scientifically presented here on the House floor for about a year now, Mr. /Bartlett/ is looking at the security problems of peak oil, the economic viability problems with peak oil, and the environmental problems of peak oil. Dr. /Bartlett/ mentioned a report from the Army Corps of Engineers in which it says in part that we are using or burning in decades, in about the last 50 years, what we have used as far as fossil fuel, especially where oil is concerned, for our transportation needs that it took nature millions of years to lock up.What does that mean? That means that we are releasing into the atmosphere greenhouse gases, in this case specifically carbon dioxide in a few short years, what took the geologic forces of the planet to take out of the atmosphere in millions of years. Is there a potential for climate disruption as a result of that scenario?

The answer is yes.Human beings, in the last century or so, or in the Industrial Age, have become a factor in the heat balance of the planet. Heretofore, the only factor that could contribute to the heat balance of the planet, the greenhouse effect of the planet, the warming, the cooling, the various cycles, the storm cycles of the planet, were natural geologic forces. The oceans, the land mass, the tectonic plates, volcanoes, those kinds of massive, natural geologic forces have shaped the way the planet looks today.What we are seeing, and what Mr. /Bartlett/ is talking about in his discussions on energy usage, is that in the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, human beings and their activities are a geologic force, because we are putting into the atmosphere in decades what it took the natural forces millions of years to lock up. We human beings, in our activity, are a geologic force affecting the climate, affecting the atmosphere.

If we went back to James Watt in 1769, we would see through various scientific methods that there was about 280 parts per million of CO *2 in the atmosphere, 1769. About 100 years later, 100 years after that, 1895, partly because of natural warming, the climate has been warming since the Ice Age, there were 290 parts per million, 100 years after James Watt discovered the steam engine; and we know that the steam engine enabled us to burn coal in greater abundance than we had prior to that. *Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a moment, I would like to note that during the Christmas break, because I am a senior member of the Science Committee, I went down to Antarctica to our experiment station down there at the South Pole. That is about as far away as you can get from any factory that is burning fossil fuels.

The CO2 you measure there is going to be probably lower than the CO2 any place else; and it will fairly represent the base for CO2 increase, and they will give you a chart there, they have now been following this, charting this for a number of years. They will give you a chart which shows exactly what you said, that the CO2 is rapidly increasing.They have done corings of the ice pack there, and it goes back for tens of thousands of years. It is a desert down there with about 2 inches of precipitation a year, but it has been accumulating so long that the ice is almost 2 miles thick in the middle of the continent, up about 10,000 feet.When we go back to those corings, they can find the CO2 level of the atmosphere, because ice is totally impervious to CO2, and it is trapped there. They can find the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and they can judge from the pollen and so forth what the temperature of the Earth must have been, because there was more growth.They have found that every time in the past that there was an increase in temperature this was accompanied by an increase in carbon dioxide. You are exactly right. They have now been measuring this, I think, in the best place of the Earth to measure it. That is at the South Pole, which is as far as you can get away from any place where they are burning fossil fuels.I thought this would be interesting. It would just emphasize what you have been saying that the CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere.

I yield back to you again, sir.Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.Mr. /Bartlett/ and I a few years ago traveled together to the Antarctic to McMurdo Station and the South Pole. It is a fascinating, majestic place, a little harsh, but nature in the raw seldom mild.I will say it is an arduous trek, even in this day and age, to Antarctica. I want to compliment the gentleman for taking a second trip down there.I will briefly conclude on the correlation of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that has a direct effect on the heat balance of the planet. In the first 100 years of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 increased by about 10 points, 280 parts per million, to 290 parts per million. If you look at the third generation of the Industrial Revolution, which ends with us, about 100 years from 1890, the latest calculation in 2003 was 370 parts per million.That is increasing. Look at the last 100 years of increasing CO2, which is 100 parts per million increase.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again, you are talking about this exponential increase. It reminded me of a very interesting and startling statistic.Up until the Carter years, every decade, the Earth used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. That slowed down after the crash of the 1970s and so forth. Up until then, each decade, we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. What that meant was that when you had used half of all the oil in the world, that just 10 years of oil would remain.[Time: 20:15]Now we are better than that today, because we have slowed down. I am going to read you some numbers in a few minutes from this report from the Corps of Engineers.But you were talking about exponential increase, and this was a startling example of exponential increase, and fortunately, we are more efficient today and we have slowed down, or we would be in bigger trouble than we are. May the gentleman continue?

Mr. GILCHREST. I would agree with the gentleman, we continue with a sense of urgency. We should continue with a sense of urgency, that efficiency is one of the components to stave off a really very difficult economic time period if we do not find alternatives to fossil fuel.One last item about the chronology of increasing CO2. As CO2 increases, the temperature of the planet and the corresponding manner has also increased. And if you look at the increases in CO2, they cannot be shown with natural influences of the planet.When you take a mathematical calculation as to the cycles of CO2 in the atmosphere and where it comes from, the natural process will add, and has been adding CO2, over the last 10,000 years. In a corresponding way, the temperature of the planet has continued to increase over the last 10,000 years.But if you take the amount of CO2 with the natural influences, it does not account for the dramatic increase in CO2 that we have seen over the last 100 years. And so if we are looking at environmental conditions, energy independence, economic viability with a positive alternative energy source, there is a sense of urgency that I think Congressman /Bartlett/ has brought to this House and to the Nation.Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding.Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Thank you very much. I appreciate you coming down and joining us.Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come back again to this very historic document, this speech that was given by M. King Hubbert, just 50 years and a few days ago, and because this is so important, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this in the *RECORD* at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to these numbers here, the 2 percent of world oil reserves, the 25 percent of the world's oil which we use, and the roughly two-thirds which we import. I want to look at a couple of other numbers here.We produce 8 percent of the world's oil. And we do that from only 2 percent of the reserves. What that means is we are pumping our oil pretty quickly. In a couple of minutes, I am going to read you a statement from this report from the Corps of Engineers, it startled me when I read it, that talks about relationship here.We represent a little less actually than 5 percent of the population of the world. And I want to read something else here from this report, from the Corps of Engineers. It is understood a subheading called ``Security.''You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was security that these 30 people wrote to the President about, national security. ``In an age of terrorism, combustible and explosive fuels along with potential weapons-grade nuclear materials create security risks. The United States currently has 5 percent of the world's population, but uses 25 percent of the world's annual energy production.``This disproportionate consumption of energy relative to global consumption causes loss of the world's good will.''You need to think about what they are saying for a moment.

A summer ago, I was in Europe on a trip visiting the major shipyards there. And at one of the events, one of the Europeans mentioned to me, you mean gas is still only $2 a gallon in your country, it was about $2.05, still $2 a gallon in your country?His tone was somewhere between anger and disdain. And I thought of that comment when I read this statement. ``Causes loss of the world's good will and provided a context for potential military conflicts at the cost of lives, money, and political capital. A more equitable distribution of resources is in our best interest for a peaceful future.''That is a very wise observation, I think, Mr. Speaker. What they are saying is that our disappropriate use of these resources, only 5 percent, actually less than 5 percent of the world's population, one person out of 22, using 25 percent of the world's energy has not gone unnoticed. And they note here that it causes a loss of the world's good will.So in addition to providing for our national security, by freeing ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, it will increase the good will that the United States has in the world, is what they are saying here, and I think that is correct,

Mr. Speaker.There were two things that happened in this past year that confirmed my concerns. And by the way, I need to say this evening, Mr. Speaker, what I say every time I speak about this, and that is that I hope I am wrong. I hope that all of these experts, I hope that this study by the Corps of Engineers is wrong. I hope the Hirsch report is wrong, because if they are not wrong, and if I am not wrong, I think we are in for a very bumpy ride as we transition from the fossil fuels to the renewables.Two things happened in this last year. One was this study that was done last September, dated then, but just came out now. You have to wonder a little, Mr. Speaker, why it was kind of kept under wraps for this long.And the other thing that came out was a study funded by the Department of Energy done by the very prestigious SAIC organization. Dr. Robert Hirsch, was the principal investigator on this, and it is generally called the Hirsch report.If you do a Google search, you can find the Hirsch report. Here are some comments from their report.

The peaking of world oil production presents the United States and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and without timely mitigation, the economic, social and politically costs will be unprecedented.Let me read now, while that is up there, a quote from this report by the Corps of Engineers. ``The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy resources are quickly drawing to a close.'' When I read that, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of an introductory sentence in a report by Matt Savinar, that you can find if you do a Google search for peak oil, and then click on Matt Savinar.And the first little sentence of his report says, ``Dear reader, civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon.'' My wife read that and said the guy is an idiot, I am not going to read any further, and I said, please reserve judgment and read on.And she did. And by the time she finished reading it, she was genuinely frightened. If you will click on Matt Savinar, you will get about 11 pages. If you then click on page 2, you will then get another 33 pages.

That is well worth doing. Because there he discusses all of the potential alternatives and the pluses and minuses of these alternatives.Matt Savinar, Mr. Speaker, may be audacious, but he is not an idiot. Domestic natural gas production, reading again from the Corps of Engineers study, and listen to these numbers. They are striking and frightening. Domestic natural gas production peaked in 1973. The proved domestic reserve lifetime for natural gas at current consumption rates is, what do you think? Is about 8.4 years.Maybe that is why gas is $6, $7, it has been $12 and $14 for 1,000 cubic feet. The proved world reserve lifetime for natural gas is about 40 years, but will follow a traditional rise to a peak and then a rapid decline, like the curve that we saw a few minutes ago for oil.Domestic, that is the United States oil production, peaked in 1970 and continues to decline. In spite of feverish drilling in the 1980s and in spite of Prudhoe Bay, it continues to decline.

Now this is a number, in this next sentence, which shocked me, but I saw it twice in their report, so I am guessing it is not a typo. Proved domestic reserve lifetime for oil is about 3.4 years.Now that gets us back to that we have only 2 percent, we are producing 8 percent of the world's oil. We are really good at pumping oil. We have been so good at pumping oil, we have drilled, by the way, 530,000 oil wells in this country.Saudi Arabia has roughly 400, Iraq has maybe 300. We are really good at pumping oil. The Corps of Engineers say that we have 3.4 years remaining. World oil production is at or near its peak. They believe we are either at peak oil or very near peak oil. And current world demand exceeds the supply, and that is why oil is $62 a barrel today rather than the $10 a barrel it was a relatively few years ago. Saudi Arabia is considered the bellwether nation for oil production. And it has not increased production since April 2003.A few months ago, the Saudi Arabia oil sheik was over in our country talking to the President. And you may have noticed from the news that he did not, I think the proper verb is could not, promise the President that the Saudis would increase oil production.One of the current experts in this area is Matt Simmons, who runs one of the largest, if not the largest energy investment bank in the world, personal energy advisor to the President, I think in both of his campaigns. And Matt Simmons had gone to Saudi Arabia, gone to the library, gone through a great deal of material there, and he has written a book with the interesting title, Twilight in the Desert.He believes, as the Corps of Engineers believes, that the Saudis have probably reached their maximum oil production.

The great oil field, the granddaddy of all oil fields, Garwar, probably reached its peak production several years ago.After peak production, supply no longer meets demand. Prices and competition increase. World proved reserve lifetime for oil is about 41 years.Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not 41 years at current use rates and then you fall off a cliff. We are going to follow that traditional bell curve, the curve that the United States has been following. We are well down the other side of Hubbert's Peak now, we are going to follow that curve.There will still be a lot of oil available 40 years from now, but in greatly reduced amounts, and probably by the end of the century, we will have gone through or very close to being through the age of oil.Most of this they say, of the oil for this 41 years, is that declining availability. Our current throw-away nuclear cycle, and here is another number that surprised me, our current throw-away nuclear cycle will consume the world reserve of low cost uranium in about 20 years.That, Mr. Speaker, is at current use rates. If we build more nuclear power plants, the use rate will go up and it will last less than that.

That does not mean that we cannot have nuclear power 25 years from now, what it does mean is it is going to cost more, and we are probably going to have to go to breeder reactors. France and Japan are already doing that, so it is not like we would be plowing new ground.Unless we dramatically change our consumption practices, the earth's finite resources of petroleum and natural gas will become depleted in this industry.I think there may be a little at the end of the century, but it is going to be a very small amount compared to what we are now pumping.We may, Mr. Speaker, long before that, decide that it is really not very bright to burn this gas and oil you remember which is the feed stock for a very important petrochemical industry.We really live in a plastic world. And if you look around you and see how much of your automobile, how much of your office, how much equipment you buy is made from oil, it is just everywhere.Coal supplies may last into the next century. If we can find that coal chart, I would like to look at that. Coal supplies may last into the next century depending on technology and consumption trends as it starts to replace oil and natural gas.

This is a very correct statement. It may last into the next century, but only if you keep using at current use rates. It will last 250 years with current use rates. You see on the abscissa here, 250 years. But if you increase the use of oil just 2 percent, that is not much, if you increase the use just 2 percent, it reduces the supply to 85 years.When Albert Einstein was asked after the discovery of nuclear energy and the detonation of the nuclear bombs, Dr. Einstein, what will be the next big energy discovery in the world? And he says, it is already discovered. The most powerful force in the universe is the power of compound interest. That is exponential growth. Just 2 percent exponential growth doubles in 35 years. And that reduces the 250 years with no growth to only 85 years with 2 percent growth; and then when you recognize that much of the use that you will have to make of that energy cannot just be coal. We will have to do in our country, and the world will have to do, what Hitler was forced to do in World War II and that is to make oil and gas from coal; and the technology for doing both of those is readily apparent.

As a little boy, we did not have electricity in our house until I was near a teenager, and we used what was universally known then as coal oil lamps. And after other people were calling them kerosine lamps, we still called them coal oil lamps because the oil used in the original lamps, the oil that replaced whale oil, saved the whales, thank goodness, when we learned to get oil from coal, was called coal oil.When you use enough energy to convert the coal into an oil or a gas so you can use it, now it is shrunk to just 50 years. So their statement that it may last depending upon use is a very correct statement.They say we must act now to develop the technology and infrastructure necessary to transition to other energy sources. Policy changes, leap-ahead technology, breakthroughs, cultural changes, and significant investment are requisite for this new energy future.Time is essential to enact these changes. The process should begin now. Just back for a moment to the Hirsch report. That is not what they said. What the Hirsch report said, and I do not have those charts with me, they said unless you start 20 years before peak oil, there are going to be meaningful economic consequences.Here are some other quotes from the Hirsch report. World oil peaking is going to happen. The study by the Corps of Engineers says that, in other words, it is not ``if,'' it is ``when''; and they believe that it is now or very shortly in the future. World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline thereafter. That maximum is called the peak.A number of competent forecasters project peaking within a decade. And now to that list has been added the Army Corps of Engineers. Others contend it will occur later, few in this category. Prediction of the peaking is extremely difficult because of geological complexities, measurement problems, pricing variations, demand elasticity, and political influences. Peaking will happen, but the timing is uncertain.Oil peaking presents a unique challenge.

This is a startling statement. The world has never faced a problem like this. Maybe that is why our government has not claimed ownership of either the Hirsch report or the study by the Corps of Engineers. As a matter of fact, they have asked for a new study. The results of these are so startling, Mr. Speaker, and they indicate that we should have a number of years ago begun addressing this problem, and to make sure that we need to invest time, energy, and money and so forth that is going to be required if we are going to make this transition.I understand the desire of the administration to make sure that this is real so that now they have commissioned another study by the National Petroleum Council. If they are looking at the same data these other two studies looked at, they should reach the same conclusion. It is not like the Department of Defense is not doing anything, because the Department of Defense Under Secretary for Acquisition Technology and Logistics and the Office of Force Transformations is sponsoring a new interagency monthly series of seminars entitled ``Energy, A Conversation About Our National Addiction.'' And they are borrowing the President's word from his speech when he said we are ``addicted'' to oil.By the way, recovering from addiction to most things requires some trauma, and I think that there will be sufficient trauma here in breaking our addiction to oil. The Department of Defense is the single largest buyer of fuel in the United States, so I am really glad that they have initiated this series of seminars. The first speaker is Jim Woolsey, and I think the second month I will be the speaker at this series of discussions.

Back to comments, and again I apologize for reading, but I have not had a chance to make charts, and these are such significant comments because the Hirsch report said, and it has been out for several months now, and we have been saying this, Mr. Speaker, this is now the 11th time that I have come to the floor to talk about peak oil. A year ago I was kind of a lone voice. As I mentioned, we were debating should we call it ``peak oil'' or the ``great rollover.'' But since then, peak oil has found its place in the common jargon and many people are talking about it, and I am really pleased that these two major studies are saying the same thing that we thought the evidence was saying when we started doing these floor speeches a year ago.Our best options for meeting future energy requirements are energy efficiency and renewable resources. Energy efficiency is the least expensive, most readily available and environmentally friendly way to stretch our current energy supplies.

The oil you do not use is the cheapest oil you can buy. For efficiency and renewables, the intangible and hard to quantify benefits such as reduced pollution and increased security yield indisputable economic value.They have a little subtitle in their report called ``Petroleum'' and they say: ``Historically, no other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of extractability,'' poke a hole in the ground and it came gushing out in many places, ``transportability,'' put it in a pipeline and move it hundreds of thousands of miles. Put it in a truck and carry it over the road. Put it in a tanker and carry it across the ocean.``Transportability. Versatility.'' How many different ways do we use oil? To heat our homes, to cool our homes, to run our cars, to run our ships.How many different way do we use it? The qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the frontline energy source for the industrialized world in the middle of the 20th century are as relevant today as they were then. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to about 2.5 times more economic value per Btu than coal. Currently, they say in the report there is no viable substitute for petroleum. Let me read that again.This is the Corps of Engineers.

Currently, there is no viable substitute for petroleum, and petroleum has probably reached its maximum production. It will hold at about this level for about awhile, and then it will inevitably taper off. It will become smaller and smaller as we go through the years.In summary, they say, the outlook for petroleum is not good. This especially applies to conventional oil which has been the lowest cost resource. Production peaks for non-OPEC conventional oil are at hand. Many nations have already passed their peak and are now producing at peak or below peak capacity.The next chart shows where we have gotten our oil from in our country. Now, M. King Hubbert's prediction was for the lower 48. And the curve has followed exactly what he said for the lower 48. If we take out Alaska, Prudhoe Bay, you see that it peaked in 1970 and then fell off. Now we found a lot of oil in Prudhoe Bay at Dead Horse. There is a 4-foot pipeline there. I have been there at the beginning of that 4-foot pipeline, that has for a number of years been producing about a fourth of all of our domestic oil. But notice that that caused only a blip in the slide down the other side of Hubbert's Peak.The next chart shows a stylized curve. By the way, you can make this curve as steep as you want by simply changing the dimensions on the ordinate and the abscissa. This is a 2 percent growth rate.

We know that because in 35 years it doubles. And you see the little yellow there which represents the shortfall if we are at that point. I believe we are, I hope we are not, but I believe we are at that point. And this represents the shortfall that will occur over the next 35 years. Notice that the problem occurs before peaking, before you actually reach the peak. The demand curve has deviated from the supply curve.Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have any energy to invest in renewables, in alternatives, we are going to have to have a pretty massive program of conservation because today there is no surplus energy to invest. If there was any surplus energy, oil wouldn't be $62 a barrel.The next chart looks back through history and that is a really interesting chart and the Corps of Engineers talked a little about this. This shows only 400 years of 5,000 years of recorded history, but it kind of puts in perspective where we are. The little brown hump on the bottom there is the Industrial Revolution that began with wood. We learned to make steel with wood. We denuded the mountains of New England. More forest today in New Hampshire than there was at the Revolutionary War.

We denuded many of the hills, the mountains there to send charcoal to England to make coal.Catocin Furnace just up the road here near Emmitsburg, near Thurmont in Emmitsburg, is a little furnace where they denuded the hills there in northern Maryland to make steel there. Then you see what happened to the Industrial Revolution when we found coal. But look what happened when we found gas and oil. That is the red curve. Going on this scale, and this is only 400 years of our 5,000 years of recorded history, on this scale going almost straight up, you notice there at the top of it what happened in the seventies. It really made a difference.Remember I noted that up until the Carter years every decade we were using as much energy as we had used in all of previous history. That is on the steep part of this curve. We now have broken away from that, thanks to a lot of energy efficiency. Your air conditioner today may be two or three times as efficient as it was in the seventies. The similar thing for your refrigerator. We really are very much better today at efficiency than we were then. By the way, that is one of the things that we ought to be exporting from our country because much of the developing world is using oil energy very inefficiently.

For now, about 150 years we have been in what you call the age of oil, and another 100 to 150 years, the report by the Corps of Engineers says maybe less, we will be through the age of oil. What does that mean?I started thinking about this subject probably 40 years ago. I guess it is the scientist in me. I knew that fossil fuels could not be forever, and I asked myself the question, what does that mean? Do we have 10 years remaining? Do we have 100 years remaining? Do we have 1,000 years remaining? I had no idea when I started looking into this what the dimensions of this problem were.If you can think about this, Mr. Speaker, and where we are and where we come from, for 5,000 years of recorded history, the world's population was somewhere between a half billion and a billion people, and then we hit oil. And not only did the economy grow, represented here on the ordinate by quadrillion Btus, not only did we use ever increasing amounts of energy, but boy, did our population spurt. If we had an ordinate on the other side with population curve on it, it would follow. It would pretty faithfully follow this increase in energy production.Once we are through the age of oil, and we will one day be through the age of oil, and thinking about this, I often think about my father, who was a little boy in Kentucky. He remembered the first one-cylinder gasoline engine that came into Lincoln County, Kentucky. He died in 1985. He lived within a score of years, roughly halfway, through the age of oil.What is the carrying capacity of the earth minus this incredible resource we have in gas and oil?

I want to, for a moment, give you a couple of illustrations of how important this gas and oil has been to our life and our economy.Just 1 barrel of oil, the refined product you can buy now, is just a little over $100. Forty-two gallons, a little over $100 at a pump will buy you the work output of 12 people working all year for you in manual labor, and you buy it for $100. To give some sense, if this is probably correct, reflect on how far a gallon of diesel or gasoline, and I was drinking a little bottle of water last evening and drove by a service station and noted the $2.45 gas, and I paid more for my bottle of water than for that in the grocery store. So gasoline is still cheaper than water.But reflect on how far that little gallon of gas takes your car or your SUV and how long it would take you to pull it through. Now, I drive a Prius. I get about 50 miles per gallon, but it would take me a long time to pull my Prius 50 miles. I could get it there with a come-along and hooking to the guardrail or tree, but it would take me a long time.Another little indication of the incredible quality of these fossil fuels is electricity. If I work really hard at manual labor all day long,

I can get more mechanical work out of an electric motor for less than 25 cents worth of electricity. That may be humbling to recognize that I am worth in terms of manual labor less than 25 cents a day, as compared to the energy we can get from fossil fuels.Future historians, after the age of oil, may very well wonder how we could have done this, how we could have found this incredible resource, one barrel of which provides you the work output of 12 people working for you all year long, incredible wealth, how we could have found this and not have stood back and asked ourselves the question, what are we going to do with this? How could we get the most good to the most people for the longest time out of this enormous wealth that we found under the ground? But that is not what we did. Like children that found the cookie jar, we just pigged out. I wonder what future generations will say about us.Well, our time is running out, and there are so many other things I would like to talk about. Let us look at the chart that says where we go to now, and we will transition ultimately, Mr. Speaker, to renewables. Geology will demand it. We either do it because we are running out of readily available, high quality gas and oil, or we do it on our schedule which will be a kinder, gentler schedule.These are the alternatives. We have some finite resources: the tar sands, the oil shales, the coal. We talked about coal.

Nuclear, light water reactors, feeder reactors, fusion. If we ever get to fusion, we are home free; low odds, I think. These will only tide us over for a while. Then true renewables, which now represent, as the next chart shows us, tiny percentages of our total energy production.We are very much like a young couple that has gotten married and their grandparents have died and they have got a big inheritance and they have established a lavish lifestyle where 85 percent of the money they spend comes from their grandparents' inheritance, and only 15 percent from their work. They look at the reserves and their inheritance and how much they are spending, and it is going to run out. So they have got to do one of two things. Either they have got to make some more money if they want to continue that lifestyle, or they are going to have to change that lifestyle. That is exactly where we are.I use those numbers because 85 percent of our current energy use comes from coal, petroleum and natural gas, and these are not all renewables, by the way.

They are alternatives. Nuclear is a bit more than half. Other people may have only 6 percent for the renewables. This chart uses seven. These renewables, seven are blown up, and you see that the biggest contributor there is conventional hydro. It is not going to grow in our world. Wood, that is, the paper industry and timber industry, wisely using a waste product, and then solar, winds, agricultural, geothermal, alcohol from fuel is part of agricultural, and energy from waste, that is a big one that should grow and could grow.Mr. Speaker, if we are going to transition to these, and we will, I shouldn't say if. We are going to. We are going to transition, but if we are going to do that as painlessly as possible, we need today a very aggressive program. Time is running out. The Hirsch report says that. The study by the Corps of Engineers says that. Common sense says that. If we are at peak oil, where is the energy going to come from to invest in the alternative?We need a program, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that has the dimensions of putting a man on the moon and the urgency of the Manhattan project. I think it can be very challenging. I think Americans will rise to the challenge. I think Americans will feel good about victory gardens, about getting cars that have high mileage, about two and three going together in a car. Life is so easy today that I think Americans would be challenged, that they would feel really good about making a contribution.What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a national commitment to a program that has the commitment of putting a man on the moon and the urgency of the Manhattan project. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, I think we can have a relatively smooth transition and Americans feel good about their contribution.END

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

What Pisses Me OFF ! (Illegal Aliens)

What the hell are we thinking have you been down to LA recently it starting to resemble a Mexican bus stop not a city. WE are chasing WMD all over the Gulf and we dont even maintain our borders, surely one of the most basic "must does", anyway I am sick of the whining its time to something about it and the there is not time like the present. What pisses me off is that American's were once a "can do" country now we are a bunch of blubbering babies. If we dotn fix the border it will unravel this great country.

Just in from Federation for American Immigration ReformRep. Tom Tancredo Needs Your HelpPlease call your Representatives and ask that they sign a letter being circulated by House Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA). The letter urges the Senate Judiciary Chairman to employ four key principles in fashioning Senate immigration legislation. The letter will be sent to Chairman Specter on Tuesday or Wednesday so don't delay. Make that call today. To identify your Representative, use this link. The four key principles set forth in Congressman Tancredo's letter are: border security, interior enforcement, enforcement first and no amnesty.

The letter describes them as follows:

Border Security: We must make an honest attempt to secure our borders through greater manpower and infrastructure resources-over and above what Congress has already authorized.

Interior Enforcement: No solution to illegal immigration will work until we begin to prosecute employers who lure illegal aliens into the U.S.

Enforcement First: No foreign worker plan can function unless we have operational control of our borders and unless we know who comes in and out of our country.

No Amnesty: Rewarding persons who have broken the law with an advantage that they would not otherwise have had encourages more illegal behavior and is unjust to immigrants who came to the U.S. legally." Senate Judiciary Committee to Finish Work on Guest Worker Amnesty This WeekAs you know from our earlier updates and alerts, the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a bill that would establish an unlimited guest worker amnesty program. The guests never have to leave the country and 10-12 million illegal aliens would be given amnesty. On Wednesday and Thursday, the committee will meet to consider the guest worker and amnesty provisions.

If you haven't called Senators on the Judiciary Committee yet, please do so today. If you have made those calls, consider doing so again. They are listed below. Senate Judiciary Committee: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) - 202-224-4254 Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) - 202-224-5251 Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) - 202-224-3744 Sen. Jon L. Kyl (R-AZ) - 202-224-4521 Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) - 202-224-2315 Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - 202-224-4124 Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) - 202-224-5972 Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) - 202-224-2934 Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) - 202-224-6521 Sen. Thomas A. Coburn (R-OK) - 202-224-5754 Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) - 202-224-4242 Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) - 202-224-4543 Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) - 202-224-5042 Sen. Herbert H. Kohl (D-WI) - 202-224-5653 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - 202-224-3841 Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) - 202-224-5323 Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) - 202-224-6542 Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) - 202-224-2152