Afghan leader warns NATO/ USA not to become "occupying force"

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai angrily warned NATO/USA forces fighting in his country they risked becoming seen as an "occupying force" if they did not stop attacking Afghan homes with air strikes as they hunt insurgents.

"If they don't stop air strikes on Afghan homes, their presence in Afghanistan will be considered as an occupying force and against the will of the Afghan people," Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on Tuesday.

But why? Yes, there are his obvious, rugged good looks and his hat-wearing aplomb. (Seriously, you try to pull off that hat.) But there's more to it than that.
The New York Times suggests that we are beginning a "new charm offensive."

Here is my message to the President :Mr. President, Congress, get US out of the hell hole! These turds are not interested in the democratic process, so why do we continue to insist. They hate us, our way of life, our freedom of speech and religion. How many vital valuable beautiful men and women must be sacrificed for an ideal only we embrace? We can be selfish when it comes to preserving our freedom right here at home. Stop wasting our precious resources on ingrates.  

Our soldiers have done their duty it is time for us to do ours.

Google the White house and your respective Senators and House Representatives. It only takes a few minutes..you can readily find the contact me stuff, fill out a simple form..no need for long comments..they just compile 'for' and 'against'

Tell them to bring our people home immediately. If enough of us write in, they will. Please pass this idea along.

What better way to show respect for our troops, past and present, this Memorial Day week than to tell our leadership we want our troops home.

We have done what we were there to do...we have killed Bin Laden. We have done more than that as, just like Iraq, we have given them a chance to live a better life. Neither place has taken advantage of that.
 

Instead of those Afghans laying out the bodies of their children how come they didn't alert our forces to the presence of insurgents before they killed our Marine? You know why. They WANTED these deaths. It suits their purposes.

It is time to go..now..before one more drop of blood is split. Write them now. do your duty as our soldiers have done theirs. Please. Pass this along. Please

Palin and Bachmann , two women , same party and opposite ends .

Sarah Palin is back , and so it seems . All though she is not the only Republican female on the ticket . ENTER Michele Bachmann


Mrs.Bachmann  has some things that er lacking in Palin . 
I am assuming a brain ? 

Sarah Palin's Rolling Thunder Veteran's Group ride yesterday caused friction with some of the veterans who thought that Palin's presence was overshadowing the true meaning behind the event.

 

Sarah Palin started her bus tour off yesterday by jumping on the back of a bike and riding in the Rolling Thunder Veteran’s Group annual motorcycle run. While she was invited to this run, this did not sit well with all the motorcycle riding veterans.
Palin’s intentions behind this bus tour is not clear, which leaves the media hanging on every word in hopes that the next sentence will be the clue or even the announcement that she plans to become a presidential contender. This media circus around Palin is what caused the friction with some of the veterans participating in the Rolling Thunder motorcycle run.
According to the Atlantic Wire, some of the veteran bikers bickered over who invited Palin to the event. First reports said that the former Alaskan Governor was not invited to participate in the biker run. These reports were later updated to say that she was invited by an Alaskan veterans group.
The reason for the Rolling Thunder Veteran Group’s annual motorcycle run is to raise awareness of POW/MIA soldiers, according to the website TBD Washington. This is not a politically affiliated event and one of the concerns by having Palin at the event is that it would appear that the group endorses her as a candidate, which they do not.
The Rolling Thunder Group found out that Palin was coming through a press release, which again rubbed some of the members the wrong way. She was not invited to make a speech and it was decided before she arrived that she was not to take the stage and make a speech. Palin’s camp did say that she did not intend to speak at the event, days before the motorcycle run. Palin fit right in when she joined the group and at one point she conveyed on how the smell of the exhaust and the sound of the rumbling engines were something that she liked. She jumped on the back of the bike and off she went as detailed in a Huliq article.
Palin’s appearance yesterday may have backfired for the former governor of Alaska. Two distinct views came out of Palin’s ride with the veteran’s yesterday. One saying that it brought extra attention to a great cause and the other saying that her appearance overshadowed the intent of the veteran’s event. With all the news about Palin at this motorcycle event coming from the media this morning, the latter may be more of the actual description.
Taking part in the Rolling Thunder Veteran’s ride to make it look as if the veteran’s are supporting her as a candidate, may have been Palin’s intent all along. Ted Shpak of Rolling Thunder told MSNBC that they don’t endorse any candidate. Shpak said about Palin, “she's not invited to speak [on the stage after the rally]. We're not endorsing her."
Palin, who still does not have a campaign does have a PAC (Political Action Committee) to which you can donate money. Senator McCain spoke with Fox News this morning about his former running mate and he was asked what he thought Palin’s chances were if she did put her hat in the ring for a presidential run. McCain said that “she could win.” He said that Palin is “a major factor” in this political race.

We have had too much “cult of personality” in America for the last eighty years. Remember, we have to sell the whole slate of candidates, and that is easier if we sell the platform they run on. If we sell correct basic principles well, the candidates will sell themselves. Let’s get on message and stop worrying about the second coming of Ronald Reagan. He is not in the race.  Palin tried to gain support of the conservatives . Her giddiness .

made some what of a comical sport of her during the time she appeared on Saturday Night Live  , it seemed from then on that her 'seriousness' of being in politics was under fire . I fear on FOX NEWS could embrace her as a candidate at their own risk . I am also stunned that no feminists rallied behind her either . For Mrs. Palin her future is bleak She will never beat Obama . Republicans need somebody else . Perhaps , Buchannan , she would make a good vice President for Mitt Romney. However that ploy was tried before , I just can't see a women winning the Oval office . America can't over come as of YET some of ti's Gender stereotypes enough to elect a woman . It's going to interesting to see Palin and Michelle Buchannan ... face off during the GOP primaries . 

BUT WE ARE A COUNTRY WITHOUT BIAS YEA?

 

Republicans, not just conservatives, are at risk of a self-fulfilling, self-defeating prophecy that the field sucks and cannot beat Obama. It’s the economy, stupid. It always has been. It always will be. And America can do better than Barack Obama with any of the candidates we now have. 

********************************************************************************

Patriot Act Extension

 

When I heard that Obama was extending the Patriot Act .  I knew then that Obama has fallen through the cracks of trying to look like a strong leader. For the most part Obama was opposed to some , if not all of the Patriot Act while campaigning for President . It's also vary similar how he felt about NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT. He 'promised' to change it, and then took a 360 degree turn and made it more draconian with RACE TO THE TOP . I admit that the Patriot Act has kept America safe over the last years , and during the Bush years the media made the Patriot Act something like a monster . With Obama extending it , he may have done the nation some good .

It only shows that politicians can flip-flop under certain conditions .

The provisions at issue allow the government to use roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and across multiple carriers and get court-approved access to business records relevant to terrorist investigations. The third, a "lone wolf" provision that was part of a 2004 law, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals without having to show a connection between the target and a specific terrorist group.

From its inception, the law has been dogged by concerns that it represented a government power grab that could violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The opposition came from an unlikely alliance of libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats seeking to limit the law's power.

Even before the test vote, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., proposed an amendment that closely tracked a bill his committee passed earlier this year with bipartisan support. Co-sponsored by Paul, the amendment would require that the use of national security letters – documents that allow the government to collect financial and other records – expire on Dec. 31, 2013, if not renewed by Congress.

The amendment also would require more public disclosure and oversight on the government's use of the letters, and it would cancel the one-year waiting period before a recipient of a letter can challenge a government order to keep it secret.

The Democrats who voted to block the Patriot Act extension were Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana as well as Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Jeff Merkley of Oregon. The Republicans who voted with them were Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Paul. Also voting no was Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

********************************************************************************



The LAST ENTRY is the STUPIDEST STORY to HIT THE MEDIA.

Parents Hide Baby’s Gender From The World

 

I’m going to try to tread lightly on this one, but I will disclose for you up front that I’m mostly stuck in a what-the Heck?! frame of reference at this point. In other words, prepare to watch me talk myself into circles of YEAH! But, well, I mean, yeah…that, too. AND, GOD, I DON’T KNOW. You see, a couple in Canada gave birth to their third child on New Year’s Day. (AWW!) This, in itself, is not significant. The news, you see, is that, aside from the mother, father, the midwives, one friend, and the baby’s two older brothers, no one knows if the young baby is a boy or a girl. And the parents plan to keep things this way for as long as possible. On purpose.

Remember the OCTOMOM hype ? 

 sure you can guess the political ideology behind the parents’ decision to do this. Mom, Kathy Witterick, and Dad, David Stocker, have already been raising their older sons (Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2) to “challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.” The young boys have had the luxury of choosing when to cut their hair and what clothes they’d like to wear. Each have been shopping from both the girls and boys department since age one and a half.  Jazz has taken to admire fashion and colors that are traditionally associated with girls. Because of this, he’s often referred to as a girl by strangers. Witterick explains that, when this happens–say at the park or something–she doesn’t correct the person. Instead, she lets her son speak up if he decides it’s bothersome.

But this is where I see how this can get…well, kind of sticky.  I just can't wait to see a new TV show based on this NEWS STORY .

Clinton Gets cold reception in Pakistan

Hillary politico has pleaded with Pakistan to verify "decisive measures" against Islamic militants mass the modification of containerful Laden, but his communication was nervelessly conventional in a land that sees itself as the bounds in the fisticuffs against extremists.

America always has strange bed fellows that it calls it's allies . While our nation has called for sanctions  against Iran for it's development of nuclear arms /power . Our Nation was strangely silent when it came to Pakistan . Sure it's OK for a rouge nation run by a 'dictator' to be our ally , and harbor Bin Laden . The United States believes that at least a dozen senior leaders of al Qaeda are in Pakistan-
YES, Uncle Sam believes still in giving away billions of Tax payer dollars to Pakistan , with out offending them ( our allies )  . YES Pakistan has Nuclear Weapons . Surprises  me that NO PAKISTANI NUKE has ended up in one of American cities . The predictability of Pakistan exploding is vary high . Who knows why Obama took covert action to take out Bin Laden. With all the connections , and WIKI leaks about Pakistani / government  and it's connection to extremists . Those people just love 'us'.So Mrs. Clinton goes on pleading with the enemy .

ISLAMABAD -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton beseeched Pakistan to take "decisive steps" against Islamist militants in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, at what she called a turning point for the fraying alliance's effort to fight terrorism and bring stability to Afghanistan.
But her message was greeted coolly in a country that was angered by the bin Laden raid and sees itself as stretched to the limit in fighting extremists that have sown terror within Pakistan.
Officials on both sides say relations are at the lowest point since before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The visit laid bare the growing divergence between the allies, who share the broader goal of countering Islamist militancy and stabilizing Afghanistan, but often differ on who and what groups constitute an enemy.
Mrs. Clinton was joined in a tense, daylong sweep through Islamabad by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two were the most senior American officials to visit the country since the May 2 U.S. raid that killed bin Laden and set off a wave of Pakistani anger at the U.S.
The dispatching of such a high-level duo signaled the importance placed by Washington on repairing the relationship in order to help sustain the momentum from bin Laden's death. Both officials praised Pakistan's efforts and noted the sacrifices it has made, losing thousands of its own civilians to terrorist attacks in recent years.
But the tension was clear at the start of the first meeting of the day, with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari. There were few of the smiles and warm handshakes that usually open such sitdowns, and reporters were soon shooed out of the room.
President Zardari's office said the two sides agreed to work together against "high-value targets in Pakistan," and to promote peace in Afghanistan.
A senior Pakistani official with knowledge of the talks described them as "better than not talking."
Mrs. Clinton and Adm. Mullen also met military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who in practice wields more power than Pakistan's elected leaders. The chief of Pakistan's main spy agency, Lt. Gen. Shuja Ahmad Pasha, attended.
U.S. officials accuse the spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, of aiding the Afghan Taliban and other militant groups to maintain Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan and for use against rival India. Pakistani officials insist they have cut their ties with militant groups.
Both Mrs. Clinton and Adm. Mullen were blunt in their comments to reporters after the meetings, appearing at the American Embassy without any Pakistani officials. Adm. Mullen described the talks as "candid."
"We have reached a turning point. Osama bin Laden is dead but al Qaeda and its syndicate of terror remain a threat to us both," Mrs. Clinton said. "We both recognize that there is still much more work required and it is urgent."
American officials say their priority now is to work with Islamabad to see more aggressive action taken against the Pakistan-based militant groups that are destabilizing Afghanistan.
Mrs. Clinton said Pakistan had agreed to take "some very specific actions" on its own and with the U.S. in the coming days. She didn't provide details.
A senior U.S. official involved in Mrs. Clinton's outreach effort said the trip was constructive, and that Pakistan has already delivered on some of the things that the U.S. has asked for since bin Laden's death -- including granting the Central Intelligence Agency access on Friday to his compound in Abbottobad to scour for clues.
But the proof will come in Pakistani action, the official said. "You might see a lot of activity by the Pakistanis, but it's unclear if that will lead to serious operations."
There is little disagreement between the U.S. and Pakistan on the threat posed by al Qaeda. But Islamabad says it is focusing out of necessity on fighting the Pakistan Taliban, which has launched a series of bloody revenge attacks in Pakistan the weeks since the al Qaeda leader's death
With those attacks Pakistan has also faced almost all of the fallout from the bin Laden raid.
Mrs. Clinton noted the attacks and praised what she called Pakistan's "tremendous" commitment to battling militancy. She also stressed that Washington doesn't suspect senior Pakistani officials knew of bin Laden's presence in Pakistan, and that Pakistan's leaders were also eager to find if any of their people helped shield him.
The raid that killed bin Laden, launched without Pakistan's knowledge, was widely viewed here as a violation of the country's sovereignty, and suggestions from U.S. officials that bin Laden may have been shielded by Pakistani soldiers or spies have only deepened the resentment.
Pakistani officials have indignantly denied bin Laden was given safe harbor. They point out that their security forces have captured many senior al Qaeda leaders and a third of Pakistan's army is deployed in the country's northwest to fight the Pakistan Taliban, an offshot of the Afghan insurgency.
A series of bloody offensives against the Taliban in the past two years have left nearly 3,000 Pakistani soldiers dead. Even some U.S. officials acknowledge that Pakistan is militarily stretched to the limit, and it is unrealistic to expect fresh offensives against militant havens in the near future.
The senior Pakistani official said Washington needed to fully understand "the ground realities" in Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is rife. "We have to be mindful of what our people want when we consider what we can do," the official said.
"You can't disregard public opinion," the official said. "You have to carry part of that in your policy."
Mrs. Clinton's trip had been kept secret for security reasons and lasted less than a day. The mission has been in the planning stage for more than two weeks, according to U.S. officials. But the Obama administration wanted to make sure that the visit would result in specific advances in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.
---
Jay Solomon in Washington contributed to this article.

*************************************************************************

Court sets stage for a California crime wave

 

I often wonder about the legal system . Release the violent offenders  . Keep the drug users in Prison for life . Justice is truly blind .

 

The U.S. Supreme Court effectively ordered California on Monday to release 33,000 inmates over two years from an in-state prison population that numbers about 143,000.
Kent Scheidegger of the tough-on-crime Criminal Justice Legal Foundation blogged that Californians shouldn't "bother investing much in a car. It will be open season on cars, given that car thieves (nonviolent offenders) will never go to prison no matter how many times they are caught."
The 5-4 Plata decision upheld a federal three-judge panel that in 2009 found that overcrowding in California prisons is "criminogenic" — likely to produce criminals — and ordered state prisons to run at 137.5 percent of design capacity. The state's prisons are designed to hold 80,000 inmates. (Be it noted, 100 percent capacity means one inmate per cell.)
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited ugly stories of inmates waiting months for needed medical and mental-health treatment — a violation of Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. And: "As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet." Kennedy argued, "Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons."
Corrections head Matthew Cate chided the Big Bench for ignoring the many improvements in the system during the past five years. For example, the state has removed about 13,000 out of 20,000 nontraditional or "bad beds" — think large rooms stuffed with bunk beds to warehouse unprocessed inmates. (I don't think Kennedy liked those beds — he included two photos of them with his opinion.)
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the three-judge panel relied on old statistics and ignored more current (and favorable) data, such as the huge drop in "likely preventable deaths" from 18 in 2006 to 3 in 2007.
The worst part: Kennedy endorsed the three judges' finding that there was "substantial evidence that prison populations can be reduced in a manner that does not increase crime to a significant degree" and that reducing overcrowding "could even improve public safety." Yes, Virginia, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court thinks Californians might be safer if it cuts the prison population by a quarter.
As Alito argued, his colleagues ignore history. When federal courts made Philadelphia release thousands of inmates in the 1990s, police re-arrested thousands over 18 months, resulting in 1,113 assault charges, 90 rape charges and 79 murder charges.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the decision "the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history." He likened the decision to the granting of 46,000 criminal appeals. Scalia even wondered if Kennedy suggested a five-year time frame to achieve "a marginal reduction in the inevitable murders, robberies and rapes" likely to be committed by released convicts.
Gov. Jerry Brown correctly warned that the Big Bench might issue this ruling as he has tried to sell his plan to transfer about 37,000 state inmates to local jurisdictions. In turn, Kennedy wrote that Brown's proposed transfers — which the Legislature has yet to ratify — support the three judges' view that they can free thousands of inmates without "undue negative effect on public safety."
The ink's barely dry and already they're sharing the credit in preparation for the cruel awakening that will prod them to spread the blame.
Debra J. Saunders is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103. Send email to dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law

A few years ago........... I was driving to the bank . On the same street there is a Home Depot hardware store . The Parking lot was full of Day laborer's . Illegal's loitering on public grounds looking for a job. I noticed how the day laborer's were basically harassing any one that walked by . A women with a stroller was approached ,a Hispanic man was asking her for 'money' . The Day Laborer's congregated  everyday   hoping some one would pick them up to do some work and pay them some 'cash' under the table . It's did not bother me until one of the day laborer's jumped in front of my car preventing me from driving out of the shopping center parking lot . When I returned home I called the City Counsel . Yep the city did admit that there was a problem . People did start to complain about the illegals looking for work . I am glad that the Arizona law was uphold-ed by the courts . I am sorry about the poor exploited Mexican immigrant  who would work for 'cheap wages' hired by a bunch of shady whites .The Law should send a message TWO ways . Illegal's get LEGAL , and white carpetbaggers , 'don't hire and exploit people like slaves to keep competitive wages down '.

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses For Hiring Illegal Immigrants

Protesters in Phoenix rally against Arizona's new immigration law July 29, 2010. (AP) 

PHOENIX — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers in the country illegally, buoying the hopes of supporters of state crackdowns on illegal immigration.
They predicted the ruling would lead to many other states passing laws that require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check that workers aren't illegal immigrants. And some said the ruling bodes well for the prospects of a much broader and more controversial immigration law in Arizona, known as SB1070, to be found constitutional.
The state is appealing a ruling blocking that law from taking effect.
But others said it should not be read as a broad validation of such tactics. While they acknowledge that other states will now pass similar employer sanctions, they cautioned that the court did not make any sweeping endorsement of states' rights to enforce federal immigration laws.
"It's a very careful and narrowly reasoned opinion, so it doesn't really tip the court's hand one way or the other with respect to SB1070,' said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law. "That being said, the court here is validating a state measure that implicates immigration enforcement. The court today has rejected an argument that the states have no business in immigration enforcement. That's off the table."
Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, a Republican who was a prime sponsor of the legislation that became the 2007 employer sanctions law, said his reaction to the ruling was "jubilation."
"This is not only good for Arizona, it's good for America," Pearce told The Associated Press. "Finally, American workers are treated the way they ought to be. We're going to put the profits-before-patriotism crowd in the back seat."
Pearce said the ruling bodes well for an eventual Supreme Court decision on SB1070.
"I'm very confident we'll win a 5-4 or possibly a 6-3 decision," he said pre-empted from enforcing federal law." 

Both laws were written with the assistance of Kris Kobach, Kansas' secretary of state and a former law professor. He said they were constructed to only use federal immigration law definitions, and the ruling upholding the first could mean success for the second.
"That language will vastly assist the state in defending SB1070,' Kobach said.
Dozens of other states have taken up immigration-related measures since Arizona passed its first law. Most have gone nowhere, but several have passed laws similar to the one found constitutional on Thursday.
"So far Mississippi and South Carolina have followed Arizona in requiring E-Verify,' Kobach said. "Alabama is about to ... and I think you'll see many other states jumping on the bandwagon and requiring E-Verify."
Thursday's 5-3 ruling placed the court's five Republican-appointed justices on the side of the state and against the Chamber of Commerce, which challenged the law along with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general.
Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.
Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.
The Obama administration backed the challenge to the law. The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now Obama's Homeland Security secretary.
The employer sanctions law has been infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, praised the high court's decision. "Not only is this law constitutional, it is commonsense. American jobs should be preserved for Americans and legal workers," Smith said.
Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.
The ACLU's Cecillia Wang said the Supreme Court decision was disappointing, but narrow. "The decision has nothing to do with SB1070 or any other state and local immigration laws," said Wang, director of ACLU's immigrant rights project.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called the decision gratifying and said it upheld states' rights.
"Despite the Obama Administration's opposition at the U.S. Supreme Court, Arizona and all states are now free to take down the `Help Wanted' sign for illegal aliens in their states," she said in a statement. "Arizona's employer sanctions law allows the vast majority of businesses that want to play by the rules to comply with federal and state laws against hiring illegal aliens, and seeks to punish those employers who take advantage of the federal government's immigration failures."
Last month, a three-judge panel of that same appeals court upheld a trial judge's ruling blocking enforcement of parts of SB1070. The provisions that were blocked include a requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, must question a person's immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally.
Other provisions that are on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
State officials have said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Brewer said she is hopeful the latest ruling means the high court will also uphold SB1070.

______________________________________________________________

PG&E RATE HIKES : USE LESS , YOU PAY MORE!

So the state of California's most corrupt company wants to charge us more money to make up for the new meters that are supposed to make them more money. Look if YOU are trying to save energy DON'T DO IT !  The whole idea of the SMART MEETER was that you as a consumer could know how much energy you are using so YOU CAN reduce your energy intake  , and control your COSTS . Now PG&E is loosing money because YOU the consumer got SMARTER than the MEETER and just pulled the PLUG .

"allowing PG&E to charge its customers more for electricity to make up for profits lost"... Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this qualify as EXTORTION? I don't feel like I made enough profit last quarter, either.. Who can I 'squeeze' to pad MY wallet some?.. Sickening.

Once again the public is being taken for a ride. I am sure PG&E made a lot of money when they got rid of their meter readers. Where did these people end up? They probably are on unemployment while PG&E now is allowed to suck their customers dry by getting another rate increase to make money for their shareholders. This is, as the rest of you state, just "BS"! Perhaps there should be a public takeover of the "Public" Utilities. I am sure that the State Regulatory Comission is in the pockets of these "Public" utilities which are not "public" but private money makers for their shareholders!

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s residential customers could be slapped with new monthly fees, and its most energy-efficient and lowest-income customers could face additional fee hikes.
The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to rule Thursday on the company’s proposal to charge all of its residential electricity customers a flat fee of at least $2.40 per month.
The company is also proposing to increase rates for customers who use the smallest amounts of electricity, in an effort to reduce the bills of big energy users, such as residents of energy-inefficient McMansions in the far stretches of the East Bay.
After California's energy crisis, when electricity prices skyrocketed early last decade, the state ordered PG&E to reduce prices for low-income residents and customers who use the least electricity. To subsidize the reduced prices, rates are higher for customers who consume a lot of electricity.
Now, after 10 years, PG&E is appealing to regulators to allow it to close that price gap.

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12vvH)

Use Less, Pay More under PG&E's Proposed Rate Hike

Company wants to raise rates for those who use the least electricity to lower bills for biggest customers

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12vvH)

Use Less, Pay More under PG&E's Proposed Rate Hike

Company wants to raise rates for those who use the least electricity to lower bills for biggest customers

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12vvH)

The California Public Utilities Commission is poised to approve a rate proposal from Pacific Gas and Electric that would jack up rates for moderate energy users and the Central Valley's poorest and most vulnerable in order to give a handful of mainly wealthy customers a discount. Amazingly, this is being pitched with a straight face as something that will give valley residents a break.
The CPUC has issued draft decisions that propose to grant three out of four of PG&E's main residential rate proposals, each of which would raise electricity rates for low-income customers and customers with low or moderate levels of energy use. These rate changes could get final approval as soon as May 26.
One proposal would immediately add a $2.40 monthly customer charge to every low-income customer's bill and a $3 customer charge for all other customers. Perhaps most shocking is PG&E's proposal to create a brand-new higher-rate category, dubbed "Tier 3," for low-income customers who qualify for reduced rates under the CARE, or California Alternative Rates for Energy, program. Astonishingly, these new higher rates would target customers with moderate energy use, kicking in when they use roughly 30 percent less power than the average customer.
This proposed change would add an additional $18 monthly to the summer bills of customers in the valley who use a moderate amount of energy. That may not seem like much, but the CARE customers -- whose annual income must be no more than $44,400 for a family of four -- are already struggling. Since September 2010, more than 10 percent of PG&E's CARE accounts, more than 100,000 customers, were more than 90 days behind on their bills.
While an increase of $20.40 per month seems manageable to many of us, these families already struggle each month to choose between keeping the lights on or buying groceries, paying for medicines or having enough money to get to work. The new rates would make already difficult choices nearly impossible, inevitably leaving thousands of valley families without power during the hot summer months that are nearly upon us. Customers in cooler coastal areas wouldn't be hit as hard, but low-income customers in these areas would still see their monthly bills increase by at least $8. In contrast, all of PG&E's rate proposals would lower rates for customers who have the most extreme level of power usage. The Utility Reform Network has already given the CPUC empirical evidence showing that the high levels of energy use that would get a break under the new rates are related to maintaining large homes and the heavy use of energy-guzzling appliances, swimming pools and other luxuries.
These high-end users have already received big rate cuts. Last summer, as a result of another CPUC proceeding, these customers received a rate reduction of almost 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for their high-level usage (above 300 percent of the baseline usage level that covers essential energy needs).
Contrary to the spin, the proposed new PG&E rates won't provide relief for most electricity users in the valley, most of whom would actually face higher bills. They would literally rob Peter to pay Paul -- when Peter is saving energy and struggling to make ends meet, Paul sits back enjoying his swimming pool and 65-inch flat-screen TV -- and raise rates for the majority.
The CPUC should reject this proposal, which would discourage energy conservation and punish our most vulnerable neighbors.

John Edwards About To Be Indicted

With John Edwards being indicted . I draw a question . Does the Law apply to former Gov . Arnold Schwarzenegger ? Did he do the same and pay off his housekeeper with some campaign money too?

Federal authorities have been investigating the former North Carolina senator's campaign finances, focusing heavily on money from wealthy supporters that allegedly went to keep mistress Rielle Hunter and her out-of-wedlock baby in hiding in 2007 and 2008 to protect Edwards' White House campaign from a career-ending scandal.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Famous 2008 presidential sex-haver John Edwards is probably going to be indicted very soon for violating campaign laws in how he covered it all up, NBC News is reporting. “Son of a mill worker!” Edwards cursed to himself upon hearing this news, taking his lord’s name in vain. “We do not believe there is evidence that John has violated any election laws,” his attorney, Wade Smith, said, obviously very forcibly. Hey, you know who else was named “Wade”? John Edwards’ son who died. You know who else in John Edwards’ family died? His wife, the one that everybody loved. Those are the two reasons John Edwards should get whatever he wants, from staying out of jail to bedding all the floozies he wants to the presidency. What do you say, Iowa caucus-goers? John Edwards 2012: Campaigning From Jail Just Like His Close Personal Friend Martin Luther King.
To recap:

The money used to support Hunter and Young in hiding came from two wealthy Edwards donors: a reclusive heiress, Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, and Edwards’ former finance chairman, Fred Baron. Insiders say, each provided hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a total of more than $1 million.

So yes, it would appear the man with the haircut is very guilty. But it’s up to the Obama Justice Department to choose to prosecute or not. And certain members of the North Carolina elite think John Edwards should get off because he is special and this is merely a white-person crime.

“John is working everyday to be a good father and this is an inopportune time for this to occur, less than two months after the death of his children’s mother,” said a source close to the family.

Aww, he’s trying so hard not to bang random women and defraud the nation’s voters because the wife he cheated on has now died of the cancer she had while all this was going on. John Edwards, by the way, can pay a pauper woman to leave her own children to take care of his, then pay to kill her at the end of the day, and repeat this process for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, the rest of the children in this nation who have imprisoned parents are forced to depend on the kindness of angels helping professional baseball players convince Danny Glover to take them in.

“There must not be much other crime in North Carolina,” said one former public corruption prosecutor. “What’s the point of pursuing this kind of case against a guy who’s already been thoroughly disgraced?”

Yeah, why do we prosecute people at all? Just let everybody break the law when they want and then tell the public about it when it happens. Seems fair. [MSNBC]

Obama's Irish Luck .

 NOW we have an Irish President!!! Oh my Lord! The Kennedy's must love that!! Didn't' THEY come over here during the potato famine!??? I wonder what else is lurking in Obama's White ancestral tree!!

Obama might be the ' America's first multi-racial , ethnic ' President. You would pause  to think that the President would be looking towards Africa ? where his father was from . For the Birthrates in the Tea Party movement who decried to see the certificate , and towards their disbelief . The President may have some lucky charms in his bag . He should than his mother's list of affairs  , NEXT STOP should be INDONESIA I have a problem , why is the President touring Europe ? He sounds as if he is campaigning  , and preaching to them . Sorry to say he seems to me is far too interested in his global image, also why come to England when he despises us so much?..he had the gall to send back the bust of Winston Churchill that Tony Blair gave to America after 9/11.

American's  really don't care what's in Europe , whether  to send their President as a marketing agent . Maybe Obama is asking the Europe  for some money to bailout our nation debt ?  The Luck of Irish , the President  needs to get back home .........................

Obama finds his Irish roots

Reuters

Published: Tuesday, May 24, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama declared solidarity between the United States and economically struggling Ireland with a symbolic gulp of beer and a rousing speech, telling a huge Dublin crowd on Monday: "Your best days are still ahead."
Beginning a four-nation European tour with a celebration of his Irish roots, Obama came to Ireland as what one man called a "long-lost cousin."
Crowds packed the streets for both a stirring speech in Dublin and a visit to the tiny village of Moneygall, where an ancestor of Obama's lived before moving to the United States.

View Larger Image

U.S. President Barack Obama raises a glass of Guinness in a pub Monday as he visits Moneygall in rural Ireland, the village from which his great-great-great grandfather hailed

Introduced by Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny as "the American Dream come home," Obama told the throng in central Dublin: "My name is Barack Obama, of the Moneygall Obamas."
For Ireland, Obama's arrival, and the visit of Britain's Queen Elizabeth last week, are a welcome distraction from the global attention paid to its financial woes and the ensuing international bailout.
Obama was also due to visit Britain, France and Poland during a weeklong trip whose agenda includes talks on issues as Afghanistan and Pakistan after the killing of Osama bin Laden, the world economy and the "Arab spring" uprisings.
Ireland's economic slump has led to a debt crisis and drastic government spending cuts. Apart from lifting the spirits of the Irish, the visit looked set to provide some powerful images back home for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
He brought back the signature phrase from his 2008 presidential campaign, "Yes we can," but said it in Gaelic.
"This little country that inspires the biggest things - your best days are still ahead," Obama said.
"And Ireland, if anyone ever says otherwise . . . remember that, whatever hardships winter can bring, springtime is always just around the corner and, if they keep on arguing with you, just respond with a simple creed, 'Is feidir linn', Yes we can."
At O'Neill's pub in Dublin, revellers cheered and some chanted "USA! USA!" as the president emerged on stage for his speech.
"I think it will give the country a great lift, the kind of lift we desperately need," said Jennifer Kearney, a mother of two who brought her two daughters aged 13 and 15 into Dublin's city centre for the event.
In Moneygall, Obama hoisted a glass of Guinness stout at Ollie Hayes's pub as fiddle music played, and his wife Michelle pulled pints at the bar.
Thousands of rain-drenched people lined the village's one street, festooned with American flags, and roared with delight as the motorcade rolled in.
The sleepy village of 300 was the birthplace of Obama's great-greatgreat grandfather, Falmouth Kearney, a shoemaker who left in 1850 to begin a new life in the United States.
This makes Obama, the son of a Kenyan father and Irish-American mother, one of 37 million Americans who claim Irish ancestry.
"I'm here to see Obama . . . our long-lost cousin," said Moneygall resident Rob Lewis, 28.
Inside the pub, which was lined with framed photos of Obama, the president met Henry Healy, a 24year-old distant cousin. He joked with the bartender to make sure the Guinness had settled properly before he and Michelle took sips.
"I don't want to mess this up," he said before saluting the bar with a "Slainte" - Irish for 'cheers' - and a long gulp.
"You look a little like my grandfaher," he said to one of the men inide.
Back out on the street, three babies were handed over a security barricade for pictures to be taken with Obama, and women hugged and kissed him under the watchful eye of his security detail.

Wake UP GOP!

Right Now the GOP is looking like a bunch of amateurs . They can't seem to get a good person to run on the Republican platform  . We have seen Sara Palin , we have had almost enough of Donald Trump heckle , with all the possible contenders  has the GOP run out of steam ?  I find it strange that the GOP won't embrace Mitt Romney . 
Mitt Romney has all the trappings of a GOP presidential front-runner except for one important thing: enthusiasm from party activists.Romney raised a remarkable $10.25 million on Monday; Republican officials from across the nation meeting the next day in Dallas mostly shrugged. In nearly two dozen interviews at the Republican National Committee's spring meeting, no one fully embraced Romney, and several said they'd like to see other candidates enter the race. ( hoping that now clowns show ) "Polls show Romney has to be considered the front-runner now," said New Hampshire state GOP chairman Jack Kimball, whose state plans to hold the first primary in early 2012. "But you'll see others gaining ground."
The 2012 presidential race officially started for the Republicans Thursday at the Peace Center in Greenville, S.C. The first debate of the election season was sponsored by Fox News and the South Carolina GOP. Unfortunately, most of the Republicans weren't there.

I was really surprised by the low turnout of candidates; the weak state of the economy makes Barack Obama a very beatable candidate in 2012. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the big name of the night, accompanied by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and businessman Herman Cain. Given the predictions of President Obama potentially raising $1 billion for his reelection campaign, I would expect the candidates to be out early and strong to get as much face-time with the public as possible.
Not to be to disrespectful, but the hopefuls in attendance were basically second-tier candidates, based on the low name recognition outside of their home states or districts. Republicans need to field a bold candidate unafraid to articulate a vision. Going on "listening tours" to decide whether or not to run is not going to do it. You know you are going to declare. The American people know you are going to declare. Declare, tell us how you are going to improve America, and then do it. And please, no distractions about birth certificates.
I'd heard of Herman Cain, but didn't really know much about the man. As former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, I had to learn more about him based on that alone. I came away impressed by what I saw. The man is articulate and good at thinking on his feet. I especially enjoyed his one line about his lack of electoral experience when he pointed out all the elected politicians in Washington and asked "How's that working out for ya?," as reported by Red State.
Personally, I like the fact that he's a political outsider. Someone who can successfully run a business deserves a good look. If you can balance the books and stick to a budget, I want to learn what you can do at the national level. It's refreshing to see someone from outside of Washington step up to the plate.
Again, based on the small number of candidates, it was hard to judge a true winner, but I thought Gary Johnson was the big loser of the night. He seemed overmatched against the other candidates, often asking for equal time from the moderator. When he stated he was against imposing tariffs on Chinese imports, he seemed to have a "deer in the headlights" look that indicated he wasn't really sure what he was saying.
This is no time to be timid. With the economic problems we currently face, we need a government that will give us value for what we pay for, not make us pay for things we don't need. This is no time to be timid. They  need a real leader, and They  need him now.

OR

And even if Arnie hadn't gotten his tallywacker caught in the door, he's got no hope of ever being president because after all of the stink Republicans made about Obama being a foreigner, there will never be an amendment that will allow someone who isn't an NBC to run for president.