Where were you 40 years ago? You can bet your ass these guys remember and Lyndon let them rot for 11 months. Yeah, just talk to 'em Obama they're reasonable people. Goblins 2-1 home team won. We need a few more who will clean up their neighborhood. Nice job, with practice you'll do better next time. Thank you.

Think the party at Denver has problems? Just look at what an established state run coalition of their kind can do. Roughly Translated to English. Accident at Guantanamo Havana, August 27 (Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva / www.cubanet.org) - A total of 8 people died and over 50 injured in a traffic accident occurred in Baracoa, Guantanamo province, in the afternoon from the past August 22, as reported by human rights activist Rodolfo Bartelemí. According to Rodolfo, about 60 people travelling in a bus passenger mark Giron, belonging to the Ministry of Transport, since Capiro to Baracoa. The bus had defective brakes had been 15 days and was precipitated by a ravine. Among the dead are two children, and at least 19 people are serious. The wounded were admitted to hospital Baracoa, but had to seek specialists and surgeons in the city of Guantanamo, as some of the professionals in the municipality are fulfilling mission in Venezuela and Bolivia. Trouble in paradise. Here!!! Take Barak, he'll change it for you. Published 08-26-2008 Former communist officials and militant Cuban socialism propose a "democratic and participatory" to save the revolution, in a statement that claim that the islanders "are frustrated, alienated and Desperate." Sauti Felix, a militant of the Communist Party of Cuba and former director of media official confirmed to Efe in Havana that he is one of the signatories of the proclamation released by the Internet, which drafted the former diplomat Pedro Campos with input from others. According to the document, new generations are "unmotivated" and "not feel the same commitment that the previous" official with the project, which he described as "socialism poor and without prospects." All this, added, "is shaping a rare kind of 'revolutionary situation' that could be unleashed unexpectedly and whose evolution could capitalize on the enemy" (United States). "Cuba is experiencing an ongoing economic crisis, political and social stagnation as a result of the socialization, generated by the bureaucratic state full control (...) and permanent siege and criminal imperialist", say former officials. The proclamation begins with a quote from Carlos Baliño, founder of the Communist Party, which remains the first secretary Former president Fidel Castro although convalece of an illness that forced him to leave the presidency and prevent him from appearing in public since July 2006. "Preserving the revolution demand advance to the state to socialization", indicating the signatories, who qualify to the current Stalinist regime. Otherwise, warn, "deepen the economic difficulties, disinterest and rejection of this' not-socialism ', with full danger of capitalist restoration that would be for Cuba's annexation, the absorption of their culture and an incalculable disaster for the nation and for the international revolutionary movement. " Its goal is to "regain the trust of the people, win the youth, develop economy, improve life, destroy the foundations of internal and external blockade ...enemy and make a more effective contribution to the rebirth taking place in socialist americas America. " Recall that the current president, General Raúl Castro, opened a debate in 2007 in which, according to the signatories, "the foundation called for a more participatory and democratic socialism". A year later, observed, "has not been made public the result of discussions and address the people has not presented any concrete plan to get the comprehensive country the crisis." That direction, adding, "continues to deny access unofficial revolutionary thinking to the press, continues using the fence as a justification for imperialist contain the advance of socialization (...) and still charge the full weight and responsibility for the crisis on workers and people. " According to the proclamation, Raúl Castro "opened a chapter of hope" that must not be missed, "but the fabric's natural bureaucratic resistance has allowed only submit isolated measures (...) without confronting the problems of substance". The market "will be necessary for an indefinite period", according to the document, explaining that a "serious error of state socialism has been his claim to administer and manage the economy and its laws that exist outside of human desires." The signatories intend to "refine" the elections with "formulas more participatory, democratic and direct" and "update the penal code in accordance with recent human rights covenants signed by (...) the Government", but not ratified. "They must be reviewed as soon as possible sentences excessive arrested for matters related to political issues" raised. Advisable "to respect private property and personal decision about it and consequently freeing the sale of individual objects including cars and houses (...), and facilitated the work free for pensioners and disabled and unleash the full self-employment" . They also seek "a new immigration law that would eliminate the absurd measures such as ... The exit permit ", and to repeal the decree that prohibits Cubans move without permission within the island.   Looks like the Castro's have spent the fortune on revolution outside of Cuba at the expense of the Cuban revolution. Don't laugh, Dr. Dean has done as much for the Denver revolution for his Comrades and he confined it to within the national borders and we still have Pelosi and Reid as ringleaders in that 3 ring circus called Congress.

There are almost no jobs in the world that a woman can't do as well as any man but there are clearly patriarchal cultural differences that cannot be overcome. Families are essentially patrilineal and in most sociaties the role of women is subserviant to the men. Each year hundreds and perhaps thousands of newborn girls in India are murdered by their mothers simply because they are female. Some women believe that sacrificing a daughter guarantees a son in the next pregnancy. In other cases, the family cannot afford the dowry that would eventually be demanded for a girl's marriage. Indian government conceded in a recent report by its Department of Women and Child Development, "In a culture that idolizes sons and dreads the birth of a daughter, to be born female comes perilously close to being born less than human". From South America to South Asia, women are often subjected to a lifetime of discrimination with little or no hope of relief. As children, they are fed less, denied education and refused hospitalization. As teen-agers, many are forced into marriage, sometimes bought and sold for prostitution and slave labor. As wives and mothers, they are treated little better than farmhands and baby machines. Should they outlive their husbands, they frequently are denied inheritance, banished from their homes and forced to live as beggars on the streets. In South Asia for both mother and baby, surviving childbirth is itself an achievement where one of every 18 women dies of a pregnancy-related cause, and more than one of every 10 babies dies during delivery. For female children, the survival odds are even worse. Almost one in every five girls born in Nepal and Bangladesh dies before age 5. In India, about one-fourth of the 12 million girls born each year die by age 15. Boys are generally breast-fed longer. In many cultures, women and girls eat leftovers after the men and boys have finished their meals. Around the world women are often hospitalized only when they have reached a critical stage of illness, which is one reason so many mothers die in childbirth. Female children often are not hospitalized at all. A 1990 study of patient records at Islamabad Children's Hospital in Pakistan found that 71 percent of the babies admitted under age 2 were boys. For all age groups, twice as many boys as girls were admitted to the hospital's surgery, pediatric intensive care and diarrhea units. In Pakistan the story of a woman's deprivations start even before her birth, because the girl-child is not a particularly 'wanted' child. Her life is a journey of subordination. When she is young her father decides for her on matters ranging from whether she will get any education, to the all important matters of whom she would marry. After marriage, her husband and her in-laws get hold of her reins and decide matters on her behalf; like shall she or shall she not have a child every year, or whether she would produce only boys, or whether she can seek independent employment and so on. Finally when she becomes old and her husband gets weak or may have gone already, it is her son or sons who decide her fate in the declining years of her life. As if this is not enough, the whole society acts as an oppressor, browbeating her in to obedience. Thus, the word 'woman' in Pakistan is synonymous with 'endurance'. In addition to that, women in Pakistan face all kinds of gross violence and abuse at the hands of the male perpetuators, family members and state agents. Multiple forms of violence include rape; domestic abuse as spousal murder, mutilation, burning and disfiguring faces by acid, beatings; ritual honour-killings and custodial abuse and torture. Mary Okumu, an official with the African Medical and Research Foundation in Nairobi, said that when a worker in drought-ravaged northern Kenya, Obama's fatherland, asked why only boys were lined up at a clinic, the worker was told that in times of drought, many families let their daughters die. In all these Societies the sole life theme is passing on power and presitge from father to son, the notion of women having equal rights is pure nonsense. For a western power to intimate such a concept truly pisses off the natives, they simply will not take advice from a woman. Here comes the United States, sending a female Secretary of State into first and foremost Islamic nations to negotiate with them. Imagine the umbrage taken behind the scenes. Take the Palestinian problem, Madeleine Albright was the first woman to become United States Secretary of State. She was appointed by President Bill Clinton on December 5, 1996 and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate 99-0. Not only did the US send a woman they sent a Hassidic Jew into Palestine to talk peace. Is it no wonder that there was no tangible effect? Not that the Palestinians would react otherwise with a male counterpart as proven by successive male Secretaries of State. Move that up a few years and we have the first black female Secretary Of State, Condoleezza Rice. She was President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, Rice served as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification. Will the the Middle East Mullahs react differently than the Palestinians? No, as we have seen Condi Rice has made many trips trying to mediate the implacable but the end result is the same. We guage everything by Western standards, often incorrectly. The point is they only respect males and only males with maturity. Age wrinkles, grey hair and facial hair all garner approval amongst the Muzzies. It boggles the mind that the presidents, senators and diplomats haven't figured this out. It'a a lesson I learned in Southeast Asia, you pay respect to the the elderly men first, the younger men then the older women followed by the younger women, it's a matter of honor and respect in foreign cultures that all too often Americans overlook. They disregard any female having a leadership role. In western culture even the world sat back, not taking her seriously, when Britain's leader Margaret Thatcher forewarned Argentina about their act of war after the April 2, 1982 ruling military junta in Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory that Argentina had claimed since an 1830s dispute on the British settlement. Within days Thatcher sent a naval task force to recapture the islands. The point being, Argentina wouldn't have budged with out military intervention, Thatcher was in the position of giving orders not taking them. Today we have a crisis arising from the Russians, those friendly and peace loving friends of the world, Dmitrij Medvedev and his puppet master Vladimir Putin and their invasion of Georgia. Their threats to the rest of the world and their direct aid and abetting of our sworn enemies. What do we have in our arsenal of diplomacy? A nice black lady who has the UN's interest at heart, cut from the same mold as her lady predecessor Madame Albright. A Congress of timerity and appeasement lead by total do nothing idiots, A house speaker who has demonstrated her rights to disrespect, all who are playing a deadly game with our future and our freedom. Ramadan in 2008 will start on Monday, the 1st of September and will continue for 30 days until Tuesday, the 30th of September. Based on sightability in North America, in 2008 Ramadan will start in North America a day later - on Tuesday, the 2nd of September. Will Congress take that month off too in honor of a few of it's members?

The past weeks events of the invasion of Georgia by the Russians reminds me of another past event. It always amazes me what good leaders can do in a crisis, it's an attitude of winning and overcoming. This often in the face of bleak prospects for the future. Seems that from 16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945 during WWII in the battle of the Ardennes that leadership was put to the test. The Ardennes Offensive was turning into a trictly infantrymen’s battle. In the bitter cold, the Americans and the Germans were fighting on foot. Supply lines extended all the way back to Cherbourg in Normandy. The Americans had only a few divisions, including the 106th division in the Ardennes guarding a fifty-mile front. The area was used to rest and refit divisions coming off the line, or to organize new units. Then the Germans poured fourteen infantry divisions and five Panzer divisions into this front, smashing the entire new 106th division out of existence. 7,500 men surrendered in the largest American mass surrender in the European Theatre of Operations. The Germans raced for Antwerp, led by a SS armored column under the command of SS Gruppenführer Joachim Peiper. Peiper’s tanks had to capture gas from the Americans as they went. On December 17, Peiper ordered the execution of hundreds of Americans captured by his column. He also massacred Belgian civilians in the town of Stavelot. By noon of December 17 the Allied intelligence counted twenty-four new German divisions. The Americans lcaonically nicknamed the offensive the “Battle of the Bulge.” Finally realizing that this was a major offensive, Eisenhower sent the Airborne divisions refitting after Market-Garden to take Bastogne and Saint-Vith. The 101st Airborne, whose defense of Bastogne would become legendary, arrived by truck just hours before the town was cut off and surrounded, supported by units of the 10th armored. “Visualize the hole in a doughnut,” the 101st radioed SHAEF Headquarters in Paris, “That’s us.” Bad weather grounded the Allied air forces and prevented resupply. They were to hold the town with little supplies and few tanks or vehicles. A store of flour in a Belgian warehouse fed the 101st with flapjack pancakes. American GIs retreating from the German advance stopped and joined in the defense. Artillery was set up in the center of town to give the defenders support anywhere along the lines, and from their arrival on December 18th until the day after Christmas, the 101st beat back German attacks. During the battle, the German commander charged with taking the vital crossroads sent a long letter to General Anthony C. McAuliffe, calling for his surrender. McAuliffe’s one-word reply, “NUTS!” indicated the determination of the 101st to hang on. The American manpower shortage was becoming critical. With the success of the liberation of France, production goals for ammunition were lowered, and the effects were first felt in the Ardennes in December 1944. An offensive coupled with a lack of ammunition meant the Americans were facing a crisis. The weather prevented the Allies’ superior airpower from taking off. Marching bands, cooks, command staffs, anyone who could carry a rifle was put into the front lines. Units like the Rangers, who had very high requirements for volunteers before the Normandy invasion, were simply given replacements like every other unit. After the 101st arrived on December 18, Eisenhower asked Patton how long it would take to wheel his Third Army around 90 degrees and attack the Germans to relieve Bastogne. Patton shocked everyone by announcing he would attack in forty-eight hours. The Third Army, led by the 4th Armored Division, moved through the Ardennes in a lighting maneuver. It would take them six days to reach Bastogne. Slowly, the Americans were closing the bulge. On December 22, the weather cleared and Allied planes could attack the Germans. Bastogne was resupplied by air. Combat Command R of the 4th Armored entered Bastogne on December 26. Meanwhile, British units were needed to plug the gaps in the Allied line, and Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery took command of two of the three Armies under Bradley’s 12th Army Group at the order of Eisenhower. Bradley threatened to resign but did not. Montgomery moved slowly to close the gap, finally counterattacking on January 3, 1945. Many Germans escaped before the Bulge was closed, but the bulk of German armor was destroyed. Montgomery took full credit for saving the American armies during the battle, and insinuated that he had “handled” the battle. He also managed to knock American leadership. Bradley, Eisenhower, and Patton were furious. Churchill had to make a public statement to the House of Commons to calm things down praising the Americans for the their conduct in the battle. Somehow history repeats itself, this month we have an energy crisis threatening the very economic fabric of not only the nation but the western world. What does our Congress do? They shut down for a 5 week recess. Meanwhile Obama smugly goes on vacation in the middle of his campaign to Hawaii. The invasion of sovereign Georgia last Thursday and their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis. While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably — and uniquely — more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia’s pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia. Clearly defining the aggressor as Russia, not Gerogia. McCain delivered this statement in Iowa: "Today news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave." Senator Obama's response, one that he has since changed to conform more to McCain's and the official position of the United States government, shows his inexperience in foreign affairs: “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.” The Russian Army attacks Georgia and the response is underwhelming. With the full knowlwedge of our capable leaders abilities to handle an international crisis it begs the question. What are USS Gruppenführer's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's response to the invasion of a sovereign country by their esteemed Russian colleagues? They have demonstrated a lesser concern than the Carter administration over domestic and foreign policy, content more with personal power trips than security in an agressive world bent on our destruction. What happened to leaders like Patton and McAuliffe? Leaders who put Americans first instead of appeasing to the likes of the glory seekers like Obama and Montgomery who are content to take the credit for the victories achieved at very high costs by others. I wouldn't want to be stuck on the battlefield with the likes of Obama behind me nor would I want any American to serve under someone of his ilk. He is no world class leader, only a corrupt hoodlum with anachist and Communist ties from Chicago.

As house Republicans remain in the house while house Democrats go home leaving the public to suffer under the high costs of oil, the focus is shifted to the oil companies for making excess profits. There is talk of nationalizing the oil companies, windfall profits taxes and severe consumer cutback's. I hear a lot of complaining about existing oil leases being held but not drilled on by the oil producers, the Democrats obstinately demanding they drill on existing leases before any new ones are granted. Oil exploration is a high risk venture, the oil companies use seismic methods to find a potential area then they petition for a lease on those parcels from the land owner. Once they get drilling permits and have satisfied all the environmental impact issues they can drill exploratory wells to determine if there is oil or gas present, the quantity and quality and the boundaries of the find. This is all before any production wells are even spudded. If there is sufficient oil to justify extraction and shipping they will invest in the drilling, production and transportation of the oil. All too often there is oil that is not practical or profitable to extract, some of the leases have a tiny section of oil and the rest is barren. Who owns the land? Some land is held in private ownership, most is on Federal or State land whether that land be offshore or onshore. If the oil explorer suspects there is oil on any of these lands they petition the land owner to lease drilling right on their property. Those oil companies simply don't drill without a proper lease and all the related restrictions under the law. A royalty is the landowner's share of the gross production, which is free of the costs of production. It is probably the most important part of the lease to the landowner. A nationwide leftist organization founded by Ralph Nader makes some heavy charges as follows: "A bureaucratic oversight has allowed 24 oil companies to avoid more than $1.3 billion in royalties for the privilege of extracting oil and natural gas from U.S. territory in the Gulf of Mexico - with foreign companies responsible for 55 percent of that total. But this $1.3 billion in forgone royalties pales in comparison to the $60 billion that Americans stand to lose in royalty revenue over the life of these leases. And if Congress repeals the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) drilling that has existed since 1982, these freeloading oil companies will be eligible to bid on new leases, providing them with more record profits while American families are left holding the bag. These 24 companies have posted a combined $365 billion in profits since 2006." OK, some oil companies got a good deal on a federal lease offshore, back to the issue of royalties, Ralph's shadow organization didn't specify whom, nor over which period of time nor cite the royalty agreement in place. Sure there have been record gross profits reported by the oil companies, the same record oil profits are realized by the landowners as a percentage of that dollar per barrel wellhead extraction price. You didn't hear the land owners whining about excess profits when they were content at $6/bbl oil nor do you hear them complain at $130/bbl because that royalty is based on a percentage of the price per barrel, usually 12.5% or 1/8 the price per barrel, sometimes it's as low as 1/5th and as high as 1/3 the price per barrel but seldom if ever zero. The typical fractions used in oil and gas leases can also be expressed in percentages such as 1/16 = 6.25%, 1/8 = 12.5%, 1/7 = 14.29%, 5/32 = 15.63%. The current trend is to counter the lease royalty offer with what the landowner considers a fair percent of the 100%. The landlords don't have any reason to complain when they are not under the spotlight of windfall profits scrutiny. "On gas that is not sold, but is used by the Lessee for the manufacture of gasoline or other products, Twelve and One-half Percent (12½%) of the market price at the point of sale shall be used for these products, less reasonable deductions for refining costs, as determined by the State." There are certain costs in drilling and producing a paying oil or gas well. The costs are divided between the production company and the landowner. The production company bears the exploration, production, and marketing costs unless there is a clause in the lease that states differently. Expenses that occur after production can be borne by the production company or shared by the production company and the landowner. The royalty clause can specify that the royalty be established at the well, which means that the landowner's royalty payment is free of production costs. The landowner's royalty can also bear a share of the costs that occur after production. If the lease reads that the royalty is fixed in the pipeline or at the place of sale or at some other delivery point, then a new set of costs occur and are part of the deductions from the royalty. It will be the costs after the oil or gas has been extracted at the well. There are three methods generally used for computing and establishing the royalty payment and how it is valued. The first method is market price and value of the oil or gas. Sometimes the market price at the well in the field is used as the prevailing price. Landowners usually have been taking the field price at the well because it allows the price to rise as the price of crude oil and gas rises. Some leases have royalty clauses that state that the royalty is set at the highest price or percentage posted for fields within one hundred miles by any major oil company for similar grades and gravity on the day that the oil is removed. The second method ties the royalty to actual revenue received from the sale of the oil or gas. In this case, the royalty received may or may not be equal to the actual market price of the oil or gas. This method of computing royalty is used mainly with gas royalties. The production company can and has committed to long-term contracts and the royalty, in that case, is more dependable. Unfortunately, in a rising market, the production company cannot be flexible with set in place long-term contracts. Another method of commuting royalty is the "in-kind." The landowner takes possession of the oil or gas produced for the landowner's share of the oil or gas production before the oil or gas is marketed by the production company. The landowner can insert a clause in the lease to take royalty either "in kind" or "in proceeds." This clause allows the landowner more flexibility and a higher royalty based on decisions of the market. The landowner is subject to taxes on the royalty from the production company. The taxes are federal taxes and state taxes on the royalty. The landowner can also be subject to the cost of moving the oil or gas from the well to the refinery and storage tanks. Royalty interests on a lease can be sold in part or in the entirety by the landowner. A royalty can be split among several persons, such as surviving relatives and family for the life of the lease. Remember that those obscene profits are gross profits, that the royalty increases with the increasing price of crude and remember that the politicians never mention that the government takes the lion's share of the royalties as well as taxes. I'll gladly blame the oil companies when the government admits they are a big part of the ponzi scheme and when they will cut back on their windfall royalty monies as a good will gesture to cut consumer suffering and job losses. Impose windfall profits on the oil companies if you will but impose those same restrictions on the stock market speculators and the landowners to be fair, it's the Democrat(Socialist) way.