I love facts...

That's a fair point for you to make and I appreciate you making it for my understanding.
However, (and I speak humbly to you) it's not your job to clarify his statements, is it?

I do... it's my livelihood, thanks for not caring.

Not only fishing but also home grown food.Since the government can't regulate this type of food it came be suspect to terrorism tampering and thus can't be trusted.No more growing your own food in your garden.It must have a Government stamp on it before you can eat it.I posted a second link that talks about the home grown food.

We only got three more years of Obama!By the time he is done with us we are going to be locked in some Government run white room,chained to a chair feeding us baby food.

Wasn't trying to mislead or anything - just nothing new there.
I don't really find anything objectionable in the Malley article and

I recognize that it is 2010. Just sad that peace was not made in 2000.
It is not so much an issue of blame. I only refer to the CD 2000 effort to demonstrate that the Israelis have offered repeatedly many serious concessions and made sincere efforts at peace. However, despite their efforts - and there is nothing to indicate that they are not good faith efforts - their attempts have been rejected and met with rockets rather than negotiation.

I know. I read the article. I still believe that the Israelis
made an incredible and generous offer at Camp David in 2000.
The Palestinians missed a real genuine opportunity for peace
and a very reasonable beginning to their own homeland a decade
ago and once again initiated violence instead. This of course
only frustrated the process of peacemaking, deepened Israeli
doubts about the prospects of future negotiations, led to the
building of the separation barrier and bolstered Israeli resolve
not to accept any future deal which would leave them vulnerable
to additional attacks.



here is a quote from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380:

"On June 15, during his final meeting with Clinton before Camp David, Arafat set forth his case: Barak had not implemented prior agreements, there had been no progress in the negotiations, and the prime minister was holding all the cards. The only conceivable outcome of going to a summit, he told Secretary Albright, was to have everything explode in the President's face. If there is no summit, at least there will still be hope. The summit is our last card, Arafat said—do you really want to burn it? In the end, Arafat went to Camp David, for not to do so would have been to incur America's anger; but he went intent more on surviving than on benefiting from it."

In other words, Arafat was unable to see the forest for the trees
and make the leap to the end game....or he just didn't like the end
game. Either way ultimately he was unable to benefit from CD 2000
opportunities and this is why other participants like Dennis Ross
(The Missing Peace) and Clinton among many other have said that
Arafat just wasn't up to it.

Once again - Here is what Arafat turned down:

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did."

(from http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9F.DTL&tsp=1

(03-11) 17:32 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal court that touched off a furor in 2002 by declaring the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion took another look at the issue Thursday and said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith.


The daily schoolroom ritual is not a prayer, but instead "a recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights," said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a 2-1 ruling.

"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect."

The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said statements by members of Congress who added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 show conclusively that it was intended to "indoctrinate our nation's children with a state-held religious belief."

In a separate ruling, the same panel upheld the use of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said. Reinhardt reluctantly joined the 3-0 decision, saying he was bound by the court's newly established precedent in the pledge case.

Atheist sued
Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has brought numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations. He said he would appeal the rulings to the full appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court, but was not optimistic.

The rulings sent two messages, Newdow said: "To be a real American, you believe in God, and the judiciary unfortunately sometimes can't be trusted to uphold our constitutional rights when you're a disenfranchised minority."

Former Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas, who represented the Bush administration in the pledge case when the court heard it in 2007, heard a different message: that "one nation, under God" suggests a government that "is limited and bound to respect individual rights."

Swift reaction
Newdow first challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in 2000 on behalf of his daughter, a student in a Sacramento-area elementary school. The appeals court ruled in June 2002 that the addition of "under God" was religiously motivated and sent "a message to nonbelievers that they are outsiders," in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Congress reacted furiously, passing a resolution with virtually no dissenting votes that denounced the decision. The court put its ruling on hold until the case reached the Supreme Court, which sidestepped the constitutional issue and ruled that Newdow could not represent his daughter's interests because her mother had legal custody.

Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of the parent of a kindergartner in the Sacramento suburb of Rio Linda. He won the first round before a federal judge in 2005, but a new appeals court panel issued a 193-page ruling Thursday upholding the pledge.

Pledge isn't prayer
In the majority opinion, Judge Carlos Bea acknowledged that "the words 'under God' have religious significance," but said they do not "convert the pledge into a prayer."

The 1954 law that added those words at the height of the Cold War was meant to convey the idea of a limited government, "in stark contrast to the unlimited power exercised by communist forms of government," said Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism."

Reinhardt, a member of the 2002 panel that found the language unconstitutional, said Thursday's majority ignored overwhelming evidence of religious motivation by the 1954 Congress.

He cited statements by numerous lawmakers denouncing atheistic communism and declaring a belief in God to be part of the American way of life. Reinhardt also pointed to President Dwight Eisenhower's signing statement that millions of schoolchildren would now proclaim "the dedication of our nation and its people to the Almighty."

During the same period, Reinhardt said, Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto, ordered it inscribed on paper money and established an annual National Prayer Breakfast.

By inserting religious language into the pledge, Reinhardt said, "we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church."

These sources are discussed in my refernce above.
Actually the 2000 Camp David was a missed opportunity.

Israel has a long history of good faith negotiations and peacemaking
with their neighbors. If the Palestinians stop terrorist activities
there is no reason why there would not be peace now and in the
future. If the Palestinians had accepted the deal offered by Israel
at Camp David in 2000 then there could have been a lasting peace
on that basis starting a decade ago.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp474.htm

Israel really is independent and has a long history of acting
independently. Their first priority is to their citizens just
as the United States first priority are U.S. citizens.

I KNOW A GOOD PSYCHIATRIST...................

Oh, excuse me ever so kindly...........you are not a Christian................

Cannot for the life of me figure out what the Reverend Franklin Graham and the Reverend Billy Graham ever did to you.......

BUT LIKE IT OR NOT, AND I KNOW THE 'NOT' APPLIES TO YOUR MINDSET......THE SAMARATINS PURSE HAS DONE MORE THAN ANY godforsake liberal, communist, marxist penn will ever be capable of doing.................so sorry Charlie...........I KNOW THAT BURSTS YOUR LITTLE BUBBLE OF PENN.........SUCH IS LIFE IN THE HATE FACTORY ............

On that last comment, I am surprised to find that I am in total agreement with you.

You are very consistent at serving baloney, as you say. But why would you say that about yourself, is beyond me.

Dear Lady 'lindyy',

The comment was not aimed at you personally, but in general to republican administrations.
With respect to term 'flunkie', not that I have to explain it, but it pertains to the administrations in question; they 'flunked' miserably in respecting their sacred promise of fiscal conservatism: low deficits and reducing the National debt.

That being said, I'll ask that you please refrain from making impertinent threats. It's against forum rules.

Furthermore, unless you were elected RULER-IN-CHIEF of the WORLD WIDE WEB, I suggest you refrain from making personal insults to people, simply because they happen to live in a country that is not your own. It is most uncivilized, and again, it is against the forum rules.

Freedom of speech is a privilege afforded in a very large proportion of the Western World. I have read several comments from you, in capital letters, where you remind the whole WWW of your 'freedom of speech' privileges. Have the decency of respecting the same privileges when it comes to others.

He is not an actor, but Christian Evangelist, FRANKLIN GRAHAM'S (SON OF EVANGELIST BILLY GRAHAM) his SAMARTIAN PURSE organization/fund cannot even be closely matched by the left wing liberal, full of hate phoney actors.........

Israel, in case no one has noticed, is an INDEPENDENT NATION with its own interests to protect. It is also the ONLY democracy in the MIddle East and a constant reminder to the Arab 'world' of what IS possible and of what the Arab 'world' has failed to provide for its own people. And a schmuck like Joe Biden is gonna be sent there to tell them what to do by the little manchild who sits in the Big Boy chair now ... ? THAT's the real insult ...

At some point, even they have to realize that the blame Bush dogma isn't going to persuade people any longer..

Fact is my lovely is when the Palins were poor free healthcare = Good when she is rich healthcare for all is bad

this seems good on paper..now tell me who has these principles? it certainly isn't followers of Glenn Beck or any GOP for that matter