Luke_Wilbur

How is this one sided? Republicans deserted a Republican bill submitted by a Republican White House. I honestly believe that President Bush has had 7 years and 9 months to fix our country. He is going to walk away from this Scott free. I would agree that Democrat Speaker Pelosi should not have put this bill up for a vote if she was not sure it would pass.

Here are the NEA (N) Roll Call Votes Alabama Republican - Aderholt, N Arizona Democrat - Giffords, N; Grijalva, N; Mitchell, N; Pastor, N. Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N. California Democrat - Baca, N; Becerra, N; ; Filner, N; ; Lee, N; Lofgren; Napolitano, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, N; Schiff, N; Sherman, N; Solis, N; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, N; Watson, N; Woolsey, N. Republican - Bilbray, N; Doolittle, N; Gallegly, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; McCarthy, N; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N. Colorado Democrat - Salazar, N; Udall, N. Republican - Lamborn, N; Musgrave, N. Connecticut Democrat - Courtney, N Florida Republican - Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Young, N. Georgia Democrat - Barrow, N; Johnson, N; Lewis, N; Scott, N. Republican - Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N. Hawaii Democrat - Abercrombie, N; Hirono, N. Idaho Republican - Sali, N. Illinois Democrat - Costello, N; Jackson, N; Lipinski, N; Rush, N. Republican - Biggert, N; Johnson, N; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Shimkus, N. Indiana Democrat - Carson, N; Hill, N; Visclosky, N. Republican - Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N. Iowa Democrat - Braley, N. Republicans - King, N; Latham, N. Kansas Democrat - Boyda, N. Republican - Moran, N; Tiahrt, N. Kentucky Democrat - Chandler, N; Yarmuth, N. Republicans - Davis, N; Whitfield, N. Louisana Democrat - Cazayoux, N; Jefferson, N. Republicans - Alexander, N; Boustany, N; Scalise, N. Maine Democrat - Michaud, N. Maryland Democrats - Cummings, N; Edwards, N. Republicans - Bartlett, N. Massachusetts Democrats — Delahunt, N; Lynch, N; Tierney, N. Michigan Democrat - Conyers, N; Kilpatrick, N; Stupak, N. Republican - Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Walberg, N. Minnesota Democrat - Peterson, N; Walz, N. Republicans — Bachmann, N; Ramstad, N. Mississippi Democrat - Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, N. Missouri Democrat - Clay, N; Cleaver, N. Republicans - Akin, N; Graves, N; Hulshof, N. Montana Republican - Rehberg, N. Nebraska Republican - Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N. Nevada Democrat - Berkley, N. Republicans - Heller, N. New Hampshire Democrats - Hodes, N; Shea-Porter, N. New Jersey Democrat - Pascrell, N; Payne, N; Rothman, N. Republican - Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, N; Smith, N. New Mexico Democrat - Udall, N. Republican - Pearce, N. New York Democrat - Gillibrand, N; Hinchey, N; Serrano, N. Republican - Kuhl, N. North Carolina Democrat - Butterfield, N; McIntyre, N; Shuler, N. Republican - Coble, N; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N. Ohio Democrat - Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Sutton, N. Republican Chabot, N; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N. Oklahoma Republican - Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N. Oregon Democrat - Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Wu, N. Pennsylvania Democrat - Altmire, N; Carney, N; Holden, N. Republican - Dent, N; English, N; Gerlach, N; Murphy, Tim, N; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, N. South Carolina Republican - Barrett, N. South Dakota Democrat - Herseth Sandlin, N. Tennessee Democrat - Lincoln, N. Republican - Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp, N. Texas Democrats - Cuellar, N; Doggett, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, N; Jackson-Lee, N; Lampson, N; Ortiz, N; Rodriguez, N. Republican - Barton, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Thornberry, N. Utah Democrat - Matheson, N. Republican - Bishop, N. Vermont Democrat - Welch, N. Virginia Democrats - Scott, N. Republicans - Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N. Washington Democrat - Inslee, N. Republican - Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N. West Virginia Republican - Capito, N. Wisconsin Republican - Petri, N; Sensenbrenner, N.

Tonight the world watched the first presidential debate. Veteran PBS news anchor, Jim Lehrer hosted the event on the campus of the University of Mississippi. I thought both candidates were very formidable on responding to each other. I would give both candidates failing grades on their response on what is transpiring on the Bailout. Neither said anything new or gave clarity on this most important issue. I give Jim Lehrer high marks on trying to press the issue. Barack Obama stated that he may have to postpone parts of his alternative energy plan. John McCain stated that he would freeze the budget and cut unnecessary defense programs. Barack Obama stated he would create a nationalized health care program. John McCain stated that he did not like the idea of the federal government running our health care system. John McCain stated that Obama has wasted 18 billion dollars in earmarks. Obama stated that McCain would give a 300 billion dollar tax cut to the wealthy. John McCain got his point of that he has more experience in foreign policy issues. Barack Obama got his point that we need to broaden our country's focus from just Iraq to events happening in the rest of the world. John McCain made the point that Obama would allow the leaders of countries to sit down at the negotiating table without preconditions. Obama said that McCain's advisor, former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, stated that our government should sit down at the table with our enemies with no preconditions. McCain rebutted and stated that Kissinger did not mean the President. Obama rebutted that he understood what Henry Kissinger meant and he would not sit down at the table with leaders of rogue countries until formal talks had begun. Obama stated that McCain's support of the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. John McCain stated that Obama decision not to support the troop surge in Iraq was a mistake. One issue that is very close to me is alternative energy. Obama stated that John McCain has voted against alternative fuels 23 times in his Senate career. McCain rebutted that Senator Obama's statement was not true. That he has always supported alternative energy and that everyone from Arizona supports alternative energy. I will have to research McCain's statement. I do know that Senator McCain has missed every Senate vote on alternative energy this year. For those of you that missed it here is the transcript

I hope this crisis teaches people all over the world that we all need to develop ethical principles that guide market competition. We must realize that stocks, bonds, and commodities can be come objects of greed. We sometimes forget their real value is dependent on social trust that people are able to do business with each other. When trust is gone value is nothing. The virtue of greed has taken over Wall Street and Government. In the past their tool has been the mainstream media. Now the Internet is the media tool of the people. We have been given the ability to conceptualize ideas from many sources. Americans from across nation are talking in forums like this one about what really is going on. I see leaders on both sides playing the blame game to the main stream media. But, I hope they realize the same principle can be applied to political power. The American People are watching.

Looks the debate is on again. The McCain campaign has sent out this statement:

Obama rejected McCain's proposal, saying it's ``more important than ever'' for the candidates to tell voters how they would deal with the crisis. He said they can address issues in Congress while campaigning. ``It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once,'' Obama said.

John McCain Remarks on the Economic Crisis

He then says: "What will happen if we reach November 31 and no agreement is signed? We will certainly go to the Security Council. We will not at all request an extension of the current situation." He mentions the dispute between Russia and the US over the issue of Georgia and says: "Russia will certainly not agree to extend the resolution in this manner. If we request an extension, we will do so according to our own conditions. We will demand controls for the movement of forces. The US will reject this and veto." He adds that if this happens "US troops will be in an embarassing situation with no legal cover by December 31. Therefore, they will have to withdrawal immediately from Iraq or stay in violation of the constitution and this is not possible because it violates international law. This will be embarassing to them and us. The two sides feel the need to reach an agreement should have these controls, restrictions, and mechanisms. This is how things have ended thus far. We now await an answer to these demands." He then says he hopes the US will show "flexibility" as "the Iraqi side has shown the required flexibility to agree and then see what the Council of Representatives will say.

He then says: "With regard to th issue of arrests, the US forces will not keep detainees after 31 January as is the case now. If an Iraqi is detained during opertations, he should be handed over to the Iraqi side within 24 hours. They said any American detained by Iraq should be handed over to them immediately. We said either all should be handled over immediately or within 24 hours. These are points on which agreement can be reached. They are flexible and ready for that. Perhaps one of the two most important points is deciding the final date. Actually, the final date was the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change in date due to political circumstances related to the domestic situation in the US, so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal, but the end of 2011 as a final date. Agreement has been reached on this issue. They are willing to respond positively, because they too are facing a critical situation.

Continuing, he says: "Other points are related to specific issues. Regrettably, I hear some government officials, who are unacquainted with what is going on and who are not members of the negotiating team, say there is no final date for the withdrawal of forces although this is one of the most important points on which we have stopped and with the US side has agreed. It is 31 December 2011 when the presence of any US soldier in Iraq will end. If the Iraqi Government at that time sees a need, it will agree on issues pertaining to training or technical issues related to airspace and other such things. Yes, the final date for the presence of forces is one of the basic points. We frankly told them this and said this for us is popular and official demand. It is our right as well as the right of every citizen in any country not to see foreign international forces on his land. Out of our love for our country and homeland, we see a need to conclude a security agreement to rid of Chapter VII and international sanctions and finish formation of our military and security demands. Out of love for our country and out of our feeling of the importance of national interest, we are heading toward and agreement that can fulfill these demands. Therefore, the agreement we need and we are talking about must guarantee these Iraqi demands, including the removal of Iraq's name from under Chaper VII and protection of Iraq against any foreign aggression. There should be commitment that the US forces will not raid houses or arrest people except with the approval of the Iraqi Government through a committee and agreed mechanisms as stated in the agreement." Al-Maliki adds: "The presence of any US soldier or US camp in cities and villages should end on 30 June 2009. Camps will moved outside cities. Morevoer, the extremely important central issue is the issue of immunity, which is called in the agreement the legal jurisdiction. This is the main contentious issue. THe US says its troops do not fall under the legal jurisdiction of any of the countries in they are present. They say they will prosecute any US soldier who misbehaves or commits a crime in accordance with US judiciary and the not the country's judiciary. We reject this and this issue is the main contentious point. They are ready to accept and reach agreement on other points. This is the main point that remains to be solved by the Iraqi and US Governments. The US side has legal jurisdiction over it troops and civil American -- and not Iraqi -- contractors in their headquarters and camps. Security and protection firms do not enjoy immunity; they are subject to Iraqi law. They can be authorized or prevented so that the harm done to citizens as happened in the Al-Nusur Square and Airport Road will not be repeated."

Al-Maliki adds: "The negotiating team came up with ideas, som of which were accepted while others were rejected. Therefore, we had to finalize our Iraqi ideas. We spent the first round discussing the other side's ideas and then drew up the Iraqi ideas or demands. We presented the Iraqi draft, which we think represents our ideas and demands and where we stand. Dialogue began on these ideas once again. The negotiating tem worked hard and managed to reduce the ceiling of demands., contradictions, and differences to the largest possible extent. Things stopped at specific points beyond the ability of the negotiating team. Therefore , they wrote a letter saying the stopping points needed a political decision. Actually, I am not a negotiator, but I follow up the work done by the team. Also when this point was reached, the other side said they wanted to negotiate with the Prime Minister. Therefore, I turned into a negotiator although I was not so and only followed up things and served as a link between the negotiators and the Presidency Council and the Political Council for National Security. This is the time when they said the negotiating delegation has changed. I had direct contacts with President George W. Bush, the US Secretary of State, and the negotiating team by telephone and closed circuit television." He says: "THe negotiating team has not been changed and no order was issued to change it. Once the US replies to contentious issues are recieved, they will be referred to the negotiating team. If they are in harmony with our ideas and what we need, our team will sit with the US team to draft them in an agreement and then send it to the Council of Ministers and then to the Council of Representatives. If the US side rejects the Iraqi demands, the Iraqi tem will also receive the file and draw up the final draft that echoes our opinion and the opinion of the US side. We will then go to the Council of Ministers and the Council of Representatives. The final word will be for the Council of Representatives and not the government. When things reached specific points, dialogue stopped and then opened more than once. Finally, they asked for 10 to 14 days to review Iraqi demands in Washington. Time has expired and the US team has not yet returned with a response to the Iraqi demands. Therefore, we cannot say -- as you regrettably hear even from some government officials - that agreement has been reached and finalized and be signed soon. No, there are serious points at which we have stopped. We and they consider these points basic, if they respond to them with a yes, things will be done quickly. If they respond to them with a no, there will be a problem and we will end up in other attemps which they sometimes call Plan B while we call them Plan C. What is important is the alternative. The US has thus far not responded to questions on the contentious issues. I will sum up these issues to you. Some of them are related to formulation issues because agreements must be clear and specific and there should be no general phrases that are open to different interpretations."

Baghdad Al-Iraqiyah Television at 1617 GMT Responding to a number of audience questions about the Iraqi-US security agreement under negation, Al-Maliki says: "I will begin talking about the security agreement and with the signing of the first paper, that is, the declaration of principles and broad lines, in August last year. When we reached negotiations and got closer to the 31 December 2008 expiration of the resolution extending the mandate of forces, the 31 December 2008 expiration of the resolution extending the mandate of forces, we felt there should be an alternative of cover for the presence of forces. They were present in accordance with Resolution 1770, which stemmed from previous resolutions like Resolution 1546 and others. According to the agreement reached in the declaration of principles, the Security Council will not extend the mandate of forces in Iraq for another year. This means Iraq does not want it to extend their mandate of our feeling the reasons which kept Iraq under Chapter VII and international sanctions are no longer in existence. There are no weapons or a country posing a threat to world peace." He adds that Iraq should restore the status which existed before 1991. Continuing, he says: "The presence of forces should be under a certain cover. If the cover today is these international resolutions, what will the cover be after 31 December? It has to be the security agreement departure. Constitutionally, the government is responsible for negotiations and then comes parliment, which will ratify or not. The Presidency Council has the final word. It endorses what is ratified by the Council of Representatives. Because the issue is a serious national issue and the entire national front should be united, I told the brothers in the executive council of the Presidency Council that neither I nor the government is alone be held responsible for this issue because it is a serious one. The said this is the government's responsibility. We said true; but in handling such a serious issue, the government gives up much of its role in favor of having one national vison. We do not want to assume this serious and large responsibility alone. Agreement was reached and we met at the Political Council of National Security on the basis that the government will hold negotiations and the negotiating team will have people from the various affiliations and trends. They, of course, work on a professional basis and not the quota system. The Prime Minister supervises the team but final word is for the Political Council for National Security and then the Council of Representatives, which represents the will of the People and can accept or reject this agreement. Things really went in this direction."

I think this was a brilliant move by the McCain camp. Either way, John McCain looks like the leader by taking the initiative.

According to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, "We suddenly have got a lot more clarity about Iraq right now than we've had in a really, really long time." Maddow cited a translation from OpenSource.gov of an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, conducted last week by Iraqi state television, during which "he said when he was negotiating with the Bush administration to pick a withdrawal date for our troops to come home, they initially settled on about 15 months from now, the end of 2010. But then ... the Bush administration came back and told the Iraqis they'd actually like our troops to stay in Iraq an extra year, through 2011 ... 'due to political circumstances related to the US domestic situation.'" "So the prime minister of Iraq says on tape," Maddow summarized, "according to our own government's translation, that the Bush administration wants to prolong the war in Iraq for an extra year because of our domestic politics." "If you feel like your hair is on fire right now," she added, "you're not alone." http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1976

John McCain is asking Barack Obama to suspend the upcoming debate, so the two senators can go to Washington and help with the bailout legislation.

Ward 5 Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas, “Jr. will hold a press conference on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 10:45 am on the steps of the Wilson Building to announce the giveaway of 50 “RAC” gunlocks in conjunction with the American RAC and Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Incorporated. Councilmember Thomas will be joined by his Council colleagues, representatives from RAC and Omega Psi Phi, the Ward 5 pastoral community, and other civic leaders in the city. Each year, hundreds of DC residents lose their lives to senseless gun violence, and changes in the District’s gun laws could accelerate that trend. Last year alone, for example, 81 percent of the District’s homicides were committed with guns, of which more than half of the victims were children. More than 2,600 firearms are recovered annually in the District by the Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement agencies. The RAC is a government approved anti-theft device that prevents the unauthorized use of weapons and other personal items. It is an easy-to-use storage device that can be mounted on walls or in cabinets, drawers, lockers, and vehicle compartments. RAC and Omega Psi Phi have partnered together to sponsor “Protect Our Children for Life,” a program that provides gun owners with the RAC safety device at no cost. “Today’s RAC giveaway is just a small example of what you can expect for the District as corporations, foundations, government agencies, and individuals embrace the “Protect Our Children for Life” initiative,” said RAC founder and American RAC CEO William McMurry. “Congress has made it possible for DC residents to legally own guns and now we must be vigilant about gun safety education,” said Councilmember Thomas. “As a District leader, member of the Omega fraternity, and most importantly, as a parent, I pleased and proud that RAC and Omega Psi Phi Fraternity have chosen to promote the safe storage of firearms in the District. Most importantly, I applaud their focus on protecting our children.” WHO: Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, Council colleagues; William McMurry inventor of THE RAC and sponsor of the giveaway; Mark Jackson, Omega Charities; Ward 5 Pastors; Ward 5 civic leaders WHAT: Press Conference, Demonstration and Distribution of THE RAC (a new government- approved gun locking anti-theft systems) WHEN: Thursday, September 25, 2008 – 10:45 a.m. WHERE: Steps of the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

This morning, at the front of the National Archives Building on Constitution Ave. in Washington, D.C., five military veterans risked arrest and climbed over a 9-foot retaining fence to occupy a 35-foot high ledge to raise a 22x8 foot banner stating, “DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. ARREST BUSH AND CHENEY: WAR CRIMINALS!” I spoke via telephone with Ellen Barfield sitting on the roof demonstrating. QUESTION: So Elllen what transpired this morning? ANSWER: Well, we jumped over the fence this morning with no problems. The DC police were nice and supported our civil right to demonstrate. They even cut the fence locks, so no one would get injured. Alot of media have come by and people were taking pictures. We had a good view of the truck driver demonstration on high gas prices. QUESTION: Ellen how long do you plan to stay perched up on the National Archives building? ANSWER: We plan to stay until tomorrow morning fasting to perserve our Constitution. We hope this issue will finally get the media's attention. Veterans for Peace issued the following statement: Veterans For Peace, includes Vietnam and Iraq War veterans, has declared its intention to stay on the ledge, fasting for 24 hours “in remembrance of those who have perished and those still suffering from the crimes of the Bush administration,” according to a written statement. With a portable PA system, they will broadcast recorded statements from prominent Americans for the impeachment and/or arrest of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. “Citizens Arrest Warrants” will be distributed to people waiting in line to enter the National Archives. The veterans emphasized they are taking this action because “Bush and Cheney’s serial abuse of the Law of the Land clearly marks them as domestic enemies of the Constitution…they have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure, authorized torture, and unlawfully detained prisoners. These actions clearly mark them as war criminals…accountability extends beyond impeachment to prosecution for war crimes even after their terms of office expire.” “We take this action as a last resort,” their statement added. “For years we have pursued every avenue open to good, vigilant citizens to bring these men to justice, to re-establish the rule of law, and to restore the balance of power described in our Constitution. We are not disturbing the peace; we are attempting to restore the peace. We are not conducting ourselves in a disorderly manner; our action is well-ordered and well-considered. We are not trespassing; we have come to the home of our Constitution to honor our oath to defend it.” Those participating are all members of Veterans For Peace and include Elliott Adams: 61, NY, VFP President and former Army paratrooper in Viet Nam; Ellen Barfield: 52, MD, former U.S. Army Sgt., full-time peace and justice advocate; Kim Carlyle: 61, NC, mountain homesteader, former Army Spec 5, 828-626-2572; Diane Wilson: 59, TX, shrimp boat captain, former Army medic, 361-785-4680; Doug Zachary: 58, TX, VFP staff, former USMC LCpl discharged as a conscientious objector, 512-791-9824; and Tarak Kauff (ground support) 67, NY, painting contractor, former U.S. Army Airborne. Founded in 1985, VFP has 120 chapters throughout the country and has actively protested the Afghanistan and Iraq wars since their inception. Membership includes men and women veterans of all eras and duty stations spanning the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. VFP is an official Non Governmental Organization (NGO) represented at the UN.

Here is a statement by G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on Global Financial Market Turmoil The Group of Seven Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors released the following statement today: The G-7 held a conference call today to discuss global financial markets. We reaffirm our strong and shared commitment to protect the integrity of the international financial system and facilitate liquid, smooth functioning markets, which are essential for supporting the health of the world economy. We strongly welcome the extraordinary actions taken by the United States to enhance the stability of financial markets and address credit concerns, especially through its plan to implement a program to remove illiquid assets that are destabilizing financial institutions. We also strongly welcome the measures taken by other G-7 countries. Major central banks have been coordinating to address liquidity pressures in funding markets, which has been critical in addressing disruptions in global financial markets. Several regulators have taken decisive actions to combat market manipulation and stabilize financial markets, including a temporary ban on short selling of financial stocks. We recognize the importance of making regulation more effective and bringing investors back into a liquid and stable marketplace. We remain committed to full and rapid implementation of the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) recommendations to enhance the resilience of the global financial system for the longer term. We look forward to the FSF report this fall on progress made in strengthening prudential supervision and regulation, improving firms' risk management practices, enhancing disclosure and transparency, and strengthening accounting frameworks. We pledge to enhance international cooperation to address the ongoing challenges in the global economy and world markets and maintain heightened close cooperation between Finance Ministries, Central Banks and regulators. We are ready to take whatever actions may be necessary, individually and collectively, to ensure the stability of the international financial system.

The Federal Reserve Board on Sunday approved, pending a statutory five-day antitrust waiting period, the applications of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies. A bank holding company, under the laws of the United States, is any entity that directly or indirectly owns, controls or has the power to vote 25% or more of a class of securities of a U.S. bank. Bank holding companies are required to register with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Actions of bank holding companies are covered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. § 1841(a)(2)(A) et seq.). The Bank Holding Company Act prohibits a bank holding company from engaging in most non-banking activities or acquiring voting securities of certain companies that are not banks. To provide increased liquidity support to these firms as they transition to managing their funding within a bank holding company structure, the Federal Reserve Board authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to extend credit to the U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley against all types of collateral that may be pledged at the Federal Reserve's primary credit facility for depository institutions or at the existing Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF); the Federal Reserve has also made these collateral arrangements available to the broker-dealer subsidiary of Merrill Lynch. In addition, the Board also authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to extend credit to the London-based broker-dealer subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch against collateral that would be eligible to be pledged at the PDCF.

SECRETARY RICE: I would like to welcome my colleague, the Foreign Minister of Colombia. Colombia, of course, is a very good friend of the United States. We have many, many ways of expressing that friendship, including the friendship between our peoples. I’ve been very pleased to have the opportunity to visit Colombia on a number of occasions. And of course, as we sign this important agreement today, we are cognizant of the broader context for U.S.-Colombian relations, including our desire to see the U.S. Congress vote on the very important and historic free trade agreement between Colombia and the United States. This is an agreement that will benefit both sides, will benefit the American economy, it will benefit the kinds of Colombian workers that I met who are coming out of dark times of civil conflict. And in that regard, the work that President Uribe and his government have done to return democratic stability to Colombia is truly remarkable and, indeed, inspiring. But today, we are signing an important agreement between the United States and Colombia, an agreement that allows us to move forward on collaboration on energy by working together on biofuels. Cooperation in this area is a priority for the United States as we create advanced technologies to meet our global needs. And in order to do so, of course, we must rally our creativity and our entrepreneurship. This agreement is yet one more way in which we and Colombia are partnering for our future. The United States has been a proud partner in Colombia’s success and we look forward to continuing to work side by side with the Government of Colombia and with its people. Welcome. FOREIGN MINISTER BERMUDEZ: Thank you very much, Dr. Rice, Madame Secretary. Well, we are so grateful to the American peoplebecause we as Colombians have found (inaudible) and continued support for the Colombian people as well. We are so grateful to the Bush Administration and the current government for their support as well, not only regarding all these issues that concern us both, for example, drug activities, Plan Colombia and so on, but also because they’ve been extremely supportive regarding the possibilities about trade, investment, and so on and so forth. And in particular, what we need now is to get the free trade agreement done and approved by Congress, because I think it’s good for the United States and it’s good also for Colombia. But not only that, you might be aware of the idea that the more legal economy we have, the less illegal activity we have. Every inch that we reach for investment and trade is an inch that we take away from drug activities and terrorism. That’s very important for us. So we are so grateful to the government, Madame Secretary, for what you’ve done and what we can do about Colombia and our legal activities, our economy, our investment, our jobs and so on. We are very delighted to sign today this agreement, this memorandum of understanding regarding renewal in clean energy. That’s very important, because we have a very wide agenda. So we are very much interested in working hand-to-hand with the United States regarding all these several issues that really help Americans and really help Colombians and really help the entire region. Thank you very much. SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, we will now commence with the signing. The United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Foreign Minister of Colombia Jaime Bermudez are signing today the memorandum of understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Colombia to advance cooperation on renewable and clean energy. (The memorandum of understanding was signed.) (Applause.) This concludes our program. Thank you for joining us today.

I see Bolivia is now siding with Venezuela.

Hi Stephanie, Are you affiliated with the Open Library Project. That is a really great idea. I know Google has scanned many books from the New York public library. http://openlibrary.org/

This email was sent to me:

The first presidential debate will be held Friday, September 26th, at the University of Mississippi. This 8:00 p.m. debate is something you won't want to miss. Foreign policy and national security issues will be discussed. Before the Debate: Invite neighbors, colleagues, and friends to your upcoming DebateWatch at least a week or two in advance. Ask participants to arrive 20-30 minutes prior to the debate to get acquainted and discuss the evening's events. If participants do not know each other, consider making nametags. Night of the Debate: Arrange the room so everyone can see the television easily. Supply pens and paper for notes if you wish. Once everyone is settled, have people introduce themselves. Turn the TV on until shortly before the debate begins but leave the volume off until it actually starts. After the Debate: Turn the TV off when the debate ends – before the post-debate commentators start talking – and take a short break. If there are more than 12 in your group, break into smaller groups for discussions. Remind everyone that this is a shared discussion and that there are no right or wrong opinions. Follow the suggested questions below or raise your own. Encourage group members to also ask questions. After about an hour – or when the discussion naturally ends – give everyone a chance to make any last comments and then wrap up. Debate Discussion Questions What did you learn about the candidates or issues that you did not know prior to the debate? What topics or issues discussed in the debates were most useful or informative? Were there any issues raised that you considered irrelevant or unimportant? What issues would you like to see discussed in subsequent debates?

A good indicator to see exactly where are economy is at by reading statement from the Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Our Real gross domestic product (the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States) increased at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the second quarter of 2008. The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from exports, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, nonresidential structures, and state and local government spending. The Federal Reserve's rescue plan, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission's move to ban short-selling on 799 financial shares through Oct. 2 will help restrain the financial crisis. With tighter regulation Americans can expect a quicker turn around. The government needs to invest more money in our workforce to stimulate small business growth. The country as a whole should invest in wind energy and electric transportation companies located in the U.S.A. Americans should begin to do their part in restoring our economy by looking at the labels of the products they purchase to see if they are made in America. If your favorite retail establishment does not carry 'Made in USA' goods tell the store manager you want to see less foreign made goods. If there is no change share your story how your local retailer is not supporting our country with everyone you know. American manufacturers should begin retooling factories in the United States. Cheaper transportation costs should offset labor costs. Many Americans need jobs and are ready to get back to work.