Bloody Revolution is coming

September 12, 2009

Our president didn’t work for acorn. He taught them. The most dangerous thing about a democracy is when a small group of people find out they can take all the money they want simply by voting it to themselves.
When 51% of the population isn’t paying taxes they don’t care what the tax rates are.
They can just vote themselves more money.
Pretty soon one of two things will happen.
Either the workers stop working (or just become tax cheats like Tim G.Treasury Sec.,
or there will be a bloody revolt and states will dissolve the union.

When I read and posted the following I was a bit dumbfounded.
I didn’t know weather to laugh or be concerned.
Is this the beginning of the end of our great experiment in democracy?

https://tommy49646.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/russian-professor-predicts-end-of-us/

Wake up America before it’s too late.

Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

By tommy49646

Read entire article here

MOSCOW — For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument — that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. — very seriously. Now he’s found an eager audience: Russian state media.

But it’s his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin’s views also fit neatly with the Kremlin’s narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

The professor says he’s convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union — 15 years beforehand. “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him,” says Prof. Panarin.

us-break-up.gif?w=389&h=253

More on ACORN and your tax dollars. How long will the country put up with this?!?!?!?!?

September 12, 2009

============================================

====================================

Texas governor sends Rangers to Mexico border

September 11, 2009

Perry accuses federal government of failing to ‘adequately secure’ zone

Image: Gov. Rick Perry Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks about border security during a news conference on Thursday in Houston.
David J. Phillip / AP

APTRANS.gif updated 3:29 a.m. MT, Fri., Sept . 11, 2009

HOUSTON – Special teams of Texas Rangers will be deployed to the Texas-Mexico border to deal with increasing violence because the federal government has failed to address growing problems there, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday.

"It is an expansive effort with the Rangers playing a more high-profile role than they’ve ever played before," Perry said of the Department of Public Safety’s elite investigative unit.

The forces, dubbed "Ranger recon" teams, are the latest effort "to fill the gap that’s been left by the federal government’s ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border with Mexico," he said.

ACORN Exposed Committing Fraud

September 11, 2009

No Comments are needed here. Just Watch the videos and let me know what you think.

==============================================================

‘Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby’

September 9, 2009

By VANESSA ALLEN and ANDREW LEVY
Last updated at 7:58 AM on 09th September 2009

Read The Article Here

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Enlarge Sarah Capewell, mother of Jayden Capewell

Battle: Sarah Capewell is fighting to have guidelines about caring for very premature babies changed

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Sarah Capewell and her daughter Jodi

Heartbreak: Sarah Capewell with her daughter Jodi, five

Sarah Capewell
Jayden Capewell

Sarah Capewell is fighting for new guidelines on when infants should be given intensive care after her premature son Jayden (right) was refused treatment

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

James Paget Hospital

Short life: Miss Capewell’s son Jayden died two hours after he was born at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk, in October 2008

She said: ‘When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a “little fighter”.

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, “They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him”.’

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby’s lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

Jayden Capewell
Jayden Capewell

Treasured memories: Pictures of baby Jason’s feet and hands

She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: ‘I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead.’

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

Justice for Jayden: His mother is campaigning to change the law

Justice for Jayden: His mother is campaigning to change the law

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: ‘I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

‘Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won’t survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?’

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: ‘When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.’

What the medical guidelines say…

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.

The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a ‘set of instructions’, but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor’s are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html#ixzz0QdMqsLwl

Congressman wants all ‘czars’ to testify

September 9, 2009

By Jordan Fabian – 09/09/09 10:11 AM ET

Read The Article Here

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Wednesday called for President Obama’s “czars,” or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their “authority and responsibilities” in the executive branch.

The president’s “czars” have become a point of controversy among his opponents because they do not have to be confirmed by the Senate as cabinet-level officials do.

McHenry wrote to committee chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking the appointed officials to testify.

“If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process,” McHenry, who is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in his letter.

Czars were in the spotlight again after “green jobs” czar Van Jones’ resigned this weekend. It was revealed that Jones made harsh comments about Republicans and signed a “truther” petition alleging that the government played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

“His ability to slip into a position of power without due Congressional diligence only further underscores the necessity for a confirmation process,” the third-term Republican said of Jones.

However, the actual number of czars in the administration is a disputed matter. McHenry requests that all of President Obama’s 44 czars testify before Congress. But other reports put the number at around 30.

The North Carolina Republican did not provide a list of the 44 czars he wants to testify.

Jones’ Resignation May Embolden Administration Critics

September 7, 2009
Jones’ Resignation May Embolden Administration Critics
Now that White House green jobs adviser Van Jones has stepped down, Republicans are raising concerns about the administration’s reliance on “czars.”
FOXNews.com
Monday, September 07, 2009
Jones resigned late Saturday following mounting criticism over his past statements and associations. The tipping point came when it was discovered that he signed a petition in 2004 supporting the “9/11 truther” movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been complicit in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
But even before his resignation, critics said the controversy surrounding Jones was indicative of the fundamental problem with the administration’s reliance on such advisers.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the first lawmaker to call for Jones’ resignation, said Friday that in light of the controversy Obama should suspend the appointment of additional “czars” until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Now that Jones is out of the way, Republicans are turning their fire on czars in general.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, called the czars “an affront to the Constitution” since they are not approved by Congress.
“I don’t think (Jones is) the issue. I think the czars are the issue,” Alexander, R-Tenn., said on “FOX News Sunday.” “We have about two dozen so-called czars — the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House.”
Republican strategist Ed Rollins said the administration needs to focus on bringing people on board who are competent and not controversial.
“(Jones) got out of there, but the more fundamental thing is there are 31 czars in that White House,” he said.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi suggested this is only the beginning for administration critics.
“They’re going to keep gunning. I mean, look, this administration has the potential to be FDR or Jimmy Carter, and I think the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make him Jimmy Carter, to create a failed presidency,” he said.
White House aides suggested Sunday that the administration is operating under the assumption that Jones’ resignation will put to rest an unhelpful controversy, at a time when the president needs as much support as he can muster to pass health care reform.
Adviser David Axelrod commended Jones for the decision to step down, saying he showed his “commitment” to his cause by removing himself “as an issue.”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Jones “understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward” on clean energy.
“What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual,” Gibbs said on ABC’s “This Week.”
But Jones did not go quietly. He issued a defiant statement announcing his departure, accusing critics of mounting a “vicious smear campaign” against him, even as the White House kept its commentary to a minimum.
“They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” Jones said.
Trippi and Rollins spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Axelrod spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Jones’ Resignation May Embolden Administration Critics
Now that White House green jobs adviser Van Jones has stepped down, Republicans are raising concerns about the administration’s reliance on “czars.”
Read entire article here
FOXNews.com
Monday, September 07, 2009
Jones resigned late Saturday following mounting criticism over his past statements and associations. The tipping point came when it was discovered that he signed a petition in 2004 supporting the “9/11 truther” movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been complicit in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
But even before his resignation, critics said the controversy surrounding Jones was indicative of the fundamental problem with the administration’s reliance on such advisers.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the first lawmaker to call for Jones’ resignation, said Friday that in light of the controversy Obama should suspend the appointment of additional “czars” until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Now that Jones is out of the way, Republicans are turning their fire on czars in general.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, called the czars “an affront to the Constitution” since they are not approved by Congress.
“I don’t think (Jones is) the issue. I think the czars are the issue,” Alexander, R-Tenn., said on “FOX News Sunday.” “We have about two dozen so-called czars — the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House.”
Republican strategist Ed Rollins said the administration needs to focus on bringing people on board who are competent and not controversial.
“(Jones) got out of there, but the more fundamental thing is there are 31 czars in that White House,” he said.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi suggested this is only the beginning for administration critics.
“They’re going to keep gunning. I mean, look, this administration has the potential to be FDR or Jimmy Carter, and I think the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make him Jimmy Carter, to create a failed presidency,” he said.
White House aides suggested Sunday that the administration is operating under the assumption that Jones’ resignation will put to rest an unhelpful controversy, at a time when the president needs as much support as he can muster to pass health care reform.
Adviser David Axelrod commended Jones for the decision to step down, saying he showed his “commitment” to his cause by removing himself “as an issue.”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Jones “understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward” on clean energy.
“What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual,” Gibbs said on ABC’s “This Week.”
But Jones did not go quietly. He issued a defiant statement announcing his departure, accusing critics of mounting a “vicious smear campaign” against him, even as the White House kept its commentary to a minimum.
“They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” Jones said.
Trippi and Rollins spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Axelrod spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Barack Obama accused of making ‘Depression’ mistakes

September 7, 2009

Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.
His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.
There are “troubling similarities” between the US President’s actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.
In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House’s plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.
The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: “[Franklin D Roosevelt’s] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows.”
Although the authors support the Federal Reserve’s moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: “It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron.”
The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: “We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s’ Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work.”
The authors of the pamphlet, Charles K. Rowley and Nathanael Smith, give their views.

Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.

Read entire article here

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

There are “troubling similarities” between the US President’s actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House’s plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.

The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: “[Franklin D Roosevelt’s] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows.”

Although the authors support the Federal Reserve’s moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: “It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron.”

The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: “We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s’ Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work.”

The authors of the pamphlet, Charles K. Rowley and Nathanael Smith, give their views.

Read entire article here

Didn’t Nancy want the swamp drained?

September 4, 2009

Rangel Plays Race Card, Says Obamacare The Victim

Read entire article here

Harlem Congressman: Some Americans Go To Sleep At Night Wondering About Presidency: “How Did This Happen?”

Here we go again for Congressman Charles Rangel. 

A major newspaper is calling for his resignation as chairman of the committee that writes tax laws. 

And then there’s this: The 79-year-old is under fire for comments he made about race and President Barack Obama. 

First, Gov. David Paterson did it. Now, Rep. Rangel is doing it as an ethics probe heats up. 

The “it” is playing the race card. Rangel said “bias” and “prejudice” are fueling opposition to health care reform. 

Already under fire for a wide range of ethical questions, Rangel played the race card in a health care forum the other night, saying racial bias against President Obama is behind opposition to health care reform. 

“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is President of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘how did this happen?'” 

Rangel also likened the fight to provide health care for the uninsured to the fight for civil rights. 

“Why do black people have to bargain for what is theirs? Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can’t we get what God has given us? And that is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not court the votes. Just do the right thing,” Rangel said. 

Rangel’s incendiary remarks come as the congressman filed amended financial reports to the House Ethics Committee admitting that he forgot to report millions of dollars in assets and income. 

Financial forgetfulness is apparently a disease that is spreading to his staff. Two top aides — chief of staff Jim Capel and Rangel legal counsel George Dalley — are among about a dozen staffers on Rangel’s tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee that have filed amended financial reports recently. Capel did not file any financial disclosure statements for six years. 

Rangel’s own forgetfulness prompted the political important Washington Post to demand Thursday that Rangel step down as chair of Ways and Means. 

Said The Washington Post: “Much is expected of elected officials. Much more is expected and demanded of those entrusted with chairmanships and the power that comes with them, especially when it involves the nation’s purse strings. From all that we’ve seen thus far, Mr. Rangel has violated that trust continually and seemingly without care.” 

Even some in Rangel’s neighborhood think stepping aside might be a good idea. 

“He’s not the only one. They’re all stealing. It’s just that they want to get him out because he has too much influence. He’s been there too long. Every last one of them is stealing,” Harlem resident Jacob Israel said. 

“He should step aside because who knows what else he’s doing that we don’t know about,” resident Jerry Watson added.

Rangel clammed up about the ethics probe on Thursday. He refused a request for an interview, saying through a spokesman he didn’t think it was fair to comment until the Ethics Committee completes its investigation. 

As Congressman Rangel faces calls to step down, New York politicians are weighing in. 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he’d like to know all the facts before joining the chorus. 

“Charlie has been very helpful to this city in terms of doing things that we’ve asked him to do, bringing home the bacon if you will and I hope that he’s done nothing wrong,” Bloomberg said. 

Councilman and mayoral candidate Tony Avella released a statement saying, “It was also mar his effectiveness in representing Harlem in Congress. He should not stand for re-election.” 

Mayoral candidate Bill Thompson did not return CBS 2 HD’s calls.

China’s national flag to go up in White House on Sept 20

September 4, 2009

The national flag of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will be hoisted at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on September 20, media reported Sunday.

Read Article Here.

Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President’s residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC.
Chen Ronghua, chairman of Fujian Association of the United States, told reporters that their application was approved not only because of the sound Sino-US relations but also because China is a responsible country.

“Many Americans admire China due to the success of last year’s Beijing Olympics,” said Chen.

More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.

Zhao said the performances will demonstrate the friendship, magnanimous spirit and kindness of modern Chinese people.

Broun warns of dictatorship

September 4, 2009

Read entire article here

MADISON – U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is again raising the specter of Democrats turning the United States into a totalitarian state.

Broun, R-Athens, apparently has not changed his belief that President Obama may be a fascist since he made similar remarks in Augusta in November and then in an Associated Press interview.

He told a meeting of the Morgan County Republicans on Wednesday night that Obama already has or will have the three things he needs to make himself a dictator: a national police force, gun control and control over the press.

“He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government,” Broun said. “And so we need to be ever-vigilant, because freedom is precious.”

As he did when comparing Obama to Hitler and the Soviets last year, Broun cited a speech Obama gave in Colorado during the campaign last July calling for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.

In the speech, Obama called young Americans to serve both at home and abroad, and said he would expand the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and other volunteer opportunities. Broun, however, said Obama was referring to a national police force.

“‘The liberals say, ‘What is wrong with Americorps?’ ” Broun said. “Well, this is not Americorps.”

Broun also said he thinks the national media is openly supporting Obama’s policies. He also said he believes the president and Attorney General Eric Holder will enact new gun-control policies.

Holder said in February that he wants to renew a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, but Obama said in April that he is putting the issue on the back burner.

Broun also cited the dozens of so-called “czars” Obama has appointed to oversee areas like the troubled car industry as evidence that he is overstepping his bounds to seek power.

“They’re developing a shadow government that (does not) answer to the American people,” Broun said.

At a town hall meeting in Clarkesville last month, Broun called Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a “socialistic elite” and agreed with a constituent who said they might use a flu pandemic to declare martial law.

“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” Broun said. “We’ve seen that historically.”

More than 1,000 people combined turned out to hear Broun speak mostly on the topic of health care at town hall meetings Wednesday in Madison and Greene County.

About 300 attended the Madison meeting. At Lake Oconee, the audience filled three 300-seat movie theaters, where Broun spoke on the invitation of three local doctors who have been giving presentations on Democrats’ proposals for health care reform, said Bob Cowles, one of the organizers. Broun spoke live in one theater, while crowds in the other two listened in over a closed circuit.

Health care reform also is about Democrats seeking more power, Broun said.

“It gives them more power, more control over your life,” he said.

Health care is too expensive, he said, and he attributed the cost to government regulations like HIPPA, a 1996 patient privacy and insurance portability law. Rather than create a government-run insurance program to compete with private insurers, the current system’s framework should be kept, but with changes like expanded tax-free health savings accounts, more tax credits for medical expenses and tax breaks for doctors who provide charity care, Broun said.

“Just like (when) you have a dog with fleas, you don’t kill the dog, you put on a flea collar,” he said.

Broun has scheduled another town hall meeting for 10 a.m. Tuesday at the Oconee County Civic Center.

Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Thursday, September 03, 2009

Inhofe blasts Obama at Grove town hall

September 4, 2009

By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
Published: 9/2/2009  5:56 PM
Last Modified: 9/2/2009  10:14 PM

Read entire article here

GROVE —

Right-thinking Americans can only hope the country will survive the next 16 months of the Obama administration until Republicans can regain control of Congress, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Wednesday.

“I never dreamed I would see an administration try to disavow all the things that have made this country different from all others,” Inhofe told more than 300 people at a town hall meeting in the Grove Community Center.
“I have never seen so many things happening at one time so disheartening to America.” Inhofe found a highly receptive audience. Many wore T-shirts of a local organization called Get America Back. Its Web site promises “a plan to eliminate the socialist government and return Americas (sic) freedoms.”
The “plan” is a link to a YouTube video by Lloyd Marcus, a Florida artist and singer making the circuit of anti-Obama “Tea Party” rallies.
Wednesday’s audience was similar to those at town hall meetings throughout northeastern Oklahoma in recent weeks. Concerns centered on the administration and Democratic-controlled Congress.
Inhofe gave his constituents plenty to worry about.
“Every institution that has made this country the greatest nation in the world is under attack,” he said at the end of the 75-minute session.
During those 75 minutes, Inhofe said President Barack Obama is disarming the military, is destroying everything good about America and is determined to turn foreign terrorists loose on U.S. soil.
The good news, he said, is that he does not think the Democratic leadership can push through
health-care reform or the more controversial parts of its energy bill.
He also said he continues to be proven correct in his claim that global climate change is a hoax.
“More and more, with each month that goes by, more scientists agree with me,” he said. “We are winning.”
Inhofe opened by saying the noisy debate over health care has caused Americans to overlook other important issues, including climate change and energy policy.
He is also alarmed, he said, by the proposed closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama administration wants to shutter the camp because of its association with torture.
Inhofe said: “There has never been a case of torture there. The people there are treated better than in the federal prisons.”
He continued, “I don’t know why President Obama is obsessed with turning terrorists loose in America.”
The administration says it wants to bring 60 to 80 prisoners to the U.S. for trial. Some Republicans have said those acquitted could be released in the U.S., but authorities say they would be deported as foreign nationals.
Inhofe’s third concern, he said, is that “Barack Obama is disarming America.” He conceded that Obama requested more military spending, but he criticized the elimination of several weapons systems, including the F-22 fighter.
Obama, at the urging of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also scrapped one of Inhofe’s pet projects, a cannon that was to be assembled at Elgin in southwestern Oklahoma.
Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, advocated abandoning high-tech systems such as the cannon and the F-22 for cheaper, more reliable weapons.
“Those of you who think like I do,” Inhofe said, “hope this country can hang on another 16 months.”

By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer

Published: 9/2/2009  5:56 PM

Last Modified: 9/2/2009  10:14 PM

GROVE — Right-thinking Americans can only hope the country will survive the next 16 months of the Obama administration until Republicans can regain control of Congress, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Wednesday.

“I never dreamed I would see an administration try to disavow all the things that have made this country different from all others,” Inhofe told more than 300 people at a town hall meeting in the Grove Community Center.

“I have never seen so many things happening at one time so disheartening to America.” Inhofe found a highly receptive audience. Many wore T-shirts of a local organization called Get America Back. Its Web site promises “a plan to eliminate the socialist government and return Americas (sic) freedoms.”

The “plan” is a link to a YouTube video by Lloyd Marcus, a Florida artist and singer making the circuit of anti-Obama “Tea Party” rallies.

Wednesday’s audience was similar to those at town hall meetings throughout northeastern Oklahoma in recent weeks. Concerns centered on the administration and Democratic-controlled Congress.

Inhofe gave his constituents plenty to worry about.

“Every institution that has made this country the greatest nation in the world is under attack,” he said at the end of the 75-minute session.

During those 75 minutes, Inhofe said President Barack Obama is disarming the military, is destroying everything good about America and is determined to turn foreign terrorists loose on U.S. soil.

The good news, he said, is that he does not think the Democratic leadership can push through

health-care reform or the more controversial parts of its energy bill.

He also said he continues to be proven correct in his claim that global climate change is a hoax.

“More and more, with each month that goes by, more scientists agree with me,” he said. “We are winning.”

Inhofe opened by saying the noisy debate over health care has caused Americans to overlook other important issues, including climate change and energy policy.

He is also alarmed, he said, by the proposed closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama administration wants to shutter the camp because of its association with torture.

Inhofe said: “There has never been a case of torture there. The people there are treated better than in the federal prisons.”

He continued, “I don’t know why President Obama is obsessed with turning terrorists loose in America.”

The administration says it wants to bring 60 to 80 prisoners to the U.S. for trial. Some Republicans have said those acquitted could be released in the U.S., but authorities say they would be deported as foreign nationals.

Inhofe’s third concern, he said, is that “Barack Obama is disarming America.” He conceded that Obama requested more military spending, but he criticized the elimination of several weapons systems, including the F-22 fighter.

Obama, at the urging of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also scrapped one of Inhofe’s pet projects, a cannon that was to be assembled at Elgin in southwestern Oklahoma.

Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, advocated abandoning high-tech systems such as the cannon and the F-22 for cheaper, more reliable weapons.

“Those of you who think like I do,” Inhofe said, “hope this country can hang on another 16 months.”

Lockerbie bomber ‘set free for oil’

August 31, 2009

From The Sunday Times

Read entire article here

Jason Allardyce

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: “This is the strongest evidence yet that the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking.”

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.”

BP denied that political factors were involved in the deal’s ratification or that it had stalled during negotiations over the prisoner transfer talks.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman denied there had been a U-turn, but said trade considerations had been a factor in negotiating the prisoner exchange deal. He said Straw had unsuccessfully tried to accommodate the wish of the Scottish government to exclude Megrahi from agreement.

The spokesman claimed the deal was ultimately “academic” because Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds: “The negotiations on the [transfer agreement] were part of wider negotiations aimed at the normalisation of relations with Libya, which included a range of areas, including trade.

“The exclusion or inclusion of Megrahi would not serve any practical purpose because the Scottish executive always had a veto on whether to transfer him.”

A spokesman for Lord Mandelson said he had not changed his position that the release of Megrahi was not linked to trade deals.


Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

August 28, 2009

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
Read entire article here

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”


Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com who writes a daily feature called Taking Liberties focused on individual and economic rights. You can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan at declan@cbsnews.com.

I

Senator warns of hyperinflation rivaling the 1980s

August 26, 2009
@ 10:04 am by Michael O’Brien

Read entire article here

The economy could spiral into hyperinflation not seen since the early 1980s if the Federal Reserve does not tighten its monetary policy soon, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) warned Tuesday.

Grassley, speaking about the renomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term as head of the Fed, asserted that Bernanke’s ability to hold down inflation would be the metric by which the Fed’s success would be measured.

“We won’t know for a year if he’s done a good job so far, because he shoveled money out of an airplane to save banks and the financial system,” Grassley said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “But shoveling money out of an airplane to solve problems can be inflationary — in this case, hyperinflationary — if he doesn’t start mopping up some of the money that’s out there.”

Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said that inflation as a result from government spending on bailouts could result in inflation rivaling rates in 1980, when it hit a peak of 13.5 percent.

“The Fed has the ability to put money out, it’s got the ability to take money back in, and if they don’t do that, we will have hyperinflation worse than we had in 1980 and ’81,” Grassley said. “And I hope he demonstrates that ability.”

Grassley argued that while it would be a year until lawmakers will know whether Bernanke has been successful at bringing inflation under control, it would probably be best to keep the chairman on board for a second term as head of the Federal Reserve.

“I would suggest that right now, when everybody’s nervous about the economy, that you don’t change horses in the middle of the stream, and consequently, it would probably be detrimental to not have him reappointed,” he said.

Memorial Service…You’re invited.

August 17, 2009
Subject: Memorial Service: you’re invited.

We’re hearing a lot today about big splashy memorial services.
I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell “Shifty” Powers.

Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry20Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you’ve seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.

I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn’t know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the “Screaming Eagle,” the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.

Making conversation, I asked him if he’d been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.

Quietly and humbly, he said “Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 .. . . ” at which point my heart skipped.

At that point, again, very humbly, he said “I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . . do you know where Normandy is?” At this point my heart stopped.

I told him “yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know what D-Day was.” At that point he said “I also made a second jump into Holland, into Arnhem.” I was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day..

I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France, and he said “Yes. And it’s real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can’t make the trip.” My heart was in my throat and I didn’t know what to say.

I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I’d take his in coach.

He said “No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to make an old man very happy.” His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.

Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.

There was no parade.
No big event in Staples Center.
No wall to wall back to back 24×7 news coverage.
No weeping fans on television.
And that’s not right.

Let’s give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.

Rest in peace, Shifty.

Chuck Yeager, MajGen. [ret.]

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

August 15, 2009

Just listen to this and decide for yourself.

Find it on this web address

We are all gonna die!!!!!!!!!! Soon

August 13, 2009

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Incheon (Republic of Korea)

11 August 2009

Remarks to the Global Environment Forum

Honourable Ahn Sang-Soo, Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City,

Honourable Mr. Ko Kun, Co-Chairman of the global Enviroment Forum,

Honourable Mr. Lee Man-yi, Minister of Environment,

Distinguished guests, Ladies and gentlemen, Dear Friends,

It is a great privilege for me to participate in this global Environment Forum.

Let me begin by offering my sincere congratulations to Mayor Ahn and the the citizens of the Metropolitan City of Incheon.

Environment Forum as well as the Global Fair and Festival 2009, you show true global vision ? vision that underlines the importance of local government and cities in coping with the challenges of the 21st century.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As you know, Incheon is famous as the gateway to Korea.

But here today, I am especially proud as UN Secretary-General – and a Korean citizen – to be able to say that Incheon is also a gateway to our common future.

The very fact that this most important Forum meets here today testifies to that.

The Songdo Convensia is one of the world’s most green convention centres. And it is located in one of the world’s most eco-friendly cities.

Songdo is remarkable not only for what it has become but for what it used to be.

People who grew up here remember the smokestacks and toxic fumes.

In a few short decades, these have given way to clean buildings and clear skies.

We are here today to recognize the connections between us and deal with a common problem. Of this, too, Songdo is a symbol and key.

I understand that Songdo modeled itself on the Swedish sister city of Hammarby Sjostad (SCHÖ-stad).

That city, too, used to be an industrial site before it transformed itself through ecofriendly development.

These two cities – one in Europe, the other in Asia – show visionary civic leadership. They understand that we have a choice: adapt or perish.

It is that simple.

Other cities around the world are taking this enlightened approach. Reykjavik in Iceland? Curitiba in Brazil… Kampala in Uganda… Sydney in Australia.

Whenever I visit these places, I am impressed.

People everywhere are accepting that we must all live cleaner, greener, more sustainable lives. This is our future.

I must admit that, as a Korean, Songdo occupies a special place in my heart.

It helps show how Korea has emerged as a world leader on greening the economy.

Some 80 per cent of Korea’s $38 billion national stimulus package is dedicated to green growth? the highest percentage in the world.

Nearly a million green jobs will be created in the coming four years.

This represents a fundamental shift in Korea’s approach to building national prosperity.

I applaud this progress. I commend the visionary leadership of President Lee Myung Bak of Korea.

But Korea must do more.

The world is looking to Korea for leadership. This powerful emerging economy can serve as a bridge between developed and developing countries.

But to do this, Korea must set ambitious goals for reducing its own emissions.

I understand that the Korean Government is now seriously considering amending the mid-term target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As the Minister of Environment said, the Korean Government is now is considering three options.

As Secretary-General of the United Nations, I urge you to aim high – be more ambitious commensurate with your economic development.

Korea long inspired others with its comeback spirit of renewal. After the Second World War, it arose to become one of the world’s strongest economies.

Songdo was an industrial wasteland, but it transformed itself into one of the world’s greenest cities.

Korea should now go further.

It should make itself a model of international engagement on climate change. Climate change, as all previous speakers have already stated, is the fundamental threat to humankind.

It exacerbates all of the problems we face: poverty, disease, hunger and insecurity. It impedes progress toward the Millennium Development Goals. It deepens the food and energy crises.

That is the harsh reality.

But there is an upside: if we combat climate change with a sustainable, low-emissions approach, just like we see around us in Songdo, we can change the way countries develop.

We can foster a green economy and green growth.

We can fight hunger and poverty while protecting the environment.

The downside is equally dramatic.

If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters.

Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.

The damage to national economies will be enormous. The human suffering will be incalculable.

We have the power to change course. But we must do it now.

As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future. I’m glad that the Chairman of the forum and many other speakers have used my campaign slogan “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. I won’t charge them loyalty. Please use this “Seal the Deal” as widely as possible, as much as you can. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

Any agreement must be fair, effective, equitable and comprehensive, and based on science. And it must help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The science is clear. We know what to do and we know how to do it. Songdo shows us the way.

What is needed is the political will. We have the capacity. We have finance. We have the technology. The largest lacking is political will. That is why I will convey some meetings focused on climate change. I have invited all the leaders of the world including President Lee.

Two years ago, only a handful of world leaders could talk about climate change.

Today, leaders of all the world, all the countries on every continent are aware of the threats we face now.

This is great progress, for we need leadership of the very highest order.

Awareness is the first step. The challenge now is to act.

Since my first day as Secretary-General, I have spoken out about the grave climate change threat.

My words, at times, have been blunt.

When the leaders of the G-8 agreed in July to keep the global temperature increase within two degrees centigrade by the year 2050, that was welcomed and I welcome that statement.

But I also said again, it was not enough.

But leaders have agreed to cut green house gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. That is welcomed again. But that must be accompanied by the ambitious mid-term target by 2020 as science tells us to do. There I said, while I applaud their commitment, that is not enough.

I called for matching these long-term goals with ambitious mid-term emission reduction targets.

Let me be clear about what we need to do.

There are four points [of] very important key political issues.

First industrialized countries must lead by committing to binding mid-term reduction targets on the order of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels.

Unfortunately, the mid-term emission targets announced so far are not close enough to this range. This must change. That is why I am urging at this time, that the Korean government should take more ambitious targets.

Second, developing countries need to take nationally appropriate mitigation actions in order to reduce the growth in their emissions substantially below business as usual.

Their actions must be measurable, reportable and verifiable.

Third, developed countries must provide sufficient, measurable, reportable and verifiable financial and technological support to developing countries.

This will allow developing countries to pursue their mitigation efforts as part of their sustainable green growth strategies and to adapt to accelerating climate impacts.

Significant resources will be needed from both public and private sources.

Developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, will collectively need billions of dollars in public financing for adaptation.

I am talking here about new money – not re-packaged Official Development Assistance. This is one of the most important issues which we are going to discuss on September 22nd in New York, and this year again at the G20 Summit Meeting in Pittsburgh on September 24th.

Fourth, we need an equitable and accountable mechanism for distributing these financial and technological resources, taking into account the views of all countries in decision-making.

Accomplishing all of this requires tough decisions. It will take flexibility and hard work to negotiate the most difficult issues.

Trust between developed and developing countries is essential.

When governments succeed in sealing a deal in Copenhagen, we will have shown the spirit of international solidarity. We will have shown leadership – political will.

Distinguished participants,

The city of Incheon has a remarkable history.

Here, in 1950, the Korean war came to a famous turning point, following a daring landing by UN forces.

Against all the odds, the operation succeeded. Courage and leadership turned the tide.

Today, we need to turn a different tide – the tide of climate change. We need bold “outside of the box” thinking.

We need your support and cooperation.

You can shape the international debate and influence important decisions.

You can encourage countries to work together.

I promise you my best effort as Secretary-General of the United Nations — my best effort to push, pull and cajole national leaders into acting in our common global interest.

Together, we truly can turn the tide, once again, here in Incheon.

I need your support, your commitment, and your leadership.

Thank you very much.

Jihadis thrice attacked Pakistan nuclear sites

August 11, 2009

Article appears here

Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 11 August 2009, 08:35am IST

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s nuclear facilities have already been attacked at least thrice by its home-grown extremists and terrorists in littlereported incidents over the las two years, even as the world remains divided over the safety and security of the nuclear weapons in the troubled country, according to western analysts.

The incidents, tracked by Shaun Gregory, a professor at Bradford University in UK, include an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on November 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan’s nuclear airbase at Kamra by a suicide bomber on December 10, 2007, and perhaps most significantly the August 20, 2008 attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons assembly.

These attacks have occurred even as Pakistan has taken several steps to secure and fortify its nuclear weapons against potential attacks, particularly by the United States and India, says Gregory.

In fact, the attacks have received so little attention that Peter Bergen, the eminent terrorism expert who reviewed Gregory’s paper first published in West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center Sentinel, said “he (Gregory) points out something that was news to me (and shouldn’t have been) which is that a series of attacks on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons facilities have already happened.”

Pakistan insists that its nuclear weapons are fully secured and there is no chance of them falling into the hands of the extremists or terrorists.

But Gregory, while detailing the steps Islamabad has taken to protect them against Indian and US attacks, asks if the geographical location of Pakistan’s principle nuclear weapons infrastructure, which is mainly in areas dominated by al-Qaida and Taliban, makes it more vulnerable to internal attacks.

Gregory points out that when Pakistan was developing its nuclear weapons infrastructure in the 1970s and 1980s, its
principal concern was the risk that India would overrun its nuclear weapons facilities in an armored offensive if the
facilities were placed close to the long Pakistan-India border.

As a result, Pakistan, with a few exceptions, chose to locate much of its nuclear weapons infrastructure to the
north and west of the country and to the region around Islamabad and Rawalpindi – sites such as Wah, Fatehjang,
Golra Sharif, Kahuta, Sihala, Isa Khel Charma, Tarwanah, and Taxila. The concern, however, is that most of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are close to or even within areas dominated by Pakistani Taliban militants and home to al-Qaida.

Detailing the actions taken by Islamabad to safeguard its nuclear assets from external attacks, Gregory writes that
Pakistan has established a “robust set of measures to assure the security of its nuclear weapons.” These have
been based on copying US practices, procedures and technologies, and comprise: a) physical security; b)
personnel reliability programs; c) technical and procedural safeguards; and d) deception and secrecy.

In terms of physical security, Pakistan operates a layered concept of concentric tiers of armed forces personnel to
guard nuclear weapons facilities, the use of physical barriers and intrusion detectors to secure nuclear weapons
facilities, the physical separation of warhead cores from their detonation components, and the storage of the
components in protected underground sites.

With respect to personnel reliability, Gregory says the Pakistan Army conducts a tight selection process drawing
almost exclusively on officers from Punjab Province who are considered to have fewer links with religious extremism (now increasingly a questionable premise) or with the Pashtun areas of Pakistan from which groups such as the Pakistani Taliban mainly garner their support.

Pakistan operates an analog to the US Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) that screens individuals for Islamist sympathies, personality problems, drug use, inappropriate external affiliations, and sexual deviancy.

The army uses staff rotation and also operates a “two-person” rule under which no action, decision, or
activity involving a nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons. In total, between 8,000 and 10,000 individuals from the SPD’s security division and from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau agencies are involved in the security clearance and monitoring of those with nuclear weapons duties.

Gregory says despite formal command authority structures that cede a role to Pakistan’s civilian leadership, in
practice the Pakistan Army has complete control over the country’s nuclear weapons.

It imposes its executive authority over the weapons through the use of an authenticating code system down through the command chains that is deployment sites, aspects of the nuclear command and control arrangements, and many aspects of the arrangements for nuclear safety and security (such as the numbers of those removed under personnel reliability programs, the reasons for their removal, and how often authenticating and enabling (PAL-type) codes are changed).

In addition, Pakistan uses deception – such as dummy missiles – to complicate the calculus of adversaries and is
likely to have extended this practice to its nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Taken together, these measures provide confidence that the Pakistan Army can fully protect its nuclear weapons against the internal terrorist threat, against its main adversary India, and against the suggestion that its nuclear weapons could be either spirited out of the country by a third party (posited to be the United States) or destroyed in the event of a deteriorating situation or a state collapse in Pakistan, says Gregory.

However, at another point, he says “despite these elaborate safeguards, empirical evidence points to a clear
set of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security arrangements.”

Charges Dropped Against Black Panther

August 9, 2009

The article appears here
EXCLUSIVE: No. 3 at Justice OK’d Panther reversal
Case involved polling place in Philadelphia

By Jerry Seper (Contact)

Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 30, 2009, updated 04:59 p.m., July 30, 2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election, according to interviews.

The department’s career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews.

Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.