Saturday, July 10, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Black GOP candidate slams Obama for exploiting race
By Michael O'Brien - 07/08/10 04:57 PM ET
One of the GOP's handful of black candidates for Congress condemned President Barack Obama of exploiting race for political gain.
Allen West, the Republican challenging Rep. Ron Klein (D) in Florida's 22nd congressional district, sharply criticized the Obama administration for having allegedly declined prosecuting the New Black Panther Party on voter tampering charges for political reasons.
"For an Administration that promised a new era in race relations, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that race will continually be exploited for political gain," West, who is one of two African-American Republicans running for Congress who have survived their primaries, said in a statement.
West was picking up on a meme that's made its way through conservative blogs in recent days, based on whistleblower claims made by a former Justice Department employee. Charges against the Black Panthers for their actions on Election Day 2008 weren't pursued because of racial politics, the employee charged. The Justice Department says charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.
West drew on his own history with race to condemn the Black Panthers, as well as other black Democrats, who he said had "remained silent" when he'd been called racially-ringed names during the course of his campaign.
"The dye has been cast in this election cycle - Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient," West said. "I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Party and the placement of it, along with any extremist group, onto the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter."
The words have more weight coming from this candidate, who's seen as one of two black Republican candidates who have a good shot at making their way to Washington next year.
http://bit.ly/b6cSUI
One of the GOP's handful of black candidates for Congress condemned President Barack Obama of exploiting race for political gain.
Allen West, the Republican challenging Rep. Ron Klein (D) in Florida's 22nd congressional district, sharply criticized the Obama administration for having allegedly declined prosecuting the New Black Panther Party on voter tampering charges for political reasons.
"For an Administration that promised a new era in race relations, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that race will continually be exploited for political gain," West, who is one of two African-American Republicans running for Congress who have survived their primaries, said in a statement.
West was picking up on a meme that's made its way through conservative blogs in recent days, based on whistleblower claims made by a former Justice Department employee. Charges against the Black Panthers for their actions on Election Day 2008 weren't pursued because of racial politics, the employee charged. The Justice Department says charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.
West drew on his own history with race to condemn the Black Panthers, as well as other black Democrats, who he said had "remained silent" when he'd been called racially-ringed names during the course of his campaign.
"The dye has been cast in this election cycle - Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient," West said. "I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Party and the placement of it, along with any extremist group, onto the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter."
The words have more weight coming from this candidate, who's seen as one of two black Republican candidates who have a good shot at making their way to Washington next year.
http://bit.ly/b6cSUI
California transit cop verdict sparks looting
By Steve Gorman and Peter Henderson
LOS ANGELES/OAKLAND | Fri Jul 9, 2010 4:52am EDT
California (Reuters) - A white former transit police officer was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a videotaped shooting death of an unarmed black man last year in Oakland, California, sparking a wave of looting and destruction in the city on Thursday.
The verdict prompted a peaceful protest by up to 1,000 people in downtown Oakland, which gave way after nightfall to some people looting stores, smashing car windows, throwing powerful fireworks at police and lighting fires in trash cans.
The police, numbering in the hundreds, made more than 50 arrests, but Oakland police expected that figure could double.
"This city is not the wild, wild West," Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts told a televised news conference. "This city will not tolerate this activity."
A Los Angeles jury deliberated for about six hours over two days before reaching their decision about the shooting on a train platform in Oakland, indicating they deemed it a tragic accident rather than the intentional act of a rogue cop.
The defendant in the racially charged trial, Johannes Mehserle, 28, testified that he mistakenly drew his gun instead of his electric Taser and shot Oscar Grant, 22, while trying to subdue him during a confrontation on New Year's Day 2009.
But prosecutors, who sought a conviction for second-degree murder, said Mehserle had "lost all control" and shot Grant on purpose because he thought Grant was resisting arrest.
Jurors can render an involuntary manslaughter conviction if they believe the defendant lacked an intent to kill but engaged in conduct so grossly negligent that it amounts to a crime.
It generally carries a sentence of two to four years in prison, but the jury also accepted a sentencing "enhancement" for Mehserle's use of a handgun.
"We are outraged that the jury did not find guilty of murder in a case that is so egregiously excessive and mishandled," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
http://bit.ly/d88uQN
LOS ANGELES/OAKLAND | Fri Jul 9, 2010 4:52am EDT
California (Reuters) - A white former transit police officer was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a videotaped shooting death of an unarmed black man last year in Oakland, California, sparking a wave of looting and destruction in the city on Thursday.
The verdict prompted a peaceful protest by up to 1,000 people in downtown Oakland, which gave way after nightfall to some people looting stores, smashing car windows, throwing powerful fireworks at police and lighting fires in trash cans.
The police, numbering in the hundreds, made more than 50 arrests, but Oakland police expected that figure could double.
"This city is not the wild, wild West," Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts told a televised news conference. "This city will not tolerate this activity."
A Los Angeles jury deliberated for about six hours over two days before reaching their decision about the shooting on a train platform in Oakland, indicating they deemed it a tragic accident rather than the intentional act of a rogue cop.
The defendant in the racially charged trial, Johannes Mehserle, 28, testified that he mistakenly drew his gun instead of his electric Taser and shot Oscar Grant, 22, while trying to subdue him during a confrontation on New Year's Day 2009.
But prosecutors, who sought a conviction for second-degree murder, said Mehserle had "lost all control" and shot Grant on purpose because he thought Grant was resisting arrest.
Jurors can render an involuntary manslaughter conviction if they believe the defendant lacked an intent to kill but engaged in conduct so grossly negligent that it amounts to a crime.
It generally carries a sentence of two to four years in prison, but the jury also accepted a sentencing "enhancement" for Mehserle's use of a handgun.
"We are outraged that the jury did not find guilty of murder in a case that is so egregiously excessive and mishandled," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
http://bit.ly/d88uQN
Neocons, Likud Conquer DC, Again
By Robert Parry
July 8, 2010
The clout of Washington’s neoconservatives and the political fear induced by Israel’s Likud hardliners were on display again with recently released e-mails in which Gen. David Petraeus grovels before a key neocon and in White House meetings at which President Obama pandered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The e-mails from Petraeus to Max Boot reveal the four-star general renouncing his own congressional testimony in March because it included the observation that "the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests” in the Middle East.
Petraeus’s testimony continued, “Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. … Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”
Though the testimony might strike some readers as a no-brainer, many neocons regard any suggestion that Israeli intransigence on Palestinian peace talks contributes to the dangers faced by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan – or by the U.S. public from acts of terrorism at home – as a “blood libel” against Israel.
So, when Petraeus’s testimony began getting traction on the Internet, the general quickly turned to Boot, a neocon writer based at the high-powered Council on Foreign Relations, and began backtracking on the testimony.
“As you know, I didn't say that,” Petraeus said, according to one e-mail to Boot timed off at 2:27 p.m., March 18. “It's in a written submission for the record.”
In other words, Petraeus was arguing that the comments were only in his formal testimony submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee and were not repeated by him in his brief oral opening statement. However, the written testimony is treated as part of the official record at congressional hearings with no meaningful distinction from oral testimony.
In another e-mail, as Petraeus solicited Boot’s help in tamping down any controversy over the Israeli remarks, the general ended the message with a military “Roger” and a sideways happy face, made from a colon, a dash and a closed parenthesis, :-) .
http://bit.ly/bZg2Hs
July 8, 2010
The clout of Washington’s neoconservatives and the political fear induced by Israel’s Likud hardliners were on display again with recently released e-mails in which Gen. David Petraeus grovels before a key neocon and in White House meetings at which President Obama pandered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The e-mails from Petraeus to Max Boot reveal the four-star general renouncing his own congressional testimony in March because it included the observation that "the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests” in the Middle East.
Petraeus’s testimony continued, “Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. … Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”
Though the testimony might strike some readers as a no-brainer, many neocons regard any suggestion that Israeli intransigence on Palestinian peace talks contributes to the dangers faced by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan – or by the U.S. public from acts of terrorism at home – as a “blood libel” against Israel.
So, when Petraeus’s testimony began getting traction on the Internet, the general quickly turned to Boot, a neocon writer based at the high-powered Council on Foreign Relations, and began backtracking on the testimony.
“As you know, I didn't say that,” Petraeus said, according to one e-mail to Boot timed off at 2:27 p.m., March 18. “It's in a written submission for the record.”
In other words, Petraeus was arguing that the comments were only in his formal testimony submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee and were not repeated by him in his brief oral opening statement. However, the written testimony is treated as part of the official record at congressional hearings with no meaningful distinction from oral testimony.
In another e-mail, as Petraeus solicited Boot’s help in tamping down any controversy over the Israeli remarks, the general ended the message with a military “Roger” and a sideways happy face, made from a colon, a dash and a closed parenthesis, :-) .
http://bit.ly/bZg2Hs
Senate-seeker wants Obama birth-certificate treatment
Mexican-born candidate: 'If I didn't prove citizenship, I'd be removed from the ballot'
Posted: July 08, 2010
9:20 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof of citizenship" to appear on the ballot.
Hector Maldonado, 38, a self-described "Lincolnian Republican conservative," is seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri. He was born one of 10 children in Durango, Mexico. His father is a migrant field worker who owns a small hog ranch in Perris, Calif.
During the following July 5 interview with Karen Berka of Branson Radio Live posted on YouTube, Maldonado explains why he thinks his rights were violated when the secretary of state's office asked for proof of U.S. citizenship when he filed to run for the Senate:Maldonado, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, explains on his website that he became a U.S. citizen in 1995. But he said Secretary of State Robin Carnahan sent him a letter in May asking him to produce documentation.
"It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."
The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.
Maldonado continued, "But it's not that simple. I didn't get away with it. I got a certified letter from Ms. Robin Carnahan's office saying that if I did not prove that I was a U.S. citizen, then I would be removed from the ballot."
He claims Carnahan's office gave him a deadline of May 12.
"I got all my documents together: my birth certificate, which is a Mexican birth certificate; my naturalization certificate; my orders sending me to Iraq and Afghanistan; my bronze-star citations and a couple of officer evaluations that say I'm a pretty good and effective leader," he said. "So I brought all this documentation, and they were only interested in the naturalization certificate. They made a photocopy of it."
http://bit.ly/cAvfLR
Posted: July 08, 2010
9:20 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof of citizenship" to appear on the ballot.
Hector Maldonado, 38, a self-described "Lincolnian Republican conservative," is seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri. He was born one of 10 children in Durango, Mexico. His father is a migrant field worker who owns a small hog ranch in Perris, Calif.
During the following July 5 interview with Karen Berka of Branson Radio Live posted on YouTube, Maldonado explains why he thinks his rights were violated when the secretary of state's office asked for proof of U.S. citizenship when he filed to run for the Senate:Maldonado, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, explains on his website that he became a U.S. citizen in 1995. But he said Secretary of State Robin Carnahan sent him a letter in May asking him to produce documentation.
"It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."
The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.
Maldonado continued, "But it's not that simple. I didn't get away with it. I got a certified letter from Ms. Robin Carnahan's office saying that if I did not prove that I was a U.S. citizen, then I would be removed from the ballot."
He claims Carnahan's office gave him a deadline of May 12.
"I got all my documents together: my birth certificate, which is a Mexican birth certificate; my naturalization certificate; my orders sending me to Iraq and Afghanistan; my bronze-star citations and a couple of officer evaluations that say I'm a pretty good and effective leader," he said. "So I brought all this documentation, and they were only interested in the naturalization certificate. They made a photocopy of it."
http://bit.ly/cAvfLR
‘Shadow Government’ News To Congress
‘Shadow Government’ News To Congress – CBS News.
(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation’s capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration’s move.
Among Congress’s GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee “the continuity of government,” adding, “This is serious business.”
Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.
Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: “We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously.”
“I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government,” Mr. Bush said. “That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously.”
http://bit.ly/1cml55
(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation’s capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration’s move.
Among Congress’s GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee “the continuity of government,” adding, “This is serious business.”
Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.
Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: “We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously.”
“I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government,” Mr. Bush said. “That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously.”
http://bit.ly/1cml55
Obama loses drilling moratorium appeal
Jul 8 08:48 PM US/Eastern
The Obama administration lost its court bid to maintain a six-month moratorium on offshore deepwater drilling which a federal judge ordered lifted last month.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government's emergency request to stay that judge's order pending appeal.
The motion was denied because the government failed to show "a likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted," the appeals panel judges wrote in a 2-1 ruling.
The government also "made no showing that there is any likelihood that drilling activities will be resumed pending appeal."
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said he will soon issue a new order to block deepwater drilling regardless of how the court ruled and oil companies have not resumed drilling due to the legal uncertainties.
The court noted that the Salazar "has the right to apply for emergency relief if he can show that drilling activity by deepwater rigs has commenced or is about to commence."
It also ordered that the appeal be expedited so the case can be argued on its merits during the week of August 30.
The moratorium was imposed after the deadly April 20 explosion on a BP-leased drilling rig sparked the worst environmental disaster in US history.
President Barack Obama acknowledged the moratorium would cause economic harm, but said it was necessary to give investigators adequate time to understand what caused the accident and create new safety regulations.
Oil companies and Louisiana politicians railed against the moratorium, saying it would cause further economic devastation and that rigs and drilling plans should simply be inspected on a case-by-case basis.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hailed the court's decision Thursday but expressed concern that the uncertainty has created a "de facto moratorium" which could cost the state 20,000 jobs.
http://bit.ly/bgxeoM
The Obama administration lost its court bid to maintain a six-month moratorium on offshore deepwater drilling which a federal judge ordered lifted last month.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government's emergency request to stay that judge's order pending appeal.
The motion was denied because the government failed to show "a likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted," the appeals panel judges wrote in a 2-1 ruling.
The government also "made no showing that there is any likelihood that drilling activities will be resumed pending appeal."
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said he will soon issue a new order to block deepwater drilling regardless of how the court ruled and oil companies have not resumed drilling due to the legal uncertainties.
The court noted that the Salazar "has the right to apply for emergency relief if he can show that drilling activity by deepwater rigs has commenced or is about to commence."
It also ordered that the appeal be expedited so the case can be argued on its merits during the week of August 30.
The moratorium was imposed after the deadly April 20 explosion on a BP-leased drilling rig sparked the worst environmental disaster in US history.
President Barack Obama acknowledged the moratorium would cause economic harm, but said it was necessary to give investigators adequate time to understand what caused the accident and create new safety regulations.
Oil companies and Louisiana politicians railed against the moratorium, saying it would cause further economic devastation and that rigs and drilling plans should simply be inspected on a case-by-case basis.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hailed the court's decision Thursday but expressed concern that the uncertainty has created a "de facto moratorium" which could cost the state 20,000 jobs.
http://bit.ly/bgxeoM
Investigation of 'antiwhite bias' grows
Justice official accused of saying: No more cases against blacks
Posted: July 06, 2010
10:37 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today suggested it is expanding its review of claims that the Department of Justice has implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.
The comments came at a hearing in Washington at which commission members asked witness J. Christian Adams to provide the names of other Department of Justice attorneys who might shed further light on his allegation that the DOJ is afflicted by a "culture of hostility" toward prosecuting black perpetrators of voting-rights violations against white victims.
Commissioner Gail Heriot asked Adams to provide a "list of attorneys in the department who could corroborate" his testimony, indicating that the commission plans to expand its investigation of racial bias in the Department of Justice.
Also, Adams revealed that some DOJ staffers were disciplined for harassing other departmental attorneys because they held "evangelical religious views" and worked on a case brought against a black political activist in Mississippi.
Adams, until recently a top trial attorney in the voting section of the DOJ, testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ's primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites.
He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.
According to the former DOJ attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that "the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities."
Instead, the department will focus on "traditional" civil-rights cases, was the suggestion.
http://bit.ly/cfBiA3
Posted: July 06, 2010
10:37 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today suggested it is expanding its review of claims that the Department of Justice has implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.
The comments came at a hearing in Washington at which commission members asked witness J. Christian Adams to provide the names of other Department of Justice attorneys who might shed further light on his allegation that the DOJ is afflicted by a "culture of hostility" toward prosecuting black perpetrators of voting-rights violations against white victims.
Commissioner Gail Heriot asked Adams to provide a "list of attorneys in the department who could corroborate" his testimony, indicating that the commission plans to expand its investigation of racial bias in the Department of Justice.
Also, Adams revealed that some DOJ staffers were disciplined for harassing other departmental attorneys because they held "evangelical religious views" and worked on a case brought against a black political activist in Mississippi.
Adams, until recently a top trial attorney in the voting section of the DOJ, testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ's primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites.
He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.
According to the former DOJ attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that "the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities."
Instead, the department will focus on "traditional" civil-rights cases, was the suggestion.
http://bit.ly/cfBiA3
Obama Advisor: Lets Use Cap-and-Trade Taxes to Give Money to Other Countries
By EyeBlast.tv Staff | Thu, 07/08/2010 - 16:30
The Obama administration's top science advisor, John Holdren, was caught on tape advocating for global wealth redistribution back in 2008. In this clip, unearthed by Eyeblast.tv, Holdren says that we should use tax revenue from a cap and trade type bill to pay other countries in the global south.
On the July 3, 2008 edition of the program Democracy NOW! Holdren told host Amy Goodman: Its important that we have a global agreement on how we are going to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going forward, and an agreement that will include the tropical forests, that will include ways to transfer some of the revenues from carbon taxes or carbon emission permits in the North to pay for reduced deforestation in the South.
Holdren, who is sometimes called President Obama's science czar, is the administration's top science official.
Holdren has talked about international wealth redistribution in his writing, as well as the alleged need to keep developing countries from the urge to “mimic overdevelopment,” which apparently has occurred in the United States and other Western countries.
In a 1977 college textbook he co-wrote, “Ecoscience,” for example, Holdren said the United States must set an example for the world by undergoing “dedevelopment,” and that wealth must be redistributed “with and among nations.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” he and his co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one.”
“Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being,” said Holdren and his co-authors.
Dedevelopment, Holdren argued at the time, would set an example for developing countries and show “that being a citizen of a giant, smoggy, freeway-strangled industrial state is not necessary to being a happy, healthy, fulfilled human being."
President Barack Obama with John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (photo posted on the White House Office of Science and Technology blog, May 5, 2010).
http://bit.ly/9eu8uB
The Obama administration's top science advisor, John Holdren, was caught on tape advocating for global wealth redistribution back in 2008. In this clip, unearthed by Eyeblast.tv, Holdren says that we should use tax revenue from a cap and trade type bill to pay other countries in the global south.
On the July 3, 2008 edition of the program Democracy NOW! Holdren told host Amy Goodman: Its important that we have a global agreement on how we are going to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going forward, and an agreement that will include the tropical forests, that will include ways to transfer some of the revenues from carbon taxes or carbon emission permits in the North to pay for reduced deforestation in the South.
Holdren, who is sometimes called President Obama's science czar, is the administration's top science official.
Holdren has talked about international wealth redistribution in his writing, as well as the alleged need to keep developing countries from the urge to “mimic overdevelopment,” which apparently has occurred in the United States and other Western countries.
In a 1977 college textbook he co-wrote, “Ecoscience,” for example, Holdren said the United States must set an example for the world by undergoing “dedevelopment,” and that wealth must be redistributed “with and among nations.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” he and his co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one.”
“Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being,” said Holdren and his co-authors.
Dedevelopment, Holdren argued at the time, would set an example for developing countries and show “that being a citizen of a giant, smoggy, freeway-strangled industrial state is not necessary to being a happy, healthy, fulfilled human being."
President Barack Obama with John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (photo posted on the White House Office of Science and Technology blog, May 5, 2010).
http://bit.ly/9eu8uB
Thursday, July 8, 2010
$500K donated to Ariz. to defend law
By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer – 39 mins ago
PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thusday by The Associated Press.
The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.
Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and nearly 2,000 came from within Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.
The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.
Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.
Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.
Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.
"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."
Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.
"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.
With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.
Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.
http://yhoo.it/a2MDhX
PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thusday by The Associated Press.
The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.
Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and nearly 2,000 came from within Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.
The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.
Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.
Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.
Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.
"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."
Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.
"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.
With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.
Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.
http://yhoo.it/a2MDhX
OBAMA: Israelis suspicious of me because 'my middle name is Hussein'
U.S. president tells Channel 2 Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without coordinating with the U.S.
By Haaretz Service
U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.
In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied "I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern."
Obama spoke to Channel 2's Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an "excellent" meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said.
"I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West," Obama went on to say.
http://bit.ly/9gGClz
By Haaretz Service
U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.
In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied "I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern."
Obama spoke to Channel 2's Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an "excellent" meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said.
"I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West," Obama went on to say.
http://bit.ly/9gGClz
GOP chair Steele staying put despite latest gaffe
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer – 20 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Michael Steele is staying put as Republican Party chairman. Despite his widely condemned comments on Afghanistan, even his GOP critics want to avoid a drawn-out fight over the party's most prominent African-American just four months before midterm elections.
Instead, GOP elders are working around Steele, illustrating their lack of confidence in his leadership of the Republican National Committee and the challenge he would face should he seek a second term in January.
The outspoken Steele has faced calls for his resignation from conservatives and some in the GOP after he said that the nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan was a mistaken "war of Obama's choosing." So far, Steele has ignored demands for him to step down.
And interviews with more than a dozen party operatives indicate there's little desire to wage a complicated, perhaps uncertain, effort to oust him with just six months left in his two-year term.
"Everyone is basically working around him," said former GOP Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, who added that Steele has marginalized himself further with every gaffe.
"Republicans have sort of put together a mode of operation for this election cycle that does not put the RNC chairman in a central role," Weber said. "That's not the optimal way of handling things. But in a very strange way that gives him some protection because there's no urgency to replace him — no matter how grave of a misstep he made."
Most Republicans interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid openly criticizing a chairman who, despite his troubles, controls crucial resources needed for the fall, like the party's voter lists.
These Republicans say that even critics are resigned to the fact that Steele will remain chairman through the fall. They say firing Steele now is difficult because at least two-thirds of committee members would have to vote to remove him, and he maintains a level of support, albeit diminishing, because of money he's distributed to state parties.
The GOP also could pay a political price. Trying to oust Steele could be an unwanted spectacle at a pivotal juncture, with weeks of headlines of Republicans in disarray heading into elections where the party is favored to win seats in Congress and governors' races.
Even a Republican considering challenging Steele says he would wait until next year.
"I don't necessarily feel you should change horses in the middle of a race," former North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said Monday.
http://yhoo.it/alNoO9
WASHINGTON – Michael Steele is staying put as Republican Party chairman. Despite his widely condemned comments on Afghanistan, even his GOP critics want to avoid a drawn-out fight over the party's most prominent African-American just four months before midterm elections.
Instead, GOP elders are working around Steele, illustrating their lack of confidence in his leadership of the Republican National Committee and the challenge he would face should he seek a second term in January.
The outspoken Steele has faced calls for his resignation from conservatives and some in the GOP after he said that the nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan was a mistaken "war of Obama's choosing." So far, Steele has ignored demands for him to step down.
And interviews with more than a dozen party operatives indicate there's little desire to wage a complicated, perhaps uncertain, effort to oust him with just six months left in his two-year term.
"Everyone is basically working around him," said former GOP Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, who added that Steele has marginalized himself further with every gaffe.
"Republicans have sort of put together a mode of operation for this election cycle that does not put the RNC chairman in a central role," Weber said. "That's not the optimal way of handling things. But in a very strange way that gives him some protection because there's no urgency to replace him — no matter how grave of a misstep he made."
Most Republicans interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid openly criticizing a chairman who, despite his troubles, controls crucial resources needed for the fall, like the party's voter lists.
These Republicans say that even critics are resigned to the fact that Steele will remain chairman through the fall. They say firing Steele now is difficult because at least two-thirds of committee members would have to vote to remove him, and he maintains a level of support, albeit diminishing, because of money he's distributed to state parties.
The GOP also could pay a political price. Trying to oust Steele could be an unwanted spectacle at a pivotal juncture, with weeks of headlines of Republicans in disarray heading into elections where the party is favored to win seats in Congress and governors' races.
Even a Republican considering challenging Steele says he would wait until next year.
"I don't necessarily feel you should change horses in the middle of a race," former North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said Monday.
http://yhoo.it/alNoO9
Global Economic Collapse Of “Staggering Proportions” Warned Imminent
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
Grim economic warnings are being sounded from the United States today after one of their top market forecasters and social theorists named Robert Prechter [photo top left] advised everyone to abandon the stock markets over what he says will be one of the largest financial crashes (of “staggering proportions”) to occur in over 300 years rivaling the Great Depression, the Panic of 1873, and the collapse of the South Sea Bubble in 1720, a crash so catastrophic it deterred people “from buying stocks for 100 years.”
Important to note about Prechter’s dire warning is its being based upon what is called the Elliott Wave Principle developed by Ralph Nelson Elliott (1871-1948) that is a form of technical analysis that investors use to forecast trends in the financial markets by identifying extremes in investor psychology, highs and lows in prices, and other collective activities.
Elliott, in turn, had based his new principle on the findings of the great Russian evolutionary theorist Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) who in his book titled “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” countered Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) “survival of the fittest” evolutionary theory by concluding that cooperation and mutual aid are as important in the evolution of the species as competition and mutual strife, if not more so.
Elliott was also greatly influenced by Kropotkin’s greatest work “The Conquest of Bread” that lays bare the defects of the economic systems known as Feudalism and Capitalism by showing how they thrive on and maintain poverty and scarcity, in spite of being in a time of abundance thanks to technology, while promoting privilege.
Simply put, where Darwin’s theories advocated a World where men are pitted against their fellow men for survival, Kropotkin stated that only through mutual cooperation with each other could our human race survive and prosper with no man every having to live in poverty or despair.
Kropotkin, though being praised by many in his lifetime, including the great Irish poet and author Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) who called him “a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems coming out of Russia”, the “Anarchist Prince”, as Kropotkin became to be known, saw his theories lose out those of Darwin’s who were backed by the powerful and moneyed interests of the Western Empires.
http://bit.ly/cMBiIz
Grim economic warnings are being sounded from the United States today after one of their top market forecasters and social theorists named Robert Prechter [photo top left] advised everyone to abandon the stock markets over what he says will be one of the largest financial crashes (of “staggering proportions”) to occur in over 300 years rivaling the Great Depression, the Panic of 1873, and the collapse of the South Sea Bubble in 1720, a crash so catastrophic it deterred people “from buying stocks for 100 years.”
Important to note about Prechter’s dire warning is its being based upon what is called the Elliott Wave Principle developed by Ralph Nelson Elliott (1871-1948) that is a form of technical analysis that investors use to forecast trends in the financial markets by identifying extremes in investor psychology, highs and lows in prices, and other collective activities.
Elliott, in turn, had based his new principle on the findings of the great Russian evolutionary theorist Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) who in his book titled “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” countered Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) “survival of the fittest” evolutionary theory by concluding that cooperation and mutual aid are as important in the evolution of the species as competition and mutual strife, if not more so.
Elliott was also greatly influenced by Kropotkin’s greatest work “The Conquest of Bread” that lays bare the defects of the economic systems known as Feudalism and Capitalism by showing how they thrive on and maintain poverty and scarcity, in spite of being in a time of abundance thanks to technology, while promoting privilege.
Simply put, where Darwin’s theories advocated a World where men are pitted against their fellow men for survival, Kropotkin stated that only through mutual cooperation with each other could our human race survive and prosper with no man every having to live in poverty or despair.
Kropotkin, though being praised by many in his lifetime, including the great Irish poet and author Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) who called him “a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems coming out of Russia”, the “Anarchist Prince”, as Kropotkin became to be known, saw his theories lose out those of Darwin’s who were backed by the powerful and moneyed interests of the Western Empires.
http://bit.ly/cMBiIz
Obama To Earn Nearly $85 Million From Gulf Oil Disaster
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
In 1933 the great Depression Era United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to his good friend and advisor Colonel Edward Mandell House, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson…”
In 2010 the “financial element” controlling the United States government Roosevelt warned about has now, for all intents and purposes, taken over the Presidency too as evident by a new FSB report claiming that Obama stands to make nearly $85 million from the worst environmental catastrophe his Nation has ever seen.
As millions of gallons of oil continue gushing from the fractured beyond repair Gulf of Mexico seafloor following the April, 2010 explosion and collapse of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, millions (and soon to be billions) of dollars are at the same time flowing into the pockets of America’s elite classes, mainly those controlling their government and banking.
Unfortunately for the American people though is that at the same time they can see the unfolding of this environmental catastrophe on their televisions, the looting of their National wealth is being hidden from them by a congressional-military-industrial complex they were warned about by their World War II hero President Dwight Eisenhower who in his January 17, 1961 farewell address said:
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
http://bit.ly/daFLhx
In 1933 the great Depression Era United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to his good friend and advisor Colonel Edward Mandell House, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson…”
In 2010 the “financial element” controlling the United States government Roosevelt warned about has now, for all intents and purposes, taken over the Presidency too as evident by a new FSB report claiming that Obama stands to make nearly $85 million from the worst environmental catastrophe his Nation has ever seen.
As millions of gallons of oil continue gushing from the fractured beyond repair Gulf of Mexico seafloor following the April, 2010 explosion and collapse of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, millions (and soon to be billions) of dollars are at the same time flowing into the pockets of America’s elite classes, mainly those controlling their government and banking.
Unfortunately for the American people though is that at the same time they can see the unfolding of this environmental catastrophe on their televisions, the looting of their National wealth is being hidden from them by a congressional-military-industrial complex they were warned about by their World War II hero President Dwight Eisenhower who in his January 17, 1961 farewell address said:
“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
http://bit.ly/daFLhx
Obama Warns World Leaders ‘Millions Could Die’ From Gulf Oil Disaster
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A sobering report circulating in the Kremlin today from President Medvedev’s meeting with other World leaders at the G8 summit in Muskoka, Ontario states that President Obama has warned his counterparts that the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster “will most likely kill millions, perhaps tens of millions” of people during the coming year.
Fueling Obama’s dire assessment of this “Gulf Apocalypse”, this report says, are the oil and toxic rains now being reported to be falling throughout the US Gulf Coast region due to the fracturing of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor allowing untold millions of gallons of oil and millions of cubic feet of methane gas to escape unchecked into our World’s seventh largest body of water, not to mention the millions of gallons of dangerous disbursements being used that is poisoning everything in its path.
So dangerous has the Gulf Coast environment become to human beings the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a warning that, in part, says: “People, including pregnant women, can be exposed to these chemicals by breathing them (air), by swallowing them (water, food), or by touching them (skin). If possible, everyone, including pregnant women, should avoid the oil and spill-affected areas.”
With nearly 20 million American’s living along the affected Gulf Coast region one wonders where they could all go and leaving many to speculate a massive evacuation is being planned by the US Government of the entire region.
This view, however, is not shared by a Louisiana woman named Kindra Arnesen who was allowed unprecedented access to the BP Operations Center overseeing this catastrophe and reported to the Gulf Emergency Summit this past week that along with millions of fish dying because of this disaster people are falling ill all over the region.
Even worse is Arnesen’s incredibly reporting that even as this oil disaster grows BP is being allowed the US government to begin cutting costs in their cleanup and oil containment efforts.
Important to note about in this report is that Obama’s warning that “millions could die” from this disaster has been further confirmed by the American engineer who helped lead the team to put out the Persian Gulf oil fires set by Saddam Hussein in the first Iraq war and had warned a full 12 months before the April sinking of the Deepwater Horizon that BP was drilling into a huge methane deposit that if released would be beyond catastrophic, it would be biblical in its scale of destruction.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1382.htm
A sobering report circulating in the Kremlin today from President Medvedev’s meeting with other World leaders at the G8 summit in Muskoka, Ontario states that President Obama has warned his counterparts that the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster “will most likely kill millions, perhaps tens of millions” of people during the coming year.
Fueling Obama’s dire assessment of this “Gulf Apocalypse”, this report says, are the oil and toxic rains now being reported to be falling throughout the US Gulf Coast region due to the fracturing of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor allowing untold millions of gallons of oil and millions of cubic feet of methane gas to escape unchecked into our World’s seventh largest body of water, not to mention the millions of gallons of dangerous disbursements being used that is poisoning everything in its path.
So dangerous has the Gulf Coast environment become to human beings the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a warning that, in part, says: “People, including pregnant women, can be exposed to these chemicals by breathing them (air), by swallowing them (water, food), or by touching them (skin). If possible, everyone, including pregnant women, should avoid the oil and spill-affected areas.”
With nearly 20 million American’s living along the affected Gulf Coast region one wonders where they could all go and leaving many to speculate a massive evacuation is being planned by the US Government of the entire region.
This view, however, is not shared by a Louisiana woman named Kindra Arnesen who was allowed unprecedented access to the BP Operations Center overseeing this catastrophe and reported to the Gulf Emergency Summit this past week that along with millions of fish dying because of this disaster people are falling ill all over the region.
Even worse is Arnesen’s incredibly reporting that even as this oil disaster grows BP is being allowed the US government to begin cutting costs in their cleanup and oil containment efforts.
Important to note about in this report is that Obama’s warning that “millions could die” from this disaster has been further confirmed by the American engineer who helped lead the team to put out the Persian Gulf oil fires set by Saddam Hussein in the first Iraq war and had warned a full 12 months before the April sinking of the Deepwater Horizon that BP was drilling into a huge methane deposit that if released would be beyond catastrophic, it would be biblical in its scale of destruction.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1382.htm
Sorcha: NATO Orders 7,000 US Marines To Costa Rica As Gulf Oil Disaster Quake Fears Grow
Posted By: RumorMail
Date: Thursday, 8-Jul-2010 14:20:08
Russian foreign military intelligence directorate (GRU) sources are reporting in the Kremlin today that NATO has ordered over 7,000 US Marines to begin deploying in the Central American Nation of Costa Rica over fears the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is about to rupture the fracture zone lying between the North American and Caribbean Plates and potentially unleashing upon the America’s a catastrophic earthquake.
As we had previously reported on in our July 4th report titled “NATO Orders All “Critical Assets” Moved 100 Miles Inland From Gulf Oil Spill Region”, NATO’s current Chairman of the Military Committee Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola has taken defacto control over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster from President Obama who continues to this day leaving this unprecedented catastrophe in the hands of his intelligence services and BP.
Admiral Di Paola’s fears, this report continues, lies in the massive amount of abiogenic oil and methane gases being released from the Gulf of Mexico which many experts are warning could destabilize an already weakened earthquake zone and which Russian scientists are holding responsible for the 5.0 magnitude trembler that hit the Great Lakes region barely a fortnight ago and the 4.6 Virgin Island and 4.7 Guatemala quakes occurring during the past 24 hours.
Equally potentially catastrophic for this region is this massive oil spill occurring during a predicted above average hurricane season as another storm begins churning these troubled waters, it occurring during a time of a total solar eclipse due to occur on July 11th, and as our Sun begins throwing off a number of massive flares, all long associated with earthquakes in both modern and ancient lore.
The connection with catastrophic earthquakes upon our Earth and their association with solar eclipses have long been known and was last evidenced by the January 12, 2010 7.0 magnitude quake that destroyed the Caribbean Island of Haiti killing over 250,000 and occurring 3 days before the January 15, 2010 solar eclipse. Hurricane type storms are also said to be cause of earthquakes by scientists as well as solar flares.
Admiral Di Paola’s decision to move these 7,000 US Marines from their American base in North Carolina to Costa Rica, this report continues, is based upon his need to have “viable forces” positioned on either side of the North American and Caribbean Plate Zones should disaster strike.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1386.htm
Date: Thursday, 8-Jul-2010 14:20:08
Russian foreign military intelligence directorate (GRU) sources are reporting in the Kremlin today that NATO has ordered over 7,000 US Marines to begin deploying in the Central American Nation of Costa Rica over fears the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is about to rupture the fracture zone lying between the North American and Caribbean Plates and potentially unleashing upon the America’s a catastrophic earthquake.
As we had previously reported on in our July 4th report titled “NATO Orders All “Critical Assets” Moved 100 Miles Inland From Gulf Oil Spill Region”, NATO’s current Chairman of the Military Committee Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola has taken defacto control over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster from President Obama who continues to this day leaving this unprecedented catastrophe in the hands of his intelligence services and BP.
Admiral Di Paola’s fears, this report continues, lies in the massive amount of abiogenic oil and methane gases being released from the Gulf of Mexico which many experts are warning could destabilize an already weakened earthquake zone and which Russian scientists are holding responsible for the 5.0 magnitude trembler that hit the Great Lakes region barely a fortnight ago and the 4.6 Virgin Island and 4.7 Guatemala quakes occurring during the past 24 hours.
Equally potentially catastrophic for this region is this massive oil spill occurring during a predicted above average hurricane season as another storm begins churning these troubled waters, it occurring during a time of a total solar eclipse due to occur on July 11th, and as our Sun begins throwing off a number of massive flares, all long associated with earthquakes in both modern and ancient lore.
The connection with catastrophic earthquakes upon our Earth and their association with solar eclipses have long been known and was last evidenced by the January 12, 2010 7.0 magnitude quake that destroyed the Caribbean Island of Haiti killing over 250,000 and occurring 3 days before the January 15, 2010 solar eclipse. Hurricane type storms are also said to be cause of earthquakes by scientists as well as solar flares.
Admiral Di Paola’s decision to move these 7,000 US Marines from their American base in North Carolina to Costa Rica, this report continues, is based upon his need to have “viable forces” positioned on either side of the North American and Caribbean Plate Zones should disaster strike.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1386.htm
US President Barack Obama’s attempts to portray himself as pro-Israel, right-wing MKs, warned that Obama is “still evil.”
By GIL HOFFMAN
07/07/2010 04:52
Right: US president is still evil 'Obama's attempts to portray himself as pro-Israeli failed.'
US President Barack Obama’s attempts to portray himself as pro-Israel in his press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday failed to persuade right-wing MKs, who warned that Obama is “still evil.”
The MKs questioned the president’s motives and suggested that he was putting on a show for American Jews ahead of the crucial November mid-term elections, in which the Democrats may lose control of Congress.
“He doesn’t sound evil now because he needs Jewish votes and money,” said Deputy Negev and Galilee Development Minister Ayoub Kara.
“But I won’t forget the pressure he put on Netanyahu and the stress I saw in the prime minister the last time he came back from Washington. He is acting the way he is for political reasons.
I hope he will stay this way but I doubt it, because he hasn’t changed.”
Likud MK Danny Danon said he believes Obama learned his lesson that pressuring Israel does not work. He said he hopes Obama will also learn that the Likud would not allow Netanyahu to continue the 10- month construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria beyond September.
“Obama restrained himself and didn’t attack our prime minister this time, but he still set unrealistic expectations for the peace process,” Danon said.
“He is wrong if he thinks the freeze must continue for direct talks to begin. He instead must pressure the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, regardless of the freeze. He sounds nice now but after November, I am worried that he will sound different.”
http://bit.ly/btnDFX
07/07/2010 04:52
Right: US president is still evil 'Obama's attempts to portray himself as pro-Israeli failed.'
US President Barack Obama’s attempts to portray himself as pro-Israel in his press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday failed to persuade right-wing MKs, who warned that Obama is “still evil.”
The MKs questioned the president’s motives and suggested that he was putting on a show for American Jews ahead of the crucial November mid-term elections, in which the Democrats may lose control of Congress.
“He doesn’t sound evil now because he needs Jewish votes and money,” said Deputy Negev and Galilee Development Minister Ayoub Kara.
“But I won’t forget the pressure he put on Netanyahu and the stress I saw in the prime minister the last time he came back from Washington. He is acting the way he is for political reasons.
I hope he will stay this way but I doubt it, because he hasn’t changed.”
Likud MK Danny Danon said he believes Obama learned his lesson that pressuring Israel does not work. He said he hopes Obama will also learn that the Likud would not allow Netanyahu to continue the 10- month construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria beyond September.
“Obama restrained himself and didn’t attack our prime minister this time, but he still set unrealistic expectations for the peace process,” Danon said.
“He is wrong if he thinks the freeze must continue for direct talks to begin. He instead must pressure the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, regardless of the freeze. He sounds nice now but after November, I am worried that he will sound different.”
http://bit.ly/btnDFX
Foxnews - We Tolerate The Cultivation Of Opium Poppies.mp4
National Guard Troops Invading Neighborhoods to “Fight Drugs”
Fox News 23 out of Albany, NY is airing a story at ten covering National Guard troops being sent to local neighborhoods to fight the ongoing “War on Drugs”.
It’s funny that the National Guard is in Afghanistan right now admittedly helping them grow the very opium that ends up on the streets of US cities. If the military wants to stop the mass distribution of opium in the US, the fight could be better served at the source we control and safeguard rather than our own neighborhoods.
Fox News 23 out of Albany, NY is airing a story at ten covering National Guard troops being sent to local neighborhoods to fight the ongoing “War on Drugs”.
It’s funny that the National Guard is in Afghanistan right now admittedly helping them grow the very opium that ends up on the streets of US cities. If the military wants to stop the mass distribution of opium in the US, the fight could be better served at the source we control and safeguard rather than our own neighborhoods.
Obama Will Issue New Drilling Ban if Appeal Fails
US Government Will Issue New Drilling Ban if Appeal Fails
Published: Thursday, 8 Jul 2010 | 12:18 PM ET Text Size
By: Reuters
The Obama administration will "immediately" issue a revised drilling ban if a federal appeals court agrees with a lower court's decision to block the government's initial six-month moratorium on drilling in deep waters, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Thursday.
However, if the appeals court supports the administration's initial drilling moratorium, the department will not impose a new drilling ban, the official said.
The Obama administration heads to court Thursday aiming to reinstate a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling imposed after the devastating BP [BP 33.662 0.472 (+1.42%) ] Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but blocked by a federal judge.
The showdown starts at 3 p.m. local time at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, where government lawyers will square off for one hour against drilling companies before a three-judge panel.
Regardless of the ruling, industry is not expected to resume drilling in deep waters any time soon because of the legal uncertainties.
The Obama administration said it suspended drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet to avoid another oil well blowout and give a special presidential commission time to investigate the disaster.
BP's leaking undersea well in the Gulf of Mexico has soiled the shores of all five U.S. Gulf Coast states.
But drillers like Hornbeck Offshore Services [HOS 16.48 0.69 (+4.37%) ] won a reprieve when U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman said the moratorium was too broad and arbitrary.
Feldman ruled last month that the Interior Department failed to adequately take into account the economic impact the drilling suspension would have on the industry as well as local communities.
The Justice Department, which appealed, will argue that Feldman wrongly substituted his judgment in place of Interior Department expertise and that the moratorium was narrow by only affecting drilling at 33 sites.
http://bit.ly/bGmpGp
Published: Thursday, 8 Jul 2010 | 12:18 PM ET Text Size
By: Reuters
The Obama administration will "immediately" issue a revised drilling ban if a federal appeals court agrees with a lower court's decision to block the government's initial six-month moratorium on drilling in deep waters, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Thursday.
However, if the appeals court supports the administration's initial drilling moratorium, the department will not impose a new drilling ban, the official said.
The Obama administration heads to court Thursday aiming to reinstate a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling imposed after the devastating BP [BP 33.662 0.472 (+1.42%) ] Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but blocked by a federal judge.
The showdown starts at 3 p.m. local time at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, where government lawyers will square off for one hour against drilling companies before a three-judge panel.
Regardless of the ruling, industry is not expected to resume drilling in deep waters any time soon because of the legal uncertainties.
The Obama administration said it suspended drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet to avoid another oil well blowout and give a special presidential commission time to investigate the disaster.
BP's leaking undersea well in the Gulf of Mexico has soiled the shores of all five U.S. Gulf Coast states.
But drillers like Hornbeck Offshore Services [HOS 16.48 0.69 (+4.37%) ] won a reprieve when U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman said the moratorium was too broad and arbitrary.
Feldman ruled last month that the Interior Department failed to adequately take into account the economic impact the drilling suspension would have on the industry as well as local communities.
The Justice Department, which appealed, will argue that Feldman wrongly substituted his judgment in place of Interior Department expertise and that the moratorium was narrow by only affecting drilling at 33 sites.
http://bit.ly/bGmpGp
Financial regulation bill dictates ethnic, gender quotas
Gender Quotas In the Financial Sector?
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
WASHINGTON - What one finds when reading congressional legislation is invariably surprising. Take the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, for instance, which was created by merging Senate and House bills. When the Senate returns from recess one of its first actions will be to vote on the bill, which passed the House on June 30.
I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.
In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.
The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.
Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.
What would be the mission of this new corps of Federal monitors? The Dodd-Frank bill sets it forth succinctly and simply - all too simply. The mission, it says, is to assure "to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion" of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.
How to define "fair" has bedeviled government administrators, university admissions officers, private employers, union shop stewards and all other supervisors since time immemorial - or at least since Congress first undertook to prohibit discrimination in employment.
http://bit.ly/awhtDb
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
WASHINGTON - What one finds when reading congressional legislation is invariably surprising. Take the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, for instance, which was created by merging Senate and House bills. When the Senate returns from recess one of its first actions will be to vote on the bill, which passed the House on June 30.
I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.
In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.
The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.
Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.
What would be the mission of this new corps of Federal monitors? The Dodd-Frank bill sets it forth succinctly and simply - all too simply. The mission, it says, is to assure "to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion" of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.
How to define "fair" has bedeviled government administrators, university admissions officers, private employers, union shop stewards and all other supervisors since time immemorial - or at least since Congress first undertook to prohibit discrimination in employment.
http://bit.ly/awhtDb
NY National Guard Involved In Mass Arrests Of U.S. Citizens
Troops assisted in over 2,000 arrests last year alone as America sinks into total martial law
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, July 8, 2010
It has emerged that the New York National Guard is assisting in the arrests of thousands of American citizens as part of the “drug war,” while at the same time the U.S. government itself orders troops in Afghanistan to guard the poppy fields as heroin floods American streets, in yet another shining example of how the United States is under a state of de facto martial law.
Yesterday we reported on how the New York National Guard is working with local law enforcement authorities to perform sophisticated scans of vehicles entering the New York area looking for guns and drugs, a program celebrated by local new station Fox 23, who today ran a part two on the Guard’s activities in the region.
The news clip lauds the fact that the National Guard are conducting surveillance flights over the area “looking for marijuana” using infrared cameras.
“The New York National Guard assisted in more than 2,000 arrests last year, and had almost $150 million in drug, property, and weapon seizures,” states the report.
The entire justification behind the use of National Guard units in scanning vehicles, making arrests, and going into schools to brainwash kids into thinking its normal to have men in military fatigues toting machine guns walking around American streets providing “security” is that they are keeping drugs off the streets.
But while military assets are being used to track down pot-smoking teenagers in New York, the U.S. government itself is ordering troops in Afghanistan to guard the poppy fields, allowing tons of heroin to flood onto American streets. Opium production has exploded since the invasion of Afghanistan, as the CIA regains control of a much cherished source for its global narcotics trafficking operations.
Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance and other revelations from the Iran-Contra Affair, Vietnam-Laos-Cambodia and beyond all point to the sad fact that those in power in the United States, including the CIA, have driven the drug trade, not slowed or stopped it.
Indeed, in September 2008 it emerged that a Gulfstream II private jet that crash-landed in eastern Mexico carrying 3.3 tons of cocaine had previously been used for CIA “rendition” flights.
http://bit.ly/alzdQ8
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, July 8, 2010
It has emerged that the New York National Guard is assisting in the arrests of thousands of American citizens as part of the “drug war,” while at the same time the U.S. government itself orders troops in Afghanistan to guard the poppy fields as heroin floods American streets, in yet another shining example of how the United States is under a state of de facto martial law.
Yesterday we reported on how the New York National Guard is working with local law enforcement authorities to perform sophisticated scans of vehicles entering the New York area looking for guns and drugs, a program celebrated by local new station Fox 23, who today ran a part two on the Guard’s activities in the region.
The news clip lauds the fact that the National Guard are conducting surveillance flights over the area “looking for marijuana” using infrared cameras.
“The New York National Guard assisted in more than 2,000 arrests last year, and had almost $150 million in drug, property, and weapon seizures,” states the report.
The entire justification behind the use of National Guard units in scanning vehicles, making arrests, and going into schools to brainwash kids into thinking its normal to have men in military fatigues toting machine guns walking around American streets providing “security” is that they are keeping drugs off the streets.
But while military assets are being used to track down pot-smoking teenagers in New York, the U.S. government itself is ordering troops in Afghanistan to guard the poppy fields, allowing tons of heroin to flood onto American streets. Opium production has exploded since the invasion of Afghanistan, as the CIA regains control of a much cherished source for its global narcotics trafficking operations.
Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance and other revelations from the Iran-Contra Affair, Vietnam-Laos-Cambodia and beyond all point to the sad fact that those in power in the United States, including the CIA, have driven the drug trade, not slowed or stopped it.
Indeed, in September 2008 it emerged that a Gulfstream II private jet that crash-landed in eastern Mexico carrying 3.3 tons of cocaine had previously been used for CIA “rendition” flights.
http://bit.ly/alzdQ8
Obama's Milky Way
By George Neumayr on 7.8.10 @ 6:10AM
Barack Obama is not a Muslim, said Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign, adding slyly, "as far as I know." Reeling from losses that followed this whispering campaign, Obama denied its implication and faked up an eager interest in Christianity. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family bible," he pouted.
But once safely ensconced in the presidency, he renewed his Islamophilia. Last year in Cairo, he tried to wow his audience by saying that he hails from "generations of Muslims" and that he had marinated for "several years" in Islamic Indonesia, where he "heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk."
By secularist standards, Obama's Islamophilia constitutes a blatant violation of Church and state. His presidency largely exists for the benefit of one religion, the only religion he appears to consider blameless and holy -- Islam, and not even its moderate variant.
Last October, the Washington Post ran an intriguing story about the U.S. government's unwillingness to help moderate Muslims lest that offend the hardline imams who actually run the religion. The story's title was, "As Indonesia debates Islam's role, U.S. stays out: Post-9/11 push to boost moderates gives way," and began with an anecdote about a scholar in the early 1980s seeking funds to promote moderate Islam who got rejected by a Ford Foundation employee.
"He left empty handed. The United States, he was told, was 'not interested in getting into Islam,'" said the story. And who turned the moderate Muslim down? Barack Obama's mother. "The rebuff came from President Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, a U.S. anthropologist who lived in Indonesia for more than a decade." The story went on to say that today "U.S. thinking has moved back toward what it was in Dunham's day: stay out of Islam."
Except, that is, to praise it uncritically. Under Obama, America undercuts moderate Muslims while pandering to violent ones. We've seen during Obama's presidency self-identified Muslim terrorists shoot up a military base, try to blow up a plane over Detroit on the day of Jesus Christ's birth, and attempt to bomb tourists in Times Square. Yet U.S. attorney general Eric Holder refuses to identify radical Islam as a motive for terrorism and Obama security adviser John Brennan says jihad is a concept of self-improvement that Dr. Phil could endorse -- "a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community."
http://bit.ly/bSGwEN
Barack Obama is not a Muslim, said Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign, adding slyly, "as far as I know." Reeling from losses that followed this whispering campaign, Obama denied its implication and faked up an eager interest in Christianity. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family bible," he pouted.
But once safely ensconced in the presidency, he renewed his Islamophilia. Last year in Cairo, he tried to wow his audience by saying that he hails from "generations of Muslims" and that he had marinated for "several years" in Islamic Indonesia, where he "heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk."
By secularist standards, Obama's Islamophilia constitutes a blatant violation of Church and state. His presidency largely exists for the benefit of one religion, the only religion he appears to consider blameless and holy -- Islam, and not even its moderate variant.
Last October, the Washington Post ran an intriguing story about the U.S. government's unwillingness to help moderate Muslims lest that offend the hardline imams who actually run the religion. The story's title was, "As Indonesia debates Islam's role, U.S. stays out: Post-9/11 push to boost moderates gives way," and began with an anecdote about a scholar in the early 1980s seeking funds to promote moderate Islam who got rejected by a Ford Foundation employee.
"He left empty handed. The United States, he was told, was 'not interested in getting into Islam,'" said the story. And who turned the moderate Muslim down? Barack Obama's mother. "The rebuff came from President Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, a U.S. anthropologist who lived in Indonesia for more than a decade." The story went on to say that today "U.S. thinking has moved back toward what it was in Dunham's day: stay out of Islam."
Except, that is, to praise it uncritically. Under Obama, America undercuts moderate Muslims while pandering to violent ones. We've seen during Obama's presidency self-identified Muslim terrorists shoot up a military base, try to blow up a plane over Detroit on the day of Jesus Christ's birth, and attempt to bomb tourists in Times Square. Yet U.S. attorney general Eric Holder refuses to identify radical Islam as a motive for terrorism and Obama security adviser John Brennan says jihad is a concept of self-improvement that Dr. Phil could endorse -- "a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community."
http://bit.ly/bSGwEN
56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
Those who say the issue is Very Important to their vote are even more likely to oppose the government action. Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who rate the immigration issue Very Important to their vote disagree with the Justice Department challenge.
On the other hand, the nation’s Political Class thinks the legal challenge is a great idea. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Political Class voters agree with the Justice Department decision to challenge the Arizona law, while 67% of Mainstream voters disagree and oppose that challenge.
But then 71% of Mainstream voters favor passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their home state. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Political Class voters oppose passage of such a law.
Among all voters nationwide, just 28% oppose passage of an immigration law like Arizona’s in their state.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 6-7, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their state and disagree with the Justice Department challenge. Democrats lean in favor of a challenge and against a similar law in their home state but by much narrower margins.
http://bit.ly/duY9TV
Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
Those who say the issue is Very Important to their vote are even more likely to oppose the government action. Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who rate the immigration issue Very Important to their vote disagree with the Justice Department challenge.
On the other hand, the nation’s Political Class thinks the legal challenge is a great idea. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Political Class voters agree with the Justice Department decision to challenge the Arizona law, while 67% of Mainstream voters disagree and oppose that challenge.
But then 71% of Mainstream voters favor passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their home state. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Political Class voters oppose passage of such a law.
Among all voters nationwide, just 28% oppose passage of an immigration law like Arizona’s in their state.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 6-7, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their state and disagree with the Justice Department challenge. Democrats lean in favor of a challenge and against a similar law in their home state but by much narrower margins.
http://bit.ly/duY9TV
Obama Decried, Then Used, Some Bush Drilling Policies
By NEIL KING JR. And KEITH JOHNSON
Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.
The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.
The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.
Another reason: money. In its arguments to the court, the government said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, "may have significant financial consequences for the federal government."
The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed its decision and allowed drilling in the Gulf to proceed—including on BP PLC's now-infamous Macondo well, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.
The Obama administration's actions in the court case exemplify the dilemma the White House faced in developing its energy policy. In his presidential campaign, President Obama criticized the Bush administration for being too soft on the oil industry and vowed to support greener energy forms.
But, once in office, President Obama ended up backing offshore drilling, bowing to political and fiscal realties, even as his administration's own scientists and Democratic lawmakers warned about its risks.
After the Macondo well blew out, sinking the Deepwater Horizon rig and causing a catastrophic spill, Mr. Obama said his administration should have been more vigilant in handling the oil industry. "More needed to be done, and more needs to be done" to tighten oversight, he told reporters recently.
Still, the administration defends its intervention in the court case, and says the ruling made it look more cautiously at whether to open new areas to offshore drilling. It pins blame on the Bush administration for pursuing a policy for deep-offshore drilling "that was driven by one principle: open everything," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.
http://bit.ly/a9sYJa
Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.
The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.
The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.
Another reason: money. In its arguments to the court, the government said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, "may have significant financial consequences for the federal government."
The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed its decision and allowed drilling in the Gulf to proceed—including on BP PLC's now-infamous Macondo well, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.
The Obama administration's actions in the court case exemplify the dilemma the White House faced in developing its energy policy. In his presidential campaign, President Obama criticized the Bush administration for being too soft on the oil industry and vowed to support greener energy forms.
But, once in office, President Obama ended up backing offshore drilling, bowing to political and fiscal realties, even as his administration's own scientists and Democratic lawmakers warned about its risks.
After the Macondo well blew out, sinking the Deepwater Horizon rig and causing a catastrophic spill, Mr. Obama said his administration should have been more vigilant in handling the oil industry. "More needed to be done, and more needs to be done" to tighten oversight, he told reporters recently.
Still, the administration defends its intervention in the court case, and says the ruling made it look more cautiously at whether to open new areas to offshore drilling. It pins blame on the Bush administration for pursuing a policy for deep-offshore drilling "that was driven by one principle: open everything," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.
http://bit.ly/a9sYJa
Goldman Sachs Executive to Advise Head of Canada’s Central Bank, a Former Goldman Sachs Executive
July 6th, 2010
Mmm hmm.
Via: Bloomberg:
The chief executive of Goldman Sachs Canada has been named a special adviser to the head of Canada’s central bank.
The Bank of Canada said Tuesday that Timothy Hodgson will advise central bank head Mark Carney, a former Goldman Sachs executive, on financial reform. Carney says Hodgson is one of Canada’s top investment bankers.
Hodgson is leaving Goldman Sachs. The company has come under sharp criticism over civil fraud charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and because of the high pay its executives and traders received during the financial crisis.
Hodgson joined Goldman Sachs in 1990 and became CEO of its Canadian operations in 2005.
http://bit.ly/9Jzc82
Mmm hmm.
Via: Bloomberg:
The chief executive of Goldman Sachs Canada has been named a special adviser to the head of Canada’s central bank.
The Bank of Canada said Tuesday that Timothy Hodgson will advise central bank head Mark Carney, a former Goldman Sachs executive, on financial reform. Carney says Hodgson is one of Canada’s top investment bankers.
Hodgson is leaving Goldman Sachs. The company has come under sharp criticism over civil fraud charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and because of the high pay its executives and traders received during the financial crisis.
Hodgson joined Goldman Sachs in 1990 and became CEO of its Canadian operations in 2005.
http://bit.ly/9Jzc82
Enough with the Profit- and Power-Driven Patriots!
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT
by JB Williams,©2010
The thirteen original colonies, located on the eastern shore of what is now the United States of America, were Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Georgia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York
(Jul. 7, 2010) — A few months ago, I am on-record predicting that it is not possible to hijack the Tea Party or 912 movements. I was wrong; both have since been hijacked!
In the U.S. political system and within the Tea Party and 912 movements, there are three fundamental sources of power:
Money
Collective Bargaining
Our Votes
The Money
The power of the people is not limited to their single vote. Much of their power is found in their wallets.
When constitutionally-grounded conservatives stopped funding the Republican Party because the party stopped representing their core principles and values, they made the right move. But when they started funding RNC PACs instead, they made a huge mistake.
A lion’s share of the patriot capital has been hijacked by only a few national Tea Party, 912 and Freedom Works groups, and in all cases, that money is being funneled back into “RINO” candidates that the people are fed up with.
Times are tough, but people are still giving money in the hope that someone will save their nation for them. But that money has been hijacked and it is being funneled back into RNC candidates who will NOT change anything in DC, even if elected in November.
Collective Bargaining Power
The people can and must speak as one voice in order to confront the massive Democratic Socialist assault on all things American today. They must unite and fight against overwhelming odds if they are to have any hope of taking their nation and government back from the clutches of evil international socialists currently destroying the land of the free and home of the brave.
Only by working together can they hope to put down the dozens of affronts to individual freedom and liberty, and states’ rights coming at us faster than we can react today.
http://bit.ly/aXAAC3
by JB Williams,©2010
The thirteen original colonies, located on the eastern shore of what is now the United States of America, were Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Georgia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York
(Jul. 7, 2010) — A few months ago, I am on-record predicting that it is not possible to hijack the Tea Party or 912 movements. I was wrong; both have since been hijacked!
In the U.S. political system and within the Tea Party and 912 movements, there are three fundamental sources of power:
Money
Collective Bargaining
Our Votes
The Money
The power of the people is not limited to their single vote. Much of their power is found in their wallets.
When constitutionally-grounded conservatives stopped funding the Republican Party because the party stopped representing their core principles and values, they made the right move. But when they started funding RNC PACs instead, they made a huge mistake.
A lion’s share of the patriot capital has been hijacked by only a few national Tea Party, 912 and Freedom Works groups, and in all cases, that money is being funneled back into “RINO” candidates that the people are fed up with.
Times are tough, but people are still giving money in the hope that someone will save their nation for them. But that money has been hijacked and it is being funneled back into RNC candidates who will NOT change anything in DC, even if elected in November.
Collective Bargaining Power
The people can and must speak as one voice in order to confront the massive Democratic Socialist assault on all things American today. They must unite and fight against overwhelming odds if they are to have any hope of taking their nation and government back from the clutches of evil international socialists currently destroying the land of the free and home of the brave.
Only by working together can they hope to put down the dozens of affronts to individual freedom and liberty, and states’ rights coming at us faster than we can react today.
http://bit.ly/aXAAC3
Voters Will Rebuke President Obama and Mexico's attack on Democracy in America
July 7, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE NATIONAL RELEASE
CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC
(866) 703-0864 WilliamG@alipac.us
www.alipac.us
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is speaking out and encouraging all Americans to speak out against President Obama's attack against Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which is an attack on all Americans who want illegal immigration stopped and an attack on the self-governance of American citizens.
"Obama is joining with the corrupt government of Mexico to attack Democracy in America and a popular state law which simply mirrors the Federal laws he swore an oath to enforce," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The public backlash against Obama's despotic behavior will manifest in the 2010 elections in historic proportions. Obama wants to take down Arizona and the efforts to restore the Rule of Law in America. Now it is time for Americans to politically take down Obama."
ALIPAC is launching a talk radio and Internet campaign to encourage Americans to contact their members of Congress to demand Congressional action to stop President Obama's administration from further damaging American security, sovereignty, and principles. ALIPAC is asking Congress to intervene to stop Obama's lawsuit against Arizona.
ALIPAC's efforts will also focus on organizing Americans behind Congressional campaigns that support Constitutional governance where We The People of the United States determine policy, instead of Obama's authoritarian edicts.
"Obama is displaying a pattern of power abuse and revealing that he is an authoritarian ruler who erroneously believes he can create policy, instead of Congress," said William Gheen. "Americans need to wake up, unify, and organize against this despot in the White House, while we still have a country that can be saved."
http://bit.ly/a4C8Tx
FOR IMMEDIATE NATIONAL RELEASE
CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC
(866) 703-0864 WilliamG@alipac.us
www.alipac.us
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is speaking out and encouraging all Americans to speak out against President Obama's attack against Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which is an attack on all Americans who want illegal immigration stopped and an attack on the self-governance of American citizens.
"Obama is joining with the corrupt government of Mexico to attack Democracy in America and a popular state law which simply mirrors the Federal laws he swore an oath to enforce," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The public backlash against Obama's despotic behavior will manifest in the 2010 elections in historic proportions. Obama wants to take down Arizona and the efforts to restore the Rule of Law in America. Now it is time for Americans to politically take down Obama."
ALIPAC is launching a talk radio and Internet campaign to encourage Americans to contact their members of Congress to demand Congressional action to stop President Obama's administration from further damaging American security, sovereignty, and principles. ALIPAC is asking Congress to intervene to stop Obama's lawsuit against Arizona.
ALIPAC's efforts will also focus on organizing Americans behind Congressional campaigns that support Constitutional governance where We The People of the United States determine policy, instead of Obama's authoritarian edicts.
"Obama is displaying a pattern of power abuse and revealing that he is an authoritarian ruler who erroneously believes he can create policy, instead of Congress," said William Gheen. "Americans need to wake up, unify, and organize against this despot in the White House, while we still have a country that can be saved."
http://bit.ly/a4C8Tx
PAPER: Obama vs. Arizona: President fighting reckless war that will backfire
Obama vs. Arizona: The President is fighting a reckless war that will backfire politically
ANDREA TANTAROS
Thursday, July 8th 2010, 4:00 AM
The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states' rights.
While some legal Latinos will buy the concern that the bill could lead to racial profiling - an outcome the Arizona law strictly forbids - most likely voters are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. Even if some find the Arizona law abhorrent, it won't likely be enough to counter the majority of Americans who side with the Grand Canyon State and would favor a similar law in their own states.
According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted May 6 to 9, nearly six in 10 voters favor the Arizona legislation, the broadest support in favor of the requirement that people produce documents verifying their legal status. A whopping 86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats and 73% of independents back that provision.
http://bit.ly/bLPW4d
ANDREA TANTAROS
Thursday, July 8th 2010, 4:00 AM
The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states' rights.
While some legal Latinos will buy the concern that the bill could lead to racial profiling - an outcome the Arizona law strictly forbids - most likely voters are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. Even if some find the Arizona law abhorrent, it won't likely be enough to counter the majority of Americans who side with the Grand Canyon State and would favor a similar law in their own states.
According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted May 6 to 9, nearly six in 10 voters favor the Arizona legislation, the broadest support in favor of the requirement that people produce documents verifying their legal status. A whopping 86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats and 73% of independents back that provision.
http://bit.ly/bLPW4d
'Climategate whitewash job'
Climategate: reinstating Phil Jones is good news – the CRU brand remains toxic
By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: July 8th, 2010
“Move along now, please… Nothing to see here…” was the predictable burden of Sir Muir Russell’s investigation into Climategate. Are we surprised? Any other conclusion would have made world headlines as a first for the climate change establishment. This is the third Climategate whitewash job and it would be tempting to see it as just as futile as its predecessors. That, however, would be to underrate its value to the sceptic cause, which is considerable.
This is because Russell’s “Not Guilty” verdict has been seized upon as an excuse to reinstate Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia CRU, this time as Director of Research. That is very good news. It spells out to the world that the climate clique looks after its own; that there is no more a culture of accountability and job forfeiture for controversial conduct in AGW circles than there is in parliamentary ones; that it is business as usual for Phil and his merry men. Or, to put it more bluntly, the brand remains toxic.
Apart from Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, there is no name more calculated to provoke cynical smiles in every inhabited quarter of the globe than that of Phil Jones. The dogs in the street in Ulan Bator know that he and his cronies defied FOI requests and asked for e-mails to be deleted and that people only do that if they have something to hide. Every time some UN-compliant government or carbon trading interest group tries to scare the populace witless with scorched-earth predictions of imminent climate disaster and cites research from the East Anglia CRU – of which Phil Jones is Director of Research – it will provoke instant scepticism..
http://bit.ly/aeVFtY
By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: July 8th, 2010
“Move along now, please… Nothing to see here…” was the predictable burden of Sir Muir Russell’s investigation into Climategate. Are we surprised? Any other conclusion would have made world headlines as a first for the climate change establishment. This is the third Climategate whitewash job and it would be tempting to see it as just as futile as its predecessors. That, however, would be to underrate its value to the sceptic cause, which is considerable.
This is because Russell’s “Not Guilty” verdict has been seized upon as an excuse to reinstate Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia CRU, this time as Director of Research. That is very good news. It spells out to the world that the climate clique looks after its own; that there is no more a culture of accountability and job forfeiture for controversial conduct in AGW circles than there is in parliamentary ones; that it is business as usual for Phil and his merry men. Or, to put it more bluntly, the brand remains toxic.
Apart from Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, there is no name more calculated to provoke cynical smiles in every inhabited quarter of the globe than that of Phil Jones. The dogs in the street in Ulan Bator know that he and his cronies defied FOI requests and asked for e-mails to be deleted and that people only do that if they have something to hide. Every time some UN-compliant government or carbon trading interest group tries to scare the populace witless with scorched-earth predictions of imminent climate disaster and cites research from the East Anglia CRU – of which Phil Jones is Director of Research – it will provoke instant scepticism..
http://bit.ly/aeVFtY
PROMISES BROKEN: Hundreds of fishermen don't get their BP checks
BP Gives No Indication Of When Payments Resume
GRAND ISLE, La. --
Hundreds of fishermen from Lake Charles to Moss Point, Miss., were supposed to get checks from BP on Wednesday but didn't.
Wednesday night, their lawyer wanted answers.
Jeffrey Briet represents more than 500 fishermen, and he said the payment system he set up with BP required his clients to be paid every 30 days. Now that process has suddenly changed without warning, Briet said.
"Not only did they spring it on us that the process has changed, but the people I've been dealing with for six weeks who've done a good job said, 'We don't know what the process is going to be. We're not authorized to talk to you about it. Someone from BP will contact you,'" he said.
But Briet said he hasn't heard from BP or its lawyers. He said the claims people have been given so much conflicting information about the process that they can't provide answers.
"They couldn't tell me," he said. "And I said, 'I've got 500 people I'm meeting on Saturday. They want to know what the process is.'"
It's not the first time BP has given conflicting information.
On June 11, BP's security contractors tried to keep WDSU from speaking to cleanup workers despite the fact that BP released a statement two days earlier saying the workers could speak to the media.
On May 14, St. Bernard Parish fishermen were upset with low pay and out-of-towners taking their work.
Briet said he's meeting with some fishermen from Moss Point Thursday morning and more on Saturday in Jennings. He said BP hasn't given him any indication when the payments will resume.
http://bit.ly/aeVFtY
GRAND ISLE, La. --
Hundreds of fishermen from Lake Charles to Moss Point, Miss., were supposed to get checks from BP on Wednesday but didn't.
Wednesday night, their lawyer wanted answers.
Jeffrey Briet represents more than 500 fishermen, and he said the payment system he set up with BP required his clients to be paid every 30 days. Now that process has suddenly changed without warning, Briet said.
"Not only did they spring it on us that the process has changed, but the people I've been dealing with for six weeks who've done a good job said, 'We don't know what the process is going to be. We're not authorized to talk to you about it. Someone from BP will contact you,'" he said.
But Briet said he hasn't heard from BP or its lawyers. He said the claims people have been given so much conflicting information about the process that they can't provide answers.
"They couldn't tell me," he said. "And I said, 'I've got 500 people I'm meeting on Saturday. They want to know what the process is.'"
It's not the first time BP has given conflicting information.
On June 11, BP's security contractors tried to keep WDSU from speaking to cleanup workers despite the fact that BP released a statement two days earlier saying the workers could speak to the media.
On May 14, St. Bernard Parish fishermen were upset with low pay and out-of-towners taking their work.
Briet said he's meeting with some fishermen from Moss Point Thursday morning and more on Saturday in Jennings. He said BP hasn't given him any indication when the payments will resume.
http://bit.ly/aeVFtY
The Gulf Oil Disaster Is War On We, The People
30 Facts Evidencing The Rothschild
League Of Bankers Planned The Gulf Oil Crisis
By Leonard G. Horowitz And Sherri Kane
7-7-10
Overview
This article explains what is really happening in the Gulf of Mexico, who is really responsible for the explosion, and how the devastation serves investment bankers. These globalists sway stocks, create markets, and planned this crisis, among a series of catastrophies, to advance geopolitical and financial agendas.
Introduction
WAR has been declared against We The People. Yet, there is no country or military present to defend us.
Covert infiltrations and corruptions in governments by the "Rothschild League" of bankers and "private equity investors"now poison our bodies, minds, and planet. Yet, appropriate military and/or militia defenses are prohibited.
Crisis-capitalists are petrochemically massacring us and our environment. They have deployed propaganda--mass media deception--to camouflage their real intentions and vast destruction.
The air we breathe, food we eat, and water we drink, has been polluted to deliver profitable diseases and planned depopulation, simulating a "scorched earth policy" of war.
Citizens' arrests, grand jury investigations, criminal indictments, and war crime prosecutions are urgently needed, yet financially forbidden.
Generalized fear, depression, fatigue, and apathy is incapacitating our defenses, aiding the adversaries, and predisposing us to diseases and early deaths.
Based on the following irrefutable facts, the so-called "accidental explosion" in the Gulf is a Transocean/Halliburton/British Petroleum/Goldman-Sachs attack---the latest in a series of unspeakable war crimes perpetrated by Anglo-American State of Rothschild League bankers.
Definition and Function of War
WAR has been defined as "a contest between nations or states, carried on by force, . . . for the extension of commerce, . . . for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other."
Consider the fact that "it takes money to make money."Across civilization today, if you want to buy a property or grow a business, most people need to take loans from banks. In fact, the primary way that Nations, States, and civilians advance economically is contracted or underwritten by the banking industry.
Similarly, war is nearly always financed by banks and, allegedly, repaid by taxes.
As you read the following facts, consider these methods by which We The People are now nightmarishly enslaved by a usury system of rampant con-sum(p)-tion. (A word that used to mean degeneration by terminal illness; a sum total "con.")
Consider the "investment bankers" who steward the stock-markets and care nearly nil about how many species are going extinct, including possibly our own.
Then reflect on this quote by poet Dorothy Parker:
"If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people He gives it to."
Today, besides generating profit as proven below, the Rothschild League, that has held dominion over our global economy for centuries, expands it's mass-mind manipulation, depopulation, and environmental destruction for protection against We The People. After all, we are slowly awakening like a sleeping giant. Our rebuke threatens their plan for complete global control.
30 Chilling Facts Proving We The People Are Under Attack, in an Undeclared War, With the Rothschild League of Bankers:
1) The media is grossly censoring the extent of the devastation in the Gulf. The poisons--oil and chemical dispersant (Corexit)--are destined to spread globally, but honest reporting is restricted, and independent investigators are being arrested. This censorship is a sure sign of fascism--not freedom or democracy. In this way, the media, financially directed by leading investment bankers (cited below), accomplices this global poisoning, or omnicide. (Click here for an example of more accurate reporting from the Gulf by an independent news source.)
http://www.rense.com/general91/guf.htm
League Of Bankers Planned The Gulf Oil Crisis
By Leonard G. Horowitz And Sherri Kane
7-7-10
Overview
This article explains what is really happening in the Gulf of Mexico, who is really responsible for the explosion, and how the devastation serves investment bankers. These globalists sway stocks, create markets, and planned this crisis, among a series of catastrophies, to advance geopolitical and financial agendas.
Introduction
WAR has been declared against We The People. Yet, there is no country or military present to defend us.
Covert infiltrations and corruptions in governments by the "Rothschild League" of bankers and "private equity investors"now poison our bodies, minds, and planet. Yet, appropriate military and/or militia defenses are prohibited.
Crisis-capitalists are petrochemically massacring us and our environment. They have deployed propaganda--mass media deception--to camouflage their real intentions and vast destruction.
The air we breathe, food we eat, and water we drink, has been polluted to deliver profitable diseases and planned depopulation, simulating a "scorched earth policy" of war.
Citizens' arrests, grand jury investigations, criminal indictments, and war crime prosecutions are urgently needed, yet financially forbidden.
Generalized fear, depression, fatigue, and apathy is incapacitating our defenses, aiding the adversaries, and predisposing us to diseases and early deaths.
Based on the following irrefutable facts, the so-called "accidental explosion" in the Gulf is a Transocean/Halliburton/British Petroleum/Goldman-Sachs attack---the latest in a series of unspeakable war crimes perpetrated by Anglo-American State of Rothschild League bankers.
Definition and Function of War
WAR has been defined as "a contest between nations or states, carried on by force, . . . for the extension of commerce, . . . for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other."
Consider the fact that "it takes money to make money."Across civilization today, if you want to buy a property or grow a business, most people need to take loans from banks. In fact, the primary way that Nations, States, and civilians advance economically is contracted or underwritten by the banking industry.
Similarly, war is nearly always financed by banks and, allegedly, repaid by taxes.
As you read the following facts, consider these methods by which We The People are now nightmarishly enslaved by a usury system of rampant con-sum(p)-tion. (A word that used to mean degeneration by terminal illness; a sum total "con.")
Consider the "investment bankers" who steward the stock-markets and care nearly nil about how many species are going extinct, including possibly our own.
Then reflect on this quote by poet Dorothy Parker:
"If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people He gives it to."
Today, besides generating profit as proven below, the Rothschild League, that has held dominion over our global economy for centuries, expands it's mass-mind manipulation, depopulation, and environmental destruction for protection against We The People. After all, we are slowly awakening like a sleeping giant. Our rebuke threatens their plan for complete global control.
30 Chilling Facts Proving We The People Are Under Attack, in an Undeclared War, With the Rothschild League of Bankers:
1) The media is grossly censoring the extent of the devastation in the Gulf. The poisons--oil and chemical dispersant (Corexit)--are destined to spread globally, but honest reporting is restricted, and independent investigators are being arrested. This censorship is a sure sign of fascism--not freedom or democracy. In this way, the media, financially directed by leading investment bankers (cited below), accomplices this global poisoning, or omnicide. (Click here for an example of more accurate reporting from the Gulf by an independent news source.)
http://www.rense.com/general91/guf.htm
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Afghan corruption has doubled since 2007, survey says
By Quentin Sommerville
BBC News, Kabul
Bribes are required for everything from healthcare to passports
Corruption in Afghanistan has doubled in the two years since 2007, according to a survey by anti-corruption charity Integrity Watch.
Afghans paid nearly $1bn (£658m) in bribes in 2009, with almost a third of those surveyed saying they had had to pay a bribe to obtain a public service.
More than half said state corruption was fuelling the Taliban's growth.
The average cost of a bribe was $180, which can be many months salary in one of the poorest countries in the world.
Bribes are required for everything from access to healthcare and education, to obtaining a passport or identity card.
The police and the judiciary are viewed as most corrupt by the 6,500 people surveyed.
Report author Lorenzo Delesgues said: "It reduces the legitimacy of the state, it gives more legitimacy to the Taliban. More than half of the respondents think that the Taliban are gaining ground because of corruption of the Afghan state.
"So basically you are in the situation where the proper institutions are believed to (be able to) change things but they need to start changing things otherwise the Taliban will grow and grow more."
But despite the insurgents capitalising on government corruption, the vast majority of people in the country looked towards the president and other state institutions to bring it to an end.
And Afghans are just as concerned about corruption in their country as the international community. The survey says that bribery is not part of Afghan culture, and that 90% of respondents said they felt guilty when paying a bribe.
http://bit.ly/aBDzur
BBC News, Kabul
Bribes are required for everything from healthcare to passports
Corruption in Afghanistan has doubled in the two years since 2007, according to a survey by anti-corruption charity Integrity Watch.
Afghans paid nearly $1bn (£658m) in bribes in 2009, with almost a third of those surveyed saying they had had to pay a bribe to obtain a public service.
More than half said state corruption was fuelling the Taliban's growth.
The average cost of a bribe was $180, which can be many months salary in one of the poorest countries in the world.
Bribes are required for everything from access to healthcare and education, to obtaining a passport or identity card.
The police and the judiciary are viewed as most corrupt by the 6,500 people surveyed.
Report author Lorenzo Delesgues said: "It reduces the legitimacy of the state, it gives more legitimacy to the Taliban. More than half of the respondents think that the Taliban are gaining ground because of corruption of the Afghan state.
"So basically you are in the situation where the proper institutions are believed to (be able to) change things but they need to start changing things otherwise the Taliban will grow and grow more."
But despite the insurgents capitalising on government corruption, the vast majority of people in the country looked towards the president and other state institutions to bring it to an end.
And Afghans are just as concerned about corruption in their country as the international community. The survey says that bribery is not part of Afghan culture, and that 90% of respondents said they felt guilty when paying a bribe.
http://bit.ly/aBDzur
Groups launch effort to change campaign money law
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 26 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Two groups that have long advocated public financing of elections plan to spend at least $8 million this year to prod Congress to vote on proposed legislation aimed at reducing the influence of big donations in politics.
The joint effort by Common Cause and Public Campaign, called the Campaign for Fair Elections, will launch its first wave of advertising this week aimed primarily at Democrats who have yet to sign on in support of the bill.
The legislation would give candidates $4 of public financing for every $1 dollar raised through contributions of $100 or less. Participation would be voluntary, and candidates could opt out from the system.
Advocates hope the matching money would be so attractive that it would discourage politicians from having to chase big financial contributions from special interest donors.
Proponents estimate the public infusion of money would cost up to $1.8 billion for every two-year election cycle. David Donnelly, the campaign manager for the Campaign for Fair Elections, said one way to pay for the cost would be with a tax or fee on large government contractors.
The Common Cause-Public Campaign coalition will air ads in television markets in Seattle, Denver, Tallahassee and Washington D.C. and are intended to win the support of Democrats such as Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen and Brian Baird of Washington, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, and Allen Boyd of Florida. More ads in other markets are planned later, Donnelly said.
So far, the legislation has 157 co-sponsors, all but three of them Democrats — not enough to guarantee passage. Prospects are tougher in the 100-member Senate, where major legislation typically requires 60 votes. The bill only has 21 Senate co-sponsors.
Donnelly and Bob Edgar, a former congressman and now president and CEO of Common Cause, said anti-Washington sentiment, bank bailouts and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico make the timing ripe to shake up how politicians raise money.
"Democrats and Republicans who are strongest on reform will buffer themselves against anti-incumbent anger," Edgar said.
Donnelly said the joint campaign expects to spend between $8 million and $15 million this year to promote the legislation. He said $2.5 million of that amount has already been spent.
Among those financing the effort is Arnold Hiatt, the former CEO of Stride Rite Corp. and major Democratic Party contributor who earlier this year urged other big political donors to give only to candidates who committed to support the legislation.
___
Online: http://campaignmoney.org/
http://yhoo.it/dn7t47
WASHINGTON – Two groups that have long advocated public financing of elections plan to spend at least $8 million this year to prod Congress to vote on proposed legislation aimed at reducing the influence of big donations in politics.
The joint effort by Common Cause and Public Campaign, called the Campaign for Fair Elections, will launch its first wave of advertising this week aimed primarily at Democrats who have yet to sign on in support of the bill.
The legislation would give candidates $4 of public financing for every $1 dollar raised through contributions of $100 or less. Participation would be voluntary, and candidates could opt out from the system.
Advocates hope the matching money would be so attractive that it would discourage politicians from having to chase big financial contributions from special interest donors.
Proponents estimate the public infusion of money would cost up to $1.8 billion for every two-year election cycle. David Donnelly, the campaign manager for the Campaign for Fair Elections, said one way to pay for the cost would be with a tax or fee on large government contractors.
The Common Cause-Public Campaign coalition will air ads in television markets in Seattle, Denver, Tallahassee and Washington D.C. and are intended to win the support of Democrats such as Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen and Brian Baird of Washington, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, and Allen Boyd of Florida. More ads in other markets are planned later, Donnelly said.
So far, the legislation has 157 co-sponsors, all but three of them Democrats — not enough to guarantee passage. Prospects are tougher in the 100-member Senate, where major legislation typically requires 60 votes. The bill only has 21 Senate co-sponsors.
Donnelly and Bob Edgar, a former congressman and now president and CEO of Common Cause, said anti-Washington sentiment, bank bailouts and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico make the timing ripe to shake up how politicians raise money.
"Democrats and Republicans who are strongest on reform will buffer themselves against anti-incumbent anger," Edgar said.
Donnelly said the joint campaign expects to spend between $8 million and $15 million this year to promote the legislation. He said $2.5 million of that amount has already been spent.
Among those financing the effort is Arnold Hiatt, the former CEO of Stride Rite Corp. and major Democratic Party contributor who earlier this year urged other big political donors to give only to candidates who committed to support the legislation.
___
Online: http://campaignmoney.org/
http://yhoo.it/dn7t47
AP investigation finds BP was responsible for 600 of more than 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico
by Richard Wray
The Gulf of Mexico is packed with abandoned oil wells from a host of companies including BP, according to an investigation by Associated Press which describes the area as “an environmental minefield that has been ignored for decades”.While the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig has thrown the spotlight sharply on BP’s activities in the Gulf of Mexico, environmental safety in the area has been neglected for decades.
There are more than 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico, according to AP, of which 600 belonged to BP. The oldest of the abandoned wells dates back to the late 1940s and the AP investigation highlights concerns about the way in which some of the wells have been plugged, especially the 3,500 neglected wells which are catalogued by the government as “temporarily abandoned”. The rules for shutting off temporarily closed wells is not as strict as for completely abandoned wells.
Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but the AP found that the rule is routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s.
AP quoted state officials as estimating that tens of thousands are badly sealed, either because they predate strict regulation or because the operating companies violated rules. Texas alone has plugged more than 21,000 abandoned wells to control pollution, according to the state comptroller’s office. In state-controlled waters off the coast of California, many abandoned wells have had to be resealed. But in deeper federal waters, AP points out, there is very little investigation into the state of abandoned wells.
The US Minerals Management Service, now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and charged with keeping an eye on offshore drilling, has little power to deal with abandoned wells. It merely requests paperwork to prove that a well has been capped and unlike regulators in states such as California, it does not typically inspect the job.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster has so far cost BP more than $3bn (£1.98bn) in actual clean-up expenses, but many times more in terms of the company’s financial value. Its share price has more than halved since the explosion on 20 April and the clean-up is likely to take months if not years. The AP investigation raises the question of whether there are more such environmental disasters waiting to happen.
http://bit.ly/aH6izE
The Gulf of Mexico is packed with abandoned oil wells from a host of companies including BP, according to an investigation by Associated Press which describes the area as “an environmental minefield that has been ignored for decades”.While the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig has thrown the spotlight sharply on BP’s activities in the Gulf of Mexico, environmental safety in the area has been neglected for decades.
There are more than 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico, according to AP, of which 600 belonged to BP. The oldest of the abandoned wells dates back to the late 1940s and the AP investigation highlights concerns about the way in which some of the wells have been plugged, especially the 3,500 neglected wells which are catalogued by the government as “temporarily abandoned”. The rules for shutting off temporarily closed wells is not as strict as for completely abandoned wells.
Regulations for temporarily abandoned wells require oil companies to present plans to reuse or permanently plug such wells within a year, but the AP found that the rule is routinely circumvented, and that more than 1,000 wells have lingered in that unfinished condition for more than a decade. About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s.
AP quoted state officials as estimating that tens of thousands are badly sealed, either because they predate strict regulation or because the operating companies violated rules. Texas alone has plugged more than 21,000 abandoned wells to control pollution, according to the state comptroller’s office. In state-controlled waters off the coast of California, many abandoned wells have had to be resealed. But in deeper federal waters, AP points out, there is very little investigation into the state of abandoned wells.
The US Minerals Management Service, now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and charged with keeping an eye on offshore drilling, has little power to deal with abandoned wells. It merely requests paperwork to prove that a well has been capped and unlike regulators in states such as California, it does not typically inspect the job.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster has so far cost BP more than $3bn (£1.98bn) in actual clean-up expenses, but many times more in terms of the company’s financial value. Its share price has more than halved since the explosion on 20 April and the clean-up is likely to take months if not years. The AP investigation raises the question of whether there are more such environmental disasters waiting to happen.
http://bit.ly/aH6izE
'PERFECT CITIZEN' PROGRAM PLACES 'SENSORS' THROUGHOUT WEB
The control room at a nuclear-power plant in Limerick, Pa. The National Security Agency's 'Private Citizen' program will detect cyber assaults on critical infrastructure, but could also help companies in other fields, such as Google, which sustained a major attack late last year.
By SIOBHAN GORMAN
The federal government is launching an expansive program dubbed "Perfect Citizen" to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies running such critical infrastructure as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants, according to people familiar with the program.
The surveillance by the National Security Agency, the government's chief eavesdropping agency, would rely on a set of sensors deployed in computer networks for critical infrastructure that would be triggered by unusual activity suggesting an impending cyber attack, though it wouldn't persistently monitor the whole system, these people said.
Defense contractor Raytheon Corp. recently won a classified contract for the initial phase of the surveillance effort valued at up to $100 million, said a person familiar with the project.
An NSA spokeswoman said the agency had no information to provide on the program. A Raytheon spokesman declined to comment.
Some industry and government officials familiar with the program see Perfect Citizen as an intrusion by the NSA into domestic affairs, while others say it is an important program to combat an emerging security threat that only the NSA is equipped to provide.
"The overall purpose of the [program] is our Government...feel[s] that they need to insure the Public Sector is doing all they can to secure Infrastructure critical to our National Security," said one internal Raytheon email, the text of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. "Perfect Citizen is Big Brother."
Raytheon declined to comment on this email.
http://bit.ly/anXubF
The men behind Barack Obama part 2
Especially in politics it is of the utmost importance to try to look behind the facade: who makes up the team of the presidential candidate? The future president of the United States of America is for a large part dependent on and being fed by his team of advisors and future cabinet members. Webster Tarpley wrote a book on the men and women behind presidential hopeful Barack Obama. He argues that there is more to Obama than his charismatic appearance and that some of his advisors pose a danger to the US and the world in case Obama might be elected to become the next US president. Whether Tarpleys view is correct for now is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen, but for the public debate it is relevant to take note of his facts and arguments. Therefor DeepJournal interviewed Webster Tarpley on the topic of his recently published book Obama, The Postmodern Coup,The Making of a Manchurian Candidate.
Analysts say WHO communication errors spurred 'false pandemic' charges
by Ashton Daigle on July 5, 2010
Two former World Health Organization consultants have said that communication missteps fueled accusations that the organization exaggerated the H1N1 threat in order to enrich pharmaceutical companies.
The analysts, Peter Sandman and Jody Lanard, called the allegations absurd, but said the organization made itself vulnerable by making three communication errors, CIDRAP News reports.
The allegations were recently leveled against WHO in a report by the Council of Europe and an investigative report in BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal. The COE report alleged that the WHO hyped the pandemic partly in order to enrich the companies that make vaccines and antivirals. The BMJ article primarily examined alleged conflicts of interest.
Lanard and Sandman wrote the three communications mistakes made by the WHO included reporting on the mildness of the pandemic, the debatable meaning of the term influenza pandemic and the inevitable, but not culpable, structural conflicts of interest of WHO advisers.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan recently denied the allegations made by the COE regarding hyping the virus to help drug companies. She did, however, acknowledge that the WHO needs to develop better policies and methods for disclosing potential conflicts of interest.
The WHO has commissioned a committee of independent experts to review the handling of the pandemic. That group will meet in Geneva this week, but its final report is not expected until next year.
http://bit.ly/cgTBHz
Two former World Health Organization consultants have said that communication missteps fueled accusations that the organization exaggerated the H1N1 threat in order to enrich pharmaceutical companies.
The analysts, Peter Sandman and Jody Lanard, called the allegations absurd, but said the organization made itself vulnerable by making three communication errors, CIDRAP News reports.
The allegations were recently leveled against WHO in a report by the Council of Europe and an investigative report in BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal. The COE report alleged that the WHO hyped the pandemic partly in order to enrich the companies that make vaccines and antivirals. The BMJ article primarily examined alleged conflicts of interest.
Lanard and Sandman wrote the three communications mistakes made by the WHO included reporting on the mildness of the pandemic, the debatable meaning of the term influenza pandemic and the inevitable, but not culpable, structural conflicts of interest of WHO advisers.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan recently denied the allegations made by the COE regarding hyping the virus to help drug companies. She did, however, acknowledge that the WHO needs to develop better policies and methods for disclosing potential conflicts of interest.
The WHO has commissioned a committee of independent experts to review the handling of the pandemic. That group will meet in Geneva this week, but its final report is not expected until next year.
http://bit.ly/cgTBHz
Obama Bypasses Senate For New Medicare Czar
Obama bypasses Senate for new Medicare chief
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 38 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama bypassed the Senate Wednesday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor and patient care specialist, to run Medicare and Medicaid.
The decision to use a so-called recess appointment to install Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services drew immediate fire from the GOP. Republicans have raised concerns about Berwick's views on rationing of care and other matters and said it was wrong for Obama to go around the normal Senate confirmation process. That view was echoed by a key Democratic committee chairman, although the recess appointment is a tool used by presidents of both parties.
Berwick has wide support in the medical community but some Democrats feared the GOP would use his confirmation hearings as an opportunity to reopen last year's divisive health care debate. Obama defended the decision to appoint Berwick and two other officials, one to a pension board and the other to a White House science post.
"It's unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes," Obama said in a statement Wednesday. "These recess appointments will allow three extremely qualified candidates to get to work on behalf of the American people right away."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Obama of trying to "arrogantly circumvent the American people" with Congress out of town for its annual July Fourth break. Berwick could serve through next year without Senate confirmation.
"Democrats haven't scheduled so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick but the mere possibility of allowing the American people the opportunity to hear what he intends to do with their health care is evidently reason enough for this administration to sneak him through without public scrutiny," said McConnell, R-Ky.
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose committee would have held Berwick's confirmation hearing, also said he was troubled by the recess appointment. "Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power," said Baucus. Berwick was nominated in April, and Finance Committee staff was still at work on the vetting process it undertakes prior to scheduling a confirmation hearing.
http://yhoo.it/aM0BYa
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 38 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama bypassed the Senate Wednesday and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor and patient care specialist, to run Medicare and Medicaid.
The decision to use a so-called recess appointment to install Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services drew immediate fire from the GOP. Republicans have raised concerns about Berwick's views on rationing of care and other matters and said it was wrong for Obama to go around the normal Senate confirmation process. That view was echoed by a key Democratic committee chairman, although the recess appointment is a tool used by presidents of both parties.
Berwick has wide support in the medical community but some Democrats feared the GOP would use his confirmation hearings as an opportunity to reopen last year's divisive health care debate. Obama defended the decision to appoint Berwick and two other officials, one to a pension board and the other to a White House science post.
"It's unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes," Obama said in a statement Wednesday. "These recess appointments will allow three extremely qualified candidates to get to work on behalf of the American people right away."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Obama of trying to "arrogantly circumvent the American people" with Congress out of town for its annual July Fourth break. Berwick could serve through next year without Senate confirmation.
"Democrats haven't scheduled so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick but the mere possibility of allowing the American people the opportunity to hear what he intends to do with their health care is evidently reason enough for this administration to sneak him through without public scrutiny," said McConnell, R-Ky.
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose committee would have held Berwick's confirmation hearing, also said he was troubled by the recess appointment. "Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power," said Baucus. Berwick was nominated in April, and Finance Committee staff was still at work on the vetting process it undertakes prior to scheduling a confirmation hearing.
http://yhoo.it/aM0BYa
Company threatens to pull woman's health coverage over 1 cent
By Barbara Cotter
The Gazette
POSTED: 07/07/2010 08:25:52 AM MDT
UPDATED: 07/07/2010 11:06:54 AM MDT
La Rosa Carrington, 52, has been battling leukemia and her insurance company over a one cent bill. (THE GAZETTE | Christian Murdock)
La Rosa Carrington has more than enough to worry about. She's a single mother with two teenage daughters, she's fighting a type of leukemia that requires five days of chemo a month for four months, and she lost her job in May.
So the last thing she needed was news that her health insurance benefits would be terminated because she hadn't paid her premium in full. The shortfall? One penny.
"My medical bills are coming in like locusts, and you're holding up my benefits because of one red cent?" an incredulous Carrington said from her hospital bed last week as she recalled her conversation with a customer service rep at Discovery Benefits, an employee benefits administrator based in North Dakota.
Carrington said she talked twice to a customer service representative, who told her it was policy that the penny be received before the benefits could be reinstated. Write a check or send a money order, Carrington said the representative told her.
Carrington then asked to speak to a supervisor, who reiterated the company's policy and wouldn't budge on the penny. Carrington also threatened to take her case to the media, and that's why she thinks the supervisor called her back with some good news: The supervisor had pulled out her own calculator, done the math — and determined that Carrington was correct.
Suzanne Rehr, executive vice president for Discovery Benefits, offered a slightly different account. She wrote in an e-mail that COBRA software rounded up from $161.1545 — which is 35 percent of $471.87 — while Carrington rounded down, and said that “our staff member reached out to her supervisor and immediately received approval to pay the penny ... due to the rounding difference.”
No matter which account is accurate, Carrington has her health insurance back for now, but she said it took three hours out of a day when she wasn’t feeling good, and upset her so much that she got a headache and had trouble sleeping. She’s outraged, and when she gets well, she wants to push for a policy to prevent people going through what she went through.
http://bit.ly/bvWc9d
The Gazette
POSTED: 07/07/2010 08:25:52 AM MDT
UPDATED: 07/07/2010 11:06:54 AM MDT
La Rosa Carrington, 52, has been battling leukemia and her insurance company over a one cent bill. (THE GAZETTE | Christian Murdock)
La Rosa Carrington has more than enough to worry about. She's a single mother with two teenage daughters, she's fighting a type of leukemia that requires five days of chemo a month for four months, and she lost her job in May.
So the last thing she needed was news that her health insurance benefits would be terminated because she hadn't paid her premium in full. The shortfall? One penny.
"My medical bills are coming in like locusts, and you're holding up my benefits because of one red cent?" an incredulous Carrington said from her hospital bed last week as she recalled her conversation with a customer service rep at Discovery Benefits, an employee benefits administrator based in North Dakota.
Carrington said she talked twice to a customer service representative, who told her it was policy that the penny be received before the benefits could be reinstated. Write a check or send a money order, Carrington said the representative told her.
Carrington then asked to speak to a supervisor, who reiterated the company's policy and wouldn't budge on the penny. Carrington also threatened to take her case to the media, and that's why she thinks the supervisor called her back with some good news: The supervisor had pulled out her own calculator, done the math — and determined that Carrington was correct.
Suzanne Rehr, executive vice president for Discovery Benefits, offered a slightly different account. She wrote in an e-mail that COBRA software rounded up from $161.1545 — which is 35 percent of $471.87 — while Carrington rounded down, and said that “our staff member reached out to her supervisor and immediately received approval to pay the penny ... due to the rounding difference.”
No matter which account is accurate, Carrington has her health insurance back for now, but she said it took three hours out of a day when she wasn’t feeling good, and upset her so much that she got a headache and had trouble sleeping. She’s outraged, and when she gets well, she wants to push for a policy to prevent people going through what she went through.
http://bit.ly/bvWc9d
Bolton: 'Arab Countries Would Support Attack On Iran'
Bolton - 'Arab Countries Would Support Attack On Iran'
by Jason Mattera
07/07/2010
In a HUMAN EVENTS exclusive, former UN Ambassador John Bolton argued that a preemptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would privately have the full backing of many Middle East countries. "The Obama Administration does not manifestly understand," noted Bolton, that "an Israeli attack against the Iranian nuclear program would be supported in the Arab world. It would be supported by the Arab states in the Persian Gulf region. It would be supported by Egypt and others who don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than the Israelis do."
Although, in Mr. Bolton's view, such an attack should be led by the United States because "we could do it a lot better." Instead, when countries look at the Obama Administration, Bolton maintained, they see the "contemporary version of George McGovern saying 'come home America,' withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the strategic situation on the ground; withdrawing from Afghanistan beginning of the summer of 2011, whether or not we've achieved our strategic objectives."
To the former ambassador, Obama's spiritless attitude toward Iran is because the President views "external challenges to the United States" as a diversion from what he wants to do, "which is restructure our domestic healthcare system, restructure our financial system, restructure our energy system--restructure much of American life."
"That's a real failure of Obama leadership," said Bolton.
Mr. Mattera is the editor of HUMAN EVENTS and the author of Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation (Simon & Schuster).
http://bit.ly/90tdPf
Obama sues to throw out Arizona immigration law
by Bob Christie
PHOENIX – The Obama administration sued Arizona on Tuesday to throw out the state’s toughest-in-the-nation immigration law and keep other states from copying it.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government’s “pre-eminent authority” under the Constitution to regulate immigration.
The move sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states’ rights at a time when politicians in some other states have indicated they want to follow Arizona’s lead.
The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law said the lawsuit was unnecessary and blamed the federal government for neglecting problems at the border for years. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the complaint “a terribly bad decision” and defended the law as “reasonable and constitutional.”
Arizona passed the measure after years of frustration with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigration, and it’s home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
Interested in knowing what many illegals think about this country? Check out this anti-American photo raised at a demonstration in Arizona:
http://bit.ly/d6eEwl
PHOENIX – The Obama administration sued Arizona on Tuesday to throw out the state’s toughest-in-the-nation immigration law and keep other states from copying it.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government’s “pre-eminent authority” under the Constitution to regulate immigration.
The move sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states’ rights at a time when politicians in some other states have indicated they want to follow Arizona’s lead.
The legal action represents a stern denunciation of the law, which the Justice Department declared will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law said the lawsuit was unnecessary and blamed the federal government for neglecting problems at the border for years. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the complaint “a terribly bad decision” and defended the law as “reasonable and constitutional.”
Arizona passed the measure after years of frustration with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigration, and it’s home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
Interested in knowing what many illegals think about this country? Check out this anti-American photo raised at a demonstration in Arizona:
http://bit.ly/d6eEwl
Mexico’s Culture of Racism
July 6th, 2010
by Anthony Kang
Everyone knows racism is the progeny of America - after all, ignorance and bigotry remain exclusive to America alone right?
With the passage of SB1070, Americans in favor of the Arizona law have endured hysterical smears, insults, and falsehoods from liberals, radicals, and, of course, Mexican officials — never mind Mexico’s treatment of illegal residents.
Many conservatives have begrudgingly come to peace with the fact only they are subject to nonexistent rules, mind-boggling double standards, and arbitrary hate crimes by the thought police.
In spite what students are taught everyday in classes like black, Chicano/a, and feminist “studies,” racism actually exists outside of America!
Reporting from Mexico City, Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times does a commendable job illustrating what so few of her mainstream media colleagues are willing to:
Every morning during television coverage of the World Cup, on the Mexican equivalent of the “Today” show, co-hosts chat, trade barbs and yuck it up. Behind them, actors in blackface makeup, dressed in fake animal skins and wild “Afro” wigs, gyrate, wave spears and pretend to represent a cartoonish version of South Africa.
Yes, in the 21st century, blackface characters on a major television network. But this is Mexico, and definitions of racism are complicated and influenced by the country’s own tortured relationship with invading powers and indigenous cultures. [...]
But the full truth is that racism is alive and well in Mexico. It is primarily directed at indigenous communities who account for as many as 11.3 million people, or roughly 10% of the national population. The indigenous remain disproportionately mired in poverty and denied work, political access, education and other rights.
And the plight of black Mexicans:
Often referred to by academics as the “third race” and concentrated in the coastal states of Veracruz, Oaxaca and Guerrero, they have been fighting for years for recognition as a distinct ethnic group, to be included in history books and to be given opportunities to transcend poverty.
“Racism in Mexico is covered up,” said Ricardo Bucio, head of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, which has protested the blackface TV caricatures. “There is a lot of denial about it.”
Or, as columnist Katia D’Artigues once put it: “Although subtle, discrimination has become something invisible in our society. We no longer see it, or we consider it normal!”
Couldn’t have said it better. Who knows, maybe one day Mexicans and Europeans will stop calling the kettle black.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
Who knows, maybe one day Mexicans and Europeans will stop calling the kettle black.
.. or just maybe the Obama administration will stop inciting racism for political gain!!
by Anthony Kang
Everyone knows racism is the progeny of America - after all, ignorance and bigotry remain exclusive to America alone right?
With the passage of SB1070, Americans in favor of the Arizona law have endured hysterical smears, insults, and falsehoods from liberals, radicals, and, of course, Mexican officials — never mind Mexico’s treatment of illegal residents.
Many conservatives have begrudgingly come to peace with the fact only they are subject to nonexistent rules, mind-boggling double standards, and arbitrary hate crimes by the thought police.
In spite what students are taught everyday in classes like black, Chicano/a, and feminist “studies,” racism actually exists outside of America!
Reporting from Mexico City, Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times does a commendable job illustrating what so few of her mainstream media colleagues are willing to:
Every morning during television coverage of the World Cup, on the Mexican equivalent of the “Today” show, co-hosts chat, trade barbs and yuck it up. Behind them, actors in blackface makeup, dressed in fake animal skins and wild “Afro” wigs, gyrate, wave spears and pretend to represent a cartoonish version of South Africa.
Yes, in the 21st century, blackface characters on a major television network. But this is Mexico, and definitions of racism are complicated and influenced by the country’s own tortured relationship with invading powers and indigenous cultures. [...]
But the full truth is that racism is alive and well in Mexico. It is primarily directed at indigenous communities who account for as many as 11.3 million people, or roughly 10% of the national population. The indigenous remain disproportionately mired in poverty and denied work, political access, education and other rights.
And the plight of black Mexicans:
Often referred to by academics as the “third race” and concentrated in the coastal states of Veracruz, Oaxaca and Guerrero, they have been fighting for years for recognition as a distinct ethnic group, to be included in history books and to be given opportunities to transcend poverty.
“Racism in Mexico is covered up,” said Ricardo Bucio, head of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, which has protested the blackface TV caricatures. “There is a lot of denial about it.”
Or, as columnist Katia D’Artigues once put it: “Although subtle, discrimination has become something invisible in our society. We no longer see it, or we consider it normal!”
Couldn’t have said it better. Who knows, maybe one day Mexicans and Europeans will stop calling the kettle black.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
Who knows, maybe one day Mexicans and Europeans will stop calling the kettle black.
.. or just maybe the Obama administration will stop inciting racism for political gain!!
UAE Diplomat Endorses First Strike to Disarm Iran
U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes
Prefers strike to armed foe
By Eli Lake 6:50 p.m., Tuesday, July 6, 2010
ASPEN, Colo. | The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The remarks surprised many in the audience.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told The Washington Times after the session that "I have never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was stunningly candid."
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."
"They also know — and worry — that the Obama administration's policies will not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.
Arab leaders, Mr. Bolton said, regard a pre-emptive strike as "the only alternative."
The U.A.E. ambassador "was thus only speaking the truth from his perspective," Mr. Bolton said.
Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said of the ambassador's comments: "This is a significant increase in the concern from the United Arab Emirates."
http://bit.ly/9dGVNd
Prefers strike to armed foe
By Eli Lake 6:50 p.m., Tuesday, July 6, 2010
ASPEN, Colo. | The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The remarks surprised many in the audience.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told The Washington Times after the session that "I have never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was stunningly candid."
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."
"They also know — and worry — that the Obama administration's policies will not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.
Arab leaders, Mr. Bolton said, regard a pre-emptive strike as "the only alternative."
The U.A.E. ambassador "was thus only speaking the truth from his perspective," Mr. Bolton said.
Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said of the ambassador's comments: "This is a significant increase in the concern from the United Arab Emirates."
http://bit.ly/9dGVNd
'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
'Rigour and honesty' of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA's Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 July 2010 13.02 BST
The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open enough about their work, and said they were "unhelpful and defensive" when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information (FOI) laws.
The row was sparked when 13 years of emails from CRU scientists were hacked and released online last year. Climate change sceptics claimed they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of man-made climate change. Critics also alleged that the scientists abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the peer review process that determines which studies are published in journals, and so enter the scientific record. Some alleged that the emails cast doubt on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Announcing the findings, Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said."
He added: "The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
The review is the third and final inquiry into the email affair, dubbed "climategate", and effectively clears Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Questions remain over the way in which they responded to requests for information from people outside the conventional scientific arena, some of whom were long-standing critics of Jones.
"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report, commissioned by UEA, said.
It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text.
Separately, it was announced today that Phil Jones has accepted the new post of director of research at CRU. The vice chancellor of UEA, Professor Edward Acton, said this was "not a demotion but a shift in emphasis of role" for Phil Jones. "CRU will be more closely integrated in the bigger school of environmental sciences and a key difference is to place some of the administrative burden that Phil had before this incident on the head of the school," said Prof Acton. Jones will be more free to direct and conduct his own research.
Future FOI requests for the CRU will be directed though the head of the school, Professor Jacquie Burgess, and the ultimate responsibility for such requests will lie with the vice-chancellor, as highlighted in the Russell report.
• Additional reporting by Christine Ottery
http://bit.ly/a6uaKm
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 July 2010 13.02 BST
The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open enough about their work, and said they were "unhelpful and defensive" when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information (FOI) laws.
The row was sparked when 13 years of emails from CRU scientists were hacked and released online last year. Climate change sceptics claimed they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of man-made climate change. Critics also alleged that the scientists abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the peer review process that determines which studies are published in journals, and so enter the scientific record. Some alleged that the emails cast doubt on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Announcing the findings, Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said."
He added: "The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
The review is the third and final inquiry into the email affair, dubbed "climategate", and effectively clears Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Questions remain over the way in which they responded to requests for information from people outside the conventional scientific arena, some of whom were long-standing critics of Jones.
"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report, commissioned by UEA, said.
It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text.
Separately, it was announced today that Phil Jones has accepted the new post of director of research at CRU. The vice chancellor of UEA, Professor Edward Acton, said this was "not a demotion but a shift in emphasis of role" for Phil Jones. "CRU will be more closely integrated in the bigger school of environmental sciences and a key difference is to place some of the administrative burden that Phil had before this incident on the head of the school," said Prof Acton. Jones will be more free to direct and conduct his own research.
Future FOI requests for the CRU will be directed though the head of the school, Professor Jacquie Burgess, and the ultimate responsibility for such requests will lie with the vice-chancellor, as highlighted in the Russell report.
• Additional reporting by Christine Ottery
http://bit.ly/a6uaKm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bookmarks
