Subject: COWS, THE CONSTITUTION, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country
lately -- illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking
people in Florida ..
..... not me -- I concentrate on solutions for the problems -- it's a
win-win situation.
Think about this:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad
cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada
almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state
of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they
are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our
country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .... why don't
we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it
has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a
courthouse is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou
Shalt
Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full
of
lawyers, judges and politicians ... it creates a hostile work
environment.
Also, think about this ... if you don't want to forward this for fear of
offending someone -- YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
It is time for America to speak up!
Yep, I passed it on!
Friday, January 23, 2009
ATTACK on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
According to Congressman Mike Pence, and others, the Pelosi-controlled Congress HAS JUST RENEWED ITS ATTACK on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others. They're ONCE AGAIN trying to shut down conservative talk-radio by bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
“Over the past few months, some of the most powerful Democrats in Congress have made their intentions to restore this Depression-era regulation clear. However, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."
Congressman Pence isn't the only one sounding the alarm.
Senator Jim DeMint says the Left's intention and goal is to silence millions of conservative Americans who disagree with the Left's warped vision for America.
“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation…”
Senator John Thune tells us that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is at risk and calls this draconian attempt by Pelosi and other leftists in Congress to impose their version of so-called "fairness" on the American people a "recipe for an Orwellian disaster."
"For over 200 years, the First Amendment has allowed Americans to voice opinions, thoughts and questions of their choosing without the fear of Government reprisal. This guarantee is now threatened by some liberal ideologues who are frustrated with the free flow of ideas on talk radio. ... I advise every American to be hesitant when government officials offer to regulate the media in the name of ‘fairness.’ ... Simply put, giving power to a few to impose ‘fairness’ in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.”
And Congressman Greg Walden tells us that some Democrats seem to be INTENT on censoring speech on radio and television!
“The founders would spin in their graves at the thought of the government censoring speech on many of today’s radio and television stations. Yet that’s just what some Democratic leaders seem to be after. Whether as a throwback to the old Fairness Doctrine or under a less controversial guise, any effort to exert government control over speech on the airwaves is an insult to the principles behind the First Amendment.”
To head-off sleazy, squalid schemes by the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration to curtail free speech, conservatives in Congress have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), legislation designed to crush the poisonous head of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
According to DeMint:
"The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would suppress free speech by requiring the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse."
Make no mistake, the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration will continue their policy of obstruction and try to KILL the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. They want NOTHING to stand in the way of their attempt to control what you and I see and hear on the radio and on television!
That's why we must go on OFFENSE RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW! We must bombard our elected officials with Blast Faxes and force them to explain exactly why they view the First Amendment as a threat!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Will Obama Or Pelosi Strike First?
The Obama Administration can bring back the Fairness Doctrine WITHOUT a vote ever taking place in Congress.
Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi:
"You give president-elect Obama a few months or a few years in office, and pretty soon he will have appointed a majority of the Federal Communications Commission. And my fear is that Commission could re-impose the Fairness Doctrine without ever having a vote in the United States House or Senate."
And what happens if the Obama Administration brings back the Fairness Doctrine?
Bill Ruder, a top official in the Kennedy Administration, told us how the Fairness Doctrine worked in the good old' days when it was simply FCC policy:
"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
But we're fighting a two-front war because Nancy Pelosi can make "fairness" the law of the land as well... AND LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE WORKING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW!
Vincent R. Caravan, writing in the Valley News, said:
“Senators Diane Feinstein of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York are pushing for passage of a new Fairness Doctrine. Their aim, of course, is to end conservative dominance of the American airways and the Internet.”
Either way you slice it, the prognosis is grim.
Brian Anderson editor of the prestigious Manhattan Institute:
“The measure is just a sneaky way of shrinking the hosts like William Bennett and others of his ilk, or even getting them off the air altogether.”
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com paints an even uglier picture:
“This legislation will be crafted with one purpose in mind – control. As far as the Democratic Congress is concerned, they have no worries about control of the Big Media. Big Media dance to their Big Government schemes without being provided choreography.
“The new ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is going to be written in a way that allows the government to mobilize community organizers to do Big Government's dirty work. Groups like Media Matters and ACORN will be named to community oversight boards to police the programming of local radio stations. These groups will not be promoting ‘fairness.’ They will be promoting their own narrow and extreme political agenda. Anything that deviates from it will generate complaints and letters and calls opposing license renewals.”
Edward D. Michalek, of the Baxter Bulletin, in Mountain Home, Arkansas, wrote:
“If you've heard of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ on radio, you know there's nothing fair about it. The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than censorship, pure and simple. ... Americans can make up their own minds about who we want to listen to on the radio and not have censorship of our news.”
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
What Could Be More Fair?
Does the Pelosi Gang really believe in giving both sides of the political debate voice?
Let’s take a look at Exhibit # 1.
For years, the American people have complained about the leftist bias of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) - institutions supported by your tax dollars.
Viewers have been bombarded with attacks on orthodox Christianity; fawning, idealized depictions of Mohammad funded by the government of Saudi Arabia and the shameless nightly skewing of contemporary politics.
When decent Americans protested, the Left responded by thumbing its nose at us.
"Bias? We aren't biased. You're just paranoid. So shut up!"
Jeffrey A. Dvorkin - NPR's Ombudsman - wrote a smug, self-congratulatory column in which he actually said that nobody can legitimately point to a liberal agenda in NPR's broadcasts.
"Some listeners say they know it is there, because they can hear it, even if they can't put a finger on it."
Dvorkin is either delusional or a very bad liar.
Let's look at Exhibit #2.
Smut floods our streets and our airwaves like an open sore. When the people complain, we are told that the First Amendment is pristine and should protect even objectionable speech. (We couldn’t agree more.)
Okay... So why do liberals NOT apply the same standard to conservative political speech?
The hypocrisy is STAGGERING!
But that’s what happens when "fairness" is under left-wing management: Intellectual tyranny... the old double standard... heads we win, tails you lose.
Anything the left agrees with is "fair" by definition. Equal time is NOT required.
Anything decent conservative Americans agree with is "hate-speech" and MUST be countered with opposing views. It's only right.
In some sick way, Pelosi and Obama and leftists will probably tell the American people that they're being "tolerant" by even allowing conservative or religious viewpoints to have ANY airtime at all!
America can’t go there!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Suppression Of Speech Is Quickly Becoming The American Way.
If this push for government control of political dialogue were an isolated phenomenon, that would be one thing – no more than an odd perversion of American values in a single industry.
But suppression of free speech is rapidly becoming the American way.
With few exceptions, major newspapers, magazines and the major television networks are monolithically leftist. They steadily lose money, lay-off employees and go out of business, but they stay the course.
In a shocking majority of our colleges and universities, left-wing slogans and Marxist clichés have replaced genuine scholarship in the classroom and on the podium.
Outside speakers with a conservative message are either banned by the administration or else drowned out by shouts, shrieks, and catcalls. Some are physically attacked. Conservative students are savaged by their professors and insulted and bullied by administrators.
Back in the old days, it was the Left that took to the streets, demanding the right to teach radical politics in the classroom and demonstrate in support of revolution.
They had their revolution and, like Stalin and Castro, they turned around and immediately repressed all dissent - EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THEY IMPOSE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
Are you ready to let the federal government tell you what you can and can’t hear on the radio or read on the Internet?
Neither am I!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.
Powered by GrassTopsUSA
“Over the past few months, some of the most powerful Democrats in Congress have made their intentions to restore this Depression-era regulation clear. However, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."
Congressman Pence isn't the only one sounding the alarm.
Senator Jim DeMint says the Left's intention and goal is to silence millions of conservative Americans who disagree with the Left's warped vision for America.
“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation…”
Senator John Thune tells us that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is at risk and calls this draconian attempt by Pelosi and other leftists in Congress to impose their version of so-called "fairness" on the American people a "recipe for an Orwellian disaster."
"For over 200 years, the First Amendment has allowed Americans to voice opinions, thoughts and questions of their choosing without the fear of Government reprisal. This guarantee is now threatened by some liberal ideologues who are frustrated with the free flow of ideas on talk radio. ... I advise every American to be hesitant when government officials offer to regulate the media in the name of ‘fairness.’ ... Simply put, giving power to a few to impose ‘fairness’ in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.”
And Congressman Greg Walden tells us that some Democrats seem to be INTENT on censoring speech on radio and television!
“The founders would spin in their graves at the thought of the government censoring speech on many of today’s radio and television stations. Yet that’s just what some Democratic leaders seem to be after. Whether as a throwback to the old Fairness Doctrine or under a less controversial guise, any effort to exert government control over speech on the airwaves is an insult to the principles behind the First Amendment.”
To head-off sleazy, squalid schemes by the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration to curtail free speech, conservatives in Congress have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), legislation designed to crush the poisonous head of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
According to DeMint:
"The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would suppress free speech by requiring the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse."
Make no mistake, the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration will continue their policy of obstruction and try to KILL the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. They want NOTHING to stand in the way of their attempt to control what you and I see and hear on the radio and on television!
That's why we must go on OFFENSE RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW! We must bombard our elected officials with Blast Faxes and force them to explain exactly why they view the First Amendment as a threat!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Will Obama Or Pelosi Strike First?
The Obama Administration can bring back the Fairness Doctrine WITHOUT a vote ever taking place in Congress.
Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi:
"You give president-elect Obama a few months or a few years in office, and pretty soon he will have appointed a majority of the Federal Communications Commission. And my fear is that Commission could re-impose the Fairness Doctrine without ever having a vote in the United States House or Senate."
And what happens if the Obama Administration brings back the Fairness Doctrine?
Bill Ruder, a top official in the Kennedy Administration, told us how the Fairness Doctrine worked in the good old' days when it was simply FCC policy:
"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
But we're fighting a two-front war because Nancy Pelosi can make "fairness" the law of the land as well... AND LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE WORKING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW!
Vincent R. Caravan, writing in the Valley News, said:
“Senators Diane Feinstein of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York are pushing for passage of a new Fairness Doctrine. Their aim, of course, is to end conservative dominance of the American airways and the Internet.”
Either way you slice it, the prognosis is grim.
Brian Anderson editor of the prestigious Manhattan Institute:
“The measure is just a sneaky way of shrinking the hosts like William Bennett and others of his ilk, or even getting them off the air altogether.”
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com paints an even uglier picture:
“This legislation will be crafted with one purpose in mind – control. As far as the Democratic Congress is concerned, they have no worries about control of the Big Media. Big Media dance to their Big Government schemes without being provided choreography.
“The new ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is going to be written in a way that allows the government to mobilize community organizers to do Big Government's dirty work. Groups like Media Matters and ACORN will be named to community oversight boards to police the programming of local radio stations. These groups will not be promoting ‘fairness.’ They will be promoting their own narrow and extreme political agenda. Anything that deviates from it will generate complaints and letters and calls opposing license renewals.”
Edward D. Michalek, of the Baxter Bulletin, in Mountain Home, Arkansas, wrote:
“If you've heard of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ on radio, you know there's nothing fair about it. The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than censorship, pure and simple. ... Americans can make up their own minds about who we want to listen to on the radio and not have censorship of our news.”
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
What Could Be More Fair?
Does the Pelosi Gang really believe in giving both sides of the political debate voice?
Let’s take a look at Exhibit # 1.
For years, the American people have complained about the leftist bias of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) - institutions supported by your tax dollars.
Viewers have been bombarded with attacks on orthodox Christianity; fawning, idealized depictions of Mohammad funded by the government of Saudi Arabia and the shameless nightly skewing of contemporary politics.
When decent Americans protested, the Left responded by thumbing its nose at us.
"Bias? We aren't biased. You're just paranoid. So shut up!"
Jeffrey A. Dvorkin - NPR's Ombudsman - wrote a smug, self-congratulatory column in which he actually said that nobody can legitimately point to a liberal agenda in NPR's broadcasts.
"Some listeners say they know it is there, because they can hear it, even if they can't put a finger on it."
Dvorkin is either delusional or a very bad liar.
Let's look at Exhibit #2.
Smut floods our streets and our airwaves like an open sore. When the people complain, we are told that the First Amendment is pristine and should protect even objectionable speech. (We couldn’t agree more.)
Okay... So why do liberals NOT apply the same standard to conservative political speech?
The hypocrisy is STAGGERING!
But that’s what happens when "fairness" is under left-wing management: Intellectual tyranny... the old double standard... heads we win, tails you lose.
Anything the left agrees with is "fair" by definition. Equal time is NOT required.
Anything decent conservative Americans agree with is "hate-speech" and MUST be countered with opposing views. It's only right.
In some sick way, Pelosi and Obama and leftists will probably tell the American people that they're being "tolerant" by even allowing conservative or religious viewpoints to have ANY airtime at all!
America can’t go there!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Suppression Of Speech Is Quickly Becoming The American Way.
If this push for government control of political dialogue were an isolated phenomenon, that would be one thing – no more than an odd perversion of American values in a single industry.
But suppression of free speech is rapidly becoming the American way.
With few exceptions, major newspapers, magazines and the major television networks are monolithically leftist. They steadily lose money, lay-off employees and go out of business, but they stay the course.
In a shocking majority of our colleges and universities, left-wing slogans and Marxist clichés have replaced genuine scholarship in the classroom and on the podium.
Outside speakers with a conservative message are either banned by the administration or else drowned out by shouts, shrieks, and catcalls. Some are physically attacked. Conservative students are savaged by their professors and insulted and bullied by administrators.
Back in the old days, it was the Left that took to the streets, demanding the right to teach radical politics in the classroom and demonstrate in support of revolution.
They had their revolution and, like Stalin and Castro, they turned around and immediately repressed all dissent - EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THEY IMPOSE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
Are you ready to let the federal government tell you what you can and can’t hear on the radio or read on the Internet?
Neither am I!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.
Powered by GrassTopsUSA
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Study: Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.
The Texas-based Global Language Monitor said there had also been 6 million new Obama-related mentions on the Internet since December 31.
By comparison, the last U.S. presidential inauguration, of George W. Bush in January 2005, resulted in about 1,000 stories in major media worldwide, Paul JJ Payack, president of Global Language Monitor said.
"The Obama numbers are unprecedented and speak volumes to the global fascination with the new American president, his wife and young family," Payack told Reuters. "Obama is the biggest story of the century so far."
U.S. television audience ratings for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, which was shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels, are expected to show record numbers tuning in when they are released later on Wednesday.
Payack said that according to his group's monitoring, the Obama campaign and election story had generated 717,000 citations in print, television and radio across the world in 2008 and 254 million mentions on the Internet and in Web blogs.
That surpassed media interest generated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Iraq War in 2003 and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Payack said.
The tallies were calculated using the group's proprietary algorithm which tracks the frequency of words and phrases in the global print and electronic media, the Internet and major databases.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.
The Texas-based Global Language Monitor said there had also been 6 million new Obama-related mentions on the Internet since December 31.
By comparison, the last U.S. presidential inauguration, of George W. Bush in January 2005, resulted in about 1,000 stories in major media worldwide, Paul JJ Payack, president of Global Language Monitor said.
"The Obama numbers are unprecedented and speak volumes to the global fascination with the new American president, his wife and young family," Payack told Reuters. "Obama is the biggest story of the century so far."
U.S. television audience ratings for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, which was shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels, are expected to show record numbers tuning in when they are released later on Wednesday.
Payack said that according to his group's monitoring, the Obama campaign and election story had generated 717,000 citations in print, television and radio across the world in 2008 and 254 million mentions on the Internet and in Web blogs.
That surpassed media interest generated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Iraq War in 2003 and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Payack said.
The tallies were calculated using the group's proprietary algorithm which tracks the frequency of words and phrases in the global print and electronic media, the Internet and major databases.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Are you Prepared?
Are you Prepared?
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard--she appointed him to track down and bring to
justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. (Aviv 's bio is noted at end.)
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O ' Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O' Reilly laughed, saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Now for his future predictions . . . He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will never try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke, that we have been reactionary rather than pro-active in developing strategies that are truly effective. For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can ' t bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked. Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they go to the restroom, and then detonate the bags before security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags before people can even enter the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas. Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas , they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place,' and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny.'
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only a handf ul of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact and soon.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. It was Bill Clinton and his liberal agenda that fired all of the CIA's undercover agents and operatives. This was directly responsible for the failure to detect the planning for the 9-11 attacks and stop them. This failed Clinton strategy also resulted in Osama Bin Laden release from Somalia after he was offered up in a trade.
We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies.' Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase.
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well trained that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizens who know to publicly shout, 'unattended Bag.' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases.)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off e veryone's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
Aviv's Bio as follows:
He holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm. Interfor, Inc. is now based in New York , with offices around the world. It was founded in 1979 and provides foreign and domestic intelligence services to legal, corporate and financial communities around the world.
Interfor, Inc. also conducts investigations into terrorism and Mr. Aviv now serves as a special consultant to the U. S. Congress, and other policy makers, here within the U. S. on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations and security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfor's asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients.
A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich , as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team.
Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence special operations, serving in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s.
While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today. Most recently, Mr.. Aviv wrote a book entitled, 'Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business.' (2004, Harper Resource)
He has been a featured guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight,
ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles in major magazines and newspapers worldwide.
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard--she appointed him to track down and bring to
justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. (Aviv 's bio is noted at end.)
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O ' Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O' Reilly laughed, saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Now for his future predictions . . . He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will never try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke, that we have been reactionary rather than pro-active in developing strategies that are truly effective. For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can ' t bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked. Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they go to the restroom, and then detonate the bags before security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags before people can even enter the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas. Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas , they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place,' and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny.'
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only a handf ul of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact and soon.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. It was Bill Clinton and his liberal agenda that fired all of the CIA's undercover agents and operatives. This was directly responsible for the failure to detect the planning for the 9-11 attacks and stop them. This failed Clinton strategy also resulted in Osama Bin Laden release from Somalia after he was offered up in a trade.
We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies.' Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase.
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well trained that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizens who know to publicly shout, 'unattended Bag.' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases.)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off e veryone's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
Aviv's Bio as follows:
He holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm. Interfor, Inc. is now based in New York , with offices around the world. It was founded in 1979 and provides foreign and domestic intelligence services to legal, corporate and financial communities around the world.
Interfor, Inc. also conducts investigations into terrorism and Mr. Aviv now serves as a special consultant to the U. S. Congress, and other policy makers, here within the U. S. on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations and security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfor's asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients.
A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich , as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team.
Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence special operations, serving in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s.
While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today. Most recently, Mr.. Aviv wrote a book entitled, 'Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business.' (2004, Harper Resource)
He has been a featured guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight,
ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles in major magazines and newspapers worldwide.
Stimulus Deferred
Stimulus Deferred
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Economy: President Obama has asked Congress for a big stimulus package that could be put to work right away. Congress' answer, to spend $355 billion on infrastructure and other programs, comes up way short.
The idea behind a "stimulus" package is to give the slumping economy an immediate boost. At least, that's how we've been sold on the need for $825 billion in new spending. President Obama himself, in Tuesday's inaugural address, called for "bold and swift" action on the economy.
But now comes a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that says of the $355 billion tagged by House leaders in their plan for infrastructure and other discretionary outlays, only $136 billion would be spent by October 2010.
"The rest," noted a Washington Post story, "would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended." In short, it's not stimulus at all. And it's certainly not "bold and swift."
By the Sept. 30 end of this fiscal year, only $26 billion of the total would be spent on infrastructure and just $2.64 billion of the $19 billion pledged for renewable energy and other green projects.
Meanwhile, according to the CBO, plans to expand rural and underserved areas' broadband Internet service and to build clean drinking-water projects will take years.
You might like these ideas. And you might not mind the hundreds of billions in new spending. But let's not call it stimulus. Under Congress' plan, it's pork.
It's true that the entire stimulus package is much bigger — $825 billion — than just infrastructure. And of that amount, another $275 billion will still go for tax relief, mostly to individuals, but also to manufacturers, retailers and homebuilders. Another $200 billion will be spent to expand jobless benefits and health care.
But a closer look shows that much of the tax relief will go to people who pay little or no taxes to begin with. Indeed, the House plan gives no tax breaks to households in the top 5% of incomes, even though they pay more than 60% of all taxes.
In other words, it won't be relief so much as a redistribution of income. Those who need relief the most, those in the higher income brackets who actually pay the vast majority of taxes and who often run small businesses, will get little if anything.
That leaves the infrastructure part of the stimulus plan to do the heavy lifting. Since much of it won't take place for years, the real stimulus will be elusive. The debts run up for future generations, however, will be all too real.
So much for Democrats' claims that there are literally hundreds of "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects ready to go — just add stimulus money. In fact, thanks to strict government regulations, infrastructure projects can take months, if not years, to start even when money is available.
It's not that some of the infrastructure spending won't help. It will. But relying on it to pull us out of recession isn't wise.
President Obama has requested that the bulk of the spending take place before 2011. He's hoping the plan, which mixes tax breaks with a big slug of government spending, will boost GDP by 3.7% and save or create 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs over two years.
If properly designed, it might work. But Democrats in Congress have already let down their new leader. They'd be wise to focus on stimuli that actually stimulate. Broad-based tax cuts, for instance.
It's fine to spend money on infrastructure, but cutting taxes on both businesses and individuals would improve incentives to work and invest, and bring the banks in from the sidelines to start lending again. Then, everyone wins — not just Congress' pork-barrel spenders.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Economy: President Obama has asked Congress for a big stimulus package that could be put to work right away. Congress' answer, to spend $355 billion on infrastructure and other programs, comes up way short.
The idea behind a "stimulus" package is to give the slumping economy an immediate boost. At least, that's how we've been sold on the need for $825 billion in new spending. President Obama himself, in Tuesday's inaugural address, called for "bold and swift" action on the economy.
But now comes a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that says of the $355 billion tagged by House leaders in their plan for infrastructure and other discretionary outlays, only $136 billion would be spent by October 2010.
"The rest," noted a Washington Post story, "would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended." In short, it's not stimulus at all. And it's certainly not "bold and swift."
By the Sept. 30 end of this fiscal year, only $26 billion of the total would be spent on infrastructure and just $2.64 billion of the $19 billion pledged for renewable energy and other green projects.
Meanwhile, according to the CBO, plans to expand rural and underserved areas' broadband Internet service and to build clean drinking-water projects will take years.
You might like these ideas. And you might not mind the hundreds of billions in new spending. But let's not call it stimulus. Under Congress' plan, it's pork.
It's true that the entire stimulus package is much bigger — $825 billion — than just infrastructure. And of that amount, another $275 billion will still go for tax relief, mostly to individuals, but also to manufacturers, retailers and homebuilders. Another $200 billion will be spent to expand jobless benefits and health care.
But a closer look shows that much of the tax relief will go to people who pay little or no taxes to begin with. Indeed, the House plan gives no tax breaks to households in the top 5% of incomes, even though they pay more than 60% of all taxes.
In other words, it won't be relief so much as a redistribution of income. Those who need relief the most, those in the higher income brackets who actually pay the vast majority of taxes and who often run small businesses, will get little if anything.
That leaves the infrastructure part of the stimulus plan to do the heavy lifting. Since much of it won't take place for years, the real stimulus will be elusive. The debts run up for future generations, however, will be all too real.
So much for Democrats' claims that there are literally hundreds of "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects ready to go — just add stimulus money. In fact, thanks to strict government regulations, infrastructure projects can take months, if not years, to start even when money is available.
It's not that some of the infrastructure spending won't help. It will. But relying on it to pull us out of recession isn't wise.
President Obama has requested that the bulk of the spending take place before 2011. He's hoping the plan, which mixes tax breaks with a big slug of government spending, will boost GDP by 3.7% and save or create 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs over two years.
If properly designed, it might work. But Democrats in Congress have already let down their new leader. They'd be wise to focus on stimuli that actually stimulate. Broad-based tax cuts, for instance.
It's fine to spend money on infrastructure, but cutting taxes on both businesses and individuals would improve incentives to work and invest, and bring the banks in from the sidelines to start lending again. Then, everyone wins — not just Congress' pork-barrel spenders.
Tortured Logic
WHEN IN AN ARGUMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS WHAT YOU GET WHEN ONE OF THOSE IN THE ARGUMENT IS NON-MILITARY AND LIBERAL TO BOOT WHAT YOU HAVE IS A PURE GIVE AWAY OF THE SECURITY OF THE NATION. READ THE FOLLOWING AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL AGREE, THE KNOW NOTHINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE THE RUIN FOR ALL OF US. DAA
Tortured Logic
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Military Justice: Should terrorists willing to strap explosives to their chests be freed because someone poured water down their nose? The ACLU thinks so and wants the killer of 17 American sailors freed.
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward recounted how Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani, 9/11's 20th hijacker "met the legal definition of torture" and "that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," Crawford said.
There "was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.
Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against al-Qahtani in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward. But, she admits, "He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "
So she has kicked the can down the road, preferring to let the Obama administration decide.
Mohammed al-Qahtani, also known as Detainee 063, is a dangerous man.
He had tried to enter the U.S. via Orlando International Airport in August 2001 when he was stopped by suspicious immigration officials. Just yards away, waiting to pick him up, was Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
According to federal investigators, al-Qahtani was to have been the fifth hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93, the "muscle" that was to have guarded the cockpit door. Had he been there, the passenger rebellion that steered the 757 into a Pennsylvania field might have been unsuccessful. Had Atta collected him in Orlando, flight 93 might have reached its destination and plowed into the U.S. Capitol.
The ACLU took it a step further, claiming in a press release that the charges against another Guantanamo detainee, Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, should be dropped because he had also been "tortured" by being waterboarded. Nashiri is a notorious al-Qaida terrorist, responsible for orchestrating the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 American servicemen, as well as other attacks.
In a press release issued Thursday, the ACLU said:
"In response to the admission by Susan J. Crawford, the top official overseeing the Office of Military Commissions, that the reason she refused to send a detainee's case to trial is because 'we tortured (him),' (al-Nashiri's) military lawyers filed a motion late Wednesday in Guantanamo to withdraw the charges against Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, who is being charged for his alleged involvement in crimes including the USS Cole bombing."
This is the old "police brutality" argument that argues that if the police are deemed to have used "excessive" force in apprehending a criminal, the way to protect the community and punish the police is to let the criminal go free to commit more crimes.
In his farewell address, President Bush rightly noted that he had kept America safe in the seven years since 9/11 and mentioned the "tough decisions" that made it possible. We have documented some of the information gained and plots foiled as a result of our decision not to coddle jihadists.
We will never know how many Americans are alive today because we made the likes of al-Qahtani, al-Nashiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed uncomfortable. But they are and we are, and it is precisely because we have been "aggressive and persistent."
We hope the new administration ignores the sob sisters and strives to keep it that way.
Tortured Logic
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Military Justice: Should terrorists willing to strap explosives to their chests be freed because someone poured water down their nose? The ACLU thinks so and wants the killer of 17 American sailors freed.
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward recounted how Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani, 9/11's 20th hijacker "met the legal definition of torture" and "that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," Crawford said.
There "was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.
Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against al-Qahtani in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward. But, she admits, "He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "
So she has kicked the can down the road, preferring to let the Obama administration decide.
Mohammed al-Qahtani, also known as Detainee 063, is a dangerous man.
He had tried to enter the U.S. via Orlando International Airport in August 2001 when he was stopped by suspicious immigration officials. Just yards away, waiting to pick him up, was Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
According to federal investigators, al-Qahtani was to have been the fifth hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93, the "muscle" that was to have guarded the cockpit door. Had he been there, the passenger rebellion that steered the 757 into a Pennsylvania field might have been unsuccessful. Had Atta collected him in Orlando, flight 93 might have reached its destination and plowed into the U.S. Capitol.
The ACLU took it a step further, claiming in a press release that the charges against another Guantanamo detainee, Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, should be dropped because he had also been "tortured" by being waterboarded. Nashiri is a notorious al-Qaida terrorist, responsible for orchestrating the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 American servicemen, as well as other attacks.
In a press release issued Thursday, the ACLU said:
"In response to the admission by Susan J. Crawford, the top official overseeing the Office of Military Commissions, that the reason she refused to send a detainee's case to trial is because 'we tortured (him),' (al-Nashiri's) military lawyers filed a motion late Wednesday in Guantanamo to withdraw the charges against Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, who is being charged for his alleged involvement in crimes including the USS Cole bombing."
This is the old "police brutality" argument that argues that if the police are deemed to have used "excessive" force in apprehending a criminal, the way to protect the community and punish the police is to let the criminal go free to commit more crimes.
In his farewell address, President Bush rightly noted that he had kept America safe in the seven years since 9/11 and mentioned the "tough decisions" that made it possible. We have documented some of the information gained and plots foiled as a result of our decision not to coddle jihadists.
We will never know how many Americans are alive today because we made the likes of al-Qahtani, al-Nashiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed uncomfortable. But they are and we are, and it is precisely because we have been "aggressive and persistent."
We hope the new administration ignores the sob sisters and strives to keep it that way.
Repealing Defense of Marriage Act OBAMA
Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover
President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, Malia Obama, and Chief Justice John Roberts during swearing-in ceremony (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled “Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,” the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Web site says.
“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” the Web site says.
Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.
Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the “parents” are homosexual or not.
“President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation,” the site said. “He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not,” the website reads.
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nation’s public health system, saying the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS – and the new president wants contraceptives to be distributed in federal prisons.
“The president will support common-sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system.”
Obama renewed his pledge to expand federal hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation – an effort he spearheaded as a freshman U.S. senator. The bill that Obama introduced in the Senate, the Matthew Shepard Act, would make it a federal hate-crime to commit violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
“President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, (and) expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act,” the site says.
Obama also wants to lift the federal ban on needle exchanges, which provides intravenous drug addicts with free, clean needles in an effort to ensure they abuse illegal drugs safely.
“The president also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”
The new White House site confirms that Obama plans to work towards his desire to repeal a federal law that prevents homosexuals from serving in the military. Obama says that the only test for military service should be patriotism.
“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” the site says.
“The president will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”
Whether homosexuals are ever allowed to serve in the military won’t be Obama’s call, however. Only Congress can enact such a policy affecting the military.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Elblogo at 09:44 AM - January 21, 2009
America,you asked for it now maybe Rev. Wright's wish will come true.Jamuary 20,2009 a day of Infamy.
marshalp at 12:03 AM - January 21, 2009
I am a bit confused about the civil union bit. How is it different and/or similar to a marriage? What is the moral objection to homosexuals having civil unions until they are not married in a church? Maybe i'm just a little ignorant. please advice.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover
President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, Malia Obama, and Chief Justice John Roberts during swearing-in ceremony (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled “Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,” the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Web site says.
“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” the Web site says.
Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.
Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the “parents” are homosexual or not.
“President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation,” the site said. “He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not,” the website reads.
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nation’s public health system, saying the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS – and the new president wants contraceptives to be distributed in federal prisons.
“The president will support common-sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system.”
Obama renewed his pledge to expand federal hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation – an effort he spearheaded as a freshman U.S. senator. The bill that Obama introduced in the Senate, the Matthew Shepard Act, would make it a federal hate-crime to commit violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
“President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, (and) expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act,” the site says.
Obama also wants to lift the federal ban on needle exchanges, which provides intravenous drug addicts with free, clean needles in an effort to ensure they abuse illegal drugs safely.
“The president also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”
The new White House site confirms that Obama plans to work towards his desire to repeal a federal law that prevents homosexuals from serving in the military. Obama says that the only test for military service should be patriotism.
“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” the site says.
“The president will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”
Whether homosexuals are ever allowed to serve in the military won’t be Obama’s call, however. Only Congress can enact such a policy affecting the military.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Elblogo at 09:44 AM - January 21, 2009
America,you asked for it now maybe Rev. Wright's wish will come true.Jamuary 20,2009 a day of Infamy.
marshalp at 12:03 AM - January 21, 2009
I am a bit confused about the civil union bit. How is it different and/or similar to a marriage? What is the moral objection to homosexuals having civil unions until they are not married in a church? Maybe i'm just a little ignorant. please advice.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
ATHEIST HOLY DAY
FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and
Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case
against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument
was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate
presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,
"Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your
honor,how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas,
Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah,
yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do.
Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special
observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day.
Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'
Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God,
then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and
Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case
against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument
was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate
presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,
"Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your
honor,how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas,
Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah,
yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do.
Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special
observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day.
Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'
Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God,
then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
BORDER AGENTS PARDONED
CNSNews.com
‘I’m Happy He’s Coming Home Soon,’ Border Agent’s Wife Says
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President George W. Bush (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – Patty Compean’s prayers were answered Monday with the announcement that President George W. Bush was commuting the 12-year sentence of her husband, former Border Patrol Agent Jose Compean, as well as the 11-year sentence of former Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos.
“I’m just happy with the outcome. I’m happy he’s coming home soon,” Patty Compean told CNSNews.com about her husband. “I’m just trying to take it all in.”
The conviction of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who have already served more than two years of their sentences for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler in the buttocks, ignited a political firestorm prompting members of Congress from both parties to call for President Bush to issue a pardon or commutation.
The two men will not be released until March 20, said Patty Compean. As of Monday afternoon, she said, she had not had a chance to talk to her husband. She would have preferred if his release date were sooner, she said, but “right now all I wanted is for him to come home.”
Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was shot along the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso in February 2005, had been hauling 743 pounds of marijuana in a van when Ramos and Compean stopped him and then pursued him on foot. The smuggler, who got away into Mexico at the time, suffered a shattered urethra from the shooting.
Aldrete-Davila was later sought out by federal prosecutors and the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office that investigated the matter. They wanted him to return to the United States – not to face justice – but to be the star witness against the two border agents.
Prosecutors gave Aldrete-Davila a humanitarian pass to enter and exit the United States unsupervised. Aldrete-Davila then smuggled more drugs into the country. The jury in the Ramos and Compean trial was not allowed to learn about Aldrete-Davila’s second smuggling load, because prosecutors convinced the judge in the case that the information could jeopardize a future case against Aldrete-Davila.
Last year, Aldrete-Davila pleaded guilty to the subsequent drug smuggling operation and was sentenced to nine years in prison.
Both the House and Senate held hearings into the case against Ramos and Compean. Senators grilled Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, for prosecuting the agents.
Sutton defended the case as a righteous prosecution, because he said the agents shot an unarmed man and did not realize he was carrying drugs at the time they shot him.
Sutton issued the following statement on Monday after President Bush commuted the border agents’ prison sentences:
Today, the President exercised his power under the Constitution to grant executive clemency to former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. Like the trial judge and the court that reviewed the cases on appeal, President Bush found that Compean and Ramos were justly convicted of serious crimes and that their status as convicted felons should remain in place.
After careful thought and deliberation, President Bush has concluded that Compean and Ramos have been sufficiently punished, and that the remainder of their terms should be spent on supervised release. I have only the highest respect for the President’s decision to allow their convictions to stand, but to reduce the time they must spend in prison.
Members of Congress expressed their happiness that Bush commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean.
“Our prayers have been answered,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who had repeatedly and forcefully called on President Bush to show mercy on the former agents. “This is not just a day of celebration for the families but it is a victory for all Americans, while acknowledging our system is flawed, to see that if they are involved, if they speak up and utilize their freedom, injustices can be corrected.”
“The hearts of all patriotic Americans are filled with joy at the announcement that our brave border defenders, Ramos and Compean, will be freed from unjust captivity,” Rohrabacher said.
“We are grateful at long last that President Bush has done the right thing by these men and their families and the president should be included in our prayers of gratitude,” Rohrabacher said. “I am humbled by the sincerity of support I saw over the last two and half years for Ramos and Compean from both sides of the political aisle and everyday Americans throughout our country.”
Joe Loya, Ignacio Ramos’ father-in-law, expressed relief about the case.
“After four years of fighting this, it’s taken a toll on me and my daughter, and really the whole family,” Loya told the Associated Press. Of his daughter, he said, “She could hardly speak.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 5 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Miguel at 04:23 PM - January 20, 2009
It appears you are not taking comments or you are censoring all of them. I'd left one earlier, but needed to copy it. However, there was a rush and I couldn't copy it at that time. Now it and all others are gone. What's up with this site?
frank3108 at 04:17 PM - January 20, 2009
It's about time. They should be released NOW!
HernandezUSA at 03:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Congratulations; on being set free and we are glad we could help support the cause for these heroes.
Miguel at 02:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Bush was wrong to only commute these vicious sentences. Bush and Sutton have helped kill many American kids via their support for drug smuggling implicit in these sentences. As a high school teacher in Cal., I have witnessed around a hundred kids go down to drugs. They've died or gone on to a living death of drug addiction, prison and rotten housing. Massive numbers of young people die in and around illegal drugs across America, courtesy of Sutton. In this, Sutton also supports the drug gangs of Mexico in his action, thus killing many Mexicans, too. So don't tell me that Sutton cares about the "Good of The People". Sutton has caved to liberal agendas in their support of crime and death. Wherever liberals have gained power over time, like Detroit, there is vast crime, government corruption, drugs, destruction of the family, poverty, economic destruction, horrific schools (whose job is clearly is to stupify, not educate), no college graduates, violence, rape and abortions. So,
HernandezUSA at 11:40 AM - January 20, 2009
We feel happy and relief for your Families and wish we could shake the hands of these American heroes. Let's see if we can Obama to clear their records clean, so these men get back to work and help support their courages families.
‘I’m Happy He’s Coming Home Soon,’ Border Agent’s Wife Says
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President George W. Bush (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – Patty Compean’s prayers were answered Monday with the announcement that President George W. Bush was commuting the 12-year sentence of her husband, former Border Patrol Agent Jose Compean, as well as the 11-year sentence of former Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos.
“I’m just happy with the outcome. I’m happy he’s coming home soon,” Patty Compean told CNSNews.com about her husband. “I’m just trying to take it all in.”
The conviction of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who have already served more than two years of their sentences for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler in the buttocks, ignited a political firestorm prompting members of Congress from both parties to call for President Bush to issue a pardon or commutation.
The two men will not be released until March 20, said Patty Compean. As of Monday afternoon, she said, she had not had a chance to talk to her husband. She would have preferred if his release date were sooner, she said, but “right now all I wanted is for him to come home.”
Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was shot along the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso in February 2005, had been hauling 743 pounds of marijuana in a van when Ramos and Compean stopped him and then pursued him on foot. The smuggler, who got away into Mexico at the time, suffered a shattered urethra from the shooting.
Aldrete-Davila was later sought out by federal prosecutors and the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office that investigated the matter. They wanted him to return to the United States – not to face justice – but to be the star witness against the two border agents.
Prosecutors gave Aldrete-Davila a humanitarian pass to enter and exit the United States unsupervised. Aldrete-Davila then smuggled more drugs into the country. The jury in the Ramos and Compean trial was not allowed to learn about Aldrete-Davila’s second smuggling load, because prosecutors convinced the judge in the case that the information could jeopardize a future case against Aldrete-Davila.
Last year, Aldrete-Davila pleaded guilty to the subsequent drug smuggling operation and was sentenced to nine years in prison.
Both the House and Senate held hearings into the case against Ramos and Compean. Senators grilled Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, for prosecuting the agents.
Sutton defended the case as a righteous prosecution, because he said the agents shot an unarmed man and did not realize he was carrying drugs at the time they shot him.
Sutton issued the following statement on Monday after President Bush commuted the border agents’ prison sentences:
Today, the President exercised his power under the Constitution to grant executive clemency to former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. Like the trial judge and the court that reviewed the cases on appeal, President Bush found that Compean and Ramos were justly convicted of serious crimes and that their status as convicted felons should remain in place.
After careful thought and deliberation, President Bush has concluded that Compean and Ramos have been sufficiently punished, and that the remainder of their terms should be spent on supervised release. I have only the highest respect for the President’s decision to allow their convictions to stand, but to reduce the time they must spend in prison.
Members of Congress expressed their happiness that Bush commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean.
“Our prayers have been answered,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who had repeatedly and forcefully called on President Bush to show mercy on the former agents. “This is not just a day of celebration for the families but it is a victory for all Americans, while acknowledging our system is flawed, to see that if they are involved, if they speak up and utilize their freedom, injustices can be corrected.”
“The hearts of all patriotic Americans are filled with joy at the announcement that our brave border defenders, Ramos and Compean, will be freed from unjust captivity,” Rohrabacher said.
“We are grateful at long last that President Bush has done the right thing by these men and their families and the president should be included in our prayers of gratitude,” Rohrabacher said. “I am humbled by the sincerity of support I saw over the last two and half years for Ramos and Compean from both sides of the political aisle and everyday Americans throughout our country.”
Joe Loya, Ignacio Ramos’ father-in-law, expressed relief about the case.
“After four years of fighting this, it’s taken a toll on me and my daughter, and really the whole family,” Loya told the Associated Press. Of his daughter, he said, “She could hardly speak.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 5 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Miguel at 04:23 PM - January 20, 2009
It appears you are not taking comments or you are censoring all of them. I'd left one earlier, but needed to copy it. However, there was a rush and I couldn't copy it at that time. Now it and all others are gone. What's up with this site?
frank3108 at 04:17 PM - January 20, 2009
It's about time. They should be released NOW!
HernandezUSA at 03:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Congratulations; on being set free and we are glad we could help support the cause for these heroes.
Miguel at 02:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Bush was wrong to only commute these vicious sentences. Bush and Sutton have helped kill many American kids via their support for drug smuggling implicit in these sentences. As a high school teacher in Cal., I have witnessed around a hundred kids go down to drugs. They've died or gone on to a living death of drug addiction, prison and rotten housing. Massive numbers of young people die in and around illegal drugs across America, courtesy of Sutton. In this, Sutton also supports the drug gangs of Mexico in his action, thus killing many Mexicans, too. So don't tell me that Sutton cares about the "Good of The People". Sutton has caved to liberal agendas in their support of crime and death. Wherever liberals have gained power over time, like Detroit, there is vast crime, government corruption, drugs, destruction of the family, poverty, economic destruction, horrific schools (whose job is clearly is to stupify, not educate), no college graduates, violence, rape and abortions. So,
HernandezUSA at 11:40 AM - January 20, 2009
We feel happy and relief for your Families and wish we could shake the hands of these American heroes. Let's see if we can Obama to clear their records clean, so these men get back to work and help support their courages families.
NO PROBLEM WITH ANOTHER CROOK AT TREASUARY
MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CROOK AT THE HELM OF A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ANS THE ONES IN OFFICE IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE DIFFERENCE IS THE WAY THE VOTES ARE COUNTED.
Schumer, Durbin and Barney Frank See No Problem with Treasury Nominee's Tax Problems
Monday, January 19, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy & Matthew Hadro
In this Nov. 24, 2008 file photo, Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner listens as President-elect Barack Obama speaks during a news conference in Chicago. Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to run the Treasury Department and lead the economic rescue effort disclosed to senators Tuesday that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004, a last-minute complication in an otherwise smooth path to confirmation. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)(CNSNews.com) - House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told CNSNews.com that Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner is qualified to serve despite his failure to properly pay at least $34,000 in taxes. Other members of Congress, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed, but some Republicans questioned the nomination.
As Treasury Secretary, Geithner would oversee the federal treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
According to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee, Geithner failed to make several tax payments as required when he worked at the International Monetary Fund and, in total with penalties, has had to pay $48,268 in back-taxes and penalties that go back as far as 2001.
Geithner worked as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund from 2001-2003. In October 2003, he was named the ninth president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he currently works. In 2006, he also became a member of the The Group of Trinity, a Washington-based financial advisory body.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Geithner was “repeatedly advised in writing by the International Monetary Fund that he would be responsible for any Social Security and Medicare taxes he owed on income he earned at the IMF between 2001 and 2004.” Bloomberg News also reported in November 2008 that Geithner’s salary in 2007 was $398,200, which is more than double Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s compensation who, along with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, received a salary of $191,300 in 2008.
President-elect Obama told CBS News that his transition team knew of Geithner’s tax problems before he was nominated as Treasury secretary. It has been reported that Geithner made several tax payments soon after he learned he would be the nominee.
When asked if Geithner’s failure to properly pay his taxes disqualified him from being in charge of “America's purse,” several members of Congress gave their responses to CNSNews.com. Below is what they said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CNSNews.com: “I think he is a very, very fine nominee and I think, while he admitted these were mistakes, and I think he will be confirmed.”
“No, I don’t think” Geithner should be disqualified, said Rep. Barney Frank (D.Mass.).
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told CNSNews.com: “No, I don’t” think this is a problem “and I’ll tell you why. I think he received advice from accountants, which turned out to be wrong. It seems like an innocent mistake – no conscious effort to try to avoid paying taxes. He made good on his tax liability as quickly as he learned and the situation with the domestic who worked there [and whose green card expired]. It seems to be that there was a change in her legal status for a few months and it is not something where you would assume he would know that--so I don’t. I think these were errors but innocent errors.”
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Al.) said: “I’ve heard about the concerns about the not paying the taxes, the withholding of taxes. You know, I would say, most of that stuff was, I think, was just honest mistakes. So, I mean, I think you have to count that in as it is -- honest mistakes.”
However, Aderholt said he is reserving judgment as to whether Geithner should be confirmed.
“I think he could still be valid but, like I said, I think this [merits] a little bit closer scrutiny, because of the offices, which he is being nominated for,” said Aderholt. Again, if it was something that didn’t deal with the secretary of the treasury, to my understanding, that’s a department over the IRS, and he’s over the IRS as far as there’s an IRS commissioner. But it ultimately is under the umbrella of the Department of the Treasury. So that puts him in a little higher scrutiny.”
“So I’m still withholding judgment,” said Aderholt. “But I wouldn’t entirely say that it’d be unacceptable, but I think that’s something that we’ve got to look very closely at just because of the office that he’s going to.”
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com: “I think both those issues [taxes and employing a worker with an expired green card] he can overcome, and he is overcoming. I don’t think those two issues are necessarily--that appear to be inadvertent mistakes which about anyone can make--and I don’t think they’re so compelling as to disqualify him for the position.”
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) said: “I read that, and in the past some other cabinet appointees have been disqualified for that. I think what we have to do is make sure that we’re applying all of these standards equally. I heard some people say, ‘Well, this is a very important job, we should overlook certain things.’ I don’t know that that’s the standard we all use. So what I think as the Senate begins to vet these candidates, I think you ought to say, ‘Here are parameters that we think qualify someone to serve in that position or not.’”
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) said: “He has vast experience, and we need his expertise, and if he had a couple of missteps along the way, I think that ought to be considered.”
In contrast, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.) told CNSNews.com: “I don’t think so. The secretary of the Treasury should be a person beyond any problems. If he had any kind of legal problems, ethics problems, I don’t think he should be” confirmed.
And Rep. Dan Burton (R-In.) said: “I think it ought to be investigated thoroughly, and if he knowingly didn’t pay his taxes, I don’t see how he should be confirmed. Now, if there were some reason for it, that he could explain, that’s another matter, because I understand he’s very bright. But that’s something that needs to be thoroughly explained.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 7 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 Next Loading...
moriarity at 03:05 AM - January 20, 2009
This slime ball (Geithner) fits right in to the Dems corrupt cabal. It's simply a crying shame that the Repubs (RINO'S) are so timid and meek that they fail to act for the reason they were elected. If I were to be engaged in a bar fight, I'd randomly pick any Dem in the establishment to aid me over any Repub. The Dems are true Bolshevics!
Peted at 05:12 PM - January 19, 2009
Conservative Republicans should begin drawing up Articles of Impeachment against Durbin, Shumer and Barney Frank for Myopia in discharge of their duties. How stupid do they think the American people are? Conservative Republicans with courage should start drawing up Articles of Impeachment for abuse of power against Pelosi, Conyers, et.al. The procedure should tie up the Congress for some time until sanity comes back to Capitol Hill.
jackking at 03:53 PM - January 19, 2009
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)... It was these three idiots and the rest of the democrats in congress during the Clinton administration that caused the financial mess that we find ourselves in today. They are very good at what they do screwing up the works and blaming someone else for the misery they cause. Nancy Pelosi wants to convene an investigation of George Bush for firing 8 democrat prosecutors. What she should convene is an investigation to discover why anyone would be stupid enough to vote for a democrat!!! Jack King Irvine, CA
lvh at 03:28 PM - January 19, 2009
Why would they..they are cut of the same cloth.
ontime at 02:28 PM - January 19, 2009
And why should this group of named scoundrels not accept another of their kind into the pack? He is is but another of their feather to tuck into the fold of deciet they love so dearly. It's your dime they live on and they know it, besides he's to TARP smart to fail. So they say......
Post New Comment
Schumer, Durbin and Barney Frank See No Problem with Treasury Nominee's Tax Problems
Monday, January 19, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy & Matthew Hadro
In this Nov. 24, 2008 file photo, Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner listens as President-elect Barack Obama speaks during a news conference in Chicago. Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to run the Treasury Department and lead the economic rescue effort disclosed to senators Tuesday that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004, a last-minute complication in an otherwise smooth path to confirmation. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)(CNSNews.com) - House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told CNSNews.com that Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner is qualified to serve despite his failure to properly pay at least $34,000 in taxes. Other members of Congress, including Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed, but some Republicans questioned the nomination.
As Treasury Secretary, Geithner would oversee the federal treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
According to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee, Geithner failed to make several tax payments as required when he worked at the International Monetary Fund and, in total with penalties, has had to pay $48,268 in back-taxes and penalties that go back as far as 2001.
Geithner worked as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund from 2001-2003. In October 2003, he was named the ninth president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he currently works. In 2006, he also became a member of the The Group of Trinity, a Washington-based financial advisory body.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Geithner was “repeatedly advised in writing by the International Monetary Fund that he would be responsible for any Social Security and Medicare taxes he owed on income he earned at the IMF between 2001 and 2004.” Bloomberg News also reported in November 2008 that Geithner’s salary in 2007 was $398,200, which is more than double Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s compensation who, along with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, received a salary of $191,300 in 2008.
President-elect Obama told CBS News that his transition team knew of Geithner’s tax problems before he was nominated as Treasury secretary. It has been reported that Geithner made several tax payments soon after he learned he would be the nominee.
When asked if Geithner’s failure to properly pay his taxes disqualified him from being in charge of “America's purse,” several members of Congress gave their responses to CNSNews.com. Below is what they said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CNSNews.com: “I think he is a very, very fine nominee and I think, while he admitted these were mistakes, and I think he will be confirmed.”
“No, I don’t think” Geithner should be disqualified, said Rep. Barney Frank (D.Mass.).
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told CNSNews.com: “No, I don’t” think this is a problem “and I’ll tell you why. I think he received advice from accountants, which turned out to be wrong. It seems like an innocent mistake – no conscious effort to try to avoid paying taxes. He made good on his tax liability as quickly as he learned and the situation with the domestic who worked there [and whose green card expired]. It seems to be that there was a change in her legal status for a few months and it is not something where you would assume he would know that--so I don’t. I think these were errors but innocent errors.”
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Al.) said: “I’ve heard about the concerns about the not paying the taxes, the withholding of taxes. You know, I would say, most of that stuff was, I think, was just honest mistakes. So, I mean, I think you have to count that in as it is -- honest mistakes.”
However, Aderholt said he is reserving judgment as to whether Geithner should be confirmed.
“I think he could still be valid but, like I said, I think this [merits] a little bit closer scrutiny, because of the offices, which he is being nominated for,” said Aderholt. Again, if it was something that didn’t deal with the secretary of the treasury, to my understanding, that’s a department over the IRS, and he’s over the IRS as far as there’s an IRS commissioner. But it ultimately is under the umbrella of the Department of the Treasury. So that puts him in a little higher scrutiny.”
“So I’m still withholding judgment,” said Aderholt. “But I wouldn’t entirely say that it’d be unacceptable, but I think that’s something that we’ve got to look very closely at just because of the office that he’s going to.”
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com: “I think both those issues [taxes and employing a worker with an expired green card] he can overcome, and he is overcoming. I don’t think those two issues are necessarily--that appear to be inadvertent mistakes which about anyone can make--and I don’t think they’re so compelling as to disqualify him for the position.”
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) said: “I read that, and in the past some other cabinet appointees have been disqualified for that. I think what we have to do is make sure that we’re applying all of these standards equally. I heard some people say, ‘Well, this is a very important job, we should overlook certain things.’ I don’t know that that’s the standard we all use. So what I think as the Senate begins to vet these candidates, I think you ought to say, ‘Here are parameters that we think qualify someone to serve in that position or not.’”
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) said: “He has vast experience, and we need his expertise, and if he had a couple of missteps along the way, I think that ought to be considered.”
In contrast, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.) told CNSNews.com: “I don’t think so. The secretary of the Treasury should be a person beyond any problems. If he had any kind of legal problems, ethics problems, I don’t think he should be” confirmed.
And Rep. Dan Burton (R-In.) said: “I think it ought to be investigated thoroughly, and if he knowingly didn’t pay his taxes, I don’t see how he should be confirmed. Now, if there were some reason for it, that he could explain, that’s another matter, because I understand he’s very bright. But that’s something that needs to be thoroughly explained.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 7 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 Next Loading...
moriarity at 03:05 AM - January 20, 2009
This slime ball (Geithner) fits right in to the Dems corrupt cabal. It's simply a crying shame that the Repubs (RINO'S) are so timid and meek that they fail to act for the reason they were elected. If I were to be engaged in a bar fight, I'd randomly pick any Dem in the establishment to aid me over any Repub. The Dems are true Bolshevics!
Peted at 05:12 PM - January 19, 2009
Conservative Republicans should begin drawing up Articles of Impeachment against Durbin, Shumer and Barney Frank for Myopia in discharge of their duties. How stupid do they think the American people are? Conservative Republicans with courage should start drawing up Articles of Impeachment for abuse of power against Pelosi, Conyers, et.al. The procedure should tie up the Congress for some time until sanity comes back to Capitol Hill.
jackking at 03:53 PM - January 19, 2009
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)... It was these three idiots and the rest of the democrats in congress during the Clinton administration that caused the financial mess that we find ourselves in today. They are very good at what they do screwing up the works and blaming someone else for the misery they cause. Nancy Pelosi wants to convene an investigation of George Bush for firing 8 democrat prosecutors. What she should convene is an investigation to discover why anyone would be stupid enough to vote for a democrat!!! Jack King Irvine, CA
lvh at 03:28 PM - January 19, 2009
Why would they..they are cut of the same cloth.
ontime at 02:28 PM - January 19, 2009
And why should this group of named scoundrels not accept another of their kind into the pack? He is is but another of their feather to tuck into the fold of deciet they love so dearly. It's your dime they live on and they know it, besides he's to TARP smart to fail. So they say......
Post New Comment
Obama Pledges New Start with Muslims
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO OFFER? A SECOND HIT AT THE PINATA? I JUST DON'T GET ANY PART OF GIVING THEM A SECOND ANYTHING?!!
Obama Pledges New Start with Muslims
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:00 PM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama promised a new start with the Muslim world during his inauguration address on Tuesday.
"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," said Obama, who became the first black president of the United States.
Obama, a Christian, spent several years of his childhood in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world.
Under President George W. Bush, U.S. relations with Muslim nations often were tense, particularly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Many Muslims were particularly angered by the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the opening of a prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, said Obama's words were an important signal of good will to Muslims in the United States as well as the rest of the world.
"I do believe it could undermine recruiting for al-Qaida," he told Reuters, because "their message depends on trying to demonize the United States as a country that is somehow hostile to Islam and the Muslim world."
Ellison said Obama's outreach would make it hard for al-Qaida to sustain its anti-American message.
Many Muslims are excited about Obama, he said.
"If you were to go to Damascus, or Cairo, or Jerusalem today, you could find an Obama tee shirt. People are excited about the possibilities for what this means around the globe."
The population of Ellison's district is 3 percent or 4 percent Muslim, he said. Since his election to Congress in 2006, another Muslim also has been voted in: Democrat Andre Carson of Indiana.
© 2009 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited
Obama Pledges New Start with Muslims
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:00 PM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama promised a new start with the Muslim world during his inauguration address on Tuesday.
"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," said Obama, who became the first black president of the United States.
Obama, a Christian, spent several years of his childhood in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world.
Under President George W. Bush, U.S. relations with Muslim nations often were tense, particularly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Many Muslims were particularly angered by the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the opening of a prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, said Obama's words were an important signal of good will to Muslims in the United States as well as the rest of the world.
"I do believe it could undermine recruiting for al-Qaida," he told Reuters, because "their message depends on trying to demonize the United States as a country that is somehow hostile to Islam and the Muslim world."
Ellison said Obama's outreach would make it hard for al-Qaida to sustain its anti-American message.
Many Muslims are excited about Obama, he said.
"If you were to go to Damascus, or Cairo, or Jerusalem today, you could find an Obama tee shirt. People are excited about the possibilities for what this means around the globe."
The population of Ellison's district is 3 percent or 4 percent Muslim, he said. Since his election to Congress in 2006, another Muslim also has been voted in: Democrat Andre Carson of Indiana.
© 2009 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited
Sen. Cornyn Could Hold Up Hillary Confirmation
Sen. Cornyn Could Hold Up Hillary Confirmation
WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. John Cornyn may hold up the nomination of Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state if his concerns about foreign donations to her husband's foundation are not resolved, a spokesman for the Texas senator said on Monday.
"Senator Cornyn is a strong proponent of complete transparency and has fought for as much throughout his time in office. He is keeping all of his options on the table," said his spokesman Kevin McLaughlin in an email reply to Reuters, when asked if Cornyn could block Clinton's nomination.
Democratic lawmakers had hoped to approve President-elect Barack Obama's proposed Cabinet of top advisers within hours or days of his inauguration at noon (1700 GMT) on Tuesday, but Cornyn's objections could stall approval of Clinton for the top U.S. diplomatic job by one or two days.
Cornyn sent Clinton a letter on Friday congratulating her on her nomination, but reiterating his belief that the foundation headed by former President Bill Clinton, should refuse all pledges and donations from foreign sources during his wife's tenure as secretary of state.
"Like many others, I remain deeply troubled that America's foreign policy and your diplomatic mission will be encumbered by the sweeping global activities of the Clinton Foundation unless tighter foreign fundraising restrictions and transparency protocols are adopted," he said.
Cornyn said he was willing to consider other options that would reduce "the likelihood of real or perceived conflicts of interest that will result from foreign donations," but gave no details.
He said he supported many of the disclosure requirements proposed by Sen. Richard Lugar, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and would "go further in several instances."
The Foreign Relations Committee last week sent Clinton's nomination to the full Senate by a 16-1 vote, and many expected the New York senator to be the first Cabinet member to be confirmed.
Any senator can put a hold on a nomination or piece of legislation, although given Democratic control of the 100-member Senate means that Clinton still remains certain to win approval eventually.
However, her confirmation may be stalled by several days if Cornyn decides to put a hold on her nomination.
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. John Cornyn may hold up the nomination of Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state if his concerns about foreign donations to her husband's foundation are not resolved, a spokesman for the Texas senator said on Monday.
"Senator Cornyn is a strong proponent of complete transparency and has fought for as much throughout his time in office. He is keeping all of his options on the table," said his spokesman Kevin McLaughlin in an email reply to Reuters, when asked if Cornyn could block Clinton's nomination.
Democratic lawmakers had hoped to approve President-elect Barack Obama's proposed Cabinet of top advisers within hours or days of his inauguration at noon (1700 GMT) on Tuesday, but Cornyn's objections could stall approval of Clinton for the top U.S. diplomatic job by one or two days.
Cornyn sent Clinton a letter on Friday congratulating her on her nomination, but reiterating his belief that the foundation headed by former President Bill Clinton, should refuse all pledges and donations from foreign sources during his wife's tenure as secretary of state.
"Like many others, I remain deeply troubled that America's foreign policy and your diplomatic mission will be encumbered by the sweeping global activities of the Clinton Foundation unless tighter foreign fundraising restrictions and transparency protocols are adopted," he said.
Cornyn said he was willing to consider other options that would reduce "the likelihood of real or perceived conflicts of interest that will result from foreign donations," but gave no details.
He said he supported many of the disclosure requirements proposed by Sen. Richard Lugar, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and would "go further in several instances."
The Foreign Relations Committee last week sent Clinton's nomination to the full Senate by a 16-1 vote, and many expected the New York senator to be the first Cabinet member to be confirmed.
Any senator can put a hold on a nomination or piece of legislation, although given Democratic control of the 100-member Senate means that Clinton still remains certain to win approval eventually.
However, her confirmation may be stalled by several days if Cornyn decides to put a hold on her nomination.
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
Monday, January 19, 2009
Consider These 3 Thoughts
: 3 Things to Consider
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:37:33 -0700
>> Consider These 3 Thoughts
>
>>
>
>> (1) Zero Gravity
>
>> When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered
>
>> that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this
>
>> problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a
>
>> pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface
>
>> including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to
>
>> over 300 C.
>
>>
>
>> The Russians used a pencil. Your taxes are due again--enjoy paying
>
>> them.
>
>>
>
>> (2) Our Constitution
>
>> "They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq . Why don't
>
>> we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys,
>
>> and it's worked for over 200 years. And, we're not using it anymore."
>
>>
>
>> (3)<>
>
>> The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a
>
>> Courthouse is that you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt
>
>> Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of
>
>> lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work
>
>> environment.
>
NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential and intended only for certain recipients. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:37:33 -0700
>> Consider These 3 Thoughts
>
>>
>
>> (1) Zero Gravity
>
>> When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered
>
>> that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this
>
>> problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a
>
>> pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface
>
>> including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to
>
>> over 300 C.
>
>>
>
>> The Russians used a pencil. Your taxes are due again--enjoy paying
>
>> them.
>
>>
>
>> (2) Our Constitution
>
>> "They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq . Why don't
>
>> we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys,
>
>> and it's worked for over 200 years. And, we're not using it anymore."
>
>>
>
>> (3)<>
>
>> The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a
>
>> Courthouse is that you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt
>
>> Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of
>
>> lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work
>
>> environment.
>
NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential and intended only for certain recipients. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
CAN YOU HEAR A PIN?
HERE ARE SOME SHARP ANSWERS AS TO WHY WE, THE UNITED STATES, DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT APPEAR TO BOTHER SOME FOLKS. DAA.
When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked
by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an
example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying:
'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men
and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to
bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
________________________________
There was a conference in France where a number of international
engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a
break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying
'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an
aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does
he intended to do, bomb them?' A Boeing engineer stood up and replied
quietly:
'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several
hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency
electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with
the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce
several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and
they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims
and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships;
how many doesFrance have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
________________________________
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included
Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French
Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a
large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those
countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their
drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas
Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then
asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the
American Admiral replied,
'Maybe it's because the British, Canadians, Australians and Americans
arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
________________________________
THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THOSE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane.
At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his
carry on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs
officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to
France previously. "Then you should know enough to have your passport
ready." The American said, ''The last time I was here, I didn't have
to show it." "Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports
on arrival in France!" The American gave the Frenchman a long hard
look. Then he quietly explained:
''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help
liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a
passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
If you are proud to be an American, pass this on!
When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked
by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an
example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying:
'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men
and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to
bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
________________________________
There was a conference in France where a number of international
engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a
break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying
'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an
aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does
he intended to do, bomb them?' A Boeing engineer stood up and replied
quietly:
'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several
hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency
electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with
the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce
several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and
they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims
and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships;
how many doesFrance have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
________________________________
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included
Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French
Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a
large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those
countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their
drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas
Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then
asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the
American Admiral replied,
'Maybe it's because the British, Canadians, Australians and Americans
arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
________________________________
THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THOSE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane.
At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his
carry on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs
officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to
France previously. "Then you should know enough to have your passport
ready." The American said, ''The last time I was here, I didn't have
to show it." "Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports
on arrival in France!" The American gave the Frenchman a long hard
look. Then he quietly explained:
''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help
liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a
passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
If you are proud to be an American, pass this on!
Insider Report from Newsmax.com
Insider Report from Newsmax.com
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Netanyahu: 'No Compromise' Over Iran's Nukes
2. Santorum: McCain Is Obama's 'Ace in the Hole'
3. Weather Expert Links Russia's Pipeline Shutdown to Global Cooling
4. 'Man From U.N.C.L.E.': Onassis Paid for
Robert Kennedy's Assassination
5. Imus: Media 'Afraid' of Obama Because of Race
6. We Heard: Mitt Romney, Michelle Obama, Hillary, Will Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Netanyahu: 'No Compromise' Over Iran's Nukes
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the "single most important issue" facing incoming President Barack Obama.
And he insisted Israel would not compromise on Iran's nuclear program.
Appearing on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Thursday, Netanyahu — who many observers believe is the leading candidate to become prime minister in the upcoming Israeli elections — discussed the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and said: "In the case of Hamas and its patron Iran, they openly declare, both of them, their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
"Iran is racing to produce a nuclear weapon to that end. And so, with people who want to destroy you . . . there is no compromise. What compromise could we make with them? The method of our destruction? Of course not.
"In the case of this forward base of Iran's next to our cities, ultimately that regime will have to go."
Netanyahu went on to say: "I think there is [an] issue that will be perhaps the single most important issue facing incoming President-elect Obama. And that is the decision to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, for two reasons.
"One is that they intend to use those weapons directly against us. And the second is — you can imagine what would happen to these Iranian bases on the Mediterranean, one in Gaza and one in Lebanon, with Hezbollah, if its proxy terrorists also enjoy a nuclear umbrella.
"The prospect of having a militant Islamic regime committed to Israel's destruction, a sworn enemy of the United States, having nuclear weapons, which it can give to its proxies, is something very, very frightening indeed.
"And even if it doesn't give it to its proxies, the fact that it will wield a nuclear sword over the heads of the United States, of Israel, and many other countries, is something that should give halt to anyone concerned with the peace of the world. I think this is the biggest and most fundamental challenge facing the United States and the world."
Cavuto referred to incoming Vice President Joe Biden's remark that Barack Obama could be tested in his first few weeks in office and asked Netanyahu if he agreed.
"I have no doubt that the terrorists and their patrons — or the terrorist states and their proxies — will continuously challenge the leadership of the United States," the former prime minister answered.
"But from my two conversations with President-elect Obama, I could see that he understood this threat.
"He said that he was absolutely committed to making sure that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons. And I think this was very important."
As Newsmax reported, Netanyahu said in late 2006, "It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, and Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Santorum: McCain Is Obama's 'Ace in the Hole'
Former Rep. Rick Santorum writes that as president, Barack Obama will have an "ace in the hole among Senate Republicans" — his presidential foe John McCain.
In a commentary published by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pennsylvania Republican observes, "This unlikely ace can deliver not only the GOP moderates needed to break a filibuster, but also the stamp of bipartisanship."
Santorum writes that McCain was a "mainstream media darling" when he joined Democrats on many issues, earning the "maverick" moniker, and shored up that status by opposing President George W. Bush on taxes and the environment.
But when McCain became the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in the last election cycle, "he began to sound more like a conservative by altering his stands on immigration, the environment and taxes," Santorum notes. "Then he named Sarah Palin as his running mate."
That turned the media against him, according to Santorum.
But "losing the presidency will not be the final chapter of his life story," says Santorum, a former chairman of the Senate Republican Conference who lost his House seat to Bob Casey Jr. in 2006.
Santorum adds, "He knows the path to 'big media' redemption. Working with the man who vanquished him in November will show them all the real McCain again."
Santorum predicts that McCain will forge common ground with Obama and the Democrats on "a long list of initiatives that go far beyond where he has gone before, including the stimulus package."
Santorum concludes, "The two White House rivals now stand positioned to help secure each other's place in history."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Weather Expert Links Russia's Pipeline Shutdown to Global Cooling
Russia's decision to cut the flow of natural gas to Europe could be linked to reports that the planet is entering a new ice age, a leading weather expert says.
AccuWeather's chief hurricane and long-range forecaster Joe Bastardi said on Glenn Beck's radio program, "My theory . . . is that [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin knows what's going to happen, or he believes the same way I do about the overall climate pattern.
"So if you control the pipeline into Europe, you literally can control Europe without firing a shot — if you control the energy."
Russia supplies about one-quarter of the European Union's gas, 80 percent of it shipped through Ukraine's vast pipeline network. Russia cut off gas supplies to Europe on Jan. 7 just as the continent was gripped by freezing temperatures, possibly instigating a new Cold War.
One report published by the Russian news source Pravda Online stated, "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science.
"Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, 12,000-year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years."
The report dismisses assertions that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are causing global warming, noting: "Global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse.
In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperatures to rise; instead the natural cycle increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise."
Bastardi said in an interview with the Business and Media Institute cited by NewsBusters.com, "If you look at those Russian scientists, where a lot of these studies on it getting cold come from . . . what makes you think that Putin doesn't have some knowledge of that?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 'Man from U.N.C.L.E.' Says Onassis Paid for Robert
Kennedy's Assassination
Robert Vaughn, who starred in the 1960s hit TV show "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.," has written a book that lays out a bizarre scenario befitting a spy thriller: Tycoon Aristotle Onassis funded the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
"Most people believe a lone assassin — Palestinian refugee Sirhan Bishara Sirhan — was responsible for [Kennedy's] death," Vaughn writes.
"After studying documents, talking to experts and interviewing a crucial witness, I believe there is strong evidence that Bobby's killing was carried out by more than one gunman. And more shockingly, that the Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis paid for the assassination."
Vaughn's book "A Fortunate Life," which has been excerpted in Britain's Daily Mail, is mostly about his escapades in Hollywood. But he does devote a segment to the Kennedy-Onassis connection.
Vaughn said he first met Kennedy in 1960, and over the years stayed a number of times at the Kennedy family's estate in Virginia.
Kennedy, meanwhile, had first crossed paths with Onassis in the 1950s, when Kennedy was working for the federal government. Onassis was charged with violating U.S. shipping laws, and "blamed Bobby for his predicament," according to Vaughn.
The author, citing a book by investigative journalist Peter Evans, said Onassis met John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline in 1956, and several years later began an affair with Jackie's sister, Lee Radziwill.
Onassis wed Jackie in 1968, five years after JFK's assassination.
"According to Evans, the notion of killing a Kennedy did not take shape in Onassis' mind until early 1968 when he met Mahmoud Hamshari, a follower of Yasser Arafat and a fanatical anti-American and anti-Israeli activist," writes Vaughn, who played Napoleon Solo on the TV show.
"Hamshari suggested that killing 'a high-profile American on American soil' would make the U.S. government 'think twice about backing the Jews.'
"When Hamshari had an opportunity to meet Onassis, he used it to shake down the Greek magnate for money to carry out the plot."
Vaughn said he interviewed photographer Helene Gaillet, who told him she spent time with Onassis at his Greek estate in 1973.
At the end of a conversation that reflected Onassis' "still vivid and intense" hatred of Bobby, Gaillet said, Onassis told her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."
Skeptics are bound to cast doubt on Vaughn and Gaillet's account, but he writes, "I'm convinced her story is a faithful rendition of what happened to her."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Imus: Media 'Afraid' of Obama Because of Race
Controversial radio talk-show host Don Imus says the media is wary about criticizing or parodying Barack Obama because of "the race issue."
During an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Imus agreed with Hannity that in an election Imus wants the winner to be the one who would provide the most material for comedy and commentary.
"But you supported McCain over Obama," Hannity noted. "Doesn't Obama give you more material?"
Imus answered: "I don't know. I don't hear a lot of it. I think everybody is afraid. Maybe they should be."
Hannity: "Why?"
Imus: "Well, there's the race issue."
Hannity revisited the issue later in the interview, saying: "I don't want to be in a position, as you were suggesting earlier, that anybody that's critical of him is going to be . . . "
Imus interrupted: "Oh, I don't — I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying I think people are afraid of that . . . When I saw the other night when you were critical of Obama, I don't think anybody would think you were a racist about it. It wasn't racist criticism . . . It was legitimate criticism of the policy of a guy who's going to be president."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. We Heard . . .
THAT former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has sent an e-mail seeking contributions to his Free and Strong America Political Action Committee and offering warm winter gear in return.
Romney, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in the last race, wrote: "My Free and Strong America PAC will be actively involved in important races this year and next year.
"There are gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and in 2010, 36 state houses will be up, as will one-third of the United States Senate and all 435 congressional seats.
"Because the future of our country rests on what we do in these coming months, I would be grateful if you would make a generous contribution to my PAC to help with our efforts."
Contributors who give at least $60 will receive a Free and Strong America fleece hat, and those who donate $100 or more will receive a fleece hat and scarf set.
THAT a big-city daily newspaper is in danger of being shut down.
Hearst Corp. has announced that if it can't find a buyer for its Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 60 days, it will stop printing the paper and either offer it only online or shut it down entirely.
The Post-Intelligencer, founded in 1863, has the second largest circulation in the state of Washington. The paper reported losing $14 million last year amid dwindling circulation and advertising revenue.
THAT the high-paying position first-lady-to-be Michelle Obama held at a Chicago hospital has been eliminated.
The University of Chicago Medical Center, which is seeking to trim $100 million in expenses, announced that it is eliminating 15 senior executive jobs, including vice president for community and external affairs, Obama's job.
Another executive will take over her duties, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Obama began working at University of Chicago Hospitals in 2002 and earned more than $300,000 in 2005. She cut back to a part-time position during the campaign and subsequently took a leave of absence.
THAT when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16 to 1 in favor of confirming Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, the lone vote against her was cast by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter.
Vitter said Clinton has too many conflicts of interest because of husband Bill's fundraising in foreign nations. But the head of the Louisiana Democratic Party issued a statement calling Vitter's vote a political stunt.
THAT "Men in Black" star Will Smith would be willing to play Barack Obama in a movie about his rise to the White House.
Attending a premiere in London, Smith laughed about reports that Obama had indicated he would like Smith to play him if his life story were made into a movie, Britain's Telegraph reported.
"If I am ordered by my commander in chief to star in a film about him, I will do my duty as an American," he said.
As for moving into the White House for real, Smith said, "It's a whole lot more fun to be a movie star."
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Netanyahu: 'No Compromise' Over Iran's Nukes
2. Santorum: McCain Is Obama's 'Ace in the Hole'
3. Weather Expert Links Russia's Pipeline Shutdown to Global Cooling
4. 'Man From U.N.C.L.E.': Onassis Paid for
Robert Kennedy's Assassination
5. Imus: Media 'Afraid' of Obama Because of Race
6. We Heard: Mitt Romney, Michelle Obama, Hillary, Will Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Netanyahu: 'No Compromise' Over Iran's Nukes
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the "single most important issue" facing incoming President Barack Obama.
And he insisted Israel would not compromise on Iran's nuclear program.
Appearing on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Thursday, Netanyahu — who many observers believe is the leading candidate to become prime minister in the upcoming Israeli elections — discussed the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and said: "In the case of Hamas and its patron Iran, they openly declare, both of them, their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
"Iran is racing to produce a nuclear weapon to that end. And so, with people who want to destroy you . . . there is no compromise. What compromise could we make with them? The method of our destruction? Of course not.
"In the case of this forward base of Iran's next to our cities, ultimately that regime will have to go."
Netanyahu went on to say: "I think there is [an] issue that will be perhaps the single most important issue facing incoming President-elect Obama. And that is the decision to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, for two reasons.
"One is that they intend to use those weapons directly against us. And the second is — you can imagine what would happen to these Iranian bases on the Mediterranean, one in Gaza and one in Lebanon, with Hezbollah, if its proxy terrorists also enjoy a nuclear umbrella.
"The prospect of having a militant Islamic regime committed to Israel's destruction, a sworn enemy of the United States, having nuclear weapons, which it can give to its proxies, is something very, very frightening indeed.
"And even if it doesn't give it to its proxies, the fact that it will wield a nuclear sword over the heads of the United States, of Israel, and many other countries, is something that should give halt to anyone concerned with the peace of the world. I think this is the biggest and most fundamental challenge facing the United States and the world."
Cavuto referred to incoming Vice President Joe Biden's remark that Barack Obama could be tested in his first few weeks in office and asked Netanyahu if he agreed.
"I have no doubt that the terrorists and their patrons — or the terrorist states and their proxies — will continuously challenge the leadership of the United States," the former prime minister answered.
"But from my two conversations with President-elect Obama, I could see that he understood this threat.
"He said that he was absolutely committed to making sure that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons. And I think this was very important."
As Newsmax reported, Netanyahu said in late 2006, "It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, and Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Santorum: McCain Is Obama's 'Ace in the Hole'
Former Rep. Rick Santorum writes that as president, Barack Obama will have an "ace in the hole among Senate Republicans" — his presidential foe John McCain.
In a commentary published by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pennsylvania Republican observes, "This unlikely ace can deliver not only the GOP moderates needed to break a filibuster, but also the stamp of bipartisanship."
Santorum writes that McCain was a "mainstream media darling" when he joined Democrats on many issues, earning the "maverick" moniker, and shored up that status by opposing President George W. Bush on taxes and the environment.
But when McCain became the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in the last election cycle, "he began to sound more like a conservative by altering his stands on immigration, the environment and taxes," Santorum notes. "Then he named Sarah Palin as his running mate."
That turned the media against him, according to Santorum.
But "losing the presidency will not be the final chapter of his life story," says Santorum, a former chairman of the Senate Republican Conference who lost his House seat to Bob Casey Jr. in 2006.
Santorum adds, "He knows the path to 'big media' redemption. Working with the man who vanquished him in November will show them all the real McCain again."
Santorum predicts that McCain will forge common ground with Obama and the Democrats on "a long list of initiatives that go far beyond where he has gone before, including the stimulus package."
Santorum concludes, "The two White House rivals now stand positioned to help secure each other's place in history."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Weather Expert Links Russia's Pipeline Shutdown to Global Cooling
Russia's decision to cut the flow of natural gas to Europe could be linked to reports that the planet is entering a new ice age, a leading weather expert says.
AccuWeather's chief hurricane and long-range forecaster Joe Bastardi said on Glenn Beck's radio program, "My theory . . . is that [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin knows what's going to happen, or he believes the same way I do about the overall climate pattern.
"So if you control the pipeline into Europe, you literally can control Europe without firing a shot — if you control the energy."
Russia supplies about one-quarter of the European Union's gas, 80 percent of it shipped through Ukraine's vast pipeline network. Russia cut off gas supplies to Europe on Jan. 7 just as the continent was gripped by freezing temperatures, possibly instigating a new Cold War.
One report published by the Russian news source Pravda Online stated, "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science.
"Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, 12,000-year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years."
The report dismisses assertions that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are causing global warming, noting: "Global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse.
In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperatures to rise; instead the natural cycle increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise."
Bastardi said in an interview with the Business and Media Institute cited by NewsBusters.com, "If you look at those Russian scientists, where a lot of these studies on it getting cold come from . . . what makes you think that Putin doesn't have some knowledge of that?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 'Man from U.N.C.L.E.' Says Onassis Paid for Robert
Kennedy's Assassination
Robert Vaughn, who starred in the 1960s hit TV show "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.," has written a book that lays out a bizarre scenario befitting a spy thriller: Tycoon Aristotle Onassis funded the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
"Most people believe a lone assassin — Palestinian refugee Sirhan Bishara Sirhan — was responsible for [Kennedy's] death," Vaughn writes.
"After studying documents, talking to experts and interviewing a crucial witness, I believe there is strong evidence that Bobby's killing was carried out by more than one gunman. And more shockingly, that the Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis paid for the assassination."
Vaughn's book "A Fortunate Life," which has been excerpted in Britain's Daily Mail, is mostly about his escapades in Hollywood. But he does devote a segment to the Kennedy-Onassis connection.
Vaughn said he first met Kennedy in 1960, and over the years stayed a number of times at the Kennedy family's estate in Virginia.
Kennedy, meanwhile, had first crossed paths with Onassis in the 1950s, when Kennedy was working for the federal government. Onassis was charged with violating U.S. shipping laws, and "blamed Bobby for his predicament," according to Vaughn.
The author, citing a book by investigative journalist Peter Evans, said Onassis met John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline in 1956, and several years later began an affair with Jackie's sister, Lee Radziwill.
Onassis wed Jackie in 1968, five years after JFK's assassination.
"According to Evans, the notion of killing a Kennedy did not take shape in Onassis' mind until early 1968 when he met Mahmoud Hamshari, a follower of Yasser Arafat and a fanatical anti-American and anti-Israeli activist," writes Vaughn, who played Napoleon Solo on the TV show.
"Hamshari suggested that killing 'a high-profile American on American soil' would make the U.S. government 'think twice about backing the Jews.'
"When Hamshari had an opportunity to meet Onassis, he used it to shake down the Greek magnate for money to carry out the plot."
Vaughn said he interviewed photographer Helene Gaillet, who told him she spent time with Onassis at his Greek estate in 1973.
At the end of a conversation that reflected Onassis' "still vivid and intense" hatred of Bobby, Gaillet said, Onassis told her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."
Skeptics are bound to cast doubt on Vaughn and Gaillet's account, but he writes, "I'm convinced her story is a faithful rendition of what happened to her."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Imus: Media 'Afraid' of Obama Because of Race
Controversial radio talk-show host Don Imus says the media is wary about criticizing or parodying Barack Obama because of "the race issue."
During an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Imus agreed with Hannity that in an election Imus wants the winner to be the one who would provide the most material for comedy and commentary.
"But you supported McCain over Obama," Hannity noted. "Doesn't Obama give you more material?"
Imus answered: "I don't know. I don't hear a lot of it. I think everybody is afraid. Maybe they should be."
Hannity: "Why?"
Imus: "Well, there's the race issue."
Hannity revisited the issue later in the interview, saying: "I don't want to be in a position, as you were suggesting earlier, that anybody that's critical of him is going to be . . . "
Imus interrupted: "Oh, I don't — I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying I think people are afraid of that . . . When I saw the other night when you were critical of Obama, I don't think anybody would think you were a racist about it. It wasn't racist criticism . . . It was legitimate criticism of the policy of a guy who's going to be president."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. We Heard . . .
THAT former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has sent an e-mail seeking contributions to his Free and Strong America Political Action Committee and offering warm winter gear in return.
Romney, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in the last race, wrote: "My Free and Strong America PAC will be actively involved in important races this year and next year.
"There are gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and in 2010, 36 state houses will be up, as will one-third of the United States Senate and all 435 congressional seats.
"Because the future of our country rests on what we do in these coming months, I would be grateful if you would make a generous contribution to my PAC to help with our efforts."
Contributors who give at least $60 will receive a Free and Strong America fleece hat, and those who donate $100 or more will receive a fleece hat and scarf set.
THAT a big-city daily newspaper is in danger of being shut down.
Hearst Corp. has announced that if it can't find a buyer for its Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 60 days, it will stop printing the paper and either offer it only online or shut it down entirely.
The Post-Intelligencer, founded in 1863, has the second largest circulation in the state of Washington. The paper reported losing $14 million last year amid dwindling circulation and advertising revenue.
THAT the high-paying position first-lady-to-be Michelle Obama held at a Chicago hospital has been eliminated.
The University of Chicago Medical Center, which is seeking to trim $100 million in expenses, announced that it is eliminating 15 senior executive jobs, including vice president for community and external affairs, Obama's job.
Another executive will take over her duties, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Obama began working at University of Chicago Hospitals in 2002 and earned more than $300,000 in 2005. She cut back to a part-time position during the campaign and subsequently took a leave of absence.
THAT when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16 to 1 in favor of confirming Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, the lone vote against her was cast by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter.
Vitter said Clinton has too many conflicts of interest because of husband Bill's fundraising in foreign nations. But the head of the Louisiana Democratic Party issued a statement calling Vitter's vote a political stunt.
THAT "Men in Black" star Will Smith would be willing to play Barack Obama in a movie about his rise to the White House.
Attending a premiere in London, Smith laughed about reports that Obama had indicated he would like Smith to play him if his life story were made into a movie, Britain's Telegraph reported.
"If I am ordered by my commander in chief to star in a film about him, I will do my duty as an American," he said.
As for moving into the White House for real, Smith said, "It's a whole lot more fun to be a movie star."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)