Cindy Sheehan: In Loving Memory: Hugo Chavez Frias 1954-2013

March 11, 2013

By Cindy Sheehan

A wonderful human being has passed.

What do I do when I am angry, happy, or sad? I write.

Back in 2004, shortly after my son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, a grief counselor advised me to write a letter to my son in a journal every night. I filled up three journals in the terrible months after his death. I often wrote at his grave and those journals did help me deal with the unspeakable loss.

Today, I write from a great well of sadness, but not just for me, for the world. My dear friend in peace and justice, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, just lost his fierce and valiant battle with cancer.

Many people know about Hugo Chavez, the president, and constant thorn in the side to El Imperio the meddlesome and harmful Empire to the north. But I want to eulogize Chavez the man I knew.

He was my dear friend and comrade in a way where we were united in the struggle for peace and economic justice and equality. It’s not like I could text him, or we would chat about current events, but whenever I had the privilege to be with him, warmth radiated from his heart and I was able to connect with him in very real and human ways. Compared to the palpable realness of Chavez, most of the US politicians I have met with are walking and talking ice sculptures.

The first time I met him in Caracas was in early 2006 at the World Social Forum. I had been invited to sit on the stage while he gave a speech to those gathered there from around the world. He introduced me as, “Señora Esperanza,” “Mrs. Hope,” in contrast to his nickname for George Bush: “Señor Peligro,” “Mr. Danger.” However, our brother, Hugo Chavez, was the one who gave us much hope.

I have met and interviewed so many people in Venezuela whose lives were immeasurably improved by the vision and dedication of Hugo Chavez. How can one put a price on going from being illiterate to being able to read? A 65-year-old woman told me her life was transformed by the adult literacy program. It really made me appreciate the fact that I have always known how to read (it seems). What would I have done without my best friends, my books? Wow. I guess Capitalism would tally the cost of educating one student and, of course education here in the US is now just another commodity, but the look of wonder in my Sister’s eyes was priceless!

Another woman showed me her perfect teeth in a huge grin. She told me that her teeth used to be so bad, that she would never smile before, but now, due to her new set of false teeth provided by the national dental program, she walks around grinning like a lunatic all day, which made me laugh with joy! Again, Capitalism would say: One set of false teeth equals X amount of dollars. I say, being able to smile after years of embarrassing humiliation is worth more than any amount of gold.

Those are just two stories out of millions and my heart breaks with sorrow for the People of the Bolivarian Revolution that must be even more devastated than I, today.

I witnessed Chavez the proud “abuelo” (grandpa) once on a long flight from Caracas to Montevideo that I took with them. We chatted about out “nietos” (grandchildren) and felt a mutual connection there. I hugged my grandbabies a little harder today when I found out that Chavez died, because I know the wonderful connection that he had with his. My heart breaks for his children and his family, and his brother, Adan, who seemed to be constantly at his side. It’s just a very hard day.

I was with Chavez in Montevideo, Uruguay, for the presidential inauguration of Felipé Mujica. I was amazed that Chavez could just plunge into the crowds and interact with the people without a phalanx of bodyguards, anti-aircraft missiles and assault weapons. His security detail was prepared, but not paranoid like up here in the Empire. Someone who is universally loved by the 99% need have no fear. Chavez had no fear.

Chavez’s courageous battle against the Empire was more successful than his battle against cancer. Chavez was able to inspire more leftist leaders in Latin America and my friends in Cuba will always be grateful for the friendship between Venezuela and Cuba. The struggle against neo-liberalism and the Empire has been far advanced under Chavez’s inspirational leadership.

This is a sad day and I am angry that the so-called leaders of my own country made Chavez’s life a virtual hell, but he survived one coup attempt and the many other attempts through the media and financing of his opposition to undermine the revolution.
When in the hell is this country going to mind it’s own goddamn business and realize that not every drop of oil belongs to our oil companies and not every democratically elected leader must pledge undying obsequiousness to the Evil Empire?

I am immensely proud of Chavez and I am immensely proud of the people of Venezuela who have worked with him to improve their lives and because they really understand the concept of “national sovereignty.”

I know the upper echelons of The Empire think they have won a victory today (if it didn’t give Chavez his cancer in the first place—don’t even start and say I am a “conspiracy theorist” everyone knows that the Empire is fully capable of it, they couldn’t kill him, or depose him, outright) and all the oil will now flow back into the hands of our big oil companies, but The Empire underestimates the people of Venezuela and their dedication to the Bolivarian Revolution and love for their leader, Hugo Chavez.

As we sorrowfully say, “vaya con la paz” to our Brother, Hugo Chavez, let’s also say, “long live the revolution.”

Chavez will never die if we honor his vision and continue our struggle against The Empire.

US Presidents come and go with destructive, yet boring and predictable regularity and are numbered for History’s convenience when they should all have had black and white striped clothing and be behind bars. However, it is my belief that Hugo Chavez Frias will go down in World History as one of the most significant figures of the early 21st Century and his passing is a tragic and profound loss to us all, as his life was an inspiration.

A-dios, Señor Esperanza.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart and soul. Your light is far too bright to be extinguished by something as cruel as death and your light shines in all of us whose hearts burn with revolution and love for all the people.

My life and our world are far better today because of your life and the struggle continues until victory!

BARF!!!!

source: Albany Tribune

Stopping Illegally Funded Gun Buy-Backs

March 10, 2013

Was the recent Bensalem, PA gun buy-back legally funded? It was the first in the nation financed with federal drug forfeiture funds.

by Darren Wolfe
(libertarian)
Saturday, March 9, 2013

In the video below Mayor Joseph DiGirolamo and Director of Public Safety Fred Harran of Bensalem, PA state that their two day gun buy-back of February 6 and 16 was the first in the nation financed with federal funds seized from drug dealers.




They refer to the fact that the shared funds must be used for law enforcement purposes and that they are the first jurisdiction to get approval to use such funds for a gun buy-back. Mr. Harran mentions a flier that was sent out to law enforcement agencies across the country informing them that federal shared funds are now available to them for gun buy-backs. A little Internet searching found the February 1, 2013 edition of the Equitable Sharing Wire, the Equitable Sharing Program’s newsletter published by the US Department of Justice. The Equitable Sharing Program is run by the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section.

The article "Gun Buy-Back Programs" outlines how this is to be done. The relevant part is the one sentence third paragraph, "If your agency uses equitably shared funds to run a gun buy-back program, the funds used should be reported on Line C, Informant and Buy Money, of the Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification form." However, when one hovers their cursor over the boxes on Line C to report expenditures a bubble appears that reads in part "Miscellaneous petty cash purchases should not be reported in this category. Justice Guide VIII.A.1.a". Buying unwanted guns from the public would certainly seem to be "Miscellaneous petty cash purchases".

The above referenced Justice Guide is the "Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies". It gives us further guidance. Section VIII.A.1.a (page 16) reads:

Law enforcement investigations—the support of investigations and operations that may result in furthering the law enforcement goals and mission, e.g., payment of overtime for officers and investigators; payments to informants; "buy," "flash," or reward money; and the purchase of evidence.

On the same page we read "Except as noted in this Guide, equitably shared funds shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only." Gun buy-backs enforce no laws nor do they involve payments to informants, rewards, or the purchase of evidence.

The Guide goes on to list other permissible, pre-approved uses for equitably shared funds. Gun buy-backs aren’t on the list.

The bottom line here is that Bensalem is, in this layman’s opinion, improperly using these funds. I would also bring up the question of whether state funded gun buy-backs are being illegally financed. A quick search at the legal website FindLaw found no rulings by the courts on this issue. Hopefully, the attorneys employed by gun rights groups will follow up on the research presented here and can end the practice.


source: nolanchart

Dr. Carson: Media Bullies 'Suppress Freedom of Speech,' 'Beat On Anyone Who Doesn't Toe the Line'

March 10, 2013

By Noel Sheppard

(NewsBusters) - Dr. Benjamin Carson made some more controversial statements Saturday.

Appearing on Fox News's America's News Headquarters, Carson said, "The bullies are the people, especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line...they suppress freedom of speech" (video follows with transcript and absolutely no need for additional commentary):



UMA PEMMARAJU, HOST: Why do you think your message is resonating with so many people?

DR. BENJAMIN CARSON: Because I think there are a lot of people who have been bludgeoned into silence who really feel very strongly about the values of this country, and they don't think that there is anything they can do now. And finally when somebody speaks up about it, they resonate with that. You know, I’ve gotten so many letters from people who said they had given up, and now they were invigorated again. Every place I go, people come up to me and tell me that. And, you know, it makes me understand that there is a large number of frustrated people out there. They just don't feel like they're being represented.

PEMMARAJU: Well, you take aim at political correctness in this country, and you have said somebody has to stand up, quote, to the bullies. Who are the bullies that you're referring to?

CARSON: The bullies are the people, especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line, who doesn't say what they're supposed to say, and act the way they're supposed to act. And they suppress freedom of speech and freedom of expression and people have succumbed to that.

And what I'm telling people to do is don't succumb to it. You know, talk about what you think is right. You need to talk to even the people who represent you, because a lot of those people don't really know what you feel if you don't really speak up and tell them. And they, instead, begin to listen to the special interest groups and the people who are paying them lots of money. And really that's not the way that the system was set up.

PBS NewsHour Boasts Venezuela Has Put Hugo Chavez In an 'Immortality' Club with Jesus Christ

March 10, 2013

By Tim Graham

(NewsBusters) - On Friday, the PBS NewsHour featured a story titled "A 'Celebration of Immortality' for Hugo Chavez." This is an odd title for liberals who believe in science and would know when Hugo Chavez has assumed room temperature.

But it grew worse: the segment from former BBC correspondent Matt Frei (now with ITN) actually put Chavez in a "top three" of immortality with Jesus Christ:

FREI: This feels less like a funeral and more like a celebration of immortality. And every time the camera passes, the exhausted faithful, who have been waiting on their feet for 24 hours, play their part, all this despite the soaring heat.

Chavez may be dead, but they all behave as if he's still alive, highlights of a life cut short at only 58 years are played on giant screens on a loop. Given perhaps his posthumous appeal, the government has taken the decision not to bury him, but to embalm Chavez and keep him lying in state forever.

Immortality is the rarest of compliments, and for this crowd, Chavez has joined the top three.

What they are saying is that the three most important people in their lives, all dead, are Jesus Christ, Simon Bolivar, and now Hugo Chavez.

Another British journalist with this political disease is Jonathan Jones of the leftist Guardian newspaper, in an article headlined "Venezuela's tears for a Christ-like Chavez" :

This picture is a modern lamentation scene. In religious paintings of the Lamentation of Christ by such masters of dignified emotion as Giotto and Poussin, the dead body of Christ has been taken down from the cross to be mourned by heartbroken women. Here, the corpse of Hugo Chávez inspires similarly emotional gestures and expressions in two women who have queued to see him in his open coffin.

If it seems pretentious to equate this tearful scene at the lying-in-state of Venezuela's late president with paintings like Raphael's Deposition – another harrowing depiction of the dead Christ mourned by his followers – then you probably live in a Protestant country. Venezuela has been deeply influenced by Catholicism since missionaries were sent to the coastline named "Little Venice" in the Renaissance

Consciously or not, the people in this picture, the photographer who took it, and even those who have decided that Chávez should lie in state "eternally", are all influenced by the rich visual heritage of the Catholic world that ranges from oil paintings to prayer cards, and feasts perpetually on images of martyrdom and mourning.

As long as we're surveying Chavez silliness, there's also this copy from The Huffington Post: "Hugo Chavez was a man of many talents: he played ball, sang songs, pulled out pistols, and got down and groovy -- and that is precisely how we'll remember the Venezuelan leader."

NYPD Food Felonies Unit to help make better food choices

March 10, 2013
Oleg Atbashian

NEW YORK - Inspired by the dramatic improvements in New Yorkers’ health and well-being after he banned smoking and junk food, as well as large sodas, salt, trans fats, Styrofoam food containers, and loud earbuds, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced that the NYPD is organizing a Food Felonies Unit (FFU) to further combat the proliferation of food crimes.

Nicknamed “Double-F-U,” the newly-formed unit is expected to be involved largely with restaurant menu supervision in its crime-prevention function, while also conducting sting operations on food service providers who break local ordinances.

The Police Commission, which will directly oversee the Double-F-U operation, has already reassigned more than 150 officers from various precincts and equipped it with new public-health-enforcement technology, such as, hidden cameras and GPS tracking devices.

“We’re used to this kind of work when it comes to drugs,” said Patrick O’Brien, a spokesman for the New York Retired Police Syndicate. “The Commission has signaled it wants the best officers from the precincts’ Narcotics Task Forces working on food cases. Trust me,” he declared, “they are going to be putting a lot of people in jail.”

With the expected deluge of new arrests, the District Attorney’s Office is also expected to reprioritize its caseloads to meet the flood of food felony charges that NYPD will be sending to them.

“Sure, the jail system is already tight, but I think the Mayor’s priorities mean that more of the traditional criminals will be released to make room for the food felons,” said Manny Shapiro, a local criminal defense attorney. “Since the mayor isn’t increasing anyone’s budget, the more resources they devote to one category of crimes, the more they have to pull from others.”

Other experts see the Double-F-U as a way to bring in much needed revenues through fines and penalties. Thus, a soda tap that dispenses 17 ounces of soda may lead, not as much to the arrest of a food vendor, as to a hefty fine that will help defray enforcement costs.

As local restaurateurs are hiring food law attorneys to help them navigate the new standards and regulations, the NYPD is retooling many of its old stand-by enforcement aids.

“They’ve already retrained several canine units to detect trans-fats in foods, which will save on lab costs,” said O’Brien. “But they’ll still have to use old-fashioned officer-led searches because the dogs can’t smell the difference between 16oz. bottles and the illegal sizes.”

While certain criticism is expected, many believe that Mayor Bloomberg’s battle for the greater good is larger than one person’s individual liberties.

“Good intentions always trump negative outcomes,” Shapiro said.

Most New Yorkers agree agree that in a city which relies on restaurants and street vending for much of its food, additional scrutiny is only expected to improve the quality of their own dining choices.

“Oversight always makes things better,” O’Brien says. “And restaurants are no different. The closer we watch ‘em, the better they will perform to avoid bringing down the heat, so to speak.”

Authorities are assuring New Yorkers that, while the Mayor’s Double-F-U will be saving them from their unhealthy lifestyles, the skyrocketing health benefits are expected to save the public millions in treatment of preventable diseases.

“Once the people feel good about it, they will not give a damn about the government crackdown on illegal foods substances or the persecution of food criminals,” said Shapiro. “New Yorkers value compliance so long as it makes them feel good.”

DISCLAIMER: This article is a satirical collaboration of The People’s Cube authors under the collective name of Igor Toutellalai.

_________________________________

At The People’s Cube, we do NOT equate all “liberals” with communists. The purpose of this website is to pick up “liberal” hitchhikers and give them a ride to the communist wonderland - the inevitable end result of their “well-meaning” policies.

source: Washington Times

Obama pushing Kenyan 'peace' projects

March 10, 2013
by Steve Peacock

Plans in place to stage 'reflective workshops' for murderous tribes

The Obama administration is launching new peace initiatives in and around Kenya, but acknowledges that chronic cattle rustling and other cultural practices – such as killing rivals “to prove their manhood or impress young women” – serve as impediments to progress.

Obama, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, nonetheless intends to hire private contractors that would, hypothetically, offer services such as “reflective workshops” and “trauma education” to warring clans and tribes, according to an agency concept paper that WND located through routine database research.


The purpose of such providing services is to encourage empathy between “victims” and “perpetrators” – terms that the document repeatedly encloses in quotation marks to emphasize USAID’s position that so-called “perpetrators” also have endured trauma.

Exchanging “trauma stories” between hostile groups is a critical step in the community healing process, USAID says, as this sharing helps to raise awareness that “victims” are often the “perpetrators,” particularly when they carry out acts of revenge. This approach is one of several that USAID is proposing.

The “PEACE III” concept paper offers detailed ideas aimed at promoting stability across East African border regions. USAID recently released the paper to solicit feedback from contractors on various “theories of change” that could be implemented as part of future Horn of Africa peace and reconciliation programs.

The Obama administration hopes to create “healing peace-building cycles” that ultimately will replace “cycles of violence,” particularly along multiple conflict-prone points on the Kenya-Uganda, Kenya-South Sudan, Kenya-Ethiopia, Kenya-Somalia, and Ethiopia-South Sudan borders.

USAID said in the document that attaining such stability “is a central U.S. foreign policy and development priority in the context of regional security and economic integration.”

The agency acknowledges that the task ahead will be difficult, as “certain cultural practices and norms” in the Horn of Africa “may encourage acts of violence.”

“For example, in the western border areas, spiritual leaders bless the warriors before and after cattle raids,” the concept paper says. “A warrior is believed to have defended the pride of his clan and proven his manhood when he murders a man from the enemy tribe/clan.

“Songs and dances prepared for such warriors stir other warriors and young men to engage in murder and cattle raids. Women rebuke the warriors who have not been successful in raids rousing them to raid again,” the paper points out.

Despite the cultural, political, and economic challenges to successfully implementing conflict management programs, USAID says it had identified a “multitude of determined, credible, and committed actors at the regional, national, and local levels” that in the long term could help bring more “stability, peace, and prosperity to this part of the world.”

“The region is also witnessing a shift in national government commitment to peaceful management of conflicts,” the agency added.

Community peace-building efforts have led to some security improvements, especially in areas such as the Kenya-Somalia border, USAID says. Community leaders – including women, religious, business, youth, and elders – have helped mediate disputes before they escalate, thereby changing cultural practices that often lead to inter-communal violence.

Weaker governments, however, sometimes view these informal systems as rivals. Rather than supporting those systems, such governments attempt to undermine or simply ignore them, dismissing such organizations and activities as irrelevant.

“In several locations, most notably Kenya, the government has even sought to institutionalize this governance partnership nationally, via local peace and development committees,” the document says. The PEACE III initiative consequently will “focus on catalyzing the emergence and development of local peace-building networks in volatile border areas.”

Despite proposed cuts in U.S. foreign assistance to most nations – including Kenya – the Obama administration nonetheless has sought to hire contractors to sustain other contractors that already carry out voluminous projects in that nation.

As WND also has reported, USAID under Obama likewise launched a propaganda program aimed at swaying national and international opinion to support Kenya-related U.S. programs.

Following that WND report – which exposed federal plans to target specific journalists – the Obama administration sanitized its FedBizOpps contracting database of all traces of that and other Kenya-centric procurement documents.

In a separate, recent solicitation, USAID is recruiting a Program Officer-Kenya for its Office of Transition Initiatives, where the private contractor would serve for the remainder of OTI’s scheduled stay in Kenya. The position in mid-2013 will transition to USAID-Kenya’s Education & Youth Office.

OTI had established a Nairobi-based presence as part of Obama’s “support of the February 28, 2008, peace accord between competing political parties in the wake of inter-ethnic violence following flawed national elections in December 2007,” the personal services contractor solicitation says.

One of the key responsibilities of the Program Officer-Kenya will be to “represent program interests with USAID Mission personnel, U.S. Embassy staff, Department of State, and Department of Defense personnel.” In addition to needing a top secret-level security clearance, potential candidates who are dual citizens “may be asked to renounce second-country citizenship.”

The position, which pays in the $84,697-$110,104 range, also involves providing guidance to and oversight of contractors carrying out the Support Which Implements Fast Transition, or SWIFT III, initiative.

SWIFT III is a $1.5 billion worldwide USAID program whose goal is to “support U.S. foreign policy objectives by helping local partners advance peace and democracy in priority countries in crisis.”

USAID additionally has launched an information-gathering initiative to identify local and regional consultants and organizations to provide future short- and long-term “technical services and capacity building assistance.” This would include services specific to agency cross-border peace projects to the USAID/East Africa mission in Nairobi.

The agency’s search for potential help via this Request for Information is not limited to Kenya, however; indeed, the RFI likewise seeks to compile a comprehensive list of consultants to potentially work with other USAID regional offices and partners in Somalia, Djibouti, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Tanzania.

WND

Mr. Gabby Gifford Campaigning to Ban Assault Rifles Caught Buying Assault Rifle

March 10, 2013
By Daniel Greenfield

AR15? What AR15?

(FrontPageMag) - Mark Kelly may not yet be a household name, but he’s the better or worse half of Gabby Giffords, and together with her is the public face of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC funded by a Texas lawyer to ban assault rifles.

On FOX, Kelly said, “In 1934, we banned automatic weapons. You know, I argue the semi-automatic assault weapon with a high capacity magazine is just too dangerous to be on the street where criminals and terrorists and the mentally ill can easily get them.”

Unfortunately Kelly was also caught buying one of weapons too dangerous to be in the hands of mere civilians.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, Arizona.

It’s not surprising that Kelly was turned in buying the dreaded weapon of doom. As gun ownership becomes like homosexuality in the 90s, coming out as an opponent also means that you may be outed if you combine that with a penchant for guns.

Naturally Kelly has tried to spin his purchase of the AR-15 as some sort of move to get them off the street, “As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.”

So apparently Kelly has a plan to buy up all the assault rifles in America and turn them over to the Tuscon PD. I think that’s a little like Ron Paul’s plan to end slavery.

It’s a little hard to believe that Kelly is running a one-man gun buyback program. It’s more likely that he got caught not practicing what he preached.

There’s nothing wrong with gun ownership, but Kelly now has a career being an anti-gun zealot. And to be an anti-gun zealot, you have to live your life gun-free.

There has been talk of Mark Kelly running for Giffords seat and that talk comes from liberal media outlets. To do that, he would have to squeeze out Ron Barber, the Democrat currently in there, but considering that Giffords’ district trended somewhat right, and that Barber, even with the cloak of being the aide of the saintly martyr Gabby Giffords who was also wounded in the shooting spree only won a narrow victory, it’s possible.

But Democrats may not be as enamored of him now after he got caught in flagrante delicto with an AR-15.

Bill Would Require Mental Health Assessments For Schoolchildren

March 10, 2013

Measure Runs Into Opposition From Home-Schooling Parents; ACLU Says Screenings Should Be Optional

By DANIELA ALTIMARI
The Hartford Courant



MIDDLETOWN — Lawmakers are considering a measure that would make Connecticut the first state in the nation to mandate universal mental health assessments for school-age children.

Senate Bill 374 — one of several relating to mental health policy in the aftermath of the Newtown attack — would require all public schoolchildren in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 to undergo a behavioral health screening. The law would also apply to home-schooled children ages 12, 14 and 17. It makes no mention of private or parochial school students.

The assessments would be confidential, the bill says; the results would be shared only with the child's parents.

Public schools already conduct vision and hearing screenings and school nurses periodically check spines for scoliosis. This bill would add mandatory behavioral health assessments to the list.

Several mental health experts said the legislation, while flawed, could lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment of behavioral health problems in children.

But the proposal has been met by intense opposition from home-schooling parents, about three dozen of whom attended a hearing held by the legislature's public health committee Friday. More than 70 others registered their opposition in written testimony, a committee staffer said.

"Those kinds of decisions for our children need to be in the hands of my husband and I, in conjunction with whatever health care professionals we work with,'' said Sarah Wallace of Prospect, who home schools her three children. "Having assessments done by screeners is really an unnecessary invasion."

Another home-schooling parent, Jeanette Sterling of Southington, waited for hours to testify against the bill. Her two daughters, who accompanied her, got a real-life civics lesson.

"What will they do with the information?" Sterling said. "How will they label these kids?"

Some of those same concerns were raised by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.

"If the screenings were optional, the ACLU of Connecticut would most likely support this legislation,'' David McGuire, a staff attorney for the organization, wrote in testimony submitted to the committee.

While the ACLU recognizes the value of such screenings, "help will not be effective if forced on children and their families, whose consent and cooperation is essential to successful screening and to any ensuing diagnosis and treatment,'' McGuire said. "Proceeding without consent would threaten families' privacy and the parents' rights to choose what is best for their children."

The assessment bill is one of several measures relating to mental health policy that state lawmakers are considering in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Earlier this week, a legislative subcommittee recommended the formation of a task force to examine mental health issues in greater detail.

But several speakers pointed out that people with mental illness are generally not violent, and some studies show that they are far more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators.

Daniela Giordano, public policy director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Connecticut, applauded the idea behind the bill but said the vaguely worded measure doesn't address the crucial issue of treatment.

"We agree that better screening and early detection are extremely important measures to successful ... recovery efforts,'' Giordano told the committee.

But, she added, without a plan for treatment, such screenings would not address the real problem. "Only about one-fourth of children and youth who currently identified as needing behavioral health treatment currently receive such treatments,'' she said.

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut and a critic of the bill, said improving the mental health system for children and adolescents is more complex than simply assessing every child.

"The problem is not that troubled children go undiagnosed,'' he said, "but in the delivery of services. What parents really need is better access to services and the consolidation of agencies so that parents with troubled children are not sent from one agency to another."

JoAnn Eaccarino, president of the board of the Connecticut Association of School Based Health Centers, backs the bill. But she said the mandatory assessments should start even earlier than the middle school years. "Our suggestion would be to start these assessments with their first entry into school,'' she told the panel in written testimony. "Educators have told us that they can identify a troubled child by first grade...so waiting until sixth grade may have missed some critical developmental milestones."

The hearing was held at Wesleyan University in Middletown as part of an effort by House Speaker Brendan Sharkey to increase public participation in state government by holding hearings outside the Legislative Office Building.

Copyright © 2013, The Hartford Courant

Obama regime purges 5th senior military officer: Cmdr of CENTCOM James Mattis

March 10, 2013
by Dr. Eowyn

Last December, in my post, “Obama purges U.S. Command, Part 1,” I wrote:

Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:

Gen. Carter Ham, on October 18.
Adm. Charles Gaouette, on October 27.
Gen. David Petraeus, on November 9.
Gen. John Allen, on November 13.

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion are due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?

Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, didn’t hesitate to call the purges, Obama’s “night of the long knives” — a reference to the last step in Hitler’s quest for total, dictatorial power. On June 30, 1934, the Fuhrer purged the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him.

Now add to the above list of four, Marine Corps General James Mattis (above), who has served in the U.S. military for 40 years and is widely revered by rank-and-file Marines for his blunt talk and leadership.

Three weeks after the purge of Gen. Allen came news that four-star Gen. Mattis was told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned, in March 2013, that is, this month. On Dec. 6, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Mattis would be replaced by Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the vice chief of staff for the Army, subject of course to Senate confirmation.

Gen. James Mattis, 62, is only the head of the most important command of the entire U.S. military — that of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM).

Before replacing David Petraeus on August 11, 2010, as Commander of CENTCOM, Mattis previously had commanded United States Joint Forces Command from November 9, 2007 to August 2010; served concurrently as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation from November 9, 2007 to September 8, 2009; and commanded I Marine Expeditionary Force, United States Marine Forces Central Command, and 1st Marine Division during the Iraq War.

The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command of the U.S. Department of Defense, established in 1983. Its area of responsibility includes countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. CENTCOM has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and the Iraq War. Forces from CENTCOM currently are deployed primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles and have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, and central Asia in support roles.

Writing for Foreign Policy on Jan. 18, 2013, self-described “fan of President Obama” Thomas E. Ricks claims that the “word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command” because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way” on the Obama regime’s policy toward Iran.

Reportedly, “tough-minded realist “Mattis “pushed the civilians … hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran” with questions such as: What do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf?

But Mattis’ questions and plea for prudence were “not welcomed” by the White House.

Obama-fan Thomas Ricks points out that, in dismissing Gen. Mattis, “The message the Obama Administration is sending, intentionally or not, is that it doesn’t like tough, smart, skeptical generals who speak candidly to their civilian superiors. In fact, that is exactly what it (and every administration) should want. Had we had more back in 2003, we might not have made the colossal mistake of invading Iraq. [...] But I am at the point where I don’t trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated.”

Ricks also warns that the Obama regime “now have dissed the two Marine generals who are culture heroes in today’s Corps: Mattis and Anthony Zinni. The Marines have long memories.”

Today’s Drudge Report is replete with ominous headlines about Iran:

WAR DRUMS: KERRY WARNS IRAN ON BRINK...
'Challenging moment with great risks'...
Obama 'not bluffing' over military threat...
Netanyahu: 'Red line'...
TOP GENERAL: Nuclear Iran will trigger arms race in Middle East...
Kissinger: Nuke crisis close...
Clock Runs...

Changing the leadership of CENTCOM just as the confrontation with Iran heats up is not just bad timing, but rash and imprudent.

See also “Obama purges US military command (Part 2),” Dec. 4, 2012.

~Eowyn Fellowship of the Minds

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

March 10, 2013


This is the complete text of Patrick Henry's speech at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775.

No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.


The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.


I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

source: earlyamerica.com

Wolf says NASA prompted hiring of person linked to Chinese espionage; may be dozens more in agency

March 10, 2013
Richard Pollock
Watchdog Team

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-VA, charged today
that NASA allowed a contractor to
hire a Chinese national linked to an
organization U.S. security officials
designated as "an entity of concern."
(AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson, File)

(The Washington Examiner) - Officials at NASA's Langley Research Center permitted a contractor to hire a Chinese national affiliated with an organization designated by U.S. national security agencies as an "entity of concern," and then allowed the individual access to classified information, according to Rep. Frank Wolf.

The as-yet unidentified individual was permitted to take that information back home to China, according to Wolf, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of a House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA.

Wolf said during a Capitol Hill news conference today that "at least several dozen other Chinese nationals," are employed at Langley, and he charged that they are employed in a manner to "circumvent" congressional bans on Chinese involvement at NASA facilities.

Wolf said he has talked with FBI Director Robert Mueller and the Neil H. MacBride, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia about the alleged national security violations at Langley, which is located in Hampton, Virginia.

He said he first heard the allegations from numerous whistleblowers who were career NASA employes and met with them about two weeks ago. He said he turned over information and documents to the FBI.

"It was shocking," the House chairman told reporters. "When I saw it, I couldn't believe it," he said.

Wolf criticized what he called the "management culture" within NASA that "turns a blind eye or in some cases may outright encourage, violations of security regulations."

He said "higher ups" within NASA and the U.S. Department of Justice were responsible for the security problems.

Wolf wants an outside investigation of NASA national security operations, a review of all current foreign nationals employed at NASA sites, a moratorium on hiring of foreign nationals from designated hostile countries, and federal prosecution of all confirmed NASA security breaches.

Wolf has previously criticized what he views as lax NASA security and the termination of a federal investigation of foreign nationals who allegedly have unauthorized access to sensitive space defense technology at NASA's Ames Research Center outside San Francisco.

Wolf also said NASA had posted on its web site "thousands of declassified but extremely sensitive documents." He said there were evidence the documents "were extensively accessed" by foreign governments including China and Iran.

Wolf's concern about Ames was communicated last month to the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco and to the FBI. He was joined by Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Today, Wolf said he has not received a response from Pete Worden, the retired Air Force general who is director of the Ames facility.

Wolf called NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden "a patriot. He is a good man.”

In an opening statement at the news conference, Wolf said:

It is my understanding that this Chinese national is affiliated with an institution in China that has been designated as an “entity of concern” by other U.S. government agencies. That is why I was deeply concerned to learn not only was he provided access and information he never should have received – working directly on technology that may have national security implications -- but he was also allegedly allowed by both NASA and his contractor to take his work and volumes of other NASA research back to China for a period of time, as documented in an investigative report I received."

Wolf added that President Obama singled out the importance of preventing "the theft of U.S. intellectual property specifically ... 'unmanned aerial vehicles, and other aerospace/aeronautic technologies' and 'civilian and dual-se technologies in sectors likely to experience fast growth' as information of the greatest interest to foreign spies, including China."

Those technologies are central to the work of NASA, Wolf said, which makes the agency a prime target for foreign espionage.

Richard Pollock is a member of The Washington Examiner's Watchdog investigative reporting team. He can be reached at rpollock@washingtonexaminer.com.

Missing Money

March 10, 2013


State and provincial governments working together to safeguard and return your lost funds

MissingMoney.com is officially endorsed by NAUPA and the participating states and provinces. Our site will assist you in thoroughly searching all participating states to find your family's missing, lost, and unclaimed property, money and assets.

MissingMoney.com has the most updated information for the state and provincial offices, their websites with contact information and property listings. Searches and claiming are always FREE. Information goes securely and directly to the state/provincial unclaimed property office.


Go There>>

Six Months of Disgrace

March 10, 2013
Rob Cunningham USA

Sickened beyond words, it is difficult to express the emptiness I feel in admitting the vast majority of America’s media have become enemy combatants in a War on Truth. Most major media outlets, save Fox News and talk radio, are actively subverting, ignoring, obfuscating, rationalizing and marginalizing almost all efforts to explain to their audiences, exactly what occurred before, the day of, and immediately after the September 11, 2012, Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attacks.

Here’s What We Do Know

The United States of America was attacked. A United States Ambassador was murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist ambush. Dire threat warnings and desperate pleas for added security were repeatedly ignored in Washington, DC. For seven hours, two CIA operatives, both ex-Navy Seals, were left to battle one hundred al Qaeda terrorists. Thirty Americans were saved after being rescued by these two brave heroes, their last selfless act before making the ultimate sacrifice for their beloved country. May they and their families never be forgotten. Repeated cries for military assistance were ignored before these two heroes were murdered by the same terrorists that killed our United States Ambassador. President Obama’s administration continues to hide thirty rescued eyewitnesses to acts of war against the United States. We now know for an absolute fact, the President of the United States, the former Secretary of State and the former US Ambassador to the United Nations repeatedly and intentionally lied about material facts surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

Here’s the Media’s Response

One. Big. Yawn.

The vast majority of media are strangely disinterested in this brazen act of war against the United States. Worse, those asking serious questions in search of honest answers are either ignored, mocked as “haters” or characterized as right wing conspiracy theorists. “What difference does it make?“, shrieked former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, when questioned before a Senate committee about the details surrounding the murder of two abandoned American heroes. Can you imagine how our purportedly “fair and unbiased” media might react if either Sarah Palin or George W. Bush had angrily responded to a Senate panel in the same manner “one of theirs”, Hillary Rodham Clinton, actually did?

Perhaps the most critical question that has yet to be asked by our media or answered by our government is this;

What was US Ambassador Chris Stevens and more than forty CIA employees and US State Department personnel doing in Benghazi, Libya, perhaps the single most dangerous terrorist hotspot on earth, on the eleven year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on America?

Many of America’s news anchors and journalists might as well be employed by al Qaeda given their intentional efforts to deceive fellow citizens, all the while bringing enormous aid and comfort to declared enemy combatants of the United States. By abdicating all fiduciary responsibilities and professional ethics, journalists continue to show gross levels of disregard for reporting facts and truth. As a result, our nation is weakened.

As I reflect on our beloved nation’s heroic birth, symbolized by our nation’s first President, George Washington, kneeling in prayer,

my heart aches with the knowledge we have descended to this level of pop-culture, superficial absurdity.

Unleash #WAR on the Media

The decades old, islamic Jihad (War) on America has now been fully engaged by liberal media journalists that aggressively protect and defend those seeking to keep war crime facts from as many American citizens as possible. May we never forget the stark contrast in bravery represented by Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty vs. the cowardice of Barack Hussein Obama, who chose to conspire with political consultants, campaign managers and career bureaucrats to manufacture an absurd YouTube video excuse for the actions of Benghazi murderers, rather than making the simple, honorable decision to help save two American patriots. Obama placed his 2012 re-election before the lives of those he swore an oath to defend. He substituted his highest constitutional duty of national defense with his personal priority to win an election. If not treason, I consider his actions a gross dereliction of duty.

“It’s Better to Die the Death of a Hero Than Live the Life of a Coward.”


Rest in peace, my friends. Please accept my apology for the US President’s failure to save your lives. Your final efforts will not be in vain. A grateful nation salutes you.

Pro-gun voters put heat on Democratic senators

March 10, 2013

HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has been here before.

Back during the Clinton era, the Democrat faced a choice: support an assault weapons ban urged by a president from his own party and risk angering constituents who cherish their gun rights, or buck his party. He chose the ban, and nearly lost his Senate seat.

Now, as he begins his campaign for a seventh term, Baucus faces the question again. For weeks, gun foes have sought assurances he would oppose the assault weapons ban. But it was only this past week he said he would oppose it.

That decision alone doesn't settle the issue for his re-election campaign. His opponents are watching closely, eager to pounce as he navigates a series of other gun control proposals, including an expected call for universal background checks.

Baucus' predicament is one that a group of Democrats like him in the West and South are facing. They hail from predominantly rural regions of the country where the Second Amendment is cherished and where Republicans routinely win in presidential elections.

From Montana to Louisiana, these anxious voters have made at least six Democratic senators a little uneasy heading into next year's election season. Both sides are aware that gun-owners' rights are taking shape as a campaign issue that could shift the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.

"Make no mistake - it is a very delicate dance for rural state Democrats," said Barrett Kaiser, a Democratic political consultant.

"I would be stunned if the Montana congressional delegation said anything but `hell no' to gun control measures," he added.

Part of the concern comes from a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips. The plan is a response to calls for new gun restrictions from President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school.

Gun control is a top-agenda item for many Democrats, and they'll need all the votes they can to push changes.

Baucus knows, though, that a gun control vote "opens the door for whoever challenges him, because Montanans do not want the federal government restricting guns. That is clear as day," said Republican state Rep. Scott Reichner, who was Mitt Romney's campaign chairman in Montana.

"It would be a monumental mistake on his part" to support federal gun control legislation, Reichner said.

Gun rights carry sway in Montana. The state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks says Montana "boasts more hunters per capita than any other state in the nation." State lawmakers have been discussing measures to expand gun rights. And a pro-gun group, the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has set up a website that is updated with Baucus' public statements on gun policy.

Other Democratic senators that Republicans are watching closely include Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Democrats control the Senate, but if Republicans pick off these seats they could take the chamber.

Pryor already has said he won't support an assault weapons ban, and the measure is unlikely to clear the Senate. Gun activists still worry that other restrictions they oppose are in the works.

"I don't think the assault rifle ban, the semi-auto ban, has been the real objective," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. "I think that is where the rubber meets the road, federal gun registration."

The gun rights crowd considers mandatory registration as an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority and the close attention paid to all discussions on the topic show how carefully Baucus and others must tread.

Baucus would appear to be a shoo-in for re-election. He's the third most senior U.S. senator and the chairman of the Finance Committee, which lets him prioritize many Montana projects.

He's also a consummate dealmaker who routinely collects endorsements from Republican-allied groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And he's worked hard over the years to become the only Senate Democrat with an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association.

But one wrong gun vote could energize his opposition.

Though Baucus specifically rejected the assault rifle ban, he stopped short of mentioning expanded background checks by name. Baucus indicated he prefers the focus was elsewhere.

"Instead of focusing on new laws, Max believes the first step should be effectively enforcing the laws already on the books," Baucus spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue said Thursday.

The entire debate represents a potential replay of the most difficult fight of his career, when Baucus voted for the 1993 Brady Bill that established background checks and the original 1994 ban on assault rifles and high-capacity clips.

Those votes led to the closest election in four decades of politics for Baucus, a narrow victory in a bitter campaign against Republican Denny Rehberg.

The other Democratic senators in rural states could find themselves in similar fights and have been cagey over the issue. Most have taken a wait-and-see approach.

The NRA last month launched an advertising campaign aimed squarely at this group, sending a strong message. The organization did not return a call seeking comment.

Democratic political operatives say the NRA could be overplaying its hand this time, arguing some sportsmen may be willing to listen to moderate proposals.

Still, Baucus and his colleagues aren't likely to take risks and by next year's election, he and others could seek to turn the issue to their advantage by using a pro-gun stance to appeal to conservative and libertarian-minded voters.

"Why wouldn't he want to talk about guns?" said Montana State University political scientist David Parker. "Sen. Baucus is as about as middle of the road as they get in the United States Senate. What he doesn't want to do is have himself painted as a national Democrat or as an Obama Democrat."

Federal Government Will Issue Dietary Guidelines--for Infants

March 10, 2013

(AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - The federal government is tapping experts for its "B-24 Project." It may sound like a new jet fighter, but in this case, "B-24" pertains to nutrition advice for infants and toddlers up to 24 months old.

The project will produce "unified federal dietary guidance for children from birth to 24 months based on the best available science," said Kevin Concannon, the Agriculture Department's Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.

Concannon noted that current federal dietary recommendations are designed for people two years and older, and therefore, the B-24 project "will fill an important gap."

Government officials from USDA and the Health and Human Services Department recently gathered with experts from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and other health groups and universities to examine existing literature and make recommendations for additional public and private research -- some of it to be funded with taxpayer dollars, no doubt.

"With nearly one third of children in America at risk for preventable diseases like diabetes and heart disease due to being overweight or obese, we know that access to proper nutrition early in life can help set the stage for healthier dietary and lifestyle habits and future success in school," Concannon said in a USDA blog.

"Every day, nutritionists and health-related staff across the country advise mothers and mothers-to-be about what to eat, what to feed their children, how to successfully breastfeed, and the importance of appropriate physical activity for infants and toddlers. Creating nutrition guidance specifically tailored to the needs of infants and toddlers will help better ensure that parents and caregivers are empowered with the information they need to help their children reach optimal growth, development and health on their journey to adulthood."

The Obama administration already has revamped the National School Lunch Program to include healthy foods, and it recently announced plans to require healthy snack options in school vending machines.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months of life, with solid foods to be gradually introduced at six months.