March 28, 2013
To be truthful I've seen better journalism from grade school kids. Read on, and you'll see what I mean...
Police: Man, 27, shoots self in groin
Gun fires during robbery attempt, police say
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A 27-year-old man shot himself in the groin in Harrisburg early Wednesday during a robbery attempt, according to police.
Officers were called to the 900 block of North Third Street about 1:25 a.m. Wednesday, police said.
Police said the victim told them a robber approached him from behind while he was walking to his car and demanded valuables.
The victim grabbed a gun from his waistband and it fired, police said. He was taken to Penn State Hershey Medical Center.
Drug paraphernalia was found in the man's clothing, police said.
Anyone with information is asked to call Detective John O'Connor at 717-255-3175 or Lt. Robert Fegan at 717-255-3114.
original article
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Report: N.J. Powerball winner a deadbeat dad who owes $29,000 in child support
March 28, 2013
I wonder if he'll pay it now?
Just two days after discovering that he won the fourth-largest Powerball jackpot in the game's history, Pedro Quezada has attracted the attention of the Passaic County Sheriff's Department, which says he owes about $29,000 in unpaid child support, according to reports.
Keep Reading...
I wonder if he'll pay it now?
Just two days after discovering that he won the fourth-largest Powerball jackpot in the game's history, Pedro Quezada has attracted the attention of the Passaic County Sheriff's Department, which says he owes about $29,000 in unpaid child support, according to reports.
Keep Reading...
Sharpton's Strange Theory: Blames Beck-Bachmann For Egyptians Pelting Hillary's Motorcade
March 28, 2013
Sharpton accuses Beck and Bachmann of propagating wild theories--but looks like the Reverend Al is the real culprit.
FULL STORY
Sharpton accuses Beck and Bachmann of propagating wild theories--but looks like the Reverend Al is the real culprit.
FULL STORY
Optimism in UN over 1st global arms trade treaty
March 28, 2013
(AP) Optimism in UN over 1st global arms trade treaty
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS
The first global treaty on regulating the multimillion-dollar arms trade appeared to be nearing consensus, supporters said, though worries remained that Iran, India or other countries would back off an agreement that requires approval from all 193 United Nations member states.
Thursday is the deadline for reaching a deal. U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private, said Wednesday the United States was virtually certain to go along with the latest text.
Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord _ a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the U.N. General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set Thursday as the deadline.
"We need a treaty," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong told The Associated Press. "We hope for consensus."
Iran, Egypt, India and several other countries have had serious concerns about the text.
There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.
"It's important for each and every country in the world that we have a regulation of the international arms trade," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig told the AP. "There are still some divergencies of views, but I trust we can overcome them."
The draft treaty does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The final draft makes this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in the commission of attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.
Anna Macdonald, Oxfam's head of arms control, said the scope of the weapons covered in the latest draft is still too narrow.
"We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them," she said. "We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence."
Ammunition has been a key issue, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions. The draft calls for each country that ratifies the treaty to establish regulations for the export of ammunition "fired, launched or delivered" by the weapons covered by the convention.
The Control Arms coalition, which represents about 100 organizations worldwide campaigning for a strong treaty, and diplomats from countries that support them, said this wouldn't cover hand grenades and mines.
India and other countries had insisted that the treaty have an opt-out for government arms transfers under defense cooperation agreements. The new text appears to keep that loophole, stating that implementation of the treaty "shall not prejudice obligations" under defense cooperation agreements by countries that ratify the treaty.
"Making this treaty was like making a sausage: Everyone has added an ingredient," said Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"Unfortunately, that has produced a document that leans much too far towards satisfying the concerns of the Arab Group and Mexico. The former view it as a rebellion prevention plan, while the latter wants a text that edges towards its view that the domestic firearms market in the U.S. should be subject to treaty regulation," he said.
But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Washington-based Arms Control Association, said, "The emerging treaty represents an important first step in dealing with the unregulated and illicit global trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, which fuels wars and human rights abuses worldwide."
He said the text could have been stronger and more comprehensive, but it can still make an important difference.
"The new treaty says to every United Nations member that you cannot simply `export and forget,'" Kimball said.
Breitbart
(AP) Optimism in UN over 1st global arms trade treaty
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS
The first global treaty on regulating the multimillion-dollar arms trade appeared to be nearing consensus, supporters said, though worries remained that Iran, India or other countries would back off an agreement that requires approval from all 193 United Nations member states.
Thursday is the deadline for reaching a deal. U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private, said Wednesday the United States was virtually certain to go along with the latest text.
Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord _ a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the U.N. General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set Thursday as the deadline.
"We need a treaty," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong told The Associated Press. "We hope for consensus."
Iran, Egypt, India and several other countries have had serious concerns about the text.
There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.
"It's important for each and every country in the world that we have a regulation of the international arms trade," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig told the AP. "There are still some divergencies of views, but I trust we can overcome them."
The draft treaty does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The final draft makes this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in the commission of attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.
Anna Macdonald, Oxfam's head of arms control, said the scope of the weapons covered in the latest draft is still too narrow.
"We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them," she said. "We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence."
Ammunition has been a key issue, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions. The draft calls for each country that ratifies the treaty to establish regulations for the export of ammunition "fired, launched or delivered" by the weapons covered by the convention.
The Control Arms coalition, which represents about 100 organizations worldwide campaigning for a strong treaty, and diplomats from countries that support them, said this wouldn't cover hand grenades and mines.
India and other countries had insisted that the treaty have an opt-out for government arms transfers under defense cooperation agreements. The new text appears to keep that loophole, stating that implementation of the treaty "shall not prejudice obligations" under defense cooperation agreements by countries that ratify the treaty.
"Making this treaty was like making a sausage: Everyone has added an ingredient," said Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"Unfortunately, that has produced a document that leans much too far towards satisfying the concerns of the Arab Group and Mexico. The former view it as a rebellion prevention plan, while the latter wants a text that edges towards its view that the domestic firearms market in the U.S. should be subject to treaty regulation," he said.
But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Washington-based Arms Control Association, said, "The emerging treaty represents an important first step in dealing with the unregulated and illicit global trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, which fuels wars and human rights abuses worldwide."
He said the text could have been stronger and more comprehensive, but it can still make an important difference.
"The new treaty says to every United Nations member that you cannot simply `export and forget,'" Kimball said.
Breitbart
Left's Next Step: Sue Churches for Bigotry
March 28, 2013
Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Colleen in Dagsboro, Delaware. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi there, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. I was just calling because this whole gay marriage before the Supreme Court, my worry is that if they decide it is a right, then does that mean they are going to force churches like the Catholic Church to perform weddings just like they forced Obamacare and abortion and birth control?
RUSH: Well, I don't think anybody knows. If there is such a desire to also attack the structure of the Catholic Church, then that would be something that would happen down the road. Once the concept of gay marriage, homosexual marriage, is sanctioned and made legal, then, if a religion or an individual church refuses to perform the ceremony, then there could well be a lawsuit. And then it would depend on how a judge felt about it. So it's theoretically possible, yeah. I mean, look. If the Catholic Church can be forced to give away abortifacients and birth control pills, why can't the church be forced to marry gay couples who want the sacrament?
CALLER: Or any church really.
RUSH: Any church, right, any church.
CALLER: Then would they be, you know, attacked because then it would be discrimination?
RUSH: Exactly. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that that kind of thing will happen. I mean, among militant leftists, attacking organized religion is part of the political agenda, whether they're gay or not. I mean, there's militant leftists. You know, organized religion is morality. Organized religion is definite black and white and no gray areas other than churches who have decided, you know, to replicate the Republican Party and try to be all things to all people. But some churches do not change to match the whims of a floating culture, and those churches are under assault, and will continue to be.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: Independent of gay marriage.
CALLER: That's why I wonder about the motives of them demanding gay marriage and not civil unions.
RUSH: Well, we'll see. We'll see. If you had to roll the dice on it, yeah, that would be the next phase. When it becomes legal and a church refuses to do it, don't go someplace that will; sue the people that won't. That's just a political philosophy of people on the left.
Back after this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jerry in San Francisco. Great to have you on the phone, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Good morning, I guess afternoon where you're at. Yeah, I think there's a couple of concepts that need to be discussed regarding the gay marriage thing. You've got a group, a Negro group of homophobic phobics. They are so afraid of being labeled homophobic, they will literally apologize forever, for not being homosexual. And I think that's why they're so gung ho supporting gay marriage. And we have another group, the heterophobes, which is basically your militant gays that actually hate us breeders and will do everything they can to bring us down to their level.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Gay people hate straight people?
CALLER: Well, not all of them. But the militant
RUSH: The militant.
CALLER: The radical ones are actually heterophobic.
RUSH: Well, that word's not been bandied about much, heterophobes. But homophobes is all over the place. So you think there are homophobic homophobes who are afraid to say anything antigay because they'll be ripped to shreds and they don't want to be ripped?
CALLER: Oh, yeah. I've actually heard Al Sharpton on his radio show apologize for two minutes for not being homosexual when he was asked if he had any of those tendencies. It took him two minutes to say he's heterosexual.
RUSH: He's not?
CALLER: He's a homophobic phobic.
RUSH: Wow, he's not? I didn't know that. Not that there's anything wrong with it. I didn't know that. Two minutes apologizing, wow.
END TRANSCRIPT
Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Colleen in Dagsboro, Delaware. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi there, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. I was just calling because this whole gay marriage before the Supreme Court, my worry is that if they decide it is a right, then does that mean they are going to force churches like the Catholic Church to perform weddings just like they forced Obamacare and abortion and birth control?
RUSH: Well, I don't think anybody knows. If there is such a desire to also attack the structure of the Catholic Church, then that would be something that would happen down the road. Once the concept of gay marriage, homosexual marriage, is sanctioned and made legal, then, if a religion or an individual church refuses to perform the ceremony, then there could well be a lawsuit. And then it would depend on how a judge felt about it. So it's theoretically possible, yeah. I mean, look. If the Catholic Church can be forced to give away abortifacients and birth control pills, why can't the church be forced to marry gay couples who want the sacrament?
CALLER: Or any church really.
RUSH: Any church, right, any church.
CALLER: Then would they be, you know, attacked because then it would be discrimination?
RUSH: Exactly. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that that kind of thing will happen. I mean, among militant leftists, attacking organized religion is part of the political agenda, whether they're gay or not. I mean, there's militant leftists. You know, organized religion is morality. Organized religion is definite black and white and no gray areas other than churches who have decided, you know, to replicate the Republican Party and try to be all things to all people. But some churches do not change to match the whims of a floating culture, and those churches are under assault, and will continue to be.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: Independent of gay marriage.
CALLER: That's why I wonder about the motives of them demanding gay marriage and not civil unions.
RUSH: Well, we'll see. We'll see. If you had to roll the dice on it, yeah, that would be the next phase. When it becomes legal and a church refuses to do it, don't go someplace that will; sue the people that won't. That's just a political philosophy of people on the left.
Back after this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jerry in San Francisco. Great to have you on the phone, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Good morning, I guess afternoon where you're at. Yeah, I think there's a couple of concepts that need to be discussed regarding the gay marriage thing. You've got a group, a Negro group of homophobic phobics. They are so afraid of being labeled homophobic, they will literally apologize forever, for not being homosexual. And I think that's why they're so gung ho supporting gay marriage. And we have another group, the heterophobes, which is basically your militant gays that actually hate us breeders and will do everything they can to bring us down to their level.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Gay people hate straight people?
CALLER: Well, not all of them. But the militant
RUSH: The militant.
CALLER: The radical ones are actually heterophobic.
RUSH: Well, that word's not been bandied about much, heterophobes. But homophobes is all over the place. So you think there are homophobic homophobes who are afraid to say anything antigay because they'll be ripped to shreds and they don't want to be ripped?
CALLER: Oh, yeah. I've actually heard Al Sharpton on his radio show apologize for two minutes for not being homosexual when he was asked if he had any of those tendencies. It took him two minutes to say he's heterosexual.
RUSH: He's not?
CALLER: He's a homophobic phobic.
RUSH: Wow, he's not? I didn't know that. Not that there's anything wrong with it. I didn't know that. Two minutes apologizing, wow.
END TRANSCRIPT
Top Democrat tells Republicans he’ll rush immigration bill through Congress
March 28, 2013
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., indicated that he will expedite immigration reform by skipping by further committee hearings on the legislation in a sharp letter to a leading Republican lawmaker — a letter characterized by a striking amount of trash-talking about immigration issues and politics.
“I intend to proceed to comprehensive immigration reform with all deliberate speed,” Leahy wrote to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
FULL STORY
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., indicated that he will expedite immigration reform by skipping by further committee hearings on the legislation in a sharp letter to a leading Republican lawmaker — a letter characterized by a striking amount of trash-talking about immigration issues and politics.
“I intend to proceed to comprehensive immigration reform with all deliberate speed,” Leahy wrote to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
FULL STORY
Obamacare Funnels $75 Million to Planned Parenthood to Push Sex on Kids
March 28, 2013
(LifeNewsSite) - While the White House says sequestration has eliminated funds for children touring the White House, President Obama has no problem spending $350 million federal tax dollars for sexual indoctrination programs starting in kindergarten for those same children.
This is not your grandmother’s sex education about how things work and what can go “wrong.” In fact, the exact opposite is the essence of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP): Obamacare funnels $75 million annually into PREP, which must be used exclusively for Planned Parenthood-style “comprehensive” sex ed programs where no type of sex is wrong and the only sexual behavior PP considers “unsafe” is becoming pregnant.
More than one-fourth of the funds ‒ $20 million ‒ has been awarded to a coalition of six Planned Parenthood affiliates, operating under the name Northwest Coalition for Adolescent Health, to implement HHS’s TOP program across Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska at over 50 sites. In Oregon schools, Planned Parenthood is paying children cash incentives to participate...
Keep Reading
(LifeNewsSite) - While the White House says sequestration has eliminated funds for children touring the White House, President Obama has no problem spending $350 million federal tax dollars for sexual indoctrination programs starting in kindergarten for those same children.
This is not your grandmother’s sex education about how things work and what can go “wrong.” In fact, the exact opposite is the essence of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP): Obamacare funnels $75 million annually into PREP, which must be used exclusively for Planned Parenthood-style “comprehensive” sex ed programs where no type of sex is wrong and the only sexual behavior PP considers “unsafe” is becoming pregnant.
More than one-fourth of the funds ‒ $20 million ‒ has been awarded to a coalition of six Planned Parenthood affiliates, operating under the name Northwest Coalition for Adolescent Health, to implement HHS’s TOP program across Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska at over 50 sites. In Oregon schools, Planned Parenthood is paying children cash incentives to participate...
Keep Reading
Gay Marriage: Gays Are Being Used
March 28, 2013
Gay people are too giddy to know it right now but they are being used. The gay marriage issue, currently before the Supreme Court, is a divisive one but the people with the most to gain aren't even being talked about. Gays will see a victory as a stamp of legitimacy on their lifestyle and public approval of the abomination known as homosexuality. But this issue isn't just about allowing gays to marry. There's another group here with their own agenda. It's one they've been working on for years and gay marriage is just the next step toward the larger goal.
Some brief background is needed here. It's no secret that, for years now, the left has chipped and chiseled away at including God in our society. They've taken every opportunity to remove anything that has any reference to God under the guise of being offended. All it takes is one person to complain and claim to be offended. Funny how it doesn't work the other way around when it's a Christian who is offended.
Some examples I put together in just a few minutes:
An elementary school in North Carolina removed a first grade student's reference to God in a Veteran's Day poem written about her grandfather. "He prayed to God for strength, he prayed to God for peace," was the deleted line.
Who can forget the Democratic Convention last year and the chorus of boos when the chair tried to have recognition of God put back into their platform.
The Navy was forced to cancel a live nativity scene at a tree lighting ceremony after a military atheist group complained.
A Massachusetts elementary school changed the lyrics to Lee Greenwood's song 'God Bless the USA' to 'We Love the USA' for a student concert. When parents complained the song was pulled from the program.
After more than 40 years of service to the poor and neglected children, Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois were closed rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider gay and lesbian couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents.
A Christian retreat house in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a lesbian civil union ceremony in their facility. A judge ruled against them.
Just this week an Alabama elementary school has banned the word "Easter" in order to "respect religious diversity." The principal said kids love the Easter Bunny but they can't call him that or it would infringe on the rights of others.
And speaking of Easter, who could forget the Seattle school officials who deemed Easter eggs to be offensive and directed that they be called spring spheres.
There are numerous other examples available of God being removed from our society. Even President Obama himself, in a statement that would surely have shocked our Founding Fathers, said "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation." Instead, he said, "We are a nation of citizens."
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham welcomed the end of Christian America, saying "The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment..."
A liberal government gives people freedom they never had with religion. Moral restraints are gone and the freedom to do what you want, when you want with whomever you want is the order of the day. Anyone daring to voice dissent is easily shouted down or dragged into court to be chastised by progressive judges who tell them their free exercise of religion is now secondary to "other important societal goals."
In the world view of the left, the religious right has been reduced to a fringe group, one they now have the power to control and destroy. This is the goal they have been working toward for years. Eliminating God in our society leaves a vacancy that the left has slowly been filling with the state. Ask any dictator throughout history and they will tell you the state must have supremacy over God and religion before total control can be achieved and citizens are turned into subjects.
In the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers reminded the tyrant King George III that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The left doesn't agree with this and they have worked very hard to make people forget it. The left believes that all rights and liberties are granted by men and government.
In order for the left to turn their god -government- into the religion of the state, they have to get God out of the way and remove the influence of the church. Giving the state total control over the sacred institution of marriage would be a huge step in achieving this goal. The pairing by God of one man and one woman must be replaced by the state saying who gets paired. And not only that, the state will tell churches to allow gay and lesbian ceremonies in their facilities or face the consequences.
The left has their god and they won't stop until their god has total control over all of us - the serfs. But the leftist serfs won't care because their new liberty will be unrestricted licentiousness, which they see as the biggest gift their god can give them. And the gay people who are being used as the latest attack weapon by the left... who do they see as their god?
source
Some brief background is needed here. It's no secret that, for years now, the left has chipped and chiseled away at including God in our society. They've taken every opportunity to remove anything that has any reference to God under the guise of being offended. All it takes is one person to complain and claim to be offended. Funny how it doesn't work the other way around when it's a Christian who is offended.
Some examples I put together in just a few minutes:
An elementary school in North Carolina removed a first grade student's reference to God in a Veteran's Day poem written about her grandfather. "He prayed to God for strength, he prayed to God for peace," was the deleted line.
Who can forget the Democratic Convention last year and the chorus of boos when the chair tried to have recognition of God put back into their platform.
The Navy was forced to cancel a live nativity scene at a tree lighting ceremony after a military atheist group complained.
A Massachusetts elementary school changed the lyrics to Lee Greenwood's song 'God Bless the USA' to 'We Love the USA' for a student concert. When parents complained the song was pulled from the program.
After more than 40 years of service to the poor and neglected children, Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois were closed rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider gay and lesbian couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents.
A Christian retreat house in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a lesbian civil union ceremony in their facility. A judge ruled against them.
Just this week an Alabama elementary school has banned the word "Easter" in order to "respect religious diversity." The principal said kids love the Easter Bunny but they can't call him that or it would infringe on the rights of others.
And speaking of Easter, who could forget the Seattle school officials who deemed Easter eggs to be offensive and directed that they be called spring spheres.
There are numerous other examples available of God being removed from our society. Even President Obama himself, in a statement that would surely have shocked our Founding Fathers, said "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation." Instead, he said, "We are a nation of citizens."
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham welcomed the end of Christian America, saying "The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment..."
A liberal government gives people freedom they never had with religion. Moral restraints are gone and the freedom to do what you want, when you want with whomever you want is the order of the day. Anyone daring to voice dissent is easily shouted down or dragged into court to be chastised by progressive judges who tell them their free exercise of religion is now secondary to "other important societal goals."
In the world view of the left, the religious right has been reduced to a fringe group, one they now have the power to control and destroy. This is the goal they have been working toward for years. Eliminating God in our society leaves a vacancy that the left has slowly been filling with the state. Ask any dictator throughout history and they will tell you the state must have supremacy over God and religion before total control can be achieved and citizens are turned into subjects.
In the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers reminded the tyrant King George III that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The left doesn't agree with this and they have worked very hard to make people forget it. The left believes that all rights and liberties are granted by men and government.
In order for the left to turn their god -government- into the religion of the state, they have to get God out of the way and remove the influence of the church. Giving the state total control over the sacred institution of marriage would be a huge step in achieving this goal. The pairing by God of one man and one woman must be replaced by the state saying who gets paired. And not only that, the state will tell churches to allow gay and lesbian ceremonies in their facilities or face the consequences.
The left has their god and they won't stop until their god has total control over all of us - the serfs. But the leftist serfs won't care because their new liberty will be unrestricted licentiousness, which they see as the biggest gift their god can give them. And the gay people who are being used as the latest attack weapon by the left... who do they see as their god?
source
Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act
March 28, 2013
SOS: Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act - It's time to Label GMOs! - We will not be stopped!
It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama signed H.R. 933, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act into law. This is an outrage that will not go unanswered.
While we are still waiting to hear from the administration all the final details, we understand at this time that Section 735, the Monsanto biotech rider is intact.
President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the insistence of more than 250,000 Americans who signed an urgent letter asking that he use his executive authority to veto H.R. 933 and send it back to Congress to remove the Monsanto Protection Act from the bill. Regretfully, President Obama failed to live up to his oath to protect the American people and our constitution.
Read the FULL STORY
SOS: Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act - It's time to Label GMOs! - We will not be stopped!
It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama signed H.R. 933, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act into law. This is an outrage that will not go unanswered.
While we are still waiting to hear from the administration all the final details, we understand at this time that Section 735, the Monsanto biotech rider is intact.
President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the insistence of more than 250,000 Americans who signed an urgent letter asking that he use his executive authority to veto H.R. 933 and send it back to Congress to remove the Monsanto Protection Act from the bill. Regretfully, President Obama failed to live up to his oath to protect the American people and our constitution.
Read the FULL STORY
Obamopoly!
28 March 2013
Reaganite Republican
This would be funny if it weren't so damn true!
The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!
Like it or not, you're already playing... and not winning.
-h/t Kirby-
Reaganite Republican
This would be funny if it weren't so damn true!
The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!
Like it or not, you're already playing... and not winning.
-h/t Kirby-
US Spends $1.18 Million on Puppets Amid Sequester
March 28, 2013
by Wynton Hall
(Breitbart.com) - The recent canceling of White House tours in the name of sequester-related cuts understandably has disappointed children and families grousing.
Canceling tours of “the people’s house” saves taxpayers an estimated $18,000 a week, or $936,000 a year.
Putting that figure in perspective, the U.S. federal government has spent more on puppets and puppetry-related expenses than it would cost to fund an entire year’s worth of White House tours.
Yes, puppets.
From 2009 to 2013, the U.S. government has spent $1,188,382 on puppetry-related expenses. Some of the expenses include puppet shows for kids on educational topics. Others include puppet-based research. In 2010, the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation awarded the University of Central Florida a $199,754 research grant for “Efficient Control and Transmission of Digital Puppetry.”
The UCF website explains the project thusly:
The purpose of this project is to improve the quality of experiences that can be provided by the puppeteering paradigm (more varied behaviors, enhanced quality of service, reduced latency), while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry (cost and complexity of set-up, cognitive load on puppeteer, need for extensive training).
In February 2013, the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts invested $25,000 into something called “In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask,” a Minneapolis project that will “support the development of a new work by puppetry artists in the Sampo Box Program.”
In 2009, tax dollars also funded research involving “puppet choreography and automated marionettes” at Northwestern University to the tune of $358,410, or roughly 19 weeks worth of White House visitor tours.
No one is pummeling puppets; to be sure, some of these expenses have produced positive outcomes. But when the White House website ominously informs citizens that “due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House tours will be canceled,” it’s time to get real and pull back the curtain on the political puppet show in Washington.
If the feds have to cut federal “puppet expenditures” to keep the people’s house open, so be it.
by Wynton Hall
(Breitbart.com) - The recent canceling of White House tours in the name of sequester-related cuts understandably has disappointed children and families grousing.
Canceling tours of “the people’s house” saves taxpayers an estimated $18,000 a week, or $936,000 a year.
Putting that figure in perspective, the U.S. federal government has spent more on puppets and puppetry-related expenses than it would cost to fund an entire year’s worth of White House tours.
Yes, puppets.
From 2009 to 2013, the U.S. government has spent $1,188,382 on puppetry-related expenses. Some of the expenses include puppet shows for kids on educational topics. Others include puppet-based research. In 2010, the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation awarded the University of Central Florida a $199,754 research grant for “Efficient Control and Transmission of Digital Puppetry.”
The UCF website explains the project thusly:
The purpose of this project is to improve the quality of experiences that can be provided by the puppeteering paradigm (more varied behaviors, enhanced quality of service, reduced latency), while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry (cost and complexity of set-up, cognitive load on puppeteer, need for extensive training).
In February 2013, the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts invested $25,000 into something called “In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask,” a Minneapolis project that will “support the development of a new work by puppetry artists in the Sampo Box Program.”
In 2009, tax dollars also funded research involving “puppet choreography and automated marionettes” at Northwestern University to the tune of $358,410, or roughly 19 weeks worth of White House visitor tours.
No one is pummeling puppets; to be sure, some of these expenses have produced positive outcomes. But when the White House website ominously informs citizens that “due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House tours will be canceled,” it’s time to get real and pull back the curtain on the political puppet show in Washington.
If the feds have to cut federal “puppet expenditures” to keep the people’s house open, so be it.
Name That Party: Murtha-linked brothers charged by feds
March 28, 2013
PITTSBURGH (AP) — Two brothers who owned defense contracting businesses that benefited from earmarks obtained by the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha will plead guilty to charging the military $650,000 for parts that were never delivered and paying a kickback to another contractor, a defense attorney said.
Ronald and William Kuchera will waive their right to be indicted and plead guilty to charges filed late last week by federal prosecutors, said Ronald Kuchera's lawyer, Stanton Levenson. They're waiting only for U.S. Judge Kim Gibson in Johnstown to set a court date, Levenson said.
Murtha, the powerful Democrat who chaired the House Defense appropriations subcommittee, isn't mentioned in the twin four-page criminal informations charging the Kucheras with major fraud against the federal government and conspiracy via two companies they owned, Kuchera Defense Systems Inc. and Kuchera Industries Inc., of Windber.
But another businessman and his company previously linked to the late congressman in a lobbying-for-earmarks scheme are mentioned: Richard Ianieri and Coherent Systems International Inc.
Ianieri was sentenced by a federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., on Feb. 23, 2010 — 15 days after Murtha died following complications from gallbladder surgery.
Ianieri pleaded guilty to accepting a $200,000 kickback from Kuchera Defense Systems in return for steering $650,000 worth of work to Kuchera from an $8.2 million congressional earmark. Ianieri had testified months before his sentencing about "political and earmark pressure" to give Kuchera the business, though he never said who applied the pressure.
Ianieri faced up to 15 years in prison, but instead got five years' probation after agreeing to cooperate with government investigators about defense-related lobbying and contracts while he was chief executive of Coherent, a high-tech defense firm he founded.
Federal prosecutors in Florida said Ianieri got the earmarked contract after hiring a lobbying firm that employed Murtha's brother. At the time, Murtha's office refused to say whether the congressman sponsored the earmark.
Kuchera Defense Systems was suspended from bidding on government contracts in 2009 after overcharging the Navy and for other ethical violations. The company resolved those problems to get off the government's "blacklist" only to be put back on later that year once the charges against Ianieri surfaced.
FedSpending.org , a website that tracks government money, reported at the time that Kuchera Defense Systems and Coherent had been awarded more than $50 million apiece in defense work since 2000. Murtha, in an April 2006 news release, said Coherent and Kuchera Defense Systems were working "virtually as one company" on 14 contracts totaling $30 million.
According to the new charges filed March 21, the Kucheras conspired to defraud the government by inflating their costs, which were passed on to the government, and by charging Coherent — the prime contractor on the military's Ground Mobile Gateway System — for $650,000 worth of parts that were never delivered. The Ground Mobile Gateway System is a communications system used to coordinate air strikes requested by troops on the ground.
The brothers were also charged with filing false federal tax returns by taking deductions for nonallowable expenses, including "lobbying," a private airplane, "an out-of-state vehicle used for personal purposes, hunting trips and expenses for a game ranch."
William Kuchera, 57, of Summerhill, was president of the Kuchera firms when this happened, while Ronald, 51, of Johnstown, was secretary-treasurer. Each owned 50 percent of the companies they founded in 1985, prosecutors said.
Levenson said an agreement to plead guilty, which has yet to be filed, "speaks for itself," though he intends "to make the court aware of the high quality and usefulness of the military products the Kucheras consistently provided to the government, as well as the numerous contributions and charitable good works the Kucheras have made to their community."
Levenson said he's confident the court will then "fashion a sentence which will temper justice with mercy."
Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Ronald and William Kuchera will waive their right to be indicted and plead guilty to charges filed late last week by federal prosecutors, said Ronald Kuchera's lawyer, Stanton Levenson. They're waiting only for U.S. Judge Kim Gibson in Johnstown to set a court date, Levenson said.
Murtha, the powerful Democrat who chaired the House Defense appropriations subcommittee, isn't mentioned in the twin four-page criminal informations charging the Kucheras with major fraud against the federal government and conspiracy via two companies they owned, Kuchera Defense Systems Inc. and Kuchera Industries Inc., of Windber.
But another businessman and his company previously linked to the late congressman in a lobbying-for-earmarks scheme are mentioned: Richard Ianieri and Coherent Systems International Inc.
Ianieri was sentenced by a federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., on Feb. 23, 2010 — 15 days after Murtha died following complications from gallbladder surgery.
Ianieri pleaded guilty to accepting a $200,000 kickback from Kuchera Defense Systems in return for steering $650,000 worth of work to Kuchera from an $8.2 million congressional earmark. Ianieri had testified months before his sentencing about "political and earmark pressure" to give Kuchera the business, though he never said who applied the pressure.
Ianieri faced up to 15 years in prison, but instead got five years' probation after agreeing to cooperate with government investigators about defense-related lobbying and contracts while he was chief executive of Coherent, a high-tech defense firm he founded.
Federal prosecutors in Florida said Ianieri got the earmarked contract after hiring a lobbying firm that employed Murtha's brother. At the time, Murtha's office refused to say whether the congressman sponsored the earmark.
Kuchera Defense Systems was suspended from bidding on government contracts in 2009 after overcharging the Navy and for other ethical violations. The company resolved those problems to get off the government's "blacklist" only to be put back on later that year once the charges against Ianieri surfaced.
FedSpending.org , a website that tracks government money, reported at the time that Kuchera Defense Systems and Coherent had been awarded more than $50 million apiece in defense work since 2000. Murtha, in an April 2006 news release, said Coherent and Kuchera Defense Systems were working "virtually as one company" on 14 contracts totaling $30 million.
According to the new charges filed March 21, the Kucheras conspired to defraud the government by inflating their costs, which were passed on to the government, and by charging Coherent — the prime contractor on the military's Ground Mobile Gateway System — for $650,000 worth of parts that were never delivered. The Ground Mobile Gateway System is a communications system used to coordinate air strikes requested by troops on the ground.
The brothers were also charged with filing false federal tax returns by taking deductions for nonallowable expenses, including "lobbying," a private airplane, "an out-of-state vehicle used for personal purposes, hunting trips and expenses for a game ranch."
William Kuchera, 57, of Summerhill, was president of the Kuchera firms when this happened, while Ronald, 51, of Johnstown, was secretary-treasurer. Each owned 50 percent of the companies they founded in 1985, prosecutors said.
Levenson said an agreement to plead guilty, which has yet to be filed, "speaks for itself," though he intends "to make the court aware of the high quality and usefulness of the military products the Kucheras consistently provided to the government, as well as the numerous contributions and charitable good works the Kucheras have made to their community."
Levenson said he's confident the court will then "fashion a sentence which will temper justice with mercy."
Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
'We Need a New Structure for the Global System'
March 27, 2013
The planned trans-Atlantic free trade agreement between Europe and the US must be senstive to agricultural concerns, says former World Bank President Robert Zoellick in a SPIEGEL interview. If successful, it could set a global economic precedent, he predicts.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Zoellick, many Europeans thought Europe had the worst behind it in terms of the euro crisis, yet the crisis in Cyprus has triggered new anxiety.
Zoellick: That is hardly surprising. Notable economists point out that when you have a downturn caused by a financial crisis, the recoveries are very long and on average take 10 years. So, by that measure, we are about halfway through.
SPIEGEL: Have European crisis managers made any tangible progress?
Zoellick: The steps that Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, took last August had a stabilizing effect on the financial markets, but the monetary policy can only buy time. It does not deal with the fundamentals. The real question is about politics as much as it is about pure economics, and when you look at election results in Greece, Italy, Spain or the banking crisis in Cyprus, there is the question about whether these countries can persevere with their rescue efforts. My sense is that the German public will continue to support their euro-zone neighbors as long as they continue to try to make reforms. But if the others quit trying, German public support will drop.
SPIEGEL: But we are seeing populist sentiments in Germany, the formation of an anti-Europe party being one of the more visible examples. Many German citizens are simply fed up with having to bail out other European Union member states.
Zoellick: I believe that where the Germans are correct is that countries have to undertake structural reforms of their budget and their competitiveness. But there is often a gap between the time reform actions are taken and the benefits. That is where Draghi took important action by showing that he would be willing to support the bonds of troubled member states as they roll over the debt. One of the other challenges is that in Germany you do not have the same sense of crisis that you do elsewhere in Europe.
SPIEGEL: Yet Chancellor Angela Merkel could be voted out of office in September.
Zoellick: My view of governance is that the sole purpose is not to be re-elected. You are there to do things. Sometimes you have to take unpopular steps. Actually, Chancellor Merkel has shown leadership and also remained popular.
SPIEGEL: That makes her an exception among her European counterparts.
Zoellick: I think it is also a question for the European system. I recall the age of Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterrand, when you also had Jacques Delors as influential President of the European Commission. That helped Kohl, because Delors was very supportive of what Kohl was trying to do. In some respects, because the national governments have weakened some of these European posts, they now have weaker partners in Brussels.
SPIEGEL: You mean the current European Commission President José Manuel Barroso has too little influence?
Zoellick: You cannot just blame one person. The member states signal what sort of leaders they want there, so they got what they asked for.
SPIEGEL: This is particularly worrisome because more leadership is urgently needed in Europe. The traditional Franco-German alliance is eroding and Paris is weakened.
Zoellick: France could be the new sick man of Europe and lose its competitiveness. At the time of German unification, there were worries about Germany being the new power in Europe, but for 20 years, you had France, Britain or Italy that all had their own combination with Germany. Now it is quite clear that Germany is dominant. It does not want to be seen as dominating, though, so that is a challenge for German politics. But the reality is that Germany is the driver and engine of Europe.
SPIEGEL: Germany backs the creation of a trans-Atlantic free trade agreement between the EU and the US. But President Barack Obama felt so lukewarm about the project that a reference to it was reportedly included in his State of the Union address only at the very last minute.
Zoellick: If you look at President Obama's actions on trade in his first term, it was not a priority. It took him a long time to simply pass three free trade agreements that he inherited with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. When he came into office, Obama's trade representative said he did not want to have "deal fever." He accused his predecessors, including me, of wanting to do too many things.
SPIEGEL: How could Obama show some fresh resolve?
Zoellick: One important signal would be his choice of a new US trade representative. There are some candidates who are more prone to intellectualize and some more prone to actually get a deal done. And it is not just a matter of the trade representative and his staff. They have to be supported by the President.
SPIEGEL: What are the potential pitfalls of a free trade agreement?
Zoellick: The farm community in the United States is important in trade politics, because we have two senators per state, and we have a lot of farm states. And the American farm community has told me how frustrated they have become with the Europeans. According to them, the US negotiated to open up the European beef market, but then it was blocked by European concerns about hormones. The US negotiated to open up the poultry market, and that was blocked by debates about chickens disinfected with chlorine. The US negotiated to open up the grains market, and then his was blocked by discussions about genetic engineering.
SPIEGEL: Is it just up to the Europeans to adjust, though? Many EU concerns about US food standards are well justified -- and some American markets have been closed off as well.
Zoellick: I know these are sensitive issues, so I am not trying to pick sides. I am just saying that this agreement will have to do something on agriculture if you are going to get the support of the American farm community.
SPIEGEL: Tariffs between the US and the EU are already quite low. Real progress in trade can only be made if regulatory issues are addressed, too.
Zoellick: Regulatory issues are way more important, but they are harder to achieve because you move beyond the traditional ministries that make trade decisions to regulatory authorities, and a lot of the regulatory authorities are sensitive to their prerogatives. They think, "We are doing it the right way, and why should we change?"
SPIEGEL: You sound pessimistic. Is there not an approach you can recommend from your experience as a former US trade representative?
Zoellick: Here is the way I would do it: It turns out the US negotiated a free trade agreement with South Korea. The EU then did a slight variation of that agreement with South Korea. So rather than start from scratch, I would compare the two agreements and find out where you have the differences, and then try to resolve the core differences.
SPIEGEL: But agriculture, the biggest issue in a trans-Atlantic agreement, is not as important in the agreement with South Korea.
Zoellick: True. I do not think you will be able to exclude agriculture in the discussions between the EU and the US. But looking at the approach with Korea could smooth the way for the trickier negotiations.
SPIEGEL: Why should Europe even want to team up with the US, which is mired in record public debt of more than $16 trillion?
Zoellick: About 5 years after the crisis, the United States has recovered the lost output from the recession. The euro zone by contrast has only recovered about 60 percent. So the US recovery, while not good enough, has been far better. The US has other pluses, such as the innovations in energy that are really transforming the cost of energy and will improve the American trade position. The demographics in the United States are better than they are in Europe, and they are better than they are in China and Japan. I do not mean to suggest that the US does not have problems, such as its fiscal problem which has not been properly addressed, but if you look at the world economy, I think the US is likely to come out of this ahead of Europe.
SPIEGEL: Does this mean that Europe needs America's help to retain its position in the world?
Zoellick: Just look at the numbers: In the past 5 years, two-thirds of global growth has come from developing and emerging countries. For 60 years, the world economy was guided by the US, Europe, and Japan. Today, Europe is preoccupied, Japan is struggling and the US has to get its act together. We need to create a new structure for the global system.
SPIEGEL: And all this can best be achieved by a closer trade partnership between Europe and the US?
Zoellick: This could set a precedent. An EU-US trade agreement, if completed, could be a great facilitator and set some good standards for the global economy. But both sides must stand together to achieve this.
Interview conducted by Gregor Peter Schmitz and Christoph Schult
Source: Spiegel
The planned trans-Atlantic free trade agreement between Europe and the US must be senstive to agricultural concerns, says former World Bank President Robert Zoellick in a SPIEGEL interview. If successful, it could set a global economic precedent, he predicts.
 |
| Robert Zoellick in 2012. Zoellick says the EU and US must work closely together to come up with a succesful trans-Atlantic free trade agreement. |
Zoellick: That is hardly surprising. Notable economists point out that when you have a downturn caused by a financial crisis, the recoveries are very long and on average take 10 years. So, by that measure, we are about halfway through.
SPIEGEL: Have European crisis managers made any tangible progress?
Zoellick: The steps that Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, took last August had a stabilizing effect on the financial markets, but the monetary policy can only buy time. It does not deal with the fundamentals. The real question is about politics as much as it is about pure economics, and when you look at election results in Greece, Italy, Spain or the banking crisis in Cyprus, there is the question about whether these countries can persevere with their rescue efforts. My sense is that the German public will continue to support their euro-zone neighbors as long as they continue to try to make reforms. But if the others quit trying, German public support will drop.
SPIEGEL: But we are seeing populist sentiments in Germany, the formation of an anti-Europe party being one of the more visible examples. Many German citizens are simply fed up with having to bail out other European Union member states.
Zoellick: I believe that where the Germans are correct is that countries have to undertake structural reforms of their budget and their competitiveness. But there is often a gap between the time reform actions are taken and the benefits. That is where Draghi took important action by showing that he would be willing to support the bonds of troubled member states as they roll over the debt. One of the other challenges is that in Germany you do not have the same sense of crisis that you do elsewhere in Europe.
SPIEGEL: Yet Chancellor Angela Merkel could be voted out of office in September.
Zoellick: My view of governance is that the sole purpose is not to be re-elected. You are there to do things. Sometimes you have to take unpopular steps. Actually, Chancellor Merkel has shown leadership and also remained popular.
SPIEGEL: That makes her an exception among her European counterparts.
Zoellick: I think it is also a question for the European system. I recall the age of Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterrand, when you also had Jacques Delors as influential President of the European Commission. That helped Kohl, because Delors was very supportive of what Kohl was trying to do. In some respects, because the national governments have weakened some of these European posts, they now have weaker partners in Brussels.
SPIEGEL: You mean the current European Commission President José Manuel Barroso has too little influence?
Zoellick: You cannot just blame one person. The member states signal what sort of leaders they want there, so they got what they asked for.
SPIEGEL: This is particularly worrisome because more leadership is urgently needed in Europe. The traditional Franco-German alliance is eroding and Paris is weakened.
Zoellick: France could be the new sick man of Europe and lose its competitiveness. At the time of German unification, there were worries about Germany being the new power in Europe, but for 20 years, you had France, Britain or Italy that all had their own combination with Germany. Now it is quite clear that Germany is dominant. It does not want to be seen as dominating, though, so that is a challenge for German politics. But the reality is that Germany is the driver and engine of Europe.
SPIEGEL: Germany backs the creation of a trans-Atlantic free trade agreement between the EU and the US. But President Barack Obama felt so lukewarm about the project that a reference to it was reportedly included in his State of the Union address only at the very last minute.
Zoellick: If you look at President Obama's actions on trade in his first term, it was not a priority. It took him a long time to simply pass three free trade agreements that he inherited with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. When he came into office, Obama's trade representative said he did not want to have "deal fever." He accused his predecessors, including me, of wanting to do too many things.
SPIEGEL: How could Obama show some fresh resolve?
Zoellick: One important signal would be his choice of a new US trade representative. There are some candidates who are more prone to intellectualize and some more prone to actually get a deal done. And it is not just a matter of the trade representative and his staff. They have to be supported by the President.
SPIEGEL: What are the potential pitfalls of a free trade agreement?
Zoellick: The farm community in the United States is important in trade politics, because we have two senators per state, and we have a lot of farm states. And the American farm community has told me how frustrated they have become with the Europeans. According to them, the US negotiated to open up the European beef market, but then it was blocked by European concerns about hormones. The US negotiated to open up the poultry market, and that was blocked by debates about chickens disinfected with chlorine. The US negotiated to open up the grains market, and then his was blocked by discussions about genetic engineering.
SPIEGEL: Is it just up to the Europeans to adjust, though? Many EU concerns about US food standards are well justified -- and some American markets have been closed off as well.
Zoellick: I know these are sensitive issues, so I am not trying to pick sides. I am just saying that this agreement will have to do something on agriculture if you are going to get the support of the American farm community.
SPIEGEL: Tariffs between the US and the EU are already quite low. Real progress in trade can only be made if regulatory issues are addressed, too.
Zoellick: Regulatory issues are way more important, but they are harder to achieve because you move beyond the traditional ministries that make trade decisions to regulatory authorities, and a lot of the regulatory authorities are sensitive to their prerogatives. They think, "We are doing it the right way, and why should we change?"
SPIEGEL: You sound pessimistic. Is there not an approach you can recommend from your experience as a former US trade representative?
Zoellick: Here is the way I would do it: It turns out the US negotiated a free trade agreement with South Korea. The EU then did a slight variation of that agreement with South Korea. So rather than start from scratch, I would compare the two agreements and find out where you have the differences, and then try to resolve the core differences.
SPIEGEL: But agriculture, the biggest issue in a trans-Atlantic agreement, is not as important in the agreement with South Korea.
Zoellick: True. I do not think you will be able to exclude agriculture in the discussions between the EU and the US. But looking at the approach with Korea could smooth the way for the trickier negotiations.
SPIEGEL: Why should Europe even want to team up with the US, which is mired in record public debt of more than $16 trillion?
Zoellick: About 5 years after the crisis, the United States has recovered the lost output from the recession. The euro zone by contrast has only recovered about 60 percent. So the US recovery, while not good enough, has been far better. The US has other pluses, such as the innovations in energy that are really transforming the cost of energy and will improve the American trade position. The demographics in the United States are better than they are in Europe, and they are better than they are in China and Japan. I do not mean to suggest that the US does not have problems, such as its fiscal problem which has not been properly addressed, but if you look at the world economy, I think the US is likely to come out of this ahead of Europe.
SPIEGEL: Does this mean that Europe needs America's help to retain its position in the world?
Zoellick: Just look at the numbers: In the past 5 years, two-thirds of global growth has come from developing and emerging countries. For 60 years, the world economy was guided by the US, Europe, and Japan. Today, Europe is preoccupied, Japan is struggling and the US has to get its act together. We need to create a new structure for the global system.
SPIEGEL: And all this can best be achieved by a closer trade partnership between Europe and the US?
Zoellick: This could set a precedent. An EU-US trade agreement, if completed, could be a great facilitator and set some good standards for the global economy. But both sides must stand together to achieve this.
Interview conducted by Gregor Peter Schmitz and Christoph Schult
Source: Spiegel
Facebook chief Zuckerberg 'tackling politics'
March 27, 2013
AFP - Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg is helping form a group to lobby for US political reform in areas such as education and immigration policy, according to US media reports spreading online.
The San Francisco Chronicle, Politico, and the Wall Street Journal were among outlets reporting on Tuesday that the 28-year-old co-founder of the world's leading social network was helping unite technology industry in a political action group.
News reports cited unnamed sources and Facebook would not comment.
The group, which had yet to be named, reportedly set a goal of raising about $50 million, with significant contributions already provided by Zuckerberg and other technology industry executives.
Silicon Valley's long crusade to break open doors to America for foreigners with key technology skills hinges on a political battle in Washington over broader immigration reform.
For more than a decade, the tech sector has been struggling to get more visas and green cards for immigrants with engineering, math or science skills.
Now, analysts say Republicans and Democrats appear to be looking at a comprehensive measure that deals with high-skilled workers and the millions of undocumented aliens.
Improving the ranks of studying science, math and engineering in US schools along with the caliber of courses are also issues dear to Silicon Valley, along with policies that encourage research and development to foster innovations.
Zuckerberg has demonstrated a previous penchant for politics. In January, Facebook confirmed that Zuckerberg intended to host a fundraiser for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie early this year.
The event at Zuckerberg's home in the California city of Palo Alto was to support the re-election bid of high-profile Republican Christie, who is seen as a possible future contender for US president.
Zuckerberg's relationship with Christie dates back to 2010, when the native of New York State made a $100 million grant to the troubled New Jersey public school system.
 |
| Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, pictured during a media event at Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, California, on March 7, 2013. Zuckerberg is helping form a group to lobb y for US political reform in areas such as education and immigration policy, according to US media reports spreading online on Tuesday. |
The San Francisco Chronicle, Politico, and the Wall Street Journal were among outlets reporting on Tuesday that the 28-year-old co-founder of the world's leading social network was helping unite technology industry in a political action group.
News reports cited unnamed sources and Facebook would not comment.
The group, which had yet to be named, reportedly set a goal of raising about $50 million, with significant contributions already provided by Zuckerberg and other technology industry executives.
Silicon Valley's long crusade to break open doors to America for foreigners with key technology skills hinges on a political battle in Washington over broader immigration reform.
For more than a decade, the tech sector has been struggling to get more visas and green cards for immigrants with engineering, math or science skills.
Now, analysts say Republicans and Democrats appear to be looking at a comprehensive measure that deals with high-skilled workers and the millions of undocumented aliens.
Improving the ranks of studying science, math and engineering in US schools along with the caliber of courses are also issues dear to Silicon Valley, along with policies that encourage research and development to foster innovations.
Zuckerberg has demonstrated a previous penchant for politics. In January, Facebook confirmed that Zuckerberg intended to host a fundraiser for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie early this year.
The event at Zuckerberg's home in the California city of Palo Alto was to support the re-election bid of high-profile Republican Christie, who is seen as a possible future contender for US president.
Zuckerberg's relationship with Christie dates back to 2010, when the native of New York State made a $100 million grant to the troubled New Jersey public school system.
Obama appoints first woman to lead Secret Service
March 27, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday appointed Julia A. Pierson as director of the Secret Service, making her the first woman to lead the scandal-hit agency which is best known for protecting the president, vice president and their families.
Obama said Pierson, a native of Florida, has "consistently exemplified" the spirit and dedication of the service's agents during her more than 30 years of experience with the Secret Service. She is currently Chief of Staff and previously served as Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Protective Operations and the Assistant Director of Human Resources and Training.
"Julia is eminently qualified to lead the agency that not only safeguards Americans at major events and secures our financial system, but also protects our leaders and our first families, including my own," the president said. "Julia has had an exemplary career, and I know these experiences will guide her as she takes on this new challenge to lead the impressive men and women of this important agency."
Pierson began her career as a police officer in Orlando in 1980 before joining the Secret Service as a Special Agent in Miami in 1983. She took on her first leadership role in 2000 when she served as Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Protective Operations until the following year, when she was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Administration and served in that position until 2005.
In 2005, Pierson was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Protective Operations until she became the Assistant Director of the Office of Human Resources and Training in 2006. In 2008 she was promoted to become Chief of Staff in the Office of the Director and continued to serve in that role until Tuesday's announcement.
On February 1, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan announced he would retire after leading the agency and its 3,200 agents for more than seven years. His last year was marked by a scandal after Secret Service agents were caught employing prostitutes in Colombia before Obama arrived for a visit.
"During the Colombia prostitution scandal, the Secret Service lost the trust of many Americans, and failed to live up to the high expectations placed on it," U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said Tuesday. "Ms. Pierson has a lot of work ahead of her to create a culture that respects the important job the agency is tasked with. I hope she succeeds in restoring lost credibility in the Secret Service."
Obama's appointment does not require Senate confirmation.
(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: sales@bnonews.com.)
 |
| Julia A. Oierson |
Obama said Pierson, a native of Florida, has "consistently exemplified" the spirit and dedication of the service's agents during her more than 30 years of experience with the Secret Service. She is currently Chief of Staff and previously served as Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Protective Operations and the Assistant Director of Human Resources and Training.
"Julia is eminently qualified to lead the agency that not only safeguards Americans at major events and secures our financial system, but also protects our leaders and our first families, including my own," the president said. "Julia has had an exemplary career, and I know these experiences will guide her as she takes on this new challenge to lead the impressive men and women of this important agency."
Pierson began her career as a police officer in Orlando in 1980 before joining the Secret Service as a Special Agent in Miami in 1983. She took on her first leadership role in 2000 when she served as Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Protective Operations until the following year, when she was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Administration and served in that position until 2005.
In 2005, Pierson was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Protective Operations until she became the Assistant Director of the Office of Human Resources and Training in 2006. In 2008 she was promoted to become Chief of Staff in the Office of the Director and continued to serve in that role until Tuesday's announcement.
On February 1, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan announced he would retire after leading the agency and its 3,200 agents for more than seven years. His last year was marked by a scandal after Secret Service agents were caught employing prostitutes in Colombia before Obama arrived for a visit.
"During the Colombia prostitution scandal, the Secret Service lost the trust of many Americans, and failed to live up to the high expectations placed on it," U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said Tuesday. "Ms. Pierson has a lot of work ahead of her to create a culture that respects the important job the agency is tasked with. I hope she succeeds in restoring lost credibility in the Secret Service."
Obama's appointment does not require Senate confirmation.
(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: sales@bnonews.com.)
Counseling Offered To Students Affected By "Pop-Tart" Gun
March 27, 2013
Retards! NOT the kids, the liberals in charge..
Retards! NOT the kids, the liberals in charge..
The color of darkness
March 27, 2013
Never before seen photographs show the liberation of Dachau, the first of the Nazis' concentration camps
By Sam Webb and Daniel Miller
Mail Online
PUBLISHED: 03:04 EST, 26 March 2013
UPDATED: 11:49 EST, 26 March 2013
Confused, exhausted and vulnerable, they may have somehow survived and are about to be free, but these chilling colour photographs show that for victims of the Nazis' concentration camps there seemed little to celebrate as the Allies arrived.
The never before seen images show the liberation of Dachau, the first of the thousands of concentration camps that sprang up across Germany after the Nazis swept into power.
Established in March 1933, just two months after Hitler became Chancellor, Dachau was built to house political prisoners and by the end of the year around 4,800 mainly communists, social democrats and union officials, had been incarcerated there.
Over the years that followed, the number of inmates was swelled as other 'undesirables', such as homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gypsies, criminals and of course Jews were sent there.
Dachau would become the prototype for the thousands of concentration camps that sprang up across Germany during the Nazi era. The camp layout and daily routine was widely copied. It was also a training centre for SS concentration camp guards.
Dachau was liberated by American troops on April 29, 1945. By that time over 200,000 people from all over Europe had been imprisoned there. An estimated 41,500 of these were murdered.
The new pictures were posted on the Vintage Everyday website, but little was known about when and where they were taken.
However after comparing the photographs with existing records, an expert was able to confirm the pictures were of Dachau.
He said: 'The prisoners appear quite relaxed and unregimented, as if they are just hanging about.
'French and Yugoslav flags can also be seen and it is highly unlikely the Nazis would have adorned their camp with the flags of other nations.
'Some of the men are wearing caps with stars on them, suggesting they are from Russia there are red and white badges for Poles.
'The pictures appear to be quite similar to others taken by the US forces who liberated the camp.'
Dachau, was one of several larger camps established by the SS including Oranienburg, Esterwegen, and a facility for women in Lichtenburg, Saxony.
In Berlin itself, the Columbia Haus facility held prisoners under investigation by the Gestapo (the German secret state police) until 1936.
The first concentration camps were set up in early 1933 and their numbers expanded rapidly after the Reichstag Fire.
In 1934 Hitler authorised SS leader, Heinrich Himmler, to formalise the administration of the concentration camps into a system.
Himmler chose SS Lieutenant General Theodor Eicke for this task as he had been the commandant of the SS concentration camp at Dachau since June 1933. Himmler appointed him Inspector of Concentration Camps, a new section of the SS.
While Dachau was not an extermination camp, such as Auschwitz, Treblinka or Sobibor - prisoners were still forced to live under the most appalling conditions and would face the prospect of death on a daily basis.
The expert added: 'One should not get the impression these were not as bad as the extermination camps. Hundreds of thousands of people died inside concentration camps.
'The prison guards could kill anybody they wanted. If they felt like it they would shoot you on sight. Inmates faced the imminent possibility of dying at any minute.
'Although people were shipped in to work they were still completely expendable.'
The organisation, structure, and practice developed at Dachau in 1933-1934 became the model for the Nazi concentration camp system as it expanded. Eicke issued regulations both for the duties of the guards and for treatment of the prisoners.
Among his early trainees at Dachau was Rudolf Höss, who later commanded the notorious Auschwitz concentration camp. It is not known who took the pictures, which offer a candid and insightful look at the murderous system's earliest victims.
A system of triangle badges was used to identify the inmates. Political prisoners wore a red triangle, criminals green, homosexuals pink and Jehovah’s Witnesses purple. Jewish prisoners were forced to wear an additional yellow Star of David under their classification triangle.
By the time the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939, unleashing World War II, there were six concentration camps in the so-called Greater German Reich: Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Flossenbürg, Mauthausen in Austria and Ravensbrück, the women's camp.
As the war raged the concentration camps increasingly became sites where the SS authorities could kill targeted groups of real or perceived enemies of Nazi Germany.
They also came to serve as holding centers for a growing pool of forced laborers deployed on construction projects, industrial sites, and, by 1942, in the production of armaments and weapons for the German war effort.
German authorities established camps all over Germany to handle the masses of people arrested as alleged subversives
Between 1939 and 1942 the Nazis were rounding up more and more prisoners in the camps, including those they deemed racially inferior, such as Roma gypsies and Jews.
Constructed gas chambers to efficiently murder people at several of the concentration camps. Gas chambers were constructed at Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz, and other camps. A gas chamber was constructed later at Dachau, but never used.
By the close of the Second World War there was a network of over 40,000 facilities in Germany and German-occupied territory.
An estimated six million Jews and millions more Poles, Russian soldiers, gypsies, homosexuals and other 'undesirables' lost their lives in the camps.
WATCH VIDEO: Colour footage shows the liberation of Dachau concentration camp
Never before seen photographs show the liberation of Dachau, the first of the Nazis' concentration camps
By Sam Webb and Daniel Miller
Mail Online
PUBLISHED: 03:04 EST, 26 March 2013
UPDATED: 11:49 EST, 26 March 2013
Confused, exhausted and vulnerable, they may have somehow survived and are about to be free, but these chilling colour photographs show that for victims of the Nazis' concentration camps there seemed little to celebrate as the Allies arrived.
The never before seen images show the liberation of Dachau, the first of the thousands of concentration camps that sprang up across Germany after the Nazis swept into power.
Established in March 1933, just two months after Hitler became Chancellor, Dachau was built to house political prisoners and by the end of the year around 4,800 mainly communists, social democrats and union officials, had been incarcerated there.
Over the years that followed, the number of inmates was swelled as other 'undesirables', such as homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gypsies, criminals and of course Jews were sent there.
 |
| Persecuted: These colour photos show the liberation of Dachau. The first of the thousands of concentration camps that sprang up across Germany after the Nazis rose to power |
 |
| 'Undesirables': When Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 he quickly incarcerated those he saw as a threat. As his power grew, so did the number of concentration camps, reaching 40,000 by the end of the war |
 |
| Shock and disbelief: Prisoners are seen milling around the grounds of Dachau after its liberation by American forces on April 29, 1945 |
Dachau would become the prototype for the thousands of concentration camps that sprang up across Germany during the Nazi era. The camp layout and daily routine was widely copied. It was also a training centre for SS concentration camp guards.
Dachau was liberated by American troops on April 29, 1945. By that time over 200,000 people from all over Europe had been imprisoned there. An estimated 41,500 of these were murdered.
The new pictures were posted on the Vintage Everyday website, but little was known about when and where they were taken.
However after comparing the photographs with existing records, an expert was able to confirm the pictures were of Dachau.
He said: 'The prisoners appear quite relaxed and unregimented, as if they are just hanging about.
'French and Yugoslav flags can also be seen and it is highly unlikely the Nazis would have adorned their camp with the flags of other nations.
'Some of the men are wearing caps with stars on them, suggesting they are from Russia there are red and white badges for Poles.
'The pictures appear to be quite similar to others taken by the US forces who liberated the camp.'
 |
| Dachau would become the prototype for the thousands of concentration camps that sprang up across Germany during the Nazi era. The camp layout and daily routine was widely copied. It was also a training centre for SS concentration camp guards. |
 |
| Some of the men are in uniform and those that aren't appear bedraggled and unkempt |
 |
| This image shows an exhausted prisoner asleep against a wall. The camps were a vital terror tool wielded by the SS and SA |
In Berlin itself, the Columbia Haus facility held prisoners under investigation by the Gestapo (the German secret state police) until 1936.
The first concentration camps were set up in early 1933 and their numbers expanded rapidly after the Reichstag Fire.
In 1934 Hitler authorised SS leader, Heinrich Himmler, to formalise the administration of the concentration camps into a system.
Himmler chose SS Lieutenant General Theodor Eicke for this task as he had been the commandant of the SS concentration camp at Dachau since June 1933. Himmler appointed him Inspector of Concentration Camps, a new section of the SS.
While Dachau was not an extermination camp, such as Auschwitz, Treblinka or Sobibor - prisoners were still forced to live under the most appalling conditions and would face the prospect of death on a daily basis.
The expert added: 'One should not get the impression these were not as bad as the extermination camps. Hundreds of thousands of people died inside concentration camps.
'The prison guards could kill anybody they wanted. If they felt like it they would shoot you on sight. Inmates faced the imminent possibility of dying at any minute.
'Although people were shipped in to work they were still completely expendable.'
 |
| German authorities established camps all over Germany to handle the masses of people arrested as alleged subversives |
 |
| Rations: Bread is doled out among the prisoners. Starvation was itself a weapon used on the inmates |
 |
| SS Lieutenant General Theodor Eicke was appointed to oversee the Concentration Camps by Himmler in 1933 |
Among his early trainees at Dachau was Rudolf Höss, who later commanded the notorious Auschwitz concentration camp. It is not known who took the pictures, which offer a candid and insightful look at the murderous system's earliest victims.
A system of triangle badges was used to identify the inmates. Political prisoners wore a red triangle, criminals green, homosexuals pink and Jehovah’s Witnesses purple. Jewish prisoners were forced to wear an additional yellow Star of David under their classification triangle.
By the time the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939, unleashing World War II, there were six concentration camps in the so-called Greater German Reich: Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Flossenbürg, Mauthausen in Austria and Ravensbrück, the women's camp.
As the war raged the concentration camps increasingly became sites where the SS authorities could kill targeted groups of real or perceived enemies of Nazi Germany.
They also came to serve as holding centers for a growing pool of forced laborers deployed on construction projects, industrial sites, and, by 1942, in the production of armaments and weapons for the German war effort.
German authorities established camps all over Germany to handle the masses of people arrested as alleged subversives
Between 1939 and 1942 the Nazis were rounding up more and more prisoners in the camps, including those they deemed racially inferior, such as Roma gypsies and Jews.
Constructed gas chambers to efficiently murder people at several of the concentration camps. Gas chambers were constructed at Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz, and other camps. A gas chamber was constructed later at Dachau, but never used.
By the close of the Second World War there was a network of over 40,000 facilities in Germany and German-occupied territory.
An estimated six million Jews and millions more Poles, Russian soldiers, gypsies, homosexuals and other 'undesirables' lost their lives in the camps.
 |
| Merciless: The dead are loaded onto a train for disposal |
 |
| Spartan: The austere accommodation the prisoners were forced to live in can be seen on the right, while the barbed wire fence can be seen on the left |
WATCH VIDEO: Colour footage shows the liberation of Dachau concentration camp
Benghazi survivors hiding in D.C. hospital?
March 27, 2013
(Forbes) - For more than six months since the September 11, 2012 attacks on America’s diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, the Obama administration has been unwilling to turn over the names or whereabouts of any survivors. They may be hiding plain sight.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has learned that “as many as seven Americans have been or are currently being treated,” at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C.—less than 11 miles from the U.S. Capitol. Rep. Wolf cited two independent confidential sources for his information.
And the number of survivors may be even larger than previously suspected. There may be more than 30 survivors, including State Department and CIA personnel as well as government contractors, according to a March 1, 2013 letter sent by Rep. Wolf and Rep. Jim Gerlach to Secretary of State John Kerry . As for those government contractors mentioned, they are believed to include former U.S Navy Seals and other former special-forces operators.
And it seems that the survivors have been told not to talk. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been in touch with the family members of Benghazi survivors, has said that the survivors have been “told to be quiet” by Obama administration officials. “The public needs to hear from people who were on the ground, their desperate situation. They need to understand from people who were there for months how bad it was getting and how frustrated they were that nobody would listen to them and provide aid.”
Responding to Sen. Lindsay‘s remarks, a White House spokesman denied that survivors or their families were told not to talk. He provided no information on when the survivors would be made available to congressional investigators or made available to the press.
Why are the survivors so important? As eyewitnesses, they are uniquely placed to tell the public about the deadliest attack on a State Department facility since the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, which claimed the lives of 224 people, including 12 Americans. The 2012 Benghazi attack also marks the first time since 1979 that a U.S. ambassador has been killed, when Iran-backed Islamist extremists killed the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.
The survivors could tell Congress, and the public, important new details. Libyan reports indicate that there were upwards of 100 attackers in Benghazi, that they were organized into machine-gun fire teams and mortar crews, and appeared to take orders from men wearing Afghan-style clothing. So far the Obama administration has provided few details about the attackers, their organization or their motivation.
Why does this matter? If these reports from Libyan sources are true, then the attack was a major al Qaeda operation. Indeed, the largest that the terror network has mounted outside the Afghan-Pakistan region in more than a decade. In short, an act of war — not a peaceful demonstration that went awry, as the Obama Administration initially said. This has led activists, bloggers and other critics of the president to ask: Did the president ignore an act of war in order to win the 2012 election?
If this suspicion is wrong, the survivors are uniquely placed to dispel this poisonous notion.
If, on the other hand, the attack was an act of war, then the President has a real responsibility to hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice. To date, none of the attackers have been killed or captured.
Indeed, the official investigation is moving with remarkable slowness. The FBI was granted a single 3-hour interview with one “person of interest” in Libya, according to Congressman Wolf. That same individual was interviewed by a New York Times correspondent weeks before the FBI got to him. It took the FBI weeks to visit the building complex where U.S. Ambassador Stevens died, when any evidence would have long since been spoiled. By contrast, local reporters were inside the complex walls within 24 hours of the deadly attack.
Nor have any State department or intelligence personnel been fired, demoted or transferred, although three State department officials did resign. “Six months later not a single American official has been held accountable or lost their job over the inadequate consulate security, intelligence failures, or the administration’s abysmal response during the terrorist attack,” Rep. Wolf said. What Wolf is saying is that no official appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate has been disciplined for the Benghazi atrocities, despite ample warnings in the spring and summer of 2012.
Wolf is calling for a “special select committee” to investigate the tragic events in Benghazi. President Obama should head off Rep. Wolf by making the Benghazi eyewitnesses available to Congress and the press as soon as possible–before a full-scale investigation consumes his second term and tarnishes his legacy.
 |
| A picture shows the damage inside the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi on September 13, 2012, following an attack on the building late on September 11 in which the US ambassador to Libya and three other US nationals were killed. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife) |
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has learned that “as many as seven Americans have been or are currently being treated,” at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C.—less than 11 miles from the U.S. Capitol. Rep. Wolf cited two independent confidential sources for his information.
And it seems that the survivors have been told not to talk. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been in touch with the family members of Benghazi survivors, has said that the survivors have been “told to be quiet” by Obama administration officials. “The public needs to hear from people who were on the ground, their desperate situation. They need to understand from people who were there for months how bad it was getting and how frustrated they were that nobody would listen to them and provide aid.”
Responding to Sen. Lindsay‘s remarks, a White House spokesman denied that survivors or their families were told not to talk. He provided no information on when the survivors would be made available to congressional investigators or made available to the press.
Why are the survivors so important? As eyewitnesses, they are uniquely placed to tell the public about the deadliest attack on a State Department facility since the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, which claimed the lives of 224 people, including 12 Americans. The 2012 Benghazi attack also marks the first time since 1979 that a U.S. ambassador has been killed, when Iran-backed Islamist extremists killed the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.
The survivors could tell Congress, and the public, important new details. Libyan reports indicate that there were upwards of 100 attackers in Benghazi, that they were organized into machine-gun fire teams and mortar crews, and appeared to take orders from men wearing Afghan-style clothing. So far the Obama administration has provided few details about the attackers, their organization or their motivation.
Why does this matter? If these reports from Libyan sources are true, then the attack was a major al Qaeda operation. Indeed, the largest that the terror network has mounted outside the Afghan-Pakistan region in more than a decade. In short, an act of war — not a peaceful demonstration that went awry, as the Obama Administration initially said. This has led activists, bloggers and other critics of the president to ask: Did the president ignore an act of war in order to win the 2012 election?
If this suspicion is wrong, the survivors are uniquely placed to dispel this poisonous notion.
If, on the other hand, the attack was an act of war, then the President has a real responsibility to hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice. To date, none of the attackers have been killed or captured.
Indeed, the official investigation is moving with remarkable slowness. The FBI was granted a single 3-hour interview with one “person of interest” in Libya, according to Congressman Wolf. That same individual was interviewed by a New York Times correspondent weeks before the FBI got to him. It took the FBI weeks to visit the building complex where U.S. Ambassador Stevens died, when any evidence would have long since been spoiled. By contrast, local reporters were inside the complex walls within 24 hours of the deadly attack.
Nor have any State department or intelligence personnel been fired, demoted or transferred, although three State department officials did resign. “Six months later not a single American official has been held accountable or lost their job over the inadequate consulate security, intelligence failures, or the administration’s abysmal response during the terrorist attack,” Rep. Wolf said. What Wolf is saying is that no official appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate has been disciplined for the Benghazi atrocities, despite ample warnings in the spring and summer of 2012.
Wolf is calling for a “special select committee” to investigate the tragic events in Benghazi. President Obama should head off Rep. Wolf by making the Benghazi eyewitnesses available to Congress and the press as soon as possible–before a full-scale investigation consumes his second term and tarnishes his legacy.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
State funded threesome advice for teens
March 26, 2013
State-funded Irish charity promoted sexual “threesomes” for teens as “a bit of fun”
by Kirsten Andersen
Lifesitenews
DUBLIN, March 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – An Irish sex-education group’s state funding is being called into question after lawmakers became aware of an article on the website SpunOut.ie offering advice about sexual threesomes to their teenage audience.
The Sunday Independent called attention to the article over the weekend, reprinting quotes from the piece that suggested threesomes were a way for teens to “inject serious passion into their bedroom shenanigans.”
According to the Independent, the group warned readers not to pick anyone for whom they have real feelings. “If you are in a relationship, but secretly have a thing for someone else, bringing them into a threesome could lead to serious hurt, so it’s best to save threesomes for a bit of fun,” the article advised.
The group revised the article over the weekend in response to public outcry and removed some of the controversial language. But the site still offers the group’s “Top Tips” for a “Safe and Enjoyable” threesome to teens.
At the top of the list? Always use contraception, especially condoms. “Do be aware that you’ll need to change condoms if you are switching partners during the threesome,” the group warns its young readers. “Otherwise you could end up with some pretty nasty infections.”
Deputy Michelle Mulherin told the Independent she found the group’s advice “incredibly regressive” and “very worrying.” She said she planned to address the matter with Health Minister James Reilly.
But SpunOut.ie spokesman Ian Power said that his group’s brand of graphic, thorough sex education is a necessity, and the earlier, the better.
“Young people are having sex whether the Sunday Independent or Deputy Michelle Mulherin like it or not,” he wrote in a statement on the group’s website. “Some of them are having sex with more than one person, and sometimes with more than one person at the one time.”
Added Power, “Research shows the average age at which teens start to engage in sexual activity is getting younger, particularly in urban areas. HSE data from 2006 (which is now seven years old) shows the average age at which a young person has sex for the first time is 17 (both male and female).”
“Education needs to begin earlier than the age of first sex,” said Power. “We do not promote threesomes, we arm young people with the facts about them.”
Health Minister Reilly told the Irish Examiner on Monday that his ministry would be reviewing the article and the SpunOut.ie website in the days to come. “From my personal point of view as a doctor, and also as a politician, I just think this is not the appropriate sort of information that the State should be putting out there,” Reilly said.
State-funded Irish charity promoted sexual “threesomes” for teens as “a bit of fun”
by Kirsten Andersen
Lifesitenews
DUBLIN, March 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – An Irish sex-education group’s state funding is being called into question after lawmakers became aware of an article on the website SpunOut.ie offering advice about sexual threesomes to their teenage audience.
 |
| Image from spinout page with offending article |
According to the Independent, the group warned readers not to pick anyone for whom they have real feelings. “If you are in a relationship, but secretly have a thing for someone else, bringing them into a threesome could lead to serious hurt, so it’s best to save threesomes for a bit of fun,” the article advised.
The group revised the article over the weekend in response to public outcry and removed some of the controversial language. But the site still offers the group’s “Top Tips” for a “Safe and Enjoyable” threesome to teens.
At the top of the list? Always use contraception, especially condoms. “Do be aware that you’ll need to change condoms if you are switching partners during the threesome,” the group warns its young readers. “Otherwise you could end up with some pretty nasty infections.”
Deputy Michelle Mulherin told the Independent she found the group’s advice “incredibly regressive” and “very worrying.” She said she planned to address the matter with Health Minister James Reilly.
But SpunOut.ie spokesman Ian Power said that his group’s brand of graphic, thorough sex education is a necessity, and the earlier, the better.
“Young people are having sex whether the Sunday Independent or Deputy Michelle Mulherin like it or not,” he wrote in a statement on the group’s website. “Some of them are having sex with more than one person, and sometimes with more than one person at the one time.”
Added Power, “Research shows the average age at which teens start to engage in sexual activity is getting younger, particularly in urban areas. HSE data from 2006 (which is now seven years old) shows the average age at which a young person has sex for the first time is 17 (both male and female).”
“Education needs to begin earlier than the age of first sex,” said Power. “We do not promote threesomes, we arm young people with the facts about them.”
Health Minister Reilly told the Irish Examiner on Monday that his ministry would be reviewing the article and the SpunOut.ie website in the days to come. “From my personal point of view as a doctor, and also as a politician, I just think this is not the appropriate sort of information that the State should be putting out there,” Reilly said.
SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
March 26, 2013
By David A. Patten
NewsMax
With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.
“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?
“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”
Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”
Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”
The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.
Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.
Story continues below the video.
Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.
“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”
Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.
“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”
If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”
Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”
Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.
Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.
“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.
“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By David A. Patten
NewsMax
With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.
“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?
“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”
Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”
Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”
The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.
Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.
Story continues below the video.
Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.
“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”
Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.
“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”
If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”
Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”
Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.
Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.
“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.
“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)