ONLY IN AMERICA: MORPHING WASHINGTON TO OBAMA

What you are about to watch in the video below is a visual summary of the history of our Chief Executives that could only happen in America. No other nation in history has provided for not only our peaceful transfer of power but the amazing variety of backgrounds and qualifications of our 44 Presidents. Enjoy this very good work and pass it along to the kids and grand kids in your families and your neighborhoods.

It presents complex concepts that should be part of their awareness and ongoing understanding. After all, we are all Americans regardless of our differences.

Sphere: Related Content

'LEDBETTER LAW' COLLATERAL DAMAGE

As the accompanying story notes, the very first bill signed into law by President Obama was the long anticipated 'equal pay' legislation known by the name of a woman wronged in the workplace long ago. Most certainly, no intellectually honest person will deny that equal work, when the person hired to do that work is fully qualified to be doing so, deserves equal pay. Obviously, gender should not be a factor in determining pay rates if the jobs being done are equivalent.

In that respect, this legislation has a point to make although it is something that should have been in place in Ledbetter's time. Making it the law of the land now is fine, if not too late. Most, not all, employers long ago abandoned paying employees based solely on gender and in most places in this country, equal pay for equal work has been the common practice. Still, it is OK to have it codified in the law.

Except for the unintended consequences that this high profile, stealth legislation brings on to American society. The damage to be wrought is not at all balanced by whatever lesser positive outcomes will be generated from now on. Ledbetter was ripped off in her time and she gains nothing from this new law other than satisfaction. She was not alone in her time and before. But this law tends to be more symbol than substance and it will most likely do harm. To that point:

1. This is a full out, boondoggle pay back to the 'corporate' parent of the Democrat party, The Trial Lawyers Association. The TLA is the largest special interest donor to Democrat pols across the board. Once in office, those same wholly owned Democrat "public servants" continually pass legislation favorable to the fiscal interests of the TLA membership. This law is a perfect example. As implied in the cartoon above, every Ledbetter related tort, attorney and client will be euphemistically referred to as "Sue". Many a lawyer and law firm will further enrich themselves while feeding off the carcass of this legislation. In reality, the 'Ledbetter Law' is much more about special interest influence in government than it is about fairness or equal pay.

2. Say for a moment you own a business. Regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, you work to generate a profit so that you can not only stay in business, but you can grow your business. Survival in the marketplace is your first and foremost priority. Along comes the 'Ledbetter Law'. What are your options going forward in order to avoid harmful and costly litigation? The easiest and most efficient is to hire fewer women or only hire women on the entry, minimum wage level. Doing so minimizes risk under this new law. It may not be nice or fair, but it is practical.

3. How about companies that already have men and women working in what a jury might decide are "equivalent" jobs, even if an employer can make the case that the jobs differ notably? What are the options if you are smart enough to know that you never want to get in front of a jury "of your peers" where a plaintiff attorney can sell fiction as easily as fact? There are two practical ways to go. Raise all lesser salaries so that everyone in similar jobs makes the same money or lower upper level pay rates so that the same outcome is achieved over time. If you are in business to make a profit, which makes more sense relative to the bottom line? Lower salaries of course. The problem is that when doing so a business is liable to lose it's good people. The 'Ledbetter Law' figuratively puts a gun to the head of business owners. That might work out OK in larger corporations but it just might put your local mom and pop out of business.

Politicians, of course, are out to look good, not think through the consequences of their actions. For them, it is all about money, votes and winning elections.

Where equal pay is denied on the basis of gender, or any other non workplace factor, employers should be taken to task. That kind of discrimination is deplorable. But the truth is, in the vast majority of American workplaces, that type of practice has vanished.

Now comes the 'Ledbetter Law'. It enriches lawyers while hurting women and small business. Unwise, in the extreme.


Obama signs first bill into law, on equal pay
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Declaring that ending pay disparity is not just a women's issue, President Barack Obama signed legislation Thursday that gives workers more time to take their pay discrimination cases to court.

Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama woman whose story was the impetus behind the new law, stood alongside Obama as he signed the first bill of his presidency.

Also in the East Room of the White House were labor, women's, civil rights advocates and members of Congress for whom the bill was a priority.

"Equal pay is by no means just a women's issue, it's a family issue," Obama said. "And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month's paycheck to simple and plain discrimination."

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision that denied Ledbetter an opportunity for redress.

Ledbetter, 70, has said she did not learn about the sizable discrepancy in pay between her and her male co-workers until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued, but the high court said in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.

The court said a person must file a discrimination claim within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than another doing the same job.

Under the new law, each new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for an additional 180 days. That was the interpretation before the Supreme Court was asked to step in.

First lady Michelle Obama held a separate reception with Ledbetter in the State Dining Room just down the red-carpeted hallway from the earlier event. "She knew unfairness when she saw it, and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do — plain and simple," Mrs. Obama said.
Ledbetter, who won't benefit from the legislation, said the richest reward is that the nation's daughters and granddaughters will have a better deal.

"That's what makes this fight worth fighting," Ledbetter said. "That's what made this fight one we had to win."

The Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the bill in the last session of Congress. But Obama strongly supported it — he talked often about Ledbetter during the presidential campaign — and the Democratic-controlled Congress made it a priority in its opening weeks.

Opponents contended the bill would gut the statute of limitations and benefit trial lawyers by encouraging lawsuits. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards.

Supporters said the bill does not change current law limiting back-pay awards to two years, so there would be no incentive to wait to file a claim.

Obama cited Census Bureau figures that show women still earn about 78 cents for every dollar men get for doing equivalent jobs, and it's even less for women of color. He said Ledbetter lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits.

The bill, which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.
___
On the Net:
Information on the bill, S.181, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sphere: Related Content

SOVIET LIKE FORCED UNIONIZATION

As the news story that follows details, rank and file union members across the country oppose legislation that would eliminate the traditional secret ballot process for workplace elections involving unionization as illustrated above. That's right, the people most directly impacted by this "Card Check" proposal are overwhelmingly against it.

As noted on a web site titled EmployeeFreedom.org, "The deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) strips workers of their right to a government-supervised, private-ballot vote and replaces it with a forced-unionization system, where workers must publicly declare their support for a union and publicly sign a binding contract without seeing the “fine print.” After 51% sign up, the remaining 49% of workers never get a choice."

In other words, this Democrat backed "Card Check" legislation pending in the House is all about squashing worker's rights to a secret ballot involving unionization choice at their place of work.

Employers do not want it, employees do not want it, union members do not want it and freedom loving, intellectually honest people everywhere do not want it. Which raises the question: Who the heck wants this communist inspired legislation?

Corrupt union bosses and their Democrat party tools, that's who. Union managers are the ones who determine the direction and amount of political donations to campaigns. They want to control the election process in America's workplaces so that they can solidify their power, prestige and political influence. They look to enrich themselves with union dues funded perks and benefits that allow for them to live more comfortable lives at the expense of the rank and file workers and their families.

Thus they collude with their primarily Democrat minions in Congress to lock out any and all competition in national political elections and gain in return the ability to rig and control unionization "elections" in companies.

The losers are firstly the workers who are robbed of their voting rights to begin with and their hard earned wages via mandatory dues thereafter. Secondly, the American public loses as well in that the price of goods and services increases accordingly so that it is not the businesses that have to bear the costs of union graft and political collusion. Instead, we all get to pay for the benefit of a very self-centered few.

Pay attention as the Democrat majority in Congress tramples the rights of working families in order to benefit one of their most important special interest groups: unions. Not workers mind you, but fat cat union bosses. In return, those same shameless union masters donate major amounts of cash, taken in the form of dues from hard working men and women, to the campaigns of their back scratching political allies, all the while driving as much of their membership as humanly possible to vote for those same low life pols.

And as the survey shows, most union members don't like it.


National Survey Shows Union Members Oppose Card Check

ARLINGTON, Va., PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An overwhelming majority of voters, including 74 percent of surveyed union households, polled in a new survey oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, known as "Card Check."

An even larger majority of all households surveyed - 86 percent - oppose the EFCA because it would eliminate the secret ballot process that workers now enjoy in union representation elections. These results, from a national survey released by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, are the latest topics for discussion by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) at www.bizcentral.org/american-trucking-association.

BizCentral.org is a blog community for business associations across various sectors. ATA encourages all reporters to check out our page on BizCentral.org and let us know how we are doing by leaving a comment. We welcome all BizCentral.org visitors to join the conversation and share their thoughts about the issues affecting our industry.

For more information about the Employee Free Choice Act, visit ATA's Web site.

The American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of other trucking groups, industry-related conferences and its 50 affiliated state trucking associations, ATA represents more than 37,000 members covering every type of motor carrier in the United States. www.truckline.com

SOURCE American Trucking Associations Copyright 2009 PR Newswire. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

JIHADISTS: 1 - OBAMA: 0

President Obama must, without a moment more of hesitation, distinguish between Muslims faithful to Islam and radical jihadists who hate the West and completely corrupt the Islamic faith. Bush rightly made that distinction clear. Obama is wrongly blurring those lines.

By limiting interrogation techniques, ordering the closure of Gitmo and granting his first television interview as president to a Middle Eastern news network, Obama wants to message Muslims that he, and thus we, are really wonderful 'live and let live' types. In doing so he believes he is changing the "image" of the United States in the Muslim world.

That is a pipe dream. Moderate Muslims have known all along that we are a peace loving people that respects the practice of any religion. They have also come to recognize the forces of evil in their own house who wage jihad in the name of Islam and, in their hate and depravity, kill literally tens of thousands of innocent Muslims. Jihadists wage war on their fellow believers if those faithful do not support the wholesale murder of all, including Muslim, non-jihadists.

That is why both Sunni and Shia turned against the jihad in Iraq. The wanton rape and slaughter of their families became more unbearable than their fear of death. They saw Al Qaeda and their ilk for what they were, power seeking beheading murderers. So most Iraqi Muslims joined forces with the American military during the Surge to put down the terrorist jihadists without further hesitation.

For reasons such as these, Muslims do not want and more importantly do not need a 'can't we all just get along' message from Obama. The president is living in a fairy tale world if, for even a nano second, he believes is actions in office to date have been helpful. In fact, the case can be made that the opposite is true.

Of all the groups out there in the world, the most likely to be encouraged by the interrogation/Gitmo/first interview actions of the president are the jihadists themselves. And when they are encouraged, you can bet that Muslim moderates, not to mention the entire non-Muslim world, are not.

One of the main tenants of jihad, openly expressed by Bin Laden himself, is that people will most certainly always go with the "strong horse" in any contest. He, of course, is correct. That is human nature, be it a strong horse for evil or a strong horse for good. That was how the scenario unfolded in Iraq.

In the power vacuum that followed the fall of Saddam, Al Qaeda and other terrorists stepped into the lurch to take up the "insurgency". For a significant time, the fighting went badly for our side. But the Surge strategy changed the dynamic, empowering local Iraqis to determine their own destiny. In the interim, the jihadists continued to slaughter Muslim innocents in pursuit of their selfish cause. Iraqis, in noting the obvious, turned on the jihadists and the rest is history.

The message out of Iraq to the worldwide jihad was clear. Muslims were, as anyone would in similar circumstances, going with the strong horse. It put terrorists on the defensive if not fully on the run. The tables had been turned in the fight against terrorism and the news was unequivocal: America was no longer a sitting target waiting to be hit but instead was on the offensive. As such, faithful Muslims around the globe who rejected out of hand the hijacking of their faith by jihadists, stood up and demonstrated with actions that spoke louder than words.

Obama, of course, does not want to acknowledge much of this reality for obvious political reasons. He believes that olive branch messages will calm the waters of jihad. Although he may have a reasonable understanding of the Islamic religion, he apparently knows bupkis about radical jihad.

What he has so far managed to accomplish is to send a signal to murderous terrorists that the strong horse may decide to no longer be so strong. It is the wrong message both for our sake as well as the sake of true Islamic faithful everywhere.

In the real world of jihad, fairy tales do not come true.


Obama chooses Arab network for first TV interview
By PAUL SCHEMM

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message to the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy."

The interview underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration.

The president expressed an intention to engage the Middle East immediately and his new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, was expected to arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel.

Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but "that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."

During his presidency, former President George W. Bush gave several interviews to Al-Arabiya but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.

Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world "based on mutual respect and mutual interest." He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives.

The new president said he felt it was important to "get engaged right away" in the Middle East and had directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties involved." His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.

"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.

The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that both Israel and the Palestinians have hard choices to make.

"I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said, calling for a Palestinian state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with neighboring countries.

Obama also said that recent statements and messages issued by the al-Qaida terror network suggest they do not know how to deal with his new approach.
"They seem nervous," he told the interviewer. "What that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt."

In his latest message on Jan. 14, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden said Obama had been left with a "heavy inheritance" of Bush's wars.

Shortly after the election, the network's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri used a demeaning racial term for a black American who does the bidding of whites to describe Obama.

The message suggested the terror network was worried Obama could undermine its rallying cry that the U.S. is an enemy oppressor.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sphere: Related Content

MARKETS, NOT GOVERNMENT, STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY

It is past time to tell the truth about the current "Stimulus" bill before the House. It is, for the most part, close to a one trillion dollar payoff to Democrat party constituencies. It will not serve to stimulate the economy. It will instead stimulate dependency on the part of entire segments of American society on the government generally and on the Democrat party in particular. That, of course, is what it is intended to accomplish. It is a political "Stimulus", not a resolution to an existing economic recession.

There are legitimate areas where government action can, in fact, help to stimulate our economy. Most of those are policy arenas, such as tax policy, trade policy and monetary policy. Since it is and always has been free markets that drive this economy, any and all government activity that encourages the free markets to take action is by far the most effective and immediately applicable use of government resources.

That can include some direct government spending as well. Defense spending, for example, is directly stimulative to the economy. That kind of spending generates jobs, profits and private sector investment that ripples through a number of existing industries and companies. But the kind of spending proposed in the current "Stimulus" proposal does little of that.

Worse, it may or may not accomplish such ends down the road, that is years down the road. We know from the lessons learned during the Depression relative to government spending, that it does almost nothing to get the economy back on track.

The current House bill, however, spends billions on Democrat constituencies.

The enviros gain huge cash benefits over time, some of which may or may not help our economy.

Teachers unions are handed billions via government school budgets to continue down the track of failure and decline in the quality of our public schools.

Colleges and universities, most with large endowments and wildly leftist faculties, are handed billions to open the floodgates to higher enrollments from the failed K-12 government schools so as to further indoctrinate already under educated young minds.

Much of the oft pointed to "infrastructure spending", again totaling billions of dollars, will be long delayed at best. At worst, much of it will be denied by the simultaneously funded enviros who will battle any construction project at literally every opportunity. Ultimately, whatever does get funded into actual work will accrue most of the taxpayer dollars spent on such projects into the hands of construction unions, which will be in complete control of such building activity. Count on every project being over budget and past deadline. It will, after all, be government managed.

If our Washington politicians were serious about supporting the economy and were they to set down their silly partisan agendas, their focus would be almost completely upon finding ways to stimulate our markets, which in fact are the foundation upon which our economy rests.

For example:

1. We know that the real estate market has imploded and it remains as flat as a pancake. We also know that residential and commercial real estate construction employs hundreds of thousands of workers, both directly and through all the real estate related businesses. Finding ways to ignite this market would provide an immediate and significant impact on our economic well being. Particular attention on properly, as opposed to what has been done to date, invigorating the financial markets would be paramount to such an effort.

2. Thoughtful trade policy, not based upon partisan agendas but based upon positive economic outcomes, would be very smart indeed. Read, for instance, this piece, "Preventable Job Cuts", about how the blockage, by Democrat pols, of a simple free trade agreement is now costing 20,000 American families their livelihoods. That translates into hard times for a lot of our fellow citizens. Why? Because of union driven political agendas that do nothing, in fact, to help foreign workers.

3. Most certainly, tax policy can grow or diminish our economic well being. The United States currently has one of the very top corporate tax rates of any industrialized nation. Many of our brain dead politicians believe that we must tax these evil entities of private enterprise. They have yet to even remotely understand that those taxes are simply passed through to you and me via the price of the goods or services that those same corporations provide.

Were Congress to cut the corporate tax rate by half, most companies would use those additional profits to grow their business, hire more employees, pay more gross dollars in taxes off the resulting increase in income and gain more investors in support of their increased value and dividend growth. Stock markets would rise accordingly and along with them, millions of individual and collective retirement accounts. Read more on the subject in this piece, "Corporate Tax Cuts Should Be Part Of The Stimulus".

4. As has long been the case, monetary policy plays a key role in economic well being. That is done primarily via interest rates and that card has pretty much been played out at this point in time. Monitoring such policy will be crucial as we move forward since our historically low lending rates can eventually invite runaway inflation.

On the other hand, simply printing more money in order to spend it in prodigious amounts, particularly on useless and unnecessary political payoffs, can lead to a currency deflation that can make a dollar worth a dime. The danger lies in agenda driven politicians who have not a clue about the lessons of history or the consequences of uninformed partisan activity.

Finally, the article that follows speaks generally to the reality of how government impacts the American economy and why politicians are so motivated to get government involved. The lessons of history are clear. Free markets, properly regulated, are the engine that grows and drives our economic well being.

Government spending, on the other hand, has always and will once again prove largely to be a burden on economic growth.

A politically motivated "Stimulus" will not cure this recession. At best it will prolong it and, on the other hand, it could very well make it worse.

Reagan was correct: government is the problem.


'Stimulus' Plan Is Really About Enlarging Gov't
By THOMAS SOWELL

Everyone is talking about how much money the government is spending, but very little attention is being paid to where they are spending it or what they are buying with it.

The government is putting money into banks, even when the banks don't want it, in hopes that the banks will put it into circulation.

But the latest statistics show that banks are lending even less money now than they were before the government dumped all that cash on them.

Even if it had worked, putting cash into banks, in hopes that they would put it into circulation, seems a rather roundabout way of doing things, especially when the staggering sums of money involved are being justified as an "emergency" measure.

Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved.

Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell it that your house is on fire.

If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.

No matter how many times President Obama tells us that these "extraordinary times" call for "swift action," the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.

If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?

One important clue may be a recent statement by the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin.

Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.
That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly.

What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending?

They are buying what politicians are most interested in — power.

In the name of protecting the taxpayers' investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.

This administration and Congress are in a position to do what Franklin Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s — use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.

To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s.

We have the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.

Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Sphere: Related Content

THE PRESIDENT IS CLUELESS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

"These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.

These are the facts, and they are well-known to the American people. After all, there is nothing new about these warnings. Presidents have been sounding the alarm about energy dependence for decades."

This quote is taken from the following transcript of remarks made by President Obama this morning regarding energy and the environment.

Setting aside what is rapidly becoming the regular nuance of his remarks, to be addressed shortly, the dearth of intellectual honesty in this statement is simply appalling.

The idea of leaving climate change unchecked implies that human beings have the capacity to control climate on planet earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Humans have never, cannot now and will never be able to influence the natural cycle of climate. We have not that kind of power. It would require that we be more powerful than the sun, the wind, the ocean currents and the earth's volcanoes, just two name a few of the more notable influences on our weather. Sorry to disappoint, but even Obama is not that overwhelming.

Regarding nuance, note that he states that climate change "COULD" result in the various catastrophes listed. Of course it could since it has already done so in past planetary eras. But than again, if it could, it also couldn't.

He goes on to state, "These are the facts,...", raising the question: what are the facts? That climate change "could" lead to natural catastrophe? That is hardly a fact. It is more like a guesstimate. Here is a fact: climate on planet earth will change, as it always has, and we humans will have zero control over the direction or timing of that change.

Since Obama is no fool, we must assume he is raising this issue in order to manipulate public opinion toward the political outcomes that he seeks. He is attempting to manipulate uninformed, thoughtless public opinion to his own ends.

The nuance affords him the necessary public cover should climate science blow up in his face, a process now in play. Note how he places his comment about Presidents warning about energy for decades, which is true, in a position to appear as if it supports the argument that Presidents have been warning about climate change for decades, which in not true. Such is nothing more than exerting shrewed and devious influence on public opinion for his own advantage, not for the greater good.

Were anyone to pay attention to the actual pending climate related crisis that people face around the world, they would see that our greatest threat and challenge is water, not weather. As the population of the planet grows and the demand for food increases, the fundamental need we have for more water resources explodes. All the while, the naturally produced supply of water remains basically the same. It is a formula for the ultimate doomsday scenario.

One need not be a rocket scientist, or a partisan agenda driven President, to see that handwriting on the wall. It reads water, not weather.


Obama remarks today on energy, environment
CQ Transcriptions, LLC Copyright 2009

The following is a transcript of today’s announcement by President Barack Obama regarding his plan for energy and how it relates to the environment:
Before I begin today’s announcement, I want to say a few words about the deepening economic crisis that we’ve inherited and the need for urgent action.
Over the last few days, we’ve learned that Microsoft, Intel, United Airlines, Home Depot, Sprint Nextel and Caterpillar are each cutting thousands of jobs.
These are not just numbers on a page. As with the millions of jobs lost in 2008, these are working men and women whose families have been disrupted and whose dreams have been put on hold.

We owe it to each of them and to every single American to act with a sense of urgency and common purpose. We can’t afford distractions and we cannot afford delays.

And that is why I look forward to signing an American recovery and reinvestment plan that will put millions of Americans to work and lay the foundation for stable growth that our economy needs and that our people demand.

These are extraordinary times, and it calls for swift and extraordinary action.
At a time of such great challenge for America, no single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy.

America’s dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation, and sets back our ability to compete.

These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.

These are the facts, and they are well-known to the American people. After all, there is nothing new about these warnings. Presidents have been sounding the alarm about energy dependence for decades.

President Nixon promised to make our energy — our nation energy independent by the end of the 1970s. When he spoke, we imported about a third of our oil, and we now import more than half.

Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve chosen delay over decisive action. Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results and our leaders raise their voices each time there’s a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump.

Now America has arrived at a crossroads. Embedded in American soil, in the wind and the sun, we have the resources to change. Our scientists, businesses and workers have the capacity to move us forward.

It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence. And for the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change.

It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.
And we hold no illusion about the task that lies ahead. I cannot promise a quick fix. No single technology or set of regulations will get the job done.

But we will commit ourselves to steady, focused, pragmatic pursuit of an America that is freed from our energy dependence and empowered by a new energy economy that puts millions of our citizens to work.

Today I’m announcing the first steps on our journey toward energy independence, as we develop new energy, set new fuel efficiency standards and address greenhouse gas emissions.

Each step begins to move us in a new direction, while giving us the tools that we need to change.

First we must take bold action to create a new American energy economy that creates millions of jobs for our people. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan before Congress places a down payment on this economy.
It will put 460,000 Americans to work with clean energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years. It will lay down 3,000 miles of transmission lines to deliver this energy to every corner of our country. It will save taxpayers $2 billion a year by making 75 percent of federal buildings more efficient. And it’ll save working families hundreds of dollars on their energy bills by weatherizing 2 million homes.
This is the boost that our economy needs and the new beginning that our future demands.

By passing the bill, Congress can act where Washington has failed to act over and over again for 30 years. We need more than the same old empty promises. We need to show that this time it will be different. This is the time that Americans must come together on behalf of our common prosperity and security.

Second, we must ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here in the United States of America.

Increasing fuel efficiency in our cars and trucks is one of the most important steps that we can take to break our cycle of dependence on foreign oil. It will also help spark the innovation needed to ensure that our auto industry keeps pace with competitors around the world.

We will start by implementing new standards for model year 2011, so that we use less oil and families have access to cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks.
This rule will be a down payment on a broader and sustained effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Congress has passed legislation to increase standards to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency for our cars and trucks could save over 2 million barrels of oil every day: nearly the amount of oil that we import from the Persian Gulf.

Going forward, my administration will work on a bipartisan basis in Washington and with industry partners across the country to forge a comprehensive approach that makes our economy stronger and our nation more secure.

Third, the federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st-century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead.

But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry.

The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts; we will be guided by them. We cannot afford to pass the buck or push the burden onto the states.

And that’s why I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on the oil that endangers our security, our economy and our planet.

As we move forward, we will fully take into account the unique challenges facing the American auto industry and the taxpayer dollars that now support it. And let me be clear: Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry; it is to help America’s automakers prepare for the future.

This commitment must extend beyond the short-term assistance for businesses and workers. We must help them thrive by building the cars of tomorrow and galvanizing a dynamic and viable industry for decades to come.

Finally, we will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead. To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition. I’ve made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world. That’s how we will deny leverage to dictators and dollars to terrorists, and that’s how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.

It is time for America to lead because this moment of peril must be turned into one of progress.

If we take action, we can create new industries and revive old ones, we can open new factories and power new farms, we can lower costs and revive our economy. We can do that and we must do that.

There’s much work to be done; there is much further for us to go. But I want to be clear from the beginning of this administration that we have made our choice: America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes and a warming planet.

We will not be put off from action because action is hard.

Now is the time to make the tough choices. Now is the time to meet the challenge at this crossroad of history by choosing a future that is safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable.

Those are my priorities, and they’re reflected in the executive orders that I’m about to sign.

Thank you so much for being here.

Sphere: Related Content

INTERROGATING ENEMY COMBATANTS

The accompanying article celebrates the 'end of the Bush war on terror' that has come about as a direct result of the elimination of several of the interrogation techniques used during the war on terrorism. Although basically a bash Bush piece, it raises important issues to consider as we proceed with the War against Terrorism.

President Obama has dictated that going forward, the only such techniques to be utilized are those allowed by the Army Field Manual. In a high profile move intended to mollify his far left constituency, Obama is indicating that some methods used by the CIA in recent years can no longer be employed.

My best guess, this is pure political window dressing.

Let's recognize some hard realities right up front. The United States does not torture enemy combatants in the manner that was the case with, say, the North Vietnamese treatment of captured Americans. Or the Japanese with captured Americans during the Second World War. Or as was the case with the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein with both foreign and domestic prisoners. Or as is the case with the Iranians today, again with both foreign and domestic prisoners. America has never sanctioned that kind of brutal physical torture and murder.

As to water boarding, it is time to get a grip on reality. Once that technique was exposed as public information, it went away as a useful means of interrogation. It is hard to imagine anyone in the civilized world who is not aware of the fact that a prisoner does not drown and will emerge from being water boarded basically no worse for the wear physically. In other words, it is a waste of time to attempt to use it since it will not generate any worthwhile results. It has been rendered totally useless.

Obama is quoted in the following article from his inaugural address where he stated, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals". A nice theory indeed but basically impractical in the ongoing fight against jihad. More notably, it is a theory not put into practice by any of his predcessors who were faced with the prospect of the destruction of our way of life, as is the case with the fight we are in today.

We know the examples from history of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and FDR suspending the rights of both Americans of German ancestry and especially Americans of Japanese ancestry, among other actions both took. If given a circumstance where the defense of the letter of the Constitution would cost the lives of millions of Americans, the saftey and well being of the public comes first. Lincoln and FDR, arguably two of our better Presidents of all time, understood and practiced that concept. A Constitution that survived longer than the nation it was supposed to protect, would become a valueless document of no significance or importance thereafter.

President Obama is a smart man who knows that should any action of his put the nation at risk, an attack on the homeland that killed Americans would effectively end his Presidency and relegate his reputation to the outhouse of history.

Most certainly, leaders of our intelligence community have told him that he cannot allow for the emasculation of our intelligence professionals relative to their interrogation activities with enemy combatants. Obama knows that were he to fully and completely tie their hands, they will leave the service of the United States and our ability to gather intelligence would be permanently degraded, to our and especially his peril.

Thus there is a nuanced difference between the public declarations about "torture" and the behind the scenes reality of interrogation methods that are cleared to be utilized. Even the article below states that what Obama has eliminated are, "...the most controversial tools used by his predecessor...". Read between the lines. Controversial does not include all and may actually mean only a few.

Liberals like to believe all this will enhace our image in the international community. The truth is that even our allies want us to continue to gather intelligence in an effective and useful manner with the exception of some techniques such as the now abandoned water boarding. More to the point, our allies use the same techniques themselves and, the far left excepted, they do not think less of us for doing the same.

It is true that physical torture will often lead to the victim telling you whatever it is they think you want to hear, all in an effort to stop the pain. That is why physical torture is normally of little practical value.

Psychological interrogation techniques, on the other hand, have generated actionable intelligence. Things like sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation and prolonged interrogation sessions have led to both accidental and voluntary disclosure of valuable information that has allowed preemtory defensive action to be taken to prevent attack on both ourselves and our allies.

Given that our jihadist enemies are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life, the use of psychological interrogation that generate actual results without causing physical pain in the process is a reasonable trade off in preventing widespread death and disaster. Most notably, there are no workable alternatives.

Being forced by a brutal and evil jihad being waged against us to temporarily suspend a small aspect of our Constitution in order to effectively protect and defend innocent men, women and children is a reasonalbe option during a time of war. The perfect cannot be allowed to stand in the way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Once jihad is defeated, American can and will return to the path to perfection. In the meantime we must do what works effectively.

Lincoln and FDR would agree. Obama would be wise to heed their example.



Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End
By Dana Priest

Washington Post Staff Writer

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation's most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat.

The CIA, which had taken the lead on counterterrorism operations worldwide, asked intelligence contacts around the globe to help its teams of covert operatives and clandestine military units identify, kill or capture terrorism suspects. They set up their first interrogation center in a compound walled off by black canvas at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and more at tiny bases throughout that country, where detainees could be questioned outside military rules and the protocols of the Geneva Conventions, which lay out the standards for treatment of prisoners of war.

As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency's leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Over time, a tiny circle of federal employees outside these teams got access to some of the reports of interrogations. Some were pleased by the new aggressiveness. Others were horrified. They began to push back gingerly, as did an even smaller number of congressional officials briefed on the reports.

Eventually their worries reached a handful of reporters trying to confirm rumors of people who seemed to have disappeared: a Pakistani microbiologist spirited away in the dead of night in Indonesia. An Afghan prisoner frozen to death at a base code-named the Salt Pit. A German citizen who did not get back on his bus at a border crossing in Macedonia.

Front companies and fictitious people were used to hide a system of aircraft that carried terrorism suspects to "undisclosed locations" and to third countries under a little-known practice called rendition.

Unlike the federal employees, who could go to jail for disclosing the classified program, the reporters and their news outlets were protected by the Constitution -- but not from government pressure. Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss and, later, Bush summoned top editors of The Washington Post to press their case against disclosing the existence of the secret prison network.

The published reports in The Post and elsewhere earned the news media sharp recriminations from the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress and the public. Government leak investigations were launched. Bush administration officials argued that such methods and operations were necessary to effectively thwart terrorism, noting to this day that there have been no major attacks since 2001.

If there were dissenters back then, they were largely silent.

But in Europe, the reports set off a firestorm of criticism and government investigations in nearly every capital. Washington was pressured to move prisoners out of the secret jails. U.S. government officials scattered throughout the national security and foreign policy agencies scrambled to learn more about operations they knew little about. A growing chorus within the CIA and the State Department began to question how long the secret system of detention and interrogation could survive, and drew up plans for an alternative.

By then, the color-coded terrorist alerts had ended. Police disappeared from roadblocks around the Capitol. Washington the fortress drew millions of visitors again. Some Democratic members of Congress replaced the "war on terror" phraseology with language indicating vigilance and persistence, but not unending combat and military-only options.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Bush announced the transfer of 14 "high-value detainees" from secret prisons to Guantanamo. He suspended the CIA program, but defended its utility and reserved the right to reopen it. The secret was officially out.

Over the next 2 1/2 years, as Democrats gained power in Congress, as the violence in Iraq sapped public support for the president and as the fear of another terrorist attack receded, the debate over secret prisons, renditions and harsh interrogations grew louder. Presidential candidates felt comfortable to include these sensitive subjects in the debate on the efficiency of Bush's war against terrorists, and even on the notion that it was still a war.

During his campaign and again in his inaugural address Tuesday, Obama used a different lexicon to describe operations to defeat terrorists. "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said. ". . . And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Sphere: Related Content

POST BUSH: IS ISRAEL ALONE?

As the accompanying article testifies, the Obama Administration has already set about changing the relationship between the United States and Israel. How far such change will go and the speed with which it shall pass remains to be seen.

It is safe to believe that Israel saw the potential for a shift in the alliance coming post November 4th. With their good friend Bush leaving office and the wholly unknown quantity Obama set to be the new President, Israeli leaders made decisions and took actions the timing of which are just too convenient to be coincidental.

The recently concluded IDF response to years of Hamas rocket attacks on innocent Israeli civilians was most certainly done in anticipation of the date upon which Obama would assume office. What most appears to reinforce this view is the fact that Israel declared victory along with a unilateral cease fire and troop withdrawal immediately prior to Bush leaving office. In other words, get in, get done and get out before, even if just slightly before, Obama became President. Clearly the intent was to take action under the Bush umbrella and stay out of reach of an unknown and unknowable Obama reaction once he was to be officially representing the United States.

Interestingly, this was convenient to Obama as well. He could hide behind the "We only have one President at a time" excuse for saying nothing and taking no positions, in spite of the fact that he had already weighed in on other foreign affairs matters. Given his campaign track record of being for Israel and for the enemies of Israel at the same time, in other words playing both sides of the road, it was in Israel's self interest to conduct their Gaza operations prior to the Obama inauguration. They understood that they did not know what they did not know and wisdom dictated that to gamble on Obama would be foolish.

All of which raises the question of what Israel can expect going forward from a President Obama. Unfortunately, that remains the great unknown. The early comments from Obama noted in the article below would indicate that there is one thing to be counted on for sure: that there will be a change in how Israel and the United States are allied heading into the immediate future. Most assuredly that is not good news for the Israelis and, in the worst case, it could be a devastating development.

Will Israel be left to, essentially, stand alone? Until and unless President Obama makes himself unequivocally clear relative to this alliance, the answer to that question is just not knowable. Candidate Obama could get away with speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this matter. President Obama cannot. Israeli actions speak louder than words. At this point in time, they seem unwilling to count on Obama and thus will await the signs as to the direction of American policy.

There are important facts in the record that should be kept in mind relative to how we proceed. That would include:

1. The territory where Israel is located was not, throughout the millennia, the exclusive and established property of any one group or tribe. Not Palestinian, not Israelite, not any of the nomads to move through or at times settle in that region. In other words, there is no clear claim to 'this land is mine'. The debate on this subject has gone on and will go on for all time.

2. The State of Israel was founded and placed where it now exists by the international community, led by the United Nations, following the Second World War. It was done to establish a homeland for Jews, a group that had been brutally persecuted during the war, in a geographic spot where Israelite tribes had long had a presence.

3. Arab states generally, and stateless terrorist organizations in particular, have denied the right of the State of Israel to exist from it's very beginning. In the process, both forces have repeatedly made attempts to eliminate Israel and the Jews from that part of the world.

4. From the founding of Israel, the United States has stood as a good and faithful ally. We have often stood as the protector of Israel in the Security Council of the UN. We have been willing to sell arms to Israel. We have, on many occasions, made an overt effort to be an honest broker of peace between Israel and her enemies. Further, there have been times when we have restrained Israelis from taking military action they themselves felt warranted.

Is all of this to be set aside? Will we fundamentally abandon Israel? Will Israel be left to stand alone? These are critical questions. The answers are, as yet, unclear.

As we await clarity, keep these two points in mind.

-If the Arab and Muslim countries that surround Israel, as well as stateless terrorists, were to set down their arms and live in peace with the Jews, Israel would fight no more.

-If Israel were to set down her arms and declare an unilateral end to fighting, the Jews would be slaughtered and the State of Israel would cease to exist on the face of the earth.

That is the reality of relations in the region. That is what the Obama Administration must fully and clearly address.


Obama urges Israel to open Gaza borders
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and Tobias Buck in Jerusalem

President Barack Obama urged Israel on Thursday to open its borders with Gaza.

The plea came in a speech that signalled the new US administration’s shift from Bush-era policy on the Middle East and the world as a whole. In a high-profile address on his second day in office, just hours after he signed an executive order to close the centre at Guantánamo Bay, Mr Obama proclaimed that the US would “actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” in the wake of this month’s Gaza war.

“The outline for a durable ceasefire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire: Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza: the US and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot re-arm,” the US president said.

“As part of a lasting ceasefire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating.”

Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, also announced the appointment of George Mitchell, as the US special envoy for the Arab-Israeli conflict and Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the United Nations, as representative for Afghanistan-Pakistan.

The moves signalled another shift from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which had resisted appointing a high-profile envoy for Middle East peace.

Although Condoleezza Rice, who finished her tenure as secretary of state this week, brokered a 2005 deal to allow open border crossings to Gaza, access was often shut down, with Israel citing security concerns and Hamas launching rocket attacks. The issue is set to test the authority of the new administration as it begins to grapple with the Middle East conflict.

Before Mr Obama gave his speech, an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit, a soldier held captive by Hamas since 2006.

“If the opening of the passages strengthens Hamas we will not do it,” the official said.

“We will make sure that all the [humanitarian] needs of the population will be met. But we will not be able to deal with Hamas on the other side. We will not do things that give legitimacy to Hamas.”

Under its ceasefire, Hamas has given Israel until Sunday to open the borders.
Much of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been destroyed during the three-week Israeli offensive and, without building materials and other supplies, there is little hope of rebuilding the water, sewage and power networks as well as private homes and key government buildings. But many foreign donors share Israel’s concerns that the reconstruction efforts should not be led by Hamas, or enhance the group’s legitimacy.

“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security and we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats,” Mr Obama said.

But in comments referring to the Gaza conflict he added: “I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who’ve faced suffocating poverty for far too long.”

He called on Arab governments to “act on” the promise of a Saudi-led 2002 Arab peace initiative by supporting the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas “taking steps towards normalising relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Sphere: Related Content

SOME AMERICANS FINALLY DISCOVER THEIR COUNTRY

One of the most injurious outcomes from the dark days of slavery in America has been the incredibly prolonged disconnect between black Americans on the one hand and a real time based understanding of the nature of Americans generally.

The most off putting statement that has been endlessly repeated during the just completed election and inauguration season has been, "I never thought that I would see a black President in my lifetime". People from teenagers to some very senior citizens, most all of them black Americans, have been reciting that since November 4th. The article that follows is a perfect example of this widespread phenomenon.

To actually believe such a thing is to be out of touch with our society, recent history, the perspective of most Americans and daily reality on the ground. To think that way, one must be fully race fixated while being unaware of the post racial nature of societal evolution. Racism continues to exist and it always will, have no doubt. But it has long since been relegated deep into the cellar of the collective American mind.

Certain parts of the accompanying piece are illustrative of this disconnect. For example the quote, "Our future can be whatever we want it to be". Most of the rest of the nation has been aware of that for a very long time. Obviously, so has the portion of black American that has gone on to greatness, high achievement, wealth, and fame in literally every endeavor of American life. To list the names would take a very long time and a great deal of space. No doubt Barack Obama's election is extremely high profile but it did not happen because he, or thousands of others of his racial background, did not believe that they could be whatever they wanted to be. They did and they are.

That has long been the case, as the newspaper clipping above predicted. MLK made that same prediction at about the same time as this one from Bobby Kennedy. A notable part of the intervening disconnect lies with a lack of understanding of the opportunities available to all Americans in recent decades, even though that was not generally the case in the time of MLK.

What other primarily white industrialized nation on planet earth has ever freely elected a black President? Not Europe, not Russia, not India, not in Asia, not Australia, etc., etc., etc. That can only happen here in America. The fact that it has happened is no surprise given the enduring founding values of this great experiment in government of, by and for the people.

This country long ago acknowledged the dark stain of slavery on it's soul. Even many of our Founding Fathers, be they slave owners or not, recognized the self-designed contradiction between freedom and slavery that existed at the birth of America. No other nation in history every fought a massive Civil War to cleanse itself of the sin of slavery, killing some 615,000 of it's own people in the process. Slavery existed in our history but the nation long ago moved on to better days.

Other fascinating quotes from this piece:

"I think our future looks great." The future in a place with political and economic freedom always has a bright future. The election of a President does not change that reality, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the office holder. In spite of the endless problems throughout our history, the future has always held promise. Not because of Presidents. In fact, often times in spite of them. Our future is not about Obama, it is about the will and spirit of the American people. Us. Always has been.

And, in the wisdom of our fathers (not our President), there is this quote from the article: "It's not where you come from, it's what comes from inside you".

Amen to that!


Neighbors stay glued to television screens
By TONY BURCHYNS/Times-Herald staff writer

Retired principal Geneva Watts has seen her country evolve from the racial hatred surrounding her brother's suspicious death in Atlanta nearly 40 years ago to Tuesday's historic inauguration of the first black president.
Part of her still can't believe how far the United States has come.

"This inauguration doesn't just impact African-Americans," said Watts, retired principal of Mare Island Elementary School and former Solano County Board of Education member. "It affects the world. Our future can be whatever we want it to be."

Two years after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Watts said, her younger brother, T.Y. Rogers Jr., who had worked with King, died in a car crash in Atlanta while organizing a peace march. His body looked beaten, and his shoes were off, Watts said, but white authorities officially called it an accident.
"At that time, people were afraid to say anything," Watts said of the incident. "We were all afraid."

Watts reflected on the experience Tuesday after joining about a dozen friends, neighbors and colleagues in watching President Barack Obama's inauguration on a 73-inch TV.

Vallejo school board member Hazel Wilson and her husband Mike, Vallejo High School's head football coach, hosted the viewing. Guests included various professionals and retirees. All were African-American.

"This is all very overwhelming," Wilson said about the swearing-in ceremony. "I think our future looks great."

"I am in a state of shock," Solano Community College board president A. Marie Young said aloud as the group watched Obama take the oath. "Is this really happening?"

Young, who grew up in fiercely segregated Virginia, where she couldn't try on clothes and shoes in department stores, or use a public bathroom in most places, later marveled at the progress she's seen in her lifetime.

"It was not too many years ago ... when they had signs everywhere saying 'colored' or 'whites only,' " said Young, who became the first African-American woman to teach an academic course at Solano Community College in 1970. "This is an awesome day."

Timothy Alexander White, a Bay Area radio personality and Vallejo resident who attended the party, said Obama's presidency represents far more than breaking the color barrier for the White House.

"I think he has expressed the kind of vision and hope of people all around the world, from all walks of life," White said of Obama. "He makes you feel that better things are possible."

In his inaugural address, Obama referred to great challenges facing the nation, involving the economy, health care, schools and energy policy. He said those challenges would not be met easily, but assured the nation they would be met.

Obama recognized "those who endured the lash of the whip" along with others who have shaped the nation.

For Ida Barbour of Benicia, who grew up in an era when her skin color meant she was not an equal, the milestone in Washington was something she thought she'd never experience.

"I grew up in Kentucky. ... I never thought I would see this day," said Barbour, who took the morning off to watch history. "To actually sit here and witness someone who looks like me become the leader of this nation, ... it's humbling."

It made Barbour recall her deceased father. "He led us to believe if you prepare yourself, you can do anything. It's not where you come from, it's what comes from inside you."

Contact Tony Burchyns at tburchyns@thnewsnet.com or 553-6831.

Sphere: Related Content

AL QAEDA, OBAMA & BIO TERROR

In his inaugural speech yesterday, President Obama clearly stated to terrorists that 'we will defeat you'. It was indeed a reassuring message that will hopefully be the emphasis throughout his administration.

In an interesting piece of timing, the story that follows regarding Al Qaeda made it into the media following a catastrophic failure of bio weapon experiments being conducted secretly in Algeria. It was a sobering reminder of the nature of the dangers we face in the world this very post inaugural day.

Although the Al Qaeda story speculated that plague was the bio weapon involved, there was no confirmation of that fact. There was some thought that it may have been a chemical weapon but most experts dismiss that since the scope of their use is limited to that of a tactical weapon as opposed to a weapon of large scale destruction.

Bio weapons present the largest threat to mass populations and both the plague and smallpox have the potential to be used with devastating results. For those with strong stomachs and the courage to face the facts, you can read about the effect of a smallpox epidemic at this link: The Demon in the Freezer. If nothing else, such reading will enlighten doubters to the seriousness of the kind of bio terrorism that Al Qaeda, as the news story below attests, intends to unleash upon innocent American men, women and children. Given even the slightest and most remote opportunity, they will do it. Imagine the members of your family suffering such a horrendous and painful death.

George W. Bush left office yesterday following seven successful years of protecting the homeland from such evil. Most certainly he, and now Obama, are and have been briefed about such threats on a daily basis. Now that Bush is gone, the ball is obviously in Obama's court. It is fully his responsibility to prevent Al Qaeda, as well as other terrorists, from unleashing this kind of hell on the American people. Yesterday he made his promise. Today and every day going forward on his watch he must perform at least as effectively as Bush.

Facing the forces of evil is no easy task. Employing any and all means to protect the homeland is part and parcel of the oath Obama has sworn to uphold. His past gratuitous comments, including a passing references in his address yesterday, regarding some of the tactics employed by Bush may come back to doom the Obama Presidency depending upon what protections now in place he chooses to remove. The mass slaughter of thousands of Americans will not be tolerated by the public. Hope will not prevent Al Qaeda from making every effort to unleash destruction upon American society. In our system of governance, the rule of law is a fundamental requirement. Among terrorists like Al Qaeda, the rule of law is just a tool to be used against us.

Barack Obama is an intelligent man. He sought and won the responsibilities associated with the Presidency. Many on the far left, at home and around the world, want to undo the multi-faceted, multi-level programs put in place by Bush that have protected the homeland. But Obama, a child of the left, knows better. All the good will and support he currently enjoys would be gone in an instant were there to be a successful bio terror attack on the United States.

We have a new President, but the threats we face are as serious as ever. An increase in presidential popularity around the world will do absolutely nothing to alter the intent of those forces bent on our destruction. Americans and their leaders must remain vigilant or face consequences too devastating to ponder. International chaos continues unabated in spite of the fact that there is a new resident in the White House.

Mr. Obama must live up to his promise. In the real world, there are no alternatives.


Al Qaeda bungles arms experiment
Eli Lake (Contact)

An al Qaeda affiliate in Algeria closed a base earlier this month after an experiment with unconventional weapons went awry, a senior U.S. intelligence official said Monday.

The official, who spoke on the condition he not be named because of the sensitive nature of the issue, said he could not confirm press reports that the accident killed at least 40 al Qaeda operatives, but he said the mishap led the militant group to shut down a base in the mountains of Tizi Ouzou province in eastern Algeria.

He said authorities in the first week of January intercepted an urgent communication between the leadership of al Qaeda in the Land of the Maghreb (AQIM) and al Qaeda's leadership in the tribal region of Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan. The communication suggested that an area sealed to prevent leakage of a biological or chemical substance had been breached, according to the official.

"We don't know if this is biological or chemical," the official said.

The story was first reported by the British tabloid the Sun, which said the al Qaeda operatives died after being infected with a strain of bubonic plague, the disease that killed a third of Europe's population in the 14th century. But the intelligence official dismissed that claim.

AQIM, according to U.S. intelligence estimates, maintains about a dozen bases in Algeria, where the group has waged a terrorist campaign against government forces and civilians. In 2006, the group claimed responsibility for an attack on foreign contractors. In 2007, the group said it bombed U.N. headquarters in Algiers, an attack that killed 41 people.

Al Qaeda is believed by U.S. and Western experts to have been pursuing biological weapons since at least the late 1990s. A 2005 report on unconventional weapons drafted by a commission led by former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat, and federal appeals court Judge Laurence Silberman concluded that al Qaeda's biological weapons program "was extensive, well organized and operated two years before the Sept. 11" terror attacks in the U.S.

Another report from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation, released in December, warned that "terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon."

British authorities in January 2003 arrested seven men they accused of producing a poison from castor beans known as ricin. British officials said one of the suspects had visited an al Qaeda training camp. In the investigation into the case, British authorities found an undated al Qaeda manual on assassinations with a recipe for making the poison.

The late leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, was suspected of developing ricin in northern Iraq. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred to the poison in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 that sought to lay the groundwork for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Roger Cressey, a former senior counter terrorism official at the National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told The Washington Times that al Qaeda has had an interest in acquiring a poisons capability since the late 1990s.

"This is something that al Qaeda still aspires to do, and the infrastructure to develop it does not have to be that sophisticated," he said.
Mr. Cressey added that he also is concerned about al Qaeda in the Land of the Maghreb, which refers to the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

"Al Qaeda in the Maghreb is probably the most operationally capable affiliate in the organization right now," he said

Sphere: Related Content

JANUARY 20, 2009

As the world watches, and have no doubt that friend and foe alike are paying very close attention, the United States of America performs as it always has and does. This is another historic day in the long list of historic days in the span of the more than two centuries that compose this greatest experiment of governance in all of human history.

Having observed 12 of the 55 Presidential inaugurals in American history it can safely be stated that this is among the most meaningful in my personal experience. It is on days like this one that we are reminded how very fortunate we all are to be Americans and to have the opportunity to experience these truly amazing events taking place within the most powerful, richest nation in the history of the world. There is no better place to be, there is no better time to be here.

This date carries significance beyond even many of the most notable inaugurations in our American heritage. It is worth noting at least a few reasons for the record such as those that follow.

1. If there is one undeniable fact about the Obama candidacy and electoral victory it is that the way he has accomplished this success is unprecedented. New standards have been set. New measures have been put into place. The old ways have been largely vanquished and new paths have been forged that lead to success. The Obama Presidency will most certainly be recognized as the first presidency of this new millennium because it is so new and distinct. The Obama way defeated the old politics of John McCain and the old methodologies of campaign Clinton. Future campaigns will mirror much of this reality.

2. Obama has emerged, so far, as a pragmatist. He has already rejected much of the higher profile portion of the agenda of his far left constituency and he has signaled a rejection out of hand of some of the long established doctrine of the far right. He seems to be much more of an independent than certainly most Democrat power brokers desire and more than most conservative Republican want to accept. It may be that Obama understands that the mass of Americans are moderates, whose hearts and minds lie at the middle of the political spectrum and who are not doctrine driven purists. How he will govern remains to be seen but for many, the signs to date show promise.

3. Barack Obama might possibly be the most timely and powerful role model every to ascend to the Office of the President. As a black man, he provides an example for everyone, but especially for minorities, that family, faith, education and determination are important and enduring values. Doing so at this point in history, when the social fabric of our inner cities is crumbling, cannot come at a more important time. If the bi-racial, fatherless, raised by the extended family Obama can become President, than the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is within the grasp of all Americans regardless of circumstance.

4. This day, maybe more than any other inaugural, further illustrates the great promise of America. Diversity is our strength. The flexibility required to change and adjust are openly on display. The strength of the will of the people as a meaningful means to self-govern remains in place and very powerfully expressed. Imperfect as is our form of governance, it is the best and most successful ever fashioned by the hand of man.

5. We are at a transformational point in our history. Much of what we have depended upon to achieve our past success no longer is viable. It is a new era, a new time. The election of Obama is a manifestation of our new and as yet unknowable future. Change is indeed upon us and there is an inevitable social, political and governmental shift taking place as we speak. We have been through these inevitable and unpredictable periods before in our history. The Civil War and it's aftermath come immediately to mind. Each and every time such epic events have occurred, the United States of America has emerged better for the experience. Much of what we have become accustomed to lies in ruin around us. Much of what we will become is as of yet unforeseen. But we will pass through this test as we always have primarily because of the foundational strength of our American values.

6. Let's not overlook the fact that today we walk our talk for all the world to see. We model freedom and liberty in action and in fact rather than by telling others how they should govern. It is on days such as this that we are the clear and unmistakable beacon of the value and the practical function of democracy. It is days like this one that inspire oppressed peoples everywhere to remold their destinies, either individually or collectively or both. An inauguration delivers a clear and unmistakable message to our fellow inhabitants of planet earth: our system works and between the forces of political freedom and free markets, the most formidable nation ever conceived continues to move forward in a fashion that is attractive to most of the rest of humanity.

The second inaugural address by Abraham Lincoln is included below as another reminder of our history and of our future. Lincoln was the President to abolish slavery, a first step in our long national journey that has led us to this day when we inaugurate our first black President. It serves as an example of the great promise of America as we go forward to meet the challenges of the future.

We are alive at the right time and in the right place. God bless this great nation and God speed to the 44th President of the United States.


Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1865

Weeks of wet weather preceding Lincoln's second inauguration had caused Pennsylvania Avenue to become a sea of mud and standing water. Thousands of spectators stood in thick mud at the Capitol grounds to hear the President. As he stood on the East Portico to take the executive oath, the completed Capitol dome over the President's head was a physical reminder of the resolve of his Administration throughout the years of civil war. Chief Justice Salmon Chase administered the oath of office. In little more than a month, the President would be assassinated.

Fellow-Countrymen:
AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Sphere: Related Content

RANGEL'S DRAFT NONSENSE: A FAR LEFT NIGHTMARE

Charles Rangel is among a rather large crowd of pols in Congress that need to be, and if voters had brains, would be permanently retired. Many of them, Rangel included, are retired on the job as it is. And the job that they do is testimony to how politicians feather their nests, rig their elections and give themselves raises and fabulous perks, all at the taxpayers expense without having earned any of their gains by actually serving the American people.

As the article that follows illustrates, Rangel is a man in pursuit of his own agenda and the heck with the welfare of the nation. Clearly, Charlie is a committed leftist if not something just short of a political radical. He is also under investigation as a tax cheat. Nice role model. Due to the fact that the voters of his district are clueless about virtually everything important, including their own well being, they will continue reelecting this guy long after he has assumed room temperature. Too bad for them and way unfortunate for the rest of us.

As a far left doctrine driven politician, Rangel tends to take radical positions regarding the politics of the country. For instance, he is a military veteran who is adamantly opposed to the Iraq war for purely partisan political reasons. Like most lefties, he so hates Bush that he sinks to the usual name calling, personally demeaning communication "skills" of most radicals.

So as a card carrying member of the far left of the political spectrum, imagine what the reaction must be among his fellow extremists to his ongoing proposal to reinstate the draft. We all know without even looking that the radical left has existed throughout time in total and complete opposition to a military draft. Yet here we find Rangel once again bringing up the subject that gets very little, if any support, from anywhere across the political spectrum. Can you imagine the sheer frustration among leftists, who have convinced themselves that they took over the reins of government power on November 4th, to have one of their own engaged in hot pursuit of an issue they loath to the depths of their doctrine driven souls.

So why does Charlie the radical regularly attempt to take up a cause that has zero chance of any support, either inside or outside of politics? Why fly in the face of his radical credentials? Why promote the draft when the military managed to once again meet it's recruiting goals in 2008? Democrats don't want a draft. Obama doesn't want a draft. The military doesn't want a draft. The American public don't want a draft. What is Charlie thinking?

Take a wild guess. What do most politicians do, most of the time? Call attention to themselves of course. Not to mention Rangel has the additional motivation of deflecting eyes and ears away from the ongoing investigation into his tax affairs. The more attention he attracts, the more important he becomes, at least in his own mind. Let's be honest, this guy could not be elected to any public office most anywhere else in the country but if he can grab the attention of the New York media, he figures to stay in Congress until they have to carry him out to the morgue.

News flash to Rangel: there will be no draft in the foreseeable future and should it ever be reinstated, it will only be out of desperate necessity and not due to your pathetic efforts at self-aggrandizement.

Sorry Charlie!


Rangel to reintroduce military draft measure
By Susan Crabtree

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”

Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.

In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.

Reintroducing the military draft bill, which would attract media attention, will be trickier for Rangel in 2009 than it was a couple years ago because the Ways and Means Committee chairman is now under investigation by the House ethics committee.

Democratic leaders have given Rangel a leading role in helping craft the new economic stimulus bill despite an array of ethics allegations that have surfaced over the last several months. The charges have ranged from failing to report rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic to an alleged quid pro quo involving a legislative favor for a donor to an education center bearing Rangel’s name.

Always eager to be at the heart of the action, Rangel clearly is relishing discussing the high-profile stimulus package. During the first days of the 111th Congress — and for the first time in months — reporters have been swarming around Rangel to discuss policy matters rather than ethics.

Republicans are likely to seize on the reintroduction of Rangel’s unpopular military draft bill. When they controlled the House in 2004, Republicans scheduled a vote on the Rangel measure, which was defeated 402-2. Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Pete Stark (D-Calif.) supported it, while Rangel voted against his own bill, claiming the GOP was playing political games.

But Rangel told The Hill that he recently heard talk about rewarding mandatory service with two years of college credit.

“That doesn’t make sense,” he said. “People shouldn’t have to join the military to get an education.”

A decorated Korean War veteran and a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Rangel argues that the burden of fighting wars falls disproportionately on low-income people and that cost should be borne more broadly.

If a draft had been in place in 2002 when members were making the decision on whether to support the war in Iraq, Rangel has said, Congress never would have approved the war resolution, because the pressure from constituents would have been too great.

With the Iraq war off the front page and the economic crisis taking center stage, nerves are not as raw on the topic of strain on the military as they were a few years ago, so Rangel’s legislation may not make as many waves this time around.

But some Democrats — even one who supported Rangel’s efforts in the past — are a little perplexed about his plans to reintroduce the legislation, especially now that President-elect Obama is poised to take over the White House.

“That was really a political statement at the beginning of the war that we continued,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), one of only two co-sponsors of Rangel’s draft bill. “I’m not sure we’re going to do that this time.”

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y) was the only other co-sponsor during the 110th Congress. She could not be reached for comment for this article.

Sphere: Related Content