Infamous Sign at Auschwitz That Was Stolen Is Found
I reported last week that the infamous sign, Arbeit Macht Frei, which graced one of the entrances of the Nazi Death camp was stolen.
At least according to the New York Times
A police spokesman, Dariusz Nowak, said the sign had been cut into three pieces, each containing one of the words.
The police would not reveal any details about how the sign was found or speculate on the motive of those who took it.
Other reports say that
Swedish neo-Nazis stole Auschwitz death camp sign to fund terror plot
A Swedish neo-Nazi group and ghoulish collectors are among possible suspects behind the shocking theft of the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign from the Auschwitz concentration camp, according to reports.
You know what?
All thieves deserve a rich punishment.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Success in Copenhagen?
Is the world getting warmer?
I'll check the thermometer tomorrow and get back with ya' all.
So for the sake of argument, it is getting warmer.
I don't care to get into an argument if global warming (if it is warming at all) is due to human activity. Seems to me the "scientific evidence" is way to much influenced by different political, philosophical agendas
With that said, I would rather deal with the facts at hand.
We just watched the fiasco in Copenhagen where
Gordan Brown today said a new global treaty on climate change had been "held to ransom" by some countries opposed to a deal in Copenhagen, and called for reform of the way such negotiations take place, including an international body to handle environmental stewardship.
Guardian.co.uk
How about this?
President Barack Obama on Saturday defended an international climate accord reached in Copenhagen as an "important breakthrough"
REUTERS
I don't know who is worse, or had the better lie.
One thing for sure, these guys don't talk to each other.
Gordan Brown playing the blame game
or
Barak Obama claiming some imaginary success.
What really bedevils my mind is just what it is either of them expected to accomplish?
Time for a Climate Change Plan B
The U.S. president is in deep denial.
By NIGEL LAWSON
The world's political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. While acknowledging that the outcome of the United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike, they insist that what has been achieved is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward.
Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus—Mexico City next year—and the job will be done.
Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside.
Far from achieving a major step forward, Copenhagen—predictably—achieved precisely nothing. The nearest thing to a commitment was the promise by the developed world to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020. Not only is that (perhaps fortunately) not legally binding, but there is no agreement whatsoever about which countries it will go to, in which amounts, and on what conditions.
The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The first is that the economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century.
The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future.
Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable to us in the developed world (although I see no present evidence of this). But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death.
The overriding priority for the developing world has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available source of energy: carbon energy.
Moreover, the argument that they should make this economic and human sacrifice to benefit future generations 100 years and more hence is all the less compelling, given that these future generations will, despite any problems caused by warming, be many times better off than the people of the developing world are today.
Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models).
All this overlaps with the second of the two fundamental reasons why Copenhagen failed, and why Mexico City (if our leaders insist on continuing this futile charade) will fail, too. That is the problem of burden-sharing, and in particular how much of the economic cost of decarbonization should be borne by the developed world, which accounts for the bulk of past emissions, and how much by the faster-growing developing world, which will account for the bulk of future emissions.
The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced, claims the overall burden is very small. If that were so, the problem of how to share the burden would be readily overcome—as indeed occurred with the phasing out of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the true cost of decarbonization is massive, and the distribution of the burden an insoluble problem.
Moreover, any assessment of the impact of any future warming that may occur is inevitably highly conjectural, depending as it does not only on the uncertainties of climate science but also on the uncertainties of future technological development. So what we are talking about is risk.
Not that the risk is all one way. The risk of a 1930s-style outbreak of protectionism—if the developed world were to abjure cheap energy and faced enhanced competition from China and other rapidly industrializing countries that declined to do so—is probably greater than any risk from warming.
But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose.
The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.
And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise.
This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.
Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.
Plan B
I'll check the thermometer tomorrow and get back with ya' all.
So for the sake of argument, it is getting warmer.
I don't care to get into an argument if global warming (if it is warming at all) is due to human activity. Seems to me the "scientific evidence" is way to much influenced by different political, philosophical agendas
With that said, I would rather deal with the facts at hand.
We just watched the fiasco in Copenhagen where
Gordan Brown today said a new global treaty on climate change had been "held to ransom" by some countries opposed to a deal in Copenhagen, and called for reform of the way such negotiations take place, including an international body to handle environmental stewardship.
Guardian.co.uk
How about this?
President Barack Obama on Saturday defended an international climate accord reached in Copenhagen as an "important breakthrough"
REUTERS
I don't know who is worse, or had the better lie.
One thing for sure, these guys don't talk to each other.
Gordan Brown playing the blame game
or
Barak Obama claiming some imaginary success.
What really bedevils my mind is just what it is either of them expected to accomplish?
Time for a Climate Change Plan B
The U.S. president is in deep denial.
By NIGEL LAWSON
The world's political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. While acknowledging that the outcome of the United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike, they insist that what has been achieved is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward.
Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus—Mexico City next year—and the job will be done.
Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside.
Far from achieving a major step forward, Copenhagen—predictably—achieved precisely nothing. The nearest thing to a commitment was the promise by the developed world to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020. Not only is that (perhaps fortunately) not legally binding, but there is no agreement whatsoever about which countries it will go to, in which amounts, and on what conditions.
The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The first is that the economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century.
The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future.
Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable to us in the developed world (although I see no present evidence of this). But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death.
The overriding priority for the developing world has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available source of energy: carbon energy.
Moreover, the argument that they should make this economic and human sacrifice to benefit future generations 100 years and more hence is all the less compelling, given that these future generations will, despite any problems caused by warming, be many times better off than the people of the developing world are today.
Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models).
All this overlaps with the second of the two fundamental reasons why Copenhagen failed, and why Mexico City (if our leaders insist on continuing this futile charade) will fail, too. That is the problem of burden-sharing, and in particular how much of the economic cost of decarbonization should be borne by the developed world, which accounts for the bulk of past emissions, and how much by the faster-growing developing world, which will account for the bulk of future emissions.
The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced, claims the overall burden is very small. If that were so, the problem of how to share the burden would be readily overcome—as indeed occurred with the phasing out of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the true cost of decarbonization is massive, and the distribution of the burden an insoluble problem.
Moreover, any assessment of the impact of any future warming that may occur is inevitably highly conjectural, depending as it does not only on the uncertainties of climate science but also on the uncertainties of future technological development. So what we are talking about is risk.
Not that the risk is all one way. The risk of a 1930s-style outbreak of protectionism—if the developed world were to abjure cheap energy and faced enhanced competition from China and other rapidly industrializing countries that declined to do so—is probably greater than any risk from warming.
But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose.
The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.
And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise.
This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.
Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.
Plan B
In days of old, Pakistan, , ,
Most of my life, I never really knew much about Pakistan.
I was always aware of its geographical location, and differences with India.
Personally, never had a dog in that fight, between India and Pakistan, but things have changed.
In the past few years, Pakistan has become a very important place.
A nation with nuclear bombs, delivery systems and under attack by radical Muslims, i.e. Taliban, Pakistan deserves close attention.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Three people were killed Tuesday in a suicide bombing outside a club for Pakistani journalists in this northwestern city, as Islamic militants continued a two-month spree of violence that has further destabilized this politically fragile nation.
Dollars to donuts, a measure of a nations prosperity and freedom of press is directly connected.
Militants have called the string of attacks a response to a military operation against the Pakistani Taliban in a mountainous region near the Afghan border. No area of the country has been hit harder than Peshawar, the volatile capital of the province edging that region. Though most attacks have targeted security forces, militants have also struck a market, a mosque and now -- for the first time, authorities said -- reporters in the city.
Pakistani journalists are "facing the wrath of terrorists" because they publicize militants' bad deeds, said Mian Iftikhar Hussain, a government spokesman for the Northwest Frontier Province, who spoke to reporters on the scene.
The attack on Monday sent shock waves through Pakistan's media community, though journalists in Peshawar said they were not surprised they were targeted. The press club, a popular gathering spot for journalists in the restive city, had received recent threats and boosted its security in response, Shahid said
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122200219.html?hpid=artslot
It is impossible for me to know what it is like to live in fear for just expressing my views.
After all, I am also a journalist.
I was always aware of its geographical location, and differences with India.
Personally, never had a dog in that fight, between India and Pakistan, but things have changed.
In the past few years, Pakistan has become a very important place.
A nation with nuclear bombs, delivery systems and under attack by radical Muslims, i.e. Taliban, Pakistan deserves close attention.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Three people were killed Tuesday in a suicide bombing outside a club for Pakistani journalists in this northwestern city, as Islamic militants continued a two-month spree of violence that has further destabilized this politically fragile nation.
Dollars to donuts, a measure of a nations prosperity and freedom of press is directly connected.
Militants have called the string of attacks a response to a military operation against the Pakistani Taliban in a mountainous region near the Afghan border. No area of the country has been hit harder than Peshawar, the volatile capital of the province edging that region. Though most attacks have targeted security forces, militants have also struck a market, a mosque and now -- for the first time, authorities said -- reporters in the city. Pakistani journalists are "facing the wrath of terrorists" because they publicize militants' bad deeds, said Mian Iftikhar Hussain, a government spokesman for the Northwest Frontier Province, who spoke to reporters on the scene.
The attack on Monday sent shock waves through Pakistan's media community, though journalists in Peshawar said they were not surprised they were targeted. The press club, a popular gathering spot for journalists in the restive city, had received recent threats and boosted its security in response, Shahid said
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122200219.html?hpid=artslot
It is impossible for me to know what it is like to live in fear for just expressing my views.
After all, I am also a journalist.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
President Obama the the Democratic goons should hang their heads low. It is cruel the dishonorable way they favor Big Money Union over the education of our youth.
'Duplicitous and Shameful'
The waiting is finally over for some of the District of Columbia's most ambitious school children and their parents. Democrats in Congress voted to kill the District's Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides 1,700 disadvantaged kids with vouchers worth up to $7,500 per year to attend a private school.
I have seen this same story repeated over and over. Union Hacks sole purpose for existence is raping the public troth and have zero concern for what parents and taxpayers want, education for our children.
On Sunday the Senate approved a spending bill that phases out funding for the five-year-old program. Several prominent Senators this week sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid pleading for a reconsideration. Signed by Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman, Democrats Robert Byrd and Dianne Feinstein, and Republicans Susan Collins and John Ensign, it asked to save a program that has "provided a lifeline to many low-income students in the District of Columbia." President Obama signed the bill Thursday.
The program's popularity has generated long waiting lists. A federal evaluation earlier this year said the mostly black and Hispanic participants are making significant academic gains and narrowing the achievement gap. But for the teachers unions, this just can't happen. The National Education Association instructed Democratic lawmakers to kill it.
Democrats shaft Poor Students
But hey, once in a while, on the local level the bastards can be beaten.
Editorial: Better than expected
Getting there wasn't pretty, and some of it was pure nonsense. But finally, the Legislature finished the job of preparing Michigan schools for a leap in quality and accountability.
Michigan's Race to the Top legislation, months overdue and needed so the state can compete for more than $400 million in federal dollars, came to fruition on Saturday -- nothing less than a holiday miracle for a bitterly divided Lansing.
TEXT
That editorial is a good read. a lesson on how in Michigan the deceitful and monied Union Gangsters will stoop to no low in chasing the almighty dollar.
'Duplicitous and Shameful'
The waiting is finally over for some of the District of Columbia's most ambitious school children and their parents. Democrats in Congress voted to kill the District's Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides 1,700 disadvantaged kids with vouchers worth up to $7,500 per year to attend a private school.
I have seen this same story repeated over and over. Union Hacks sole purpose for existence is raping the public troth and have zero concern for what parents and taxpayers want, education for our children.
On Sunday the Senate approved a spending bill that phases out funding for the five-year-old program. Several prominent Senators this week sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid pleading for a reconsideration. Signed by Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman, Democrats Robert Byrd and Dianne Feinstein, and Republicans Susan Collins and John Ensign, it asked to save a program that has "provided a lifeline to many low-income students in the District of Columbia." President Obama signed the bill Thursday.
The program's popularity has generated long waiting lists. A federal evaluation earlier this year said the mostly black and Hispanic participants are making significant academic gains and narrowing the achievement gap. But for the teachers unions, this just can't happen. The National Education Association instructed Democratic lawmakers to kill it.
Democrats shaft Poor Students
But hey, once in a while, on the local level the bastards can be beaten.
Editorial: Better than expected
Getting there wasn't pretty, and some of it was pure nonsense. But finally, the Legislature finished the job of preparing Michigan schools for a leap in quality and accountability.
Michigan's Race to the Top legislation, months overdue and needed so the state can compete for more than $400 million in federal dollars, came to fruition on Saturday -- nothing less than a holiday miracle for a bitterly divided Lansing.
TEXT
That editorial is a good read. a lesson on how in Michigan the deceitful and monied Union Gangsters will stoop to no low in chasing the almighty dollar.
Auschwitz sign stolen
For as much I hate thieves, I haven't given enough attention to the subject of theft.
Bad enough when personal property has been taken, but something of historical significance is a loss of greater magnitude.
Thieves in Poland stole a famous Nazi sign from the gates of the Auschwitz concentration camp that reads "Work Will Set You Free," authorities said Friday.
The sign at the death camp's entrance became a symbol of the horrors of the Holocaust, implying that hard work was the way imprisoned Jews could get out of the camp. More than a million people died at Auschwitz, most of whom were condemned to gas chambers.
The theft - which police said may have been ordered by a private collector or a group of individuals - sparked widespread outrage.
Bad enough when personal property has been taken, but something of historical significance is a loss of greater magnitude.
Thieves in Poland stole a famous Nazi sign from the gates of the Auschwitz concentration camp that reads "Work Will Set You Free," authorities said Friday.
The sign at the death camp's entrance became a symbol of the horrors of the Holocaust, implying that hard work was the way imprisoned Jews could get out of the camp. More than a million people died at Auschwitz, most of whom were condemned to gas chambers.
The theft - which police said may have been ordered by a private collector or a group of individuals - sparked widespread outrage.I am dumbfounded as to who would want to possess this.
It would be a real shame is the scumbags who took this already sold it for scrap and it is melted down.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Al Qaeda's No. 2 condemns Obama's Mid East policy
Watta ya know?
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second top leader, denounced US president Barack Obama's Middle East policy as "nothing but a new stage in the Crusader and Zionist campaign to subjugate and humiliate us… and our religion"
I have heard of preaching to the choir, but who is this guys audiance?
in a statement posted on an Islamist website Monday, Dec. 14.
OK, got my answer.
He also slammed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Saudi king Abdullah and Jordan's monarch as "Arab Zionists."
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6418
Sorry people, this was just to rich to pass up.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second top leader, denounced US president Barack Obama's Middle East policy as "nothing but a new stage in the Crusader and Zionist campaign to subjugate and humiliate us… and our religion"
I have heard of preaching to the choir, but who is this guys audiance?
in a statement posted on an Islamist website Monday, Dec. 14.
OK, got my answer.
He also slammed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Saudi king Abdullah and Jordan's monarch as "Arab Zionists."
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6418
Sorry people, this was just to rich to pass up.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Uncensored! George W. curses Ahmadinejad in UN Speech.
Looks good to me.
If it were only real, and not a skit.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Copenhagen climate summit; Private Planes and Limos
How do I get into the global warming business in which garnered Al Gore so much money.
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
WOW
Right place at the right time.
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel.
Even so, how many are small cars that the rest of us are suppose to drive?
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
I won't touch that with a ten foot pole.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
WOW
Right place at the right time.
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel.
Even so, how many are small cars that the rest of us are suppose to drive?
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
I won't touch that with a ten foot pole.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Carbon Bomb Fizzles
To start with, this post has nothing to do with global climate, but rather the extent of the Environmental Protection Agency's limits of power.
Of course, controversy concerning regulating agencies is nothing new.
This move by the EPA is extraordinary not only it's cost to the American people, also importantly it is a vast expansion of regulatory power beyond that authorized by Congress.
The EPA's Carbon Bomb Fizzles
In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth's climate, the president's team just motored into a ditch. So much for threats.
I am shocked, just shocked!
The thing about threats, though, is that at some point you have to act on them. The EPA has been sitting on its finding for months, much to the agitation of environmental groups that have been upping the pressure for action.
Hate to say it, but that is not news.
President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn't want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.
DOUP!
From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own—and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred. As one anonymous administration official menaced again this week: "If [Congress doesn't] pass this legislation," the EPA is going to have to "regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
That boy is well beyond his dept.
Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes. With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.
But now? Hurrah! It's the administration's problem! No one can say Washington isn't doing something; the EPA has it under control. The agency's move gives Congress a further excuse not to act.
What more can we expect from a leadership greatest achievement is that they floated to the top of the bowl.
All the more so, in Congress's view, because the EPA "command and control" threat may yet prove hollow. Now that the endangerment finding has become reality, the litigation is also about to become real. Green groups pioneered the art of environmental lawsuits. It turns out the business community took careful notes.
Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.
But the EPA's legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide "science" showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide "net benefits" to the West, this is a tall order.
Then there are the rules stemming from the finding. Not wanting to take on the political nightmare of regulating every American lawn mower, the EPA has produced a "tailoring rule" that it says allows it to focus solely on large greenhouse gas emitters. Yet the Clean Air Act—authored by Congress—clearly directs the EPA to also regulate small emitters.
This is where green groups come in. The tailoring rule "invites suits," says Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who has emerged as a top Senate watchdog of EPA actions. Talk of business litigation aside, Mr. Barrasso sees "most of the lawsuits coming from the environmental groups" who want to force the EPA to regulate everything. The agency is going to get hit from all directions. Even if these outsiders don't win their suits, they have the ability to twist up the regulations for a while.
Bottom line: At least some congressional Democrats view this as breathing room, a further reason to not tackle a killer issue in the run-up to next year's election. Mr. Obama may emerge from Copehagen with some sort of "deal." But his real problem is getting Congress to act, and his EPA move may have just made that job harder.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588120572016720.html#printMode
Of course, controversy concerning regulating agencies is nothing new.
This move by the EPA is extraordinary not only it's cost to the American people, also importantly it is a vast expansion of regulatory power beyond that authorized by Congress.
The EPA's Carbon Bomb Fizzles
In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth's climate, the president's team just motored into a ditch. So much for threats.
I am shocked, just shocked!
The thing about threats, though, is that at some point you have to act on them. The EPA has been sitting on its finding for months, much to the agitation of environmental groups that have been upping the pressure for action.
Hate to say it, but that is not news.
President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn't want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.
DOUP!
From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own—and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred. As one anonymous administration official menaced again this week: "If [Congress doesn't] pass this legislation," the EPA is going to have to "regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
That boy is well beyond his dept.
Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes. With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.
But now? Hurrah! It's the administration's problem! No one can say Washington isn't doing something; the EPA has it under control. The agency's move gives Congress a further excuse not to act.
What more can we expect from a leadership greatest achievement is that they floated to the top of the bowl.
All the more so, in Congress's view, because the EPA "command and control" threat may yet prove hollow. Now that the endangerment finding has become reality, the litigation is also about to become real. Green groups pioneered the art of environmental lawsuits. It turns out the business community took careful notes.
Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.
But the EPA's legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide "science" showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide "net benefits" to the West, this is a tall order.
Then there are the rules stemming from the finding. Not wanting to take on the political nightmare of regulating every American lawn mower, the EPA has produced a "tailoring rule" that it says allows it to focus solely on large greenhouse gas emitters. Yet the Clean Air Act—authored by Congress—clearly directs the EPA to also regulate small emitters.
This is where green groups come in. The tailoring rule "invites suits," says Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who has emerged as a top Senate watchdog of EPA actions. Talk of business litigation aside, Mr. Barrasso sees "most of the lawsuits coming from the environmental groups" who want to force the EPA to regulate everything. The agency is going to get hit from all directions. Even if these outsiders don't win their suits, they have the ability to twist up the regulations for a while.
Bottom line: At least some congressional Democrats view this as breathing room, a further reason to not tackle a killer issue in the run-up to next year's election. Mr. Obama may emerge from Copehagen with some sort of "deal." But his real problem is getting Congress to act, and his EPA move may have just made that job harder.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588120572016720.html#printMode
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World
Hey, looks good to me.
One thing I noticed is that all the stickers in the gun safe were in English.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Decline: Geography of a Recession
I was mesmerized watching this, and mostly saddened.
Worth a Look, Coast to Coast, County by County Decline
Not to get to dramatic, but it reminds me of :
"A spectre is haunting Europe"
Worth a Look, Coast to Coast, County by County Decline
Not to get to dramatic, but it reminds me of :
"A spectre is haunting Europe"
Baltimore mayor guilty of embezzlement
This is really great.
CNN) -- A jury convicted Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon on Tuesday of embezzlement for improperly using gift cards intended for the needy, the chief investigator for the state prosecutor's office said.
I would hope so.
Dixon solicited several cards for her own use from two developers, including Patrick Turner, who testified this month that Dixon asked him to donate gift cards from retailers and have them delivered to her office. He said he spent $1,000 total -- $500 for a Best Buy gift card and $500 for a Target one, according to the Baltimore Sun newspaper.
No date was set for sentencing.
CNN Report on this Crime
I can only hope for the best, the maximum sentence for the Honorable Mayor.
I just came across this story today on the radio. I live in Kansas and managed to miss this story, but I am interested in this report which doesn't shock me another dishonest politician.
Networks Briefly Note Dem Mayor's Conviction, Yet Ignored Her Trial
Imagine if you will that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was accused of taking gift cards donated to her office for redistribution to needy constituents and using them instead for a personal spending spree.
The media firestorm would swirl uncontrollably, of course, and certainly you couldn't fault the media for reporting on the ensuing criminal trial.
Granted, Dixon is only a city mayor, and that may explain some of the lack of coverage, but when ABC did its part to portray her as a champion of the working poor, it's telling that there was no follow up from that network until today.
The December 2 editions of ABC's "Good Morning America" and CBS's "The Early Show" both briefly noted Dixon's conviction during news roundups from the anchor desk, while, of course, failing to note her party affiliation. NBC's "Today" however, failed to even mention the story (transcripts below courtesy of NB's Scott Whitlock and Kyle Drennen, respectively):
NEWS BUSTERS
CNN) -- A jury convicted Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon on Tuesday of embezzlement for improperly using gift cards intended for the needy, the chief investigator for the state prosecutor's office said.Stealing from the poor for self enrichment.
She was found guilty of a single misdemeanor count of fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary. She could be removed from office because it is a theft-related crime,
I would hope so.
Dixon solicited several cards for her own use from two developers, including Patrick Turner, who testified this month that Dixon asked him to donate gift cards from retailers and have them delivered to her office. He said he spent $1,000 total -- $500 for a Best Buy gift card and $500 for a Target one, according to the Baltimore Sun newspaper.
No date was set for sentencing.
CNN Report on this Crime
I can only hope for the best, the maximum sentence for the Honorable Mayor.
I just came across this story today on the radio. I live in Kansas and managed to miss this story, but I am interested in this report which doesn't shock me another dishonest politician.
Networks Briefly Note Dem Mayor's Conviction, Yet Ignored Her Trial
Imagine if you will that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was accused of taking gift cards donated to her office for redistribution to needy constituents and using them instead for a personal spending spree.
The media firestorm would swirl uncontrollably, of course, and certainly you couldn't fault the media for reporting on the ensuing criminal trial.
Granted, Dixon is only a city mayor, and that may explain some of the lack of coverage, but when ABC did its part to portray her as a champion of the working poor, it's telling that there was no follow up from that network until today.
The December 2 editions of ABC's "Good Morning America" and CBS's "The Early Show" both briefly noted Dixon's conviction during news roundups from the anchor desk, while, of course, failing to note her party affiliation. NBC's "Today" however, failed to even mention the story (transcripts below courtesy of NB's Scott Whitlock and Kyle Drennen, respectively):
NEWS BUSTERS
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Awash in fossil fuels
This is a great quesion posed by George F. Will
Awash in fossil fuels
What city contributed most to the making of the modern world? The Paris of the Enlightenment and then of Napoleon, pioneer of mass armies and nationalist statism? London, seat of parliamentary democracy and center of finance? Or perhaps Titusville, Pa.
huh?
Actually, it is a good insight.
Since then, America has exhausted its hydrocarbon supplies. Repeatedly.
In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years' worth of petroleum reserves.
Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world's proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped, and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, scold in chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world's proven reserves.
Rest of the commentary is
Worth the Read
Awash in fossil fuels
What city contributed most to the making of the modern world? The Paris of the Enlightenment and then of Napoleon, pioneer of mass armies and nationalist statism? London, seat of parliamentary democracy and center of finance? Or perhaps Titusville, Pa.
huh?
Actually, it is a good insight.
Since then, America has exhausted its hydrocarbon supplies. Repeatedly.
In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years' worth of petroleum reserves.
Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world's proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped, and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, scold in chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world's proven reserves.
Rest of the commentary is
Worth the Read
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Obama and Holder's assault on due process.
With that said, I have to wonder what is worse?
That the trial is a sham, or President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have an unequaled arrogance that may eventually blow the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.
'Failure Is Not an Option'
By JAMES TARANTO
On Wednesday we noted that President Obama defended his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as a civilian by declaring that the outcome is preordained: KSM will be convicted and put to death. This appears to be not just bluster but the administration's actual position.
------------
Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a similar statement under questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat:
Kohl: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I'm sure you must have talked about it.
Holder: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This--these are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result.
-------------
JAMES TARANTO: "Failure is not an option"? Is Eric Holder attorney general of the United States or some unctuous motivational speaker?
For the sake of political expediency, Obama and Holder are refusing even to make a pretense of respect for due process. If KSM & Co. are convicted and put to death, America's critics and enemies will point to Obama and Holder's assurances in arguing that the defendants were subjected to sham justice. Nice work restoring America's moral standing, Mr. President.Wall Street Journal Best of the Web Today
Arrested for not Leaving Tip
Service would have to be pretty bad for me to not leave a tip. If I took the radical step of not leaving a tip, I don't believe the cops should be called to arrest me.
Bethlehem couple arrested for not leaving tip at Lehigh Pub
When Leslie Pope and John Wagner decided to drop by happy hour at the Lehigh Pub in Bethlehem, Pa. with six friends, they had no idea that their visit would end with them handcuffed, in the back of a police car.
The couple and their friends amassed a $73 bill that they had no problem paying, but the service was so poor that they refused to cough up the mandatory 18% tip. They say they waited almost an hour for chicken fingers and fries and Pope had to go to the bar to get napkins, silverware and refills on her soda because the server was missing in action. After explaining the service shortcomings to the bartender in charge, and offering payment for food, beverage and tax, Pope claims that the bartender took their money and called the police.
When the law arrived, the couple was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and later charged with theft.
Bethlehem’s Police Commissioner, Stuart Bedics, stated that the police would prefer to have not been involved, but the couple was arrested for theft because the gratuity was deemed a part of the bill. He does not think the charges will hold up in court.
The question remains: Will the court ruling set precedent in the service industry that restaurants can arbitrarily make tipping mandatory?
As it stands, parties of six or more are often times mandated to pay gratuity of anywhere from 15% to 20%.
If the charges against Pope and Wagner stand and not tipping becomes an enforceable offense, will servers relax service on tables with a tip mandate to attend to those smaller parties that can stiff them at will?
We will not know until Pope and Wagner appear in court next month.
But until then, if you feel burned by bad service at a restaurant, think again before you choose not to tip. You may be in for more than a hard look from the server!
http://www.examiner.com/x-29433-DC-Restaurant-News-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Couple-arrested-for-not-leaving-tip
Bethlehem couple arrested for not leaving tip at Lehigh Pub
When Leslie Pope and John Wagner decided to drop by happy hour at the Lehigh Pub in Bethlehem, Pa. with six friends, they had no idea that their visit would end with them handcuffed, in the back of a police car.
The couple and their friends amassed a $73 bill that they had no problem paying, but the service was so poor that they refused to cough up the mandatory 18% tip. They say they waited almost an hour for chicken fingers and fries and Pope had to go to the bar to get napkins, silverware and refills on her soda because the server was missing in action. After explaining the service shortcomings to the bartender in charge, and offering payment for food, beverage and tax, Pope claims that the bartender took their money and called the police.
When the law arrived, the couple was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and later charged with theft.
Bethlehem’s Police Commissioner, Stuart Bedics, stated that the police would prefer to have not been involved, but the couple was arrested for theft because the gratuity was deemed a part of the bill. He does not think the charges will hold up in court.
The question remains: Will the court ruling set precedent in the service industry that restaurants can arbitrarily make tipping mandatory?
As it stands, parties of six or more are often times mandated to pay gratuity of anywhere from 15% to 20%.
If the charges against Pope and Wagner stand and not tipping becomes an enforceable offense, will servers relax service on tables with a tip mandate to attend to those smaller parties that can stiff them at will?
We will not know until Pope and Wagner appear in court next month.
But until then, if you feel burned by bad service at a restaurant, think again before you choose not to tip. You may be in for more than a hard look from the server!
http://www.examiner.com/x-29433-DC-Restaurant-News-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Couple-arrested-for-not-leaving-tip
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts Don't Exist
Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' Don't Exist
Human Error Blamed for Crediting New Stimulus Jobs to Nonexistent Places
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853
Really, how stupid can we be?
Human Error Blamed for Crediting New Stimulus Jobs to Nonexistent Places
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853
Really, how stupid can we be?
Unlawful health reform?
I like to call him my friend, George F. Will, but never met him
I have come to the conclusion that Universal Helth Care is the moral thing that my country must provide.
With that said, such a dramatic change must be carefully made because once we start such a effort, it will become impossible to change.
This is where the comments of Mr. Will come into play.
Unlawful health reform?
By George F. WillThursday, November 19, 2009
Selections form his column.
In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute
-------------
"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."
---------------
But does not federal law trump state laws? Not necessarily. Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney, says, "It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the federal Constitution established a floor for the protection of individual liberties; state constitutions may provide additional protections."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802697_pf.html
This is really great reading.
I have come to the conclusion that Universal Helth Care is the moral thing that my country must provide.
With that said, such a dramatic change must be carefully made because once we start such a effort, it will become impossible to change.
This is where the comments of Mr. Will come into play.
Unlawful health reform?
By George F. WillThursday, November 19, 2009
Selections form his column.
In 2006, long before there was an Obama administration determined to impose a command-and-control federal health-care system, a young orthopedic surgeon walked into the Goldwater Institute
-------------
"No law shall be passed that restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."
---------------
But does not federal law trump state laws? Not necessarily. Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney, says, "It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the federal Constitution established a floor for the protection of individual liberties; state constitutions may provide additional protections."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802697_pf.html
This is really great reading.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Ahmadinejad, Venezuela
The nut job in Iran, sees a connection in Venezuela in the person of President Hugo Chavez.
Ahmadinejad deems Iran, Venezuela ties 'necessary'
Necedssary for what?
"Collaboration between revolutionary nations like Iran and Venezuela is necessary during this period of time,"
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited Iran in September and voiced support for Iran's nuclear program, which Israel and Western nations fear is a covert grab to build a nuclear weapon.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j7tqMPcP_vknQokNooYZ3Lz16wyw
Tell me what, if anything Iran has in common with an impoverish nation in South America.
Seems to me Chavez is a simpilton, being used by Amanutjob.
Ahmadinejad deems Iran, Venezuela ties 'necessary'
Necedssary for what?
"Collaboration between revolutionary nations like Iran and Venezuela is necessary during this period of time,"
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited Iran in September and voiced support for Iran's nuclear program, which Israel and Western nations fear is a covert grab to build a nuclear weapon.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j7tqMPcP_vknQokNooYZ3Lz16wyw
Tell me what, if anything Iran has in common with an impoverish nation in South America.
Seems to me Chavez is a simpilton, being used by Amanutjob.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Syria, A Nuclear Power?
The idea that Syria should ever become a nuclear power is absurd of the face of it.
But then, that Iran should have nuclear weapons is equally ridiculous.
IAEA wants to inspect three secret Syrian nuclear sites
Three?
The new IAEA report on Iran's formerly secret uranium enrichment site at Fordo near Qom also includes a section on Syria and a demand to inspect suspicious sites there too. The inspectors clearly suspect Both Tehran and Damascus of concealing from the UN nuclear watchdog secret facilities related to nuclear weapons production. Monday, Nov. 16, the seven-page IAEA inspectors' report on their October visit to Fordo stated clearly that Tehran's belated declaration of its uranium enrichment site suggested that more secret sites remained to be discovered in Iran.
------
With regard to Syria, IAEA inspectors are to visit Damascus on Tuesday, Nov. 17, for clarifications of the conflicting explanations Syria has offered for uranium traces. They will also insist on making return visits to three military sites which Damascus has so far refused, following information received by the agency of clandestine "nuclear activity" there. DEBKAfile's intelligence sources reveal that Israel hit one of three at the same time as its air force bombed the unfinished plutonium plant at Dair Alzour in 2007, although this was never admitted by Israel or Syria.
http://www.debka.com/
But then, that Iran should have nuclear weapons is equally ridiculous.
IAEA wants to inspect three secret Syrian nuclear sites
Three?
The new IAEA report on Iran's formerly secret uranium enrichment site at Fordo near Qom also includes a section on Syria and a demand to inspect suspicious sites there too. The inspectors clearly suspect Both Tehran and Damascus of concealing from the UN nuclear watchdog secret facilities related to nuclear weapons production. Monday, Nov. 16, the seven-page IAEA inspectors' report on their October visit to Fordo stated clearly that Tehran's belated declaration of its uranium enrichment site suggested that more secret sites remained to be discovered in Iran.
------
With regard to Syria, IAEA inspectors are to visit Damascus on Tuesday, Nov. 17, for clarifications of the conflicting explanations Syria has offered for uranium traces. They will also insist on making return visits to three military sites which Damascus has so far refused, following information received by the agency of clandestine "nuclear activity" there. DEBKAfile's intelligence sources reveal that Israel hit one of three at the same time as its air force bombed the unfinished plutonium plant at Dair Alzour in 2007, although this was never admitted by Israel or Syria.
http://www.debka.com/
Somali Pirates
This crap has been going on way to long.
If there were ever a reason to have a United Nations, I would think this is it.
Pirates Free Crew of Spanish Vessel
MADRID — Somali pirates released 36 crew members and their Spanish fishing vessel on Tuesday, the government here said, even as authorities said pirates had seized a tanker with a crew of 28 North Koreans.
At what cost?
officials declined to comment on reports that Spain had paid a ransom of nearly $3.5 million. Asked if a ransom had been paid, Mr. Zapatero said, “The government did what it had to do.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/africa/18somalia.html
That says it all.
If there were ever a reason to have a United Nations, I would think this is it.
Pirates Free Crew of Spanish Vessel
MADRID — Somali pirates released 36 crew members and their Spanish fishing vessel on Tuesday, the government here said, even as authorities said pirates had seized a tanker with a crew of 28 North Koreans.
At what cost?
officials declined to comment on reports that Spain had paid a ransom of nearly $3.5 million. Asked if a ransom had been paid, Mr. Zapatero said, “The government did what it had to do.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/africa/18somalia.html
That says it all.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Support for Stricter Gun Laws
Well it seems that there is in the United States a record low enthusiasm for stricter gun laws.
This is good news for a free people, and I can only pray that this attitude of self reliance shall continue.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Empire State Building Celebrates Communism?
The Empire State Building, built during the Great Depression, if anything should be seen as an accomplishment of capitalism.
Well, recently it was lighted to celebrate 60 Years of communist rule in mainland China.
Empire State Building Goes Red for Communist China, Sparking Protest
NEW YORK — New York is seeing red over the decision to turn the city's highest beacon — and one of America's symbols for free enterprise — into a shining monument honoring China's communist revolution Wednesday night.The Empire State Building shone in red and yellow lights over New York City on Wednesday night to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the bloody communist takeover.
Long live Mao, in hell.
Congratulations Ireland
Last time around, the Irish turned down the opportunity to become a part of the European Union, or should I say subservient to the EU.
I'll be damned if any flag fies above the Stars and Stripes.
DUBLIN -- Irish voters approved the European Union's Lisbon Treaty in a substantial shift of sentiment, with 67% voting in favor and 33% against, according to the final count announced Saturday.
The big swing to a "yes" vote, after the Treaty was defeated in a previous referendum, was helped by a rise in voter turnout to 59%, with high support seen across the country. Irish government leaders, who strongly supported the treaty, were celebrating.
Correct me if I am wrong, but seems to me the reason the Irish last time declined the offer of slavery was because their economy was doing better than the average EU loser.
Now the sheep, having a hard time look for a savior.
Ireland's finance minister, Brian Lenihan, said that the dramatic swing to a "yes" vote will be a "first step" in Ireland's economic recovery. "We are in a very difficult place and that's precisely why people voted 'yes,'" he told RTÉ.
Yup, near sighted emotional votes.
"We need Europe's support at present," said Garret FitzGerald, who was Ireland's prime minister in the 1980s
Need support today, tomorrow you will be supporting welfare states like France.
Ireland's prime minister declared victory for the Europeans Union's Lisbon treaty, keeping alive the bloc's hopes of implementing reforms that it believes will increase its global influence. Video courtesy of Reuters.
The big swing to a "yes" vote, after the Treaty was defeated in a previous referendum, was helped by a rise in voter turnout to 59%, with high support seen across the country. Irish government leaders, who strongly supported the treaty, were celebrating.
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen told a press conference packed with foreign media that the referendum was carried "decisively." He thanked help from the civic organizations and opposition parties who had lined up behind the treaty. "Today's vote is a declaration of intent to remain at the future of Europe," he said, "where we belong."
The Irish last June rejected the treaty—which will establish a permanent president and foreign minister for the EU, and give more authority to Brussels— by 53% to 47% in a referendum. This time, rural and working-class parts of the country, where many felt the Celtic Tiger boom had whisked past them and where "no" votes were strong last time, appear to have turned to "yes" after a campaign that closely tied Ireland's economic future to the EU.
The Irish flag flies next to a European Union flag near the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels.
Anti-treaty groups were conceding defeat. "I'd like to congratulate the Taoiseach, who ran an absolutely masterful campaign," said Declan Ganley, the leader of "no" group Libertas, referring to Ireland's prime minister. "They know how to overturn a result that doesn't suit them."
In the EU capital, officials rejoiced and quickly began laying the groundwork for the bloc's new structure, though a hurdle remains: The Czech Republic's euroskeptic president, Václav Klaus, has refused to sign his parliament's ratification of the treaty.
Nonetheless, this month will see a scramble to pick officeholders for the new top jobs as pressure builds on Mr. Klaus to drop his objections.
"I see the 'yes' vote as a sign of confidence from the Irish people in the European Union," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. "As soon as the European Council is ready I will be ready to start forming the new commission."
Ireland's finance minister, Brian Lenihan, said that the dramatic swing to a "yes" vote will be a "first step" in Ireland's economic recovery. "We are in a very difficult place and that's precisely why people voted 'yes,'" he told RTÉ.
"We need Europe's support at present," said Garret FitzGerald, who was Ireland's prime minister in the 1980s and who had come to the cavernous hall in south Dublin Saturday morning where ballots from the city were being counted. He pointed out that the European Central Bank is providing substantial liquidity to Ireland's beleaguered banking system. "Don't kick them in the teeth," he said. "Europe is enormously important to us."
Inside the building, poll workers dumped black boxes of paper ballots from the capital onto long tables, where other workers thumbed through them by hand.
By late morning, nearly all the ballot boxes from the Dublin South East constituency had been counted. The votes were 78% in favor of the treaty. In last year's referendum, 62% voted "yes." Counts from RTE showed several constituencies elsewhere in the country switching from "no" to "yes." Dublin North, which split 50-50 in 2008, had 72% "yes."
After Lisbon's failure in 2008, EU leaders moved to get Ireland to try the vote again.
They agreed, at Ireland's insistence, that all countries would continue to have representatives on the European Commission, the bloc's executive arm. In the first running, the treaty envisioned shrinking the commission—a point seized on by the "no" campaign to show it would leave the EU's less-populous nations with weakened influence.
The Irish government also received guarantees that Lisbon wouldn't mean Ireland loses sovereignty over controversial matters like abortion and military neutrality.
Ireland alone among the 27 EU countries put the Lisbon Treaty to a vote. The others ratified it through their parliaments.
Mr. Klaus's allies in the Czech senate have launched a constitutional court challenge to the treaty. (Poland's president, also a euroskeptic, hasn't signed either, but he has said he will if the Irish vote "yes.")
The Czech court has already ruled once that the treaty is constitutionally permissible, and some analysts say the new challenge is a stalling tactic with little chance of success. The court is expected to rule by the end of the month.
"He is under a lot of pressure domestically already, and he will be under a lot more pressure after today," Jiri Pehe, a political analyst and the director of New York University's program in Prague, said Saturday as results from Ireland became clear. If the court gives its blessing to the treaty and Mr. Klaus continues to refuse, "he would be in real danger of being impeached" or otherwise removed from office, Mr. Pehe said.
A spokesman for Mr. Klaus didn't respond to requests for comment. The president is nominally the head of state in the Czech Republic, but his powers are limited and the prime minister wields most authority.
Assuming Mr. Klaus eventually signs the ratification, attention will swing to who gets the new top jobs in Europe—EU president and foreign minister.
Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and currently leader of the liberal wing of the European Parliament, said in an interview that the new posts would allow Europe to "speak with one voice" on foreign policy. As prime minister, Mr. Verhofstadt shepherded the "Laeken Declaration" in 2001 that kicked off the creation of an EU constitution. The constitution failed after losing referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005; the Lisbon Treaty is a watered-down version of that document.
"After eight years of battle, it succeeds," he said.
Mr. Verhofstadt said he believes the new president should be "high profile" but, just as importantly, "a believer in Europe and more European integration."
Former British prime minister Tony Blair has been widely touted as a possible president, but he could face serious opposition.
Former British prime minister Tony Blair has been widely touted as a possible president, but he could face serious opposition.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who have substantial weight in the vote to select the president, could decide they don't want Mr. Blair overshadowing them. Mr. Blair also is unloved by many in Europe for his support of the Iraq war.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Chicago's Gun Ban
Curious, the anti gun people don't understand that the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution is just as valid as the other nine Amendments.
Supreme Court to take up Chicago gun ban
The case challenging a handgun ban in Chicago will decide whether the individual right to bear arms upheld by the Supreme Court in a D.C. case last year applies to all states and cities, too.
Washington - Fifteen months after declaring that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide an equally important issue – whether that constitutional protection applies not only in federal jurisdictions but in every city, county, and state in the nation.
What, nobody ever heard of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
The case is important not only because it will be a historic development in the interpretation of the Constitution, but also because it will establish basic ground rules for future gun control efforts.
An appeals court ruled in the Chicago case that the city's handgun ban did not violate the Constitution because the Supreme Court had not yet declared whether its decision in the Heller case established a fundamental right to guns applicable throughout the US.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0930/p02s15-usju.html
See no reason this isn't a slam dunk.
People of Chicago should see relief in that they should be able to exercise their rights under our Bill of Rights to own a firearm.
Of course implicit is the right to use such firearms for then intended use for which they are designed.
Supreme Court to take up Chicago gun ban
The case challenging a handgun ban in Chicago will decide whether the individual right to bear arms upheld by the Supreme Court in a D.C. case last year applies to all states and cities, too.
Washington - Fifteen months after declaring that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide an equally important issue – whether that constitutional protection applies not only in federal jurisdictions but in every city, county, and state in the nation.
What, nobody ever heard of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
The case is important not only because it will be a historic development in the interpretation of the Constitution, but also because it will establish basic ground rules for future gun control efforts.
An appeals court ruled in the Chicago case that the city's handgun ban did not violate the Constitution because the Supreme Court had not yet declared whether its decision in the Heller case established a fundamental right to guns applicable throughout the US.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0930/p02s15-usju.html
See no reason this isn't a slam dunk.
People of Chicago should see relief in that they should be able to exercise their rights under our Bill of Rights to own a firearm.
Of course implicit is the right to use such firearms for then intended use for which they are designed.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
.jpg)
Gaddafi, a Real Brain Trust
You know what?
I must give credit where credit is due.
Of Qaddafi UN speech: Six highlights - or lowlights? among his long winded speech before the United Nations, number six struck me as fabulous:
6. UN should relocate to Libya
“You will thank me for not having to travel for 20 hours to this place.”
I must give credit where credit is due.
Of Qaddafi UN speech: Six highlights - or lowlights? among his long winded speech before the United Nations, number six struck me as fabulous:
6. UN should relocate to Libya
“You will thank me for not having to travel for 20 hours to this place.”
100 minutes in the Life of Muammar Gaddafi
This is really great, a snap shot from the Guardian.co.uk 100 minutes in the Life of Muammar Gaddafi
Watta loon.
Watta loon.
Gaddafi at the United Nations
I must admit, Gadaffi isn't stupid, he is a thinking man.
Gaddafi proposes to abolish Switzerland
That is an overdue idea
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi submitted a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly to abolish Switzerland last month, a UN spokesperson told the Swiss News Agency.
On Thursday, Farhan Haq told the Swiss News Agency that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi submitted a proposal last month that would abolish Switzerland
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279708
Gaddafi proposes to abolish Switzerland
That is an overdue idea
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi submitted a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly to abolish Switzerland last month, a UN spokesperson told the Swiss News Agency.
On Thursday, Farhan Haq told the Swiss News Agency that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi submitted a proposal last month that would abolish Switzerland
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279708
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The AIPAC Case
Even to the casual observer this prosecution should have been noted as a political move, not one of justice.
The AIPAC Case Fallout Israel
Israel, 'espionage,' and a now-failed political prosecution.
Four years, millions in legal fees and a half-dozen conspiracy theories later, the Justice Department dropped its case yesterday against the two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) indicted in 2005 on espionage-related charges. Now where do Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- and everyone else besmirched, including California Democrat Jane Harman -- apply to get their reputations back?
Attorney General Eric Holder deserves credit for dropping the charges, though we wish he had also announced that the case should never have been brought. Instead, the prosecution acted only after adverse judicial rulings made the case virtually impossible to win. Among the tests imposed on the prosecution by a federal judge was whether the "secrets" Messrs. Rosen and Weissman supposedly disseminated to colleagues, journalists and an Israeli embassy official were closely held, and whether the pair relayed them in bad faith.
This is a good read right up to the end.
Mr. Holder should also re-examine the Aipac case from start to finish. The real scandal in this case starts with the attempted criminalization of policy differences and legitimate lobbying, and ends up in the wiretapping of Congress and the wrecked careers of Messrs. Rosen, Weissman and Franklin. This smacks of abuse of power, and somebody at Justice should be held to account.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124121908115478693.html
The AIPAC Case Fallout Israel
Israel, 'espionage,' and a now-failed political prosecution.
Four years, millions in legal fees and a half-dozen conspiracy theories later, the Justice Department dropped its case yesterday against the two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) indicted in 2005 on espionage-related charges. Now where do Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- and everyone else besmirched, including California Democrat Jane Harman -- apply to get their reputations back?
Attorney General Eric Holder deserves credit for dropping the charges, though we wish he had also announced that the case should never have been brought. Instead, the prosecution acted only after adverse judicial rulings made the case virtually impossible to win. Among the tests imposed on the prosecution by a federal judge was whether the "secrets" Messrs. Rosen and Weissman supposedly disseminated to colleagues, journalists and an Israeli embassy official were closely held, and whether the pair relayed them in bad faith.
This is a good read right up to the end.
Mr. Holder should also re-examine the Aipac case from start to finish. The real scandal in this case starts with the attempted criminalization of policy differences and legitimate lobbying, and ends up in the wiretapping of Congress and the wrecked careers of Messrs. Rosen, Weissman and Franklin. This smacks of abuse of power, and somebody at Justice should be held to account.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124121908115478693.html
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
People of Luton Protest against Muslim Extremists
Because I have a profound respect of police officers, some parts of this video bothers me.
I will say, the people of Luton, England are perfectly correct in voicing their frustration with the influx of radical Muslims.
Really, lets get real.
What is the benefit of allowing uneducated 3rd world immigrants, with a 13th century mentality into a first world liberal democracy?
You think there would be problems?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Susan Boyle - Britains Got Talent 2009 Episode 1 - Saturday 11th April
Just in case you missed it, this is a wonderful video.
Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech
You know what?
This shouldn't come as any shocker, but yet it is Conservatives who are always portrayed as the enemies of basic freedoms.
I arrived in Austin, Texas, one evening recently to give a speech about academic freedom at the university there. Entering the hall where I was to give my speech, I was greeted -- if that's the word -- by a raucous protest organized by a professor and self-styled Bolshevik, Dana Cloud. Forty protesters hoisted placards high in the air and robotically chanted "Down With Horowitz," "Racist Go Home," and "No More Witch-hunts."
What good are universities if they allow such nonsense?
I don't know of a single leftist speaker among the thousands who visit campuses every term who has been obstructed or attacked by conservative students, who are too decent and too tolerant to do that. The entire evening in Texas reminded me of the late Orianna Fallaci's observation that what we are facing in the post-9/11 world is not a "clash of civilizations," but a clash of civilization versus barbarism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html
This shouldn't come as any shocker, but yet it is Conservatives who are always portrayed as the enemies of basic freedoms.
I arrived in Austin, Texas, one evening recently to give a speech about academic freedom at the university there. Entering the hall where I was to give my speech, I was greeted -- if that's the word -- by a raucous protest organized by a professor and self-styled Bolshevik, Dana Cloud. Forty protesters hoisted placards high in the air and robotically chanted "Down With Horowitz," "Racist Go Home," and "No More Witch-hunts."
What good are universities if they allow such nonsense?
I don't know of a single leftist speaker among the thousands who visit campuses every term who has been obstructed or attacked by conservative students, who are too decent and too tolerant to do that. The entire evening in Texas reminded me of the late Orianna Fallaci's observation that what we are facing in the post-9/11 world is not a "clash of civilizations," but a clash of civilization versus barbarism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html
Sunday, April 12, 2009
U.S. Ship Captain Rescued From Pirates by Navy Seals
Seems lately we have had some true heros to admire, Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger, airline pilote whos sucessfully landed an airliner in the Hudson River.Now we have Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama who offered himself as a hostage to save his crew.
Let us not forget the Navy SEALS who freed Capt Phillips.
It is people like this who give me hope in a troubled world.
Mombasa, Kenya, April 12 -- An American captain being held by Somali pirates was freed unharmed Sunday in an operation carried out by U.S. Navy Seals, U.S. military officials said. Three of the pirates were killed and the fourth was captured.
The captain, Richard Phillips, who had been held in a lifeboat adrift in the Indian Ocean since Wednesday, was initially taken aboard the Norfolk, Va.-based guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge. He was later flown to the USS Boxer, where he received medical attention and phoned his family. The operation took place at 7:19 p.m. local time, the Navy said.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama Bows to Saudi King
President Obama just wanted to see if the King had a gun or was just happy to see him.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Weapons Hidden in Mosque Neutralized by Israel Air Force 31 Dec. 2008
Hiding weapons in a Mosque, real smart. After all, who would think to look there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
