Premium Article ! Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button. Options Premium Article ! To read this article i

By Sarah Freeman

John Bailey is not a natural diplomat.

As careful negotiations were continuing to secure the safe release of the crew of the hijacked Sirius Star, the Hornsea mariner's own suggestion for dealing with the growing problem of piracy is rather more blunt.

"You don't stop pirates by talking to them," he says with the kind of pragmatism which comes after decades at sea. "You stop them by aiming guns at them."

Still he should know. Seven years ago, Bailey was marine supervisor on board an elderly tanker in waters near Sierra Leone when he was woken in the early hours by the sound of machine guns being cocked outside his cabin door.

Less experienced seamen might have pulled the covers over their head and prayed for divine intervention, but Bailey, then 52, instinctively grabbed the gun beside his bed and jumped into action. He didn't even bother getting dressed.

The 10-strong pirate gang had already overpowered one officer, but confronted by the naked Yorkshireman armed with a pump-action shotgun, their plans to make off with the ship's cargo of cash began to unravel.

"While we were taken by surprise, we always knew there was a possibility of a pirate attack," says the 60-year-old veteran of African waters. "The tanker was an off-shore fuel station for fishing boats so we had a lot of money on board, but the Russian crew were pretty lax when it came to security.

"When I woke up, the pirates were already trying to force their way into the captain's cabin and I came face to face with one of them, who tried to fire his Kalashnikov. Thankfully, it jammed and it gave me a few seconds to retaliate. As I fired my own gun, he tried to escape leaving behind a trail of blood.

"It was very dark, but we could see the gang's boat near to our ship. We couldn't see anyone on it, but I fired two magazines in its direction and it drifted off into the dark. It's something I'll never forget, but it didn't leave me feeling particularly traumatised."

While Bailey's encounter with pirates seems like a particularly dramatic boy's own adventure, increasing numbers of ships are being targeted by armed gangs in search of easy pickings.

So far this year, nine crew members have been killed in pirate attacks, the same number are missing, presumed dead, and 581 have been taken hostage. With a third of all ambushes taking place in the sea near Somalia, the African coast has become a piracy hotspot and the International Maritime Bureau now estimate that more than 1,200 Somalis and at least six major groups are involved.

It is a lucrative business. The ransom paid to gangs has risen from $10,000 to $1m in recent years and the higher stakes have brought ever more audacious attacks.

"Piracy may have now come to the public's attention now, but it's always been a problem in that part of the world," says Bailey. "It started small-scale, but because ship owners are reluctant to take direct action it has escalated. Companies have to abide by
so many health and safety regulations and much of the shipping industry now views on- board protection teams as too much of a potential risk.

"The general advice from the coastguard is always not to antagonise pirates. Gangs know that nine times out of 10 their demands will be met and there is absolutely no deterrent. Until piracy stops being easy money, they will continue to take ship after ship."

Currently, 10 other vessels and 250 crew members are thought to be in the hands of pirates and this week an Indian navy warship destroyed a suspect boat after it came under fire in the Gulf of Aden. In wake of an increasing number of incidents, some shipping owners have installed electrified fencing and satellite tracking, but neither would have provided adequate defence against the gang, armed with an anti-tank rocket launcher and grenades, who attacked the Sirius Star.

The hijack of the tanker, carrying some £67m of oil, some 420 nautical miles from the shore was also a departure from the norm. Piracy has tended to be concentrated nearer to the coastlines, but with the increasingly well armed, well-funded and well-organised operations casting their nets ever wider, detection is proving difficult.

"A few years ago, if you were anchored near to a coast you knew the situation was potentially dodgy," says Bailey. "But now ships are being targeted when they are miles away at sea. Ship owners are paying thousands of pounds to these criminals, because they think there's no other option. They are prepared to write off ransom demands against the value of the cargo, but it's just crazy.

"Patrols can only do so much, but the truth is it's easy to defend a ship against robbers. It would cost virtually nothing to have a protection team on board and if these gangs thought they might end up on the wrong end of two or three ex-Army guys they might actually think twice about doing it.

"Historically, merchant ships were always armed, but now they don't have the facilities to defend themselves and the gangs are winning. These pirates aren't straight out of a children's book, they are nasty pieces of work."

Bailey's run-in with pirates, who it later emerged were ex-rebel soldiers from Sierra Leone, wasn't the first or last time he would face dangers at sea. Three years earlier, when a rebellion of renegade soldiers attempted to topple the government of Guinea Bissau, near Senegal, he took his cargo ship to rescue the United States Ambassador and her staff from the former Portuguese colony.

More recently he has been working in fishing protection, tracking down the boats responsible for over-fishing in the West African seas.

"It's a massive problem," he says. "They're wiping out entire stocks of tuna and small fish and our job is to identify illegal operations and arrest them. Of course they don't like being told what to do, but we are there to do a job."

Bailey is currently on terra firma, enjoying a break at his Hornsea home, but he plans to be back on the water after Christmas.

"At some point I'll slow down," he says, acknowledging his 60th birthday just a few months away. "But just not yet.

TOLL OF THE MODERN PIRATES

Warships from at least nine countries are patrolling the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden on the lookout for pirates, but many believe their presence has only shifted the problem further out to sea.

Piracy is estimated to have cost the world an estimated $60m-$70m this year alone.

It has become a particular problem in Somalia where after 17 years of non-stop conflict, almost half the population needs food aid.

Following the capture of the Sirius Star, a Hong Kong cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat bound for Iran also fell victim to pirates.

In April, a Japanese oil tanker was hit by rocket-propelled grenades and Iranian carrier was chased for 30 minutes by a machine-gun wielding gang in a speed boat.

US seeks 300 billion dlrs from Gulf states: report

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) – The United States has asked four oil-rich Gulf states for close to 300 billion dollars to help it curb the global financial meltdown, Kuwait's daily Al-Seyassah reported Thursday.

Quoting "highly informed" sources, the daily said Washington has asked Saudi Arabia for 120 billion dollars, the United Arab Emirates for 70 billion dollars, Qatar for 60 billion dollars and was seeking 40 billion dollars from Kuwait.

Al-Seyassah said Washington sought the amount as "financial aid" to face the fallout of the financial crisis and help prevent its economy from sliding into a painful recession.

The daily said the United States plans to use the funds to help the ailing automobile industry , banks and other companies suffering from the global financial turmoil.

The four nations, all members of OPEC, produce together 14 million barrels of oil per day, around half of the cartel's production and about 17 percent of world supplies.

The four states are estimated to have amassed close to 1.5 trillion dollars in surplus in the past six years due to high oil prices that rocketed above 147 dollars in July before sliding to just above 50 dollars.

The daily also said that the United States has asked Kuwait to forgive its Iraqi debt estimated at around 16 billion dollars.

Stealth Jihad: The War Within Our Borders

By Erick Stackelbeck

The media regularly reports about the danger to America from Islamic terrorists. But what about potential threats from inside this country?

Radical Muslims are looking for ways to bring sharia law to the United States.

Watch Low Band

Are Muslims in America victims of Islamophobia? Warnings from the Council on American-Islamic Relations seem to suggest just that.

CAIR claims to be the nation's leading Muslim civil rights group. But the group's critics say it's focused more on making Islam a dominant force than with fighting bigotry.

In a 1998, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad told the San Ramon Valley Herald, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Others point to a 1991 memo by the radical Muslim Brotherhood challenging American Islamic groups.

The memorandum, presented as evidence during a terrorism trial last year, reads that these Muslim groups "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands" until Islam reigns supreme."

For radical Muslims, that means pushing an aggressive, pro-Islam agenda that's been increasingly successful in recent years: Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol in their possession. Public schools schedule prayer breaks to accommodate Muslim students. Pork is banned in the workplace - the list goes on.

Islam expert Robert Spencer says Americans have caved in to such demands far too often. His new book, The Stealth Jihad, describes the non-violent war being waged by radical Muslims against American society.

Denver a terror risk?

by Peter Marcus

Report: 1.7M vulnerable if chemical plant attacked

More than 1.7 million people in the Denver area could be at risk if an area chemical facility were to be attacked by terrorists, states a report released this week by the Center for American Progress.

In addition to 100 other “most dangerous chemical facilities” around the nation, Denver’s KIK Denver, Inc., part of Ontario, Canada-based KIK International, Inc., is highlighted as a chemical plant that could bring the region a worst-case toxic gas cloud if it were to be targeted by terrorists. The plant produces bleach by using chlorine gas at its facility located at 4941 East 39th Ave., which requires bulk shipments, according to the report.

The report identifies alternatives for each chemical plant across the nation, each of which threatens at least 1 million people if they were to be attacked by terrorists. In the case of KIK Denver, the Center for American Progress recommends producing bleach on-site from salt and electricity without shipping or storing chlorine gas. The liberal policy group hired a chemical safety consultant for the report.

“Adopting safer chemicals is the only certain way to protect American communities from a toxic gas release,” said Paul Orum, chemical safety consultant. “Site security cannot assure protection against a concerted attack, insider sabotage, or catastrophic release. Replacing hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives removes the danger.”

Calls to KIK Denver by the Denver Daily News went unreturned yesterday. If the plant follows-up, the Denver Daily News will print its response.

Since 1994, KIK Denver has made great strides in the number of toxic chemicals released into the environment, according to the Toxics Release Inventory Program of the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, from 1991-2002 chlorine releases have decreased by 34 percent. The facility is ranked by the EPA as one of the “cleanest/best facilities in the U.S.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security warns that terrorists could use chemical plants as improvised weapons of mass destruction. There are concerns, however, that security standards developed within the last two years at chemical facilities only focus on “physical measures” like adding gates and guards. The measures do not completely protect against an internal attack, or catastrophic release, states the report.

“So far we have been unwilling to address this threat in a serious way,” states P.J. Crowley, director of national defense and homeland security at the Center for American Progress. “We must move beyond our current focus on site security.”

Converting to alternative chemicals and processes would increase the safety of as many as 80 million Americans living near chemical plants, states the report. Millions more living near railroads and highways used for transporting chemicals would also be safer.

“Millions of people remain unnecessarily vulnerable to toxic terrorism,” said Reece Rushing, director of regulatory and information policy at the Center for American Progress. “This report shows that substantial safety and security improvements are possible and affordable.”

Northrop sees defense spending steady in near term

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Northrop Grumman Corp Chief Executive Ron Sugar on Wednesday said U.S. defense spending would likely remain steady for the next few years, but significant changes might occur in fiscal 2011 and 2012, depending on the priorities of the Obama administration.

Given ongoing security threats and the way U.S. defense programs are structured, Sugar said he does not expect any "dramatic reductions" in major weapons programs.

"Nobody has a crystal ball. You may see some rearrangements of what's emphasized and what's not emphasized, but the way this system works, the next couple years are pretty well understood," Sugar said in webcast remarks to a New York conference sponsored by Aviation Week and Credit Suisse.

"There can be significant deviations in the '11, '12 period, depending on what the administration and the Congress decide to do," Sugar said.

He said Northrop is well positioned in areas that should do well in any readjustment of defense priorities, including unmanned aerial vehicles, a sector which he said is expected to grow substantially in coming years.

Another promising area is cybersecurity, Sugar said, citing mounting evidence that many countries are developing cyberwarfare capabilities, and that U.S. industry and government are facing numerous attempted attacks already.

Sugar said new business in the cybersecurity sector could amount to "billions and billions" of dollars of orders, but some of the work would be classified.

"It will be significant. It will be a piece that is growing faster than the other accounts," he said.

Shipbuilding should be steady, but the company is working hard to improve its profitability and margins in that area.

Information technology should remain stable in the defense and intelligence sectors, but state and local work will probably weaken, given the overall economic crisis, he said.

Asked about possible missile defense cuts, Sugar said only about $1 billion of his company's annual revenues come from there, and he does not expect the new administration to make wholesale cuts in this area, especially given the very real and growing threat of missile attacks by enemy states.

Overall, he predicted cuts could amount to around $500 million to $1 billion from the current annual spending level of $8 billion to $9 billion on missile defense, Sugar said.

Sugar said Northrop had an order backlog valued at around $70 billion at the end of the third quarter, about half of which was not yet funded with signed contracts. But he said the company has been cautious about adding any orders to the backlog unless they were fairly certain.

One exception is about $1.5 billion in backlog from a $35 billion contract for new aerial refueling tankers that Northrop won last February. The Pentagon in September said it would cancel the deal and redo the tanker competition, but Northrop said its contract with the Air Force has still not been formally terminated.

Spokesman Randy Belote said the two sides continue to engage in discussions about the issue.

At issue is how much of a termination fee the Air Force would have to pay Northrop for canceling the contract.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Pentagon bans computer flash drives

By Lolita C. Baldor

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon has banned, at least temporarily, the use of external computer flash drives because of a virus threat officials detected on Defense Department networks.

While defense officials would not publicly confirm the ban, messages were sent to department employees informing them of the new restrictions. As part of the ban, the Pentagon was collecting any of the small flash drives that were purchased or provided by the department to workers, according to one message distributed to employees.

Workers are being told there is no guarantee they will ever get the devices back and it is not clear how long the ban will last.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would provide no details on the virus Friday, but he described it as a "global virus" that has been the subject of public alerts.

"This is not solely a department problem, this is not solely a government problem," Whitman said.

The Pentagon has acknowledged that its vast computer network is scanned or probed by outsiders millions of times each day. Last year a cyber attack forced the Defense Department to take up to 1,500 computers off line.

Officials said then that a penetration of the system was detected, but the attack had no adverse impact on department operations.

However, military leaders have consistently warned of potential threats from a variety of sources including other countries -- such as China -- along with other self-styled cyber-vigilantes and terrorists.

The issue has also been of concern at the Department of Homeland Security. A September audit by the DHS Inspector General recommended that the agency implement greater procedures to ensure that only authorized computer flash drives or other storage devices can be connected to the network there and that an inventory of those devices be set up.

DHS agreed with the recommendations and said some of that is already being done. DHS also said more software enhancements are in the works that will provide more protection.

China 'using cyberwarfare to challenge US power'

By Richard Spencer

China is using cyberwarfare to challenge American power and distorting economic policy to exert political influence over other countries, according to a hostile congressional report.

The report accuses China of using its foreign exchange reserves, built up through "heavy-handed government control" to buy influence.

In one recent example, a government sovereign wealth fund agreed to use the reserves to loan money to Costa Rica in return for its dropping diplomatic recognition of China's rival, Taiwan.

Meanwhile, it has built up its army of cyber-spies to such an extent that it can launch attacks "anywhere in the world at any time".

The number of attacks on US government, defence companies and businesses rose by a third in 2007, to 43,880 incidents affecting five million computers, according to the claims by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Some were so sophisticated that they might be impossible to counteract, or even detect. Meanwhile, its space programme, targeted at what one Chinese military strategist called "America's soft ribs", was steadily increasing the vulnerability of US assets.

"China is intent on expanding its sphere of control even at the expense of its Asian neighbours and the United States," it said.

Pentagon and other Washington studies have accused China of using computer hacking to steal information and threaten disruption to both civil and defence services before, and particularly since an alleged co-ordinated attack in 2002, code-named by the US "Titan Rain", downloaded huge quantities of information.

The Chinese government vociferously denies being involved in such attacks.

But the current report comes at a time of great American unease that China will benefit from the global financial crisis to cut into its economic, political and even military dominance.

A separate US study published yesterday said that by 2025 America would probably have to share world leadership with India and China.

The increased attention given in the report to China's economic policy is another sign of that unease.

China has been accused of keeping its exchange rate too low, boosting its exports artificially and using the dollars it is forced to buy as a result of the policy to lend back to the United States, exacerbating the recent credit bubble.

"Rather than use this money for the benefit of its citizens – by funding pensions and erecting hospitals and schools, for example – China has been using the funds to seek political and economic influence over other nations," Larry Wortzel, the Commission chairman, said at the report's launch.

The regular publication of such reports over the last six years with cross-party backing – the committee consists of six Democrats and six Republicans – has not deterred President George W Bush from pursuing ever closer business and diplomatic relations with China, a policy set in place by his father, the first President Bush.

China is waiting anxiously to see whether an Obama presidency brings less hawkishness on international relations, or a more protectionist trade policy, which Beijing fears.

The commission called for legislation pressuring China to raise the value of its currency and to demand its main sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation, disclose investments it is making in the United States.

"China appears far less likely than other nations to manage its sovereign wealth funds without regard to political influence that it can gain by offering such sizeable investments," the report said.

Is he or isn't he? The debate over Obama's eligibility

New feature focuses on birth certificate, the U.S. Constitution and doubts

TV newsgal-wannabe goes bonkers when fired

Terror financing runs wild in Saudi Arabia

(Compiler's note: A must read article)

Kingdom cracks down on violence at home, ignores help flowing to outside groups

Saudi Arabia is cracking down on extremist violence within its borders, but virtually ignoring terror recruitment and financing drives that are suspected of enabling violence around the rest of the world, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The revelation comes as Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz complained that Saudi mosques were being used to recruit operatives for al-Qaida networks. But he has yet to curb either terrorist recruitment in Saudi Arabia or diminish Saudi assistance to terrorists outside the country.

Saudi officials acknowledge that devout Saudis who attend some of the nation's mosques are being targeted by Islamists for a range of operations. Nayef has fretted that Islamic clerics have failed to block the influence of al-Qaida in the mosques which he says serve as places of indoctrination and recruitment of what he describes as an extremist ideology.

"Intellectual security is by no means less important than public security," Nayef said.

In a recent seminar on intellectual security, Nayef was critical of the imams inside Saudi Arabia.

"Frankly speaking, I would like to say that the imams of mosques, with the exception of the two holy mosques, have not played their desired role," he said. "The more than 15,000 mosques in the country constitute the best forums for guidance, but the imams have failed miserably in discharging their duties."

He also urged Saudi universities to play more of a role in curbing Islamic extremism.

"Since universities are centers of research, it is their duty to study ways to root out ideas that distort religion and defame the nation," he added. "Universities should be capable of contributing to the service of the country and it is in line with the teaching of Islam, which urges its followers to benefit from fruits of learning."

Nayef went on to say that the Interior Ministry has made considerable strides in the war against al-Qaida in 2008 with the arrests of more than 700 suspected operatives and the foiling of a number of potentially mass-casualty strikes.

"We have proved to the world that the Saudi security forces are capable of confronting the challenges of the deviant ideology though the country was the main target of extremist plots," Nayef said.

But security experts point to a distinction between Saudi support to fight terrorism inside Saudi Arabia and outside the country.

Those security experts say while Nayef has been in the forefront in cracking down on terrorism within the kingdom, the Saudi leadership continues to work with charities whose funds are skimmed off for terrorist activities internationally.

This recently has been the case in Lebanon, where WND was told by sources that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, chief of the Saudi National Security Council, is helping to finance Sunnis whose militias are instigating fighting against the Shiite Alawite minority in northern Lebanon.

New Report Calls Nuclear Terrorism Risk Unacceptably High

from National Terror Alert Response Center

A new report says the world still faces a serious risk that terrorists could obtain a nuclear bomb and urges President-elect Barack Obama to make reducing that risk a top priority of U.S. security policy and diplomacy. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.

The new report, called “Securing the Bomb 2008,” says major progress has been made to reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism.

The report warns, however, there are still major gaps in these efforts and says the risk of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon remains unacceptably high.

The author of the report, Harvard professor Matthew Bunn, says the potential for a disastrous attack is very real.

“That would incinerate the heart of a major city,” he said. “It could turn the center of Washington, D.C. or the center of Manhattan into a smoking, radioactive ruin that would be unusable for decades to come. That would have profound and catastrophic affects on our society, really reverberating around the world.”

The study is the seventh annual report from Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and was commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonproliferation group based in Washington, D.C.

The report details a series of events around the world in recent years it says highlights the risk of poor security at nuclear installations.

These include an armed break-in at a South African site with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the arrest of a Russian colonel for soliciting bribes to overlook violations of nuclear security rules and the increasing terrorist threats amid the ongoing strife in Pakistan.

With All Eyes on Obama, Port of Los Angeles Security Under Control of Chinese President’s Son

(Compiler's note: Must read)

by Judi McLeod

With all eyes on the Big O’s Office of the President-elect, very few know that the Port of Los Angeles – the nation’s largest – is now effectively under the control of the Peoples Republic of China.

The Port has purchased with $1.7 million American tax dollars via a “port security grant” awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland security, a mobile X-ray scanning system, mounted on a Mack Truck chassis. The scanning system is owned by Nuctech Company Limited, owned outright by Hu Haifeng, the son of Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Sated with their Obama victory, the mainstream media is asleep at the switch, but eagle eye Lou Dobbs is flagging the America public’s attention. See Dobbs on YouTube.

Communist China couldn’t be any closer to America aside from moving its Army right in. Touted as “sophisticated” and “high-energy”, the X-ray scanning machine was manufactured by Nuctech, headquartered in Beijing.

“The bid that included the Nuctech scanner, which was cheaper than rival bids submitted by Smiths Detection, a British company with offices in New Jersey, and Rapiscan Systems, of Torrance, CA, was formally submitted to the port by a small U.S.-based business headquartered in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, known as DULY Research Inc.” (gsnmagazine.com, Oct. 16, 2008).

“We were cognizant of the fact that we were the first port to acquire this Chinese system,” said George Cummings, the port’s director of homeland security. “They were the low bidder and they complied with all the technical requirements.”

If Dobbs is worried, this latest potential breach in security doesn’t bother Cummings: “We don’t have any heartburn about this. We did all the due diligence we had to do. We took it to our board. We’re comfortable with this decision.”

Critics of the transaction, swallowed up by mainstream media focus on the recent presidential election, raise the specter of sensitive X-ray images and cargo manifests being archived on the X-ray scanning system and, perhaps, transmitted via the Internet back to Nuctech in China, or to the Chinese government. Indeed, the mobile system was required to offer that technical capability from the get-go.

The Nuctech set up makes for a more comfortable environment than the ongoing transfer of information passed on to China by industrial spies active in other areas on U.S. and Canadian soil.

Nuctech also conducts business in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Setting itself apart from the mainstream media, HDMK, Strategy Communications, Media Public Affairs, an organization that has been engaged in hundreds of high profile public policy battles, is posing some hard-line questions:

Will Nuctech X-ray machines have any direct connection to the U.S. Department of Homeland security computer systems and are there any firewalls in place?

Has Nuctech retained Washington lobbyists to help ease the approval for this unprecedented expenditure of U.S. security funds, and if so, who are they?

Have United States Customs and Border Patrol officials visited Nutech in China to approve or to explore the prospect of purchasing equipment for other port security operations?

If so, who went to China, when?

“If there’s nothing to hide, why won’t Nuctech or DULY Research in Los Angeles (the winner of the contact for the Port of Los Angeles) talk to the media,” asks HDMK’s Trent D. Duffy.

Most significantly, will images taken by Nuctech X-ray machines be portable?

What are the personnel requirements needed to support the Nuctech X-ray machines in terms of operations, maintenance, performance checks, etc., in the Port of Los Angeles?

Have any of these individuals even undergone routine security screening?

Who paid for Port of Los Angeles officials to travel to China to visit Nuctech facilities?

It’s been two years since the Dubai Ports fiasco was last on the public radar screen. During the high profile Dubai Ports debacle, those who opposed the sale of American ports to Dubai, vowed that no foreign government would be permitted to acquire such strategic targets in future.

The Port of Los Angeles is not only one of them, it’s the biggest of the lot.

Got your earplugs turned on, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff?

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon

By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The figures detailing Iran's progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country's main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.

Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.

While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the IAEA believe it will avoid the risk of attempting "nuclear breakout" until it possessed a larger uranium supply.

Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.

American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.

Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile "underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option."

In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran's main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges — machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency's last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report's total of 630 kilograms — an increase of about 150 — shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.

That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.

"They have a weapon's worth," Thomas Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.

He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.

"It's a virtual milestone," Cochran said of Iran's stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about "where they're going."

The agency's report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran's stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the IAEA report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would "within a few months." It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.

Whatever the exact date, it added, "Iran is progressing" toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.

Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. "They're very close," he said of the Iranians in an interview. "If it isn't tomorrow, it's soon," probably a matter of months.

In its report, the IAEA, which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.

A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.

The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year.

"While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use," the report said, the building's features "along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site." Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs.

Supremes to review Barack's citizenship

(Compiler's note: Must read)

By Bob Unruh

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.

The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

According to America's Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, there also was a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

His report said the Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.

"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response," the blogger speculated.

"Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents," he added.

"If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg told America's Right. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist.

"However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

But he noted that "questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day."

Just last week, WND reported on worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.

Alan Keyes

The disputes all cite "natural-born citizen" requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

An Obama spokesman interviewed by WND described such lawsuits as "garbage."

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote, when it is held in December, by a 2-to-1 margin.

The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office

must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

WND has reported other challenges that have been raised in Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii.

Fear of Islam? You Betcha!

by Ruth King

.... Is it irrational or bigoted to fear them? No. It's prudent.

We should demand that our elected legislators consider our safety and homeland security and confront and condemn putative terrorists and those who aid and abet them instead of pandering to the whining and pretended “victimhood” of those who would destroy us. I am afraid for our country. I fear creeping Sharia, and it is high time for the purported great majority of peaceful Musle\ims to speak out loudly and forcefully against fanatical hatred of Jews and Christians and to denounce violence and terrorism and dreams of a global Caliphate....

Bush's Legacy: European Socialism

By Dick Morris

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy. In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in toto, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation and excessive government regulation. Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merger with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a college of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations."

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices. The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation. Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.

We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve. What's more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France's Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing. By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.

All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of response to the global financial crisis. Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government! The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe. Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge? How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, which has 50 percent more population? It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush -- not Obama -- Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check. ....

Why Bankruptcy Is the Best Option for GM

Chapter 11 would better preserve the valuable parts of the company than an ad hoc bailout.

Phoenix Imam Tells Muslims To Disregard U.S. Laws

by Robert Spencer

“A Muslim must try his best to abide by the rulings of Sharia [Islamic law] whenever possible as much as he can. He should not allow himself to be liable to those western laws that contradict the clear-cut Islamic rulings.” The rulings of Sharia, mind you, include stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims. But the speaker was not some fanatic Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia; it was the Phoenix-based imam Omar Shahin, president of the North American Imams Foundation. This is probably one reason why, as The Arizona Republic reported Monday, the FBI has stepped up scrutiny of Shahin and other Muslim leaders in Phoenix.

Omar Shahin has been in the news before. He is the spokesman for a group of six imams who sued US Airways after being removed from a flight in 2006 when passengers and crewmembers reported that they were behaving suspiciously. The imams were handcuffed and later interrogated, then released with no charges, whereupon Shahin led a news conference to condemn prejudice against Muslims. All six imams later sued the airline, airport police and an FBI agent, claiming they had been singled out solely because they were Muslim. “We did nothing,” Shahin maintained in a report on Boston Herald.com -- and the Council on American Islamic Relations seized on the incident as evidence of American “Islamophobia.” “We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam,” said CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, in the same report.

The imams also initially sued the anonymous passengers who reported them, before House Republicans pushed through a measure protecting whistleblowers in such circumstances. As I discuss in my new book Stealth Jihad, if this initiative had been successful, the only winners would have been Islamic jihadists who wanted to hijack airplanes. Any ruling against the passengers would have essentially placed Muslims beyond the pale of security-related scrutiny, because someone who reported suspicious behavior by a Muslim in an airport or airplane would have faced a real risk of being sued for discrimination.

Shahin’s questionable activities didn’t begin with this lawsuit, either. In the '80s, he was an imam at the Islamic Center of Tucson, which the Republic identified as “a hub for adherents to the radical Wahhabi school of Islam, some of whom later became important aides to Osama bin Laden in the al-Qaida terrorist group.” The report by Sean Holstege and Dennis Wagner also notes that Shahin raised funds for two Islamic charities that were ultimately shut down on accusations that they were funneling contributions to the jihad terrorist group Hamas.

Yet despite all this, “Shahin has served as a Muslim community liaison with the FBI and the Phoenix police,” according to the Republic. How did a man with a record like Shahin’s ever get into the good graces of the FBI? He was able to do so because many officials in positions of influence in the United States are standing by passively as the stealth jihad advances. They are ignorant of what is happening, and those who do know are making sure not to tell them. Willfully blind officials appear dedicated to “multiculturalism” and “diversity” no matter what the cost. They hinder the investigation of and resistance to the stealth jihad.

There is no gauging the extent of stealth jihadist infiltration into American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. But there is no question that the chief enabler of that infiltration has been political correctness among American officials. In this great war against the global jihad network, no one wants to appear anti-Arab or anti-Muslim -- and this has led more or less directly to some serious lapses in national security.

If America is to survive, it is eventually going to have to choose national security over political correctness -- and call upon Islamic leaders like Omar Shahin to stop teaching Muslims in the U.S. to disregard American laws when they conflict with Islamic norms. The spectacle of the FBI increasing scrutiny of a man whom they have worked with in the past is ludicrous beyond belief. How many more imams in America will teach Muslims that when Islamic law and U.S. law contradict each other, it is U.S. law that must give way, before those sworn to uphold and defend U.S. law wake up to what is happening?

Britain grapples with role for Islamic justice

Osama warns Obama

By TOM WELLS

TERROR group al-Qaeda yesterday launched its first attack on US President-elect Barack Obama.

CAIRO, Egypt — Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahiri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

In Al Qaeda's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahiri also called the president-elect — along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — "house Negroes."

Click here to watch a clip of the video.

Click here to view the English translation of Zawahiri's message.

In a chilling broadcast, Osama Bin Laden’s second-in-command warned Obama to end America’s war against the Taliban.

He told him: “The dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands of them.”

The warning by Ayman Al-Zawahiri — mastermind of the 9/11 attacks — follows Obama’s vow to take the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The terror boss said: “You are neither facing individuals not organisations, but are facing a Jihadi (holy warrior) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world.”

Al-Zawahiri, 57, slammed Obama for not becoming a Muslim like his father. And he accused America of “drowning in greed” and spreading “evil, murder and despotism”.

He also branded Obama and US politician Colin Powell “house negroes” — doing the bidding of white leaders.

The Sun was the first news organisation to uncover the rant on al-Qaeda’s website. Within hours it had flooded extremist websites worldwide.

Terror expert Glen Jenvey said of the broadcast: “It’s importance cannot be underestimated.”

Facts we should know

(Compiler's note: Source a friend.)

Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands -- his response was "It's our land." The reporter (CNN or the like) was stunned -- read below "It's our land..."

It's important information since we don't get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.

"Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."

Here are overlooked facts in the current Middle East situation.

These were compiled by a Christian university professor.

BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY....
( It takes just 1.5 minutes to read! !!! )

It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew -- it doesn't matter.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem . Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E. Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel .

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E., the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem .

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey ..

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestini ans most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel .

17. Of the 690 G eneral Assembly resol utions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel .

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. Was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives .

20. The U.N. Was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be. What will we tell our grandchildren we did when there was a turning point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?

Tainted meats point to superbug C. diff in food

....Nearly 30 percent of the contaminated samples of ground beef, pork and turkey and ready-to-eat meats like summer sausage were identical or closely related to a super-toxic strain of C. diff blamed for growing rates of illness and death in the U.S. — raising the possibility that the bacterial infections may be transmitted through food..... But specialists from the CDC and scientists who study C. diff said the connection between the presence of C. diff bacteria and infection has not been established and that there’s not enough evidence about food transmission to warrant public alarm. ....

Why socialism is evil

(Compiler's note: Some of our younger citizens are asking "What is wrong with Socialism? Some of our older elected citizens seem to be in the dark as well.)

by Walter E. Williams

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you, and I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency

would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.