House adopts plan for 'volunteer' corps

(Compiler's note: This is one change you must read to believe.)

Also requires new evaluation of 'mandatory' service for all

By Bob Unruh

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.

The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."

The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service

Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes "new programs and studies" and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

WND reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

The video

of his statements is posted here:

The new bill specifically references the possibilities "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."

Such new requirements perhaps, the legislation notes, "would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:

"The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives."

According to a report by Canada Free Press, "'volunteerism' that kept America running since the days of its founding" would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."

"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service," the commentary said.

"On paper, H.R. 1388 is the 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'; the more innocuous sounding 'The Give Act,' for short.

"The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations' and operating under Michelle Obama," the commentary said.

"Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary," the commentary said.

"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. … The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America," the commentary said. "Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."

Groups of such "volunteers," would, under the legislation, be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. … There shall be a superintendent for each camp."

The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: "This is the equivalent of brown shirts."

Another portion of the bill talks about a "service learning" plan that will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."

A forum participant noted, "I wonder what's going to happen to those who refused to 'volunteer.' Maybe they will be put into a different 'campus.' I guess we will soon find out."

Formal announcements about the plan suggested something far different, picking a provision far down in the 200 pages of legislation to highlight.

According to a Business Wire statement released by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the bill "would formally authorize federal support for establishing the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America as a National Day of Service and Remembrance."

That provision is tucked into the far reaches of the legislation, but Schumer discussed it as if it were the primary point.

"I could not be more proud to work to pass this important provision," said Schumer. "September 11 should not only be a day for mourning – it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country. We can take a tragic day in our nation's history and turn it into a force for good."

On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: "What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of 'volunteer' service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and 'camps.' They revise the word 'camps' and call it 'campus.' There is language about Seniors and Community organizations."

The blog noted, such work forces would be used for "pressing national and local challenges" that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.

At a Republican website, officials noted it authorizes funding for an Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans' Corps and Opportunity Corps.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. It was approved in the House 321-105, with mostly GOP opposition. It now goes to the Senate.

WND reported earlier on Obama's Colorado Springs campaign speech when he sought a civilian security force as big and well-funded as the military – with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars.

WND later reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

Previous stories:

Civilian security force on agenda again

Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'

Web faux pas: Plan leaked for 'civilian security force'?

Dollars lining up for 'civilian national security force'?

Obama's training program described as 'Big Brother'

Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech

New Yorker reprints discredited Obama Holocaust distortion

Obama: Immigration enforcement equals terror

Obama drops disputed vet medical plan

The Obama administration dropped a proposal to require some disabled veterans to pay for medical treatments through their private insurance companies, heeding a chorus of outrage from veterans groups and Capitol Hill lawmakers who said the idea was immoral, unconscionable and un-American.....

$750 billion "green" investment could revive economy: U.N.

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - Investments of $750 billion could create a "Green New Deal" to revive the world economy and protect the environment, perhaps aided by a tax on oil, the head of the U.N. environment agency said on Thursday.

Achim Steiner said spending should focus on five environmental sectors including improved energy efficiency for buildings and solar or wind power to create jobs, curb poverty and fight climate change.

"The opportunity must not be lost," Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), told Reuters of a UNEP study that will be put to world leaders meeting in London on April 2 to work out how to spur the ailing economy.

The UNEP report said investments of one percent of global gross domestic product, or about $750 billion, could bankroll a "Global Green New Deal" inspired by the "New Deal" of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt that helped end the depression of the 1930s.

Investments should be split between more energy efficient buildings, renewable energies, better transport, improved agriculture and measures to safeguard nature -- such as fresh water, forests or coral reefs, it said.

Thursday's study adds details of spending after UNEP called for a Green New Deal late last year.

Steiner also said that the world urgently needed funds to jump start a U.N. deal to fight global warming, due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December to succeed the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

He floated the possibility of taxing oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to help a new pact become the cornerstone of a greener economy.

"If, for argument's sake, you were to put a five-year levy in OECD countries of $5 a barrel, you would generate $100 billion per annum. It translates into roughly 3 cents per liter," he said.

UNNOTICED

"It would be almost, if not totally, unnoticed by the consumer," he said, especially since oil prices have fallen from more than $140 a barrel at mid-2008 peaks to about $40.

A barrel of oil contains 158 liters and OECD consumption is about 20 billion barrels a year, he said. "This is just one example, there may be many others," of funding, he said.

"I am concerned about the prospect of a meaningful deal in Copenhagen if there is not a significant financial package on the table," he said. Cash would encourage poor nations to step up actions to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions.

"The argument that we cannot afford this does not, on any serious analysis, hold much water -- especially given the cost to the global economy of failure to act on climate change," he said.

Carbon markets, which could also be a source of funds to help fight climate change, were unlikely to contribute enough cash in early years of a new climate deal, he said.

Steiner said there were promising signs that economic stimulus packages by many nations, ranging from the United States to China, were being tailored to help a shift toward greener growth and away from dependence on fossil fuels.

The U.N. Climate Panel says that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are a prime cause of warming that will cause more heatwaves, droughts, rising sea levels and more powerful storms.

Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in U.S.

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Eric Holder

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Six weeks into his tenure, Mr. Holder is still trying to assemble much of the Justice senior leadership, with several nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. He said he has reviewed the department's handling of white-collar criminal cases in response to the financial crisis and is considering ways to increase coordination on financial fraud among federal prosecutors and state officials. He said he is trying to increase the budget dedicated to white-collar crime, while maintaining funding for national security.

European justice ministers met with Mr. Holder earlier this week and pressed for details on how many Guantanamo prisoners the U.S. planned to release domestically, as part of any agreement for allies to accept detainees. Mr. Holder said U.S. officials would work to respond to the questions European officials have over U.S. Guantanamo plans.

For "people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country," Mr. Holder said. "That process is ongoing and we've not made any determinations or made any requests of anybody at this point."

Among the detainees whose fate remains undetermined are 17 ethnic Uighurs, from the Central Asian region of China, who have been ordered released by a judge. The U.S. has refused to turn the men over to China, which considers them part of an separatist group.

Mr. Holder is planning to visit Mexico next month to meet with his counterparts and discuss efforts to fight the trafficking of guns from the U.S. into Mexico and the drug trade from Mexico into the U.S.

"The Mexican government has been courageous in the way it has confronted the problems that now challenge it," Mr. Holder said, noting the violence that has resulted from battles against the drug cartels in Mexico.

"God in the Holy Quran makes jihad a duty on the shoulders of every Muslim who is able to fight"

(Compiler's note: Your must read and understand this teaching by our enemy.)

from Jihad Watch

Yemen Times columnist Mofeed Al-Gaad insists that jihad is not terrorism, that America and Israel are the real terrorists, and that jihad warfare is a religious duty for Muslims. If by "terrorism" is meant a strike on innocent civilians in order to demoralize an enemy, then the application of the word does indeed rest on one's conception of who is innocent and who is the enemy. But note that al-Gaad is subscribing to a doctrine that mandates the subjugation of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, by violent means if necessary, and their forced acceptance of second-class status. That makes it incumbent upon all free people, and all people who value the concepts of human rights that have evolved out of the Judeo-Christian tradition and become universal (except where Sharia norms prevail), to resist this man's religious obligation.

"Jihad is a duty, not terrorism," by Mofeed Al-Gaad in the Yemen Times, March 19 (thanks to James):

Massacres are being committed in different parts of Arab world amidst the complete silence and quiet absence of the brotherly soul of the Arab people. In the past, the enemies of Islam realized that their aims could not be fulfilled via military force because the Arab people have a strong faith in their religion that makes them sacrifice themselves for its defense. That is to say, events and life experiences made the enemies of Muslims realize that it is impossible to defeat those Muslims who have strong faith in the idea of the jihad.

Hence, the enemies of Islam sent missionaries to Arab world in order to kill the idea of the jihad inside every Muslim mind. Those missionaries had already tried to use their various weapons to change the beliefs of Muslims and kill the soul of jihad. In the past they failed to affect the conception of jihad among Muslims or force them to forget their duties toward their brothers. These days however, it seems that the enemy achieves whatever he failed to do in the past.

Under the umbrella of terrorism, the enemy succeeded to erase the very word of jihad from the Islamic dictionary, burying its corpse in a deep grave. If any Muslim who possesses the soul of jihad tries to take revenge on those who kill innocent children and elderly people, he will be accused of being a terrorist who disturbs the safety and stability of the world. Consequently, America and Israel are seizing this opportunity to accomplish their colonial aims by destroying the Islamic cities and by killing Muslims in different parts of the Arab world.

To prove this point, let us look at what is happening in Iraq and Palestine. Under the umbrella of emancipating the Iraqi people from Saddam’s dictatorial regime, the United States of America destroyed the great country of Iraq, killing its heroes, raping its virgin girls, absorbing its valuable wealth, and slaughtering its faithful leaders in the process. Likewise, Israel accused the poor people of Gaza of being terrorists who disturb the stability of both Israelis and Palestinians, ignoring the fact that it is the Israelis who are the savage criminals who spread corruption in Arabic Palestine. The Israelis killed innocent children and elderly people, burned the beautiful plants, and destroyed the sacred places in the virgin land of Palestine.

Perhaps most importantly, the Arab leaders who claim that they represent their people accused those mujahedeen fighters who defend their people and their land as aggressive jihadists. Thus they are participating with the enemies of Islam in changing the concept of jihad into another concept called ‘terrorism.’ This is why the Arab leaders looked silently at the savage massacres committed by Israel against our brothers in the Gaza strip.

Moreover, America and its daughter Israel describe the fighters of the Hamas movement who resist the invaders as being a terrorist group. Here is a question that poses itself to these aggressive countries: is the one who defends his homeland, fights the invaders, and protects his people a terrorist? That most certainly is not true. All the cultures of the world see that defending one’s homeland and fiercely fighting invaders is a duty on the shoulders of all people residing in the invaded land.

America and Israel claim that Hamas fighters are the real terrorists who are disturbing the stability of Israel, neglecting the fact that Israelis, represented by their cruel officials, are the real terrorists. They are the ones who killed the innocent children and slaughtered the elderly people, throwing all Security Council and United Nations resolutions to the wind. The real picture of Israel must be shown in an obvious fashion to all people all over the world. Israelis are the real terrorists who assault humanity and violate international laws. The unjust Israeli war against Gaza is a clear example of this cruel and savage country that disturbed the international stability and aroused chaos and horror in the world.

Dear readers, we ought to pay attention to the devilish aims of our enemy who desires to delete the duty of jihad from the Islamic dictionary. In this situation in which the enemy of Islam makes a lot of Muslims unable to distinguish between jihad and terrorism, we should consult our holy book, the Quran. God in the Holy Quran makes jihad a duty on the shoulders of every Muslim who is able to fight. Therefore, we should be rational and support the flag of jihad wherever we find it.

Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American

The speaker of the House told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants recently that enforcement of immigration laws in the United States is "un-American."....

Army Investigating How and Why Troops Were Sent Into Alabama Town After Murder Spree

By Pete Winn

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week's murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.

“On March 10, after a report of an apparent mass murder in Samson, Ala., 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, Ala., along with the provost marshal, were sent to the city of Samson,” Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Fort Monroe, Va., told CNSNews.com on Monday.

“The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed is the subject of an ongoing commander’s inquiry--directed by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Martin Dempsey.”

TRADOC is the headquarters command for Ft. Rucker.

“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also determine whether law, regulation and policy were followed,” Perritt added. “Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further.”

Jim Stromenger, a dispatcher at the Samson Police Department, confirmed the MP’s presence in the town, telling CNSNews.com that the troops “came in to help with traffic control and to secure the crime scene”--and the department was glad for the help.

“We’ve been getting a lot of calls,” Stromenger said. “They weren’t here to police, let me make that clear. They were here to help with traffic and to control the crime scene--so people wouldn’t trample all over (it).”

Stromenger said the town needed help--calls had gone out to all police departments in the area.

“We only have a five-man police department,” he told CNSNews.com. “We had officers from all surrounding areas helping out. There were a lot of streets to be blocked off and there had to be someone physically there to block them off. That’s what these MPs were doing. I don’t think they were even armed. The troops helped keep nosy people away.”

But Stromenger said it wasn’t the Samson Police Department that called for the troops.

“I don’t know who called Fort Rucker. But someone did. They wouldn’t have been able to come if someone hadn’t,” he added.

Under Whose Authority?

The troops were apparently not deployed by the request of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley -- or by the request of President Obama, as required by law.

When contacted by CNSNews.com, the governor’s office could not confirm that the governor had requested help from the Army, and Gov. Riley's spokesman, Todd Stacy, expressed surprise when he was told that troops had been sent to the town.

No request from President Obama, meanwhile, was issued by the White House--or the Defense Department.

Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code.

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” the law states.

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said there are other laws barring use of federal troops outside of federal property, as well.

“Title 18, Section 375 of the U.S. Code is a direct restriction on military personnel, and it basically precludes any member of the army in participating in a ‘search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity, unless participation is otherwise authorized by law,’ “ Rittgers told CNSNews.com.

“The security of a crime scene is something I think that would roll up in the category of a ‘search, seizure or other activity,’” Rittgers added.

In addition, there is the Insurrection Act of 1808, as amended in 2007, (Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code) under which the president can authorize troops “to restore order and enforce the laws of the United States” in an insurrection.

“Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection,” the law states.

In 2007, Congress expanded the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as situations for which the president can authorize troops, provided that “domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Congress has been clear that the use of U.S. troops for civilian police purposes is forbidden.

“One of the statutes explicitly says that military brigs can’t even be used to detain domestic criminals,” Rittgers said. “It really is supposed to be a black and white line.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, would have prosecuting authority, if any violation is deemed to have occurred. The Justice Department did not comment for this story.

Ft. Rucker, located in Southern Alabama, is the home of Army Aviation.

Obama Wants to Disarm U.S. Pilots

By: David A. Patten

The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.

The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.

A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration's action, calling it “completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots.”

Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper. No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.

About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.

Paul Valone, a Second Amendment advocate who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC.org), is calling for citizens to contract their congressional representatives to protest the administration’s anti-gun priorities.

Pilots are already required to pay for their own room and board during training, and use paid leave for the time they’re off the job. Every six months, the program requires them to be requalified for firearm use.

Valone writes on Examiner.com: “While bureaucrats . . . may have attempted to hamstring the program with burdensome requirements, training instructors and the Federal Air Marshals who now oversee the program routinely thank the FFDOs for their professionalism and dedication in protecting the nation’s air commerce against terrorism.”

Valone says the Obama administration is “dismantling yet another layer of defense against terrorism and defying the will of the American people.”

Since coming to power, the Obama administration has undertaken a series of moves that signal a major de-emphasis of programs enacted to keep America’s homeland safe from terrorist attack:

Obama’s choice for U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, labeled enhanced interrogation techniques as outright “torture” during his Senate confirmation hearings. Obama banned waterboarding and ordered CIA interrogators to abide by U.S. Army Field Manual regulations. He selected Clinton-era political operative Leon Panetta to serve as his CIA director. Panetta’s qualifications to run the agency have been questioned widely. Obama announced that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba within one year, raising the prospect of hardened terrorists entering the U.S. criminal justice system, or worse, being released to rejoin al-Qaida. He indicated the U.S. defense budget would be sharply reduced. He has sent a letter to Russian leaders, apparently offering to back off on the ballistic missile defense system that would protect Europe from Iran and North Korea. These and other Obama administration moves recently prompted former vice president Dick Cheney to charge that Obama is returning to the Clinton-era view of terrorism as a law enforcement issue. "Now he's made some choices that in my mind raise the risk to the American people of another attack," Cheney said of Obama on CNN's "State of the Union" program. The Washington Times points out that about 70 percent of airline pilots have military backgrounds. With airport screening less than 100 percent effective, it states, armed pilots provide a second layer of defense. “Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots,” the newspaper editorial says.

Focus on Individualism Creates MBA "Monsters"?

By Stacy Blackman

Business schools have created the crisis we’re in, says Dr. Peggy Cunningham, the new director of the School of Business Administration at Dalhousie University, Canada, in an interview published in Monday’s Globe and Mail. Having left a tenured position at Queen’s University, Cunningham wants to restructure the Dalhousie business school program around a core concept of responsible leadership.

In a Q&A with reporter Gordon Pitts, Cunningham lays out the problems as she sees them, and offers a new vision for future business leaders. Here are some nuggets from their conversation:

• Business school have created monsters.
  

Too much focus on individual success and competition between companies makes people forget that they’re part of a larger social system to which they are accountable. As Cunningham says:

Business schools have to take a very hard look at themselves to see the kind of people we are graduating and take our responsibility very much to heart in terms of the models we use to graduate these people.

• Wanting to get rich is fine, but it’s not sustainable as a sole motivation.

‘Greed is good’ may have been Gordon Gekko’s motto in the hit movie “Wall Street”, but Cunningham says, “If what it takes to make one person rich is to make two-thirds of the rest of the world poor, I don’t think that’s a sustainable model.”

• Turning out more public administration grads is not necessarily the answer.
  

Citing the eight-year lag between the entrenchment of the Internet and the first legislation to protect online privacy, Cunningham is skeptical about the government’s ability to take the lead in new technologies. “Even though I might be very critical of business, business is going to be the engine that drives new technologies that will make business itself more sustainable.”

MBA programs everywhere have begun an era of introspection. Last week, the Wharton School announced that the keynote speaker for MBA commencement will be Dr. Muhammad Yunus, founder and managing director of Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. More and more, business school programs are eager to point out that entrepreneurship can be about more than merely making money.

Feds undercut ammo supply

But Defense policy reversed after intervention by 2 Montana senators
By Drew Zahn

Responding to two Democratic senators representing outraged private gun owners, the Department of Defense announced last night it has scrapped a new policy that would deplete the supply of ammunition by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge

brass.

The policy already had taken a bite out of the nation's stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find ammo for private gun owners.

Mark Cunningham, a legislative affairs representative with the Defense Logistics Agency, explained in an e-mail last night to the office of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that the Department of Defense had placed small arms cartridge cases on its list of sensitive munitions items as part of an overall effort to ensure national security is not jeopardized in the sale of any Defense property.

The small arms cases were identified as a senstive item and were held pending review of policy, he said.

"Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale," Cunningham wrote.

The Defense Department liaison was responding to a letter yesterday to the Defense Logistic Agency's Vice Admiral Alan S. Thompson from Tester and fellow Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus. The senators argued "prohibiting the sale of fired military brass would reduce the supply of ammunition – preventing individual gun owners from fully exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We urge you to address this situation promptly."

Learn here why it's your right -- and duty -- to be armed.

One of the companies that brought attention to the issue is Georgia Arms, which for the last 15 years has been purchasing fired brass casings from the Department of Defense and private government surplus liquidators. The military collects the discarded casings from fired rounds, then sells them through liquidators

to companies like Georgia Arms that remanufacture the casings into ammunition for the law enforcement and civilian gun owner communities.

But earlier this month, Georgia Arms received a canceled order, informed by its supplier that the government now requires fired brass casings be mutilated, in other words, destroyed to a scrap metal state.

The policy change, handed down from the Department of Defense through the Defense Logistics Agency, cut a supply leg out from underneath ammunition manufacturers.

The policy compelled Georgia Arms to cancel all sales of .223 and .308 ammunition, rounds used, respectively, in semi-automatic and deer hunting rifles, until further notice. Sharch Manufacturing, Inc. had announced the same cancellation of its .223 and .308 brass reloading components.

"They just reclassified brass to allow destruction of it, based on what?" Georgia Arms owner Larry Haynie asked WND. "We've been 'going green' for the last dozen years, and brass is one of the most recyclable materials out there. A cartridge case can be used over and over again. And now we're going to destroy it based on what? We don't want the civilian public to have it? It's a government injustice."

As WND reported, firearm sales have spiked since the election of a perceived anti-gun president, and Americans stockpiling bullets have produced a stressed ammunition market.

The Orlando Sentinel reports months of steady, heavy buying have left gun dealers in Florida facing shortages of ammunition.

"The survivalist in all of us comes out," John Ritz, manager of a Florida shooting range, told the Sentinel. "It's more about protecting what you have."

"People are just stockpiling," said a spokeswoman for Georgia Arms, which has seen bullet sales jump 100 percent since the election. "A gun is just like a car. If you can't get gas, you can't use it."

WND contacted the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Defense's largest combat support agency, several times seeking comment or explanation for the policy change but received none.

The National Rifle Association confirmed to WND that the DLA had been instructed to require the scrapping of the brass casings but declined further comment.

Other gun advocates, however, sounded off on the issue, eyeing the change in government policy with suspicion and filling the blogosphere with speculation that the effects of the policy change may be deliberate.

"It is an end-run around Congress. They don't need to try to ban guns – they don't need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit 'assault' weapon sales," writes firearm instructor and author Gordon Hutchinson on his The Shootist blog. "Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless."

A writer named Owen at the Boots & Sabers blog suspected the policy change was an effort by an anti-gun administration to raise the cost of ammunition.

"This policy didn't come out of the blue," wrote Owen. "The Commander in Chief is clearly sending a message to gun owners that they should be paying more for ammunition. If he can't do it through regulatory action, he'll do it by forcing ammunition manufacturers to spend more on production."

Hutchinson reports Georgia Arms was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, but without the ability to purchase expended military ammunition, the company might have been forced to lay off up to half its workforce.

Fed to Buy Treasurys, Expand Balance Sheet

(Compiler's note: Must read -- If I understand this correctly in order to try and preclude a “depression” the Feds have implemented the “last line of defense” for our nation’s economic security. They are borrowing $$ from ourselves to pay ourselves. This is taking $$ from one pocket and putting it into the other pocket.

This solution has never before worked in the world’s history. Historically, it has lead to a complete collapse of a country’s financial system. In an effort to stop a depression, if not done exactly correct, it will lead to hyper-inflation. (trunk full of dollars to buy a loaf of bread).

If this bubble breaks there is no other workable solution. This decision will decide our economic future and that of out children --- and our elected officials fiddle.)

By JON HILSENRATH and BRIAN BLACKSTONE

The Federal Reserve ramped up its efforts to resuscitate the sagging economy, saying it would purchase up to $300 billion of long-term U.S. Treasury securities in the next few months and hundreds of billions of dollars more in mortgage-backed securities.

By buying long-term government bonds and mortgage-backed securities, officials hope to push up their prices and bring down their yields, and thereby energize the economy. Interest rates on many corporate bonds and consumer loans are benchmarked to U.S. Treasury debt. (Read the Fed's statement.)

The move was a bold statement of force from the central bank, which during months of internal debate on the issue had been hesitant to begin buying long-term government bonds as the Bank of England recently began to do.

The Fed action underscores the central bank's ability to move aggressively to combat the financial crisis without any action by Congress, an important attribute at a time when the political firestorm ignited by bonuses made to employees of American International Group Inc. Other rescue efforts have made Congress hostile to approved any more taxpayer money.

Prices on U.S. Treasury bonds soared on the news and the yield fell sharply. Yields on 10year treasury notes dropped. Stock prices also rose sharply and the dollar sank.

The Fed's steps came against a gloomy economic backdrop. "Job losses, declining equity and housing wealth, and tight credit conditions have weighed on consumer sentiment and spending," the Fed said in a statement after its two-day meeting. "Weaker sales prospects and difficulties in obtaining credit have led businesses to cut back on inventories and fixed investment. U.S. exports have slumped as a number of major trading partners have also fallen into recession"

The Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed's policy making arm, voted 10-0 to hold the target federal-funds rate for interbank lending in a range between zero and 0.25% and to continue using credit programs financed by an expansion of the Fed's balance sheet to stabilize markets. Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker, who dissented in January, went along this time. He had wanted the Fed to focus on buying Treasury purchases as opposed to targeting its lending on various corners of the credit markets. The discount rate that the Fed charges on direct loans to banks was unchanged at 0.5%.

With rates near zero, the Fed is now essentially printing money to increase the supply of credit in the economy.

The Fed said will buy up to $300 billion in long-term Treasurys over next six months. The purchases of mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will push the maximum to as $1.25 trillion, up from the previous $750 billion. The Fed also said it would increase the size of its potential purchases of the mortgage giants' debt to $200 billion from $100 billion.

The Fed's strategy appears to be to double down on the programs that it thinks work. In addition to commercial paper and money market mutual fund facilities, which appear to have stabilized those sectors, Mr. Bernanke has repeatedly highlighted the decline in mortgage rates in response to the agency and mortgage-backed securities facilities, calling it one of the "green shoots" evident in some markets.

By expanding its securities purchase programs, the Fed also is effectively ramping up efforts they can control. The commercial paper program and a new consumer lending program that commences Thursday are driven by how much demand there is in the markets.

Demand has waned for the commercial paper program in recent weeks, a sign that market is returning to health. Meantime, the new consumer lending program the Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, has gotten off to a slow start.

The U.S. economy is expected by economists to decline at an annual rate of 5% or more in the current quarter. It plunged at a 6.2% rate in the fourth quarter of 2008, the steepest in a quarter century. The economy is now shedding more than 650,000 jobs per month, pushing the unemployment rate to 25-year highs. One nugget of good news is that consumer spending figures signaled some stabilization since the start of the year.

Gitmo Detainees Morph from ‘Enemy Combatants’ to ‘Islamist Community Organizers’

by Pam Meister

The news released last Friday – Friday being a popular day to dump negative or unpopular news because most Americans are thinking ahead to the weekend – was that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are no longer to be referred to as “enemy combatants:”

The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates "enemy combatants" on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.

The U.S. Justice Department filed court

papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law.

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Finally, a president who takes international law into account when considering the sovereignty and safety of American citizens! What’s good for, say, Germany, must be good for America, right? Especially when it comes to Germany’s milquetoastattempts to stem radical Islam in that nation. As Obama said in his official address to Berlin…er, speech by a private citizen during the campaign last July, “Ich bin ein Berliner!” I had no idea he would take his own rhetoric so seriously.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, however: European leaders may like the fact that Obama is planning on closing what Rush Limbaugh calls Club Gitmo, but they aren’t rushing to take the enemy combatants (since I don’t work for the government, I can get away with calling them by their rightful names) off of our hands, either. So much for the improved relations with European bureauweenies once The One™ replaced the cowboy.

I am curious to know what Attorney General Eric Holder meant, though, when he talked about how we should “govern detainees.” Since when are people suspected of killing or plotting to kill American citizens at home and abroad in the name of Islamic Jihad to be governed? Perhaps he meant to say “control detainees.” His boss must have been using the teleprompter that day.

But wait, there’s more:

The filing on Friday, in the cases of some 200 Guantanamo inmates seeking a court review of their detention, explains the standards of President Barack Obama's administration for holding terrorism suspects without court review.

It said those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.

On his radio show last Friday evening, Mark Levin wondered:

“If the commander in chief of the armed forces can’t use the phrase ‘enemy combatant’ because he needs Congress to tell him it’s okay, or he needs some international law from the Hague or somewhere to tell him it’s okay, what the hell is that? Now, the guy’s power hungry when it comes to controlling domestic affairs, and when it comes to foreign affairs he can’t wait to give the executive’s power away?”

That’s a good question. But as Andrew McCarthy points out, the administration had to be seen as doing something to appease the far-left base that helped sweep Obama into office:

Obama wants to have the advantage of — and take credit for the security provided by — the Bush post-9/11 policies. However, he has a rabid left-wing base that rejects the notion that there is a war and wants terrorism returned to the courts (and by the way, if/when that happens, that base will immediately go back to arguing that the court proceedings are inherently unfair, which is what it did for the eight years before 9/11). Throughout the campaign, Obama stirred this base — which consequently voted in droves for him — by trashing the policies he now wants to leave in place. So now he is in a quandary: "How do I keep these policies while preventing a revolt from these crazy people — er, I mean, my voters?"

[…]

Essentially, we're no longer going to call our captives "enemy combatants" ... but we're still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained.

In other words, having seen what’s actually at stake, Obama doesn’t want to act too rashly, but he has to keep stirring up batches of fresh Kool Aid for the faithful until he can figure out what the heck he’s doing. And whether he really knows what he’s doing is questionable at best, considering the success of the first 50 or so days in office.

We still don’t know what the Obama administration plans to call these detainees. Here are a few suggestions:

• Undocumented freedom fighters (shamelessly stolen from Andrew McCarthy)
• American citizens-in-waiting
• Members of Michael Moore’s fan club
• Islamist community organizers

Regardless of the real intention behind this change in wording, how is such public wishy washiness to be viewed by our enemies? Let’s look at some of the highlights thus far:

• Obama’s weak national security picks
• Obama wrote a mash note to the Russians begging for help with Iran. In exchange, he’ll throw Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus.
• Obama plans to decrease military spending by 25%

Somehow, I don’t think the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese and other assorted terror entities are quaking in their boots. In fact, I think I hear champagne flutes clinking.

I saw a t-shirt with Obama’s face on it that said “Welcome Back Carter.” Slap on a cardigan and he’s just about there. Can our nation’s security afford what some are calling the second Carter administration? My guess is no. But I hope I’m wrong.

Research Center's Role Faces Scrutiny

By Carol D. Leonnig

Advice From Murtha Allies Guided Funding Requests, Documents Show

A Pennsylvania defense research center regularly consulted with two "handlers" close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) as it collected nearly $250 million in federal funding through the lawmaker, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and sources familiar with the funding requests. The center then channeled a significant portion of the funding to companies that were among Murtha's campaign supporters.

The two advisers included a lobbyist for PMA Group, a firm with close ties to Murtha that is the subject of a federal investigation into whether it made illegal contributions by reimbursing donors to the Pennsylvania lawmaker and other members of Congress. The Electro-Optics Center also relied on advice from a longtime Murtha friend who now works on the congressman's appropriations staff.

Federal agents are also exploring how the center obtained its funds after they received dozens of internal documents last year. It is unclear whether the records have become a central focus of the Justice Department's probe, but they open a window into a largely hidden process in which powerful lawmakers can direct funds to pet projects.

The Electro-Optics Center, created by Murtha a decade ago under the auspices of Pennsylvania State University, was envisioned as a way to spur a new high-tech industry and create jobs in economically depressed western Pennsylvania. Last year, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh received a packet of budget materials, memos and e-mails from inside the center documenting how closely its managers conferred with PMA about the best ways to get its projects funded in the federal budget, according to two sources familiar with the information.

The center was supposed to help contractors in researching laser and optics technology to improve products for the military, and center officials said contractors were supposed to benefit from some of the federal funds.

Unlike in traditional earmarks -- funding for specific projects publicly requested by members of Congress -- most of the money for the center came through a budget maneuver known as a "plus-up." The process for this kind of earmark allows lawmakers to add money to an existing program in the budget without public disclosure. The center sought $120 million in this type of money for itself and other companies in 2006 alone, according to the records.

Several of the center's partners hired PMA for lobbying. In the 2008 budget, PMA clients received $299 million in defense earmarks through Murtha and other lawmakers. PMA and its clients gave $775,000 in contributions to Murtha in the last election cycle.

A PMA lobbyist and a close associate of Murtha's helped make many key decisions about what research and which contractors would get the federal money flowing to the center, according to the documents.

Typically, the center's director, Karl Harris, worked with the lobbyist to prepare funding wish lists, which were described in some of the records as "requests for Mr. Murtha to carry." The requests were sent to the congressman's staff, according to the records. The lists detailed how much, and where in the budget, money should be added for projects desired by the center and the contractors.

According to center records and two sources, Harris consulted regularly on the center's overall funding requests with the two men he jokingly referred to in the office as his "handlers": the PMA lobbyist, Daniel Cunningham, and Murtha friend Charlie T. Horner. Cunningham, who golfed with Murtha and occasionally drove him home to Pennsylvania from Washington, was part of the lobbying firm formed by former Murtha aide Paul Magliocchetti. Horner, a former veteran and Defense Department official, was a paid consultant for Electro-Optics, as well as for Lockheed Martin.

Harris did not return calls, but his staff referred questions to Penn State. Edward Liszka, the university's head of defense-related research, said the university was very involved in reviewing the center's research work and doubts that a PMA lobbyist played any significant role. The university receives a percentage of the center's research funds for administration, and Liska said that is a routine arrangement for academic institutions.

Patrick Dorton, a PMA spokesman, said Cunningham occasionally consulted with Harris to provide correct information about PMA clients.

The records show how the center planned to distribute money it received for some research projects. For a $2.5 million optical sensor project, for example, $1.8 million would be split between Boeing-SVS and Kuchera Industries. Kuchera, a Windber, Pa., company that has received $50 million in earmarks from Murtha, is a focus of the ongoing federal investigation, according to sources familiar with the probe. Company representatives have said Kuchera will not comment on the investigation.

Thomas Spellissy, a former Defense Department budget official who once worked as a consultant for Optical Systems Technology Inc., one of the companies that received funding through Electro-Optics, said he regularly fielded Murtha's requests for "plus-ups" when he was at the Defense Department. The vast majority, he said, were good projects that helped U.S. troops in the field. In some cases, however, this type of earmark wastes money, he said, but it was not feasible for him to turn them down.

"A staffer for a congressman says, 'I need you to accept this money for sensors, a couple million,' " Spellissy said. "If I said no, he can turn around and say I won't support you on this other thing you really want. I could say no -- then his boss calls the general to complain about me."

"Mr. Cunningham's review of the requests compiled by the EO Center was intended to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information pertaining to the projects for which PMA clients were seeking funding consideration," Dorton said. Matt Mazonkey, a spokesman for Murtha's office, said the EOC has received no earmarks since Horner joined Murtha's staff last spring. He declined to comment on how the center received its funding but said the congressman is proud of its work.

"The Penn State Electro-Optics Center has created an alliance of over 350 companies and universities that the government can quickly tap to rapidly respond to emerging needs within electro-optics," he said. "This successful partnership has saved the Defense Department over $1 billion in just the past few years."

Liszka also cited the savings for the government and called the center "a leader in electro-optics technology."

Each year, Harris prepared long spreadsheets that included detailed descriptions of desired projects and how they should be funded in the budget -- which line item, through which federal department and the specific dollar amount, the records show. The documents also described whether the center or a defense company would receive the funding, and gave the name and number of the Defense Department budget official the center should contact to make sure the money was delivered.

The requests for funding for specific contractors often highlighted the company's lobbying firm. The names of PMA lobbyists and contact numbers, for example, are noted next to requests for three of the companies.

In addition to the $80 million the center requested for itself in 2006, it submitted $40 million in projects described as "company requests of Mr. Murtha via the EOC" -- corporate funds that were to come first to the center. Of that, $30 million was listed to benefit Northrop Grumman, mostly to support its work on aviator night-vision goggles.

Northrop Grumman spokesman Randy Belote said his company had partnered with the EOC in some night-vision research but had not asked any lawmakers for funding for the projects.

A Victory for Marine LtCol Chessani

ANN ARBOR, MI – Late this morning, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sitting in Washington DC, released their unanimous decision upholding the dismissal of charges against Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of apparent Unlawful Command Influence. But the case may not be over yet.

For the last four years, LtCol Chessani has been investigated and prosecuted for his involvement in the so called “Haditha Massacre” – a massacre that never happened. A 22-year veteran, Chessani has served three tours of duty in Iraq. He served in the First Persian Gulf War and in Panama. At the time of the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident, he was the Battalion Commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (“The Thundering Third”) – one of the most decorated units in the history of the Marine Corps.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “LtCol Chessani, one of the most effective combat commanders we had in Iraq, was a made political scapegoat by the civilians in the Pentagon to appease the antiwar politicians and a liberal media. In fact, we now know that the story of the ‘massacre’ that prompted the Haditha prosecutions was a headline in a Time news article instigated by insurgent propaganda operatives.”

Continued Thompson, “This nation has come to the point where we can’t call terrorists captured on the battlefield ‘enemy combatants.’ We release the terrorists out of Guantanamo and prosecute the military our country placed in harms’ way to defend us.”
Robert Muise, an attorney with the Law Center, a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, argued the case on behalf of LtCol Chessani. The Law Center has been defending LtCol Chessani throughout his prosecution alongside his detailed Marine lawyers, LtCol John Shelburne and Captain Jeff King. Captain Kyle Kilian, a Marine appellate defense lawyer, also assisted in the appeal.

LtCol Chessani is the highest ranking officer facing criminal charges as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described “Haditha massacre.” The criminal charges against him stem from a legitimate combat action taken by four enlisted Marines in his command after they were ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005. Their actions resulted in the deaths of several ambushing insurgents. Unfortunately and tragically, several civilians were also killed in the house-clearing operation.

Even though LtCol Chessani wasn’t present during the incident, he was criminally charged with failing to launch a full investigation into the incident. If convicted, he faces 2 ½ years imprisonment, dismissal from the Corps, and loss of all of his retirement pay.

The essential holding of the military appellate court was as follows: “We are convinced the Government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the proceedings were untainted by the appearance of UCI (Unlawful Command Influence). We are similarly convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would harbor significant doubt about the fairness of this proceeding.”

This decision could be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and then even to the U.S. Supreme Court. The government has yet to announce whether it will pursue another appeal.

The Thomas More Law Center defends America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

Click here for additional information

UK: Imam's daughter converted to Christianity, and her father came after her with an axe

from Jihad Watch

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" -- Muhammad

"My imam father came after me with an axe," by Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times, March 15 (thanks to all who sent this in): Sharia

We are all too familiar with the persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet sitting in front of me is a British woman whose life has been threatened in this country solely because she is a Christian. Indeed, so real is the threat that the book she has written about her experiences has had to appear under an assumed name.

The book is called The Imam’s Daughter because “Hannah Shah” is just that: the daughter of an imam in one of the tight-knit Deobandi Muslim Pakistani communities in the north of England. Her father emigrated to this country from rural Pakistan some time in the 1960s and is, apparently, a highly respected local figure.

He is also an incestuous child abuser, repeatedly raping his daughter from the age of five until she was 15, ostensibly as part of her punishment for being “disobedient”. At the age of 16 she fled her family to avoid the forced marriage they had planned for her in Pakistan. A much, much greater affront to “honour” in her family’s eyes, however, was the fact that she then became a Christian – an apostate. The Koran is explicit that apostasy is punishable by death; thus it was that her father the imam led a 40-strong gang – in the middle of a British city – to find and kill her.

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.." -- Qur'an 4:89

Hannah Shah says her story is not unique – that there are many other girls in British Muslim families who are oppressed and married off against their will, or who have secretly become Christians but are too afraid to speak out. She wants their voices to be heard and for Britain, the land of her birth, to realise the hidden misery of these women....