Friday, April 3, 2009

Energy costs being bumped $2,000 per household

from WorldNet Daily

The vice president for an energy research center says the administration of President Barack Obama is working now on what could end up being the biggest levy ever in the history of the United States, a tax that is expected to cost $2,000 per household.

"The cost of all energy will go up, consumers and businesses and everyone who drives a car, heats their home, goes to a job that uses energy, will pay more, either through the loss of their job or the actual cost of electricity by almost $2,000 a year," said Dan Kish, the senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research.

Kish, who has more than 25 years experience on congressional committees, was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND and the audio of the exchange is embedded here:


He discusses how much revenue Obama wants from his proposal to tax carbon emissions and what that means to ordinary Americans.

Kish, who has worked as chief of staff for Republicans on the House Resources Committee, said the budget plan in Congress has "room" for the president's request for about $650 billion over the next 10 years in energy taxes, although he said the administration has been flexible on that figure, estimating that it could go as high as $1.9 trillion.

"We might as well call it a tax," he said.

Related offers:

HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming

Read the book that started it all: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance"

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

"The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"

"I'm pro-choice – on light bulbs" – Bumper sticker sends Congress message over its banning Edison's invention


Previous stories:

Al Gore ignores 'Earth Hour' Shocker! 'Global warming' just isn't happening

'Global warming' data called 'ancient astrology'

Obama's $300 billion-a-year climate-change plan

Report: Ice Age to blast Earth

Global warming dissenters dash scientific 'consensus'

2008: Coolest year of this century

Global warming debate heats up

Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pockets

Windmill farms: Just a bunch of hot air

U.N. to raise own thermostat 5 degrees

Top hurricane scientist cools to global warming

Baptists: No change on climate change

Scientists meet in NYC to challenge Gore, U.N.

Garbage in, garbage out: More bad warming data

Global warming shocker – Who's minding the thermometers?

Analyst: Attack threat should be taken seriously

(Compiler's note: A must read)

from WorldNet Daily

'Keep in mind … they would like to kill Americans every day of the week'

An analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies says a new threat from a Pakistani branch of the Taliban to attack Washington, D.C., needs to be taken seriously.

"Keep in mind that al-Qaida, the Taliban, many of these other organizations … they would like to kill Americans every day of the week," said Clifford May, president of the foundation.

He was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND, and the audio of the exchange is embedded here:


The new warning comes from Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who previously claimed responsibility for a siege at that nation's police academy.

In a telephone conversation with the Associated Press, Mehsud said, "Soon we will launch an attack on Washington that will amaze everyone in the world."

May said it probably is Mehsud's group that orchestrated the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Authorities in the U.S. are offering a $5 million reward if he's caught.

According to Fox News, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked about Afghanistan and Pakistan this week at a conference of world leaders. Clinton supported a plan to let former Taliban and al-Qaida members be given "an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society, if they are willing to abandon violence."

The U.S. State Department previously has described Mehsud as the leader of a group that "has conducted cross-border attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and poses a clear threat to American persons and interests in the region."

May said the fact such terrorists haven't managed to kill Americans on American soil over the past seven years is not "because they've been napping … it's because they haven't been able to put it together."

That, he suggested, should "give us pause to decide which policies are preventing them from doing that."

"You do know if you want to stop it there really is only one way: They must feel themselves to be hunted. Otherwise they will be hunters," May said. "You have to make sure they know that at any time they can be picked up off the street and be spirited away."


Related offers:

What terrorists complain about besides paying rent

Definitive work on Mideast – available only here!

"Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict"

VICTORY IN IRAQ

"Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," the book beat Hillary on the Amazon chart

"American Mourning" -- a "beautiful, raw war story that breaks the hearts and strengthens the resolve to protect American from her enemies"


Previous stories:

Jihad inside U.S. cannot be ruled out

Iranians urge kids to fight 'evil' Israel

Suicides 'R' Us plan uncovered

Taliban threatens Pakistan takeover

Pakistan scientist: Our nukes are ready

Mumbai terrorism linked to Pakistan

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Judge Rules Some Terror Detainees Can Challenge Detention

from Fox News

A federal judge ruled Thursday that some prisoners in the war on terror can use U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention at a military air base in Afghanistan, for the first time extending rights given to Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere in the world.

U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected U.S. arguments that three foreign detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan should be denied the right. He said non-Afghan detainees captured outside the country and moved to Bagram for a lengthy detention should have access to the courts to prevent the United States from being able to "move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in court. But the government had argued that it did not apply to those in Afghanistan.

Bates said the cases were essentially the same. He quoted the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly in his judgment and applied what he said was a test created by it to each detainee. It is the first time a federal judge has applied the ruling to detainees in Afghanistan.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the department is reviewing the ruling. He pointed out that President Barack Obama has ordered a review of detention policy, and that an interagency task force is working to finish a report by July that outlines the legal options for handling terror suspects in the future. Obama has also ordered that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

But the Obama administration sided with the Bush White House when it argued on Feb. 20 that detainees at Bagram cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department has argued that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.

Bates, a U.S. Army veteran and former career Justice Department official, was among the first district judges nominated by President George W. Bush. His 53-page decision was partially redacted to remove classified material.

The ruling drew criticism from some Republicans in Congress. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the decision "dangerous and naive" and said it put troops at risk by allowing a judge to micromanage a war thousands of miles away.

"Using this logic in World War II would not have allowed us to capture Nazi operatives anywhere but in Germany," Graham said.

New York Rep. John M. McHugh, the leading Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama's decision to jettison Bush detainee policy "left a policy vacuum that is now being filled by the courts. This turns warfare into lawfare, and could place lives at risk."

Bates considered motions to deny the requests of four detainees asking to be released, but he reserved judgment on one detainee, Haji Wazir, because he is an Afghan citizen and releasing him could create "practical obstacles in the form of friction with the host country." He ordered Wazir and the government to file memos addressing those issues.

The other three detainees are from outside Afghanistan -- Fadi al Maqaleh of Yemen, Amin al Bakri of Yemen and Redha al-Najar of Tunisia -- and say they were captured outside the country.

Bates also suggested that access to U.S. courts may not be available to Bagram detainees who were captured in Afghanistan.

"It is one thing to detain those captured on the surrounding battlefield at a place like Bagram, which respondents correctly maintain is in a theater of war," Bates wrote. "It is quite another thing to apprehend people in foreign countries -- far from any Afghan battlefield -- and then bring them to a theater of war, where the Constitution arguably may not reach. Such rendition resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against."

All four of the detainees in this case have been held at the airfield for six years or more without access to the courts, which Bates called "an unreasonable amount of time." Bates wrote that the determination to hold them as enemy combatants is part of a process "plainly less sophisticated and more error-prone" at Bagram than it is at Guantanamo.

The Bush administration said in court filings last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

Bates noted that Bagram detainees are not allowed any representation when their enemy combatant status comes up for review and they have no access to evidence used to classify them as such so they can defend themselves. Bates said they face language and cultural barriers and cannot even speak on their own behalf but only can submit a written statement.

The Justice Department said last month that they will no longer use the term "enemy combatant" to refer to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But they said that new position does not apply to prisoners elsewhere.

In a separate ruling Thursday from the same Washington courthouse, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon declined to release a prisoner, Hedi Hammamy of Tusisia, who has been held for seven years at Guantanamo Bay.

The United States says Hammamy fought against the United States at Tora Bora, was a member of an Italy-based terrorist cell that supported Islamic terrorist groups, attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and was involved in an organization in Pakistan with a classified identity.

Hammamy argued that all the government's allegations are false. But Leon said evidence, including reports that Hammamy's identification was found in an al-Qaida cave complex after the battle of Tora Bora, backed up the government's case that Hammamy supported terrorism.

New Video May Help FBI Solve Somali-American Terror Case

(Compiler's note: A must read)

Mike Levine and Catherine Herridge

A video posted on a jihadist Web site could help the FBI determine how a group of Somali-Americans was recruited to join an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group in Somalia.

For several months the FBI has been investigating at least 20 Somali-American men from the Minneapolis area and elsewhere in the United States who traveled to war-torn Somalia to join an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group known as al-Shabaab, which has been warring with the moderate Somali government since 2006. At a Senate hearing on the issue last month, one top-ranking official said it's "clear" the Internet played a role in radizalizing and recruiting the young men.

VIDEO: Click here to watch Catherine Herridge's report.

The 30-minute video posted this week is a highly polished production, featuring anti-American hip-hop and sporadic images of Usama bin Laden. In much of the video, a man dubbed "The American" purportedly leads a group of al-Shabaab militants in an ambush of Ethiopian forces, which oppose an Islamic state and have backed the new Somali government.

"The only reason we are staying here, away from our families, away from the cities, away from candy bars [and] all these other things is because we are waiting to meet with the enemy," he tells them in the video, first provided to FOX News by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "They're supposed to be coming anytime. We're going to set up the ambush, and by the will of [God] we're going to kill all of them.

FBI spokesman Rich Kolko said the FBI is "reviewing" the video.

MEMRI identified "The American" as Abu Mansur al-Amriki, and a law enforcement official said he is originally from the United States, but has been in Somalia "for some time." The official said al-Amriki is in his late 20s or early 30s. The official wouldn't offer any other identifying features, including whether he had converted to Islam.

MEMRI described the video as a "clear appeal to foreign youth, especially in English-speaking countries, to join the jihad in Somalia."

In the video, "The American" praises a man killed in the fight, saying, "We want to inform his family that he was one of the best brothers here. ... We need more like him, so if you can encourage more of your children and more of your neighbors, anyone around, to send people like him to this jihad it would be a great asset for us."

Another man, with an accent and a wrap covering his face, says at the end of the video, "We're calling all the brothers overseas, all the Shabaab, wherever they are, to come and live the life of a [fighter], and they will ... love it."

The FBI investigation into how young American men were recruited to join al-Shabaab in Somalia is active in Columbus, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Boston; Seattle; and San Diego, according to testimony from counterterrorism officials and others at the Senate hearing last month.

But reports from around the world suggest young Muslims from other Western countries, namely Canada, Australia and England, are also being recruited to join the fight in Somalia.

U.S. officials declined to comment specifically on whether officials from those countries have been working with the FBI.

But at a State Department briefing today, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said, "Somalia would be one of those areas that we're concerned about with regard to Al Qaeda recruitment. This requires broad cooperation, the United States with other countries — not only in the Horn of Africa but outside of that region — to try to do what we can to prevent Al Qaeda from being successful in recruiting young people to their cause."


Click here to read previous reports:

Grand Jury Convenes in FBI Terror Case Against Somali-Americans
Source: Missing Somali-American Spotted at Minneapolis Shopping Mall
Source: 'Several' Missing Somali-Americans Back in U.S. After Overseas Terror Mission
Missing Somali-American Men Found...On Facebook
Alleged Al Qaeda Sleeper Agent Ali al-Marri Won't Be Released on Bond

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

Video:Click here to watch more.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

'These Don't Come From El Paso'

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.

"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Boatloads of Weapons

So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?

Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."

ICE arrests 27 illegals then gives them permits

SEATTLE — The Department of Homeland Security freed 27 illegal immigrants arrested during a workplace raid in February and offered them legal work permits, signaling a major departure from the immigration enforcement policy of the Bush administration.

The Feb. 24 raid of an auto parts plant in Bellingham, Wash., netted 28 illegal immigrants. While one was deported, the remaining workers were released from custody and given employment authorization documents, or EADs, in exchange for cooperating with an ongoing investigation of their employer, Yamato Engine Specialists.

Click here for video.

The EAD is a temporary work permit most commonly given to people applying for green cards or citizenship. It usually lasts for one year, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) sources tell FOX News that these work permits will expire when the case against Yamato is closed.

Immigrant rights activists support the move and the new direction Secretary Janet Napolitano is taking the Homeland Security Department with her focus on penalizing employers rather than the immigrants themselves.

"She is crafting and the people in her department are crafting a strategy that could target some people who are abusive and manipulative as employers," said Pramila Jayapal, executive director of the Seattle-based immigrant aid group OneAmerica

But critics say the softened policy will increase the number of illegal immigrants entering the country.

"The signal that it sends to illegal immigrants is that if you can get here, you're pretty much home free," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The Bellingham raid was the first and only mass arrest of immigrants since President Obama took office and came as a shock to Napolitano, who ordered a review of the incident the day after.

"I didn't know about it beforehand," she told the House Homeland Security Committee the morning following the raid. "I want to get to the bottom of this as well."

The response from the Department of Homeland Security marks a major shift from the last years of the Bush administration, when workplace arrests of illegals were commonplace.

Criminal arrests of employers who hired illegal immigrants skyrocketed from 25 in 2002 to 1,103 in 2008. The number of deportations jumped from 485 to 5,184 over that same time period. The Obama administration has sought a freeze on immigrant arrests.

Enforcement advocates say Americans should be outraged by the government giving illegal immigrants a right to work when unemployment is so high for documented workers.

Unemployment in Whatcom County, home to the Yamato plant, has risen to 8.1 percent, and in the days after the Yamato raid, more than 150 people applied for the jobs made open by the arrests.

Immigrant groups say the release was a humane act that is keeping families together and allowing them to earn a decent living.

Secretary Napolitano is expected to soon formally announce new guidelines for workplace immigration enforcement.

An I.C.E source in Washington D.C. disputes the claim that this marks a new policy telling FOX News the work permits are issued as an investigative tool to get cooperation from the illegal immigrants.

US spy agencies hamstrung by turf battles: report

from AFP

US spy agencies are still hamstrung by the same turf battles and financial mismanagement that led to massive intelligence failures revealed by the 9/11 attacks and the
Iraq war, an internal report has found.

The report, made public on Wednesday, was the most detailed of its kind on challenges facing the 16 spy agencies.

It came four years after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was created to remedy them.

It also criticized what it called poor financial management by the DNI, saying that most of the intelligence agencies are "struggling to achieve auditable financial statements."

The US intelligence budget has seen a dramatic increase in recent years, and topped 43.5 billion dollars in fiscal 2007, which ended in September.

The report outlined the many challenges facing Obama's director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair.

The agencies have complained that the Director of National Intelligence "sends duplicative taskings and conflicting messages to the IC (intelligence community), thereby undermining the ODNI's credibility and fueling assertions that the ODNI is just an 'additional layer of bureaucracy,'" the report said.

"The lack of clear communication to the IC of the ODNI staff's authorities has encouraged some agencies to go their own way, to the detriment of the unified and integrated intelligence enterprise."

The report also found that the intelligence office had failed to present a vision for how the spy agencies should function.

Lawmakers reacted with dismay at the findings.

"We have been repeatedly disappointed by the lack of clarity in the role of the DNI," said California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who chaired a hearing Wednesday by a House Intelligence subcommittee.

"There's still not a clear mission from ODNI, and this is one of the things that's concerned a lot of us," said Republican Congresswoman Sue Myrick.

DNI inspector general Edward Maguire told the congressional panel that the spy director's role as the top intelligence adviser to the president had hampered his management responsibilities.

"He doesn't have to do it personally every day and ... he could do this in more of an oversight type of capacity," Maguire said.

"In a way the creation of the ODNI was a little bit like, sort of like a corporate merger," Maguire explained. "When you do that, many, many mergers fail."

Government in the Red? No Pay for Congress or the White House

by Jonathan D. Strong

.... I have a bold but simple idea to help prevent the government from growing beyond the consent of the governed. This is not a cure all, but one aspect which I believe would assist in stemming the tide toward statism. If the government runs a deficit the elected representatives receive no pay.

The representatives would include members of the House of Representatives, Senators, the President, VP, and the cabinet. Only when the government runs a surplus from year to year using the same accounting principles as the private sector will these representatives be eligible for their salary. ....

Eligibility judge backs off sanctions threat

By Bob Unruh


James Robertson

A federal judge who threw out a lawsuit by a retired military officer challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president because the subject had been "blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged" now has backed off threats to impose financial sanctions on the officer's attorney.

The attorney, John D. Hemenway, "is 82 years old and takes considerable and justified pride in his patriotic public service and his status as a Rhodes Scholar," the judge wrote, according to a report on the Family Security Matters website written by Hemenway's daughter-in-law, Margaret Calhoun Hemenway.

The judge, James Robertson, opined that John D. Hemenway is "unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, and in his case the permissible alternative sanction of a reprimand will be sufficient," she reported.

WND reported earlier on the case's dismissal and then when Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision.

Robertson rejected the case brought on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired military officer who is subject to being recalled to duty and, therefore, would need to know the legitimacy of any order coming from Obama.

In his statement, Robertson ridiculed the complaint, which never had a court hearing, ruling that the eligibility issue had been "blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged."

Hollister is represented by Philadelphia lawyer Philip Berg, who has brought several motions on the eligibility dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court that have been ignored. Hemenway acted as local counsel in filing the action on behalf of Hollister.

Robertson wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

His dismissal ordered the attorney to respond immediately and explain why there should not be financial sanctions. Hemenway complied, correcting the judge on a series of statements.

"These are not frivolous matters, as the learned Judge Robertson has suggested. Possible illegal orders are a matter of great concern to officers in the armed forces. Undersigned counsel himself entered the Army of the United States during WWII and was promoted to Infantry Second Lieutenant preparing for the anticipated landings in Japan which were scheduled for November 1, 1945. But for President Truman’s use of nuclear weapons to end the war, this would have transpired. The legality of orders in and out of combat is of paramount importance," he wrote.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!

Hemenway continued with a "second point" Robertson raised.

That is, he said, that "the president of the United States had been properly vetted."

"This assumes facts not in evidence and was not addressed. It is clear that the constitutional qualifications of President Soetoro/Obama have not been properly vetted. Judge Robertson even cites an earlier case filed in Pennsylvania by one of the two lead attorneys in this case, in which the judge claimed candidates in the recent presidential election had never been more closely vetted. Nothing was further from the truth. Effectively, the Pennsylvania District Court judge was introducing his own hearsay and opinion into the case as if it were acceptable evidence," Hemenway wrote.

"It is sad to read this court's use of material from the Internet to imply that the issues in the numerous lawsuits filed have been resolved by the 'twittering and blogging' to determine that the litigants are invoking 'conspiracy theorists.' It suggests that the intellectual capacity of this court focused on the issues in the instant suit at a very low level, perhaps for political purposes, such as to win attention from the highest authority when a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States becomes vacant," Hemenway wrote.

In her report, his daughter-in-law said the judge, in his March 25 decision, still has trouble getting things right.

"Judge Robertson reconsidered his previous sanctions threat, possibly fearing monetary sanctions might spark a backlash and give a boost to the grassroots effort to force Mr. Obama to relinquish his records for public scrutiny," she wrote. "He errs in one key respect, alleging that Hemenway is 'unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding. …'

"Reprimand aside, Hemenway will continue to seek the truth about Obama's birthplace and citizenship, as will other patriotic citizens who believe no president and no future presidential candidate should be allowed to conceal documents that would prove that he or she is legally qualified to serve," she wrote.

"The judge errs in another respect, saying: 'Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue, a strong indication that this judge feels he can dismiss the legal merits of the issue by pretending that there is no public interest at stake,'" she wrote.

"He must be unaware that an AOL poll, albeit admittedly unscientific, found that a majority of Americans believe Mr. Obama should release his records to determine his eligibility; that more than 345,000 U.S. citizens have signed an online petition demanding Obama's birth records be released; and that many more are blogging, calling, and writing congressional offices to ask their members of Congress to sign onto Congressman Bill Posey's bill," she wrote.

Posey's legislation would require future candidates for president to be vetted for eligibility, an admission that the last national election's screening process for candidates was substandard, she wrote.

"This is a judge who clearly is letting his skewed perception of public sentiment guide his judicial rulings. It would clearly have been judicially expedient, saving the taxpayers time and money, given the number of eligibility lawsuits filed across the country, simply to direct President Obama to produce an actual birth (or 'vault') certificate and not a COLB (Certification of Live Birth and one that lacks a doctor's signature or hospital name) that has been given to others not born on the island of Hawaii," she wrote.

John D. Hemenway also had suggested that if there were to be sanctions, court rules would allow him to require the release of Obama's birth information.

"If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past," he wrote to the judge.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan.

Lawyers and plaintiffs in a multitude of lawsuits also have asked why, if a birth certificate actually reflects that Obama was born in Hawaii, has he spent sums estimated by observers of up to $1 million hiring various law firms to keep concealed his birth certificate, his college records and other documentation.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks 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. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

  • Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

N Korea warned over missile launch

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Mure Dickie in Tokyo and Christian Oliver in Seoul

The US and South Korea on Thursday warned North Korea not to proceed with a planned satellite launch, as Pyongyang threatened a “fiery bolt of retaliatory lightning” if Japan tried to shoot down the rocket.

North Korea says it will launch a satellite between April 4 and 8. The US, South Korea and Japan say the launch – even if the missile carries a satellite – would breach a United Nations resolution passed after North Korea tested a long-range Taepodong-2 without advance warning in 2006.

Barack Obama, US president, and Lee Myung-bak, South Korea’s president, agreed after their G20 meeting in London on the need for a “unified” international response if Pyongyang carried out the launch. South Korea said Mr Lee wanted a “stern response”.

While North Korea says the missile – which satellite imagery shows on the launch pad at Musudan-ri – will carry a communications satellite, the US and its Asian allies see the launch as a pretext to test the Taepodong-2. When North Korea first tested the intercontinental ballistic missile, which has the ability to reach the continental US, in 2006 it failed shortly after launch.

The US has sent navy ships to the region that could be used in any attempt to shoot down the missile. In an interview with the Financial Times, Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said he was “pretty confident that this is a space shot, a satellite shot” .

“If it is a space shot – and we will know that pretty early on after launch – then there would be no need [to shoot it down],” said Mr Gates. “Our concern is principally if it does go astray, or is some kind of a failure, that looks like it is potentially a danger to Japan or to Hawaii, that we would contemplate doing something.”

Tokyo has deployed anti-missile forces created after the 1998 Taepodong “shock” when Pyongyang fired an earlier version of its missile over Japan in what it claimed was an effort to put a satellite into orbit.

Officials say Japan can legally order its military to use its naval Standard Missile 3 or Patriot Pac-3s only in the highly unlikely event that the rocket, or parts of the it, clearly heads for Japanese territory.

Even in the latter case, attempting to destroy a missile fragment would be technically difficult and could even make it more dangerous by widening the area of possible damage – but having invested huge sums on US-led missile defence systems, it would be difficult for the government not to at least try to use it to counter a threat.

South Korea’s armed forces are permanently ready for an attack from the North and are also armed with Patriot missiles in case a ballistic weapon heads south.

However, the navy last week said US and Japanese warships would take primary responsibility for any ballistic threat to Japan.

James Shinn, a former senior Pentagon official for Asia who served as the top CIA intelligence officer for Asia when North Korea first tested the Taepodong-2, said North Korea was “trying to get attention”.

“With the financial crisis, and Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, nobody has much time for Pyongyang or their antics,” said Mr Shinn. “They would like to get the new Obama team to focus on the six-party talks again. Now that [US nuclear envoy] Chris Hill is gone from that account, Pyongyang may be feeling unloved.”

Mr Shinn said North Korea was also calculating that the US tends to become “flexible” in any nuclear talks after Pyongyang has conducted a missile or nuclear test.

David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said US political leaders should be careful not to jump to conclusions if the launch is successful.

”A successful satellite launch would show that North Korea has increased its missile capabilities,” said Mr Wright. “ But it would not necessarily demonstrate that North Korea could launch a nuclear warhead to intercontinental range. North Korea may not yet have the technical ability to modify the launcher to give it long-range capability.”

Despite the relatively minor risk posed by the launch to individual Japanese, it has been given widespread coverage and local media have reported that some fisherman are too worried to put to sea.

Authorities in some prefectures have put emergency services on alert and plan to issue early warnings of any threat, with state broadcaster NHK saying on Thursday that northern Akita would deployed riot police to deal with any problems caused by falling debris.

Some residents have complained that such orders and warning alerts leave unclear what they might practically do to protect themselves if the launch creates real danger.

The Chinese foreign ministry on Thursday said ”We will call on all parties to stay calm...and contribute to peace and stability in the region.”

Additional reporting by Jamil Anderlini in Beijing

Italian authorities carry out raids against "Islamist radicals" across country

from Jihad Watch

"The raids were carried out in properties around the northern cities of Vicenza, Venice, Padova, Brescia, Como, Cuneo and Trento, the central city of Florence and the southern city of Caserta."

Eurabia Alert: "Misunderstanding" of Islam breaking out all over again. "Italy: Police carry out anti-terror raids across country," from AdnKronos International, April 2:

Rome, 2 April (AKI) - Twenty-six foreigners suspected of links to international terrorism as well as aiding and abetting illegal immigration are being investigated by Italian police, after raids carried out on Thursday in various Italian cities.
The raids were carried out in properties around the northern cities of Vicenza, Venice, Padova, Brescia, Como, Cuneo and Trento, the central city of Florence and the southern city of Caserta.
The anti-terrorism and organised crime investigators in March 2007 began probing alleged Islamic fundamentalists attending the Via Dei Mille mosque in Vicenza in the northern Veneto region.
The mosque was led by a Yemeni imam, who is also being investigated for terror links.
However, most of the 26 foreigners arrested are Algerian.
Three of them, who lived in Naples, are though to be Islamist radicals sympathetic to the radical 'Takfiri' ideology.
The three radicals had already been involved in falsifying documents to aid jihadist groups.
Takfiris believe contemporary Muslim society has reverted to a state of unbelief ('kufr') and thus considers legitimate both rebellions against the state and acts of violence against Muslim citizens.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Judge Andrew Napolitano Accuses Government / Treasury Department of Extortion

Absolutely must read & watch .. Just heard on Studio B: Judge Andrew Napolitano accuses the U.S. government under president Bush and the Treasury department under Henry Paulson of extortion.

According to Napolitano, banks that did not want or need TARP funds were threatened with a ‘multi-year and very public’ audit, which would almost certainly put them out of business as the result of an already-scared public making a run on the bank.

My mind immediately went back to the IndyMac failure, which, at the time was attributed directly to the actions of NY Senator Charles Schumer. Quoting from a July 7, 2008 LA Times article:

Here’s from the press release issued by IndyMac’s regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: “The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.

The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

“This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis,” OTS Director John Reich said. “Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process.”

At the time, Schumer’s actions were considered ‘reckless and irresponsible’, but in the context of our nation’s current economic and political situation, the benefit of nine months of hindsight, and the horror of the last 72 days under the leadership of a decidedly anti-American administration, one can’t help but wonder if Schumer’s action was more calculated than reckless; designed to provide a crystal-clear example, in preparation for what was to come just two months up the road, of how quickly a financial institution could be taken down by a few simple words from government.

Conspiratorial? Perhaps, but not nearly as far-fetched as it may have seemed a few short months ago, because what we’re seeing now is the government trying to take control of these TARP-funded banks.

It needs to be said that there hasn’t been any confirmation of Napolitano’s claims yet. However, my personal opinion is that the judge’s credibility is good, and if he’s putting it out there it needs to be taken seriously.

Conservative Nation will be watching this story closely.

UPDATE: here is the video from Youtube:

-Cnation

Shariah law in America?

from Investor's Business Daily .... must read

President Obama's nominee for State Department legal adviser could be a future Supreme Court pick. He believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here.

We have commented many times on the opinion of a number of U.S. Supreme Court justices that American jurists should include foreign law and precedent in their decisions. In several prominent cases, this has already happened.

In a speech in South Africa, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the March 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, in which a 5-4 majority ruled against executing murderers who were 17 or younger, "perhaps the fullest expressions to date on the propriety and utility of looking to the 'opinions of (human)kind.' "

Koh: Man of the world.

Koh: Man of the world.

More recently, Justice Stephen Breyer said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really . . . is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations." Whether our Constitution fits?

Agreeing with Ginsburg and Breyer is one Harold Koh, a former dean of Yale Law School who's been nominated by President Obama to be the State Department's legal adviser. He's an advocate of what he calls "transnational legal process" and argues that the distinction between U.S. and international law should vanish.

Koh believes laws of places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should carry equal weight with the laws of Virginia and South Dakota, and that it's "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law" in its decisions.

He also believes foreign law trumps U.S. law on issues such as the death penalty. Echoing Ginsburg, he has said: "The evidence strongly suggests that we do not currently pay decent respect to the opinions of humankind in our administration of the death penalty. For that reason (italics added), the death penalty should, in time, be declared in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

In Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down that state's anti-sodomy laws, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion cited a 1967 British parliamentary vote repealing laws against homosexual acts and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights decision that such laws were in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Agreeing with Kennedy, Koh himself filed an amicus brief in the case that argued that international and foreign court decisions compelled the Supreme Court to strike down the Texas law. Koh has also submitted an amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court arguing that foreign precedents require recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

He also values the opinions of the world's imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says Koh in 2007 told the Yale Club of Greenwich that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

Koh thinks America is the bad guy on the world stage. He blasted Operation Desert Storm as a violation of international law despite the U.N.'s blessing. He supported the Sandinista move to get the International Criminal Court to force Congress to cut off funding of the Contras in Nicaragua.

In 2004, after Operation Iraqi Freedom had begun, Koh lumped the U.S. in with North Korea as part of an "axis of disobedience" regarding international law.

Koh says the Supreme Court is now divided between "nationalist" judges who believe our Constitution is the only one that counts and "transnationalists" who believe "we the people" should be changed to "we are the world."

The next appointment will tip the balance one way or the other, Koh says. He just might be Obama's first pick to fill the next vacancy. Neil Lewis of the New York Times last year said Koh was widely regarded as a leading contender.

This is the man who'll be giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton legal advice. This is the man who could quite possibly be the next Supreme Court justice. This is Harold Koh.

Hiding a Mountain Of Debt

(Compiler's note: Must read. And please remember that China buys most of our debt, and we then in turn fund their new weapon systems that they may yet use against us.)

By David S. Broder

With a bit of bookkeeping legerdemain borrowed from the Bush administration, the Democratic Congress is about to perform a cover-up on the most serious threat to America's economic future.

That threat is not the severe recession, tough as that is for the families and businesses struggling to make ends meet. In time, the recession will end, and last week's stock market performance hinted that we may not have to wait years for the recovery to begin.

The real threat is the monstrous debt resulting from the slump in revenue and the staggering sums being committed by Washington to rescuing embattled banks and homeowners -- and the absence of any serious strategy for paying it all back.

The Congressional Budget Office sketched the dimensions of the problem on March 20, and Congress reacted with shock. The CBO said that over the next 10 years, current policies would add a staggering $9.3 trillion to the national debt -- one-third more than President Obama had estimated by using much more optimistic assumptions about future economic growth.

As far as the eye could see, the CBO said, the debt would continue to grow by about $1 trillion a year because of a structural deficit between the spending rate, averaging 23 percent of gross domestic product, and federal revenue at 19 percent.

The ever-growing national debt will require ever-larger annual interest payments, with much of that money going overseas to China, Japan and other countries that have been buying our bonds.

Reacting to this scary prospect, the House and Senate budget committees took the paring knife to some of Obama's spending proposals and tax cuts last week. But many of the proposed savings look more like bookkeeping gimmicks than realistic cutbacks. The budget resolutions assume, for example, that no more money will be needed this year to bail out foundering businesses or pump up consumer demand, even though estimates of those needs start at $250 billion and go up by giant steps.

Republicans on the budget committees offered cuts that were larger and, in some but not all instances, more realistic.

But the main device the Democratic budgeteers employed was simply to shrink the budget "window" from 10 years to five. Instantly, $5 trillion in debt disappeared from view, along with the worry that long after the recession is past, the structural deficit would continue to blight the future of young working families.

The Democrats did not invent this gimmick. They borrowed it from George W. Bush, who turned to it as soon as his inherited budget surpluses withered with the tax cuts and recession of 2001-02. But Obama had promised a more honest budget and said that this meant looking at the long-term consequences of today's tax and spending decisions.

There are plenty of people in Congress for whom the CBO report was no surprise, and some of them have proposed a solution that would confront this reality. Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Judd Gregg, its ranking Republican, have offered a bill to create a bipartisan commission to examine every aspect of the budget -- taxes, defense and domestic spending, and, especially, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Congress would be required to vote promptly, up or down, on its recommendations, or come up with an alternative that would achieve at least as much in savings.

In the House, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia have been pressing a similar proposal but have been regularly thwarted.

The roadblock in chief is Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House. She has made it clear that her main goal is to protect Social Security and Medicare from any significant reforms. Pelosi has not forgotten how Democrats benefited from the 2005-06 fight against Bush's effort to change Social Security. Her party, which had lost elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004, found its voice and its rallying cry to "Save Social Security," and Pelosi is not about to allow any bipartisan commission to take that issue away from her control.

The price for her obduracy is being paid in the rigging of the budget process. The larger price will be paid by your children and grandchildren, who will inherit a future-blighting mountain of debt.

Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan pledge military cooperation against "Islamist extremists"

from Robert Spencer

Let's see. Afghanistan's Constitution already enshrines Islamic law as the highest law of the land. Pakistan has already allowed for Sharia in the Swat valley. And Gul's party in Turkey is a known foe of that country's secular government. So evidently these three are pledging to fight against Sharia supremacists on the one hand while giving them what they want peacefully on the other.

"Terrorism: Gul, Karzai, Zardari Pledge Military Cooperation," from ANSAmed, April 1 (thanks to Insubria):

(ANSAmed) - ANKARA, APRIL 1 - Army chiefs and intelligence officials from Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by their presidents, pledged military cooperation against Islamist extremists in Turkish-sponsored talks in Ankara on Wednesday. Afghan President Hamid Karzai met his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, in a trilateral meeting hosted by Turkish President Abdullah Gul at Cankaya Palace in the Turkish capital. Gul, who chaired the summit, told a joint press conference that the participation of the respective chiefs of staff, land forces commanders and senior intelligence officials was "the most important" element of the talks, the third of their kind since 2007. A joint declaration said the representatives of the three countries agreed to continue contacts "in functional and comprehensive formats on various levels." Military and intelligence officials will meet once a year as part of delegations led by foreign ministers, it added. (ANSAmed).

Citizen grand jury indicts Obama

Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims

By Bob Unruh

President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.

The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.

.... "If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury," it says. "The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."....

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy


from U. S. Naval Institute

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21

The ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will

by Jeffrey Goldberg

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.

History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”

But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”

Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.” When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, “Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”

He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”

Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”

He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.

Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.

Both Israeli and American intelligence officials agree that Iran is moving forward in developing a nuclear-weapons capability. The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said earlier this month that Iran has already “crossed the technological threshold,” and that nuclear military capability could soon be a fact: “Iran is continuing to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and it hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb.”

American officials argue that Iran has not crossed the “technological threshold”; the director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, said recently that Israel and the U.S. are working with the same set of facts, but are interpreting it differently. “The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view,” he said. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, recently warned that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undermine stability in the Middle East and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf.

The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to Middle East stability, but it also wants Israel to focus on the Palestinian question. Netanyahu, for his part, promises to move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear in our conversation that he believes a comprehensive peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, and he cited Iran’s sponsorship of such Islamist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas as a stumbling block.