THE STATE OF THE UNION

Americans Now Split On Whether Obama Is A Better Pres. Than Bush

A bunny hiding behind a Bush.

Picture
Less than two years after thousands of Inauguration-goers bid a not-so-fond farewell to President Bush’s departing helicopter a new CNN poll says the country is split on whether President Obama is a better president than President George W. Bush. By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland


A bullshit salesman, with a mouthful of samples

Picture
“But that doesn’t mean that Americans regret their decision to put Obama in the White House in 2008. By a 50 to 42 percent margin, the public says that Obama has done a better job than Sen. John McCain would have done if he had won. And by a 10-point margin, Americans also say that Joe Biden has done a better job than Sarah Palin would have done as vice president,” adds Holland.



American’s apparently have increasingly short memories. Bush always said that history would prove him right, but probably no one, including Bush, figured on a twenty month turnaround. Perhaps Obama can take hope from these results: no matter how badly he screws things up during his presidency he will only have to leave office to be loved once again. A maneuver
Sarah Palin has lately perfected.


OBAMA: WHO CARES IF SURVIVORS OF 9/11 AND FAMILIES OF THE DEAD ARE APPALLED AND OFFENDED, THEY'RE NOT MUSLIM

Picture
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer –  WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed allowing a mosque near ground zero, saying the country's founding principles demanded no less.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Obama made the comments at an annual dinner in the White House State Dining Room celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed "hallowed ground," Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

"Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us — and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today," he said.

Obama harkened back to earlier times when the building of synagogues or Catholic churches also met with opposition. "But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it," he said. "So it must be and will be today."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has been a strong supporter of the mosque, welcomed Obama's words as a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

But some Republicans were quick to pounce.

"President Obama is wrong," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much."

Entering the highly charged election-year debate, Obama surely knew that his words would not only make headlines but be heard by Muslims worldwide. The president has made it a point to reach out to the global Muslim community, and the over 100 guests at Friday's dinner included ambassadors and officials from numerous Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Seated around candlelit tables, they listened closely as Obama spoke, then stood and applauded when the president finished his remarks.

While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.

The group behind the $100 million project, the Cordoba Initiative, describes it as a Muslim-themed community center. Early plans call not only for prayer space but for a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features. Developers envision it as a hub for interfaith interaction, as well as a place for Muslims to bridge some of their faith's own schisms.

Opponents, including some Sept. 11 victims' relatives, see the prospect of a mosque so near the destroyed trade center as an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in the 2001 attacks. Some of the Sept. 11 victims' relatives, however, are in favor.

The mosque has won approval from local planning boards but faces legal challenges, and New York's Conservative Party is planning a television ad campaign to pressure a New York City utility to use its power to block the project.

Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births

Picture
By MIRIAM JORDAN One in 12 babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were offspring of illegal immigrants, according to a new study, an estimate that could inflame the debate over birthright citizenship.

View Full Image

Getty Images Dozens of U.S.-born children and their undocumented parents traveled to Washington last month to demonstrate against deportations of illegal immigrant parents.

Undocumented immigrants make up slightly more than 4% of the U.S. adult population. However, their babies represented twice that share, or 8%, of all births on U.S. soil in 2008, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center's report.

"Unauthorized immigrants are younger than the rest of the population, are more likely to be married and have higher fertility rates than the rest of the population," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew in Washington, D.C.

The report, based on Pew's analysis of the Census Bureau's March 2009 Current Population Survey, also found that the lion's share, or 79%, of the 5.1 million children of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. in 2009 were born in the country and are therefore citizens.

Journal Community Question of the Day: Should "birthright citizenship" be denied to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants?

In total, about 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. Latinos account for 75% of undocumented U.S. immigrants and about 85% of the births among that population.

A spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that lobbies for curbing immigration, said Wednesday its studies have yielded numbers similar to those estimated by Pew.

One in 12 babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were offspring of illegal immigrants according to a new study, an estimate that could inflame the debate over birthright citizenship. Video courtesy of Fox News.

Amid a heated national debate over illegal immigration, some Republican politicians have been calling for changes to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in order to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to unlawful residents.

Late last month, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for reconsidering automatic U.S. citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants. He said the status quo enticed people to enter the country illegally and have children to qualify for U.S. benefits.

Under U.S. law, children have to wait until they reach the age of 21 before they can petition for permanent legal residency for their parents.

View Full Image

ZUMApress.com South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for reconsidering automatic U.S. citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants.

Recently, Mr. Graham's idea has been embraced by several other lawmakers, including Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, where state legislators passed a controversial law to quash illegal immigration. A federal judge stayed major portions of the law on July 28; the case has been appealed.

Legislation to amend birthright citizenship stalled when it was introduced in the past decade in the House. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and would have to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Proponents of amending the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868, say it was intended to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War, not the offspring of illegal immigrants. Their proposals are expected to appeal to conservative Republican voters as immigration emerges as a central issue in November's elections.

GOP opponents of repealing birthright citizenship say it undermines the party's electoral prospects among Hispanics, the nation's largest minority and fastest-growing group. Generally, Democrats are strongly opposed to repeal.

Mr. Passel said that the Pew analysis found that more than 80% of the undocumented immigrant mothers who gave birth in the U.S. had been in the country at least a year, and that many had been here about a decade.

Write to Miriam Jordan at [email protected]


LIBERALS GIVE TAX CUTS TO RICH PEOPLE

Picture
Democrats: Say, Let’s Exempt Rich People in Blue States From Tax Hike!

August 5, 2010 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Elections, Ethics, Government, Government, Corruption, House of Representatives, Liberals, New York, Regulation, Taxes, Warner Todd Huston |

-By Warner Todd Huston

If this doesn’t exemplify the left’s propensity to act in the mode of for-thee-but-not-me, nothing does. The Wall Street Journal (by way of the Wash. Examiner’s Mark Hemingway) reports that at least one Democrat has suddenly realized that when the Bush tax cuts fade away his state will be hit by a massive tax hike on the same rich people that donate to his election campaign.

The Journal notes that the “irony” of the tax increase coming on January 1 is that the bluest states will be hardest hit. New York, California, Connecticut, and New Jersey will be hit pretty hard and this poses a “problem” for those pro-tax Democrats that will suddenly find rich constituents who will be angry about the new hit on their income.

But, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) has come up with the perfect solution. Nadler wants to pass a law that exempts his rich constituents and those of other taxpayers in areas with a higher cost of living, i.e. other Democrats. The Journal reveals that Nadler’s new law would “require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average.”


In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act.

Imagine that, eh? A Democrat that wants the coming tax hike to affect only Republican states. Who wudda thunk it?

The Journal also reminds us of exactly why it is that these Democrat strongholds have such a higher cost of living: taxes.

A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things.

So, let’s review. Unions and high taxes from both the state and the city governments — not to mention the federal government — makes living in these Democrat strongholds more expensive, all things that Democrats are responsible for creating. Yet Democrat Nadler wants the very people that created the high taxes and their voters to get a break while the people smart enough not to vote in politicians that cause everyone’s cost of living to soar are supposed to pick up the bill.

Yep, that sounds like a Democrat, doesn’t it? Make rules to “help” people, but make sure other people pay the costs of this “helping.”

No wonder the scariest phrase in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”


HUNGRY FOR GENETICALLY ALTERED FISH?!

Picture
A major U.S. fish research company has tampered with the DNA of Atlantic salmon by adding a quick-growth gene that allows the fish to eat year-around and grow more quickly. And the Food and Drug Administration is about to allow these genetically engineered salmon to head to market, the company says.

But food safety activists insist that the FDA doesn't have adequate tests and regulations to ensure the safety of modified seafood, and others question whether consumers are even ready for it.


AquaBounty / MCT An AquaBounty salmon rests in a tank behind a standard salmon that is the same age.
"Far from being a benefit to consumers or the environment, this merely allows factory fish farms to double production rates," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety.

Nevertheless,
AquaBounty Technologies in Waltham, Mass., near Boston, is already producing tiny red Atlantic salmon eggs that have been injected with a gene from Pacific Chinook salmon and another gene from the ocean pout. This genetic modification gives the engineered fish the ability to grow to market size in half the time of salmon that haven't been messed with.

The fish would be the first transgenic animal application ever approved by the the FDA, according to the company, which has been developing the product and waiting for approval for 20 years.

AquaBounty says it has launched a "blue revolution," which brings together biological sciences and molecular technology "to enable an aquaculture industry capable of large-scale, efficient and environmentally sustainable production of high quality seafood. Genetically altered trout and tilapia are the next to be offered up to the nation's fishmongers.

However, the largest foreign breeders -- like Canada, which is the No. 1 supplier of Atlantic salmon to the U.S. -- say they see no reason to meddle with a good thing.

Current fish breeding practices are adequate to enable the production of a high-quality product, says the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

The alliance "does not support the commercial production of transgenic fish for food production until it has been declared safe by all the relevant regulatory bodies and until the market demands it," Ruth Salmon, the group's executive director, told AOL News.



AquaBounty Not So Fast

The science, as inventive as it is, may be ready to go, but there is a significant infestation of obstacles, beyond the FDA's willingness to sign off on the gene modification, that must be overcome before these fast-growing fish start popping up on backyard grills.

During a happy hour conversation with AOL News at the annual International Food Technologies conference in Chicago last month, two food microbiologists, two research chefs and a market analyst talked about genetically modified animals.

Two thought the time had come to use this technology to produce cheaper, healthier and faster-to-market meat, poultry and fish. The other three predicted that they'd never see it in their lifetimes.

They knew of efforts by AquaBounty with the salmon, of two other labs that had jiggled DNA to get quick-growing jumbo shrimp and tilapia, and a third, somewhere on the New Hampshire or Maine coast, that had done something genetically to significantly shorten the seven years it takes lobsters to grow to a legal size.

Great advancements in fish science, they agree, and at least half of the group believed that the FDA was ready to approve engineered seafood. But absolutely no one thought the North American consumer and those in most of Europe were going to shell out money for genetically modified animals of any kind.

A food economics expert questioned by AOL News at the conference agreed.

"It would take a worldwide famine to get people with more than a grade school education to willingly eat any animal or fish concocted in a laboratory. They would have to be starving," said the woman who worked on the United Nation's hunger program.

Can FDA Regulate This New Science?

U.S. federal agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using outdated statutes, written before biotech products ever came to market, said Kimbrell, the attorney for the Center for Food Safety.

"For example, FDA plans to regulate genetically engineered animals as 'veterinary drugs,' not living creatures, and its animal drug safety review was conceived before genetic engineering became a reality," he said.

Kimbrell called the agency's tests unacceptable and increasingly dysfunctional. He said the analytical methods used do not address the issues of potential allergenicity and toxicity, and are "grossly insufficient to determine the long-term, unforeseen consequences of eating and producing the (engineered) salmon."

Not so, FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey told AOLNews Wednesday.

The agency has the regulations and authority to appropriately regulate these genetically engineered fish, she said.

She didn't explain why it had to be done under the "existing New Animal Drug paradigm" but added, that FDA has issued guidance to the Industry on precisely how it would "rigorously and scientifically evaluate genetically engineered animals."

Kimbrell said his organization wants to halt the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment and said his group would consider litigation to stop it.

AquaBounty officials have said they will raise their fish in land-based facilities where ocean escapes are impossible.

This doesn't appease all.

"What about the masses of corporations that will no doubt race to produce GM fish in the crowded open ocean facilities they already utilize for fish production?" asks Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.

Opposition to the approval of genetic engineering of fish is not new. Last year, of a coalition of 18 fisheries, consumer and food safety group shared their varied concerns on the use of the untried technology with the FDA.

Both Hauter and Kimbrell say those involved in food safety believe that if these genetically engineered fish get to market, they must be properly labeled so consumers will know what they're really buying.

But AquaBounty says FDA cannot legally obligate the fish producer to label the product as anything other than Atlantic salmon. Anything else is voluntary.

IF YOU OWN A HOME, THEN YOU BETTER READ THIS!!!

Picture
Something every home owner should be made aware of!

Don't want to be bothered with "Political stuff?"   You'd better read this one. It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren't informed as to what Obama is up to, and apparently it has already passed one hurdle. It will take very little now to put it into actual law!!  YOU'D BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA !!!! So you think you live in a free country, boy have you got a surprise coming.

A License Required for your HOUSE?

If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify.  If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this; no one will be buying homes in the future.

 We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the U.S.A ....

A License will be required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile homes....Thinking about selling your house.  Take a look at H.R. 
2454  (Cap and Trade bill).  This is unbelievable!  Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
 

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if it is also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.                                                                                              

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.  However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else..

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

 The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. 

To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.

Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license 
(called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell.


 And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program  (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 
2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.


The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.

 Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (Ie., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody!

 The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.

 Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

 This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year...

 Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.

 But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15.

 That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

 CHECK OUT Just a few of the sites;

 
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/ 

 
HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=11-2454 

 
Cap & Trade A license required for your home: http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home.html 

 
Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Cap-and-trade-is-a-license-to-cheat-and-steal-45371937.html 

 
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts 

 
Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454: http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/ 

 
www.google.com/search?hl=&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search 


   Note: No legal advice in connection with this message is being given or implied. If you need legal advice you should seek competent counsel. No one in connection with this message acts under any kind of license issued by any government entity. The rights to Free Speech under Article I of the Georgia Constitution are hereby claimed by Thomas-Michael: Haney© and everything in connection with this communication is for entertainment purposes only.

NOTICE: This document originated from a different Jurisdiction. Do Not Trespass. This is an implied and an adhesion contract to all users and receivers. All hieroglyphics, markings, photo's, audio, and sound, in this e-mail, and in any attachments are sent under private contract.      

This information is confidential and void if you are not an intended recipient. Any third party interlopers who attempt to use the contents without Expressed proof of permission from the sender, shall be construed as an intended Trespass by which Trespasser consents and agrees to pay 1000 .995 fine Silver Dollars, per Trespass, at time of demand made by sender.  Sender retains the right to define who the intended recipient is and is not.  
Any violation of these terms shall be under the Jurisdiction and Venue of Admiralty Maritime Law and Common Law, without the UNITED STATES. All Rights Reserved.


 

ONLY AMERICA IS SHOCKED, OBAMA, NOT SO MUCH.

LOCKERBIE LIES: STORY ONE

Picture
Lead Story Lockerbie release: So much for “smart diplomacy.” So much for “surprised.” By Michelle Malkin  •  July 26, 2010 09:37 AM

Here is what Team Obama’s “smart” and sensitive form of diplomacy has wrought: A hero’s welcome home to Libya for the murderous Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was released last August claiming he had terminal cancer and three months to live. A year later, the jihadist is still alive, senators want an investigation, and The Australian reports that the Obama administration backed “compassionate release.”

HE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.

LeBaron’s letter was, in essence, a shrug of the Obama administration’s shoulders. Message: Who cares?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air blasts White House incompetence:

The letter did not give a green light to Megrahi’s parole to Libya. Nevertheless, it shows the kind of ineptitude that has plagued the Obama administration’s diplomacy from the “reset button” with Russia to this day. LeBaron’s note was a clear signal to Scotland that the US had lost most of its interest in Megrahi; recall that the US had insisted originally that any parole must include extradition to the US. The Scottish government must have presumed that we would not strenuously object to their release of Megrahi to the Libyans after LeBaron failed to raise that point and demand Megrahi’s extradition.

Also, it shows that the Obama administration lied about being surprised by Megrahi’s release. They knew it was coming, and while they may have been surprised that he went to Libya, the White House knew Scotland was going to spring Megrahi one way or the other.

Yes. Liars. You’ve been called out.


LOCKERBIE LIES: STORY TWO

Picture
Exclusvie from the Australian

Sydney, AU -
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.




The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

Mr LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release".

The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.

It claimed this would flout a decade-old agreement between Britain and the US that anyone convicted of the bombing would serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the grounds that he had three months to live, making his sentence effectively spent.

The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi's doctors thought he could live for another decade.

A source close to the Senate inquiry said: "The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer."

Last week, a succession of British politicians - including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate's hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi's release.

Despite the controversy over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and Megrahi's release, it emerged over the weekend that BP is planning deep-water drilling off Libya.

And BP boss Tony Hayward is poised to quit this week when the company announces its half-year results, London's Sunday Telegraph reported.

THIS IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS OUR TAXES!!!

OBAMAS TRILLIONS: HIS SPENDING AND DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN BUSINESS

Picture
http://www.usdebtclock.org/   Barack Obama (Carlos Osorio / AP Photo) The White House business meetings left some participants feeling the Obama administration lives in an alternate reality. Lloyd Grove reports on the fallout.

Presiding over a chronically flagging economy, President Obama is hoping for a break from the business community (which has been short on love lately) and the mainstream media (which has been highlighting conflict between the White House and the capitalists).

Obama's meetings this week with Warren Buffett on Wednesday morning, and a group of bankers, green energy CEOs and Bill Clinton in the afternoon were designed to show that the president actually does enjoy a constructive give-and-take with business types.

Did it work?

Not necessarily, according to a person familiar with the afternoon meeting.

"I think the people there are continually and constantly amazed at the sense of removal from reality in the administration when it comes to the economy," this person said. "It was a meeting about greening and rehabbing buildings, and they seemed to think the banks will foot the bill for the effort. The feeling in that room was that there is nobody at the top of this administration, in the West Wing of the White House, who ever so much as sold a pair of shoes. That's a real problem."

Nobody apparently challenged Obama's policies in the hour-long meeting; attendees just bit their tongues as Clinton gave a lengthy presentation on deploying greening technology used to rehab houses to make large office buildings environmentally efficient and create green jobs.

"There was a sense in the room that they would have loved to have gotten Bill Clinton alone to talk to him about the economy," said the source. "He gets it."

The group’s sentiments spilled out on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as a cluster of Republican senators held a press conference highlighting the business community’s unhappiness with the administration.

"Too many of our nation's job creators...are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how badly they're going to take it on the chin," said Utah’s Orrin Hatch, who bashed Obama’s “job-killing agenda.”

Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.

Benjamin Sarlin contributed to this report.

Get a head start with the Morning Scoop email. It's your Cheat Sheet with must reads from across the Web. Get it.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at [email protected].

HOW CONGRESS SPENT 1 BILLION DOLLARS. THAT'S $1,000,000,000

Picture
What Congress Bought Itself With Your $1 Billion

Ernie Smith Contributor

AOL News

(July 21) -- Congress requires a lot of stuff to keep itself running. Like coffee. And plane tickets. And student loan payments.

That's the point underscored (and underscored again) by figures collated by the nonpartisan
Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that uses technology to try to make government more transparent. In early June the organization released its latest massive data dump on the expenditures that House representatives make from their Members Representational Allowances, or MRAs. Separate from campaign accounts, which have to be filled through fundraising, these sums -- ranging from $1.3 million to $1.9 million in most cases -- come from taxpayers' dollars and are meant to cover a lawmaker's operating, rather than political, expenses. Paying for an attack ad with your MRA is a no-no, for instance.

Together, the Sunlight Foundation's three databases of this internal congressional spending -- prepared in coordination with the Capitol Hill newspaper
Roll Call -- show what the House spent on itself in the last six months of 2009 and first three months of 2010. The files provide an unprecedented window on what legislators buy themselves with your money, and AOL News wanted to know what kinds of eye-opening details they might contain. After combing through the info, we found plenty, from the House's bill for bottled water purchases to what it coughed up for new drapes.

So here are the most noteworthy findings. In the coming weeks, we plan to break these numbers down even further, because, whoa, they're a treasure trove!

(Want to know more about where these numbers came from? You'll find that
here.)



The Grand Totals

  • $1,013,162,955
    the report's tally of congressional spending between June 2009 and March 2010
·         $674
million

What the House spent in the last six months of 2009


·         $339
million

What the House spent in the first three months of 2010


  • » Biggest spender: The second-highest-spending congressional office during the nine months we looked at was that of Democratic Rep. Jim Costa of California, who spent $1.3 million, with nearly a quarter of that being expenditures on staff. He was topped by fellow Democrat Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico ($1.5 million), who cannot vote on legislation.
  • » Biggest expense: Benefits for retired federal employees took the largest slice of the pie, with the Federal Employees Retirement System showing some $80 million in expenditures.
Line items that left a dent

·         $114,925
Amount the Democratic Caucus paid for its staff to have a getaway for the weekend to set the caucus' 2009 legislative agenda at the Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, Va.

·         $362,939
Amount that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert received to run an office for outstanding affairs from his tenure. Hastert hasn't been the speaker since early 2007 (or even been in Congress since late 2007)

Payrolls and Benefits

  • The heftiest COST is paying for all those people. They need paychecks. They need insurance. And they need the government to cover those student loans. (Yup, Congress makes student loan payments for federal employees, essentially as a hiring incentive.)
Who got paid how much

  • $552 million in payments for all workers on the payroll
·         $51.6
million

Paid to about 637 chiefs of staff or deputy chiefs of staff


·         $4.4
million

Paid to about 1,045 interns and pages


Covering the benefits

View and share this info as a standalone file.

Equipment and Supplies

  • IT'S GOOD TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING PAPER CLIPS TO CONGRESS. Whether it's computers, office supplies or carpet, lots of companies are ready to leap in with both feet to satisfy government contracts.
You need a computer to write all those bills on...

·         $18
million

Spent on computer hardware


·         $5.3
million

Spent on computer software (the equivalent of 26,600 Windows 7 upgrades)


  • $6.5M
    Paid to CDW -- an IT company that is one of the largest businesses the House deals with
  • $6M
    Paid to Cisco -- a networking and server hardware company
  • $2.5M
    Paid to Dell -- which means there are a lot of black boxes floating around
  • » ... And we're a PC: A paltry $22,507 went directly to Apple. We're guessing that's probably enough to buy one of every item in its product line (but not enough for any apps).
...and lots (and lots) of ink to print them all out

  • $7.5 million spent on office supplies (like toner cartridges and pencils)
  • » Holding their own: Despite all the biggies in this category -- CDW, Staples, Office Depot, Boise Cascade (better known as OfficeMax) -- the No. 3 recipient of congressional cash might be the most interesting: Alliance Micro, a local firm that describes itself as "a service-disabled-veteran-owned small business" and caters to printer needs, which received $502,233.
The cost of a well-kept House

·         $565,373
Spent on carpet during the nine-month period


·         $317,304
Spent on new drapes during the same stretch

  • » Finishing touches: The office decorating didn't end there -- another $2.5 million was spent on furniture.
View and share this info as a standalone file.

Food and Beverages

  • All those warm bodies need nourishment to get through their meetings. And between catered spreads, individual meals and thirst-quenchers, there's a lot being spent to meet that need.
Keeping staffers fed

  • $2.6 million spent on food and beverages for House reps and their staffers
  • $604K
    Spent on bottled water -- in 19,000 individual line items, many for Nestle's Deer Park water-delivery subsidiary
  • $169K
    Spent on
    CapitolHost -- the biggest congressional caterer, it describes itself as "your co-host for events from casual to elegant on Capitol Hill"
  • $3,061
    Spent on Chantilly Donuts -- Minority Whip James Clyburn's office bought $900 worth of doughnuts, and the Republican Conference ate the rest
Drinking it all in

·         $84,794
Spent on companies that specialize in coffee


·         $9,450
Spent on Coca-Cola products, the equivalent of 7,000 20-ounce bottles


  • » Coke or Pepsi? It doesn't matter which party is buying it -- House Democrats and Republicans can agree on soft-drink brands, with Coke getting a line item while Pepsi does not. Democrats may drink it a little less, however: The Office of the Majority Whip spent around $4,543, while the Office of the Minority Leader spent $4,651. California Rep. Wally Herger, a Republican, also spent $256 on Coke for his own office.
For more on what Congress spent to keep itself well fed and hydrated, click here.

Communication and Data

  • Communicating is a huge part of Congress' job. Be it through e-mail, Web, phone, mail or simply shuffling papers, it may be the most important thing our representatives do. And they do a lot of it -- aided in part by a perk most Americans don't get. (Hint: It's "franked mail," which doesn't require members of Congress to pay postage, at a cost to taxpayers of $22.6 million during the nine-month period.)
Dialing up the dollars

  • $11.3M
    Spent on telecom service from Verizon -- mostly its wireless service but also including subsidiaries like MCI and long-defunct WorldCom.
  • $4.4M
    Spent on telecom service from AT&T, which doesn't separate its iPhone-centric wireless service from its legacy landline service in the data
  • $454K
    Spent on other notable phone companies -- Qwest, CenturyLink, Sprint, Nextel, Cincinnati Bell, nTelos, T-Mobile, Alltel and U.S. Cellular
  • » Congress loves Verizon: Verizon Wireless, which is known for servicing BlackBerrys popular with Congress, has the largest expense in the broad-ranging telecom listing, which also covers cable service, Internet service and numerous other loosely related things. Congress spent $7,693,508 on Verizon Wireless alone.
Staying abreast of the news

  • $11 million spent on newspapers and other resources
  • 431
    Number of line items for The Washington Post (wonder why)
  • 287
    Number of line items for The New York Times
  • 147
    Number of line items for Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones
  • » Premium payments for specialized info: Congressional Quarterly, which publishes dozens of very specific publications just for Congress, earned $3.3 million from the House during the nine-month period. LexisNexis, which specializes in archival articles, netted around $735,000.
Logging on, racking up

  • $5.8 million spent on Web design, e-mail and hosting services
Shredding for confidentiality

·         $9,809
Spent on shredding services during the study period


·         7.4M
Estimated number of sheets of paper shredded (based on the going rates of
Shred-it*)

  • * The company, which is the leading shredder for congressional offices, charges $150 for every half-hour of on-site service, or $5 per box if you drop the paper off.
For more on what the House shells out to get its news fix, click here.

Travel Reimbursements

  • Those flights back home mean the plane tickets really pile up. Especially if you're the delegate from Guam or Alaska's only congressman -- but they're hardly the only well-traveled lawmakers. Note: We've focused here on expenditures labeled travel reimbursements and commercial transportation, and have not included mileage, which is recorded separately.
  • $12.5M
    Spent on travel for representatives and staff
  • 21,760
    Number of separate travel charges on the taxpayers' dime
  • 45
    Average number of trip expenditures for each representative
  • » Frequent fliers: The top two travelers in the House? Democrats Chellie Pingree of Maine, who has 197 travel expenditures, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, who had 163 expenditures. Neither was close to being the top spender, however. One high-spending traveler was Republican Jerry Moran of Kansas, who had 145 expenditures and an $82,000 taxpayer bill.
  • » Traveling cheap: Around 158 representatives spent less than $20,000, but only 37 spent more than $50,000. And distance plays a a factor with travel, too: House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., for example, spent a grand total of $297. D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton doesn't have much of a need for travel, either; she spent just $57.
  • » Costliest route: Madeleine Bordallo, the delegate from Guam, put in for $127,368 on 33 separate travel reimbursements or charges. (She didn't take all the trips herself, as some were listed under staffers' names.) Her average reimbursement was $3,859; one reimbursement, possibly for multiple flights, cost $22,000. The flight to Guam we found on Expedia would take 27 hours and have two stops.
  • » Flying to Alaska: Also not inexpensive, or fun: Alaska Rep. Don Young rang up $125,510 in travel charges in 113 separate travel expenditures during the period. The average reimbursement for his trips was $1,110.
Note: We've focused here on expenditures labeled travel reimbursements and commercial transportation, and have not included mileage, which is recorded separately.To view and share this info as a standalone file, click here.

 

 

 

Cult of personality

A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. The sociologist  Max Weber developed a tripartite classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as 'charismatic authority'.

A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is propagated by mass media. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcGjJ6Vk1uM

Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, Tibet, Thailand, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

The spread of democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was from these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose. Often these cults are a form of Political religion.

Purpose

See also: Secular religion

Personality cults were first described in relation to totalitarian regimes that sought to radically alter or transform society according to radical ideas. [2] Often, a single leader became associated with this revolutionary transformation, and came to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation without whom the transformation to a better future couldn't occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example, in the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Pol Pot's image was rarely seen. On the other hand, in North Korea there exists a very successful cult of personality, which includes actual semi-worship of both the father (Kim Il-sung) and son (Kim Jong-il).

Examples from totalitarian regimes





Adolf Hitler, behind Hermann Göring, at a Nazi rally in Nuremberg in 1928.

The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Saparmurat Niyazov, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung, Sukarno, and Kim Jong-Il.



During the peak of their regimes, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, with artists and poets legally required to produce only works that glorified the leader. Other leaders with such cults include Siad Barre of Somalia. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual"—expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:



From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me... Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.





Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:



Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[3]

This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.

We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.





Some authors (e.g. Alexander Zinovyev) have argued that Leonid Brezhnev's rule was also characterized by a cult of personality, though unlike Lenin and Stalin, Brezhnev did not initiate large-scale persecutions in the country. One of the aspects of Leonid Brezhnev's cult of personality was Brezhnev's obsession with titles, rewards and decorations, leading to his inflated decoration with medals, orders and so on[4]. This was often ridiculed by the ordinary people and led to the creation of many political jokes.

Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea's father-son leadership, "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung and "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[5] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[5] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of "factionalism."[5] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin's observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult.[6] Evidence of the cult of Kim Il-Sung continues into the 21st century (despite his death in 1994) with the erection of Yeong Saeng ("eternal life") monuments throughout the country, each dedicated to the departed "Great Leader", at which citizens are expected to pay annual tribute on his official birthday or the anniversary of his death.[7]

Saparmurat Niyazov, who was ruler of Turkmenistan from 1985 to 2006, is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.[8][9][10] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of 'reform,' while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text, and like Kim Il-sung, there's even a creation myth surrounding him.[11][12] During Niyazov's rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and "major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities."[13] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was used as a logo on television broadcasts[14] and statues and pictures of him were 'erected everywhere.'[15]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov’s personality cult...had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion."[16].

University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen's book Ambiguities of Domination documents the cult of personality which surrounded Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the "leader" put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia, Syria.

Juan Perón, elected three times as President of Argentina, and his second wife, Eva Duarte de Perón, were immensely popular among many of the Argentine people, and to this day they are still considered icons by the Peronist Party. The Peróns' followers praised their efforts to eliminate poverty and to dignify labor, while their detractors considered them demagogues and dictators. To achieve their political goals, the Peronists had to unite around the head of state. As a result, a personality cult developed around both Perón and his wife.[17]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was another well known example of a cult of personality. Saddam had portraits of himself made all over the country, some showing him as Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Saladin, reinforcing his personality cult in one of the most secular Arab countries.

Another example is that of Romania's political power structure in the 1980s, which was a cult of personality surrounding Nicolae Ceauşescu and his wife, Elena Ceauşescu. Nicolae Ceauşescu rose to power in 1965, but by 1971 the regime had reasserted its Stalinist legacy in socioeconomic and cultural matters. Ceauşescu was increasingly portrayed by the Romanian media as a creative communist theoretician and political leader whose "thought" was the source of all national accomplishments. His tenure as president was known as the "golden era of Ceauşescu." In the 1980s, the personality cult was extended to other members of the Ceauşescu family, including his wife, Elena, who held a position of prominence in political life far exceeding protocol requirements. By the mid-1980s, Elena Ceauşescu's national prominence had grown to the point that her birthday was celebrated as a national holiday, as was her husband's.

Since Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, he and his government have exhibited many traits commonly attributed to a cult of personality rule. The Cuban government frequently puts up billboards and posters with propaganda slogans. Castro features prominently in much of this, his own persona being intertwined with the Cuban flag and identity, and the revolution itself.



 

In a 2004 article on personality cults, The Economist identified Togo's Gnassingbé Eyadéma as maintaining an extensive personality cult, to the point of having schoolchildren begin their day by singing his praises.[18] Similarly, Cambodian schoolchildren at one point began their schoolday with prayers to Marshal Pétain, opening with the words, "Our father, who art in Vichy".[19]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_l8KK3gGxQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1roYORUIrc

Modern use

The modern usage of the phrase "Cult of Personality" focuses much less on direct government control of media and more on individuals who have a large following of people who see said individual as "More than Human". This would be an example of hyperbole, and does not accurately reflect personality cults as they have existed in countries such as Togo, Turkmenistan, and what continues to exist in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vws9fTtQgz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vxJD3az3nk&NR=1

(An article from Wikipedia.com)
(Links from Youtube.com)
(Pictures found with Google Images and edited with Paint)
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture