Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2016, 12:55:20 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96141 Posts in 2316 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 115
3651  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 27, 2011, 12:23:19 PM
"I do think his tenants are entitled to electrical work that is safe, i.e. not prone to cause a fire"

OK his tenants can get an outside opinion at their expense.

Rather than have *everyone* else pay up and go through a bureacracy.

3652  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues/entertainment/corporate/crime complex on: July 27, 2011, 11:43:46 AM
Almost certianly Piers Morgan is lying.  The entire entertainment industry is rampant with criminal behavior.  We have had our phones hacked, tapped, listening devices, breaking and entering, stolen intellectual property, surveillance to do harm, bribery theft at the Copyright Office, bribery of government officials and more.  The stolen lyrics and anything else we say or do that can be sold to make a buck shows up in commercials, comedy skits, talk shows, cartoons, movie lines, marketing ads, throughout the "entertainment" industry.  Everyone has connections, and spread the material around.   No most of them are not doing the stealing but the are party to passing it around, making deals amongst themselves, looking the other way, claiming it for themselves, and following the code of silence. 

The News corp is not an exception - it is the rule.  I have claimed this for years.  But I am not a powerful person with billions and connections.  So no one gives a shit about me or Katherine.  But News has many wealthy and politically connected enemies.  So this gets traction and people to actually do something about it.

Folks let me say again - this behaviour is not the exception - it is the rule.   Indeed the device makers have ways to "get in" your devices.  Try finding it embedded.  Try doing anyhting about it.

When I hear the doppy girly news anchors ask their guest who come on their shows to talk of the surveillance ask, "can one opt out?" all I can do is cringe at their ignorance an naivity:

*****Phone Hacking

CNN's Piers Morgan 'told interviewer stories were published based on phone tapping'
Piers Morgan, the CNN broadcaster, has said that newspaper articles based on the findings of people paid to tap phones and rake through bins were published during his time as a tabloid newspaper editor, it can be disclosed.
Piers Morgan, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson have all edited the News of the World Photo: REX
 By Jon Swaine, New York
12:40AM BST 27 Jul 2011
Mr Morgan, a former News of the World and Daily Mirror editor who is now a high-profile television presenter in the US, has spent the past week categorically denying ever printing material derived from phone hacking.

He spoke out after being accused by a Conservative MP and political bloggers of being involved in the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, for which he used to work.

“For the record, in my time at the News of the World and the Mirror, I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone,” he said last week on CNN, where he now hosts a talk-show.

But it has emerged that Mr Morgan gave a notably different response when asked during an interview with the BBC about his potential involvement in covert "gutter" journalistic practices during his time as a tabloid editor between 1994 and 2004.

“What about this nice middle-class boy, who would have to be dealing with, I mean essentially people who rake through bins for a living, people who tap people’s phones, people who take secret photographs, who do all that nasty down-in-the-gutter stuff,” he was asked on BBC's Desert Island Discs in June 2009. “How did you feel about that?"
Mr Morgan replied: “To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work.

"I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do,” he told the programme's host, Kirsty Young.

“I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and low end of the supposed newspaper market.”

The discovery of Mr Morgan’s comment, first hinted at by the Guido Fawkes political blog, came after Trinity Mirror, the parent company of The Daily Mirror, announced it had opened an investigation into editorial standards at its newspapers in light of the phone hacking scandal.

Clive Goodman, a reporter for The News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator employed by the newspaper, were jailed in 2007 for illegally hacking mobile phone voicemails. News International, the paper's parent company, initially said the scandal was limited to a "rogue reporter" but in recent weeks conceded it was in fact widespread.

The News of the World was shut down and several more arrests have been made, including Andy Coulson, a former News of the World editor hired by David Cameron to be the chief spokesman at 10 Downing Street and Rebekah Brooks, Mr Murdoch's former British newspaper chief. But News International has made clear it believes hacking was widespread among other tabloids.

At the weekend James Hipwell, a Daily Mirror financial columnist between 1998 and 2000, said that illegal phone hacking was “endemic” during Mr Morgan's editorship. "You know what people around you are doing,” he said.

Last week Mr Morgan was accused in a parliamentary committee by Louise Mensch, the Tory MP for Corby, of publishing an article in 2002 about an affair between Sven Goran Eriksson, the England football coach, and Ulrika Jonsson, the television presenter, which he knew had been obtained via phone hacking. He denied this and demanded an apology during a nine-minute row on live television.

Sources close to Mr Morgan said that he was referring to the tabloid industry in general. In a statement, he said: “I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone. I am not aware, and have never seen evidence to suggest otherwise, that any Mirror story published during my tenure was obtained from phone hacking.”
3653  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 27, 2011, 11:28:36 AM
"However, I think safety codes, i.e. electrical, structural, etc. have some merit"

I knew you would.  That is why I asked if you say the giov. is looking out for us?

3654  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Should Congress appoint special prosecutor? on: July 27, 2011, 11:27:20 AM
Surprise tongue high up white official knew of the fast and furious operation.  Obviously Holder will look the other way.  But Congress has the power to appoint a special prosecutor to look for the cover up:

******CBSNews Investigates   
 (Credit: CBS/AP) At a lengthy hearing on ATF's controversial gunwalking operation today, a key ATF manager told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010. The communications were between ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, Bill Newell, and White House National Security Director for North America Kevin O'Reilly. Newell said the two are longtime friends. The content of what Newell shared with O'Reilly is unclear and wasn't fully explored at the hearing.

It's the first time anyone has publicly stated that a White House official had any familiarity with ATF's operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of weapons to fall into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to gain intelligence. It's unknown as to whether O'Reilly shared information with anybody else at the White House.

Congressional investigators obtained an email from Newell to O'Reilly in September of last year in which Newell began with the words: "you didn't get this from me."

"What does that mean," one member of Congress asked Newell, " 'you didn't get this from me?' "

"Obviously he was a friend of mine," Newell replied, "and I shouldn't have been sending that to him."

Newell told Congress that O'Reilly had asked him for information.

"Why do you think he asked for that information," Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) asked Newell.

"He was asking about the impact of Project Gunrunner to brief people in preparation for a trip to Mexico... what we were doing to combat firearms trafficking and other issues."

Today, a White House spokesman said the email was not about Fast and Furious, but about other gun trafficking efforts. The spokesman also said he didn't know what Newell was referring to when he said he'd spoken to O'Reilly about Fast and Furious.

President Obama has said neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder authorized or knew about the operation. Holder has asked the Inspector General to investigate.******

*****Special prosecutor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A special prosecutor generally is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or, in the United States, by Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office. A reasoning for such an appointment is that the governmental branch or agency may have political connections to those it might be asked to investigate. Inherently, this creates a conflict of interest and a solution is to have someone from outside the department lead the investigation. The term "special prosecutor" may have a variety of meanings from one country to the next, from one government branch to the next within the same country, and within different agencies within each government branch. Critics of the use of special prosecutors argue that these investigators act as a "4th branch" to the government because they are not subject to limitations in spending or have deadlines to meet.*****
3655  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / code tax on: July 27, 2011, 11:13:17 AM
"My friend just did a major $500K+ renovation.  Among minor issues was an expansion of his garage.  It seems it is now 24' feet from the street.  The inspector this week told him to tear it down; the code says 24'.  My friend is not very happy."

The codes here in NJ obnoxious.  I can't even put in an electical line from one side of my basement to the other without having to clear it with code "enforcement".

This is a great example of government gone too far.  I say get government the hell off my property.  There is no end to the government expanding its power its reach, its taxation, in a self fulfilling cycle.  I say enough.

You say what?

They are looking out for us?

I am tired of being a victim of the Democrat/lawyer/union trifecta taxes.
3656  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / above post moved to government porgrams thread on: July 27, 2011, 11:12:34 AM
JDN see response on other thread.
3657  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: July 27, 2011, 11:10:54 AM
"My friend just did a major $500K+ renovation.  Among minor issues was an expansion of his garage.  It seems it is now 24' feet from the street.  The inspector this week told him to tear it down; the code says 24'.  My friend is not very happy."

The codes here in NJ obnoxious.  I can't even put in an electical line from one side of my basement to the other without having to clear it with code "enforcement".

This is a great example of government gone too far.  I say get government the hell off my property.  There is no end to the government expanding its power its reach, its taxation, in a self fulfilling cycle.  I say enough.

You say what?

They are looking out for us?

I am tired of being a victim of the Democrat/lawyer/union trifecta taxes.

3658  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 80 representatives multiplied networth 2002 to 2009 on: July 27, 2011, 11:04:00 AM
These people are immune from insider trading laws???

Where is the journolist on this?

We are being robbed by Wall Street, some banks, many politicians, some foreign recipients of "aid", fraud and abuse in all government programs, illegals, corporate crime (phone hacking which I can assure you is the very tiny tip of the iceberg based on my experience - I have been posting this for years), organized crime, and more.

Yet the Brock DOJ sees it fit to expand the civil rights division to protect gays, Muslims from being called bad names.

And anyone can wonder for my disgust at the world.  And we in this country pretend corruption is only rampant in other countries?
It is rampant here.

Instead of police officers retiring at 50 they should be retrained to go after white collar crime and paid better.
3659  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brock: Carter 2 on steroids on: July 26, 2011, 01:44:28 PM
At this rate the only one voting for Brock is JDN:     grin grin grin cool
3660  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Appearance of Soros cover up on: July 26, 2011, 01:24:20 PM
"The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest, and information on investors and employees."

Insider info cover up?  Oh he is so for the "poor".

***By Robert Holmes     07/26/11 - 08:04 AM EDT

(TheStreet) -- George Soros, the billionaire hedge-fund manager and philanthropist best known for breaking the Bank of England in 1992, will return capital to investors in order to avoid reporting requirements under the Dodd Frank reform act.

Soros will return money to investors by the end of the year, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing two people briefed on the matter. Soros Fund Management will focus on managing assets for his family, according to a letter to the firm's investors. Soros will turn 81 on August 12. 
George Soros 

"We wish to express our gratitude to those who chose to invest their capital with Soros Fund Management LLC over the last nearly 40 years," the letter to investors reads, according to the Bloomberg report. "We trust that you have felt well rewarded for your decision over time."

Initial media reports trumpeted the end of Soros' 40-year career as a hedge-fund manager, although the billionaire investor's firm is far from being done. Soros will return less than $1 billion to external investors, a drop in the bucket compared to the firm's total assets of more than $25 billion.

The reason? Under new requirements from the Dodd Frank act, hedge funds are required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission by March 2012 if the fund continues to manage more than $150 million in assets for outside investors. The new requirements would call for funds to report information about the assets they manage, potential conflicts of interest, and information on investors and employees. The act allows an exemption for what the Commission considers "family office" advisers.

"We have relied until now on other exemptions from registration which allowed outside shareholders whose interests aligned with those of the family investors to remain invested in Quantum," the letter continued, according to the Bloomberg report. "As those other exemptions are no longer available under the new regulations, Soros Fund Management will now complete the transition to a family office that it began eleven years ago."

While less than $1 billion is small compared to the firm's overall assets, some positions will have to be trimmed through the end of the year. According to Soros' last 13F filling with the SEC for the quarter ended March 31, his firm's top 10 holdings included Adecoagro(AGRO_), InterOil(IOC_), Motorola Solutions(MSI_), Monsanto(MON_), Citigroup(C_) and Wells Fargo(WFC_), among others.

-- Written by Robert Holmes in Boston.***
3661  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology on: July 23, 2011, 02:36:57 PM
Part of Walter Reed or at least it was.  Walter Reed is closing I guess.

It appears to be moving its location.  In the 70s it had fascinating exhibits like the vertebra showing the bullet tract the bullet that killed James Garfield.  I haven't been their in decades but it still looks unique:
3662  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GWill2teaparty: more patients - your kicking Brock's a on: July 23, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
Tea Party would defeat Obama by supporting McConnell plan on debt

By George Will | The Tea Party, the most welcome political development since the Goldwater insurgency in 1964, lacks only the patience necessary when America lacks the consensus required to propel fundamental change through our constitutional system of checks and balances. If Washington's trajectory could be turned as quickly as Tea Partyers wish — while conservatives control only one-half of one of the two political branches — their movement would not be as necessary as it is. Fortunately, not much patience is required.

The Goldwater impulse took 16 years to reach fruition in the election of Ronald Reagan. The Tea Party can succeed in 16 months by helping elect a president who will not veto necessary reforms. To achieve that, however, Tea Partyers must not help the incumbent achieve his objectives in the debt-ceiling dispute.

One of those is to strike a splashy bargain involving big — but hypothetical and nonbinding — numbers. This would enable President Obama to run away from his record and run as a debt-reducing centrist. Another Obama objective is tax increases that shatter Republican unity and dampen the Tea Party's election-turning intensity. Because he probably can achieve neither, he might want market chaos in coming days so Republicans henceforth can be cast as complicit in the wretched recovery that is his administration's ugly signature.

Mitch McConnell's proposal would require Obama to make three requests for additional debt-ceiling increases. Each time he would be required to recommend commensurate spending reductions. Concerning them, Congress would, of course, retain its constitutional power to do what it wishes.
 Obama could muster sufficient Democratic votes (one-third plus one, in one house) to sustain his veto of Congress's disapproval of his requests. But this would not enhance presidential power. Rather, McConnell's proposal would put a harness on the president, tightly confining him within a one-time process.

Congressional primacy would be further enhanced by McConnell's proposed special congressional committee. It would not be another commission; it would have no administration members or other outsiders. Its proposals would be unamendable, and would be voted on this year.

Thanks largely to the Tea Party, today, more than at any time since Reagan's arrival 30 years ago, Washington debate is conducted in conservatism's vocabulary of government retrenchment. The debt-ceiling vote, an action-forcing mechanism of limited utility, has at least demonstrated that Obama is, strictly speaking, unbelievable.

Five months ago he submitted a budget that would have accelerated indebtedness, and that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected in May, 97 to 0. Just three months ago he was demanding a "clean" increase in the debt ceiling, containing nothing to slow the spending carousel. Now he calls for "the largest possible" debt-reduction deal. Today, he says, "If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up." Last year he advertised Obamacare as a sufficient reform of health care. He denounces Republicans as uncompromising regarding tax increases but vows "I will not accept" a deal that does not increase taxes.

Obama vaguely promises to "look at" savings from entitlements because "we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade." But when McConnell learned that negotiations chaired by Vice President Biden had identified a risible $2 billion in 2012 discretionary spending cuts — a sum equal to a rounding error on the GM bailout — McConnell concluded that Obama's frugality pantomime required a response that will define the 2012 election choice.

Obama's rhetorical floundering is the sound of a bewildered politician trying to be heard over the long, withdrawing roar of ebbing faith in a failing model of governance. From Greece to California, with manifestations in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Illinois and elsewhere, this model is collapsing. Entangled economic and demographic forces are refuting the practice of ever-bigger government financed by an ever-smaller tax base and by imposing huge costs on voiceless future generations.

Richard Miniter, a Forbes columnist, is right: "Obama is not the new FDR, but the new Gorbachev." Beneath the tattered, fading banner of reactionary liberalism, Obama struggles to sustain a doomed system. Democrats' dependency agenda — swelling the ranks of government employees, multiplying government-subsidized industries, enveloping ever-more individuals in the entitlement culture — is buckling under an intractable contradiction: It is incompatible with economic growth sufficient to create enough wealth to feed the multiplying tax eaters.

Events are validating the Tea Partyers' arguments. Time is on their side — but not on America's, unless the impediment to reform is removed in 16 months.
3663  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 22, 2011, 10:00:14 PM
Brock in *his* tizzy speech tonight stated:

"The American people voted for a divided government, not a dysfunctional government."

Wrong on both counts Brockster:

The American people voted for *less* government -  ya stooge.

God almighty we have to get rid of this guy.
3664  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: July 22, 2011, 09:55:38 PM
Jeb Bush on Hannity this evening sounded quite good and I was surprised.  He didn't just sound like a moderate establish type. He is quite adept at highlighting the total failures of Brock and why we need to change course.  All we need is a candidate who can do this with vigor and with eloquent oratory.

Jeb is not running.  Perry maybe can do this? undecided  Pawlenty is just too laid back from what I have seen.  Bachman is still not prime time on national/international issues. 

We have to get rid of Brock.  This country cannot afford figuratively and finanically another 4 yrs of this disaster or as the great Bob Grant talk show host descirbes him - this abomination!

3665  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Herman Cain on: July 18, 2011, 09:59:29 AM
Herman Cain was on Stossel over the weekend and it was noted he is a "survivor" of stage 4 colon cancer.
Unfortunately this is not a curable disease.  I am afraid this rules him out as a Presidential candidate in my mind:
3666  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Morris compares Obama to FDR term 2 on: July 17, 2011, 04:12:48 PM
Obama wil plunge us into a second dip just like FDR in his second term plunged the country into a sceond depression:
3667  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / hillsdale college piece on unions on: July 17, 2011, 02:54:11 PM
Imprimis is the free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College and is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political and educational issues of enduring significance.  The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered to Hillsdale College-hosted events, both on-campus and off-campus.  First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over 1.9 million subscribers.

May/June 2011

Mark Mix
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom
MARK MIX is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as well as of the National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million member public policy organization. He holds a B.A. in finance from James Madison University and an associate’s degree in marketing from the State University of New York. His writings have appeared in such newspapers and magazines as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Detroit Free Press, the San Antonio Express-News, the Orange County Register and National Review.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on January 31, 2011, during a conference co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.

Where does this story begin?

The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley

In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.

Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.

During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”

When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .

Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:

...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.

This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.

Boeing’s Interest, and Ours

It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:

The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.

This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:

There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.

Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”

Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.

Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.

In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?

Public Sector Unionism

As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.

The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”

How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

    33 East College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 • Tel: +1 517 437-7341 • Fax: +1 517 437-3923
© 2007-09 Hillsdale College. All rights reserved.
3668  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dems in armbar on: July 15, 2011, 02:15:14 PM
"The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts."

Even Krauthammer smells Democratic blood in the air!  Time to lock the armbar and break their arm!

Mark Levin was right all along.  Time to go for the kill.  It is now or never and they are on the run.

As Bachman said the other night to a grinning OReilly she has a titanium spine. Time for all Repubs to get titanium rods implanted in their/our spines.
3669  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 15, 2011, 01:19:55 PM
"It's not a health care issue, it's a character flaw."

Yes, we spoke of his obvious narcisstic personality disorder.

It is not called a "disorder" for nothing.  These people can be extraordinarily deceptive, dishonest, placing blame always on others, never really accepting responsibility for anything.  They love themselves and think they are superior.  As a result they think they can charm and manipulate everyone around them to their whim.

In the beggining they often/usually are successful.  Savvy people will soon catch on.  Those who think they are good judges of character but are not will take longer.  And of course there are those that will always be suckered.

It does appear more and more people are catching on.  WE can only hope the Repubs can rally behind a candidate who can give an alternative message before it is too late.

Mark my words if Brock loses we will see him pardon every illegal here and around the world.  That will be HIS payback.

3670  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 15, 2011, 01:09:17 PM
"You've got crushing student loans, no jobs and you must buy health insurance to subsidize everyone else."

Don't forget we ought to pay for the education of illegals too.

If one is born here to a family that works to pay for their children's education good.

If your illegal and cannot afford an education the above group will be forced to subsidize you out of the good heartedness of the ruling Democrat party itching for a vote.

For a long time people have clamored that health care is a "right".

When did retirement often before 60 and even 50 become a "right"?

3671  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 15, 2011, 11:36:59 AM
"Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama"

Mark Levin had a law professor from Univ of Chicago on his show last year.  He knew Brock and is a pro 2nd amendment professor.  Apparantly this is rare.  He stated Brock was the only prof who would never speak to him because of his political stance.  He said this was unusual.  The other liberal professors would at least be polite and friendly.  The world's first post partisan prez was the only one who was a cold fish.  This professor also stated he witnessed absolutely no research, no original legal thought, and no real insterest in the Constitution by Brock.  the whole reason from what he could tell Brock was at U of C was to establish a political base.  It is was all about political calculation. 

This goes along with the other circumstantial evidence that Brock was the chosen one by the progressive movement to be their mouthpiece.  It also goes along with the obvious that he is not an original thinker, not a conciliator, very political/partisan.

He is the angry Black, who dislikes Jews (he just uses them), whites, capatilizism, and America.

Krauthammer had it slightly wrong.  It is not Brock's temperment that is what makes him "special" it is his ability to lie and deceive.
3672  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / AMA votes for individual mandate on: July 15, 2011, 10:45:19 AM
Apparantly the AMA is more interested their members get paid then in individual freedom.  It is almost always about the money.

I got this in my email.  I am not and never have been an AMA member but I got this from the ACP American College of Physicians who are generally rather liberal but to some degree follow the trends in a politically realistic fashion.  Unlike years ago where medical groups had enormous political sway in Washington they hold almost NO sway now.  So they just jump on board and play both sides as best they can and go with the political winds.  Right or wrong that is the way it is.  Not like the legal lobby which controls the country like a vice.

***Welcome to The ACP Advocate.

I’m pleased to start off this issue by reporting to you the news in our first story.  At its June meeting, the American Medical Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution to reaffirm the necessity of a personal responsibility requirement (the individual mandate) as part of health reform.  Continuing to emphasize the importance of the requirement is crucial.  Without requiring everyone (including the young and healthy among us) to have health insurance, the system simply won’t be able to provide coverage to all at rates that are affordable.  This sort of requirement is necessary in order to continue to have a viable private payer system.
3673  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 15, 2011, 10:05:41 AM
Who was fired from MSNBC for calling Brock for what he is, a "dick"?
3674  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans" on: July 15, 2011, 10:03:45 AM
What?  This is a topic that must be taught in grade schools??  If this is ok than why are liberals so against Mormons and polygamy?

What the hell is wrong with polygamy between consenting adults?  It will not end till the foundations of this country are destroyed.
There is no compromise.  I am glad I am at the end of life.  I have had enough.  I don't care what gays or the rest of them do but we need to teach this in school as though it is just sort of variation of normal? 

****Sacramento --

Public schools in California will be required to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans starting Jan. 1 after Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a controversial bill to add the topic to the social sciences curriculum.

Textbooks now must include information on the role of LGBT Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities, though California's budget crisis has delayed the purchasing of new books until at least 2015.

"History should be honest," Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

The governor called the legislation, SB48, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, "historic."

The law - the first of its kind in the nation - adds the two groups to an existing list of minority and other groups that are required to be part of the social sciences curriculum.

Safer schools
Gay rights supporters heralded Brown's action as a major victory. They said the law will help make public schools a safer place for LGBT students as well as give those students, and their classmates, examples of accomplished and important LGBT people.

Throughout the debate on the measure, backers noted the recent spate of suicides among young LGBT people and said it would help to combat bullying that typically occurs beforehand.

Opponents, however, fiercely opposed the measure, citing religious objections to homosexuality and questioning whether such instruction is necessary. They expressed dismay with Brown's signing of the bill.

"If children in other countries are learning math and science, and American children are learning about the private lives of historical figures, how will our students compete for jobs in the global economy?" said Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster (Los Angeles County), the vice chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Education.

Beyond California
The provision on inclusion in textbooks could reach beyond California, too, as many book publishers tailor their texts to California's standards because of the state's large population. The bill does not prescribe how schools will teach the subject, and Leno said that decision will be made by local school officials and teachers.

"What the bill calls for is for the contributions of LGBT people to be included," Leno said, adding, "We wrote it broadly for a reason. We would be subject to more criticism than we've already been getting if we were more dictatorial."

Leno said the mandates apply broadly, though, telling reporters it would affect kindergarten through high school curriculum, "and, of course, in an age-appropriate way."

Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.

Carolyn Laub, the founder and executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which works to establish gay-straight clubs in schools, said such clubs exist in 55 percent of California's high schools.

"We'll certainly be letting all of our constituents know about this bill, and when it goes into effect I can assure you there will be thousands of students" watching to see how it is implemented, she said.

Proponents have cited slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk as a person with historical significance, along with events such as the Stonewall Riots in New York City that helped launch the LGBT rights movement as examples of topics that could be taught.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a Democrat, praised Brown's move, saying, "Our history is more complete when we recognize the contributions of people from all backgrounds and walks of life."

Cutting into class time
Still, opponents questioned the effect the bill would have and the need for explicit instruction for all students about a relatively small group.

The bill "does absolutely nothing to reduce bullying, improve the poor state of our education system, ensure students graduate or prepare them for global competitiveness," said Paulo Sibaja, legislative director of the Capitol Resource Institute, a socially conservative organization in Sacramento. "Instead it diverts precious classroom time away from science, math, reading and writing, and focuses on the agenda of a small group of people."****

3675  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: July 14, 2011, 03:11:31 PM
Crafty, Doug, Gm all,

Would the economy really tank if a debt ceiling is not raised as the crats claim?

Any one know?
3676  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: July 14, 2011, 02:57:03 PM
GM, it is a free state for probably more than 50%. undecided
3677  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Barack Hussain Obama in Hebrew on: July 14, 2011, 02:55:25 PM
BROCK at alah add annoy
3678  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: July 14, 2011, 02:53:08 PM
Ask not what our country can do for you, ask what you (immigrant) can do for our country.
3679  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / It is a gigantic problem on: July 12, 2011, 05:05:35 PM
I am sure there are some doctors along with everyone else who are abusing the drug prescirption thing.

"The Colorado system is full of abuse including no oversight of the 'doctors' and leaving the dispensaries unregulated."

We don't need doctors prescribing this garbage (pot).  We can't even control the narcotics prescriptions.  I do my best yet I have  a single digit number of patients who I suspect are taking advantage of the drugs yet I can't prove it.  One actually did tell me she went snowboarding!  huh  She shut up fast when I just glared at her.  angry I thought she was in such pain. rolleyes

The doctors who blatantly participate in the drug dispensing scams are I truly think a small minority.  Although I don't have a good handle as to how many do this.  I really think most of us *cannot stand* the scammers who come in trying to con us for drugs.  Most of druggies can be filtered out but a few are really tough to tell from people truly in need  in my estimations.  Some are superb bullshit artists - like the people in the music/entertainment industry. 

3680  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 12, 2011, 04:47:32 PM
"These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks"

How about his check?  And the other, Lord knows how many, DC employees - our masters.
3681  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / If Brock wins in 2012 this will be me: on: July 12, 2011, 04:43:38 PM
3682  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: July 12, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
I don't think they are winning over any independents or any new people to the Republican party. And they are certainly not winning the confidence of the tea partiers or stricter conservatives.  Of course I am an armchair expert. cheesy
3683  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / marijuana on: July 12, 2011, 01:50:07 PM
  The only reason to decriminalize this drug is to take the profit motive out of it. That may be a good reason to make it legal but no other reason I can see is legitimate.  Not to tax it and not for "medicinal" purposes in vast majority of most cases. Medically it is a sham except for maybe those who are otherwise in unusual situations like on chemotherapy or terminally ill.  People who want it legal are mostly hippies, druggies, or those who want to profit from it.  With all the problems facing this country we need to debate over pot?

Personally I agree with the following:

****Obama administration slams medical marijuana
By Liz Goodwin

National Affairs Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Liz Goodwin | The Lookout – 20 hrs agotweet48EmailPrint

Medical marijuana in Denver (Ed Andrieski/AP)
The Obama administration's newly released drug control strategy slams states that have legalized medical marijuana, arguing that smoking any drug is unsafe--and that marijuana's medical benefits have yet to be evaluated by the FDA.

"While there may be medical value for some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal value," the White House's National Drug Control Strategy for 2011 says.

The strongly anti-marijuana report comes on the heels of the Justice Department's decision against reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. As The Los Angeles Times reports, the government took nine years to respond to marijuana advocates' request that they take into account studies that show marijuana has medical benefits and reclassify the drug. At the end of its review, the Justice Department held firm to its earlier decision that marijuana should be classified alongside other dangerous drugs such as heroin. The Americans for Safe Access group is now appealing the decision in federal court, the paper says.

It's unclear what the consequences will be for people involved in the medical marijuana business in the 16 states (and Washington, D.C.) that currently allow it. The report states unequivocally that "outside the context of Federally approved research, the use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited in the United States," and the Justice Department recently suggested in a memo that state-approved marijuana dispensaries and growers could face prosecution.

The report also made a detailed case against legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, an idea that has won the endorsement of a group of ex-global leaders who called the war on drugs a "failure." The report says that while tobacco and alcohol are legalized and taxed, neither provide a "net economic benefit to society," due to health-care expenses and various criminal justice costs, such as drunken driving arrests.

Neil Franklin, the director of a pro-legalization group of former police and other law-enforcement agents called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said in a statement that the anti-marijuana tone of the administration is disappointing.

"It's sad that the drug czar decided to insert a multi-page rant against legalizing and regulating drugs into the National Drug Control Strategy instead of actually doing his job and shifting limited resources to combat the public health problem of drug abuse," Franklin said.****
3684  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Progressives and subversives have absconded the education system on: July 12, 2011, 10:36:35 AM
What is most astounding about all this is all we hear about is how bad our education that so many children know astoundingly NOTHING about the nature and founding of the principals of our country.

They know all about slavery of blacks, the driving of Indians off lands, etc.  Everything is political correctness.

I felt proud of being an American growing up.

Now children are taught to be ashamed of our heritage, our history culture, the legacies, the principals this country was founded on.

I remember in college in the 70's one history professor was rumored to be "communist" in his philosophy as though he was the execption.  Now from what one reads this is at least at the Ivy league schools the *rule*, not the *exception*.

I just cannot believe we have children who don't know who Abraham Lincoln is from a picture or that the US was a colony of Britain.

This is astounding. This is a disgrace.  
3685  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How can repubs get rid of Boehner? on: July 12, 2011, 09:33:51 AM
Without any doubt the Republicans really should start looking for another House majority leader.
When you see the MSM state something like this:

"Boehner was praised for his early efforts to strike a major deal with the Obama" then Republicans should know its time for him to be replaced.  This guy Boehner is absolutely the worst Republican house leader in memory:

***Cantor-Boehner Rivalry, Loafers Hold Up a Debt Deal

By Connor Simpson | The Atlantic Wire – 2 hrs 50 mins agotweet0EmailPrintA long rumored rivalry between the two top Republicans seems to be causing problems at the negotiating table while the president tries to hammer out a debt reduction deal before the August 2 deadline. Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are on opposing sides of the idealogical coin when it comes to debt reduction, and sartorial choices, reports the Los Angeles Times' Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey.

Related: GOP Intensifies Demands for Votes to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Boehner was praised for his early efforts to strike a major deal with the Obama administration that would trim spending from social programs like Medicare and Social Security, but would also close tax loopholes for upperclass Americans. Cantor has hardly swayed from party lines during the negotiation process, favoring a mid-range deal more popular with the rest of "rank-and-file" Republicans. Mascaro and Hennessey describe Boehner as older, wiser and with an "old school cool." Cantor is young, scrappy and has some, "aspirations to occupy the No. 1 spot someday," meaning Boehner's job as Speaker of the house. Also, apparently, Boehner, "mocks Cantor's Italian loafers."

Related: Debt Talks Stall on Sunday

"If there's a popularity contest right now, Cantor wins it," one aide told the Times. "I don't think Boehner would want to serve in a foxhole anytime with Eric Cantor," said another.
3686  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 08, 2011, 10:24:17 AM
Isn't in Kali-fornia there is a bill that would make mandatory gay history in schools.

We have a large percentage of children who cannot tell you what Abraham Lincoln looks like, who do not know the US was originally part of the British empire but we must have gay history in grade school!

Right.  And it wasn't the gays spreading aids it was Ronald Reagan.
3687  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: July 01, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
"Good riddance.  He was fired"

Not in the too distant future we will all be saying the same for Brock.

He can travel the world and wine and dine with his wife on their dime.
3688  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "Men & Women" no more on: June 30, 2011, 08:05:41 PM
Forget "boy" or "girl".  It is friends or I guess person.  I don't know if this should be under the gay heading, parenting heading gender heading or under a heading of "crazy':

***No "boys" or "girls" at gender-neutral preschool in Sweden
At Egalia preschool in Stockholm, children are not called "him" and "her," or "boy" and "girl," in an attempt to fight gender stereotypes.
News DeskJune 26, 2011 12:04
Swedish children from a kindergarden wear their obligatory traffic safety vests as they play in a Stockholm park. At the "Egalia" preschool in Sweden, staff refer to the children as "friends" instead of "boys" and "girls," in an attempt to breakdown gender stereotypes for boys and girls. (SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)A preschool in Sweden wants to eliminate gender bias by referring to children as “friends,” instead of girls and boys, and avoiding gender-specific pronouns such as “him” or “her.”

At the taxpayer-funded “Egalia” preschool in Stockholm, which opened last year for children ages 1-6, boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, which is located next to the Lego bricks, the Associated Press reports.

They read books featuring gay and lesbian couples, single parents and adopted children, instead of fairy tales such as “Cinderella” or “Snow White,” which are rife with gender stereotypes.

School staff try to avoid masculine and feminine references in their speech, for example by not using the Swedish pronouns “han” or “hon” for him or her, and instead using the genderless word “hen,” which doesn’t formally exist in the Swedish language.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," teacher Jenny Johnsson told the AP. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

A 2010 report by the World Economic Forum on the global gender gap found that Sweden and three other Nordic countries lead the world when it comes to gender equality. Sweden is also considered a pioneer in legalizing gay and lesbian partnerships.

A Canadian couple recently drew international attention for their decision to try and raise a genderless baby by not telling anyone whether their child is a boy or girl.

When Storm was born, the couple from Toronto told friends and family that they had decided not to share the baby’s sex.

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” mother Kathy Witterick explained to the Toronto Star. “If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs.”

Storm’s brothers Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, choose their own clothes and hairstyles. Jazz prefers to wear his hair long and in three braids, and his favorite color is pink.****

3689  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / An awakening on: June 29, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
Are some liberal fellow Jews awakening that they may really have to give up their capatilistic freedom lifestyle if they keep voting for Brock and the rest of the crat party?   Well their not just giving away Israel.  They are giving away this great country too.  Wake up you fools.

***Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012.***

WOW!  Although I will have to see this to believe on election day....

***Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama
By: Ben Smith
June 29, 2011 04:32 AM EDT
David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair. (See also: President Obama's Middle East speech: Details complicate 'simple' message)

“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.

The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.” (Related: Obama defends border policy)

Obama’s Jewish allies stressed the second half: that land swaps would — as American negotiators have long contemplated — give Israel security in its narrow middle, and the deal would give the country international legitimacy and normalcy.

But the noisy fray after the speech mirrored any number of smaller controversies. Politically hawkish Jews and groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Emergency Committee for Israel pounded Obama in news releases. White House surrogates and staffers defended him, as did the plentiful American Jews who have long wanted the White House to lean harder on Israel’s conservative government.

Based on the conversations with POLITICO, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Even Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spoke to POLITICO to combat the story line of Jewish defections, said she’d detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”

Wasserman Schultz and other top Democrats say the storm will pass. (Related: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Jewish voters will stick with Obama)

They point out to anyone who will listen that beyond the difficult personal relationship of Obama and Netanyahu, beyond a tense, stalled peace process, there’s a litany of good news for supporters of Israel: Military cooperation is at an all-time high; Obama has supplied Israel with a key missile defense system; the U.S. boycotted an anti-racism conference seen as anti-Israel; and America is set to spend valuable international political capital beating back a Palestinian independence declaration at the United Nations in September.

The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times.

At the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama professed his love for Israel but then seemed, - to some who were there for his informal talk - to betray a kind of naivete about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: “The biggest enemy” he said, using the same rhetoric he applied to American politics, was “not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism.”

At the next year’s AIPAC conference, he again botched the conflict’s code, committing himself to an “undivided Jerusalem” and then walking it back the next day.

Those doubts and gaffes lingered, even for many of the majority who supported him.

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.

Many of Obama’s supporters, then and now, said they were unworried about the political allegiance of Jewish voters. Every four years, they say, Republicans claim to be making inroads with American Jews, and every four years, voters and donors go overwhelmingly for the Democrats, voting on a range of issues that include, but aren’t limited to Israel.

But while that pattern has held, Obama certainly didn’t take anything for granted. His 2008 campaign dealt with misgivings with a quiet, intense, and effective round of communal outreach.

“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

“That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.”

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

“He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said.

A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

That, perhaps, is the crux of the political question: The pro-Israel Jewish voters and activists who spoke to POLITICO are largely die-hard Democrats, few of whom have ever cast a vote for a Republican to be president. Does the new wave of Jewish angst matter?

One place it might is fundraising. Many of the Clinton-era Democratic mega-donors who make Israel their key issue, the most prominent of whom is the Los Angeles Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, never really warmed to Obama, though Saban says he will vote for the Democrat and write him a check if asked.

A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.

Even people writing five-figure checks to Obama, though, appeared in need of a bit of bucking up.

“We were very reassured,” Randi Levine, who attended the event with her husband, Jeffrey, a New York real estate developer, told POLITICO.

Philadelphia Jewish Democrats are among the hosts of another top-dollar event June 30. David Cohen, a Comcast executive and former top aide to former Gov. Ed Rendell, said questions about Obama’s position on Israel have been a regular, if not dominant, feature of his attempts to recruit donors.

“I takes me about five minutes of talking through the president’s position and the president’s speech, and the uniform reaction has been, ‘I guess you’re right, that’s not how I saw it covered,’” he said.

Others involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fundraising toll.

“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.
 © 2011 POLITICO LLC****
3690  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: June 29, 2011, 12:26:47 PM

I like Pawlenty.

I am not sure why the DC/MSM (even Fox too)  press keeps writing him off though.

Bachmann is clearly way in over her head.

So was "Brock" though, though he had a lot of savvy people surrounding him who knew the ropes and pushed him through and gave him his script.

Bachmann does not have the same politically wise sheisters surrounding her as she just keeps saying one thing after another (like mixing up John Wayne Gacy with John Wayne).  Who is advising her?   These kinds of mistakes really makes her sound absolutely stupid.  Too bad there is not a conservative movement of Jews like the liberal Jews jornolist, Soros, and the rest who got "Brock" into power doing the same for a Republican. 

As Levin would say - "OK I SAID IT".  Yes liberal Jews got Brock in power!  Dammit!
3691  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / beyond description on: June 28, 2011, 02:05:14 PM
We have the Times writer being lauded by the MSM as some sort of hero for forging documents while in US illegally, and millions here illegally with forged documents yet this guy may go to jail:

***Vet Checks Wrong Box, Faces Charges
Army, Navy Photographer Accused Of Passport Fraud

POSTED: Monday, June 27, 2011
UPDATED: 7:35 pm EDT June 27, 2011

EmailPrint Embed this Video
FacebookDiggTwitterRedditDelicious Link
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Elisha Dawkins graduated in August from nursing school in Jacksonville.

He put on hold his plans for taking the board exams because the Navy called him into action as a photographer.

Dawkins photographed happenings at Guantanamo Bay, an act that's evidence he's a trusted member of the military with top secret clearance.

Now, Dawkins, a Navy reservist and decorated Army combat photographer who served in Iraq, is in jail, charged with passport fraud. He's facing 10 years in prison for what could be a simple misunderstanding.

"Suddenly, he's picked up and thrown in jail? Then it's time for this senator to start asking questions," U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson., D-Fla., said.

Nelson has questions echoed by Dawkins' friends, including Dianne Rinehardt.

Elisha Dawkins served with the Army in Iraq.
"It's a travesty, and we're trying to stop it," Rinehardt said.

Rinehardt went through nursing school with Dawkins and is a veteran herself. She's upset about the trouble her friend is in. In sharing his story with other vets, Rinehardt said that lots of people who don't know Dawkins can't believe it.

"We're all appalled that, how can you serve this country and be more dedicated to the ideals of this country, and serve this country and then be told, 'Guess what, you made a little clerical error. You're out of here.' And that's a travesty," Rinehardt said.

A federal indictment states that Dawkins started to fill out a passport application in 2004, didn't complete it, then filled out a new application two years later.

On that new application, he checked a box "no" for the question, "Have you ever applied before?" according to the indictment.

Dawkins got the passport, but three months ago, the government issued a warrant for his arrest. He was taking photos for the Navy at the time.

When Dawkins got back to the U.S. in April, he was arrested about a week later and has been in jail for two months since.

"The state department is implying there's something more. I want to know, and that's why I've written them," Nelson said.

"We've sent emails through our standard home, family email chains throughout the country," Rinehardt said. "The more attention we bring to this, the more people will see this as a disservice."

Dawkins' attorney calls the case an "absurd prosecution," saying that filling out a "no" box "did not merit criminal charges."

Because the trial is scheduled for next month, if Dawkins is still in jail at that point, he will insist on going to trial.

A pretrial hearing Tuesday in Miami is the next step.

Copyright 2011 by All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.****
3692  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Panetta supports one world government on: June 28, 2011, 10:04:05 AM
We are as a nation being destroyed from within:

Obama's DoD nominee caught in 1-world scheme
Co-leader of initiative to cede oceans to U.N.-based international law
Posted: June 21, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

Leon Panetta
CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.

Panetta's oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization, Citizens for Global Solutions, that promotes world government.

Also, the group’s parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. It is a coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

As WND reported, billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main organization pushing the doctrine. The center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.

Panetta faces a Senate vote tomorrow on whether to confirm him as defense secretary.

Until his appointment as CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

Find out what's needed to restore America to greatness.

The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."

(Story continues below)


Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

That U.N. convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.

Other recommendations of Panetta's Joint Ocean Commission Initiative include:

The Administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The Administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes.

Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

Podesta served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team.

Panetta's oceans initiative, meanwhile, is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a "future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”

CGS states it works to "build the political will in the United States" to achieve this global vision.

The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.

CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.

The movement openly brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The movement's headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.

Marxist ideology

The latest revelations about Panetta follow a series of WND articles in recent days highlighting possible concerns about Obama's secretary of defense pick.

WND reported last week, Panetta keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.

Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."

WND also reported Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks at its discretion of the CIA, the only government agency that contests the authority of the congressional comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.

Also last week, WND reported on Panetta's ties to a pro-Marxist think tank accused of anti-CIA activity.

The Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security and for its cozy relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Global military scheme

The connection of Panetta's oceans initiative to a global center coordinating the Responsibility to Protect doctrine might raise questions regarding Panetta's defense strategy as he faces a vote tomorrow that is likely to place him at the leadership of the Pentagon.

In his address to the nation last month, Obama cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

As WND reported Soros' Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect. The center was led at the time by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

She reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.

WND reported the committee that devised the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

'One world'

WND reported that the Responsibility doctrine founder, Ramesh Thakur, recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

 DoD nominee caught in 1-world scheme
3693  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Leon Panetta: US oceans should be under UN law on: June 28, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
Is Leon Panetta Suitable

To Head The Defense Department?
   CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to serve as secretary of defense, co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.
   Panetta's oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization that promotes world government called Citizens for Global Solutions.
   Also, that group's parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, backs Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya. Billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main center pushing the doctrine. That center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.
   Panetta faces a senate vote this week on whether to confirm him as defense secretary.
   Until his appointment as CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.
   The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."
   Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
   That UN convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
   The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, President and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.
   Panneta's oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a "future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone."
   CGS states it works to "build the political will in the United States" to achieve this global vision.
   CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.
   The Movement openly brings together organizations and individuals which support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.
   The Movement's headquarters are located near the UN building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
   These locations are significant since the Movement heavily promotes the UN and is the coordinator of various international projects such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.
   These latest revelations about Panetta follow a series of articles by this reporter in recent days highlighting possible concerns about Obama's secretary of defense pick.
   Those articles exposed that in 1979, Panetta, then a California congressman, keynoted the conference of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.
   Panetta also honored the founding member of the WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."
   Separately, this journalist reported that Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks, at its discretion, of the CIA - the only government agency that contests the authority of the Congressional comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.
   Also last week, it was reported that Panetta in 1983 served on the fundraising committee of the Institute for Policy Studies, a leftist think tank that has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security.
   The connection of Panetta's oceans initiative to a global center coordinating the Responsibility to Protect doctrine might raise questions regarding Panetta's defense strategy as he faces a vote that is likely to place him at the leadership of the Pentagon.

 Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief and senior reporter for Internet giant He is also host of an investigative radio program on New York's 770-WABC Radio, the largest talk radio station in the U.S., every Sunday between 2-4 p.m.
3694  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / leon panetta progressive ties on: June 28, 2011, 09:59:06 AM

Posted: June 18, 2011
12:40 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

Leon Panetta
CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to serve as secretary of defense, keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.

Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."

On April 11, 1984, Panetta, then a California congressman, entered into the congressional record a tribute in honor of WILPF's founding member, Lucy Haessler.

Find out what's needed to restore America to greatness.

In the record, Panetta praised Haessler as "one of the most dedicated peace activists I have ever known."

Panetta recognized that Haessler traveled to the Soviet Union as a member of the WILPF:

"She has also participated in peace conferences conducted by WILPF and the Woman's International Democracy Foundation in France, the Soviet Union, Poland and East Germany," read Panetta's congressional praise.

Panetta hailed Haessler for her activism against the pending deployment of U.S. missiles to counter the Soviet build up:

"She joined thousands of dedicated peace activists where she expressed her concern about the impending deployment of Cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles in Europe," he noted.

Haessler's WILPF took on a pro-Soviet stance. It sponsored frequent exchange visits with the Soviet Women's Committee and against "anti-Sovietism" while calling for President Reagan to "Stop the Arms Race."

Panetta's relationship with Haessler and the WILPF goes back to at least June 1979, when was the keynote speaker of WILPF's Biennial Conference at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The conference was arranged by Haessler.

WILPF's literature notes the conference honored Ava and Linus Pauling, who were prominent supports of ending nuclear proliferation.

"This successful event elevated Santa Cruz WILPF permanently into the orbit of outstanding WILPF conferences," recalled WILPF life member Ruth Hunter in a tribute to Haessler.

Haessler, meanwhile, was aligned with communist activists. KeyWiki notes that in April 1966, Haessler sponsored a testimonial dinner in New York in honor of pro-communist scientist Herbert Aptheker.

The dinner also marked the second anniversary of the American Institute for Marxist Studies. Most speakers, organizers and sponsors were known members or supporters of the Communist Party USA.

Panetta later stated he was not aware of the WILPF's communist background and was merely praising Haessler's anti-war actions.

The background is the latest concern following Panetta's nomination for Defense Department chief.

Yesterday, WND reported Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks at its discretion of the country's sensitive intelligence agency.

In 1987, Panetta as a congressman introduced the CIA Accountability Act, which would have made the CIA subject to audits by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Panetta's legislation would have allowed the comptroller general, who directs the GAO, to audit any financial transactions of the CIA and evaluate all of the agency's activities either at his own initiative or at the request of the congressional intelligence committees.

The CIA is the only government agency that contests the authority of the comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.

Marxist think tank

Earlier this week, WND reported on Panetta's ties to a pro-Marxist think tank accused of anti-CIA activity.

The Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security and for its cozy relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

A review of the voting record for Panetta, a member of Congress from 1977 to 1993, during the period in question shows an apparent affinity toward IPS's agenda.

The IPS is funded by philanthropist George Soros' Open Society Institute.

Panetta was reportedly on IPS's official 20th Anniversary Committee, celebrated April 5, 1983, at a time when the group was closely aligned with the Soviet Union.

In his authoritative book "Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies," S. Steven Powell writes: "April 5, 1983, IPS threw a large twentieth-anniversary celebration to raise funds.

"On the fundraising committee for the event were 14 then-current members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including "Leon E. Panetta (D-Calif.), chairman of Budget Process Task Force of the House Committee on Budget (chairman of Subcommittee on Police and Personnel, Ninety-ninth Congress)."

Researcher Trevor Loudon, a specialist on communism, obtained and posted IPS literature documenting members of the 20th Anniversary Committee, which also included Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gary Hart, D-Colo., with an endorsement by Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore.

Besides Panetta, congressmen on the IPS committee included Les Aspin, D-Wis., George E Brown Jr., D-Calif., Philip Burton, D-Calif., George Crockett, D-Mich., Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and Richard Ottinger, D-N.Y. Besides serving on the IPS committee, Panetta supported the IPS's "Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy Line" in 1983.

Powell wrote that in the 1980s, Panetta commissioned the IPS to produce an "alternative" budget that dramatically cut defense spending.

"The congressional supporters for the Institute for Policy Studies included many of those who biennially commission I.P.S. to produce an 'Alternative' Budget that dramatically cuts defense spending while increasing the spending for social welfare to levels only dreamed of by Karl Marx," wrote Powell in the November 1983 issue of the American Opinion.

"In this pact of I.P.S. intimates [are] such luminaries as ... Leon Panetta (D.-California), Chairman of the Budget Process Task Force," wrote Powell.

Congressional record

Panetta's ties to the IPS have some worried.

"Members of the mainstream news media seem to have no interest in Leon Panetta's past open involvement with the Institute for Policy Studies, an anti-CIA think tank closely linked to the former Soviet Union's KGB spy agency. But they should," writes blogger and former Air Force public affairs officer Bob McCarty.

Writing in the New American earlier this month, Christian Gomez notes, "Careful observation of former Rep. Panetta's record in the U.S. House of Representatives reveals a history of votes perceivable as in contrast with U.S. national security objectives, which if confirmed as Sec. of Defense may compromise U.S. national defense."

Indeed, as Gomez outlined, Panetta voted against the reaffirmation of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan and in support of continuing foreign aid to the Sandinista government of communist Nicaragua.

The lawmaker supported extending most-favored nation status to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states during the height of the Cold War and voted to cede control of the Panama Canal to the pro-Soviet Panamanian government.

Panetta also vocally supported various communist regimes throughout Latin America as well as Soviet-backed paramilitary groups in the region.

He endorsed the IPS-supported bill H.R. 2760, known as the Boland-Zablocki bill, to terminate U.S. efforts to resist communism in Nicaragua.

Panetta slammed what he called President Ronald Reagan's "illegal and extraordinary vicious wars against the poor of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala."

Panetta supported the Soviet satellite government of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and was a vocal opponent of Chile's anti-communist government.

On July 19, 1983, on the floor of the House, Panetta condemned what he called the "U.S.-sponsored covert action against Nicaragua," stating that it was "among the most dangerous aspects of the (Reagan]) administration's policy in Central America."

Soviet agents, propaganda

The IPS, meanwhile, has long maintained controversial views and a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy. It was founded in 1963 by two former governmental workers, Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet.

In his 1988 book "Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today," Harvey Klehr, professor of politics and history at EmoryUniversity, said that IPS "serves as an intellectual nerve center for the radical movement, ranging from nuclear and anti-intervention issues to support for Marxist insurgencies."

The FBI labeled the group a "think factory" that helps to "train extremists who incite violence in U.S. cities, and whose educational research serves as a cover for intrigue, and political agitation."

The IPS has been accused serving as a propaganda arm of the USSR and even a place where agents from the Soviet embassy in Washington came to convene and strategize.

In his book "The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider's View," Ladislav Bittman, a former KGB agent, called the IPS a Soviet misinformation operation at which Soviet insiders worked.

Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB."

The IPS has been implicated in anti-CIA activity. The Center for Security Studies was a 1974 IPS spin-off and sought to compromise the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Discover the Networks.

The mastheads of two anti-FBI and anti-CIA publications, Counterspy and the Covert Action Information Bulletin, were heavy with IPS members.

Further, the group's former director, Robert Borosage, penned a book shortly out of college attacking the CIA and ran the so-called CIA watchdog, Center for National Security Studies.

The group has been particularly concerned with researching U.S. defense industries and arms sales policies. .

In March 1982, IPS's Arms Race and Nuclear Weapons Project was directed by Bill Arkin, who had been compiling a book of U.S. nuclear weapons data with "everything from where the bombs are stored to where weapons delivery systems are cooked up," according to KeyWiki.

With research by Brenda J. Ellison
3695  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Crimea war photos circa 1856-8. on: June 25, 2011, 10:26:23 PM
3696  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / itch science on: June 25, 2011, 08:18:56 PM
Should we call this itchology?  From Scientific American to the University of Washington itch study center.

Itch was once considered a milder form of pain on a spectrum.  Not these days.  When one feels pain one reflexively withdraws away from the stimilus that leads to pain sensation.
When one feels itch one reflexively moves the limb toward the itch sensation:

****Center for the Study of Itch opens
March 17, 2011
By Jim Dryden
Forward Facebook this Tweet this Share more
 Audio download available 
In the spinal cord, neurons expressing GRPR, which appears blue in this image, carry itch signals to the brain.

Chen lab, Washington University School of Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has launched its new Center for the Study of Itch, believed to be the world’s first multidisciplinary program designed solely to understand and treat itch.

The center was established to bring scientists and clinicians together to conduct research on the mechanisms that transmit itch and, ultimately, to translate those findings into better treatments for chronic sufferers.

Patients with chronic itch include those with certain types of cancer and those with liver and kidney disease. Some also may develop itching as a result of certain medical treatments or in response to pain-killing drugs. Skin diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, as well as allergic reactions, also cause itching. Antihistamines often are prescribed to treat itching caused by these latter conditions. The great majority of conditions that cause chronic itch, however, are resistant to antihistamine treatment, and some can be very debilitating.

“This center represents an important step in science’s understanding of a poorly understood phenomenon that can negatively affect quality of life for many people,” says Larry J. Shapiro, MD, executive vice chancellor for medical affairs and dean of the School of Medicine. “The new center should help speed the pace of discoveries into the basic, biological causes of itch and quickly translate them into more effective therapies.”

Historically, itch was regarded as a less intense version of pain. As a result, basic research on itching has been neglected. Only in the last few years has itch been studied as its own entity at a molecular level using mouse genetics, an approach that has long been employed to advance our understanding of numerous diseases in many other fields.

In fact, Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, director of the new center and professor of anesthesiology, of psychiatry and of developmental biology, became interested in itch while looking for genes in the spinal cord’s pain pathway. Among the potential pain-sensing genes his team found was gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR), which turned out to be the first itch-specific receptor to be identified. Chen’s team showed that when mice were exposed to things that make them itchy, those without a GRPR gene scratched less than their normal littermates.

That led to other findings about itch and how itch signals travel along the spinal cord to the brain. Chen’s studies strongly suggest that itch and pain signals are transmitted along different pathways, so he says the time has arrived to study itch as a disease in its own right.

“There are many pain centers around the world, but we believe this will be the first center to focus on itch exclusively,” Chen says. “In fact, chronic itch is a disease of the nervous system manifested in the skin, but we understand very little about basic mechanisms and effective treatments.”

Center for the Study of Itch
To determine whether the itch signal in different conditions is transmitted through the same pathway, the center plans to establish animal models that mimic certain aspects of human chronic itch.

The center has two primary sections: the basic research and behavioral core based in the Department of Anesthesiology; and the section on clinical research, trials and patient care. Chen, who directs the basic research section, and his colleagues work with animal models and focus on genes and molecules related to itch. Lynn A. Cornelius, MD, co-director of the center and chief of the Division of Dermatology in the Department of Medicine, will direct the clinical side. As the research progresses and better insights into the mechanisms driving itch are gained, her team ultimately will evaluate and treat patients with chronic itch.

Researchers plan to collect skin biopsies from current patients who itch to create a clinical research database and biobank, providing a unique resource for identifying genetic susceptibilities for chronic itch in humans. Cornelius and her colleagues also will conduct clinical trials of potential therapeutic agents and treatment approaches.

“Itch is not just a reflex but a unique sensation,” Cornelius says. “Similar to pain, it is likely transmitted through unique neural pathways from the skin to the brain. We envision that functional imaging will be an important part of the clinical research effort. With our colleagues in neurology, we hope to both identify specific areas of the brain that are active when a person perceives the sensation of itch. Similarly, we would use imaging to track changes in these specific areas as effective treatments are administered.”

In addition to basic and translational research, the center will provide educational training opportunities for scientists interested in studying itch. The center is hiring three full-time faculty members to initiate more studies that focus on itch, its causes and potential treatments.

Chen and Cornelius also will collaborate with faculty members from other centers, departments and divisions.

“One of our major goals is to spur translational research that can bring discoveries from the bench to the clinic,” Chen says. “That requires many different kinds of expertise, so we are very excited to be joining forces with scientists whose expertise complements our own.”****

3697  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / fat substitutes cause weight *gain* in rats on: June 25, 2011, 08:11:20 PM
Scientific American:
   Health  Fat Substitutes May Make You Fatter
Research with rats reveals that fat substitutes may prime the body to consider all fats to be low-calorie and thus decrease the ability to burn real fats efficiently--leading to weight gain. Karen Hopkin reports

 | June 24, 2011 | 3
Counting on food with fake fats to help you slip into last year’s bathing suit? Better count again. Because a new study with rats shows that low-cal fat substitutes can actually promote weight gain. The work appears in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience. [Susan Swithers, Sean Ogden and Terry Davidson, "Fat Substitutes Promote Weight Gain in Rats Consuming High-Fat Diets"]

Dieters can choose from an array of snacktackular options in which sugars and fats are replaced by artificial, low-calorie substitutes. That sleight of hand seems ingenious. You can let your body think it’s getting the sweets and fats it craves while keeping the calorie count to a minimum.

But the new study suggests that this strategy is likely to backfire. Rats that consumed a mix of full-fat chips and chips with olestra wound up eating more and got fatter than rats that noshed on regular chips alone.

Their bodies were apparently getting mixed messages. A mouthful of fat is usually a signal that calories are coming, and the body reacts by getting ready to burn fuel. But olestra, which tastes like fat, carries no calories at all. So the body soon learns to stand down in the face of fat. All fat. Even real fat. Because as Shakespeare almost said, a chip by any other name still swells your seat.

—Karen Hopkin

3698  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: June 25, 2011, 10:20:40 AM
Next is gay adoption and as noted on this board the eradication of terms like mother and father to be replaced with parent.  I am not interested in hurting homosexuals but this is over the top to me. 

***By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Michael Gormley, Associated Press – 18 mins ago
ALBANY, N.Y. – After days of contentious negotiations and last-minute reversals by two Republican senators, New York became the sixth and largest state in the country to legalize gay marriage, breathing life into the national gay rights movement that had stalled over a nearly identical bill here two years ago.

Pending any court challenges, legal gay marriages can begin in New York by late July after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed his bill into law just before midnight Friday.

At New York City's Stonewall Inn, the Greenwich Village pub that spawned the gay rights movement on a June night in 1969, Scott Redstone watched New York sign the historic same-sex marriage law with his partner of 29 years, and popped the question.

"I said, `Will you marry me?' And he said, `Of course!'" Redstone said he and Steven Knittweis walked home to pop open a bottle of champagne.

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.

"That's certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. "It's truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won."

"We made a powerful statement," Cuomo said. "This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice."

The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.

"God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago," said Diaz, a Bronx minister. "I'm sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak," he said. "Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?"

The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters "radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage."

"We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," the bishops said Friday. "We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization."

Legal challenges of the law and political challenges aimed at the four Republicans who supported gay marriage in the 33-29 vote are expected. GOP senators endured several marathon sessions, combing through several standard but complex bills this week, before taking up the same-sex marriage bill Friday.

The bill came to the floor for a vote after an agreement was reached on more protections for religious groups that oppose gay marriage and feared discrimination lawsuits.

"State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues," said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year's elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.

The big win for gay rights advocates is expected to galvanize the movement around the country after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

Jerry Nathan of Albany, who married his partner in Massachusetts, called the vote "an incredible culmination of so much that's been going on for so many years it doesn't seem real yet."

Ultimately, gay couples will be able to marry because of two previously undecided Republicans from upstate regions far more conservative than the New York City base of the gay rights movement.

Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."

Also voting for the bill was freshman Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who also had been undecided. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

"I apologize to those I offend," said Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. "But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents," he said.

A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote.

Watching the festivities from across the street was Sarah Ellis, who has been in a six-year relationship with her partner, Kristen Henderson. Ellis said the measure would enable them to get married in the fall. They have twin toddlers and live in Sea Cliff on Long Island.

"We've been waiting. We considered it for a long time, crossing the borders and going to other states," said Ellis, 39. "But until the state that we live in, that we pay taxes in, and we're part of that community, has equal rights and marriage equality, we were not going to do it."

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.***

3699  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / back to my post of march 30 on: June 24, 2011, 04:17:09 PM
****Oh we are sooo humanitarian!
Well if true how humanitarian is it to have let Ghadday kill some people and gain back control vs what we are seeing now - a *more prolonged* back and forth war?

At this point more people will die then if we had not done the "no-fly" thing.

Yes playing coy with Momar buys time to "get to know" the opposition (Clintons now notorius "getting to know you" rant), but dithering on what to do with Ghaddaffy probably will turn out to be worse.  We should just get rid of this one guy or stop the half assed stuff altogether.  This total chirade of trying to help other kill the guy or pray he flees even though we are also saying he must stand trial for war crimes - the whole rational is confused and is dithering.  Kill him - the one guy holding this whole country at bay or don't get involved at all.

More people are now dying as we speak.****

NOW;Fast forward to more recent estimates of the dead thanks to Bamster's dithering.  He has mucho blood on HIS hands.  Like many including myself have said since day one - kill ghaddafy and get it over with or stay out of Libyia altogether:
****Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Casualties of the 2011 Libyan Civil War)
Jump to: navigation, search
Estimates of deaths in the 2011 Libyan civil war vary with figures from 2,000-13,000 given between March 2 and June 18.[1][2] An exact figure is hard to ascertain, partly due to a media clamp-down by the Libyan government. Some conservative estimates have been released. Some of the killing "may amount to crimes against humanity" according to the United Nations Security Council[3] and as of March 2011[update] is under investigation by the International Criminal Court.[4]

Contents [hide]
1 Deaths caused by Loyalist forces
2 Deaths caused by Anti-Gaddafi forces
3 Deaths caused by Coalition forces
4 Legal status
5 Timeline of reported deaths per event
6 Deaths overall
7 Notable deaths, disappearances and other cases
8 References

[edit] Deaths caused by Loyalist forces
On February 22, the International Coalition Against War Criminals gave an estimate that 519 people had died, 3,980 were wounded and over 1,500 were missing.[5]

Human Rights Watch have estimated that at least 233 people had been killed by February 22.[6]

On February 23, Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini stated that according to his information 1,000 people had died so far.[7][8]

On February 24, the IFHR said that 130 soldiers had been executed in Benghazi and al-Baida, after they mutinied and sided with the protesters.[9]

On February 25, Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations, said that reports indicated that "thousands may have been killed or injured".[10]

On March 20, Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the National Transitional Council, stated that "more than 8,000" people are killed as a result of the uprising.[11]

[edit] Deaths caused by Anti-Gaddafi forces
Among the security forces there had been more than 750 dead, including civilians in support of the government, alleged mercenaries [12] and government soldiers. There have been many reports that members of the security forces have been killed by both the government and the opposition.

On February 18, two policemen were hanged by protesters in Benghazi.[13] Also, on the same day, 50 alleged African mercenaries, mostly from Chad, were executed by the protesters in al-Baida. Some of them were killed when protestors burned down the police station in which they locked them up[14] and at least 15 were lynched in front of the courthouse in al-Baida.[15] The bodies of some of them were put on display and caught on video.[16][17] By February 23, the government confirmed that 111 soldiers had been killed.[18]

On February 23, a group of 22 government soldiers attempted to make a breakout from an air base near Derna, which had been under siege for days by rebel fighters. Within hours, all of them were captured and eventualy 12 of them were shot execution style while a 13th was hanged by the opposition forces.[19] Between February 15 and May 22, 37 former government loyalists were killed in Benghazi in revenge killings by some opposition groups.[20]

Toward the end of the Battle of Misrata, at least 27 sub-Saharan Africans from Mali, Niger or Chad, who were accused of being mercenaries, were executed by rebel forces.[21]

[edit] Deaths caused by Coalition forces
The Libyan official sources claimed that at least between 64 and 90 people were killed during the bombardments on the first two days of the U.N. intervention and another 150 had been wounded.[22] The Vatican news agency confirmed that in Tripoli alone, at least 40 civilians died as a result of the bombing campaign.[23] According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 718 civilians and wounded 4,067, 433 seriously, by May 26.[24]

On April 1, NATO airstrikes killed 14 rebel fighters and wounded seven more on the frontline at Brega.[25]

On April 7, news reports surfaced that NATO bombers killed 10-13 rebels and wounded 14-22 near the eastern oil town of Brega.[26]

On April 27, at least one NATO warplane attacked the Libyan rebel forces position near the besieged city of Misrata, killing 12 fighters and wounding five others.[27]

On June 19, at least nine civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike on Tripoli. Reporters saw bodies being pulled out of a destroyed bulding. NATO acknoledged being responsible for the civilians deaths.[28]

On June 20, 15 civilians including three children were killed by another NATO airstrike on Sorman. [29]

[edit] Legal status
On February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stated in UNSC Resolution 1970, "the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity"[3] and referred "the situation" in Libya since February 15, 2011 to the International Criminal Court (ICC),[3] a permanent tribunal that presently can prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. On March 4, the ICC assigned investigation of the case to Pre-trial Chamber I, consisting of Judge Cuno Tarfusser from Italy, Judge Sylvia Steiner from Brazil and Judge Sanji Mmasenono Monageng from Botswana.[4]

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated on March 28 that NATO was impartial and that it interpreted the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 on the protection of civilians to apply to both rebel and government forces. The BBC stated that "the rebels felt they had a 'private understanding' of the NATO mission, [believing] that the western world has joined them in a campaign of regime change." The NATO Secretary General described the possibility that NATO would attack rebel forces who endanger civilian populations as "hypothetical" as of the date of the interview.[30]

[edit] Timeline of reported deaths per event
Date Opposition fatalities Government fatalities Detail
February 16 1 None reported Protests in Roujdane.[31]
February 17–20 332-479 163 First Battle of Benghazi
February 17–25 300-700 None reported Tripoli clashes
February 17 4-10 None reported Protests in Ajdabiya.[32]
February 18 2 None reported Protests in Qubah.[33]
February 18–May 15 358 358-545 Battle of Misrata
February 20 4 None reported Protests in Tobruk.[34]
February 20 3 None reported Protests in Zintan.[35]
February 20 1 None reported Protests in Zuwarah.[36]
February 21–May 22 None reported 37 Revenge killings against loyalists in Benghazi.[37]
February 22–24 9 None reported Protests in Gharyan.[38][39]
February 23 2 13 Capture and execution of loyalist fighters at Derna.[19]
February 24–March 10 148 65 Battle of Az Zawiyah
February 26 22 None reported Capture and execution of rebel fighters at Sirte.[40]
March 1–ongoing 299-307 386 Battles of the Nafusa Mountains
March 2 14 2-10 First Battle of Brega
March 4–12 71-81 4-27 Battle of Ra's Lanuf
March 4 34-100 None reported Explosion at an arms depot in Benghazi.[41][42]
March 6 12-60 1 First Battle of Bin Jawad
March 13–15 5 25 Second Battle of Brega
March 14 4 None reported Government re-taking of Zuwarah.[43]
March 15–26 136 41 Battle of Ajdabiya
March 15 1 None reported Rebel fighter plane crashes.[44]
March 17 None reported 1-2 Bombing run on the Benghazi military air base.[45]
March 18 3 None reported Fighting in Zueitina.[46]
March 19–20 120 27-30 Second Battle of Benghazi
March 20 1 None reported Killing of a rebel activist in Benghazi.[47]
March 22–24 None reported 19-28 Coalition air-strikes on Tripoli.[48]
March 26–30 12 7 Late March rebel offensive
March 28 1 None Execution of captured rebel at Sirte.[49]
March 31–April 7 46-49 28 Third Battle of Brega
April 6 None reported 3 Attack on Sarir oil field.[50]
April 8–June 14 75-87 91-92 Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road
April 17 None reported 20 Rebel attack on a military headquarters in Zawiyah.[51]
April 21–May 25 27 3 East Libyan Desert Campaign
May 4 1 None reported Rebel fighter dies of wounds in Benghazi.[52]
May 12 1 None reported Rebel French mercenary killed in Benghazi.[53]
May 16–ongoing 215 82-85 Battle of the Misrata frontline
May 29 2 3 Suppression of an opposition protest in Tripoli.[54][55]
June 2 None reported 2 NATO air-strike in Al 'Aziziyah.[56]
June 4 None reported 3 NATO helicopter strike in Brega.[57]
June 7 None reported 1 NATO air-strike in Tripoli.[58]
June 9–16 22 None reported Zliten uprising
June 11–12 30 2 Az Zawiyah raid
June 11 1 None reported Fighting in Sabha.[59]
June 13 6 None reported Fighting west of Az Zawiyah.[60]
June 16 None reported 1 Attack on a military patrol in Tripoli.[61]
June 17 3 None reported Suppression of an opposition protest in Tripoli.[62]
June 18 None reported 1 Rebel sniper fire in Tripoli.[63]
June 19 None reported 4 NATO air-strike in Sabha.[64]
June 23 None reported 9 NATO air-strike near Zliten.[65]

Based on the numbers, 2,334-3,029 opposition members/fighters (including some civilian supporters) and 1,403-1,637 Gaddafi loyalists have been killed by June 23, 2011.

In addition, another 370 opposition fighters and activists have been confirmed as missing in the fighting in the east by the end of March,[66] 1,174-2,000 are reported to be missing in the Battle of Misrata and 74 were missing following the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road, for a total of 1,618-2,444 rebels reported missing. However, this number could be higher since there was one report that 700 rebels were missing following the First Battle of Bin Jawad.

Date Civilian fatalities Detail
February 24–March 10 87 Battle of Az Zawiyah
February 18–May 15 707 Battle of Misrata
March 6 1 Shooting in Bayda.[67]
March 12 1 Killing of Al Jazeera cameraman near Benghazi.[68]
March 15–26 25-30 Battle of Ajdabiya
March 18 3 Fighting in Zueitina.[46]
March 19–June 7 856 NATO bombing campaign.[69]
March 26–30 7 Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive
Late March–early May 1,400 Sinking of refugee boats while they were trying to reach Italy.[70]
April 5 1 Third Battle of Brega
April 8–May 21 26 Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road
April 12 1 Woman refugee dies before reaching Malta.[71]
April 21–May 25 5 East Libyan Desert Campaign
May 16–ongoing 6 Battle of the Misrata frontline
May 22 4 Fire at a refugee camp in Tunisia near the border.[72]
May 24 2 Clashes at a refugee camp in Tunisia near the border.[73]
May 31 1 Refugee dies before reaching Malta.[74]
June 2 272 Refugee immigrant boat sinks while it was trying to reach Italy.[75]
June 2 1 One person killed by loyalists in Tripoli.[76]
June 5 1 One person tortured and killed by rebels in Benghazi.[77]
June 11-12 1 Az Zawiyah raid
June 19 5-9 NATO air-strike in Tripoli.[78][79]
June 20 19 NATO air-strike on Khouidli Hamidi's house in Surman.[80]

There have been at least 3,432-3,441 reported civilians killed by June 20, 2011. However, it should be noted that a number of civilians were also killed during the Second Battle of Benghazi and during the campaign in the Nafusa mountains, so the number could be far higher. Also, the number of civilians reported to had been killed in NATO air-strikes could be smaller because it was proven that some of the previous government-announced tolls from individual strikes were exaggerated.

In the end, according to the numbers presented, a total of 7,161-8,105 deaths have been reported, of which some have not been independently confirmed, and 1,618-3,144 people have been reported as missing.

[edit] Deaths overall
The total number of people killed includes protesters, armed belligerents, and civilians:

Source Libyan casualties Time period
World Health Organization 2,000 killed[81] February 15 - March 2, 2011
International Federation for Human Rights 3,000 killed[82] February 15 - March 5, 2011
Libyan League for Human Rights 6,000 killed[82] February 15 - March 5, 2011
National Transitional Council 10,000 killed[83] February 15 - April 12, 2011
UN Human Rights Council 10,000-15,000 killed[84] February 15 - June 9, 2011
Al Jazeera English 13,000 killed[85] February 15 - June 18, 2011

[edit] Notable deaths, disappearances and other cases
Ali Hassan al-Jaber, journalist of Al Jazeera, killed
Mohammed Nabbous, journalist and founder of Libya Alhurra TV, killed
Kais al-Hilali, artist famous for painting anti-Gaddafi mural, killed
Tim Hetherington, British-American photojournalist, killed[86]
Chris Hondros, American photojournalist, killed[86]
Ahmed Eyzert, engineer who discovered and masterminded the 'invaluable' technique of using Google Earth Maps satelite imagery with coordinates to enhance artilary accuracy, killed[87]
Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi, son of Muammar Gaddafi, killed along with three of his children in a NATO air-strike
Iman al-Obeidi, alleged rape case with media and governmental response
Rana Akbani, Syrian journalist in government custody from March 28 to April 14[88]
Anton Hammerl, missing South African photographer and presumed killed on April 5[89][90]
Manu Brabo, Spanish photographer in government custody from April 5 to May 18[91]
James Foley, United States journalist in government custody from April 5 to May 18
Clare Morgana Gillis, United States journalist in government custody from April 5 to May 18
Nigel Chandler, British journalist released from government custody on May 18
[edit] References
^ Staff writer (2 March 2011). "RT News Line, March 2". RT. Retrieved 15 March 2011. 
^ Libyan rebels continue push towards Tripoli
^ a b c United Nations Security Council (2011-02-26) (pdf). Resolution 1970 (2011). ICC. Archived from the original on 2011-03-15. Retrieved 2011-03-15. 
^ a b International Criminal Court (2011-03-04). "Situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya assigned to Pre-trial Chamber I". International Criminal Court. Archived from the original on 2011-03-15. Retrieved 2011-03-15. 
^ "Live Blog – Libya Feb 22". Blogs. Al Jazeera. 22 February 2 011. Retrieved 22 February 2 011. 
^ "European nationals, companies flee Libyan unrest". Agence France-Presse. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 22 February 2 011. Retrieved 25 February 2011. 
^ Dziadosz, Alexander (9 February 2011). "Fear stalks Tripoli, celebrations in Libya's east". Reuters. Retrieved 23 February 2011. 
^ "Live Blog – Libya Feb 23". Blogs. Al Jazeera. 2011-02-22. Retrieved 23 February 2011. 
^ "Libya – 130 soldiers executed: News24: Africa: News". News24. 18 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ BBC News (25 February 2011). Libyan crackdown 'escalates' – UN.
^ "Libya Live Blog - March 20". Al Jazeera English. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2011. 
^ "Black men mistaken for mercenaries". 6 March 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2011. 
^ "Two policemen hanged in Libya protests". 19 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ Ian Black and Owen Bowcott (18 February 2011). "Libya protests: massacres reported as Gaddafi imposes news blackout | World news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ Hauslohner, Abigail (23 February 2011). "Libya's Alleged Foreign Mercenaries: More Gaddafi Victims?". TIME.,8599,2053490,00.html. Retrieved 25 February 2011. 
^ 1:50. "African Mercenary Killed in Libya". YouTube. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ "African Mercenary Killed in Libya 2". YouTube. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ 7:15 pm. "Libya says 300 dead in violence, including 111 soldiers". The Asian Age. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ a b Smith, Graeme (1 April 2011). "A rebellion divided: spectre of revenge killings hangs over eastern Libya". The Globe and Mail (Toronto).
^ "Killings of Gadhafi agents in Benghazi raise fears of reprisal killings in rebel-held Libya".
^ Libyan rebels hand out rules on POW treatment; some 300 in custody, including 10 foreigners
^ "Libya says 64 killed in western military strikes". The Times Of India. 2011-03-20. Retrieved 2011-03-21. 
^ "“At least 40 civilian deaths in air raid on Tripoli,” complains Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli, repeating the urgency for a diplomatic solution". Agenzia Fides. 2011-03-31. Retrieved 2011-03-31. 
^ "NATO bombing killed 718 civilians: Libya". 1 June 2011. Retrieved 1 June 2011. 
^ Meo, Nick (2 April 2011). "Libya: Nato warplanes kill 14 rebels". London: Telegraph. Retrieved 2011-04-04. 
^ "“NATO checking report of air strike on Libya rebels". AFP. 2011-04-07.
^ Chivers, C.J. (27 April 2011). "NATO Strike Kills 12 Libyan Rebels in Misurata". New York City: The New York times. Retrieved 2011-04-28. 
^ NATO acknowledges civilian deaths in Tripoli strike
^ "Nato protection 'applies to both sides' in Libya". BBC News. 28 March 2011. Retrieved 29 March 2011. 
^ The Times Of India.
^ Black, Ian (17 February 2011). "Libya's day of rage met by bullets and loyalists". The Guardian (London).
^ "Exclusive - Tobruk celebrates, Libya's east abandons Gaddafi". Reuters. 23 February 2011.
^ Daragahi, Borzou (23 April 2011). "Libyan rebels firmly in control in mountainous west". Los Angeles Times.
^ Libya: Fewer Police Abuses in Zuwara, Under Control of Anti-government Forces
^ "Killings of Gadhafi agents in Benghazi raise fears of reprisal killings in rebel-held Libya".
^ Libyan Soldiers Executed by Foreign African Mercenaries for Refusing to Kill Civilians (Feb. 2011)
^ Protesting continues during funeral procession of Gharyan Martyr (Feb. 24)
^ Fadel, Leila; Sly, Liz; Faiola, Anthony (27 February 2011). "Rebel army may be formed as Tripoli fails to oust Gaddafi". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-02-28. 
^ Los Angeles Times.
^ "Air and ground: Gadhafi, rebels each claim control". March 14.,_rebels_each_claim_control
^ "Photo: Pilot Mohammed Mokhtar Osman who crashed into Baab Al Aziziyah". March 15.
^ "Gadhafi forces bombing Benghazi: witnesses". CBC News. March 17.
^ a b "As it happened: Libya crisis". BBC News. March 18.
^ Writing on wall for street artist
^ Brigade commander killed (March 22),[1] 9 killed/rebel claim (March 23),[2] 18 killed (March 23/24)[3], total of 19-28 reported killed
^ McGreal, Chris (April 17). "Saved from Gaddafi's torturers – by a simple gesture of kindness". The Guardian (London).
^ "Libya says NATO air strike hits major oil field". Reuters. April 6.
^ "Misrata shelled again, casualties seen". April 19.,_casualties_seen
^ "Relatives mourn during the funeral of Abdul-Gader Al-Faitori, a rebel fighter who died after being injured a month ago during combat in Benghazi on May 4.". The Boston Globe. May 16.
^ "Libyan rebels seek US recognition". May 13.
^ Activist video shows big anti-Gaddafi protest in Tripoli
^ Libyans chafe under Gadhafi's rule in Tripoli
^ More NATO strikes hit Libya
^ Ugly 5-1 and Ugly 5-2... Apaches on the attack! Gaddafi's radar HQ is destroyed in first blitz by helicopters from Prince Harry base
^ Gadhafi defiant in face of heaviest NATO airstrikes in Libya
^ Gadhafi offered way out
^ Libyan rebels receiving arms from Qatar and Tunisians?
^ In Libya, More Novice Soldiers in Defense of Qaddafi
^ What's really going on in Gadhafi's Tripoli?
^ Libyan Media Minders Nervous After Guard Death
^ Nato admits Libya bombing error
^ Nato chief says alliance will finish job in Libya
^ "Libya: At Least 370 Missing From Country's East". 30 March 2011.
^ "Libyan doctors put themselves on front lines, and in government gunsights, to serve as medics". April 4.
^ Al Jazeera: Cameraman Ali Hassan Al-Jaber Killed In Libya Ambush
^ NATO condemns fiery speech by Libyan leader
^ "600 feared dead in Libya refugee boat sinking: UN". 10 May 2011.
^ "Ethnic Berbers Flee Conflict in Western Libya, Reach Tunisia". 12 April 2011.
^ "Fire kills four at Tunisian refugee camp". 22 May 2011. Retrieved 22 May 2011. 
^ "Rights watchdog urges Tunisia to protect refugees after 6 killed". 24 June 2011. Retrieved 24 June 2011. 
^ "Maltese patrol boat rescues 76 migrants". 1 June 2011.
^ "U.N.: At least 150 drown when boat from Libya capsizes". CNN. 4 June 2011.
^ Libyans chafe under Gadhafi's rule in Tripoli
^ "Libyan rebels accused of arbitrary arrests, torture". CNN. 5 June 2011.
^ "Nato raid in Tripoli kills five, say Libyan officials". BBC news. 19 June 2011.
^ NATO strike in Tripoli kills 9 civilians, Libya government says
^ Libya: NATO kills 19 civilians in air strike
^ Staff writer (2 March 2011). "RT News Line, March 2". RT. Retrieved 15 March 2011. 
^ a b Adams, Richard (2011-03-10). "Libya uprising - Thursday 10 March | World news". London: Retrieved 2011-03-19. 
^ Qatar conference urges Gaddafi to quit
^ Up to 15,000 killed in Libya war: U.N. rights expert
^ Libyan rebels continue push towards Tripoli
^ a b "Two photojournalists killed in Libyan city of Misrata". BBC News. 21 April 2011. Retrieved 21 April 2011. 
^ Google points way for Libyan rebel artillery in fight against Gaddafi
^ Journalists under attack in Libya: The tally
^ "Family believes South African journalist dead". 19 May 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
^ "Obit of the Day: Anton Hammerl". 21 May 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
^ "No word on fate of Hammerl". 18 May 2011. Retrieved 18 May 2011. 
[hide]v · d · e2011 Libyan civil war
Part of the Arab Spring · Timeline
Forces Anti-Gaddafi forces (National Liberation Army – Free Libyan Air Force – NCLO) • Military of Libya (Libyan Army – Libyan Air Force – Libyan Navy) • Revolutionary Guard Corps
Battles and operations First Battle of Benghazi • Tripoli clashes • Battle of Misrata • Battle of Az Zawiyah • Nafusa Mountains Campaign (Battle of Wazzin) • First Battle of Brega • Battle of Ra's Lanuf • Battle of Bin Jawad • Second Battle of Brega • Second Battle of Benghazi • Battle of Ajdabiya • Late March rebel offensive • Third Battle of Brega • Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road • East Libyan Desert Campaign • Battle of the Misrata frontline • Sabha clashes • Zliten uprising • Az Zawiyah raid

Operation Ellamy • Operation Odyssey Dawn • Opération Harmattan • Operation Mobile • Operation Unified Protector
Places Bab al-Azizia • Green Square • Maydan al-Shajara
People Muammar Gaddafi • Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi • Mustafa Abdul Jalil • Abdul Fatah Younis • Abdul Hafiz Ghoga • Hussein Sadiq al Musrati • Mohammed El Senussi • Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi • Fathi Terbil • Mohammed Nabbous • Mahmoud Jibril • Khalifa Belqasim Haftar • Ali Tarhouni • Ali Abd-al-Aziz al-Isawi • Iman al-Obeidi
Impact International reactions • Domestic responses (Gaddafi government response) • Casualties • Human rights violations
3700  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar, & Gold/Silver on: June 24, 2011, 10:42:03 AM
We are headed for a crash.  There are just too many things that can go wrong.  It is just a matter of time before it catches up and the fed, the imf the euro, etc cannot bs out of it.

Don't worry be happy like Tom Hanks who will vote for Bamster again.

Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 115
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!