QUOTE FOR THE DAY

24 March 2012

Climate Fund Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity

Thursday, 22 Mar 2012

The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.

There is just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.

Whether the fund, which was formally created at a UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa last December, will get all the money it wants to spend is open to question in an era of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity.

Its spending goal comes atop some $30 billion in "fast start-up" money that has been pledged by UN member states to such climate change activities.

A 24-nation interim board of trustees for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is slated to hold its first meeting next month in Switzerland to organize the fund's secretariat and to get it running by November, as well as find a permanent home for the GCF's operations.

The board expects to spend about $6.7 million between now and June of next year.

But before it is fully operational, the GCF's creators -- 194 countries that belong to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- want it to be immune from legal challenges and lawsuits, not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation's government or judicial system.

Despite its name, the UNFCCC was informed in 2006 by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs that it was not considered a UN "organ," and therefore could not claim immunity for its subordinate bodies or personnel under the General Convention that has authorized UN immunity since the end of World War II.

A UNFCCC resolution granting similar immunities would need to be "accepted, approved or ratified" by each individual member of the Kyoto Protocol before it took effect, the UN legal office advised.

Even if UNFCCC members decided to ask the UN General Assembly to grant them similar immunity it would require each UN member state to make changes in domestic legislation, the opinion declared.

According to an official of the US Treasury, which strongly supports the existence of the GCF, the full extent of the immunities still remains to be worked out by the fund board, although the wording of various UNFCCC resolutions indicate that immunities like those held by the UN are clearly envisaged.

Danish TV Host Mocks Obama for His Rhetoric



[ed. This stuff just writes itself with this clown in the white house...]

23 March 2012

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals

[ed. Political correctness IS mad...]

19th March 2012

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

He said: "I don't think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.

"I don't see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives." The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the "ridiculous" policy was robbing children of their childhood.

Spokesman Chris McGovern added: "Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can't have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships."

Sarkozy: Jail those who browse terror websites

By RAPHAEL SATTER
Mar 22nd, 2012

PARIS (AP) -- France's president proposed a sweeping new law Thursday that would see repeat visitors to extremist web sites put behind bars - one of several tough measures floated in the wake of a murderous shooting spree.

The proposed rules, unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy after the death of an Islamist fanatic wanted for a horrifying series of execution-style murders, have alarmed journalists and legal experts, who say they risk pulling the plug on free expression.

Sarkozy, who is only a month away from an election, argued that it was time to treat those who browse extremist websites the same way as those who consume child pornography.

"Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison," he told a campaign rally in Strasbourg, in eastern France. "Don't tell me it's not possible. What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too."

French law calls for up to two years in prison and (EURO)30,000 (roughly $40,000) in fines for repeat visitors to child porn sites, although whether the proposed anti-terror rules would carry similar penalities isn't clear.

When asked, Sarkozy's office directed a query seeking details to the Ministry of Justice, which didn't immediately offer clarification.

Journalists and lawyers are concerned.

"Trying to criminalize a visit - a simple visit - to a website, that's something that seems disproportionate," said Lucie Morillon, who runs the new media bureau of journalists' watchdog group Reporters Without Borders.

"What's especially worrying for us is how you are going to know who's looking at what site. Does this announcement mean the installation of a global Internet surveillance system in France?"

Media lawyer Christophe Bigot seconded her concerns, saying that any such law - if passed - would be a serious blow to the democratic credentials of a country that considers itself the home of human rights.

"I don't see how you can assume that a person who connects (to an extremist website) not only shares the ideas that are being expressed there but is ready to act on them," Bigot said. "That seems to be a very dangerous shortcut - a real step back in terms of individual liberty."

Bigot said it wasn't clear to him to what degree Sarkozy's proposals were serious. In any case, France's Parliament isn't in session, but could be called back for urgent legislation. Otherwise, an eventual law would be contingent on Sarkozy's reelection.

The tightening presidential race has been upended by the shooting rampage blamed on Mohamed Merah, a 23-year-old Frenchman of Algerian descent who allegedly killed three French paratroopers, three Jewish schoolchildren and a rabbi before dying in a violent confrontation with police in the southern French city of Toulouse earlier Thursday.

Sarkozy has France's far-right nipping at his heels, so he's been under pressure to appear tough. A poll released Thursday by the CSA firm suggested that Sarkozy may benefit politically from a hardening of attitudes toward extremist violence.

Morillon said she understood the emotional appeal of a crackdown on online radicalization in the wake of such atrocities.

Still, she said, "you have to be careful not to attack the wrong target."

"Once more it's the Internet that's being blamed, as if the Internet was the source of all evil."

[ed. That is because ultimately they wish to control it and what better way than to declare certain sites "extremist" and put them on an arbitrary "banned" list on pain of jail. There are plenty of other ways to stop terrorism and it starts at the border...]

22 March 2012

Ireland Won’t Hold Re-Run If Voters Reject EU Pact, Howlin Says

Ireland won’t hold a second referendum if voters reject the European Union’s fiscal compact, Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin said.

The government hasn’t made a decision on when the planned vote will take place, though it may happen “before the summer,” Howlin said in an interview in Singapore today. Ireland said last month it will hold a referendum on the fiscal compact after receiving advice from the attorney general.

“This is not like other treaties, other treaties required unanimity, so it’s a once-off selection for people to determine if they want to be part of this pact or not,” Howlin said. “The train is leaving the station and it’s just a matter of determining how many countries want to be on board.”

In contrast to two previous Irish referendums on European policies, losing this one wouldn’t sink the treaty, which requires support from just 12 of the 17 euro-area countries to come into effect. Still, the government, which plans to exit an international bailout at the end of 2013, won’t be able to access the region’s permanent aid fund if it doesn’t pass the vote.

Ireland sought a 67.5 billion-euro ($89 billion) rescue from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union in 2010 after the collapse of the country’s property boom pushed the state to the brink of bankruptcy. Two newspaper polls published this month showed that about 60 percent of the Irish public, who expressed a preference, will vote for the referendum.

Public Support

“I think there will be a great deal of public support for it because it is an important part of our trajectory for an orderly exit from the support package which we’re on from the EU-IMF,” Howlin said. It will also “ensure that when we return to the markets at the end of next year, there is that insurance there of access to the European Stability Mechanism,” he said.

The Irish government is seeking support from Europe to reduce the cost of bailing out its banks even as it prepares to vote on the European measures to impose budget discipline. Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan said March 15 that the government hasn’t ruled out getting an agreed delay this month on a 3.1 billion-euro cash payment on promissory notes used to bail out the former Anglo Irish Bank Corp (ANGL).

‘Completely Separate’

“We see this as two completely separate and distinct issues,” Howlin said. “The stability treaty will stand or fall on its own merits and we are advocating people to support it on the basis that it is necessary for Ireland, and the euro zone and our common currency.”

Ireland’s Finance Ministry said March 15 that the government is “on track” to emerge from its bailout and return to international markets for funding next year, after former European Central Bank Executive Board Member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said in the Financial Times that the country may need a further 80 billion euros of aid.

“We don’t foresee that we will need any second bailout and talk of that, bluntly, is unhelpful,” Howlin said today. Irish banks are also well-capitalized and probably won’t need a further injection of funds this year, he said.

[ed. They don't need to hold a second referendum on the FU deal if they lose because they only need 12 out of 17 members voting positively on it in their parliaments to make it binding - oh wait, did people think they were going to give up that easy?...]


Obama tries to spread blame on Solyndra, Keystone

By Chris Stirewalt
March 22, 2012

"Obviously we wish Solyndra hadn't gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways Solyndra couldn't compete. But understand, this was not our program per se."

-- President Obama talking to National Public Radio's "Marketplace."

President Obama is on a swing-state campaign blitz this week, looking to stifle voter anger over high energy prices. While the White House is casting the trip as an effort to lay out Obama's vision for future energy abundance, much of the message is aimed at reducing the supply of blame.

Today, for example, Obama will speak in Cushing, Okla., the pipeline capital of the planet, to point out that while he has blocked a pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico, he is allowing other domestic pipelines to be built.

The pipeline to Canada, the Keystone XL, is a political winner. Polls consistently show Americans favor its construction and Republicans have been hammering the president for months for his obstruction of the project.

Obama seems to be in the midst of a creeping climb-down on the subject, but he has to move slowly.

Remember, many liberals dislike the project because it would provide so much oil to gasoline refineries. The cheaper gas is for American drivers, the more gasoline they will use. Environmentalists believe all this driving is causing the earth's atmosphere to become dangerously warm.

Obama, who is a long-time crusader against global warming, has suffered politically for his opposition to the pipeline. Global warming has faded as a concern for voters amid a lengthy economic disruption and with new doubts about the most alarming claims made by carbon hawks. With gasoline prices more than twice as high as they were when Obama took office, consumers are far less indulgent of Obama's environmental policies.

The president's point in Cushing is that while he won't allow the top of the pipeline to go where the oil is, he has chosen not to block pipeline expansions at the southern end. This, of course, makes folks in the energy business furious. To have the president demanding credit for not blocking domestic pipeline upgrades is galling to them. They need executive blessing to cross the international border with Canada, but for domestic jobs they mostly just need Obama not to interfere and allow the permitting process to work as in the past.

The Obama campaign and White House have both made clear that the part of the pipeline that goes to the oil may yet be approved. The problem, they say, is that Republicans hurried the process. Again, Obama is seeking bipartisan blame.

When builders apply again with a new proposal, says Team Obama, the State Department may find new wisdom in their proposal and allow it to proceed.

This is how general elections change things. For the past seven months, Obama has been looking to pacify his sometimes-crabby political base. For the next seven months, Obama will be looking for ways to convince moderates that he really isn't as liberal as they think. This is the way in which Keystone can go from bad to good.

This week's campaign swing is Obama's effort to show moderates that he isn't really so radical on energy. Some of Obama's biggest political missteps surround energy policy, particularly his effort to impose global warming fees and the massive outlays given to Democratic allies for dubious green energy projects.

Obama's first stop was in must-win Nevada, where he defended subsidies for solar energy, a tricky subject given the high-profile debacle at Solyndra, a pet project of big Obama donors that got a presidential visit and lots of public help.

While making his push for solar, Obama explained to a reporter for National Public Radio that the blame for Solyndra was bipartisan and not the fault of the Obama Democrats "per se."

"Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it's easy to get money for new startups," Obama said. "But if you want to take them to scale, often there is a lot of risk involved and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale."

The 2009 stimulus package that provided the funding for a loan of $527 million for Solyndra, which subsequently defaulted, got zero Republican votes in the House and three Republican votes in the Senate -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties two months after the vote. There was no Republican input on the structuring of the energy loan program and the specific loan to Solyndra was a Democratic job from start to finish.

It's true that there has been bipartisan support for the Federal Financing Bank since before its founding in 1973. Republicans have increasingly come to dislike the idea of giving the government power to loan money to private enterprises -- "picking winners and losers" -- because of a growing opposition to crony capitalism and how it perverts politics and the marketplace. But crony capitalism was once very, very popular among moderate Republicans who cherished "public-private partnerships" and other hidey-holes for public funds.

But to suggest that Solyndra, the pet project of a major Obama backer, George Kaiser, was somehow a bipartisan failure because Rockefeller Republicans like the idea of using other people's money to start businesses is a little far-fetched. That would be like the driver at fault in a car crash arguing that roads enjoy widespread public support and crashes are inevitable: "While my car may have collided with yours, surely we can all agree that infrastructure is vital to America."

Solyndra was a debacle even if you like the idea of government giving money to preferred businesses: donor influence, ignored warnings, poor judgment, bad timing.

Solyndra made the opponents of "picking winners and losers" jobs too easy. Here, in one case, is everything the small-government conservatives have argued. Borrowing money from China to try to match Chinese subsidies for that country's solar sector is a tough enough sell. Doing so in a way that might enrich political benefactors is far worse.

Friday is the second birthday of the president's largest lingering liability from his term: a health law that most voters think will be expensive, disruptive and ineffective. The Supreme Court begins several days of arguments on the law, thought to be unconstitutional by most Americans, on Monday.

The process will remind moderate voters of their frustrations with Obama and his policies in a big way. It's unfortunate for the president that the health law revival comes amid voter anger with his energy policies, and this campaign trip is an effort to reduce his liabilities on energy before Americans spend several days talking about the law they dislike that also happens to be Obama's most significant accomplishment.

If Obama can't knock down the perception that he is too liberal, events will compound quickly and leave him unable to pull of a new, more centrist posture.

Secrets of Communism - Mass Murder (video)

21 March 2012

When a jihadist acts like a Nazi, the Left should wake up

The Left was so keen to blame the horrific shootings of Jewish children and soldiers in France on the (white) Right that The Age yesterday even ran this opinion piece:
Nicolas Sarkozy has lurched his party wildly to the right in an attempt to save his skin, claiming there were ‘’too many immigrants in France’’ and stoking Islamophobia ...

In Toulouse we have been given a horrific illustration of where such a delirious cynicism can lead.

All of those who have been shot or killed in and around the city in the past 10 days have had one thing in common. They are from visible minorities…

Police are a long way from understanding what was going through the head of someone who could catch a little girl by the hair so he wouldn’t have to waste a second bullet on her. But some things are already becoming clear. He shouted no jihadist or anti-Semitic slogans...
In fact, the suspected killer turns out to be indeed a jihadist, Mohammed Merah, reportedly born in Algeria.

A question then for those who here again tried so hard to avoid making the obvious assumption about these killings, blaming the Right and neo-Nazis instead.

When yet another jihadist turns out to have done what you assumed and hoped had been done by a neo-Nazi instead, why not damn jihadism and you’d damn Nazism?

When the crimes of a jihadist and a Nazi are indistinguishable, why defend either?

But let me guess. When a neo-Nazi kills Jewish children, that’s the fault of hate-mongering Right-wing politicians. But when a jihadist kills Jewish children, it’s the fault of hate-mongering ... Right-wing politicians. Wait and see if I’m right.

UPDATE
Mike McNally:


The news that the killer is not just a Muslim but a veteran jihadist will prove hard to swallow for sections of the liberal media both in Europe and the U.S., which had been playing down the possibility of an Islamist connection, and pushing the theory that the gunman was a “far-right” (the media’s term, not mine) extremist in the mold of the Norwegian mass-shooter Anders Breivik....

Large sections of the media got this one spectacularly wrong, but don’t expect them to acknowledge that fact. Instead, look for them to move move seamlessly from the “far-right extremist” theme to asking what could have provoked Merah (post-traumatic shock brought on from his experiences in Afghanistan perhaps?).

Coalition's same-sex wedding reforms would axe terms from official documents

By Steve Doughty
16 March 2012

Reforms to allow same-sex marriage will see the words husband and wife removed from official forms, it was revealed last night.

Tax and benefits guidance and immigration documents must be rewritten so they no longer assume a married couple is a man and a woman.

And private companies will be told to overhaul paperwork and computer databases containing the words.

Marriage certificates could even be affected by the Coalition proposals, with rules possibly axing terms such as bride and bridegroom.

The reforms – promised by Prime Minister David Cameron last autumn and set out in a consultation paper launched yesterday – intend to open civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples for the first time.

A different category – religious marriage – will be reserved for male and female couples.

The proposals have triggered a furious row, with the Church of England accusing the Coalition of misunderstanding the law of marriage.

But Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone warned religious leaders not to ‘fan the flames of homophobia’ with ‘inflammatory’ language.

New versions of documents will‘replace references to husband and wife with the more neutral terms spouses and partners’.

The cost of the red tape revolution demanded by the ‘Equal Civil Marriage’ plans will run into millions, according to an official analysis published alongside the consultation paper.

Businesses will be given ‘lead-in time’ – a period of grace to change their websites and databases before their failure to recognise same-sex marriage runs foul of the law.

The consultation paper, produced by Home Secretary Theresa May and Miss Featherstone, has set aside three months for public responses before civil servants begin to draw up the new legislation.

And the axing of the terms husband and wife is spelled out in an ‘impact analysis’ published by the Home Office alongside the paper.

It said UK Border Agency forms and staff guidance would replace husbands and wives with spouses and partners.

‘Some tax, National Insurance Contributions and tax credit legislation will have to be changed where there is a specific reference to a husband and wife,’ it added.

References to go include direct mentions of husband and wife and phrases about couples ‘living together as husband and wife’. Forms and IT systems and guidance for Revenue and Customs staff will need to change, it added.

The removal of gender-specific language also has sweeping implications for marriage services.

The Home Office declined to say yesterday how ministers intend to change the wording of ceremonies.

Currently couples marrying in a register office must pledge to take each other as ‘my wedded husband’ or ‘my wedded wife’.

If marriage law is reformed in line with the rewrite of red tape, then couples will be required at a civil wedding to pledge themselves to ‘my wedded partner’.

The Church of England said: ‘Arguments that suggest “religious marriage” is separate and different from “civil marriage”, and will not be affected by the proposed redefinition, misunderstand the legal nature of marriage in this country.

'They mistake the form of the ceremony for the institution itself.’

The Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales said in a statement: ‘It is alarming to note that children are not mentioned at any stage in this consultation document about marriage.’

But Miss Featherstone said yesterday: ‘I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, whatever their gender.

'Marriage is a celebration of love and should be open to everyone.’

[ed. The "long march through the institutions" continues...]

Democrat sues to boot Obama from ballot

by Bob Unruh
21st March, 2012

Another lawsuit has been filed asking state officials to remove Barack Obama’s name from the 2012 election ballot because he has not documented that he is eligible for the office, but this case in Florida has a twist: It was brought by a Democrat.

The case was filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”

As part of his responsibilities, the lawsuit explains, Voeltz took “an oath to ‘protect and defend’ the U.S. Constitution.”

The complaint cites widely reported suspicions that Obama might not have been born in the United States and the fact that his father never was a U.S. citizen. It contends that because of those circumstances, Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” as the Constitution demands of the president.
Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.

“The requirement for natural-born citizenship, which is found in the U.S. Constitution, was intended to prevent foreign influences from ‘influencing’ an American president,” Klayman said as the action was being filed. “These ‘influences’ have regrettably been witnessed by the American people during President Obama’s term in office. It is clear the Founding Fathers intended to avoid such a situation, where an American president seems to frequently sympathize with and take actions benefitting foreign interests.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Klayman explained that the U.S. Constitution mandates a president must be a “natural born citizen” – born to two U.S. citizens. Neither Obama nor the Democratic Party of Florida nor any other group has confirmed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” since his father was a British subject born in Kenya and not a citizen of the United States, Klayman said.

The Florida Election Code allows any voter or taxpayer to challenge any candidate who is ineligible for public office in the Leon County courts. If the secretary of state cannot confirm Obama’s eligibility, then Klayman is demanding the court grant an injunction preventing Obama’s name from appearing on the Florida General Election Ballot in 2012.

Klayman was a U.S. Senate candidate in Florida in 2004. He formerly headed Judicial Watch and in that capacity appeared in Florida courts in the famous case of Gore v. Bush before Judge N. Sanders Sauls in Leon County.

The new case raises a number of issues:

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior,” the complaint explains.

There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”

The action follows by only weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.

Even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United Sates, he is still not a ‘natural-born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution,” the lawsuit states. “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

The lawsuit notes that state officials in Florida never have tried to ascertain Obama’s eligibility even though they are under oath to “support the U.S. Constitution.”

“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama has not established the eligibility requirements set forth by the U.S. Constitution of being a natural born citizen, or even a citizen, of the United States,” the case states.

It seeks a determination that the state must following the U.S. Constitution and verify Obama’s eligibility or make a determination itself of Obama’s eligibility.

The new case follows about a dozen others that already have been filed on similar grounds in other states. While most of the cases have been dismissed, some now are on appeal.

In Georgia, for example, a terse rejection by the state Supreme Court has opened the door to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In that case, the recent abrupt rejection by the state Supreme Court indicates the state’s “laws and courts are a sham,” one case participant suggested.

The comment comes from Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation, one of several attorneys who started out several weeks ago with a challenge to Obama’s candidacy based on a state law that allows residents to require candidates to prove their eligibility for the office they seek.

At the hearing level, an administrative law judge simply threw out all of the evidence and ruled in favor of Obama, who, along with his lawyer, snubbed the hearing and refused to appear.

An intermediate court followed suit and now the state Supreme Court has issued a terse denial.
“Upon consideration of applicant’s ‘Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction,’ the motion is hereby denied,” the court said in a one-line refusal.

Irion had asked the court to halt the certification of the primary election results that included Obama’s name until the court case could be argued.

“I believe that this latest ruling proves that Georgia law does not apply to the powerful,” Irion said in today’s statement to supporters and others. “Put another way, Georgia laws are enforced against the powerless by the powerful, but when the powerless try to have the laws applied to the powerful the courts protect the powerful.

“This is worse than anarchy. With total anarchy everyone knows that the powerful rule. With anarchy everyone understands that the only rules are the rules that the powerful want to enforce, when the powerful want to enforce them. What we have in Georgia is a system of laws and courts that appear to be fair and claim to be impartial, but in reality the purpose of the laws and courts is to deceive the people into thinking that justice is possible. The laws and courts are a sham. The courts serve to disguise the one-sided enforcement of the law.”

In Georgia, the challenges to Obama were raised by several individuals represented by different attorneys. They brought the arguments under a state law that allows any citizen to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.

The plaintiffs argued several points before administrative law judge Michael Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen.”

Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

20 March 2012

North Koreans react to the news of footballer Fabrice Muamba's heart attack (video)



[ed. Or at least it is how people who are getting hysterical over a footballer are perceived by the sane....these NKorean people had a brutal regime stomping on their throat if they didn't act like this, what is your excuse?....GET A GRIP!]

The Great TV Licence Scam (video)

Pray 4 Muamba, but less of the fake tears

By Richard Littlejohn
19 March 2012

All eyes were on Gareth Bale, galloping down the left wing. It wasn’t until the ball went out of play that we spotted Luka Modric signalling frantically to the bench and a Bolton player prostrate on the turf.

What happened? Was there a clash of heads? No one around me in the West Stand at White Hart Lane was sure. We’d all been concentrating on the action.

Pretty soon it became obvious that there was something seriously wrong. We are used to cynical footballers feigning injury by rolling around theatrically, clutching their heads. But the figure on the ground wasn’t moving.

As the medical teams rushed on to the pitch, the anguished reaction of the other players told us that the man down wasn’t faking it. The deployment of a defibrilator confirmed this was a life-threatening incident.

Around the stadium, 35,000 supporters fell into an eerie silence, still unsure of what had occurred. Most of us weren’t even certain who was receiving treatment. It was only when the Bolton fans started to chant ‘Fabrice Muamba’ that we were able to put a name to him.

People were visibly distressed. A man sitting a few rows in front of me got to his feet and implored, from the best of motives: ‘Just get him to hospital.’ My friend Beryl was not the only one on the verge of tears.

Yet from behind came a voice we recognised only too well. It belonged to the Upper West Stand’s resident gobby imbecile, the bane of our lives, a man whose love of the sound of his own voice is exceeded only by his unparalleled ignorance.

In this oaf’s expert opinion, Bale, coveted by every major team in Europe, is ‘pathetic’. Modric, conservatively valued at £40 million, is an ‘absolute disgrace’. And Harry Redknapp, who has taken Tottenham from the foot of the table to the Champions League, doesn’t know what he is doing.

I’ve no idea who he is, but he looks and sounds like Harry Enfield’s tiresome, know-it-all creation, Mr You Don’t Want To Do It Like That.

On Saturday evening, he surpassed even his own subterranean standard of stupidity. As the stadium held its breath while Muamba was being given emergency CPR, he announced loudly: ‘If he’s brown bread, they’ll call the game off.’

A young man was fighting for his life in front of our eyes and all this moron could care about was whether a game of football would continue.

It’s a remark that should lead to him being banned from White Hart Lane for life. Crass doesn’t even begin to do it justice. I’m astonished someone didn’t deck him.

We left the ground immediately, all appetite for football extinguished, hoping for the best, but fearing the worst.

Most of us knew little about Fabrice Muamba until now. He is, by all accounts, an admirable young man who has fashioned a promising career from a life founded in adversity. We wish fervently that he makes a full recovery.

This tragic incident has brought out the best in people, from the instinctive humanity of a hostile home crowd to the heroic intervention of the cardiologist who climbed from his seat in the stand and helped keep Muamba alive.

But while it is understandable that others want to offer their support and good wishes to Muamba’s family and friends, it has also triggered another maudlin display of vicarious grief from the ‘football family’.

As I have observed before, professional football has a sentimental streak the width of Wembley Stadium. On Sunday, Manchester United and Wolves staged a pre-match display of synchronised applause for Muamba, despite the fact he isn’t dead.

Real Madrid wore ‘get well soon’ messages on their shirts, even though I doubt few of the players have ever heard of Muamba. The English disease has gone global.

At Stamford Bridge, the Chelsea defender, Gary Cahill, a former Bolton team-mate, ‘dedicated’ his goal to Muamba and unveiled a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Pray 4 Muamba’ for the benefit of the TV cameras.

He couldn’t even be bothered to spell out the word ‘for’.

There is a fine line between a tasteful show of solidarity and exhibitionism. And in this case, football yet again trampled across it.

Of course, football doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It reflects the values of our modern society, particularly when it comes to wallowing in the kind of self-indulgent weeping and wailing that first manifested itself over the death of Lady Di and reached its gruesome nadir with the demise of Michael Jackson.

For instance, the death of Wales manager Gary Speed, who hanged himself, was a tragedy for his family and friends. But the aftermath was a carefully choreographed travelling circus of remembrance, which made its way around the grounds of every club he’d ever played for. It went on for weeks.

We live in an increasingly godless society, where Christians are marginalised, sacked and even prosecuted for upholding their beliefs, yet we are urged to ‘Pray 4 Muamba’.

With a dwindling number of people attending church, millions have taken to worshipping footballers and celebrities instead.

In the words of G. K. Chesterton: ‘When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.’

Look, I enjoy football, but I sometimes despair at its overbearing presence in our popular culture.

Sky News even interrupted live coverage of a speech by the Prime Minister yesterday to bring us the latest bulletin from the hospital, even though there was no change in Muamba’s critical condition.

No doubt some will accuse me of being callous. So let me repeat: I found the collapse of Muamba as distressing as everyone else and hope sincerely that he fully recovers.

It’s just that I deplore public displays of vicarious grief and the tendency of so many people to seize on any tragedy and make it all about them.

On Saturday night, the collapse of Muamba put the fate of a mere football match into stark perspective. It’s a pity that perspective is lost on certain members of the ‘football family’.

19 March 2012

Ken Livingstone: I will make London a beacon of Islam (video)




Here is the full version of a story which appears in the print edition of today's Daily Telegraph:
Ken Livingstone has promised to turn London into a “beacon” for the words of the Prophet Mohammed in a sermon at one of the capital’s most controversial mosques.

Mr Livingstone, Labour’s candidate for mayor of London, pledged to “educate the mass of Londoners” in Islam, saying: “That will help to cement our city as a beacon that demonstrates the meaning of the words of the Prophet.” Mr Livingstone described Mohammed’s words in his last sermon as “an agenda for all humanity.”

He praised the Prophet’s last sermon, telling his audience: “I want to spend the next four years making sure that every non-Muslim in London knows and understands [its] words and message.” He also promised to “make your life a bit easier financially.”

Mr Livingstone was speaking at last Friday’s Jummah prayer at the North London Central Mosque, also known as Finsbury Park Mosque, formerly controlled by the terrorist recruiter Abu Hamza.
Hamza was removed in 2003 but the mosque is now controlled by an Islamist organisation, the Muslim Association of Britain, which has been linked to the banned terror group, Hamas. A man who has acted as spokesman for the current leadership, Azzam Tamimi, is on record as supporting suicide bombings. One of the mosque’s current directors, Mohammed Sawalha, is described by the BBC as a former senior figure in Hamas who “is said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy” from his post in London.

In 2009 Mr Sawalha also signed the Istanbul Declaration which calls for attacks against the allies of Israel, which include the UK. The British Government interpreted it as calling for attacks on British troops.

In 2010, the Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim moderate, resigned from the mosque’s board of trustees and reported it to the Charity Commission, accusing the mosque of forging his signature on key legal documents.

Mr Livingstone has been dogged by allegations of links to Islamic fundamentalism. In 2010, in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, he campaigned against his own party’s candidate to back a controversial independent politician, Lutfur Rahman, sacked by Labour for his links to a Muslim extremist group, the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE).

During his mayoralty, Mr Livingstone’s London Development Agency channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds to the East London Mosque in Tower Hamlets, controlled by the IFE, even though senior LDA managers strongly opposed the grant. In return, IFE activists campaigned strongly for him at the 2008 mayoral elections, boasting that they "got out the vote" for Mr Livingstone and achieving dramatic swings to him in their east London heartland.

Mr Livingstone also gave thousands of pounds of public money to the Muslim Welfare House, a charity closely associated with the Finsbury Park Mosque, which signed an open letter backing his re-election campaign in 2008.

In his last sermon, delivered in the valley of Mount Arafat, near Mecca in 632 AD, the Prophet Mohammed attacked discrimination, saying that “a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white, except by piety and good action.” However, he also said that men had a right to ensure their wives “do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve.”

Sweden moving towards cashless economy

(AP) STOCKHOLM - Sweden was the first European country to introduce bank notes in 1661. Now it's come farther than most on the path toward getting rid of them.

"I can't see why we should be printing bank notes at all anymore," says Bjoern Ulvaeus, former member of 1970's pop group ABBA, and a vocal proponent for a world without cash.
The contours of such a society are starting to take shape in this high-tech nation, frustrating those who prefer coins and bills over digital money.

In most Swedish cities, public buses don't accept cash; tickets are prepaid or purchased with a cell phone text message. A small but growing number of businesses only take cards, and some bank offices — which make money on electronic transactions — have stopped handling cash altogether.

"There are towns where it isn't at all possible anymore to enter a bank and use cash," complains Curt Persson, chairman of Sweden's National Pensioners' Organization.

He says that's a problem for elderly people in rural areas who don't have credit cards or don't know how to use them to withdraw cash.

The decline of cash is noticeable even in houses of worship, like the Carl Gustaf Church in Karlshamn, southern Sweden, where Vicar Johan Tyrberg recently installed a card reader to make it easier for worshippers to make offerings.

"People came up to me several times and said they didn't have cash but would still like to donate money," Tyrberg says.

Bills and coins represent only 3 percent of Sweden's economy, compared to an average of 9 percent in the eurozone and 7 percent in the U.S., according to the Bank for International Settlements, an umbrella organization for the world's central banks.

Three percent is still too much if you ask Ulvaeus. A cashless society may seem like an odd cause for someone who made a fortune on "Money, Money, Money" and other ABBA hits, but for Ulvaeus it's a matter of security.

After his son was robbed for the third time he started advocating a faster transition to a fully digital economy, if only to make life harder for thieves.

"If there were no cash, what would they do?" says Ulvaeus, 66.

The Swedish Bankers' Association says the shrinkage of the cash economy is already making an impact in crime statistics.

The number of bank robberies in Sweden plunged from 110 in 2008 to 16 in 2011 — the lowest level since it started keeping records 30 years ago. It says robberies of security transports are also down.
"Less cash in circulation makes things safer, both for the staff that handle cash, but also of course for the public," says Par Karlsson, a security expert at the organization.

The prevalence of electronic transactions — and the digital trail they generate — also helps explain why Sweden has less of a problem with graft than countries with a stronger cash culture, such as Italy or Greece, says economics professor Friedrich Schneider of the Johannes Kepler University in Austria.

"If people use more cards, they are less involved in shadow economy activities," says Schneider, an expert on underground economies.

In Italy — where cash has been a common means of avoiding value-added tax and hiding profits from the taxman — Prime Minister Mario Monti in December put forward measures to limit cash transactions to payments under euro1,000 ($1,300), down from euro2,500 before.
The flip side is the risk of cybercrimes. According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention the number of computerized fraud cases, including skimming, surged to nearly 20,000 in 2011 from 3,304 in 2000.

Oscar Swartz, the founder of Sweden's first Internet provider, Banhof, says a digital economy also raises privacy issues because of the electronic trail of transactions. He supports the idea of phasing out cash, but says other anonymous payment methods need to be introduced instead.

"One should be able to send money and donate money to different organizations without being traced every time," he says.

It's no surprise that Sweden and other Nordic countries are at the forefront of this development, given their emphasis on technology and innovation.

For the second year in a row, Sweden ranked first in the Global Information Technology Report released at the World Economic Forum in January. The Economist Intelligence Unit also put Sweden top of its latest digital economy rankings, in 2010. Both rankings measure how far countries have come in integrating information and communication technologies in their economies.
Internet startups in Sweden and elsewhere are now hard at work developing payment and banking services for smartphones.

Swedish company iZettel has developed a device for small traders, similar to Square in the U.S., that plugs into the back of an iPhone to make it work like a credit card terminal. Sweden's biggest banks are expected to launch a joint service later this year that allows customers to transfer money between each other's accounts in real-time with their cell phones.

Most experts don't expect cash to disappear anytime soon, but that its proportion of the economy will continue to decline as such payment options become available. Before retiring as deputy governor of Sweden's central bank, Lars Nyberg said last year that cash will survive "like the crocodile, even though it may be forced to see its habitat gradually cut back."

Andrea Wramfelt, whose bowling alley in the southern city of Landskrona stopped accepting cash in 2010, makes a bolder prediction: She believes coins and notes will cease to exist in Sweden within 20 years.

"Personally I think this is what people should expect in the future," she says.

But there are pockets of resistance. Hanna Celik, whose family owns a newspaper kiosk in a Stockholm shopping mall, says the digital economy is all about banks seeking bigger earnings.
Celik says he gets charged about 5 Swedish kronor ($0.80) for every credit card transaction, and a law passed by the Swedish Parliament prevents him from passing on that charge to consumers.
"That stinks," he says. "For them (the banks), this is a very good way to earn a lot of money, that's what it's all about. They make huge profits."

[ed. As respondents to this story on the CBS boards have said it makes it all nice and easy for the government to track and trace you and control you with a few keystrokes...]

Student 'troll' who posted 'racially offensive' Tweet about Fabrice Muamba just hours after player collapsed of heart attack on pitch

[ed. UNBELIEVABLE. We cart people away for having an opinion (however insensitive or "illegal"... we truly do live in dangerous times folks...the young lad was probably put under intense pressure to plead "guilty" as well. Welcome to North Korea.

A student today admitted posting sick comments on Twitter about Fabrice Muamba, the Premier League footballer left fighting for his life after collapsing during a game.
Liam Stacey, 21, today pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred after writing ‘LOL [Laugh out loud]. **** Muamba. He’s dead!!! #haha.'

Stacey was warned he could face jail when he is sentenced next week - and was told he must stay off Twitter and other social networking websites as a condition of being released on bail.

Today Muamba, the Bolton Wanderers midfielder, was still in intensive care, but said to be 'showing signs of improvement'.

A joint statement from Barts and The London NHS Trust and Bolton Wanderers Football Club said his heart is beating without the aid of medication.
He has begun moving his arms and legs - but his long-term health prospects are unclear.

The footballer suffered a heart attack on the pitch during his team's FA Cup quarter-final with Tottenham Hotspur at White Hart Lane on Saturday.
The 23-year-old has been put in an artificially induced coma and his fiancee Shauna Magunda is keeping a 24-hour bedside vigil.

Swansea Magistrates' Court was told that shortly after Muamba collapsed, Stacey posted a series of vile messages.

Prosecutor Lisa Jones said: 'Fabrice Muamba collapsed on the pitch and was believed to have died. "Shortly after Stacey posted on Twitter: 'LOL, F*** Muamba. He's dead."

'A number of persons on the site took issue with the posting and he responded to them furthering his message.'

She added that he posted other sickening messages.

The court heard that police around Britain had Stacey's comments reported to them by users - including former soccer star Stan Collymore.

As Stacey admitted posting the vile remark, another Twitter user from America allegedly posted a vile remark under the name Chet Walken.

Magistrates heard Stacey tried to 'distance himself' from the comments by saying his account had been hacked.

He later tried to delete his page but police arrested him on Sunday morning at his student home in Swansea, South Wales.

When interviewed by police, Stacey said he was drunk at the time.

He told police: 'I was at the bar when I heard what had happened to Muamba. I don't know why I posted it. I'm not racist and some of my friends are from different cultural backgrounds.'

18 March 2012

Bleak outlook for US newspapers

By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson
March 16, 2012

The headlines about the US newspaper industry have never been so bleak.

In recent weeks, LinkedIn, the networking website, and the Council of Economic Advisers have reported that the press is “America’s fastest-shrinking industry”, measured by jobs lost; the Newspaper Association of America has shown that advertising sales have halved since 2005 and are now at 1984’s level; and the Pew Research Center has found that for every digital ad dollar they earned, they lost $7 in print ads.

As media from television to billboards bounce back from the recession, newsprint is being left behind. Zenith Optimedia this week predicted that internet advertising would pass newspaper advertising next year around the world – but in the US, where internet penetration is high and newspaper audiences are shrinking, digital will overtake newspapers’ and magazines’ combined ad sales this year, eMarketer estimates.

“There’s no doubt we’re going out of business now,” one unnamed executive told Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which predicted a future of shrinking newsrooms, print deliveries only a few days of the week and more papers closing altogether. A USC Annenberg School study reached the stark conclusion that most printed US dailies would be gone in five years.

Departing executives and bankruptcy advisers have been among the few people making good money from newspapers. The chief executives of Gannett and the New York Times left in recent months with packages worth $37m and $24m respectively, while advisers to Tribune’s Chapter 11 proceedings have earned $233m.

Yet the very pressures on print are also accelerating the pace of change in newspapers’ business models.

On March 5, the Los Angeles Times introduced a “membership programme” that will limit online users to 15 free articles a month. After that, readers must pay a subscription, which is more pricey for digital-only access than for a bundle in which they keep taking the newspaper.

The move followed Gannett’s announcement in February that all 80 of its community newspapers will introduce digital subscriptions, in a move the publisher expects to add $100m to operating profit.

Charging for news online had been seen by many as the preserve of specialist titles, notably financial news brands such as the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal, but the model has been adopted in recent months by a string of local newspapers such as the Minneapolis Star Tribune to the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

Publishers have focused particularly closely on the New York Times, which began charging for online content a year ago and counted 390,000 digital subscribers by December. Barclays Capital estimated this month that digital subscriptions could add $100m to the group’s annual circulation revenues, more than offsetting an estimated $50m-$60m annual decline in print advertising.

By the end of this year, one in five US newspapers will charge for digital access, according to Ken Doctor, a US news industry analyst. Attitudes towards charging online have undergone “a revolutionary change in the last six months”, adds Steven Brill, co-founder of Press+, a company that has advised 258 media groups on charging for content and is owned by RR Donnelley, the communications company.

Even the business magnate Warren Buffett, a long-time investor in the Washington Post – which does not charge online – has backed digital payments. Sitting in front of the printing presses at the Omaha World-Herald, a local paper he bought last year, he told CNBC last month: “You shouldn’t be giving away a product that you’re trying to sell.”

By putting the same content online for free that they were charging for in print, Berkshire Hathaway’s chairman said newspapers had been competing against themselves. Now, he added, “you’re seeing throughout the industry a reaction to that problem and an answer to it”.

Advocates such as Press+ say that publishers that have adopted “metered” models allowing free access to a limited number of articles have not seen the loss in online advertising revenues many feared. Such models have “somewhat shored up print” circulation, adds Alan Mutter, a newspaper analyst and blogger.

But the industry is far from agreeing on a single model. “Fifteen years into the digital transition, executives still feel they are in the early stages of figuring out how to proceed,” Pew found.

Caroline Little, chief executive of the Newspaper Association of America, says: “I don’t think there is one silver bullet. I think paywalls are helping.” Her job is not to preserve print, she adds. “The preservation of journalism is what’s important. Print will continue to decline.”

Newspapers were collaborating more to find solutions such as Newsright, an initiative to enable easy rights clearance for websites republishing news content online, Ms Little says. Others are sharing costs, analyst and blogger Mr Mutter says, pointing to the fact that the Chicago Tribune now prints and distributes the rival Chicago Sun-Times.

Online advertising remains the core of most newspapers’ digital businesses, but growth has been anaemic compared with digital native companies. Mr Mutter notes that US newspapers’ digital advertising sales were less than those of the “adolescent” but targeted ads – which are placed to reach a specific audience – on Facebook in 2011.

Some, however, are bucking the trend, finding success selling targeted digital advertising or building consulting businesses to help confused local businesses navigate the intricacies of search engine optimisation, digital ad platforms and daily deal sites. Tablet editions and smartphone apps are also encouraging some to charge for content on mobile devices after years of giving content away for free.

Warnings of newspapers’ demise were common three years ago, after the closure of the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s decision to end its print edition, but few large newspapers have closed since.

That is thanks to the high margins many enjoyed in the decades where they had a grip on classified and automotive advertising, Mr Mutter says. He adds: “Most newspapers continue to be profitable, just not as profitable as they used to be.” Their typical double-digit profit margins “are quite good compared with Walmart or Amazon”, he says.

According to Mr Buffett, newspapers also still have some unique content to draw readers in, from sports to local politics. He added: “Obituaries are a good thing. You’re not going to find out whether your friends are alive or dead any place else.”
 

..

..

The Puppet Master

The Puppet Master

.

.
Michelle Obama

Miss you George! But not that much.

Pelosi

Pelosi
Pelosi

Blatter's Football Circus

Mr Charisma Vladimir Putin

Putin shows us his tender side.

Obama discusses the election

Obama arrested

Obama arrested
Or ought to be...

Cameron Acknowledges his base

Be Very Careful

Beatrice announces her summer plans.

Zuckerberg