'..in China, with China, for China'

in June of 2009, General Motors in the U.S. filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was America's fourth largest, but the largest for a U.S. manufacturer as G.M. was 172 billion dollars in debt. The U.S. government initially invested twenty billion dollars and, later, another 30 billion dollars. In return, taxpayers became the owners of 60% of a smaller G.M. Canada and the United Auto Workers union also own part of the restructured company.

To reduce costs, G.M. plans to close more factories and cut more jobs in the United States by the end of 2011. In addition to G.M. plans to sell or discontinue its Saturn, Saab and Pontiac lines; it plans to cut more than 1000 dealerships in the United States by the end of 2010. GM has sold its Hummer brand to a heavy equipment company in China.

Now, if the unemployment rate in the U.S. isn't depressing enough for you, then you might be interested in adding betrayal to that depression. But you will have to discern who betrayed us: companies like GM; or our own U.S. government and its representatives; or both? And, in fairness, we have to claim responsibility for allowing it happen and for being duped.

You won't find this information being reported by your daily cable channel news anchors and reporters. Only a few cable channels report on the real economy, and political plays and deals behind them. Most of them bought, and then sold to us, the 'they are too big to fail' party line.They were too busy with being used to redirect our attention and angst to the big bonuses and company jets issues.

Bush's T.A.R.P. and Obama's Stimulus have done nothing but to hasten U.S. economic decline. While some are hailing the recent report of a 2.7% rise in U.S. GDP, they are ignoring that it is being artificially propped up.

GDP growth was said to be due to higher consumer spending; however, a jump in exports was offset by an even larger rise in imports. There was also the Cash-for-Clunkers that is now over.

The GDP growth was claimed as there was a slowdown in the reduction of inventories; but, no new inventories nor U.S. manufactured goods are being added. There has been no follow through in sustaining a renewed market for the autos in the U.S. Plus, business investment declined as another large drop in investments in structures.

An increase in residential investments, as in home building and new mortgages, is said to have contributed to GDP growth. This is an artificial shoring up as the home-buyer tax credit is still in effect. There are a number of mortgages that are being renegotiated, or refinanced, as new loans.There is also a jump in housing vacancies as in the homes that were started were not completed, or, if completed, are vacant.

Finally, GDP growth was definitely pushed upwards by robust government spending. The Cash-for-Clunkers, T.A.R.P., the home-buyer tax credit, the Stimulus, and more is government spending. Yet, there is still a high rate of banks which have failed. There are 6 so far this month, And it's only December 5th. And bankruptcies are still rising.

Bailing out General Motors was part of the robust government spending. And remember that the Stimulus was also suppose to go for alternative energy research and developement. It was suppose to help create more jobs in businesses like GM for U.S. workers. That's what the President said in his speeches as to why we have to spend all this money to bail out all these big businesses. That's what people in Congress said when they voted for spending all the taxpayers money. That's what the Fed said as it doled out all the taxpayers money.

What we weren't being told by them was that in April 2009, General Motors Corp., in China, and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. Group (SAIC) launched SAIC's Shanghai Brand Fuel Cell Vehicle, which is powered by GM's latest fourth-generation fuel cell propulsion technology. What they didn't tell us was that GM has already developed and produced a 700 bar high-pressure hydrogen fuel cell system adapted in the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell cars.

What they didn't tell us was that:

"The two automakers, which operate eight joint ventures in China, earlier signed a pair of agreements to promote advanced vehicle technology. Their Shanghai GM joint venture began selling the Buick LaCrosse Eco-Hybrid last year as part of its Drive to Green strategy. China is slated to become one of the first markets for the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle in 2011"

And General Motors Co on Thurs, Dec. 4 2009, said it has;

"...set up a $100 million joint venture in Hong Kong along with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp Group (SAIC) to focus on the Asian markets. The new venture would bring under its umbrella all the Indian operations of GM including the two vehicle manufacturing facilities, a power train unit and the nationwide distribution network.
GM would also produce and sell small cars and mini-commercial vehicles developed by Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co in India under the new joint venture."

What they also didn't tell us was that:

"The Shanghai and Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles will be featured in the most extensive fuel cell demonstration program ever conducted in China. This follows the government's call for the creation of a sustainable transportation system," said GM Group Vice President and GM Asia Pacific President Nick Reilly.
"GM supports China's move toward sustainability, and we are providing our latest fuel cell technology in line with our overall strategy of in China, with China, for China."

General Motors.
Founded in 1908; in the U.S.A; built up by U.S. workers; sustained by U.S.A. consumers;
now - "..in China, with China, for China".

Remember that the next time Congress or the President tell us they have to spend money for anything; while we taxpayers are going to be betrayed, left holding the bag and beaten with the short end of the stick.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/05/content_9123704.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=GM%3AUS&sid=ary05b2P2J6g

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/index.html

Health Insurers endanger your personal information

Health insurer, Health Net, lost 1.5 million patient records in May but never informed patients, law enforcement or government entities, despite data breach laws in some states that require data spillers to notify victims and state officials when residents are affected by a breach. The insurer finally sent a letter to Connecticut’s attorney general and the state’s Department of Insurance this week.

Health Net claimed it took six months to determine what data was on the missing disk. The information was on a hard drive that disappeared from Health Net's Shelton office. The hard drive included all data on patients, including health information, as well as financial and personal data such as social security and bank account numbers. There were also some physicians' personal information on the disk as well. It said that data on the disk was compressed and stored in an image format that required special software to view, which was available only to HealthNet.

Health Net will provide credit monitoring for over two years - free of charge - to all impacted members who elect the service, and will provide assistance to any member who has experienced any suspicious activity, identity theft or health care fraud between May 2009 and their date of enrollment.

So, anyone having Health Net needs to start getting in line. I smell a class action suit for damages in the making.

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news11027.html
------------------------------------
Universal American Action Network exposes clients Medicare SS numbers


Thousands could become victims of identity theft just because a piece of mail has been sent to their homes.
Right on the front of the piece of mail, in plain view, is the Medicare recipient's Social Security number.
The postcards were from the Universal American Action Network, a subsidiary of Universal American Insurance. The data leak affected patients enrolled in the Medicare Advantage plan, which uses a patient’s Social Security number as his Medicare account number.

The company revealed that 80,000 postcards with Social Security numbers on them were sent out last Friday to Universal clients throughout the country. Universal American said that the Social Security numbers were on the postcards because of a printing error. And Universal claims it immediately terminated its contract with the printing service.

The big question is -- how did this company get the Social Security numbers? Well, in many cases, Medicare account numbers are your Social Security number. Universal American said it will send a letter to those who received the postcards notifying them of this problem and offer to provide free credit monitoring for a year. In the meantime, anyone with any questions can contact Universal American at 1 (877) 697-6228.

http://www.wgal.com/news/21655737/detail.html

Looks as if WH Administration is padding the job numbers?

The Government Accountability Office report on stimulus fund tracking was released in Congress on November 19, 2009. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf . The report states;
"As of September 30, 2009, approximately $173 billion of the $787 billion—or about 22 percent—of the total funds provided by the Recovery Act had been paid out by the federal government .....Nonfederal recipients of Recovery Act-funded grants, contracts, and loans are required to submit reports .....Of the $173 billion in funds paid out, about $47 billion—a little more than 25 percent—is covered by this recipient report requirement. Neither individuals nor recipients receiving funds through entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, or through tax programs are required to report ....the required reports cover direct jobs created or retained as a result of Recovery Act funding .....On October 30, www.recovery.gov (the federal Web site on Recovery Act spending) reported that more than 100,000 recipients reported hundreds of thousands of jobs created or retained ....."

I periodically have studied the tracker on Recovery. gov to see if the what the White House Administration was publically stating was as transparent, and as true, as had been promised all those months ago on the campaign trail. If you studied very much of it, you would come across entries that had jobs created or retained, but there was no money given to them. There was also money given to agents but no jobs listed as created or retained.

My son is the math wiz in the family, but it seemed to me that if you get at least a hundred million dollars, there should be at least a few jobs showing up somewhere. I think the people that put together the GAO report saw the same things I did. They included in the report:

"Erroneous or questionable data entries that merit further review:
• 3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount received or expended but included more than 50,000 jobs created or retained;
• 9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included expended amounts approaching $1 billion, and
• Instances of other reporting anomalies such as discrepancies between award amounts and the amounts reported as received which, although relatively small in number, indicate problematic issues in the reporting."

On the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, (http://www.publicintegrity.org/ ), a watchdog site, there were a number of instances shown to go a bit beyond being tagged as a "discrepancy". In virtually all 50 states, claims were made on behalf of congressional districts that don't exist. The 'errors' counted up as nearly $6.4 billion for nearly 30,000 jobs in 440 non-existing districts (http://www.wgal.com/news/21670147/detail.html). I wonder how many in the Government Accountability Office stayed up late for the last few nights reworking the report after this info started to hit the news media?

If you want to study a more accurate accounting of where the money has gone to, then study the stimulus tracker on MSNBC page.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33498869/#/all/all/us/all/

On the MSNBC tracker site is a statement:
"Data for the tracker, provided by Onvia, a company that tracks government contracting activity, differs from federal government data". Onvia has a site for tracking the money on http://www.recovery.org/ . That's Recovery dot ORG; not Recovery dot GOV .
Maybe this is the agency the government should use to get a true read on where the money went? ..... Wait a minute - that would mean there would be someone really making them honestly account for al those dollars the taxpayers have to shell out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-19-stimulus-jobs_N.htm
------------------------------------

Wonder why CNN doesn't have Lou Dobbs?

I followed Lou Dobbs from the first time I turned on the CNN channel in the 1980's. He was founding member of the CNN group in the 1980s. We had cable then; satellite was a little out of our pocket book's range. Dobbs anchored a business news program, “The Moneyline News Hour with Lou Dobbs,” on CNN. In June 2003, he anchored a daily program, “Lou Dobbs Tonight”, which expanded business journalism into the political news and issues which influenced and affected average life in America. In a time of 'trickle-down economics', he was one journalist who was honestly telling the truth about what was going to be trickling-down onto our heads.

His nightly program, 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' had special ongoing reports as a cornerstone of the programs. “Broken Borders" focused on border security and illegal immigration. “War on the Middle Class,” and “Exporting America,” related news on the outsourcing of American jobs and how inequitable trade was killing the manufacturing base of the U.S. economy. “Failing Grades” stressed the ongoing the problems in public education. His latest addition of special reports was "Heroes" which featured reports of individual acts of heroism, on and off the battlefield, by U.S military personnel.

Dobbs also has a highly successful national radio program. He has won almost every major award for his work in television news from the George Foster Peabody Award to the Luminary Award by the Business Journalism Review. Yes, he even won the “Father of the Year” by the National Father’s Day Committee in 1993. He has written three best-selling books. “Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit” in 2007, “War on the Middle Class” in 2006, and “Exporting America” in 2004. He has also been a columnist for Money Magazine, U.S. News and World Report and the New York Daily News.

He would often be the first to have important and complex reports on what the three branches of U.S government and Big Business were doing. In all these years, I can only recall a few times he was ever in error on what he reported. A large portion of his indepth reporting included topics that other journalists would shy away from or skim over as it would not be P.C. to lay out the the truth of the matter. Through his advocacy of the middle class and the working class of America, Dobbs has called for more of our elected officials and leaders of businesses built by American hands to be accountable for their actions.

You would think that in light of such public recognition that CNN would strive to, not only to keep him, but promote his, and a few others, honest journalism into the depth of issues and the ensuing provocative discussions. But CNN corporate changed over the years and began standing under a banner which emphasizes that it was taking a "non-biased approach". Translation - we're going to make everyone happy with joy-joy news that is honest; but running as lean on substance. It's like eating a rice cake as the main course of your meal.

In my opinion, CNN still has a few anchors and journalists who venture over the line to bring that substance to the surface. You have to wonder how long they will be seen if there are certain groups who go after them as there were groups going after Lou Dobbs.

You didn't know that there was a coalition of malcontents campaigning to get CNN to be rid of Dobbs? Well, you won't hear about on CNN. But you don't have to check too many web sites or other news channels to see that he was targeted by illegal immigrant advocacy organizations, outsourcing business corporations, and Washington D.C. regulars.

Dobb's indepth reporting on the Mexican drug cartel's war spilling over the border into the U.S. as far as New Jersey, his reporting of the illegal immigrant status and condition in the U.S, and of the organizations and powerheads who fully aware of what is happening, had a number of organizations after CNN for his head.
Check out the op-ed and blogs of these sites:

Latinos to CNN: Dump Dobbs Now by Roberto Lovato, founder of Presente.org
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-lovato/latinos-to-cnn-dump-dobbs_b_287078.html

Media Matters - Eric Burns, president of Media Matters.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911120019

A “Day of Happiness”: Immigration Activists, Hispanic Press Relish Dobbs’ Exit From CNN
http://feetin2worlds.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/a-day-of-happiness-immigration-activists-hispanic-press-relish-dobbs-exit-from-cnn/

CA Senator Gil Cedillo Issues Statement of CNN's Removal of Lou Dobbs
http://www.obsnews.com/news/article100661_ca-senator-gil-cedillo-issues-statement-cnns-removal-lou-dobbs

Presente.org and our partners in the BastaDobbs.com campaign
BastaDobbs.com Announces Victory:Lou Dobbs to Leave CNN.
http://bastadobbs.com/blog/2009/nov/11/bastadobbscom-announces-victory-lou-dobbs-leave-cn/

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
http://maldef.org/truthinimmigration/


These are only a few of the sites online and there are many more. What they called Dobbs' 'incendiary hate speech and falsehoods' was his stating that illegal immigrants were breaking the law. These groups and others worked behind the scenes to persuade major corporations to stop advertising on Lou Dobbs Tonight. In addition to Media Matters in partnership with NDN, the coalition, representing over 2 million people, includes the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, America's Voice Education Fund, The Hispanic Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Netroots Nation, Voto Latino, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the Center for New Community, Reform Immigration for America, the Dolores Huerta Foundation, the National Puerto Rican Coalition and the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials.

Now add to those groups, the one on Capitol Hill in D.C. who he offended by accurately telling us what the politicians were trying to hide in their bills, and what the Administration was doing behind closed doors....

Gee... no wonder CNN caved.

Fort Hood deserves more than "political correctness" attitude

It's time to get passed the "political correctness" attitude and deal with the reality of radical religious fundamentalism. There has to be a line drawn that states the U.S, has seperation of religion and state that is to be obligatory of every religion and its practitioners - no exceptions. It must be clear that using a religion to hide behind, to preach, encourage, and/or support causing harm to Americans; that it will not be tolerated.

Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City Mo., confessed to the fatal shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller in Kansas, in May 2009. Roeder was an occasional contributor to a Des Moines-based newsletter that believes that killing abortion providers is justifiable homicide. Des Moines resident and anti-abortion activist Dave Leach publishes the newsletter, called “Prayer & Action News,” which declares it is “a trumpet call for the Armies of God to assemble.”

In August 1993 Dr. George Tiller was shot by Shelley Shannon. Leach told The Washington Post he visited Rachelle “Shelley” Shannon in prison several years ago. In the mid-90s, Leach’s association with the accused killer of a Florida abortion doctor helped persuade U.S. marshals to guard the Planned Parenthood clinic in Des Moines. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of the murder of Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida. after Gunn had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992.

Many of the incidents of arsons, attempted murders, death threats, assaults or batteries, kidnappings and murders against abortionist clinics, related personnel and the surrounding areas were connected to radical Christian organizations espousing violent action. Randall Terry, a leading conservative Christian, is the founder of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action assassinated a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic. Anti-abortion groups Army of God and Christian Gallery advocate and celebrate violent clashes against clinics. These are only a few of the known radical organizations who espouse and stand on biblical and/or Christian religion.

The most recent incident that again calls religious fanaticism to the forefront is the horrendous shooting and killing of military personnel at Fort Hood in Texas. The tragic Ft. Hood shootings and murders are not an isolated incident as others have happened; a plot to kill soldiers at Ft. Dix; a case where one Islamic radical violently attacked a fellow soldier.

Major Nidal Malik Hassan opened fire on a brigade of engineers preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. Witnesses report that Major Hassan - a Muslim - was repeating "Allahu Akbar [God is great]" as he fired on his fellow military people. Major Hasan had contact late last year and this year with a radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi,formerly connected with Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center, a U.S. citizen now believed to be in Yemen. Hasan, from 2001, had worshiped at the suburban Virginia mosque, Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center, in Falls Church, that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers attended in 2001. al-Aulaqi applauds Hasan's murderous actions on his website.

Fellow workers report hearing Hassan compared suicide bombers '..to the noble soldiers in combat who fall on hand grenades to save fellow soldiers in the name of Allah'. He also has said that '..suicide bombers are helping Muslims kill enemy soldiers'. His web site validates their reports. Convenience store film shows Major Hassan on the day before the shooting. He was dressed head to toe in Muslim garb and complaining he did not want to go to Afghanistan and be involved in killing "fellow Muslims."

Major Hassan had received a "poor performance" rating from his superiors at Walter Reed Medical Center. As their psychiatrist, while he counseled wounded troops, he was proselytizing to patients to convert to Islam. As the military bends over backward to be tolerant of the diverse religions and spiritual ideologies; Hassan's behavior, in his capacity as a psychiatrist, of attempted religious recruitment is forbidden and highly unprofessional. Investigators are starting from the premise the suspected gunman in the Fort Hood massacre acted alone. But the FBI is keeping in mind that his communications were flagged by intelligence agencies in 2008.

To their credit, mainstream Christian religious heirarchy, while steadfastly maintaining an anti-abortion stance, have condemned the violent acts commited by the anti-abortion groups. They have done some work to actively ferret out these groups, detour them and disassociate mainstream Christianity from them. A spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations was trying to relay to his audience not to associate the killings on America's soil to Islam or its tenets. The Washington-based group noted that it had launched an anti-terrorism petition drive and a TV ad campaign against religious extremism, and coordinated an anti-terrorism fatwa, or religious ruling, condemning extremism and terrorism.

Many reporters, political officials and investigators are cautious to not cross the boundaries of "political correctness." In the case of Ft. Hood, we need to stop this political correctness. We have to ask our fellow Islamic Americans, Muslim Americans to step up and to recognize our division in this country between church and state, or mosque and state. We have to step up and expect them to not only condemn this in no uncertain terms; but to also take measures within their mosques to stop those of their following from believing that such actions are allowable or commendable.

It is insulting to us to have reporters and others in mainstream media admonish us as to how we are to perceive what happenned at Fort Hood. It is not a perception fueled by prejudice and fear; it is fueled by looking at the facts and proceeding accordingly. It is not a position based on fear and hatred to know that the Ft. Hood massacre wiil be exploited by groups like Al Qaeda. And that other fanatic groups will use it as a card to justify more religious extremism and violence.

Yes, the investigators can proceed cautiously and carefully with a thorough investigation. Once all the information is confirmed, it needs to be presented openly and honestly; and not through the filter of "political correctness." It's a slap in the face to think Americans can not distinguish for themselves between what they saw happening, and what they are told they saw through the filter of "political correctness". It is condescending to have investigators and political officials not to admit it is possible that this was a terrorist act. Information is coming forth that shows connections to al Qaeda and to radical elements of the Islamic religion. Don't tell us to connect the dots to come up with a picture of a poor victim instead of the one that reveals a murderer for the monster he is.

There are 13 dead people, and a number of wounded whose families, loved ones, friends and fellow soldiers live with the horrible reality that the pictures of the rest of their lives are forever changed.

Credit Cards raising rates as high as 30%

If you have any accounts at any financial institution or any credit cards, you have probably received a mailing recently that has informed you that the fees and interest rates the institutions and companies will charge you in the future will change. It will be going UP!

Banks are raising fees for using an out of network ATM machine. Some overdraft fees are jumping to $45.00. Free checking accounts are going to be charged user fees. No one as yet has defined what that is, or what the fees will be.

Credit-card lenders, have been increasing fees and interest rates, raising minimum payments and cutting credit limits. Some have hiked interest rates as high as 29.99% or canceled cards altogether. Many card companies are going to impose a variable rate, based on the prime rate as reported quarterly in the Wall Street Journal, plus an additional amount for annual fees based on some formula the financial institutions have for raising your fees because they feel like it. And there is also a section in the malings stating that the new law allows you to "opt out" of a higher rate or an annual fee. However, if you do not agree with the fees and interest rate hikes; the company will cancel your card but you will still have to pay it off based on the new fees.

Supposedly, these institutions have to increase what they charge you, the person who pays their bills on time, because they have people who do not pay their bills on time or at all. HELLO...that's what T.A.R.P. dispersements were for - to cover the bad debts of companies from people who did not pay them. A number of these companies, such as Bank of America, Citigroup and so on, have benefited from T.A.R.P. dispersements. No one but the financial institutions know just how much money they received. To date, no federal or government agency can give a total accounting in dollars and cents of the money that was given to the institutions.

In an attempt to let you think that Congress was feeling your pain, they passed the Truth in Lending Act of 2009 which goes into force in February of 2010. It is suppose to curtail financial instituitons and credit card companies practices in the future from doing the same thing they are doing now - gouging the average person by nickle and diming you everytime you turn around.

It is because the Truth in Lending Act of 2009 will be going into effect that the instituitons are charging the costs to you now. Who would have thought that financial institutions would try to gouge you before the February deadline? Evidently Congress is just first waking up to that fact and has at least started to get moving on doing something about it.

Sen Dodd and other sponsors have two bills that need to get through Congress quickly.

S.1799 : A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to establish fair and transparent practices related to the marketing and provision of overdraft coverage programs at depository institutions, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 10/19/2009)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1799is.txt.pdf

S.1927 : A bill to establish a moratorium on credit card interest rate increases, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 10/26/2009)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1927pcs.txt.pdf

The important part of Senat bill 1927 is in Section 2:
SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON RATE INCREASES
During the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending 9 months after the date of enactment of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, in the case of any credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan—
(1) no creditor may increase any annual percentage rate, fee, or finance charge applicable to any
outstanding balance, except as permitted under subsection 171(b) of the Truth in Lending Act (as
added by Public Law 111-24); and
(2) no creditor may change the terms governing the repayment of any outstanding balance, except as set forth in section 171(c) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by Public Law 111-24).

Send them an email and tell your reps in Congress to move their butts on this - like yesterday! Or you might just not have any money left to contribute to their 2010 campaign.

Obama administration prompts reporters at press conference

On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 12:30 P.M. EDT, President Obama held a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing room.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Conference-by-the-President-6-23-09/)
His first question from a reporter was on Iran and where Obama draws the line on his offer for talking with Iran. When queried as to whether there should be consequences for what's happened so far in Iran, Obama says, "Since we're on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post."

THE PRESIDENT: So let me open it up for questions, and I'll start with you,
Jennifer.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that
the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open. Can you say if that's still
so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against
the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your
administration won't cross where that offer will be shut off?

THE
PRESIDENT: Well, obviously what's happened in Iran is profound. And we're still
waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has
been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure
that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism
outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach
out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international
norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path.
What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks,
obviously is not encouraging, in terms of the path that this regime may choose
to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate
taking place in Iran may end up coloring how they respond to the international
community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays
itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to
reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is
respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in
which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates
according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don't know how
they're going to respond yet, and that's what we're waiting to see.

Q So
should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

THE PRESIDENT:
I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness
to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how
they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously,
internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone not only for
Iran's future but also its relationship to other countries.

Since we're
on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

Q Thank you,
Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the
Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know
that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating
through the Internet. Do you have a question?

Q Yes, I did, I wanted to
use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We
solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be
communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which
conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it
without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal
of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

THE PRESIDENT:
Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say
definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.
What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves,
spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an
isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant
questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so ultimately the
most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the
eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why
I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who
their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of
international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with peaceful
dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we've been seeing over the
Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and
violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian
government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to
stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they
take it."

Today, on Meet The Press (June 28 2009), David Gregory interviewed David Axelrod.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31584983/ns/meet_the_press/page/2/displaymode/1098/
The topic was a possible change in foreign policy regarding Iran. Near the end of the interview, Gregory played a vidoetaped portion of Tuesday's press conference:

(Videotape, Tuesday)

PRES. OBAMA: Since we're on Iran, I know Nico
Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

MR. NICO PITNEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.

PRES. OBAMA: Nico, I know that you and all across the
Internet we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know
that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating
through the Internet. What--do you have a question?

(End videotape)

Gregory then asked "Did the White House coordinate with a reporter about a question to be asked at a press conference?"

At first, Axelrod said the White House didn't coordinate with the reporter about a question, that they looking for a way to get questions from within Iran. Gregory pressed further with saying that they talked to a reporter beforehand and asked the reporter to ask a question from Iran at the press conference.
Axelrod tried to sidestep the question with a nonaffirmative-affirmative, saying, "We didn't coordinate with, with him about what was asked. ...We had no idea what he was going to ask."

If you have paid attention to anything coming from the Administration, then you know that this format of dancing around the wording of an answer is standard for them. Gregory pursued the topic with,
But you coordinated with him about, about that subject of a question beforehand".
to which Axelrod responded,

"He was a, he was a, he was a, he was a vehicle to get questions from Iran asked at this press conference, and that we thought was not only appropriate but, but necessary.".
When Gregory asked him if he would do it again, Axelrod said he has no problem with what was done.

As I see it: the Administration sees no problem in prompting reporters to ask questions they want to answer. Most of us who have watched the decline in true journalism the last 10 years really shouldn't be surprised that it is considered appropriate to tell reporters what sort of questions you want to be asked. Maybe for the next 'press conference', the Administration will have the whole question and answer session typed up and thrown up on the teleprompters for the reporters to just read on cue.

I won't be surprised when what happened begins to get noticed. And there will probably be the customary '..he mis-spoke when he said...what he meant to say was...' statement released sometime next week. It won't change the fact that the Administration prompts reporters - regardless of how they word it.

Iran's "Angel of Freedom", Neda

Neda Agha Soltan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962484755543950.html


On July the 4th, many U.S. citizens will celebrate Independence Day. It is a day in which we honor and celebrate our freedom. We have the right to agree, disagree, argue, and even protest openly against our elected officials, leaders and their policies.

Iran's "Angel of Freedom", Neda Agha Soltan, has had those rights taken away from her. In Iran's supposedly democratic theocracy, the mirage of democratic freedom has finally been stripped away. Iran's leaders are now showing the World their true faces.

It took one bullet from a member of the Basij militia on a motorcycle to kill Neda Agha Soltan. Images of Neda as she was dying have been seen by all the World. The video is graphic and uncensored; it needs to be remembered as it is the raw truth. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/?bcpid=4464161001&bctid=27077553001)
She will be remembered as Iran's "Angel of Freedom". The truth of what happened can not be silenced, even though Iran's leaders have tried to block the Iranian citizens' access to the Internet and the rest of the World.

In a BBC interview, Dr. Arash Hejazi, the doctor seen in the vidoes trying to save Neda, tells what happened:

"...he was visiting friends in Tehran when he heard there were protests nearby, and
decided to take a look. When they reached the main street, they saw anti-riot
police coming on motorcycles towards the crowd.

"All of a sudden
everything turned crazy," he said. "The anti-riot police threw teargas among
people and the motorcycles started rushing towards people."

He
continued: "We heard a gunshot. And Neda was standing one metre away from me...
We were just standing and all of a sudden I turned back and I saw blood gushing
out of Neda's chest.

"She was in a shocked situation, just looking at
her chest, which blood was gushing out... We ran towards her and lay her on the
ground.

"I bent over her and I saw the bullet wound right in the chest
below the neck with blood gushing out. My experience says that it was the aorta
that was hit and the lung as well."

He added: "Her blood was draining
out of her body and I was just putting pressure on the wounds to try to stop the
bleeding, which wasn't successful unfortunately, and she died in less than one
minute."

The people around her took her body away in a car, Dr Hejazi
said.

The protesters thought the gunshot had come from a rooftop nearby,
but later saw a member of the Basij militia on a motorcycle. They stopped him
and disarmed him, the doctor said.

"He was shouting, 'I didn't want to
kill her'. I heard him," Hejazi said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5644492/Doctor-blames-death-of-Irans-Angel-of-Freedom-Neda-Agha-Soltan-on-militia.html

Iran's leaders have tried to quickly get out propaganda to disparage Neda. They released report she was the sister of a terrorist; someone with a smuggled gun had opened fire in the street and killed her; she was faking her death, another protestor shot her..etc.

None of their lies can silence the impact of her martyrdom, her death for the cause of freedom.

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson passed on June 25th. Both shared with the World their hearts - her through her acting, and him through his music.

Thank you both and blessed be.

Drew sentencing set for July 2 in MySpace case

Lori Drew's sentencing is slated for July 2 2009. U.S. District Judge George Wu delayed the May 18, 2009 sentencing date to review the case as the defense has stated that prosecution failed to prove its case and requested that the jury verdict be dismissed. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/drew_sentenced/)

Drew was initially charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, with one count of felony conspiracy and three counts of felony unauthorized computer access for allegedly violating MySpace’s terms of service by participating in the creation of a fake profile for a non-existent 16-year-old boy named “Josh Evans.”

Using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prosecute Drew, the indictment charged that in September 2006 Drew conspired to create the Josh Evans account with her then 13-year-old daughter, Sarah, and a then-18-year-old employee and family friend named Ashley Grills, for the purpose of inflicting psychological harm on a 13-year-old neighbor named Megan Meier.

A month after “Josh” initiated the online relationship with Megan, he turned on her and told her he wanted to sever their relationship, writing that the world would be a better place without her in it. Shortly thereafter, Megan hanged herself in her bedroom.

Drew was convicted of three misdemeanor charges for unauthorized computer access and faces a maximum sentence of three years and a $300,000 fine.

Thomas O’Brien, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, aided by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause, personally oversaw the prosecution and handled some of the witness testimony himself. Using the federal anti-hacking statute known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prosecutors in Los Angeles brought the case against Drew based on the government’s novel argument that violating MySpace’s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking. Prosecutors stated MySpace’s user agreement requires registrants, among other things, to provide factual information about themselves and to refrain from soliciting personal information from minors or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people. By allegedly violating that click-to-agree contract, Drew committed the same crime as any hacker.

During prosecution witness Ashley Grills' Grill’s 80-minutes of testimony, she stated that nobody involved in the hoax actually read the terms of service. Grills also said that the hoax was her idea, not Drew’s, and that it was Grills who opened the account, clicked through the MySpace terms of service, created the Josh Evans profile, and later sent the cruel message that tipped the emotionally vulnerable 13-year-old girl into her final, tragic act. Ashley Grills testified for the prosecution under a grant of immunity. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/lori-drew-pla-3/)

While most of the prosecutors case was built on terms violation of a MySpace account; it was on AOL Instant Messenger that Grills’ sent the last message to Megan: "The world would be a better place without you."
Grills testified that Megan responded: "You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over" .

Very little was allowed into testimony about thirteen years old Megan Meiers or her medical history; that she was suicidal by 3rd grade; diagnosed with depression; diagnosed as ADHD and taking a cocktail of prescribed Schedule 2drugs. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all)
Megan was prescribed Celexa (an antidepression drug), Concerta (for A.D.D.), and Geodon (a mood stabilizer).
In the 7th grade, Megan and the Drews’ daughter had secretly set up a MySpace account. They were found out when a cousin of Megan's mother discovered the profile, which featured a flashing Playboy bunny icon. The Meiers did not mention the incident to the Drews. Supposedly, Lori Drew, going through her cell-phone bills, found that someone had placed a series of calls to New York. Lori’s daughter told her that Megan had made the calls, to talk to a boy they had met online. The Drews and the Meiers never discussed that incident, either.

In September 2006, Megan's parents allowed her open a MySpace with conditions and some restrictions:
1. Both parents were the only ones to know the password.
2. It had to be set to ‘private.’
3. Her parents had to approve the content.
4. Her parents had to be in the room at all times when Megan was on MySpace.

On the day she committed suicide, Megan's mother had left with her Megan's sister for a dental appointment. She knew Megan was online and told her to shut down. Megan's father was asleep upstairs and her mother found her still online when she returned home. Little was said in court of an insult war had broken out among Megan, Josh, and some of their friends . Megan had called another girl a slut, and the insult were returned in kind. In one interview, Megan's mother stated she was shocked and angry at the foul language replies her daughter had sent.

And as yet, there hasn't been any charges filed against people who pursued the Drews online on message boards, who posted the Drews’ home address and Curt’s business address, who organized a telephone and e-mail campaign against them and the businesses advertised in The Drew Advantage, who hacked into Lori Drew’s voice mail, or any other number of retalitory acts including a creepy video on On YouTube. Nor were any charges filed against Tina Meier, Megan's mother, for following Drew to places she went and asking any businesses “Do you advertise with The Drew Advantage? If so, I advise you to take a look at the Journals. The girl involved was my daughter.” No one has been charged for the acts of damage and vandalism against the Drew's home and property. And who will be charged in the future violence that may happen if the judge sets aside the verdict?

It's all a tragic set of circumstances that lead to a 13 year old commiting suicide. The case has already changed the law on cyber crime issues and possibly also changed the way some people behave online.

Has anybody ever bothered to read the full TOS of any social networking site? On the other side of the coin haven't judges found them to be not enforceable because it is assumed that people arent reading them because they are too long and can change without notification and/or warning. People who have been online for a number of years will tell you to never use your real name on any social networking site. No social networking site is going to 100% guarantee your protection or privacy.

My interest in the case was that Megan was on the usual stimulant drugs given to millions of kids daily for their 'diagnosed' mental problems and disorders. My question has always been; would a normal 13 year old have commited suicide over what was said? Since Drew was found guilty, shouldn't Megan's parents also be charged as they allowed Megan to open a MySpace account at 13? Why aren't the drugs and the medical personel who prescribe them, ever questioned or held accountable?

TARP and China

Where does the T.A.R.P. money banks are repaying go to?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060900891.html?nav=rss_businesshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124450458046896047.html

Government officials initially had planned for banks to keep their Treasury's investments for at least three years, but were forced by Congress earlier this year to allow banks an early exit. With signs of the financial sector stabilizing and bank stress tests complete, administration officials decided it was time to allow the strongest banks to return government funds. A handful of community banks are also expected to soon repay their TARP funds. Already, about 22 banks have taken steps to repay TARP, returning about $1.8 billion to the government. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said he plans to reuse returned TARP funds to assist other firms, including smaller banks, including those that have already received an initial TARP infusion.
The timing of repayments will be up to each bank. While banks can easily return the preferred shares the Treasury purchased in October, they must also deal with warrants the government received in the investments.
Those warrants, which gave the government the right to purchase common stock at a set price for 10 years, have value, and the Treasury must determine what price it will accept. A low price could open the Treasury to criticism that it is leaving money on the table. But some banks are unwilling to pay a high price.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
China's screening software on all computers on July 1 2009http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8091044.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8091411.stm

As a U.S. All-American girl, I can say that your government isn't always working for your best interests. Imagine that the U.S. government said it was mandating that all computers in the U.S. - even those that are imported - had to install the software that would filter out pornographic or violent material. And the software has to be pre-installed on U.S.made computers before they leave the factory.
Even if Pres. Obama himself gave a speech encouraging it; I'd be willing to bet that most of the population would laugh out loud.... and then voice a resounding 'NO' that would literally shake the very foundation of the Capital building.
Well, in China, as of July 1st, computers have to have installed the "Green Dam Youth Escort" software. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, "The purpose of this is to effectively manage harmful material for the public and prevent it from being spread. The Chinese government pushes forward the healthy development of the internet. But it lawfully manages the internet."
China does manage it's Internet; and we all agree they do it lawfully - - - not. On the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen killings, social networking sites such as Twitter and the photo-sharing site Flickr were blocked in China in an attempt by the government to prevent online discussion on the subject. But people just moved onto other social networking sites.
Even the Chinese officials must realize they can not control the whole of the Internet in China. I don't know exactly how it is done; but a few friends have said that rewriting a few lines in the software on a computer could make it look as if were working correctly when it really wasn't.
One of the foreseeable main problems will be in businesses. And since China is the World's leading manufacturing nation; imagine having an idea that would make billions but can't get past the filter to flesh the idea out or market it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Violence against womyn under Islamic rule

I didn't watch THE SPEECH...I read THE SPEECH.
Maybe I expect too much... ... I don't know.Everytime I hear that Pres. Obama is going to make some pronounced major change, or give a historical major speech: I keep thinking, 'ok...maybe this will show me why a lot of people think he is great.'

Text - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/04/obamas-speech-in-cairo/

"And I’m also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum."

"Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith."
"Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it."
"In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. "

"Freedom of religion is central to the ability of
peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism. "

As I read through the text, I thought 'is this Obama's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech?' It was his avoidance of the core of the sixth issue that was problematic for me. In one breath, he speaks of womyn's equality. In the next minute, he is making it sound as if giving Muslim girls an education will gloss over the daily brutality that Muslim girls and womyn face.

"That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right
of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it."
"The sixth issue — the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.
(Applause.) I know –- I know — and you can tell from this audience, that there
is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that
a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of
American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women— to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams."

Obama came so close to the point - so close; but became lost in his campaigning persona. He really botched it when he said, "...I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal".
Pres. Obama is supposed to an educated man. Yet, he minimizes the problem more than a few of us in the West have with Islam as if it is a question of fashion preference.
The right of womyn and girls to wear the hijab is not the real issue. It is the brutality and oppression that is forced on them if they decide to make it their CHOICE whether to wear the hijab or not.
The acceptance of violence against womyn as permitted in the Islam religion and under Islamic law is a big part of the problem. It is that the brutality and oppression is viewed as a right of the Muslim man to meter it out as he sees fit to do so. In every country with a government set up under Islamic law, womyn and children are raped, torured, beaten, sold off into marriage, sexually mutilated, and killed with no consequence to the man responsible for it.
Only recently in the U.S. a Muslim husband beheaded his estranged wife because she was filing for divorce. It was deemed under Islamic law as an 'honor killing'. Every day there can be found a number of these 'honor killings' among Muslims.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iraqi Women Can Now Say No to Hijab or Head Scarf
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7168860&page=1
Militants routinely threatened to kill each and every woman who did not dress according to the precepts of sharia law that were put in force in 2007..

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Child of 13 stoned to death in Somalia
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/child-of+-13-stoned-to-death-in-somalia-20081031
A girl stoned to death in Somalia this week was 13 years old. She had been accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was killed on Monday 27
October, by a group of 50 men in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayu, in front of around 1,000 spectators. Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when
some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander.At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been
told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the
ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Trapped by Violence – Women in Iraq
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420
17-year-old Rand ‘Abd al-Qader was killed in the city of Basra on 16 March 2008. She was murdered by her father, apparently assisted by two of her brothers, because
she had developed a friendship with a British soldier based in the city. ‘Abdel Qader ‘Ali, who admits killing his daughter, was questioned at a local police station. He told a British newspaper that police officers sympathized with his motive and released him after two hours of questioning. He has still not been charged or tried. Leila Hussein, Rand ‘Abd al-Qader’s mother, denounced her husband’s crime and left him, even though this meant she had to go into hiding. She did so with the support of a local women’s organization. She too was killed on 17 May 2008, shot dead in the street in Basra. Two women accompanying her were shot and wounded. The authorities have failed to identify the perpetrators.

Six years after the overthrow of former President Saddam Hussein, Iraqi legislators have yet to amend legislation that effectively condones, even facilitates, violence against women and girls. The Penal Code, for example, provides that a convicted murderer who pleads in mitigation that he killed with “honourable motives” may face just six months in prison. It also effectively allows husbands to use violence against their wives. The “exercise of a legal right” to exemption from criminal liability is permitted for:
“Disciplining a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by Islamic law (Shari’a), by
law or by custom.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Afghanistan: 4 years after the US-led invasion
http://rwor.org/a/020/afghanistan-after-us-invasion-pt2.htm
The situation for women has remained unchanged in many aspects or has even become worse under the occupation. A few months ago a woman accused of adultery was stoned to death by a local court in Badakhshan, while the man was sentenced to a beating. Women are still persecuted and imprisoned for adultery on the say-so of their husband or other men. There are more and more cases of young women burning themselves alive. In the fourth year of the occupation there has been a fifty percent increase compared to the previous year. Women are at much greater risk of rape and kidnap now than before the invasion. Wearing a burqa is no longer legally compulsory, and women might not get beaten by the Taleban morality police anymore, but instead they might get raped or kidnapped or both. Forced marriage is as standard as ever. Girl children are sold for a couple of hundred of dollars. Since the invasion, prostitution has increased tremendously. Violence against women by family members is still as widespread as before, if not worse. The situation of women in Afghanistan cannot be judged by the few women in certain limited areas of the capital who
might now wear a scarf and drive a car. It should be judged by the hell that more that 90 percent of the women are going through.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bengali mother caned for talking to Hindu man
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/06/75023.html
A Muslim mother has been caned for talking to a Hindu man in Bangladesh, police said Saturday, prompting fresh concerns about a rise in cases of harsh treatment of women under strict interpretation of Islamic law.The punishment was carried out in a remote village in Muslim-majority Bangladesh on the orders of village elders, local police chief Enamul Monowar told AFP. There is major concern among women's groups in Muslim-majority but officially secular Bangladesh about what they say is a rise in brutal treatment of women under locally applied Islamic laws."In the last few months, we have seen villagers invoking Shariah to mete out barbaric punishments to women," said Salma Ali, the head of rights group Bangladesh National Woman Lawyers Association.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are thousands more reports of violence against womyn that result from, and are sanctioned by Islamic law. It's not the "West that views a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal", Pres. Obama; it's Islamic law.

Why should the US attempt relationships with the Muslim countries?

I as read this, I was once again asking a question that no one has answered for me.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Brian Williams: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31071200]

"Obama told Williams on Tuesday that people in Islamic countries recognize that the “path of extremism” won’t better their lives, and being “anti-American” won’t solve their problems.
“And so what I hope will happen, as a consequence of this speech, is people will have a better sense of how America views its relationship to the broader world and to Islam,” he said.
“I hope that Americans will recognize that Islam is not a monolithic faith, that there are all sorts of debates taking place within Islam, about how to adjust to a modern world.”

Obama in an interview with BBC North America correspondent Justin Webb about the Middle East, states:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/06/090602_obama_transcript.shtml

"..there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world.
And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Al-Qaida released a 12-minute audio message titled "The Torturers of Egypt and the Agents of America Welcome Obama" posted on militant Web sites that have been used by al-Qaida in the past and carried the logo of As-Sahab, the terrorist organization's media wing. [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_AL_QAIDA_OBAMA?SITE=CASDT&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-02-16-34-51 ]
But al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No. 2, on Tuesday said the speech will not erase what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"His bloody messages were received and are still being received by Muslims, and they will not be concealed by public relations campaigns or by farcical visits or elegant words," said Ayman al-Zawahri.
Al-Zawahri said the Egyptian officials who will welcome Obama are U.S. "slaves" and have turned the country into an "international station of torture in America's war on Islam." He was likely referring to suspected Islamic militants who have been captured by the U.S. and sent to Egypt for interrogation, a process known as rendition.
Al-Zawahri urged Egyptians to reject Obama when he makes his
speech, calling him "that criminal who came seeking, with deception, to obtain what he failed to achieve in the field after the mujahideen ruined the project of the crusader America in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia."
He said Obama's decision to come to Cairo showed the U.S. had not given up its alliances with dictatorial and corrupt Mideast governments.
"It is a clear message that America does not stand with reform and change and other lying American propaganda, but it stands with the continuation of the existing tyrannical, rotten regimes," said al-Zawahri."
Meanwhile, a group of Muslim clerics connected with Egypt's prestigious Al-Azhar University have announced the creation of a new satellite channel to propagate moderate Islam and challenge what it describes as extremist distortions of the religion.
Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's premier educational institution, is co-sponsoring
Obama’s Thursday address.
Sheik Khaled el-Guindy, a member of Egypt's Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs and a driving force behind the "Azhari" channel, said the idea is to use the knowledge and skills of Al-Azhar graduates to combat ignorant interpretations of the religion.
"Azhari will promote the idea that Islam is a religion of moderation free from extremism," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "Several satellite channels right now promote a strict interpretation of Islam and issue incorrect religious opinions that fill young people with extremist ideas."
Azhari is set to be launched in mid-August, at the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramada. It will present a mix of entertainment and educational programming, including children's cartoons, soap operas and call-in shows.
The channel will initially be broadcast in English and Arabic, with plans to expand it to Turkish and Hindi, and will be viewable from Europe to Southeast Asia.

My question is and has been ; why should we repeatedly attempt to create a dialog with, apologize to, or befriend the Muslim world?

We are continuously told Islam is a religion. Yet, we see whole countries in the Middle East and Southern Asia have it as their government and ruling law. After 9/11, the U.S. populace were told on a daily basis that we are not at war with Islam - it was al-Qaida, a fanatical Islamic group. The U.S government officials and the Mainstream Media were very careful in drawng the difference to the front of our minds on a daily basis. What I think Pres. Obama needs to remember is that most U.S. citizens had no trouble drawing the distinctions between Islam and fanatical Islamic al-Qaida. Most of us had known Muslims in our neighborhoods and didn't harbor ill feelings toward them as a result of 9/11.

Then we have our first introduction to the Taliban. It was the CNN documentary "Beneath the Veil" that gave us a view of Muslims that was the exact opposite of what we had been told. http://www.rawa.org/cnn-king.htm
We saw the government rule of fundamentalist groups of Muslims. We saw womyn openly beaten and whipped; and the most horrendous lawful execution of womyn in a former soccer stadium. Since that first documentary in October 2001, there have been reports of other atrocities, such as, of girls being allowed to burn to death in a school because they did not have proper head coverings. We have seen reports of other beatings, of executions, of having acid thrown in their faces , of being 'married' at the age of 8, of being sold to pay off debts, and many other acts all considered lawful under Islamic governments.

How are we, as Americans, suppose to overlook these heinous acts and establish a realtionship with those goevernments that allow this?

Calling all Blue States!!!

Calling all Blue States!!!
Now is the time for you to come to the aid of the President.
You remember when Obama said he would close the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison camp within a year?
In August 2007, he said, "As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions."
You cheered and voted for him.

Well, how many of the Guantanamo inmates are you wanting to have in your states? If Senate Bill 370 and House Bill 1012 introduced in February are any indication of the attitudes toward relocating that Detainees in the U.S.; then shame on you Blue states.
During that last few months, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of State Clinton have been visiting countries in Europe asking them to take some of the detainees. These are inmates former Bush administration officials famously described as "the worst of the worst".

Attorney General Eric Holder is trying to assure members of the House Judiciary Committee and the regular American citizens that their safety is important to him and Obama and Co..What are they going to do with the 241 prisoners in Gitmo since Obama and Co. committed to closing the U.S. military prison in Cuba, is a repeated question that doesn't get a reassuring answer. The Attorney General promised Thursday to work with Congress to devise a solution to the problem as he said no final decisions had been made on what to do with the terrorism suspects. Holder went to Guantanamo in February 2009 for the first time because he is in charge of relocating Guantanamo's inmates by Obama's 2010 deadline.

Attorney General Holder said detainees would have either a military or civilian trial, but he acknowledged there may be cases in which prosecutors couldn't win a conviction for a dangerous prisoner. Holder said he is not sure whether a detainee's lawyer could argue that the client had full rights under the Constitution.

"We are not going to do anything that will endanger the American people," Holder said to the House Judiciary Committee. "If there were a sufficient basis to conclude they pose a danger to the United States, we would not release them."

A federal appeals court in February ruled that 17 Chinese Muslims, a Uighur ethic group held for years at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, did not have to be released in the United States. The three-judge panel of the appeals court overturned a lower court decision by saying the fact that the detainees were no longer considered "enemy combatants" did not mean they qualified for admission into the United States; adding, "Nor does their detention at Guantanamo for many years entitle them to enter the United States."

The Uighurs were captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001. China has said that insurgents are leading an Islamic separatist movement. The U.S. insists it will not hand them over to China because the Uighurs fear they will be tortured. The Uighurs were allegedly involved in weapons training in Afghanistan but have denied membership in the East Turkistan Islamic Movement terrorist group.

So, where do you relocate the 'worst of the worst'?

Identity Theft is OK

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/supreme-court-feds-abusing-identity-theft-law/

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday the government has been overstepping the boundaries of identity theft legislation when targeting immigrants who use phony citizenship documents to acquire jobs.

The justices said that the government, in order to prove such charges, must demonstrate that a defendant “knowingly” hijacked the identity of somebody else. In the case before the justices, an Illinois illegal immigrant steelworker was charged under the statute after submitting a fake Social Security number that, without the worker’s knowledge, happened to match a real number.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote (.pdf)
the decision would not have an impact on bread-and-butter ID theft cases. In those instances, persons hijacking someone’s identity for financial gain obviously know that such data belongs to a real person.

Can someone explain how, if you do not go to the Social Security Office and get your own Social Security number, you can claim you did not “knowingly” use another's identity???

WhiteHouse spreading tentacles

It's interesting to note that there is constantly a reference to "old habits and stale thinking" when Obama wants to denigrate any idea that is not in line with his thinking. I guess the Administration thinks if they blast their messages in enough places that everyone will agree with them.
Are the loudspeakers on every corner the next step?

WhiteHouse 2.0

In the President’s last Weekly Address, he called on government to "recognize that we cannot meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking." He added that "we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative," and pledged to "reach beyond the halls of government" to engage the public. Today the White House is taking steps to expand how the Administration is communicating with the public, including the latest information and guidance about the H1N1 virus. In addition to WhiteHouse.gov, you can now find us in a number of other spots on the web:
Facebook.com/WhiteHouse
MySpace.com/WhiteHouse
Twitter.com/WhiteHouse
The WhiteHouse blog (RSS) will power a lot of the content in these networks, but we’re looking forward to hearing from our fans, friends and followers. Don’t forget these sites as well:
Flickr.com/WhiteHouse
Vimeo.com/WhiteHouse
YouTube.com/WhiteHouse
iTunes (videos & podcasts)
Technology has profoundly impacted how – and where – we all consume information and communicate with one another. WhiteHouse.gov is an important part of the Administration’s effort to use the internet to reach the public quickly and effectively – but it isn’t the only place.
There’s a lot to talk about right now. From an economic crisis to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President and his Administration have a full plate – not the least of which is making sure the public stays up-to-date and involved in our efforts.

Do It Legally!

What other country lets illegal immigrants tell it what to do?

Protesters March for Immigration Reform

Immigration reform advocates march in California

NJ immigration rally pushes for reform

This floors me. People who are knowingly breaking the law are demanding that their 'rights' be heard. I don't care what country they are from - if they are here illegally; they are breaking the law!

It's that simple.

They chose to enter this country illegally. If they want to 'come out of the shadows' then they need to apply for citizenship just like legal immigrants do.

I am a citizen of the United States of America. If I break the law, I have to deal with the consequences of it. Why do illegal immigrants think they are above the law? Why do they think that if they are breaking the law that they are exempt from the consequences?

WHen bondholders don't want to play in the sandbox

While hearing Pres. Obama's speech announcing the Chrysler Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it was easy to see he was a little peeved. I had read of some events leading up to the reason for his being peeved. And there is a little more to what went on behind the scenes:

Behind the Chrysler bankruptcy http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Behind-the-Chrysler-bankruptcy-44069827.html
Chrysler is going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, despite the Obama administration’s efforts to keep it out. The problem was that a group of small bondholders, who are are secured creditors, rejected the deal. The small bondholders were willing to settle for only 60% of what they were owed. But, they complain, the government wouldn’t negotiate directly with them, but only through JPMorganChase, which (unwillingly) took TARP money on October 13 and thus is under pressure to do what the government wants. The group of senior Chrylser's lenders viewed JPMorganChase as having a conflict of interest.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senior Chrysler Creditors Revolt http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-chrysler-creditors-revolt-2009-4
Lenders made up of firms that didn't take TARP funds have issued a statement saying that they have been shut out of direct contact with the government during the negotiations.The group of senior Chrylser's lenders viewed JPMorganChase as having a conflict of interest.
Here's the statement:
As of last night’s deadline, we were part of a group of approximately 20 relatively small organizations; we represent many of the country’s teachers unions, major pension and retirement plans and school endowments who have invested through us in senior secured loans to Chrysler. Combined, these loans total about $1 billion. None of us have taken a dime in TARP money.
As much as anyone, we want to see Chrysler emerge from its current situation as a viable American company, and we are committed to doing what we can to help. Indeed, we have made significant concessions toward this end – although we have been systematically precluded from engaging in direct discussions or negotiations with the government; instead, we have been forced to communicate through an obviously conflicted intermediary: a group of banks that have received billions of TARP funds.
What created this much-publicized impasse? Under long recognized legal and business principles, junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to anything until senior secured creditors like our investors are repaid in full. Nevertheless, to facilitate Chrysler’s rehabilitation, we offered to take a 40% haircut even though some groups lower down in the legal priority chain in Chrysler debt were being given recoveries of up to 50% or more and being allowed to take out billions of dollars. In contrast, over at General Motors, senior secured lenders are being left unimpaired with 100% recoveries, while even GM’s unsecured bondholders are receiving a far better recovery than we are as Chrysler's first lien secured lenders.
Our offer has been flatly rejected or ignored. The fact is, in this process and in its earnest effort to ensure the survival of Chrysler and the well being of the company’s employees, the government has risked overturning the rule of law and practices that have governed our world-leading bankruptcy code for decades.
We have a fiduciary responsibility to all those teachers, pensioners, retirees and others who have entrusted their money to us. We are legally bound to protect their interests. Much as we empathize with Chrysler’s other stakeholders, the capital is just not ours to contribute to their cause by accepting a deal that is outside the well established legal framework and cannot be rationalized as being commercially reasonable.
We are continuing to discuss our position with the United States Treasury. We have made a proposal which we earnestly believe is fair and would appropriately recognize our legal position.
As President Obama implied yesterday, it is likely that Chrysler will have to file Chapter 11 whether or not all lenders agree to any particular proposal. Chapter 11 is often used to help implement an agreed deal and dispose of unwanted legacy liabilities. We are hopeful and optimistic that we will reach a positive resolution of our issues so that all stakeholders will move forward together to implement Chrysler’s “quick trip” restructuring in an un-contested proceeding. Our Group will never initiate a bankruptcy filing on Chrysler – that is a decision for the Company and the Administration to make.
As we all appreciate, laws are the foundation of our economy and society. Despite recent travails, our country remains the economic envy of the world and the United States remains a vital engine of global growth. The rule of law made it that way. We urge that people remember this and not succumb to unproductive and unwarranted finger pointing.
Sincerely,
The Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Put A Fork In Chrysler, GM Showdown Next (GM)http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-put-a-fork-in-chrysler-gm-showdown-next-2009-4
The talks with Chrysler's lenders broke down after the Obama administration's automotive task force worked into the evening to persuade several hedge funds and other lenders to accept a deal to reduce Chrysler's debt, said people involved in the talks.
The Treasury boosted its most recent offer to lenders on Wednesday by $250 million to $2.25 billion in cash for the banks and hedge funds to forgive $6.9 billion in Chrysler debt, people familiar with the matter said.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which leads the creditor group as Chrysler's largest lender, gave the other 45 banks and hedge funds 90 minutes Wednesday to vote on the deal. A large number of the funds voted no and refused to budge, paving the way for an all but unavoidable trip to bankruptcy court, said people close to the talks.
GM's bondholders, meanwhile, will make their counter-offer today. Instead of the 10% equity stake that they were offered, the bondholders want control of the company.
Bloomberg: General Motors Corp.’s bondholders plan to present a counteroffer to President Barack Obama’s auto task force in Washington today that would give them control of the carmaker, according to a person familiar with the committee representing creditors
The bondholder committee plans to reject GM’s April 27 debt exchange offer that asked them to swap all their claims for a 10 percent stake in the reorganized automaker, said the person, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are private....
GM bondholders are proposing they get a 51 percent stake in the reorganized carmaker, the health-care fund get a 41 percent share, and common shareholders get 1 percent ownership, the person said. This structure would enable the U.S. Treasury to be paid back and avoid nationalization of GM, the person said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GM Bondholders Said to Ask for Majority Stake in Counterofferhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1sZ4xV6V.ik&refer=home
GM bondholders are proposing they get a 51 percent stake in the reorganized carmaker, the health-care fund get a 41 percent share, and common shareholders get 1 percent ownership, the person said. This structure would enable the U.S. Treasury to be paid back and avoid nationalization of GM, the person said.
GM, which has thousands of bondholders, is trying to prove it’s viable in order to keep $15.4 billion in federal aid. The bondholder committee has been in contact with about 100 institutions representing $12 billion in GM debt and its members include San Mateo, California-based Franklin Resources Inc. and Loomis Sayles & Co. of Boston, according to the person.
Changing CEOs
The Obama administration’s auto task force ousted Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner last month, saying that GM’s plan to return to profit wasn’t aggressive enough, and ordered new CEO Fritz Henderson to cut the automaker’s debt by more than initially demanded.
Before Wagoner was removed, GM had proposed that bondholders swap more than three-quarters of their stake for equity, according to a person familiar with the talks. That offer would have given bondholders 90 percent of the equity of the reorganized automaker and a combination of cash and new unsecured notes, the person said at the time.
The bondholders’ planned counteroffer was earlier reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Coming soon - possibly to your neighborhood - freed Guantanamo Bay detainees!

U.S. plans to accept several Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo

The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of the detainees into this country. The Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gers) Chinese Muslims would be the first detainees from the prison to settle in America. Many of the Uighurs hold strict views of what is permitted under Islam. According to the article; administration officials also believe that settling some of them in American communities will set an example, helping to persuade other nations to accept Guantanamo detainees too.

This floors me.

Am I the only person who thought when President Obama said he was closing the Guantanamo prison and relocating the detainees, that he meant to disperse them into the U.S. prison system to await trials? Or they would be processed and sent to other coutries where they had lived?
Did it occur to anyone that he meant to resettle them in U.S. neighborhoods and communities???

The Administration is expecting challenges from China and within the U.S.. Chinese officials consider the Uighurs domestic terrorists and want those 17 Uighurs held at Guantanamo handed over for investigation. U.S. officials no longer consider the Chinese Muslims to be enemy combatants and fear they would be mistreated in China.

Well, how did they end up at Gitmo, you might ask. The article says; the Uighurs were sent to Guantanamo in 2002 after being captured in Pakistan. Before that, they had gravitated to Afghanistan, where they received firearms training at a camp apparently run by a Uighur Chinese Muslim separatist.

Some former U.S. officials have said government information indicates that the Uighurs may pose a danger if released. But other officials and human rights organizations insist they pose no threat to the Americans.
"It is kind of hard to tell other countries you would like them to accept some of these guys from Guantanamo if you are not willing to accept them," said the U.S. official, who described the internal discussions on condition of anonymity.
U.S. officials did not detail what supervision the Uighurs might receive once they are living on their own. But they said the Uighurs would be allowed to live freely.

I propose that they go and "LIVE FREELY" with the Obama and Co. officials who think they should be "allowed to live freely". I'm sure there are a few extra rooms where they can bunk at the White House.

A lawyer for some of the Uighurs in Guantanamo,Sabin Willett,argued that his clients should be set free immediately, with some measure of protection from people who might mistakenly consider them a threat.
"I fear political opponents of the Obama administration will try to sow fear and paranoia about the Uighurs," Willett said. "Once America gets a look at our clients, all this mythology will fall away and America will feel ashamed at thefact they were in prison so long."

The Uighurs oppose the Chinese government but do not consider the U.S. government a direct enemy. Remember, many of the Uighurs hold strict views of what is permitted under Islam. Does Shariah Law ring a bell?

"At Gitmo, Uighurs were not considered a grave threat and were allowed greater freedom, such as television privileges, than other detainees.
But the TV privileges underscored potential difficulties to come, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Not long after being granted access to TV, some of the Uighurs were watching a soccer game. When the image of a woman with bare arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the television and threw it to the ground, according to the officials.
Since then, officials at Guantanamo have bolted down the TVs and shown pre-taped programs, editing out any images they thought Uighurs might find offensive.

Well, isn't that special. Could that be part of what might tend "to sow fear and paranoia about the Uighurs"? Maybe it's the fact that they were captured by U.S. military and held for a reason? This is totally outrageous! Even Obama and Co. can't be that obtuse.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo-release24-2009apr24,0,1151031,full.story