111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 645
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:
(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.
(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.
(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.
(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.
(g) Reports-
(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;
(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;
(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).
(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);
(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
This Act does not affect--
(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.
(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.
(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.
(2) EMERGENCY- The term ‘emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term ‘major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687
Verse:
John 3:16; Jn 3:16; John 3
Keyword:
Salvation, Jesus, Gospel
With Operators:
AND, OR, NOT, “ â€
Showing posts with label President-elect Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President-elect Obama. Show all posts
Friday, January 30, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Mexico On Path To Becoming Bigger Security Threat Than Iraq
TRACI CARL | January 18, 2009 11:15 AM EST
MEXICO CITY — Indiscriminate kidnappings. Nearly daily beheadings. Gangs that mock and kill government agents.
This isn't Iraq or Pakistan. It's Mexico, which the U.S. government and a growing number of experts say is becoming one of the world's biggest security risks.
The prospect that America's southern neighbor could melt into lawlessness provides an unexpected challenge to Barack Obama's new government. In its latest report anticipating possible global security risks, the U.S. Joint Forces Command lumps Mexico and Pakistan together as being at risk of a "rapid and sudden collapse."
"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels," the command said in the report published Nov. 25.
"How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."
Retiring CIA chief Michael Hayden told reporters on Friday that that Mexico could rank alongside Iran as a challenge for Obama _ perhaps a greater problem than Iraq.
The U.S. Justice Department said last month that Mexican gangs are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." National security adviser Stephen Hadley said last week that the worsening violence threatens Mexico's very democracy.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently told The New York Times he ordered additional border security plans to be drawn up this summer as kidnappings and killings spilled into the U.S.
The alarm is spreading to the private sector as well. Mexico, Latin America's second biggest economy and the United States' third biggest oil supplier, is one of the top 10 global risks for 2009 identified by the Eurasia Group, a New York-based consulting firm.
Mexico is brushing aside the U.S. concerns, with Interior Secretary Fernando Gomez-Mont saying Wednesday: "It seems inappropriate to me that you would call Mexico a security risk. There are problems in Mexico that are being dealt with, that we can continue to deal with, and that's what we are doing."
Still, Obama faces a dramatic turnaround compared with the last time a new U.S. president moved into the White House. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the nation of 110 million had just chosen Vicente Fox as president in its fairest election ever, had ended 71 years of one-party rule and was looking forward to a stable, democratic future.
Fox signaled readiness to take on the drug cartels, but plunged them into a power vacuum by arresting their leaders, and gangs have been battling each other for territory ever since.
Felipe Calderon, who succeeded Fox in 2006, immediately sent troops across the country to try to regain control. But soldiers and police are outgunned and outnumbered, and cartels have responded with unprecedented violence.
Mob murders doubled from 2007, taking more than 5,300 lives last year. The border cities of Juarez and Tijuana wake up each morning to find streets littered with mutilated, often headless bodies. Some victims are dumped outside schools. Most are just wrapped in a cheap blanket and tossed into an empty lot.
Many bodies go unclaimed because relatives are too afraid to come forward. Most killings go unsolved.
Warring cartels still control vast sections of Mexico, despite Calderon's two-year crackdown, and have spawned an all-pervasive culture of violence. No one is immune.
Businesses have closed because they can't afford to pay monthly extortion fees to local thugs. The rich have fled to the U.S. to avoid one of the world's highest kidnapping rates. Many won't leave their homes at night.
The government has launched an intensive housecleaning effort after high-level security officials were accused of being on the take from the Sinaloa cartel. And several soldiers fighting the gangs were kidnapped, beheaded and dumped in southern Mexico last month with the warning: "For every one of mine that you kill, I will kill 10."
But the U.S. government is extremely supportive of the Mexican president, recently handing over $400 million in anti-drug aid. Obama met briefly with Calderon in Washington last week and promised to fight the illegal flow south of U.S. weapons that arm the Mexican cartels.
While fewer Americans are willing to drive across the border for margaritas and handicrafts, visitors are still flocking to other parts of Mexico. And the economy seems harder hit by the global crisis than by the growing violence.
The grim assessments from north of the border got wide play in the Mexican media but came as no surprise to people here. Many said the solution lies in getting the U.S. to give more help and let in more migrant workers who might otherwise turn to the drug trade to make a living.
Otherwise the drug wars will spill ever more heavily into America, said Manuel Infante, an architect. "There is a wave of barbarity that is heading toward the U.S.," he said. "We are an uncomfortable neighbor."
MEXICO CITY — Indiscriminate kidnappings. Nearly daily beheadings. Gangs that mock and kill government agents.
This isn't Iraq or Pakistan. It's Mexico, which the U.S. government and a growing number of experts say is becoming one of the world's biggest security risks.
The prospect that America's southern neighbor could melt into lawlessness provides an unexpected challenge to Barack Obama's new government. In its latest report anticipating possible global security risks, the U.S. Joint Forces Command lumps Mexico and Pakistan together as being at risk of a "rapid and sudden collapse."
"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels," the command said in the report published Nov. 25.
"How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."
Retiring CIA chief Michael Hayden told reporters on Friday that that Mexico could rank alongside Iran as a challenge for Obama _ perhaps a greater problem than Iraq.
The U.S. Justice Department said last month that Mexican gangs are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." National security adviser Stephen Hadley said last week that the worsening violence threatens Mexico's very democracy.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently told The New York Times he ordered additional border security plans to be drawn up this summer as kidnappings and killings spilled into the U.S.
The alarm is spreading to the private sector as well. Mexico, Latin America's second biggest economy and the United States' third biggest oil supplier, is one of the top 10 global risks for 2009 identified by the Eurasia Group, a New York-based consulting firm.
Mexico is brushing aside the U.S. concerns, with Interior Secretary Fernando Gomez-Mont saying Wednesday: "It seems inappropriate to me that you would call Mexico a security risk. There are problems in Mexico that are being dealt with, that we can continue to deal with, and that's what we are doing."
Still, Obama faces a dramatic turnaround compared with the last time a new U.S. president moved into the White House. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the nation of 110 million had just chosen Vicente Fox as president in its fairest election ever, had ended 71 years of one-party rule and was looking forward to a stable, democratic future.
Fox signaled readiness to take on the drug cartels, but plunged them into a power vacuum by arresting their leaders, and gangs have been battling each other for territory ever since.
Felipe Calderon, who succeeded Fox in 2006, immediately sent troops across the country to try to regain control. But soldiers and police are outgunned and outnumbered, and cartels have responded with unprecedented violence.
Mob murders doubled from 2007, taking more than 5,300 lives last year. The border cities of Juarez and Tijuana wake up each morning to find streets littered with mutilated, often headless bodies. Some victims are dumped outside schools. Most are just wrapped in a cheap blanket and tossed into an empty lot.
Many bodies go unclaimed because relatives are too afraid to come forward. Most killings go unsolved.
Warring cartels still control vast sections of Mexico, despite Calderon's two-year crackdown, and have spawned an all-pervasive culture of violence. No one is immune.
Businesses have closed because they can't afford to pay monthly extortion fees to local thugs. The rich have fled to the U.S. to avoid one of the world's highest kidnapping rates. Many won't leave their homes at night.
The government has launched an intensive housecleaning effort after high-level security officials were accused of being on the take from the Sinaloa cartel. And several soldiers fighting the gangs were kidnapped, beheaded and dumped in southern Mexico last month with the warning: "For every one of mine that you kill, I will kill 10."
But the U.S. government is extremely supportive of the Mexican president, recently handing over $400 million in anti-drug aid. Obama met briefly with Calderon in Washington last week and promised to fight the illegal flow south of U.S. weapons that arm the Mexican cartels.
While fewer Americans are willing to drive across the border for margaritas and handicrafts, visitors are still flocking to other parts of Mexico. And the economy seems harder hit by the global crisis than by the growing violence.
The grim assessments from north of the border got wide play in the Mexican media but came as no surprise to people here. Many said the solution lies in getting the U.S. to give more help and let in more migrant workers who might otherwise turn to the drug trade to make a living.
Otherwise the drug wars will spill ever more heavily into America, said Manuel Infante, an architect. "There is a wave of barbarity that is heading toward the U.S.," he said. "We are an uncomfortable neighbor."
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration
Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009—
The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
And then there is the party bill.
"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.
That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.
Douglass said that this will be the "most open and accessible inauguration in history," with members of the general public able to participate on a greater scale than ever before.
"The money is going toward providing events which we hope are going to connect people, make them feel like we are all in this together and reinforce the notion that when we pull together, we're stronger," Douglass said. "And we need to pull together to face the challenges that are before us today."
Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.
But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.
"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite."
Best Seats in the House
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
"The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles," Ritsch said. "Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration."
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events.
"I don't think that they're going to get a whole lot of face time with the new president himself," Ritsch said, "but they are certainly establishing themselves from day one as his biggest financial supporters. And if there's something they need or to tell him down the road, they will have an easier time doing that than everyone else."
Besides Wall Street firms, a large chunk of the money came from employees at companies such as Microsoft, Google and DreamWorks Animation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer and his wife, Connie, each gave $50,000. So did Microsoft chairman and co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda.
DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife, Marilyn, each gave $50,000. Filmmaker and DreamWorks co-founder Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate, both also gave $50,000. And DreamWorks employees gave a total of $275,000.
Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000.
Other big-name donors who gave $50,000 include filmmaker George Lucas, artist Dale Chihuly, Los Angeles Dodgers President Jamie McCourt. Citigroup managing director Raymond J. McGuire; Oracle President Charles E. Phillips Jr.; actresses Halle Berry and Sharon Stone; and Melvin Simon, co-founder of Simon Property Group, the largest mall owner in the United States.
Despite all the donations, Obama's team has made donations much more restrictive than in the past.
Obama capped donations at $50,000 per person, which is still more than 10 times what individuals could give to his campaign, but a lot less than the $250,000 cap President Bush had at his last inauguration. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, political action committees and registered lobbyists are not being accepted by Obama.
The Real Money
For Bill Clinton's second inaugural in 1997, contributions were capped to $100. But that committee had some leftover money from the previous inauguration and charged people up to $3,000 for inaugural tickets.
"We have the broadest fundraising restrictions in inaugural history," Douglas said.
The inauguration team is also posting all donations of $200 or more on the Internet almost as quickly as they are coming in. The law only requires it to disclose the information 90 days after the actual swearing-in.
"The transparency of this inaugural fundraising effort is unprecedented as far as we can remember," Ritsch said. "We see that as a positive step and hope it's an indication that President Obama will use technology to make government more responsive and transparent to people."
That's all the play money. The bulk of cash will actually be spent on security and logistics.
In a letter to members of Congress, the governors of Maryland and Virginia, and the mayor of Washington said that their combined costs could exceed $75 million. That's on top of the $49 million the federal government is spending, again mostly for security.
"The historical significance of inaugurating the first African-American president of the United States alone makes the event unprecedented," they wrote. "Given its political significance, we expect that the event will be attended by hundreds, if not thousands, of elected U.S. government officials and foreign dignitaries. Turnout by the general public for the swearing-in ceremony alone is likely to exceed 2 million. Transportation officials estimate that roughly 10,000 charter buses will enter the District with approximately 500,000 riders alone, a number which nearly matches the city's population."
The emergency managers for the three jurisdictions said they expect this to be the most complex and challenging inaugural in history.
"The mass of attendees expected will challenge fire, law enforcement, emergency medical and mass transit capabilities," the governors and mayor wrote. "Moreover, the high volume of buses/traffic, weather factor and other threats will create additional demands."
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009—
The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
And then there is the party bill.
"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.
That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.
Douglass said that this will be the "most open and accessible inauguration in history," with members of the general public able to participate on a greater scale than ever before.
"The money is going toward providing events which we hope are going to connect people, make them feel like we are all in this together and reinforce the notion that when we pull together, we're stronger," Douglass said. "And we need to pull together to face the challenges that are before us today."
Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.
But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.
"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite."
Best Seats in the House
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
"The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles," Ritsch said. "Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration."
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events.
"I don't think that they're going to get a whole lot of face time with the new president himself," Ritsch said, "but they are certainly establishing themselves from day one as his biggest financial supporters. And if there's something they need or to tell him down the road, they will have an easier time doing that than everyone else."
Besides Wall Street firms, a large chunk of the money came from employees at companies such as Microsoft, Google and DreamWorks Animation, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer and his wife, Connie, each gave $50,000. So did Microsoft chairman and co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda.
DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and his wife, Marilyn, each gave $50,000. Filmmaker and DreamWorks co-founder Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate, both also gave $50,000. And DreamWorks employees gave a total of $275,000.
Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000.
Other big-name donors who gave $50,000 include filmmaker George Lucas, artist Dale Chihuly, Los Angeles Dodgers President Jamie McCourt. Citigroup managing director Raymond J. McGuire; Oracle President Charles E. Phillips Jr.; actresses Halle Berry and Sharon Stone; and Melvin Simon, co-founder of Simon Property Group, the largest mall owner in the United States.
Despite all the donations, Obama's team has made donations much more restrictive than in the past.
Obama capped donations at $50,000 per person, which is still more than 10 times what individuals could give to his campaign, but a lot less than the $250,000 cap President Bush had at his last inauguration. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, political action committees and registered lobbyists are not being accepted by Obama.
The Real Money
For Bill Clinton's second inaugural in 1997, contributions were capped to $100. But that committee had some leftover money from the previous inauguration and charged people up to $3,000 for inaugural tickets.
"We have the broadest fundraising restrictions in inaugural history," Douglas said.
The inauguration team is also posting all donations of $200 or more on the Internet almost as quickly as they are coming in. The law only requires it to disclose the information 90 days after the actual swearing-in.
"The transparency of this inaugural fundraising effort is unprecedented as far as we can remember," Ritsch said. "We see that as a positive step and hope it's an indication that President Obama will use technology to make government more responsive and transparent to people."
That's all the play money. The bulk of cash will actually be spent on security and logistics.
In a letter to members of Congress, the governors of Maryland and Virginia, and the mayor of Washington said that their combined costs could exceed $75 million. That's on top of the $49 million the federal government is spending, again mostly for security.
"The historical significance of inaugurating the first African-American president of the United States alone makes the event unprecedented," they wrote. "Given its political significance, we expect that the event will be attended by hundreds, if not thousands, of elected U.S. government officials and foreign dignitaries. Turnout by the general public for the swearing-in ceremony alone is likely to exceed 2 million. Transportation officials estimate that roughly 10,000 charter buses will enter the District with approximately 500,000 riders alone, a number which nearly matches the city's population."
The emergency managers for the three jurisdictions said they expect this to be the most complex and challenging inaugural in history.
"The mass of attendees expected will challenge fire, law enforcement, emergency medical and mass transit capabilities," the governors and mayor wrote. "Moreover, the high volume of buses/traffic, weather factor and other threats will create additional demands."
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Obama prayer leader from group US linked to Hamas
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 17, 2009
WASHINGTON: A Muslim scholar chosen to speak at President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural prayer service Wednesday is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.
Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is one of many religious leaders scheduled to speak at the prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral.
Mattson has been the guest of honor at State Department dinners and has met with senior Pentagon officials during the Bush administration. She also spoke at a prayer service at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
But in 2007 and as recently as last July, federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking the Hartford, Conn.-based Islamic society to the group Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had "a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking" the group to Hamas and other radical groups.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, would not discuss the case or say whether the committee knew about it.
"She has a stellar reputation in the faith community," Douglass said Saturday night.
The existence of the court documents was first reported by Politico.
The Islamic Society of North America, which describes itself as "the nation's largest mainstream Muslim community-based organization," is fighting its inclusion on a list of coconspirators in the Dallas terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation. In court documents, the group says it does not condone terrorism.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
WASHINGTON: A Muslim scholar chosen to speak at President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural prayer service Wednesday is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.
Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is one of many religious leaders scheduled to speak at the prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral.
Mattson has been the guest of honor at State Department dinners and has met with senior Pentagon officials during the Bush administration. She also spoke at a prayer service at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
But in 2007 and as recently as last July, federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking the Hartford, Conn.-based Islamic society to the group Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had "a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking" the group to Hamas and other radical groups.
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, would not discuss the case or say whether the committee knew about it.
"She has a stellar reputation in the faith community," Douglass said Saturday night.
The existence of the court documents was first reported by Politico.
The Islamic Society of North America, which describes itself as "the nation's largest mainstream Muslim community-based organization," is fighting its inclusion on a list of coconspirators in the Dallas terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation. In court documents, the group says it does not condone terrorism.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Rick Warren praises Obama for inviting homosexual bishop
Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 1/16/2009
Rick Warren is applauding Barack Obama's decision to invite homosexual Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson to pray at an inauguration event next week in Washington, DC.
Christianity Today quotes a statement from Warren, who says "President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen." Warren's comment came in the wake of a controversy over Obama's decision to invite Warren to give the invocation prayer at the swearing-in ceremony at next Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration.
Robinson, who became the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop back in 2003, joined other homosexual activists and their supporters in condemning Obama for inviting Warren, saying "it was like a slap in the face."
Warren has received heavy criticism for openly supporting California's Proposition 8 last November, a voter intiative that amended the Golden State's constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.
Obama eventually gave into the pressure over Warren and has invited Robinson to give a prayer at another inaugural event next week.
Robinson has said he will not use the Bible when praying, and states "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer."
Rick Warren is applauding Barack Obama's decision to invite homosexual Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson to pray at an inauguration event next week in Washington, DC.
Christianity Today quotes a statement from Warren, who says "President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen." Warren's comment came in the wake of a controversy over Obama's decision to invite Warren to give the invocation prayer at the swearing-in ceremony at next Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration.
Robinson, who became the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop back in 2003, joined other homosexual activists and their supporters in condemning Obama for inviting Warren, saying "it was like a slap in the face."
Warren has received heavy criticism for openly supporting California's Proposition 8 last November, a voter intiative that amended the Golden State's constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.
Obama eventually gave into the pressure over Warren and has invited Robinson to give a prayer at another inaugural event next week.
Robinson has said he will not use the Bible when praying, and states "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer."
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Obama Says Recession Requires Scaling Back Promises (Update2)
By Edwin Chen
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.
“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”
Obama also said in the interview recorded yesterday that he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $350 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Obama takes office Jan. 20 and is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts. As part of his campaign to build support from lawmakers and the public, Obama has been speaking about the economy every day over the past week, warning of a deeper and more prolonged recession without government action.
Though some Democrats have resisted elements of Obama’s plan, recent economic data have helped him make his point. The Labor Department reported Jan. 9 that the U.S. lost almost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and that the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent in December, the highest level in almost 16 years. The losses were widespread, with manufacturers, builders, retailers and temporary-help agencies axing positions.
Indicators
“Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,” Obama said on ABC. The result is that all Americans will feel the effects of efforts to put the economy back on track, he said.
“Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” he said.
Companies including Boeing Co., the world’s second-largest commercial-plane maker, CSX Corp., the third- largest U.S. railroad, and General Dynamics Corp., the second-largest shipbuilder for the U.S. Navy, announced job cuts last week.
The Standard and Poor’s 500 Index has lost 37 percent in the past 12 months and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 33 percent.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, faced a similar predicament. In the face of a deepening budget deficit, Clinton during his transition scaled back his spending plans and abandoned a campaign pledge to enact a middle-class tax cut.
Report on Plan
Obama yesterday released a report by his economic advisers that forecasts his two-year stimulus proposal would generate as many as 4 million jobs, higher than his previous estimates, the biggest portion of them in construction, manufacturing and retail.
The plan would also result in the U.S. gross domestic product increasing by 3.7 percent more by the end of 2010 than it would without the stimulus, according to a study compiled by Obama’s economic advisers. The study gives a forecast based on a package of spending and tax cuts totaling “slightly over” the $775 billion that has been discussed by the transition team with members of Congress.
Even with the GDP improvement forecast in the report, the unemployment rate is forecast to be about 7 percent, according to its authors Christina Romer, the president-elect’s pick to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic policy director for Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
Construction Jobs
The single biggest job gains would be in construction, according to the report, with 678,000 created by the fourth quarter of 2010. Another 604,000 jobs would be created or saved in the retail sector and 408,000 in manufacturing.
Most of the jobs created by government spending on infrastructure, education, health and energy would come in 2010 and 2011 because of the time it would take to carry out programs in those areas, the report said.
The Congressional Budget Office forecast that the recession and government outlays for bailouts will push the budget deficit to at least $1.18 trillion this fiscal year. Obama said Jan. 6 that he expects similar shortfalls “for years to come.”
Some congressional Democrats have criticized the portion of the plan devoted to tax cuts, while Republicans have voiced concern about the size of the proposal and its effect on the deficit.
Bailout Plan
Part of the increase in the deficit estimate stems from the $700 billion financial market’s bailout plan approved by Congress last year.
Obama said that he is “disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded,” including insufficient oversight. He also said not enough has been done to help those facing home foreclosures.
Obama said he intends to “lay out very specifically” ways that he would spend the next $350 billion. “We can regain the confidence of both Congress and the American people that this is not just money that is being given to banks without any strings attached and nobody knows what happens, but rather that it is targeted very specifically at getting credit flowing again to businesses and families.”
He declined to say whether he wants President George W. Bush to request from Congress access to the second half of the money before Inauguration Day.
Among the campaign promises that may be delayed is his vow to quickly close the prison camp at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” Obama said, adding that he still plans to shut down the facility, used to detain enemy combatants suspected of being terrorists.
Foreign Policy
On foreign policy, Obama again declined to be drawn into a substantive discussion of the new violence between the Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Pressed on his silence on the issue, Obama said the escalating conflict “makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades.”
He said he is putting together a team that will ensure his administration is “immediately engaged” in the Middle East peace process right after he’s sworn in.
“The politics of it are hard. And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence wants to see a fair and just outcome.”
Obama said Iran “is going to be one of our biggest challenges,” and said some form of engagement with Tehran was “the place to start.”
While his administration will be willing to talk, there will have to be “clarity about what our bottom lines are,” he said, without giving details.
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.
“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”
Obama also said in the interview recorded yesterday that he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $350 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Obama takes office Jan. 20 and is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts. As part of his campaign to build support from lawmakers and the public, Obama has been speaking about the economy every day over the past week, warning of a deeper and more prolonged recession without government action.
Though some Democrats have resisted elements of Obama’s plan, recent economic data have helped him make his point. The Labor Department reported Jan. 9 that the U.S. lost almost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and that the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent in December, the highest level in almost 16 years. The losses were widespread, with manufacturers, builders, retailers and temporary-help agencies axing positions.
Indicators
“Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,” Obama said on ABC. The result is that all Americans will feel the effects of efforts to put the economy back on track, he said.
“Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” he said.
Companies including Boeing Co., the world’s second-largest commercial-plane maker, CSX Corp., the third- largest U.S. railroad, and General Dynamics Corp., the second-largest shipbuilder for the U.S. Navy, announced job cuts last week.
The Standard and Poor’s 500 Index has lost 37 percent in the past 12 months and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 33 percent.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, faced a similar predicament. In the face of a deepening budget deficit, Clinton during his transition scaled back his spending plans and abandoned a campaign pledge to enact a middle-class tax cut.
Report on Plan
Obama yesterday released a report by his economic advisers that forecasts his two-year stimulus proposal would generate as many as 4 million jobs, higher than his previous estimates, the biggest portion of them in construction, manufacturing and retail.
The plan would also result in the U.S. gross domestic product increasing by 3.7 percent more by the end of 2010 than it would without the stimulus, according to a study compiled by Obama’s economic advisers. The study gives a forecast based on a package of spending and tax cuts totaling “slightly over” the $775 billion that has been discussed by the transition team with members of Congress.
Even with the GDP improvement forecast in the report, the unemployment rate is forecast to be about 7 percent, according to its authors Christina Romer, the president-elect’s pick to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic policy director for Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
Construction Jobs
The single biggest job gains would be in construction, according to the report, with 678,000 created by the fourth quarter of 2010. Another 604,000 jobs would be created or saved in the retail sector and 408,000 in manufacturing.
Most of the jobs created by government spending on infrastructure, education, health and energy would come in 2010 and 2011 because of the time it would take to carry out programs in those areas, the report said.
The Congressional Budget Office forecast that the recession and government outlays for bailouts will push the budget deficit to at least $1.18 trillion this fiscal year. Obama said Jan. 6 that he expects similar shortfalls “for years to come.”
Some congressional Democrats have criticized the portion of the plan devoted to tax cuts, while Republicans have voiced concern about the size of the proposal and its effect on the deficit.
Bailout Plan
Part of the increase in the deficit estimate stems from the $700 billion financial market’s bailout plan approved by Congress last year.
Obama said that he is “disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded,” including insufficient oversight. He also said not enough has been done to help those facing home foreclosures.
Obama said he intends to “lay out very specifically” ways that he would spend the next $350 billion. “We can regain the confidence of both Congress and the American people that this is not just money that is being given to banks without any strings attached and nobody knows what happens, but rather that it is targeted very specifically at getting credit flowing again to businesses and families.”
He declined to say whether he wants President George W. Bush to request from Congress access to the second half of the money before Inauguration Day.
Among the campaign promises that may be delayed is his vow to quickly close the prison camp at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” Obama said, adding that he still plans to shut down the facility, used to detain enemy combatants suspected of being terrorists.
Foreign Policy
On foreign policy, Obama again declined to be drawn into a substantive discussion of the new violence between the Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Pressed on his silence on the issue, Obama said the escalating conflict “makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades.”
He said he is putting together a team that will ensure his administration is “immediately engaged” in the Middle East peace process right after he’s sworn in.
“The politics of it are hard. And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence wants to see a fair and just outcome.”
Obama said Iran “is going to be one of our biggest challenges,” and said some form of engagement with Tehran was “the place to start.”
While his administration will be willing to talk, there will have to be “clarity about what our bottom lines are,” he said, without giving details.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Obama to warn it may soon be too late to save economy
06:18 AM
President-elect Barack Obama this morning will warn that unless "dramatic action" is taken quickly, it may be too late to pull the economy out of a recession that could last for years.
His staff just released excerpts from a speech the president-elect is due to give at 11 a.m. ET. Among those excerpts:
• "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
"In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."
• "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy –- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."
• "It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
We're planning to live-blog the president-elect's speech, which he'll give at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Check back here at The Oval as 11 a.m. ET approaches.
Speaking of the economy and unemployment in particular, USA TODAY's Barbara Hagenbaugh and Sue Kirchhoff write this morning that some experts believe that employment news could get "truly gruesome" in coming months.
President-elect Barack Obama this morning will warn that unless "dramatic action" is taken quickly, it may be too late to pull the economy out of a recession that could last for years.
His staff just released excerpts from a speech the president-elect is due to give at 11 a.m. ET. Among those excerpts:
• "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
"In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."
• "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy –- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."
• "It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
We're planning to live-blog the president-elect's speech, which he'll give at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Check back here at The Oval as 11 a.m. ET approaches.
Speaking of the economy and unemployment in particular, USA TODAY's Barbara Hagenbaugh and Sue Kirchhoff write this morning that some experts believe that employment news could get "truly gruesome" in coming months.
Obama to warn it may soon be too late to save economy
06:18 AM
President-elect Barack Obama this morning will warn that unless "dramatic action" is taken quickly, it may be too late to pull the economy out of a recession that could last for years.
His staff just released excerpts from a speech the president-elect is due to give at 11 a.m. ET. Among those excerpts:
• "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
"In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."
• "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy –- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."
• "It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
We're planning to live-blog the president-elect's speech, which he'll give at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Check back here at The Oval as 11 a.m. ET approaches.
Speaking of the economy and unemployment in particular, USA TODAY's Barbara Hagenbaugh and Sue Kirchhoff write this morning that some experts believe that employment news could get "truly gruesome" in coming months.
President-elect Barack Obama this morning will warn that unless "dramatic action" is taken quickly, it may be too late to pull the economy out of a recession that could last for years.
His staff just released excerpts from a speech the president-elect is due to give at 11 a.m. ET. Among those excerpts:
• "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
"In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse."
• "There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy –- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."
• "It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
We're planning to live-blog the president-elect's speech, which he'll give at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Check back here at The Oval as 11 a.m. ET approaches.
Speaking of the economy and unemployment in particular, USA TODAY's Barbara Hagenbaugh and Sue Kirchhoff write this morning that some experts believe that employment news could get "truly gruesome" in coming months.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
2nd Amendment critics are 'ready to run wild'
Posted: January 06, 2009
10:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.
Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
"Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian.
"Remember – these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns.
Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles.
One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said.
The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment."
Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said.
"If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said.
John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition.
"A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes."
Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights."
Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."
According to Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows.
"This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote.
"America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate."
The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime.
"We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year."
"Holder’s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner. "While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N."
The Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted: January 06, 2009
10:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.
Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
"Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian.
"Remember – these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns.
Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles.
One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said.
The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment."
Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said.
"If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said.
John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition.
"A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes."
Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights."
Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."
According to Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows.
"This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote.
"America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate."
The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime.
"We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year."
"Holder’s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner. "While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N."
The Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'
Policy guru says global upheaval presents 'great opportunity'
Posted: January 06, 2009
9:07 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
WorldNetDaily
Henry Kissinger
According to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon, conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of "a New World Order."
Kissinger has long been an integral figure in U.S. foreign policy, holding positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Author of over a dozen books on foreign policy, Kissinger was also named by President Bush as the chairman of the Sept. 11 investigatory commission.
Kissinger made the remark in an interview with CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett at the New York Stock Exchange, after Burnett asked him what international conflict would define the Obama administration's foreign policy.
Read "Hope of the Wicked," where author Ted Flynn reveals the greatest deception in modern history – corporations, foundations and governments converging to bring about a New World Order.
"The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously," Kissinger responded. "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis."
The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government. The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used it in a 1989 speech.
"A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment," said Bush before a joint session of Congress. "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: A new era … in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."
The phrase "New World Order" causes alarm for many Americans, particularly those concerned about an international governing body trumping U.S. sovereignty or those that interpret biblical prophecy to foretell the establishment of a one-world government as key to the rise of the Antichrist. Conspiracy theorists, too, have latched on to the phrase, concerned that powerful financial or government figures are secretly plotting to rule the world.
Kissinger's ties to government and international powers – as well as his use of the phrase – have made him suspect in the eyes of many who are wary of what "new world order" might actually mean.
"There is a need for a new world order," Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, "I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system."
As WND reported, Kissinger was also part of last year's super-secret Bilderberg Group, an organization of powerful international elites, including government, business, academic and journalistic representatives, that has convened annually since 1954.
According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.
CNBC's Haines concluded the Kissinger interview by asking, "Are you confident about the people President-elect Obama has chosen to surround him?"
Kissinger replied, "He has appointed an extraordinarily able group of people in both the international and financial fields."
Posted: January 06, 2009
9:07 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
WorldNetDaily
Henry Kissinger
According to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon, conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of "a New World Order."
Kissinger has long been an integral figure in U.S. foreign policy, holding positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Author of over a dozen books on foreign policy, Kissinger was also named by President Bush as the chairman of the Sept. 11 investigatory commission.
Kissinger made the remark in an interview with CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett at the New York Stock Exchange, after Burnett asked him what international conflict would define the Obama administration's foreign policy.
Read "Hope of the Wicked," where author Ted Flynn reveals the greatest deception in modern history – corporations, foundations and governments converging to bring about a New World Order.
"The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously," Kissinger responded. "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis."
The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government. The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used it in a 1989 speech.
"A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment," said Bush before a joint session of Congress. "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: A new era … in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."
The phrase "New World Order" causes alarm for many Americans, particularly those concerned about an international governing body trumping U.S. sovereignty or those that interpret biblical prophecy to foretell the establishment of a one-world government as key to the rise of the Antichrist. Conspiracy theorists, too, have latched on to the phrase, concerned that powerful financial or government figures are secretly plotting to rule the world.
Kissinger's ties to government and international powers – as well as his use of the phrase – have made him suspect in the eyes of many who are wary of what "new world order" might actually mean.
"There is a need for a new world order," Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, "I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system."
As WND reported, Kissinger was also part of last year's super-secret Bilderberg Group, an organization of powerful international elites, including government, business, academic and journalistic representatives, that has convened annually since 1954.
According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.
CNBC's Haines concluded the Kissinger interview by asking, "Are you confident about the people President-elect Obama has chosen to surround him?"
Kissinger replied, "He has appointed an extraordinarily able group of people in both the international and financial fields."
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Illinois becomes a national punch line as government grinds to standstill
By Rick Pearson and Ray Long
Tribune reporters
January 4, 2009
The governor was arrested by the FBI and faces impeachment proceedings, his appointee to a U.S. Senate seat is in limbo and the state treasury is in shambles—a combination that has turned Illinois into a national punch line.
But who's laughing around here?
The state owes billions of dollars to day-care providers, hospitals and physicians treating the poor. Lawmakers have shelved ambitious agendas, such as fixing health care and reforming the state's method of financing public schools.
The tortuous saga of Gov. Rod Blagojevich has put Illinois government on hold.
"Absolutely, we're in a mess," state Rep. Frank Mautino (D-Spring Valley) said of the state of the state. "This is the reason that Barnum & Bailey has three rings. The Senate appointment is on one side, the federal prosecutors and the criminal charges are on the other, and those of us dealing with impeachment are in the center ring."
The focus of Illinois' political circus shifts to the legislature Sunday, with members of a special House panel considering Blagojevich's fate scheduled to begin drafting a report that could lead to a recommendation of articles of impeachment. The full House returns to Springfield on Wednesday for a possible vote on the panel's recommendation within days.
Top Illinois politicians say the acceleration toward impeachment symbolizes the realization that any attempts to move the state forward—such as dealing with a severe budget crisis and developing job-growing economic plans—cannot progress while Blagojevich is still in office.
"The recent events have taken an already dysfunctional state government and put it into a state of total paralysis," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), a frequent Blagojevich critic. "The facts are clear that even prior to his arrest, the trust level of the legislature in dealing with Gov. Blagojevich [was] at an unprecedented low. Now it's just unworkable."
A few months before Blagojevich's Dec. 9 arrest on allegations that he sought to use his office to enrich himself and his political fund, the governor's job approval rating was a dismal 13 percent. Now, despite proclaiming his innocence, Blagojevich's credibility is in tatters and his administration is unraveling from resignations. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has even revoked his access to classified security information. An already marginalized governor has become even more isolated.
"It will get worse if we continue to operate by inertia, and that's what we're doing right now," said Comptroller Dan Hynes. "We're moving forward with no direction, no agenda for change. We're just plodding along, and our revenues are collapsing."
The effects of a bloated state spending plan and the nation's economic downturn have been weighing upon the state's ability to pay its bills and social service providers for some time.
Blagojevich's calls for lawmakers to allow him to trim agency budgets went unheeded because they did not trust him. The same lawmakers once forced him to sign memorandums of understanding over the funding of pet projects because they felt they could not bank on his promises.
The spending plan for the budget year that ends in July was already carrying an ongoing $2.5 billion deficit and the sharp economic downturn could drive state revenues down an additional $3 billion, Hynes said."I don't know that we've hit rock bottom yet," Hynes said.
Pressure from providers of health-care services for the poor, their billings to the state backing up in an empty treasury, prompted the state to borrow $1.4 billion. But Blagojevich's questionable legal status and a recent bond-rating downgrade because of the state's poor fiscal health tacked $20 million onto the costs of the short-term borrowing that taxpayers will have to finance.
Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago) said the state has become so tardy in paying bills that programs for treating drug abusers and providing senior citizens with housing and medical care are being jeopardized. Turner said one social program in his district alone is owed $1 million.
"It's not fair that, on a national level, we're talking about a federal bailout of banks, the auto industry and the whole nine yards and nothing is being done to address the short-term concerns of those employers who work for these social service agencies," Turner said.
"As a result, we've got Illinois citizens who don't know if they can pay their gas bill and who also may be losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgage in a timely fashion."
Along with the state's financial mess, Blagojevich is a factor in how Illinois may fare as a new Congress prepares a massive federal stimulus package sought by President-elect Barack Obama. The program would rely heavily on public works spending in the states to create jobs and stir the economy.
The governor's appointment of former Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to fill Obama's U.S. Senate vacancy, challenging the national Democratic leadership, may hold negative implications for Illinois despite a home-state president, a current senator in high-ranking Democratic leadership in Dick Durbin, an incoming transportation secretary in retiring GOP Rep. Ray LaHood of Peoria and a bevy of top White House advisers who hail from Chicago.
"Our governor is a national laughingstock, and basically he just thumbed his nose at Washington with his Senate pick," Hynes said.
In the meantime, lawmakers see little reason to engage Blagojevich as the governor's administration teeters on the edge of collapse. Chief of staff John Harris was arrested the same day as the governor and has resigned. Other top advisers also have left.
"Even the most innocent of political negotiations involves a comfort level and being able to have discussions," Fritchey said. "But when people are worried that anybody they speak to associated with the governor may be subject to a wiretap, even the most innocent of discussions become difficult to have.
"And without the ability to communicate, how can you get anything done?"
Tribune reporters
January 4, 2009
The governor was arrested by the FBI and faces impeachment proceedings, his appointee to a U.S. Senate seat is in limbo and the state treasury is in shambles—a combination that has turned Illinois into a national punch line.
But who's laughing around here?
The state owes billions of dollars to day-care providers, hospitals and physicians treating the poor. Lawmakers have shelved ambitious agendas, such as fixing health care and reforming the state's method of financing public schools.
The tortuous saga of Gov. Rod Blagojevich has put Illinois government on hold.
"Absolutely, we're in a mess," state Rep. Frank Mautino (D-Spring Valley) said of the state of the state. "This is the reason that Barnum & Bailey has three rings. The Senate appointment is on one side, the federal prosecutors and the criminal charges are on the other, and those of us dealing with impeachment are in the center ring."
The focus of Illinois' political circus shifts to the legislature Sunday, with members of a special House panel considering Blagojevich's fate scheduled to begin drafting a report that could lead to a recommendation of articles of impeachment. The full House returns to Springfield on Wednesday for a possible vote on the panel's recommendation within days.
Top Illinois politicians say the acceleration toward impeachment symbolizes the realization that any attempts to move the state forward—such as dealing with a severe budget crisis and developing job-growing economic plans—cannot progress while Blagojevich is still in office.
"The recent events have taken an already dysfunctional state government and put it into a state of total paralysis," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), a frequent Blagojevich critic. "The facts are clear that even prior to his arrest, the trust level of the legislature in dealing with Gov. Blagojevich [was] at an unprecedented low. Now it's just unworkable."
A few months before Blagojevich's Dec. 9 arrest on allegations that he sought to use his office to enrich himself and his political fund, the governor's job approval rating was a dismal 13 percent. Now, despite proclaiming his innocence, Blagojevich's credibility is in tatters and his administration is unraveling from resignations. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has even revoked his access to classified security information. An already marginalized governor has become even more isolated.
"It will get worse if we continue to operate by inertia, and that's what we're doing right now," said Comptroller Dan Hynes. "We're moving forward with no direction, no agenda for change. We're just plodding along, and our revenues are collapsing."
The effects of a bloated state spending plan and the nation's economic downturn have been weighing upon the state's ability to pay its bills and social service providers for some time.
Blagojevich's calls for lawmakers to allow him to trim agency budgets went unheeded because they did not trust him. The same lawmakers once forced him to sign memorandums of understanding over the funding of pet projects because they felt they could not bank on his promises.
The spending plan for the budget year that ends in July was already carrying an ongoing $2.5 billion deficit and the sharp economic downturn could drive state revenues down an additional $3 billion, Hynes said."I don't know that we've hit rock bottom yet," Hynes said.
Pressure from providers of health-care services for the poor, their billings to the state backing up in an empty treasury, prompted the state to borrow $1.4 billion. But Blagojevich's questionable legal status and a recent bond-rating downgrade because of the state's poor fiscal health tacked $20 million onto the costs of the short-term borrowing that taxpayers will have to finance.
Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago) said the state has become so tardy in paying bills that programs for treating drug abusers and providing senior citizens with housing and medical care are being jeopardized. Turner said one social program in his district alone is owed $1 million.
"It's not fair that, on a national level, we're talking about a federal bailout of banks, the auto industry and the whole nine yards and nothing is being done to address the short-term concerns of those employers who work for these social service agencies," Turner said.
"As a result, we've got Illinois citizens who don't know if they can pay their gas bill and who also may be losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgage in a timely fashion."
Along with the state's financial mess, Blagojevich is a factor in how Illinois may fare as a new Congress prepares a massive federal stimulus package sought by President-elect Barack Obama. The program would rely heavily on public works spending in the states to create jobs and stir the economy.
The governor's appointment of former Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to fill Obama's U.S. Senate vacancy, challenging the national Democratic leadership, may hold negative implications for Illinois despite a home-state president, a current senator in high-ranking Democratic leadership in Dick Durbin, an incoming transportation secretary in retiring GOP Rep. Ray LaHood of Peoria and a bevy of top White House advisers who hail from Chicago.
"Our governor is a national laughingstock, and basically he just thumbed his nose at Washington with his Senate pick," Hynes said.
In the meantime, lawmakers see little reason to engage Blagojevich as the governor's administration teeters on the edge of collapse. Chief of staff John Harris was arrested the same day as the governor and has resigned. Other top advisers also have left.
"Even the most innocent of political negotiations involves a comfort level and being able to have discussions," Fritchey said. "But when people are worried that anybody they speak to associated with the governor may be subject to a wiretap, even the most innocent of discussions become difficult to have.
"And without the ability to communicate, how can you get anything done?"
Monday, December 22, 2008
Democrats Try to Lower Expectations
By NAFTALI BENDAVID
WASHINGTON -- Even as they depict a massive stimulus package as indispensable to turning the economy around, U.S. Democratic leaders are aggressively lowering expectations that the package will yield dramatic accomplishments quickly.
Rep. David Obey, who is playing a key role in assembling the stimulus plan, which is expected to approach $800 billion, said recently that an infusion of federal spending is "the only game in town." But the Wisconsin Democrat, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was careful to add: "The downward momentum appears too strong to end the recession anytime soon."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office said recently that "Congress needs to pass an economic recovery package to prevent any further decline in the economy" -- but cautioned, "recovery will not be immediate."
The expectations game is always tricky in politics. To win power, candidates promise to enact sweeping change. But once victory is in hand, they often scramble to lower those expectations so they won't be perceived as falling short.
Democrats are facing an especially precarious version of that dilemma. In crafting a package that will sink hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the economy, they are apprehensive about the fallout if the economy merely continues sputtering along for several years.
And lawmakers are already mindful of how they will face voters less than two years from now. The ruling party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and that trend could be exacerbated for the Democrats if voters think they threw billions of dollars at the economy with little to show for it.
"Elections are run in two-year cycles, and we're in an economic cycle that we can't turn around in two years," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.). "It's a political problem. But I don't know that there is a way out of it."
President-elect Barack Obama, asked how voters will be able to judge whether his economic package is helping, said it would create at least some jobs immediately by funding "shovel ready" construction projects. The Democrats could also get credit if they produce concrete results in areas such as providing mortgage relief or extending unemployment benefits.
Still, the political challenge is daunting, given that economists expect this recession to last for years. "The stimulus package will keep it from getting as bad as it would otherwise be, but that is very hard to measure," said Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, who addressed House Democrats recently. "All you can say is, 'It's probably not as bad as it would have been.' But that is very hard to prove."
That is why Democrats are trying to lower expectations now. "The only way to deal with it is to be upfront and say, 'It's not salvation. It will limit the damage. What's been built up for years won't be solved overnight,' " Rep. Nadler said.
Congressional leaders, conferring with Mr. Obama's team, are pushing to have the stimulus plan ready by early January. They hope the new Congress will pass it by Jan. 20 so Mr. Obama can sign it quickly.
One aspect of the Democrats' strategy is to stress that the recession was the Bush administration's fault, not theirs. "President Bush will leave behind a legacy of debt, transforming the biggest surpluses in history into the biggest deficits and affecting our ability to confront the current economic crisis," Rep. Hoyer's office said recently.
Democrats also have begun speaking of the long term, emphasizing that their goal isn't merely to end the downturn but also to change society and strengthen the economy for generations.
That may be a difficult point to make politically. But Democrats hope that voters understand the severity of this recession and don't expect them to work miracles immediately.
They take some hope in that regard from the performance of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to whom they are increasingly looking as a role model. Mr. Roosevelt didn't rapidly end the Great Depression, but voters supported him because he seemed to care so deeply, taking aggressive action and trying everything at his disposal.
"I think people know this is a serious recession, and they don't expect it to turn it around quickly," Ms. Rivlin said. The Democrats "don't have to produce a turnaround. But they have to produce action."
WASHINGTON -- Even as they depict a massive stimulus package as indispensable to turning the economy around, U.S. Democratic leaders are aggressively lowering expectations that the package will yield dramatic accomplishments quickly.
Rep. David Obey, who is playing a key role in assembling the stimulus plan, which is expected to approach $800 billion, said recently that an infusion of federal spending is "the only game in town." But the Wisconsin Democrat, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was careful to add: "The downward momentum appears too strong to end the recession anytime soon."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office said recently that "Congress needs to pass an economic recovery package to prevent any further decline in the economy" -- but cautioned, "recovery will not be immediate."
The expectations game is always tricky in politics. To win power, candidates promise to enact sweeping change. But once victory is in hand, they often scramble to lower those expectations so they won't be perceived as falling short.
Democrats are facing an especially precarious version of that dilemma. In crafting a package that will sink hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the economy, they are apprehensive about the fallout if the economy merely continues sputtering along for several years.
And lawmakers are already mindful of how they will face voters less than two years from now. The ruling party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and that trend could be exacerbated for the Democrats if voters think they threw billions of dollars at the economy with little to show for it.
"Elections are run in two-year cycles, and we're in an economic cycle that we can't turn around in two years," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.). "It's a political problem. But I don't know that there is a way out of it."
President-elect Barack Obama, asked how voters will be able to judge whether his economic package is helping, said it would create at least some jobs immediately by funding "shovel ready" construction projects. The Democrats could also get credit if they produce concrete results in areas such as providing mortgage relief or extending unemployment benefits.
Still, the political challenge is daunting, given that economists expect this recession to last for years. "The stimulus package will keep it from getting as bad as it would otherwise be, but that is very hard to measure," said Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, who addressed House Democrats recently. "All you can say is, 'It's probably not as bad as it would have been.' But that is very hard to prove."
That is why Democrats are trying to lower expectations now. "The only way to deal with it is to be upfront and say, 'It's not salvation. It will limit the damage. What's been built up for years won't be solved overnight,' " Rep. Nadler said.
Congressional leaders, conferring with Mr. Obama's team, are pushing to have the stimulus plan ready by early January. They hope the new Congress will pass it by Jan. 20 so Mr. Obama can sign it quickly.
One aspect of the Democrats' strategy is to stress that the recession was the Bush administration's fault, not theirs. "President Bush will leave behind a legacy of debt, transforming the biggest surpluses in history into the biggest deficits and affecting our ability to confront the current economic crisis," Rep. Hoyer's office said recently.
Democrats also have begun speaking of the long term, emphasizing that their goal isn't merely to end the downturn but also to change society and strengthen the economy for generations.
That may be a difficult point to make politically. But Democrats hope that voters understand the severity of this recession and don't expect them to work miracles immediately.
They take some hope in that regard from the performance of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to whom they are increasingly looking as a role model. Mr. Roosevelt didn't rapidly end the Great Depression, but voters supported him because he seemed to care so deeply, taking aggressive action and trying everything at his disposal.
"I think people know this is a serious recession, and they don't expect it to turn it around quickly," Ms. Rivlin said. The Democrats "don't have to produce a turnaround. But they have to produce action."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Obama says he won't second guess Federal Reserve
Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:11pm GMT
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Tuesday it is not good policy for a president or president-elect to second guess the Federal Reserve, although he said the central bank's traditional tools for fighting recession were "running out".
"I don't think its good policy for the president or president-elect to second guess the Fed," Obama told a news conference in Chicago where he announced his nominee for education secretary.
"We are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession, which is to lower interest rates. They are getting to be about as low as they can get ... it is critical that the other branches of government step up and that's why the economic recovery plan is so absolutely crucial."
-it's not good policy if the Fed is actually running the government. It seems that it should be the duty of the President or President-elect to to question the actions of the private company that sets the money policy for our country. Maybe the government is there to implement the policies of large corporations.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Tuesday it is not good policy for a president or president-elect to second guess the Federal Reserve, although he said the central bank's traditional tools for fighting recession were "running out".
"I don't think its good policy for the president or president-elect to second guess the Fed," Obama told a news conference in Chicago where he announced his nominee for education secretary.
"We are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession, which is to lower interest rates. They are getting to be about as low as they can get ... it is critical that the other branches of government step up and that's why the economic recovery plan is so absolutely crucial."
-it's not good policy if the Fed is actually running the government. It seems that it should be the duty of the President or President-elect to to question the actions of the private company that sets the money policy for our country. Maybe the government is there to implement the policies of large corporations.
Smiley-Face Fascism ethics
Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism is an eye-opener. We’ve been taught that fascism is a foreign-born ideology that spawned the political aspirations of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. In reality, fascism has had a long history in America. The political philosophies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are textbook examples of fascism. Do you find this hard to take? Here’s what Goldberg says on the subject:
Wilson revered [Otto von] Bismarck as much as Teddy Roosevelt or any of the other progressives did. . . . Bismarck’s motive was to forestall demands for more democracy by giving people the sort of thing they might ask for at the polls. His top-down socialism was a Machiavellian masterstroke because it made the middle class dependent upon the state. The middle class took away from this the lesson that enlightened government was not the product of democracy but an alternative. . . . As Wilson put it, the essence of progressivism was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.”
The type of fascism that was being promoted by these early American “Progressives” is what we might call today “smiley-face-fascism” in that there are no jack-booted troops marching through the streets or calls for the suspension of habeas corpus. Bismarck’s social policies are very much like our own and those of anther fascist.
William L. Shirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, writes that Bismarck’s policies gradually made the German people “value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector.”
Between 1883 and 1889 Bismark put through a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries at the time. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though it was organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. Sound familiar?
Hitler took full advantage of the German state of mind and Bismarck’s early progress in turning the nation into a model of socialist reform. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, “I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation in its intention, struggle and success.”
It was Hitler’s social security policies and promises that got him elected to office.
Hitler was not alone in his admiration of Bismarck and what he was able to accomplish. FDR borrowed Bismarck’s socialist agenda and created what is now known as the Social Security System. Bismarck said that “the State must take the matter in hand, since the State can most easily supply the requisite funds. It must provide them not as alms but in fulfillment of the workers’ right to look to the State where their own good will can achieve nothing more.”
Roosevelt and his admirers agreed. P. J. O’Brien, writing in Forward with Roosevelt, links Bismarck’s social policies with those of Roosevelt: “[The quotation by Bismarck] might have been lifted out of a speech by President Roosevelt in 1936, but the Iron Chancellor uttered it in 1871.”
Some people understood the implications of what Roosevelt was attempting to do. “Roosevelt was branded as an agent of the Reds [Communists] for voicing similar opinions.”
The State became the savior of the people, and the social policies of the New Deal became holy writ:
There’s a massive confusion at the core of our politics. Against all evidence, everyone expects government to guarantee economic growth and higher living standards. It can’t. Even the New Deal failed to pull the nation out of the Depression. World War II did that by boosting factory production. But the expectation of government as economic miracle worker is deeply entrenched, and politicians pander to it. For the past three decades, presidents have used the language of economics to rationalize deficits and, in the process, reward their supporters.
Wars, of course, are anomalies and should not be used as standards for economic policy. World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the war in Iraq have done much to hide the negative effects of government spending on the overall economy. Coupled with military spending, government social programs expanded beyond anything FDR could have imagined. Our nation, contrary to liberal social spenders, is not reaping the excesses of the ReaganBush years. We are reaping the whirlwind of the massive interventionism of New Deal liberalism that even Conservatives are afraid to criticize for fear of being thrown out of office
In Edward Bellamy’s widely read socialist fantasy novel Looking Backward, 2000–1887, a Rip Van Winkle character goes to sleep in the year 1887 and awakens in the year 2000 to discover a changed world. His twentyfirst century companions explain to him how the utopia that astonishes him emerged in the 1930s from the hell of the 1880s. “That utopia involved the promise of security ‘from cradle to grave’—the first use of the that phrase we have come across—as well as detailed government planning, including compulsory national service by all persons over an extended period.”
Bellamy’s fiction became much of the world’s reality in twentiethcentury socialism. Bellamy believed that “human nature is naturally good and people are ‘godlike in aspirations . . . with divinest impulses of tenderness and selfsacrifice.’ Therefore, once external conditions are made acceptable, the Ten Commandments become ‘wellnigh obsolete,’ bringing us a ‘second birth of the human race.’”
Bellamy managed to mix the perversions of socialism, secularism, and New Age philosophy into one impossible world.
Goldberg’s book is a real eye-opener. It’s depressing to read, but it’s a needed antidote to politicians—on the left and right—who are appealing to the State to save us. He warns us not to fall for the religionists who are nothing more than Bismarck with a clerical collar.
This article was posted: December 16th, 2008
Footnotes:
[1] Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (New York: Random House, 2007), 96.
[2] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 96, note.
[3] Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 96, note.
[4] Quoted in P. J. O'Brien, Forward with Roosevelt (Chicago: John C. Winston Co., 1936), 84.
[5] O'Brien, Forward with Roosevelt, 85.
[6] O’Brien, Forward with Roosevelt, 85.
[7] Robert J. Samuelson, “Rhetoric Over Reality,” Newsweek (March 1, 1993), 31.
[8] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), 93.
[9] Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway, [1983] 1989), 190.
Wilson revered [Otto von] Bismarck as much as Teddy Roosevelt or any of the other progressives did. . . . Bismarck’s motive was to forestall demands for more democracy by giving people the sort of thing they might ask for at the polls. His top-down socialism was a Machiavellian masterstroke because it made the middle class dependent upon the state. The middle class took away from this the lesson that enlightened government was not the product of democracy but an alternative. . . . As Wilson put it, the essence of progressivism was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.”
The type of fascism that was being promoted by these early American “Progressives” is what we might call today “smiley-face-fascism” in that there are no jack-booted troops marching through the streets or calls for the suspension of habeas corpus. Bismarck’s social policies are very much like our own and those of anther fascist.
William L. Shirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, writes that Bismarck’s policies gradually made the German people “value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector.”
Between 1883 and 1889 Bismark put through a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries at the time. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though it was organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. Sound familiar?
Hitler took full advantage of the German state of mind and Bismarck’s early progress in turning the nation into a model of socialist reform. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, “I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation in its intention, struggle and success.”
It was Hitler’s social security policies and promises that got him elected to office.
Hitler was not alone in his admiration of Bismarck and what he was able to accomplish. FDR borrowed Bismarck’s socialist agenda and created what is now known as the Social Security System. Bismarck said that “the State must take the matter in hand, since the State can most easily supply the requisite funds. It must provide them not as alms but in fulfillment of the workers’ right to look to the State where their own good will can achieve nothing more.”
Roosevelt and his admirers agreed. P. J. O’Brien, writing in Forward with Roosevelt, links Bismarck’s social policies with those of Roosevelt: “[The quotation by Bismarck] might have been lifted out of a speech by President Roosevelt in 1936, but the Iron Chancellor uttered it in 1871.”
Some people understood the implications of what Roosevelt was attempting to do. “Roosevelt was branded as an agent of the Reds [Communists] for voicing similar opinions.”
The State became the savior of the people, and the social policies of the New Deal became holy writ:
There’s a massive confusion at the core of our politics. Against all evidence, everyone expects government to guarantee economic growth and higher living standards. It can’t. Even the New Deal failed to pull the nation out of the Depression. World War II did that by boosting factory production. But the expectation of government as economic miracle worker is deeply entrenched, and politicians pander to it. For the past three decades, presidents have used the language of economics to rationalize deficits and, in the process, reward their supporters.
Wars, of course, are anomalies and should not be used as standards for economic policy. World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the war in Iraq have done much to hide the negative effects of government spending on the overall economy. Coupled with military spending, government social programs expanded beyond anything FDR could have imagined. Our nation, contrary to liberal social spenders, is not reaping the excesses of the ReaganBush years. We are reaping the whirlwind of the massive interventionism of New Deal liberalism that even Conservatives are afraid to criticize for fear of being thrown out of office
In Edward Bellamy’s widely read socialist fantasy novel Looking Backward, 2000–1887, a Rip Van Winkle character goes to sleep in the year 1887 and awakens in the year 2000 to discover a changed world. His twentyfirst century companions explain to him how the utopia that astonishes him emerged in the 1930s from the hell of the 1880s. “That utopia involved the promise of security ‘from cradle to grave’—the first use of the that phrase we have come across—as well as detailed government planning, including compulsory national service by all persons over an extended period.”
Bellamy’s fiction became much of the world’s reality in twentiethcentury socialism. Bellamy believed that “human nature is naturally good and people are ‘godlike in aspirations . . . with divinest impulses of tenderness and selfsacrifice.’ Therefore, once external conditions are made acceptable, the Ten Commandments become ‘wellnigh obsolete,’ bringing us a ‘second birth of the human race.’”
Bellamy managed to mix the perversions of socialism, secularism, and New Age philosophy into one impossible world.
Goldberg’s book is a real eye-opener. It’s depressing to read, but it’s a needed antidote to politicians—on the left and right—who are appealing to the State to save us. He warns us not to fall for the religionists who are nothing more than Bismarck with a clerical collar.
This article was posted: December 16th, 2008
Footnotes:
[1] Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (New York: Random House, 2007), 96.
[2] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 96, note.
[3] Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 96, note.
[4] Quoted in P. J. O'Brien, Forward with Roosevelt (Chicago: John C. Winston Co., 1936), 84.
[5] O'Brien, Forward with Roosevelt, 85.
[6] O’Brien, Forward with Roosevelt, 85.
[7] Robert J. Samuelson, “Rhetoric Over Reality,” Newsweek (March 1, 1993), 31.
[8] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), 93.
[9] Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway, [1983] 1989), 190.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy
Dec 16 05:58 PM US/Eastern
US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.
"I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said.
But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country's economy.
"I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. I mean, this is -- we're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse."
At a G20 summit last month in Washington, Bush resisted some proposals for global financial regulation and argued free market principles still held true despite the global economic downturn.
And administration officials have also referred to the primacy of the free market when discussing a possible government bailout for the troubled US auto industry.
In the interview, Bush said that a "disorganized bankruptcy" of the carmakers could create "enormous" economic difficulties.
But the US president has yet to announce how his administration will proceed amid calls from Detroit automakers and Democrats for a bailout drawing on funds set aside for financial firms.
US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.
"I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said.
But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country's economy.
"I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. I mean, this is -- we're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse."
At a G20 summit last month in Washington, Bush resisted some proposals for global financial regulation and argued free market principles still held true despite the global economic downturn.
And administration officials have also referred to the primacy of the free market when discussing a possible government bailout for the troubled US auto industry.
In the interview, Bush said that a "disorganized bankruptcy" of the carmakers could create "enormous" economic difficulties.
But the US president has yet to announce how his administration will proceed amid calls from Detroit automakers and Democrats for a bailout drawing on funds set aside for financial firms.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Muslim plea to Obama:
Return to 'Islamic roots'
'Allah will reward you for all
who convert in your footsteps'
Posted: December 07, 2008
5:17 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Claiming Barack Obama has roots in the Islamic religion, an Egyptian cleric has broadcast a plea urging Obama to convert to Islam while warning if the U.S. doesn't withdraw its troops from the Middle East and provide aid to Muslims, those "eager for [death]" will attack America.
"My message to [Obama] is threefold," declares Egyptian cleric Hassan Abu Al-Ashbal, speaking last week on the state-funded Al Nas religious television network. "First, I invite him to convert to Islam. This is the call of the Prophet and of Allah. Oh, Obama – convert to Islam, and you will be saved."
Continues Ashbal, "I hope that Allah will reward you twice: once for converting to Islam, and another reward for all those who will convert in your footsteps. If you want glory, you will find it in Islam. If you want honor, you will find it in Islam. In religions other than Islam there is utter humiliation, even if you are the president of the entire world."
"You, Obama, are among those who have pledged before Allah – Allah who created you, sustained you, and brought you to this position – to be a Muslim who believes that Allah is the one God, especially since you have some kind of roots in Islam," declares Ashbal. "Convert to Islam, and you will be saved. All glory and honor lie in following Allah and his messenger, Muhammad. Know that the true religion is the religion of Islam, and all other religions are fabricated religions, which are null and void – religions that were abrogated by the shari'a of Muhammad."
The Egyptian cleric says if Obama refuses to convert to Islam, his administration should at the least "withdraw your huge armies and military bases from the lands of the Muslims."
"Know that all your predecessors have ended up in the garbage bin of history, and that America's black and bleak history in the land of the Muslims and the Arabs constitutes an evil omen for you, your predecessors, and your successors," Ashbal states.
Ashbal further warns there will be no peace "as long as a single Muslim child lacks food, drink, medicine, or housing," implying suicide bombers would strike American targets.
"If you refuse," Ashbal declares, "and insist on remaining in Muslim lands, know that Allah still plants in [Muslims] obedience to Him, and that they are willing to wait for paradise, which is closer than their own shoelaces. Know, Obama, that in the lands of Islam, there are people who seek death, and are eager for it, even more than you and your people are eager for life – any kind of life, even a life of humiliation."
Ashbal's remarks were captured, translated and transcribed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI.
Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'
Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. His presidential campaign website contained the statement, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.
Obama's campaign had several times wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith.
Commenting on a Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."
Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.
Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion.
After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.
Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."
Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.
The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim.
Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.
"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.
The Kaltim Post said Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.
"I remember that he studied mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.
Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.
Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."
"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house," Amir said. "If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny."
The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.
"We prayed, but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque," said Adi. "But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played."
Friday prayers
Obama's official campaign site contained a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page stated, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."
But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a "practicing Muslim" clarification to the Los Angeles Times.
An article in March by the Chicago Tribune apparently disputes Adi's statements to the L.A. paper. The Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama.
But the Tribune found Obama did attend mosque.
"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.
It quotes Obama's former neighbors and third-grade teacher recalling how the young Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article "cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim" actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.
In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.
The first few lines of the call to prayer state:
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet ...
Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family, including his father and his brother, Roy.
Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, Obama stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."
Still, Obama maintains he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.
"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the Times of London earlier this year.
'Allah will reward you for all
who convert in your footsteps'
Posted: December 07, 2008
5:17 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Claiming Barack Obama has roots in the Islamic religion, an Egyptian cleric has broadcast a plea urging Obama to convert to Islam while warning if the U.S. doesn't withdraw its troops from the Middle East and provide aid to Muslims, those "eager for [death]" will attack America.
"My message to [Obama] is threefold," declares Egyptian cleric Hassan Abu Al-Ashbal, speaking last week on the state-funded Al Nas religious television network. "First, I invite him to convert to Islam. This is the call of the Prophet and of Allah. Oh, Obama – convert to Islam, and you will be saved."
Continues Ashbal, "I hope that Allah will reward you twice: once for converting to Islam, and another reward for all those who will convert in your footsteps. If you want glory, you will find it in Islam. If you want honor, you will find it in Islam. In religions other than Islam there is utter humiliation, even if you are the president of the entire world."
"You, Obama, are among those who have pledged before Allah – Allah who created you, sustained you, and brought you to this position – to be a Muslim who believes that Allah is the one God, especially since you have some kind of roots in Islam," declares Ashbal. "Convert to Islam, and you will be saved. All glory and honor lie in following Allah and his messenger, Muhammad. Know that the true religion is the religion of Islam, and all other religions are fabricated religions, which are null and void – religions that were abrogated by the shari'a of Muhammad."
The Egyptian cleric says if Obama refuses to convert to Islam, his administration should at the least "withdraw your huge armies and military bases from the lands of the Muslims."
"Know that all your predecessors have ended up in the garbage bin of history, and that America's black and bleak history in the land of the Muslims and the Arabs constitutes an evil omen for you, your predecessors, and your successors," Ashbal states.
Ashbal further warns there will be no peace "as long as a single Muslim child lacks food, drink, medicine, or housing," implying suicide bombers would strike American targets.
"If you refuse," Ashbal declares, "and insist on remaining in Muslim lands, know that Allah still plants in [Muslims] obedience to Him, and that they are willing to wait for paradise, which is closer than their own shoelaces. Know, Obama, that in the lands of Islam, there are people who seek death, and are eager for it, even more than you and your people are eager for life – any kind of life, even a life of humiliation."
Ashbal's remarks were captured, translated and transcribed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI.
Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'
Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. His presidential campaign website contained the statement, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.
Obama's campaign had several times wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith.
Commenting on a Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."
Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.
Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion.
After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.
Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."
Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.
The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim.
Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.
"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.
The Kaltim Post said Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.
"I remember that he studied mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.
Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.
Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."
"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house," Amir said. "If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny."
The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.
"We prayed, but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque," said Adi. "But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played."
Friday prayers
Obama's official campaign site contained a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page stated, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."
But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a "practicing Muslim" clarification to the Los Angeles Times.
An article in March by the Chicago Tribune apparently disputes Adi's statements to the L.A. paper. The Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama.
But the Tribune found Obama did attend mosque.
"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.
It quotes Obama's former neighbors and third-grade teacher recalling how the young Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article "cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim" actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.
In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.
The first few lines of the call to prayer state:
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet ...
Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family, including his father and his brother, Roy.
Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, Obama stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."
Still, Obama maintains he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.
"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the Times of London earlier this year.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?
November 26, 2008
Tom Burghardt
[1] Dissident Voice
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
On November 17, U.S. Northern Command ([2] NORTHCOM) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command ([3] NORAD) concluded Vigilant Shield 09 (VS09), described in a [4] press release as a training exercise focused on “homeland defense and civil support.”
Launched by President Bush in 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NORTHCOM has been mired in controversy since its creation. Among its more dubious accomplishments were illegal domestic spying operations in conjunction with the Pentagon’s shadowy Counter Intelligence Field Activity unit (CIFA) that targeted antiwar activists.
Despite CIFA’s [5] shut-down and the alleged dismantling of its [6] TALON database (now incorporated into the FBI’s Guardian Threat Tracking System), SourceWatch [7] revealed that “in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements, the DoD will maintain a record copy of the collected data.” One can’t help but wonder whether that “record copy” of TALON somehow migrated into a NORTHCOM database.
But the NORTHCOM-CIFA liaison wasn’t the only episode of illegal military spying on Americans to come to light. In May, the San Diego Union-Tribune [8] reported that Marines, including a Colonel and the co-founder of the Los Angeles County Terrorist Early Warning Center, stole top secret intelligence files from Camp Pendleton’s Strategic Technical Operations Center.
Among the documents filched by the intelligence privateers were those marked “Top Secret, Special Compartmentalized Information,” the highest U.S. Government classification. The files included surveillance dossiers on the Muslim community and antiwar activists in Southern California.
Before being run to ground by investigators, the spy ring regularly received and disseminated secret files and surveillance reports transmitted by Lauren Martin, a Navy reservist who worked as an outsourced intelligence analyst at NORTHCOM headquarters in Colorado Springs. Martin was responsible for the region that included Southern California.
Details on VS09 are few and far-between. However, according to U.S. Northern Command News, VS09 “included scenarios to achieve exercise objectives within the maritime, aerospace, ballistic missile defense, cyber, consequence management, and counter terrorism situations.”
The training exercise ran concurrently with “other Department of Defense-sponsored and international exercises to more realistically test the synchronized response of federal, state, local and international mission partners in preparation for homeland defense, homeland security and civil support missions in the United States and abroad.”
A November 5 [9] press release described that the concurrent exercises included “U.S. Strategic Command GLOBAL LIGHTNING 09 and BULWARK DEFENDER 09; Canada Command DETERMINED DRAGON; California National Guard VIGILANT GUARD; and the State of California GOLDEN GUARDIAN.”
Global Lightning 09 is a plan to use nuclear weapons in the event of a surprise attack while Bulwark Defender was described by Matthew Rothschild in [10] The Progressive as the Pentagon’s “cyberspace protection outfit.”
California’s Vigilant Guard and [11] Golden Guardian were state-wide training exercises that concluded November 18 around planning for a catastrophic 7.8 magnitude earthquake along the San Andreas fault. If so, this would be an appropriate training venue for the California National Guard. Why then, fold disaster preparations into a planning scenario for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a “surprise attack”?
Described as a “Command Post Exercise (CPX),” many of the forces involved were “notional,” in other words, real units and their equipment “were not deployed from their home bases.”
However, the rapidly expanding role of the U.S. military in “domestic civil-support operations” and the breadth and scope of NORTHCOM “training exercises” are troubling, to say the least.
In September, Army Times [12] revealed that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) was deployed October 1, under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, “the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.”
As Army Times noted, the BCT’s “new mission” is the first time “an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”
Perhaps a disturbing harbinger of things to come, “military support” of “civil authorities” arises precisely during a period of extreme systemic crisis not seen since the Great Depression and points to the rapid expansion of an “emergency preparedness complex” as a discrete operational division of the U.S. National Security State.
National Exercise Program: “Emergency Preparedness” or Martial Law?
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a 46-page [13] report November 10, 2008 on the National Exercise Program (NEP). Entitled, “Homeland Emergency Preparedness and the National Exercise Program: Background, Policy Implications, and Issues for Congress,” the document outlines, among other concerns, the domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills such as VS09.
As CRS researchers point out, the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 ([14] E.O. 12656), “directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises.” E.O. 12656 defines a national security emergency as “as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” (CRS-4)
Additionally, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 ([15] HSPD-8) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, “in coordination with other appropriate federal departments and agencies” to “establish a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises that reinforces identified training standards, provides for evaluation of readiness, and supports the national preparedness goal.” CRS avers, “The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities.”
Indeed, Washington Technology [16] reported November 10, that the defense giant Northrop Grumman “will conduct a national preparedness drill for the Federal Emergency Management Agency next year under a two-year, $12 million contract.”
While $12 million is chump change in Washington, the Project on Government Oversight’s Federal Contractor Misconduct Database lists Northrop Grumman at [17] No. 3. With violations running the gamut, from procurement fraud, false claims, installation of substandard parts, violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, cost overruns, environmental damage–from illegal dumping of toxic waste to air pollution–the company has paid the federal government and private claimants some $465.4 million in fines and levies.
But that hasn’t stopped the federal government from doing a brisk business with Northrop Grumman!
The defense giant and their partners, security heavy-hitters [18] ICF International, [19] Battelle Memorial Institute, [20] Alutiiq LLC,[21] L-3 Communications, [22] Unitech and [23] Interface Media Group “will conduct and evaluate the 2009 Tier 1 National Level Exercise, which is the largest and most complex national disaster drill conducted by FEMA’s National Exercise Division,” the high-tech insider publication reported.
As CRS points out, “NLEs examine the preparation of the government and its officers and other officials to prevent, respond to, or recover from threatened or actual terrorist attacks, particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), major disasters, and other emergencies. NLEs address strategic- and policy- level objectives intended to challenge the national preparedness of the United States.” (CRS-12)
“Preparedness Guidance” materials and processes for these exercises are overseen by DHS and include the National Response Framework (NRF), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG).
One of the first NEPs was the 1999 Top Officials (TOPOFF) simulation exercises “to assess the nation’s crisis and consequence management capacity under extraordinary conditions.” TOPOFF exercises enabled high-level federal officials and relevant participants to “practice different courses of action, gain and maintain situational awareness, and assemble appropriate resources.” (CRS-7) Between May 2000 and October 2007, four TOPOFF exercises have been run in various locales simulating chemical, biological, pneumonic plague outbreak, as well as the detonation of an radiological dispersal device (”dirty bomb”) adjacent to a power plant.
As CRS reports, many aspects of federal executive branch planning for prevention and response to “terrorist attacks” are highly classified and that classified exercises “should be a logical component of the exercise scenario and aligned with exercise objectives.” What such “alignment” actually means is not specified by CRS.
As I noted in the examples cited above, VS09 and Golden Guardian, many NEPs run simultaneously, thus rendering the more dubious aspects of such “emergency planning exercises” opaque to citizen scrutiny, let alone democratic decision-making control over their breadth and scope.
For example, NLE 1-08 ran simultaneously with TOPOFF 4 as well as with DoD and Health and Human Services-based exercises. Under cover of NLE 2-08, as CRS documents, “two FEMA exercises, Eagle Horizon 08, designed to exercise the continuity of operations (COOP) capabilities of federal agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR), and Hurricane Prep 08, designed to test FEMA response to a hurricane, exercised under the same scenario. Both exercises incorporated some of the simulated intelligence materials established for three DOD conducted exercises held during NLE 2-08: Positive Response 08-2; Ardent Sentry 08; and Ultimate Caduceus 08.” (CRS-14)
Ardent Sentry, Positive Response and Ultimate Caduceus were training scenarios for a terrorist-related nuclear attack as were Global Lightning and Able Warrior. What pray tell, do such exercises have to do with preparations for hurricane relief? If the federal response to Hurricane Katrina are any indication, not much. What then are such exercises designed to simulate?
CRS reports that “During the NLE 2-08 planning process, DOD and DHS held joint planning conferences. Further, DOD provided some logistical support to the DHS Eagle Horizon continuity exercise, which based its exercise control cell and some evaluation components at DOD’s Joint Warfighting Center (JWFC). Both agencies anticipate future NLEs will be carried out according to timing specified in the NEP implementation plan, based on common exercise scenarios and coordinated response activities.” (CRS-14)
CRS investigators state there are “two principal areas where DOD would play a significant role in the overall response: Homeland defense operations and civil support operations.” The Department of Defense defines homeland defense as “The protection of United States sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression or other threats as directed by the President.” (CRS-15)
On the other hand, civil support is defined as “Department of Defense support to US civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities.” While CRS claims that civil support is strictly limited to supporting civil authorities “in their response to manmade and natural disasters” or “supporting public health,” the last clause, “maintaining civil order” should set alarm bells ringing.
DoD’s role during such emergencies are intended to focus “principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events.” DoD would play a “significant role” in the overall response. Such definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporatist partners in crime.
As Antifascist Calling has reported in numerous articles, Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning scenarios are intimately linked to top-secret Continuity of Government (COG) programs to be triggered by a “catastrophic event.” Such plans include contingencies for the implementation of martial law and the suspension of the Constitution by Executive Branch fiat.
The primary DoD entity responsible for “civil support,” as numerous researchers have averred is NORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. CRS asserts that NORTHCOM is prohibited by The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) from executing civilian laws and a police function. But as I [24] wrote in early October, “exercising sweeping emergency powers buried within Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs), unelected officials could suspend the Constitution, declare martial law and create an Executive Branch dictatorship that rests solely on the power of the U.S. military.”
This power will transfer automatically when Barack Obama is sworn in as President and Commander-in-Chief on January 20, 2009. Indeed, it would be a profound error if activists and concerned citizens fell into the trap of assuming that the potential for grave Executive Branch abuses were the exclusive domain of the outgoing Bush administration.
While the Oval Office décor may change, unaccountable Executive Branch power will remain an enduring feature of the repressive capitalist state.
DHS and NORTHCOM: Best Friends Forever
Earlier this year, NORAD and NORTHCOM participated in training exercises across the country, also in support of “civil authorities” in the event of a catastrophic attack or “natural disaster.”
Vibrant Response, another CPX, was conducted at Ft. Stewart, Georgia September 18 and included elements of the Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (”sea-smurfs”). The CCMRF would respond in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.
As I [25] reported in October, “two combat units from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Army Division and the elite 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade participated in mock drills designed to ‘coordinate with local governments and interagency organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency,’ according to a [26] report on U.S. Northern Command News.”
As a “subordinate command” under the control of U.S. Army North, the Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) provides command and control for the CCMRF unit.
In May, NORAD and NORTHCOM participated in National Level Exercise 2-08 (NLE 2-08) under the overall command of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to a [27] report by U.S. Northern Command News. NLE 2-08’s main focus “was to provide realistic training” for CCMRF personnel in response “to a simulated chemical attack on the Seattle waterfront followed by a similar simulated attack in Whatcom County, Wash.” Some 1,200 CCMRF personnel were deployed during the exercise.
But planning and consequence management in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack or natural disaster isn’t all that NORTHCOM’s up to. Indeed, back in April, U.S. Northern Command News [28] reported that both DHS and NORTHCOM are planning
…to refine their existing intelligence relationship, said the top DHS intelligence official during a recent visit to USNORTHCOM headquarters.
“We have a number of areas where we’ve already agreed that we will begin new initiatives together, where we will do joint projects together, where we will do intelligence analysis together, where we will work to understand what NORTHCOM is doing in exercises and training,” said Charles Allen, the DHS undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis.
The intelligence divisions of DHS and USNORTHCOM are “extraordinarily compatible,” Allen said, and the organizations have the same goals. (Sgt. 1st Class Gail Braymen, NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs, “USNORTHCOM, DHS refine relationship,” U.S. Northern Command News, April 10, 2008)
As I [29] reported last week, citing a leaked planning [30] document published by the global whistleblowing group [31] Wikileaks, intelligence and security agencies across the federal spectrum including the FBI, DHS, USSS, NGA and NORTHCOM conspired to squelch dissent during the Republican National Convention.
Apparently, this is what DHS Undersecretary Allen meant when he described how the intelligence arms of both organizations were “extraordinarily compatible.”
Allen told U.S. Northern Command News that strengthening the relationship between DHS and NORTHCOM intelligence “will promote more efficient and effective information sharing,” and that “the American public benefits because the intelligence community at the federal level is working together in new and different ways.”
As if the militarization of society and the destruction of our civil liberties were something we should embrace! How’s that for an Orwellian twist on the phrase “public benefit”? But as the philosopher Voltaire once quipped, “the history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime.”
And so it is as America breathlessly awaits the dawning of the new “change” regime.
Tom Burghardt
[1] Dissident Voice
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
On November 17, U.S. Northern Command ([2] NORTHCOM) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command ([3] NORAD) concluded Vigilant Shield 09 (VS09), described in a [4] press release as a training exercise focused on “homeland defense and civil support.”
Launched by President Bush in 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NORTHCOM has been mired in controversy since its creation. Among its more dubious accomplishments were illegal domestic spying operations in conjunction with the Pentagon’s shadowy Counter Intelligence Field Activity unit (CIFA) that targeted antiwar activists.
Despite CIFA’s [5] shut-down and the alleged dismantling of its [6] TALON database (now incorporated into the FBI’s Guardian Threat Tracking System), SourceWatch [7] revealed that “in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements, the DoD will maintain a record copy of the collected data.” One can’t help but wonder whether that “record copy” of TALON somehow migrated into a NORTHCOM database.
But the NORTHCOM-CIFA liaison wasn’t the only episode of illegal military spying on Americans to come to light. In May, the San Diego Union-Tribune [8] reported that Marines, including a Colonel and the co-founder of the Los Angeles County Terrorist Early Warning Center, stole top secret intelligence files from Camp Pendleton’s Strategic Technical Operations Center.
Among the documents filched by the intelligence privateers were those marked “Top Secret, Special Compartmentalized Information,” the highest U.S. Government classification. The files included surveillance dossiers on the Muslim community and antiwar activists in Southern California.
Before being run to ground by investigators, the spy ring regularly received and disseminated secret files and surveillance reports transmitted by Lauren Martin, a Navy reservist who worked as an outsourced intelligence analyst at NORTHCOM headquarters in Colorado Springs. Martin was responsible for the region that included Southern California.
Details on VS09 are few and far-between. However, according to U.S. Northern Command News, VS09 “included scenarios to achieve exercise objectives within the maritime, aerospace, ballistic missile defense, cyber, consequence management, and counter terrorism situations.”
The training exercise ran concurrently with “other Department of Defense-sponsored and international exercises to more realistically test the synchronized response of federal, state, local and international mission partners in preparation for homeland defense, homeland security and civil support missions in the United States and abroad.”
A November 5 [9] press release described that the concurrent exercises included “U.S. Strategic Command GLOBAL LIGHTNING 09 and BULWARK DEFENDER 09; Canada Command DETERMINED DRAGON; California National Guard VIGILANT GUARD; and the State of California GOLDEN GUARDIAN.”
Global Lightning 09 is a plan to use nuclear weapons in the event of a surprise attack while Bulwark Defender was described by Matthew Rothschild in [10] The Progressive as the Pentagon’s “cyberspace protection outfit.”
California’s Vigilant Guard and [11] Golden Guardian were state-wide training exercises that concluded November 18 around planning for a catastrophic 7.8 magnitude earthquake along the San Andreas fault. If so, this would be an appropriate training venue for the California National Guard. Why then, fold disaster preparations into a planning scenario for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a “surprise attack”?
Described as a “Command Post Exercise (CPX),” many of the forces involved were “notional,” in other words, real units and their equipment “were not deployed from their home bases.”
However, the rapidly expanding role of the U.S. military in “domestic civil-support operations” and the breadth and scope of NORTHCOM “training exercises” are troubling, to say the least.
In September, Army Times [12] revealed that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) was deployed October 1, under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, “the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.”
As Army Times noted, the BCT’s “new mission” is the first time “an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”
Perhaps a disturbing harbinger of things to come, “military support” of “civil authorities” arises precisely during a period of extreme systemic crisis not seen since the Great Depression and points to the rapid expansion of an “emergency preparedness complex” as a discrete operational division of the U.S. National Security State.
National Exercise Program: “Emergency Preparedness” or Martial Law?
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a 46-page [13] report November 10, 2008 on the National Exercise Program (NEP). Entitled, “Homeland Emergency Preparedness and the National Exercise Program: Background, Policy Implications, and Issues for Congress,” the document outlines, among other concerns, the domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills such as VS09.
As CRS researchers point out, the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 ([14] E.O. 12656), “directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises.” E.O. 12656 defines a national security emergency as “as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” (CRS-4)
Additionally, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 ([15] HSPD-8) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, “in coordination with other appropriate federal departments and agencies” to “establish a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises that reinforces identified training standards, provides for evaluation of readiness, and supports the national preparedness goal.” CRS avers, “The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities.”
Indeed, Washington Technology [16] reported November 10, that the defense giant Northrop Grumman “will conduct a national preparedness drill for the Federal Emergency Management Agency next year under a two-year, $12 million contract.”
While $12 million is chump change in Washington, the Project on Government Oversight’s Federal Contractor Misconduct Database lists Northrop Grumman at [17] No. 3. With violations running the gamut, from procurement fraud, false claims, installation of substandard parts, violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, cost overruns, environmental damage–from illegal dumping of toxic waste to air pollution–the company has paid the federal government and private claimants some $465.4 million in fines and levies.
But that hasn’t stopped the federal government from doing a brisk business with Northrop Grumman!
The defense giant and their partners, security heavy-hitters [18] ICF International, [19] Battelle Memorial Institute, [20] Alutiiq LLC,[21] L-3 Communications, [22] Unitech and [23] Interface Media Group “will conduct and evaluate the 2009 Tier 1 National Level Exercise, which is the largest and most complex national disaster drill conducted by FEMA’s National Exercise Division,” the high-tech insider publication reported.
As CRS points out, “NLEs examine the preparation of the government and its officers and other officials to prevent, respond to, or recover from threatened or actual terrorist attacks, particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), major disasters, and other emergencies. NLEs address strategic- and policy- level objectives intended to challenge the national preparedness of the United States.” (CRS-12)
“Preparedness Guidance” materials and processes for these exercises are overseen by DHS and include the National Response Framework (NRF), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG).
One of the first NEPs was the 1999 Top Officials (TOPOFF) simulation exercises “to assess the nation’s crisis and consequence management capacity under extraordinary conditions.” TOPOFF exercises enabled high-level federal officials and relevant participants to “practice different courses of action, gain and maintain situational awareness, and assemble appropriate resources.” (CRS-7) Between May 2000 and October 2007, four TOPOFF exercises have been run in various locales simulating chemical, biological, pneumonic plague outbreak, as well as the detonation of an radiological dispersal device (”dirty bomb”) adjacent to a power plant.
As CRS reports, many aspects of federal executive branch planning for prevention and response to “terrorist attacks” are highly classified and that classified exercises “should be a logical component of the exercise scenario and aligned with exercise objectives.” What such “alignment” actually means is not specified by CRS.
As I noted in the examples cited above, VS09 and Golden Guardian, many NEPs run simultaneously, thus rendering the more dubious aspects of such “emergency planning exercises” opaque to citizen scrutiny, let alone democratic decision-making control over their breadth and scope.
For example, NLE 1-08 ran simultaneously with TOPOFF 4 as well as with DoD and Health and Human Services-based exercises. Under cover of NLE 2-08, as CRS documents, “two FEMA exercises, Eagle Horizon 08, designed to exercise the continuity of operations (COOP) capabilities of federal agencies in the National Capital Region (NCR), and Hurricane Prep 08, designed to test FEMA response to a hurricane, exercised under the same scenario. Both exercises incorporated some of the simulated intelligence materials established for three DOD conducted exercises held during NLE 2-08: Positive Response 08-2; Ardent Sentry 08; and Ultimate Caduceus 08.” (CRS-14)
Ardent Sentry, Positive Response and Ultimate Caduceus were training scenarios for a terrorist-related nuclear attack as were Global Lightning and Able Warrior. What pray tell, do such exercises have to do with preparations for hurricane relief? If the federal response to Hurricane Katrina are any indication, not much. What then are such exercises designed to simulate?
CRS reports that “During the NLE 2-08 planning process, DOD and DHS held joint planning conferences. Further, DOD provided some logistical support to the DHS Eagle Horizon continuity exercise, which based its exercise control cell and some evaluation components at DOD’s Joint Warfighting Center (JWFC). Both agencies anticipate future NLEs will be carried out according to timing specified in the NEP implementation plan, based on common exercise scenarios and coordinated response activities.” (CRS-14)
CRS investigators state there are “two principal areas where DOD would play a significant role in the overall response: Homeland defense operations and civil support operations.” The Department of Defense defines homeland defense as “The protection of United States sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression or other threats as directed by the President.” (CRS-15)
On the other hand, civil support is defined as “Department of Defense support to US civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities.” While CRS claims that civil support is strictly limited to supporting civil authorities “in their response to manmade and natural disasters” or “supporting public health,” the last clause, “maintaining civil order” should set alarm bells ringing.
DoD’s role during such emergencies are intended to focus “principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events.” DoD would play a “significant role” in the overall response. Such definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporatist partners in crime.
As Antifascist Calling has reported in numerous articles, Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning scenarios are intimately linked to top-secret Continuity of Government (COG) programs to be triggered by a “catastrophic event.” Such plans include contingencies for the implementation of martial law and the suspension of the Constitution by Executive Branch fiat.
The primary DoD entity responsible for “civil support,” as numerous researchers have averred is NORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. CRS asserts that NORTHCOM is prohibited by The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) from executing civilian laws and a police function. But as I [24] wrote in early October, “exercising sweeping emergency powers buried within Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs), unelected officials could suspend the Constitution, declare martial law and create an Executive Branch dictatorship that rests solely on the power of the U.S. military.”
This power will transfer automatically when Barack Obama is sworn in as President and Commander-in-Chief on January 20, 2009. Indeed, it would be a profound error if activists and concerned citizens fell into the trap of assuming that the potential for grave Executive Branch abuses were the exclusive domain of the outgoing Bush administration.
While the Oval Office décor may change, unaccountable Executive Branch power will remain an enduring feature of the repressive capitalist state.
DHS and NORTHCOM: Best Friends Forever
Earlier this year, NORAD and NORTHCOM participated in training exercises across the country, also in support of “civil authorities” in the event of a catastrophic attack or “natural disaster.”
Vibrant Response, another CPX, was conducted at Ft. Stewart, Georgia September 18 and included elements of the Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (”sea-smurfs”). The CCMRF would respond in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.
As I [25] reported in October, “two combat units from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Army Division and the elite 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade participated in mock drills designed to ‘coordinate with local governments and interagency organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency,’ according to a [26] report on U.S. Northern Command News.”
As a “subordinate command” under the control of U.S. Army North, the Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) provides command and control for the CCMRF unit.
In May, NORAD and NORTHCOM participated in National Level Exercise 2-08 (NLE 2-08) under the overall command of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to a [27] report by U.S. Northern Command News. NLE 2-08’s main focus “was to provide realistic training” for CCMRF personnel in response “to a simulated chemical attack on the Seattle waterfront followed by a similar simulated attack in Whatcom County, Wash.” Some 1,200 CCMRF personnel were deployed during the exercise.
But planning and consequence management in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack or natural disaster isn’t all that NORTHCOM’s up to. Indeed, back in April, U.S. Northern Command News [28] reported that both DHS and NORTHCOM are planning
…to refine their existing intelligence relationship, said the top DHS intelligence official during a recent visit to USNORTHCOM headquarters.
“We have a number of areas where we’ve already agreed that we will begin new initiatives together, where we will do joint projects together, where we will do intelligence analysis together, where we will work to understand what NORTHCOM is doing in exercises and training,” said Charles Allen, the DHS undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis.
The intelligence divisions of DHS and USNORTHCOM are “extraordinarily compatible,” Allen said, and the organizations have the same goals. (Sgt. 1st Class Gail Braymen, NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs, “USNORTHCOM, DHS refine relationship,” U.S. Northern Command News, April 10, 2008)
As I [29] reported last week, citing a leaked planning [30] document published by the global whistleblowing group [31] Wikileaks, intelligence and security agencies across the federal spectrum including the FBI, DHS, USSS, NGA and NORTHCOM conspired to squelch dissent during the Republican National Convention.
Apparently, this is what DHS Undersecretary Allen meant when he described how the intelligence arms of both organizations were “extraordinarily compatible.”
Allen told U.S. Northern Command News that strengthening the relationship between DHS and NORTHCOM intelligence “will promote more efficient and effective information sharing,” and that “the American public benefits because the intelligence community at the federal level is working together in new and different ways.”
As if the militarization of society and the destruction of our civil liberties were something we should embrace! How’s that for an Orwellian twist on the phrase “public benefit”? But as the philosopher Voltaire once quipped, “the history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime.”
And so it is as America breathlessly awaits the dawning of the new “change” regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To my Blog!
Posts
All Comments
