February 17, 2011 12:14 pm

Hotair writes today, It’s not a total sellout of Israel — our agreement to the statement is contingent upon the Council dropping a formal anti-settlement resolution — but clearly, with Egypt precarious and other American pals suddenly wobbly, we’re going to see a lot more bet-hedging in the region by the White House going forward. We can’t afford to alienate our new “democratic allies,” after all.

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesday of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution on Friday, according to officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council.

Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key ally to stop its construction of new settlements. U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal.

The Palestinian delegation, along with Lebanon, the Security Council’s only Arab member state, asked the council’s president late Wednesday to schedule a meeting for Friday. But it remained unclear whether the Palestinian move today to reject the U.S. offer is simply a negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from Washington.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East. In exchange for scuttling the Palestinian resolution, the United States would support the council statement, consider supporting a U.N. Security Council visit to the Middle East, the first since 1979, and commit to supporting strong language criticizing Israel’s settlement policies in a future statement by the Middle East Quartet...

(CNN) -- America's illegal immigration problem is out of control. To change this, we must better protect our borders, particularly the Mexican border, and ensure that only citizens and those in our country legally can be hired for jobs.

Another change we must make is to stop babies born in this country to two illegal immigrant parents from automatically becoming U.S. citizens as they do now; this happens tens of thousands of times in the U.S. every year. This is just flat wrong, and it serves as a magnet to attract more and more adults into our country illegally.

I believe the policy of birthright citizenship is incompatible with both the text and the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which is why I recently introduced legislation so that a person born in the United States to illegal immigrants does not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) or an active member of the Armed Forces.

Closing this loophole will not prevent anyone from becoming a naturalized citizen. What it will do is ensure that he or she has to go through the same process as anyone else born of foreign national parents who wants to become an American citizen.

I don't believe that the 14th Amendment to our Constitution grants birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. In fact, all we have to do is use history as our guide. It reminds us that this amendment was specifically designed to address the horrible injustice of slavery -- not to grant citizenship to children of people living in our country illegally.

The language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that "[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power" would be recognized as citizens.

The 14th amendment does not say that all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens, but says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is critically important, though often ignored or misconstrued by proponents of birthright citizenship.

The original meaning of the phrase means not owing allegiance to another country, because it referred to the jurisdiction that a foreign government maintains over its citizens. This is why the Supreme Court held in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) that a Native American was not a citizen merely by reason of his birth within the United States, because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe and not the United States.

Native Americans and their children did not become U.S. citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Congress should make a similar determination that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not include the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S...

Published February 12, 2011

| FoxNews.com

By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Jacques Billeaud, Associated Press – Thu Feb 10, 8:13 pm ET

PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer sued the federal government Thursday for failing to control Arizona's border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws, and for sticking the state with huge costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

The lawsuit claims the federal government has failed to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. It seeks increased reimbursements and extra safeguards, such as additional border fences.

Brewer's court filing serves as a countersuit in the federal government's legal challenge to Arizona's new enforcement immigration law. The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to invalidate the law.

"Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer said as sign-carrying protesters yelled chants at her and at other champions of the immigration law.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment on the filing. But a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of policing the country's borders, called Brewer's lawsuit a meritless action and said Border Patrol staffing is higher than ever.

"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," spokesman Matthew Chandler said. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."

Brewer's lawsuit seeks a court order that would require the federal government to take extra steps to protect Arizona — such as more border fences — until the border is controlled. Brewer also asks for additional border agents and technology along the state's border with Mexico.

The governor isn't seeking a lump-sum award, but rather asks for policy changes in the way the federal government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants who are convicted of state crimes. Such changes would give the state more reimbursement.

Arizona's enforcement law was passed amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Its passage ignited protests over whether the law would lead to racial profiling, and prompted lawsuits by the Justice Department, civil rights groups and other opponents seeking to have it thrown out.

The law would have required police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers had reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally. That requirement was put on hold by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, along with a mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.

The judge, however, let other parts of the law take effect, such as a provision that bans people from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.

Brewer challenged Bolton's decision in an appeals court in San Francisco. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. Brewer's appeal is still pending.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, one of the lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, said Arizona bears staggering costs from illegal immigration, yet the federal government maintains the state is prevented from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Horne said Washington has failed to protect the state against an invasion by illegal immigrants.

"The word 'invasion' does not necessarily mean invasion of one country by another country," Horne said. "It can mean large numbers of illegal immigrants from various countries."

The governor's filing hammers on the issue of the state's unreimbursed costs for jailed illegal immigrants. Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who is now the Homeland Security secretary, regularly sent the Justice Department invoices seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.

The lawsuit doesn't say exactly how much reimbursement money the state is seeking. Instead, it asks the court to interpret the criteria on which the reimbursements are based, which the state believes will ensure it gets more funding.

Brewer's filing noted Arizona's latest annual reimbursement from the federal government totaled nearly $10 million and the state had to eat an additional $125 million...

http://www.cannabisc...on-Legalization

CANNABIS CULTURE – Academy Award-winning Hollywood icon Jack Nicholson criticized America's War on Drugs in a recent interview with a British newspaper, and said he still smokes marijuana.

"I don't tend to say this publicly, but we can see it's a curative thing," Nicholson told the UK's Daily Mail. "The narcotics industry is also enormous. It funds terrorism and – this is a huge problem in America – fuels the foreign gangs. More than 85 per cent of men incarcerated in America are on drug-related offences. It costs $40,000 a year for every prisoner.

"If they were really serious about the economy there would be a sensible discussion about legalisation."

The actor – who holds several Oscar records and is one of the most celebrated actors in the business – is (also) known as a notorious party animal and pot smoker, and has been quoted on the subject before.

"My point of view, while extremely cogent, is unpopular…", he is reported to have said. "That the repressive nature of the legalities vis-a-vis drugs are destroying the legal system and corrupting the police system.”

Nicholson broke into the movie business with drug-filled pictures like The Trip, and Easy Rider. Nicholson's Rider co-star Peter Fonda admitted, forty years after the film was made, that the actors had been smoking real marijuana while filming.

In the Mail article, Nicholson recounts his days of hard partying, but said, "There was always a discipline within my partying structure."

"I've woken up in trees, I’ve woken up almost hanging off cliffs, but I’ve always known how to sort myself out," he said.

The 73-year-old star said that although he still smokes pot, his days of using hard drugs and alcohol are over.

"The last three times I've been in New York filming, I didn't leave my hotel room for one single night. People won't believe that, but it's true. But you adjust your life to your circumstances, and I can spend a lot of time on my own. I think of myself as social, but my friends are always telling me, "'Jack, you need to get out more.'"

Dear Friends of Liberty,

Most of you have probably noticed that Friends of Liberty has been inxplicably inaccessible for the past 24 hours or so.

No errors. No warnings. Just not there.

Well, the good news is that the site wasn't brought down by nefarious hackers, mysterious black operatives, or even the hosting provider. The site remains as secure and reliable as ever. The fault for this breakdown is mine and mine alone. I, your humble webmaster, made some minor modifications to the site's configuration and the results were somewhat more spectacular than anticipated. Suffice to say that the law of unintended consequences came into play, and that the attempts to fix the initial error led to even further destruction, rapidly spiralling into a vortex of doom.

For this, I humbly apologize and would like to express my sincerest regrets for any distress you may have endured.

Sincerely,

Christopher Hunt, Webmaster

englishnews@chosun.com / Apr. 22, 2010 12:08 KST

Amidst escalating tensions between the two Koreas after the sinking of the Navy corvette Cheonan and the arrest of two North Korean would-be assassins, North Korean ships continue to frequent Sokcho Port on the east coast almost daily. Fishery products imported from North Korea amount to a monthly average of 700 tons.

North Korean ships began to come to Sokcho Port in June 2009. Until then, North Korean fishery goods arrived in the South on Chinese boats. Last year alone, 9,271 tons of fishery products worth W16.7 billion (US$1=W1,108) came into Sokcho from North Korea. From January to March this year, it was 2,520 tons worth W5.3 billion.

With the increase, North Korean ships arrive in Sokcho almost every day. Only four ships from North Korea came to Sokcho Port in June last year, but the number rose to 33 by December last year. In January there were 18, in February 32 and in March 61.

North Korean ships were granted right to freely use South Korean ports on the east coast under an inter-Korean agreement on sea transportation adopted in May 2004 and made effective in August 2005. Under the agreement, they are entitled to the same treatment as South Korean ships.  

A 3,232-ton North Korean cargo ship carrying clothes and electronics operates once a week between Incheon and Nampo. A 1,592-ton cargo ship with farm and fishery produce runs one to three times a month between Busan and Rajin. In Sokcho Port, around 10 200-ton North Korean ships come and go at any time.

Two 200-ton North Korean cargo ships unload 44.8 tons of scallops at Sokcho Port in Gangwon Province on Tuesday.

To import North Korean fishery produces, South Korean shippers sign a contract with the Dandong office of the National Economic Cooperation Federation, the North's official channel for inter-Korean business, and pay a deposit. North Korean ships need a permit from the Unification Ministry and are subject to strict scrutiny by the Navy and maritime police while in South Korean waters. The sea route does not run along the coast due to security reasons and crosses the Northern Limit Line 25 miles (46 km) east in the East Sea.

Right before a North Korean ship is about to leave, the shipper's gifts for the sailors are loaded. North Korean sailors prefer vegetable oil, beef, pork, instant noodles and strong liquor, which are difficult to get in North Korea. One shipping company staffer said, "Because North Korean sailors are not allowed to land on South Korean soil even if the ship docks in the port, we buy items and load them on to the ship for them." 

By Chosun Ilbo columnist Kim Dae-joong

Kim Dae-joong

After shelling Yeonpyeong Island and sinking the Navy corvette Cheonan, North Korea has now shifted its attitude and is calling for inter-Korean dialogue. China has long urged dialogue and the resumption of six-party nuclear talks, so it will naturally press for talks, and even the United States appears to be leaning toward dialogue. The Barack Obama administration, though still reluctant to go back to the six-party talks, will eventually opt for dialogue lest it should be dragged into a major war over a small island in the West Sea.

The South is once again being tricked by the North. In the past 20 years, the North has repeated the pattern of making gestures toward dialogue and reconciliation, rupturing negotiations by presenting unreasonable demands, creating tension with nuclear tests, shooting and terrorism, and making charm offensives to ease the tension. Now the financial and rice aid it enjoyed from the leftwing governments in the South over the last decade has been cut off by the Lee Myung-bak administration, Pyongyang wants to talk, perhaps because it feels that it has shaken the South to some extent with its military provocations and nuclear threats.
The North's most powerful weapon on such occasions is the nuclear threat. After displaying its uranium enrichment facility, the North is now trying to scare by threatening "nuclear strikes" in its New Year editorial. Be it six-party talks or inter-Korean dialogue, the key words have always been nuclear arms. The South promised "mutual prosperity" if the North denuclearizes, and the U.S. has pursued denuclearization on the peninsula as the goal of the six-party talks.

But few experts or politicians believe the North will actually abandon its nuclear program. They know that the North Korean regime believes the country would have no future if it gives up its nuclear weapons. In other words, the parties to the nuclear talks are operating on false premises, trotting out their goals out of habit without any belief that they can achieve them. Fully aware that the North won't denuclearize, they clamor for its denuclearization at every available occasion. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy and bad faith.

The way out of the hypocrisy trap is for South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons too. Only when Seoul develops a nuclear bomb will the way for substantive negotiations between the two Koreas open. Paradoxically, denuclearization is possible on the Korean Peninsula only when both Koreas have nuclear arms, exercise mutual restraint and conduct nuclear disarmament talks. We can no longer entrust our lives and territorial security to the incompetence of world powers that have failed to settle the North Korean nuclear issue for over two decades. We have to take charge, and to do that we need to develop nuclear weapons.   

The regions most exposed to the threat of war are the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East and Africa. Nuclear balance is maintained in the Mideast and Africa. But on the Korean Peninsula the North can make nuclear threats and the South trembles. Some say the U.S. nuclear umbrella plays its role, but having nuclear arms and relying on someone else’s nuclear protection are two very different things.

The chances are nil that Washington, which trembled at the artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island, would risk a war with China by deploying its nuclear umbrella when the North launches a nuclear attack. That is the limitation of the nuclear umbrella, and there lies the reason why Pyongyang will not give up its nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can be subject to negotiations, but a nuclear umbrella cannot.   

The South's nuclear arms would, strictly speaking, be neither offensive nor defensive. They would be there to enforce restraint, establish balance between the two Koreas, and ensure negotiations. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were able to negotiate about their nuclear weapons precisely because of what was called "mutually assured destruction." Without it, the negotiations would have failed.

Certain conditions should be set for South Korea's development of nuclear arms. First a deadline should be set for the six-party talks to achieve North Korea's denuclearization or establish at least a failsafe control mechanism. If they fail to meet it, the South will go ahead and develop its own nuclear weapons. And Seoul must proclaim to the world that it will voluntarily discard its nuclear development program when tensions on the peninsula end for good or reunification is achieved. It must make clear that it has no interest in acquiring nuclear arms for their own sake.

At a time when the whole world is helpless in the face of North Korea's nuclear weapons, South Korean leaders need the courage and wisdom to persuade the public and the world that the North will negotiate properly only when the South, too, develop nuclear weapons. Vigorous debate about acquiring our own nuclear arms is needed. They are the key to denuclearization of the peninsula.

By Chosun Ilbo columnist Kim Dae-joong

January 12, 2011

Jared Lee Loughner's mother Amy Loughner is a member of the SAME Reform synagogue as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords! That means that Amy's son, who lives with his Jewish parents, Amy and Randy Loughner, is ALSO a member of the same synagogue as his shooting victim, Rep. Giffords.

Why didn't we hear about this from our super-sleuth national media?

Instead we hear that a White man is the shooter. We hear that anti-Semitism is his motive.

His best friend, Bryce Tierney, who got a "farewell" voice message the night before the shootings tells us that his friend is Jewish. He tells us that Jared Loughner put Mein Kampf down as "favorite reading" to irritate his Jewish mother, Amy.

The story and the coverup of the story gets wilder. The Loughners and the Giffords were members of the same Congregation Chaverim. On the Congregation Chaverim website we learn that this Reform synagogue that was founded in 1973 has 140 families. That's a very small group. The Rabbi Stephanie Aaron surely knows every single family member of her congregation on a first name basis! That includes 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.

10 January 2011

“(Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.)”

[Peter Brimelow] @ 11:13 am [Email author] [Email this article]   [Print this article]

“(Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.)” A throwaway line in a long article in Mother Jones: Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman’s Grudge Against Giffords, by Nick Bauman, Jan. 10, 2010.

It will be interesting to see how quickly this meme travels. One of the Columbine shooters, Dylan Klebold, apparently had Jewish heritage, but most people only remember the early allegations of neo-Nazism.

SARTRE – January 9, 2011

The Daily Paul is the flagship site for all things Ron Paul. Their total number of visits since 1/21/2007 reported to be over 42,403,507. The Ron Paul Forum on Liberty Forest has over 27,290 members. Both services have a devoted and loyal following. Nevertheless, this core group of activists is not enough to drive a national campaign with a single purpose. ABOLISH the Federal Reserve.

A Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company, has the top two issues as Unemployment and jobs at 50% and the Federal deficit and spending at 25%. The jobs and deficit issue is a direct result of the criminal central banking system. A major component of excessive spending is interest. In FY2010, the Treasury Department spent $414 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. The reason for the decline in the purchasing power of the Dollar is inescapable. In order for Ron Paul to lead the crusade against the Fed, he needs a bodyguard of millions to save the American Dream. The life you save is really your own.

englishnews@chosun.com / Jan. 10, 2011 09:27 KST

The North Korean regime appears to be purging proteges of O Kuk-ryol, a vice chairman of the National Defense Commission who once headed the Workers Party's Operations Department, and leader Kim Jong il's brother-in-law Jang Song-taek, the director of the party's Administration Department and a sort of eminence grise in the North. The two wielded near-absolute power during Kim Jong-il's heyday but have kept at a respectful distance since Kim's son Jong-un was established as his heir.

A high-level North Korean source said that nearly 200 senior officials were executed or detained by the State Security Department in early December last year. They include many senior officials of trading companies under the military and the party, such as the head of Sogyong Trading Corporation under the party's Financial and Accounting Department; the head of "No. 54" Trading Company under the Ministry of People's Armed Forces; Pak Jong-su, the chief of a military-run coal trading company; the head of the general bureau of fuel oil; and Ri Jong-ho, the head of Taehung Trading Company.

Ri Chol-su, the head of the Taehung Trading Company's Wonsan branch and a protege of Jang's, jumped to his death during interrogation by the State Security Department on charges of illegally amassing of wealth and espionage. The matter was about to be closed after his suicide but instead it fueled a second-round of purges, with many others arrested on the strength of statements extracted under interrogation.

The purge was conducted with zeal by the senior deputy chief of the State Security Department U Dong-chuk, who discussed details of the plan with Kim father and son. 

Jang Song-taek (left) and O Kuk-ryol

Security officers reportedly descended on the homes of senior officials in the early morning and dug out vast stashes of dollars at many of them. Rumor has it that in one of the homes officers found US$1 million. Observers speculate the chances of survival for those arrested are slim.

Kim junior reportedly gave the order to arrest anybody at whose home more than $50,000 was found, saying, "Those who illegally amassed money at a time when the country is in difficulty are traitors."

The fact that most of them are close aides to Jang and O has fueled speculation that Kim Jong-un is specifically targeting the two men. As the most powerful representatives of the old guard, they are considered the biggest obstacles to his assuming control.

Currently, Kim junior is issuing instructions on behalf of his father who is suffering ill health, but the real power is concentrated on Jang. With his health deteriorating since before he collapsed with a stroke in 2008, Kim Jong-il has depended more on his family than the party Politburo to rule. When all work was paralyzed after his collapse, Jang temporarily took over power and was more or less in sole charge.

As a result, it seems that the regime has no choice but to get rid of Jang if it is to hand full power over to Kim Jong-un without a hitch.

A former senior North Korean official who defected to the South said, "Kim Jong-il may be trying to hand over power to his son quickly, but nothing is going on as intended."

He recalled that Kim Il-sung's younger brother Kim Yong-ju, who contributed to establishing Kim Jong-il to the succession, was the first to be purged. "Jang Song-taek knows the story all too well, so it's likely that the wily old fox made thorough preparations for this. He would never sit idly by and let it happen," he added.

This paints a picture of utter confusion in the North Korean regime amid Kim senior's poor health and the power succession.

Watching the tweet stream about the Giffords shooting in AZ. Over 50% of the tweets are related to the "Target Map" posted by Palin to her SarahPac website, which placed a crosshair reticle over various congressional districts; including Giffords'. The graphic has been removed, but screenshots are being circulated quickly. The Chicagoland mantra of "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is being followed to the letter.

Much is also being made about Jesse Kelly, the person who ran against (and almost defeated) Giffords in the recent election:

http://tinyurl.com/29cr2lm

Little is being said about the gunman, other than to say that he is in custody. They believe his name is Jared Lee Loughner; if so here's a YouTube channel from someone of that same name who lives in Tuscon:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

If actually the shooter, then he's clearly a very disturbed and delusional person.

My thoughts/predictions:

1. Whether she lives or dies from her injuries, Giffords will become the 21st century Jim Brady. Young, telegenic, she will make an ideal face of the anti-RKBA movement. Her previous stance on gun rights (she signing an Amicus curiae brief to support Heller) will not matter.

2. Reports are saying that a young child was killed. Brady Campaign will leverage this as well.

3. It remains to be seen how Giffords' husband will react. A navy pilot with combat experience in Desert Storm, one might conclude that he'd be pro-2A and not allow his wife to become a poster child for Brady Campaign. On the other hand his grief might drive him in another direction. It's hard to call this one.

4. If the shooter turns out to be Tea Party, or even once attended a TP event, the lamestream media will rehash this for months to come. Pro-RKBA members of the TP will be compared constantly to Jesse Kelly, and 2A/RKBA will become a third-rail for the TP.

5. There is possibly some light at the end of this tunnel. There are reports (sketchy) that the Giffords shooter was taken down by an armed citizen attending the Giffords event. If so; it will provide an interesting counterpoint to the story because the question of "how many MORE people might have died, had not the armed citizen been able to intervene?" can be asked. However in the end; the lamestream media will not take up this question and most people will be left with the notion that NO GUNS is better than MORE GUNS.

Best,

...dtw

The YouTube looks like a staged script.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4

UPDATE: This is allegedly Jared Loughner's You Tube Channel. He lists his favorite books as Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. There is no evidence of any Tea Party/Ron Paul/patriot movement affiliation, much to the disappointment of the Huffington Post.

UPDATE: A second man has been arrested in connection with the shooting, while a third man is also being sought.

UPDATE: Reports suggest that the gunman is a 22-year-old white male named Jared Loughner, an Arizona native.

UPDATE: Amidst a widespread assault on gun rights, we learn that the gunman was stopped after he was shot at by someone in the crowd exercising their second amendment.

UPDATE: Giffords father has told the New York Post that the entire Tea Party were enemies of his daughter, suggesting that a Tea Partier was behind the shooting. However, Giffords is a blue dog Democrat who is pro-border control and pro-second amendment - an unusual target for a tea partier.

Political hacks have wasted little time in exploiting the tragic shooting of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to demonize their political opposition despite the gunman's motivation being completely unknown at this time.

Huffington Post has already blamed the shooting on second amendment activists who held a meeting last year to discuss ways of politically defeating Giffords. They are also hyping speculation that a semi-automatic weapon was used.

Before it was even clear whether or not Giffords had survived, neo-lib statists were already shamelessly milking the shocking events for political gain. Our forum members also report that CNN's David Fitsimmons is using the shooting to demonize fringe politics.

More updates to this story as it develops.

Giffords was a strong border control advocate and the gunman could have been someone with a grudge against her immigration policies. Hwoever, she also supported Obamacare and visited the Copenhagen global warming summit, so the murders could also be blamed on a gright-wing radical h and used to demonize the patriot movement.

The gunman was tackled by onlookers and arrested by police. He is described as a young man in his teens or early 20s.

The man was young, mid-to-late 20s, white clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing and said nothing during the shooting or while being held down. He didn't look like a businessman, but more of a fringe character, reports Gawker.

Giffords is still alive and is now responding to commands, while other victims are in critical condition. Federal Judge John Roll has been confirmed dead.

Statement from Alex Jones: Whatever the motivation for this shooting, our hearts go out to the the Congresswoman's family and supporters. It is important to note that, the anti-2nd Amendment, victim disarmament crowd will undoubtedly try to use this event to demonize gun owners and further restrictive legislation. Mexico has a total gun ban, and the worst record for killed and kidnapped politicians and other high-level figures in the world. With more than 28,000 dead in Mexico from the drug war, it is clear that leaving guns only in the hands of the cartels and criminals will only make us all vulnerable.

Eyewitness report from man who helped to apprehend shooter, after shooting Giffords, the gunman opened fire indiscriminately for a few seconds, firing 20-30 rounds and hitting a number of people, including a kid no older than 10 years old. Rayle hid behind a concrete pole and pretended to be dead. When the gunman apparently ran out of ammunition he attempted to flee, but a member of Giffords staff tackled him. Rayle helped hold the gunman down while waiting for the sheriff to arrive, about 15-to-20 minutes later. The EMS came about 30 minutes later. Rayle said he was stunned by how long it took medical help to arrive.

Talk about a social media bubble!

Facebook has raised $500 million from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) and Russian investment firm Digital Sky Technologies, which implies that the social media darling is valued at a staggering $50 billion.

This reminds me of the valuations being assigned to Internet companies leading up to the "dot.bomb" crash. There's no way a company that relies on nothing more than bits of information – the vast majority of which are summarily ignored by the community that supposedly finds it so compelling – should have a valuation approaching The Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS), equal to The Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA), and greater than Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX).

Still, for the sake of argument, let's play along and suppose that the $500 million capital infusion is for real and that the $50 billion valuation it implies is correct. Then the question becomes: What does the transaction say about Goldman Sachs, which arranged the deal, and the regulators supposedly overseeing it?

Nothing good that's for sure.

The way I understand the deal is structured, Digital Sky is investing $50 million and Goldman is investing $450 million for a stake in Facebook that they plan to package and resell to investors. That makes Goldman a principal in the deal, which means in very plain terms that they can no longer claim any obligation to the investor (their customer) who bought the other side. It's important to keep that in mind.

Now let's move on to the valuation.

I wonder exactly what the Russians are getting for their money, because Facebook is still a private company, which means nothing it does is reportable. 

Reports suggest that some 1/12 of the world's population gathers together on the popular social networking site – which now ranks ahead of Google as the world's most-trafficked Web site – and that the collection of human data that's stored there makes Facebook the largest, self-fueled marketing database in human history.

That point is well taken.

But exactly what is Facebook going to do with all of that data? The presumption appears to be that Internet advertising is the "golden egg." Unfortunately, that theory's been dead – or at least passé – for years.

Even if there are products for sale, which to date is not the case, the backlash that's building about sharing sensitive information online could kill the company overnight – $50 billion or not. Then there's the fact that people are losing interest in the two-way drivel that at the end of the day becomes nothing more than another e-mail platform cloaked under the guise of "social media."

Sure, Facebook has a lot of people trolling through its site, but the important question is how do they monetize that traffic? In other words, they face the same old dilemma salesmen have faced since the beginning of time: How do you convert the "tire-kickers" into buyers.

Personally, I think the more interesting aspect to this transaction is Goldman's involvement. By helping raise $500 million, the firm is doing more than simply pocketing huge fees. Goldman is positioning itself for the eventual initial public offering (IPO), which this fund raising postpones – at least for the moment.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Goldman Sachs has a contractual right to be the manager of Facebook's IPO. If that proves to be the case, it would mean Goldman has effectively fronted Facebook $450 million for the privilege of orchestrating the company's forthcoming IPO – and then gotten its money back by selling its stake in the company off to high-end clients looking to get a piece of the social media giant. 

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

For the moment, Facebook remains a private company and does not have to discuss anything it does – such as the costs it incurs, the mounting complaints regarding personal data, or where it spends its money. Nor does Goldman have to disclose how it's profiting from the deal or acknowledge related trading positions it's establishing in the process.

Speaking of which, the other thing that catches my attention when it comes to this entire matter is that Goldman reportedly wants to create another of its "special investment vehicles" – one that would allow a select few additional investors to put as much as $1.5 billion into Facebook. That would mean more fees for Goldman, while also ensuring that it keeps its "investors" outside of the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) public disclosure rules.

Sound familiar?

It should, given that special investment vehicles and limited disclosure played a key role in creating the financial crisis that's still not over and from which Main Street is still reeling. Never mind the irony that – thanks to a taxpayer funded bailout – Wall Street bonuses are bigger than ever and that it's already back to business as usual.

All is not lost, though.

Several sources are now reporting that Facebook may already be over the 499-investor limit threshold that requires public disclosure. If this is true, Goldman and Facebook could both be dragged kicking and screaming into a hostile court of public opinion that will highlight just how stacked the deck is.

And speaking of stacked decks, let's talk about conflicts of interest for a minute. According to the one page investment profile Goldman sent to its wealthiest clients, "GS Group may at any time further reduce its exposure to its investment in Facebook without notice to the fund or investors in the fund."

If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

This clause would allow Goldman to hedge or trade against the very same clients it's now putting into the deal. That, in turn, means the firm can exit or burn the house down without warning!

Of course, I love the small print, which also states that the content of the offering "is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness." Maybe that's why there's another line near the very bottom that advises potential clients: "Do not contact Facebook."

Could you imagine investing your hard earned money into a prospective stock offering and agreeing not to talk to the issuer to do due diligence? What ever happened to the Prudent Man Test – or at the very least common sense?

Sadly, though, my guess is that Goldman will find a way to steer clear of the entire shooting match at all costs to avoid disclosing its business practices – the same way it paid a $550 million fine last year to settle charges of securities fraud related to mortgage investments.

Incidentally, the SEC was very proud of its pound of flesh and the $550 million penalty –apparently they didn't realize that Goldman booked more than $13 billion in the process.

Apparently, the pigs still wear lipstick and the regulators still haven't got a clue just who's running the show these days.

[Editor's Note: Money Morning's Keith Fitz-Gerald clearly understands Wall Street's tricks, and knows how to exploit them for profit. He also has an unrivaled understanding of global markets that stems from two decades' worth of boots-on-the-ground involvement with key markets. In his Geiger Index advisory service, Fitz-Gerald brings all of his experience and insights to bear for subscribers. His scorching track record speaks for itself. To learn more about Geiger, please click here.]

englishnews@chosun.com / Jan. 06, 2011 12:17 KST

Kathleen Stephens

WikiLeaks has put U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Kathleen Stephens in an awkward situation since among the thousands of diplomatic telegrams that have been divulged the number sent by her is especially large and the content very detailed.

Among those who find themselves in the hot seat with her are Chun Young-woo, the presidential secretary for foreign affairs and national security, who made comments about Chinese diplomats' perception of North Korea, and Hyundai Group chairwoman Hyun Jeong-eun, who talked about her meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Former Chinese ambassador to Seoul Cheng Yonghua has also ended up with egg on his face as a result of talking to Stephens over dinner, where he offered a frank evaluation of North Korea's botched currency reform. 

Many diplomats in Seoul are apparently now reluctant to meet her. One diplomatic source said, "It's true that the issue bothers me a bit when meeting her." Stephens told ruling Grand National Party members last month that she is under a lot of stress because of WikiLeaks but that people have been understanding.

Many feel that the envoy cannot be blamed since she was only doing her duty as a diplomat by reporting her conversations to her superiors. "The fact that Stephens' telegrams are long and detailed reflects how diligently she works as an ambassador," one diplomat said. "She shouldn't be disadvantaged by the leaked cables."

"It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

--Pentagon official

There is something deeply disturbing about the Air Force's official report on the Aug-29-30 "bent spear" incident that saw six nuclear warheads get mounted on six Advanced Cruise Missiles and improperly removed from a nuclear weapons storage bunker at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, then get improperly loaded on a B-52, and then get improperly flown to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana-a report that attributed the whole thing to a "mistake."

According to the Air Force report, some Air Force personnel mounted the warheads on the missiles (which are obsolete and slated for destruction), and another ground crew, allegedly not aware that the missiles were armed with nukes, moved them out and mounted them on a launch pylon on the B-52's wing for a flight to Barksdale and eventual dismantling. Only on the ground at Barksdale did ground crew personnel spot the nukes according to the report. (Six other missiles with dummy warheads were mounted on a pylon on the other wing of the plane.)

The problem with this explanation for the first reported case of nukes being removed from a weapons bunker without authorization in 50 years of nuclear weapons, is that those warheads, and all nuclear warheads in the US stockpile, are supposedly protected against unauthorized transport or removal from bunkers by electronic antitheft systems-automated alarms similar to those used by department stores to prevent theft, and even anti-motion sensors that go off if a weapon is touched or approached without authorization.

While the Air Force report doesn't mention any of this, what it means is that if weapons in a storage bunker are protected against unauthorized removal, someone-and actually at least two people, since it's long been a basic part of nuclear security that every action involving a nuclear weapon has to be done by two people working in tandem-had to deliberately and consciously disable those alarms.

Since the Air Force report does not explain how this hurdle to unauthorized removal of the six nukes could have been surmounted by "mistake," the report has to be considered a whitewash, at best, or a cover-up.

That leaves us speculating about what actually happened, and about who might have authorized the removal of those nukes from storage, and why the Defense Department would be covering up the true story. We know that the loading of nuclear-armed missiles or bombs onto an American bomber has been barred since 1991, even for practice and training purposes. We know also that the carrying of nuclear weapons by bombers flying over US airspace has been banned for 40 years. So if the evidence suggests strongly that the removal of the nukes from the bunker was done intentionally and with some kind of authorization from higher authorities, then the loading of nukes onto the plane, and the flight of those nukes to Barksdale have to also be assumed to have been authorized.

This possibility has been dismissed out of hand by the Air Force and Defense Department. The very idea is, in fact, not even discussed in the Air force report released in mid-October.

Yet we are left with the unresolved question of how the weapons could have been moved out of the bunker accidentally.

The Air Force has not been forthcoming about the automated alarm protections on American nuclear weapons, refusing to confirm or deny that they even exist. But we can know that they are in place for several reasons. One is that since writing about this incident in the current edition of ("The Mystery of Minot," Oct. 24, 2007 ed.) and in several online venues, I have been contacted by several active-duty and retired military people who have assured me that such electronic protections are in place. A second is that an article in the Oct. 31 issue of the New York Times</a>, reporting on the early completion of a project by the National Nuclear Security Administration, to secure Russian nuclear weapons, said that the measures implemented at 25 classified sites on 12 Russian nuclear bases included "measures that have long been part of American efforts" to secure nuclear weapons, and that these included "alarm and motion detection systems," as well as "modern gates, guard houses and fighting positions, " and also "detectors for explosives, radiation and metal."

Ask yourselves, would American nuclear weapons be equipped with lesser security systems than those that the NNSA is providing for Russian weapons?

Of course not!

And yet we're asked to believe that some low-ranking ground crew personnel at Minot AFB simply walked out of a nuclear weapons bunker with six nuclear armed Advanced Cruise Missiles, not knowing what they were carrying, and labored for eight hours to mount those missiles and their launch pylon on the wing of a B-52 strategic bomber without ever noticing that they were armed with nuclear weapons. We're asked to believe that none of those electronic alarms and motion sensors built into the system went off during that whole process.

When I mentioned the automated alarm and motion sensors to Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, a public affairs person at the Department of the Air Force, and asked her how the movement of the six nukes could have occurred without those alarms being disabled, she said, "It's an intriguing question, and it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

As it should.

So why isn't it making the hair stand up on the back of the necks of members of Congress?

Incredibly, to date, there has been no demand for public hearings into this frightening incident.

Congress appears ready and willing to accept the Air Force whitewash at face value: It was an accident. It won't happen again.

That is not good enough!

We need honest answers to some hard questions. Among them:

* Who disabled the alarm systems on those weapons and on the bunker itself?

* Who mounted six nuclear weapons on the noses of six cruise missiles and put those missiles onto a B-52 launch platform?

* Who authorized them to perform this operation?

* Who moved the armed weapons out of the Bunker at Minot AFB and mounted them on the wing of a B-52 bound for Barksdale AFB? (Barksdale, it should be noted, bills itself as the main staging base for B-52s being flown to the Middle East Theater.)

* Were the six missiles flyable? Were they fueled up and ready to fire, or were they not fueled at the time of the Minot-Barksdale flight?

* Was there targeting information in the missile's guidance computers and if so, what were those targets?

* What happened to the three military whistleblowers who blew the whistle on this incident and reported it to a journalist at the newspaper Military Times?

* Why hasn't the Air Force or the FBI investigated the 6-8 untimely deaths including three alleged suicides, one of a Minot weapons guard, one of an assistant defense secretary, and one of a captain in the super-secret Air Force Special Commando Group, as well as alleged fatal vehicle "accidents" involving four ground crew and B-52 pilots and crewmembers at Minot and Barksdale? Could any of this strange cluster of deaths have been related to the incident? The Air Force "investigation" didn't even mention these incidents, and my investigation, reported in the Oct. 24 issue of the magazine American Conservative, found that none of the police investigators or medical examiners in those incidents had even been contacted by Air Force or other federal investigators.

The Secretary of Defense appears to have been upset about this incident. Secretary Robert Gates ordered an unprecedented stand-down of all air bases in mid-September to check out and account for the entire nuclear inventory, and a general was dispatched immediately to Minot after the discovery of the wayward nukes on August 30 to investigate what had happened. Following a subsequent Air Force investigation, 70 people at Minot and Barksdale AFBs were removed from their posts and decertified from handling nuclear weapons, including five officers, one of them the Minot base commander.

* But a base commander does not have the authority to order nuclear weapons to be loaded on a plane and flown. So who issued that order and why has no one at a senior level in Washington been sacked?

There is speculation that the order may have come via an alternate chain of command.

Vice President Dick Cheney is known to be pressing within the administration for a war with Iran, to be launched before the end President Bush's second term of office. According to some reports, Cheney has even, on his own authority (or lack thereof), urged Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, in hopes that Iran might retaliate, thus drawing the US into a war.

Could the nation's war-mongering VP have used his neo-con contacts in the Defense Department or some of the Armageddon-believers in the Air Force to bypass the official chain of command and spring those nukes from their bunker?

Was there a plan to use one or more of those nukes-W80-1 warheads that can be calibrated to detonate with an explosive power ranging anywhere from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons-against Iran? The Advanced Cruise Missile, a stealth weapon almost impossible to spot on radar, is designed to be launched from a remote location by a B-52, and then to fly close to the ground to its target, using terrain maps and GPS guidance. It is also designed to penetrate hardened sites, such as Iran's nuclear processing and research facilities.

Or was there a plan for a so-called "false-flag incident, "where a small nuke-made to resemble a primitive weapon of the type a fledgling nuclear power might construct-might be detonated at a US target abroad, or even within the US?

These are terrible and terrifying questions to have to ask, but when you have six nuclear weapons go missing, when the military investigation into the incident is so clearly a whitewash or cover-up, and when you have a vice president who is openly pressing for an illegal war of aggression against a nation that poses no threat to the US, and who, in fact, appears to be conducting his own treacherous foreign policy behind the back of the president and the State Department, they are questions that must be asked, and that demand answers.

In a couple of weeks, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is planning on calling for a Privilege of the House vote in Congress on moving his Cheney impeachment bill (H Res. 333) to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, where it has been stalled by House Democratic leaders since being filed last April 24. Such a hearing should demand answers from the vice president and his staff about his treasonous efforts to push the country into yet another war in the Middle East. It should also grill Air Force personnel about the true nature of the Minot nuclear incident.

Every member of the House of Representatives should have to take a stand on this issue.

The Democratic House leadership, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, can be expected to try to table Kucinich's privilege motion, which would prevent such a vote.

Americans should demand that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders let Kucinich's privilege motion go forward, and should insist that every member of Congress put their position on the line. Every American should demand that their representative to Congress support the start of impeachment hearings on Vice President Cheney.

We need to know if the Vice President's office was behind the flight of those six warheads.

We need to know in what other treasonous, conspiratorial actions the Vice President has been engaged in his unremitting effort to expand the war from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment",
co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

englishnews@chosun.com / Jan. 06, 2011 08:50 KST

South Korea's special forces have dwindled to the point that they are outnumbered 10:1 by their North Korean counterparts, a military source said Wednesday.

The source said the South is trying to find a way of countering the 200,000-strong North Korean special forces "because we found a serious imbalance in their strength in the process of re-evaluating threats from the North" following the sinking of the Navy corvette Cheonan in March and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in November.

The North has increased special forces by 80,000 to 200,000 over the past four years. By contrast, the number of the South Korean special forces stands at fewer than 20,000.

Under a troop reduction plan during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, one of the Army's three Special Assault Commandos that are responsible for responding to North Korea's infiltration from the rear has already been disbanded.

Each commando has about 1,200 troops. Over the past years, the North has focused on boosting light infantry units capable of infiltrating rapidly into the South through the frontline area. The South should have reinforced these special elite units to deal with the threat but has instead reduced them. 

The Army's Special Warfare Command, whose main duties are to infiltrate into the rear area and destroy strategic targets in the North in an emergency, has about 10,000 troops.

South Korea's special forces units include the SACs, the SWC, the Navy UDT/SEAL, the Marine Corps' special search team, and the Air Force's combat controllers.

At least 1,000 SWC troops are always on standby for dispatch abroad and therefore exempt from basic duties.

Recognizing the seriousness of the matter, not only has the military been reviewing it, but a presidential defense committee has proposed boosting special forces. But no concrete plans have been presented yet.

"The times demand that we boost special forces to cope with new security threats such as terrorist threats, as well as threats from the North's special troops," a government source said. "Top military brass need to try harder to work out a response as soon as possible."

englishnews@chosun.com / Dec. 03, 2010 11:37 KST

Among senior North Korea officials whose defection to the South was revealed by the WikiLeaks cables is Sol Jong-sik, the first secretary of the Youth League in North Korea's Ryanggang Province. Sol (40) fled the North in June last year, it emerged on Thursday.

Another is the chief of an overseas mission in Northeast Asia, who defected in the second half of last year. And a former head of a North Korean corporation charged with earning hard currency for the regime has also defected to Seoul.

"Sol Jong-sik was one of the most prominent officials in their 30s and 40s who assumed key positions in Pyongyang and provincial regions after Kim Jong-un was designated as the heir apparent to the leadership last year,” a North Korean source said.

The Youth League is a key social organization with a nationwide network. Many of the league's senior members move on to key offices in the Workers Party. "Sol is interested in the outside world and likes South Korean TV dramas," the source said. "I understand he fled the North due to a problem caused by these propensities." A directory for North Korea's organizations published by the Unification Ministry in 2009 identifies Sol Jong-sik as the first secretary of the Youth League in Ryanggang Province. But in the 2010 edition the entry is blank.

The high-ranking diplomat in Northeast Asia "fled the North late last year and the head of the corporation in charge of earning hard currency traveled overseas to buy electrical materials and defected," another source said.

According to a U.S. diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks, then foreign minister Yu Myung-hwan told U.S. special envoy for North Korean human rights issues Robert King, who was visiting Seoul in January this year, "An unspecified number of high-ranking North Korean officials working overseas had recently defected." The situation in the North was becoming "increasingly chaotic," Yu added.

The National Intelligence Service refused to confirm the reports.

December 28, 2010 - rawstory.com
Virginian lawmakers will have a unique opportunity to end criminal penalties for simple possession of marijuana in their state when the 2011 Virginian General Assembly Session convenes on Wednesday, January 12.

Surprisingly enough, 80-year-old Republican Delegate Harvey Morgan, an assistant clinical professor of pharmacy at Virginia Commonwealth University, is leading the charge to decriminalize marijuana possession.

Legislation proposed by Morgan, known as House Bill 1443, would replace the criminal fine for possession with a civil penalty and eliminate the 30-day jail sentence and criminal record that would follow conviction.

The bill would not change penalties for the manufacture or distribution of marijuana. It would also continue to require drug screening and education for minors convicted of marijuana possession.

Morgan introduced a similar bill in January of 2010, but the legislation never made it out of committee in the 2010 General Assembly Session.

"The Commonwealth continues to punish people for mistakes made decades ago," Morgan said during a news conference in January. "We need to move to a more honest, reasoned, compassionate, and sensible drug policy, and this bill does that."

"In 2007, nearly 18,000 people were arrested in Virginia for simple possession of marijuana," he continued." This places a tremendous burden on law enforcement, prisons and the judicial system. In these times of economic hardship, we need to closely examine how our tax dollars are spent."

"When you consider that research indicates that variations in penalties—including jail time—have no discernible effect on the prevalence or frequency of marijuana use, making simple possession a civil rather than a criminal offense makes sense."

With seven bills introduced to the General Assembly to outlaw "synthetic marijuana" -- such as popular legal smoking blends like "Spice" and "K2" -- the Virginia chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORMAL) says that "a robust drug policy debate... is virtually guaranteed" in the 2011 Virginian General Assembly Session.

Virginia police made 19,764 arrests for marijuana offenses in 2009, according to The Daily Progress.

On his TV show 700 Club, Pat Robertson, one of the cornerstone figures of America's Christian right movement and resident of Virginia, warned that current drug laws are having a negative effect on society.

"I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it's just, it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people," Robertson said. "Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."