Take back your country!

After you review the movie ask yourself:.

1. Where was your place of birth?

2. Who certified your birth?

Are you ashamed of the answers????????.

1. Where was Obama's place of birth?

2. Who certified Obam's birth?

Why is this canceled from the American people. What is he/they hiding.....

The answer will not be found in the courts. It will be found in the streets.

Senior Executive Director National Committee to RE-ELECT NOBODY.

Important Message about your goverment
Get your tea bags ready

No one has done a better job of telling Americans how to take America back from the political elite.

Do yourself a favor and take 7 min to watch this . In fact watch it 2 times and take notes.

Take back your country!

NKorea has nuke warheads Hawaii would be threaten

Spy agencies believe NKorea has nuke warheads

SEOUL (AFP) — Intelligence agencies have information that North Korea has assembled several nuclear warheads for its medium-range Rodong missiles capable of targeting Japan, an analyst said Tuesday.

Daniel Pinkston, senior analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said the agencies believe that probably five to eight warheads have been assembled.

"Intelligence agencies believe the North Koreans have assembled nuclear warheads for Rodong missiles, which are stored at underground facilities near the Rodong missile bases," Pinkston told AFP.

"It might be right, it might be wrong -- but if others believe it is true, it has implications for the psychological aspects of deterrence," he said, describing the assessment as "quite significant."

Pinkston declined to identify his sources and said they had not shared their own sources with him.

In public at least, intelligence officials have not previously said that the communist North -- which tested a nuclear weapon in 2006 -- is capable of manufacturing nuclear warheads.

The North is preparing to test-fire its longest-range missile, the Taepodong-2, within the next few days, but is not believed to have created any atomic warhead for this.

The Rodong bases are in Pyongan, Jagang and Yanggang provinces, Pinkston said.

The missile have a maximum range of 1,300 kilometres (800 miles), putting Japan within their reach. The North has some 200 of them.

South Korea's National Intelligence Service could not immediately comment.

Pinkston said it would take one or two days to assemble the warheads since the plutonium and the detonating devices are stored separately.

He said the North is believed to have put the operation and maintenance of its nuclear weapons under the control of an organ separate from the army and directly run by leader Kim Jong-Il.

Pinkston said further details would be given in an upcoming report from the International Crisis Group, an independent non-profit organisation committed to preventing and resolving conflicts worldwide.

US, South Korean and Japanese envoys to the North Korean nuclear disarmament talks have discussed how to "maintain close coordination" if Pyongyang test fires a missile, an official said Monday.

US envoys Stephen Bosworth and Sung Kim each held separate meetings on Friday with their counterparts Wi Sung-lac of South Korea and Akitaka Saiki of Japan, according to Gordon Duguid, a State Department spokesman.

"The discussions were constructive and substantive," Duguid said.

"The parties discussed how to maintain close coordination in the event of needing to respond to a North Korean missile test, and how to improve the six-party process to move forward," Duguid said.

The remaining parties in the six-party disarmament negotiations are China and Russia.

Kim, the representative to the six-party disarmament talks, also hosted an informal trilateral meeting with his two counterparts on Friday, Duguid added.

Duguid had no further details on the talks involving Kim and Bosworth, who is the US representative on overall North Korea policy.

Japan's parliament Tuesday made a formal protest against North Korean plans to launch a rocket as early as the weekend, condemning what it described as a threat to peace in northeast Asia.

The upper and lower houses of parliament both unanimously passed a resolution protesting against the scheduled April 4-8 launch.

Pyongyang has said it will launch a communications satellite over northern parts of Japan, while the United States and its Asian allies suspect the launch is a cover for a long-range ballistic missile test.

Launching the rocket "would threaten the peace of not only Japan but also the region of northeast Asia," said the resolution, adding that Japan would "strongly urge North Korea to refrain from launching" the rocket.

President Obama's Homeland Security shifts focus to employers

Homeland Security shifts focus to employers

A new policy will aim enforcement efforts at those who hire illegal workers. But immigration raids will continue, sources say.
By Josh Meyer and Anna Gorman

March 31, 2009

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington — Stepping into the political minefield of immigration reform, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano soon will direct federal agents to focus more on arresting and prosecuting American employers than the illegal laborers who sneak into the country to work for them, department officials said Monday.

The shift in emphasis will be outlined in revamped field guidelines issued to agents of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, as early as this week, several officials familiar with the change said.

The policy is in line with comments that President Obama made during last year's campaign, when he said enforcement efforts had failed because they focused on illegal immigrants rather than on the companies that hired them.

"There is a supply side and a demand side," one Homeland Security official said. "Like other law enforcement philosophies, there is a belief that by focusing more on the demand side, you cut off the supply."

Another department official said the changes were the result of a broad review of all immigration and border security programs and policies that Napolitano began in her first days in office.

"She is focused on using our limited resources to the greatest effect, targeting criminal aliens and employers that flout our laws and deliberately cultivate an illegal workforce," the official said.

Homeland Security officials emphasized that the department would not stop conducting sweeps of businesses while more structural changes to U.S. immigration law and policy were being contemplated.

Agents, however, will be held to a higher standard of probable cause for conducting raids, the officials said, out of concern that at least one recent raid in Washington state and another planned sweep in Chicago were based on speculative information that illegal workers were employed.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the coming policy changes.

The new guidelines would mark a fundamental shift away from what was happening at the end of the Bush administration, said Doris Meissner, who served as commissioner of ICE's predecessor -- the Immigration and Naturalization Service -- under President Clinton.

The law governing employer enforcement requires proof that a business knowingly hired illegal workers. So without an effective way for employers to verify workers' status, Meissner said, "It is very easy for that 'knowingly' to be a big loophole."

Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute think tank in Washington, said the Bush administration also vowed to go after employers but rarely did so. In later years, it drew criticism by conducting large-scale raids at businesses across the country aimed almost entirely at workers.

The Clinton administration, in contrast, used a combination of laws to go after employers for smuggling, violating labor laws and engaging in criminal conspiracy, she said. "At the end of the day, when you make cases like that, you have more impact."

Advocates on both sides of the issue have been awaiting major changes in immigration policy since Obama's election -- particularly since he tapped Napolitano, a former border state governor and prosecutor, to head the Homeland Security Department.

Conservatives have warned that any easing of enforcement efforts will result in more arrivals of illegal workers, who will compete for jobs held by Americans.

And immigrant rights groups have complained that the lack of reform measures to date under Obama suggested the White House was backing down from campaign pledges to curb workplace enforcement efforts.

Those concerns ratcheted up dramatically when ICE agents swept into a manufacturing plant in Bellingham, Wash., in February and arrested dozens of people on suspicion that they were in the country illegally.

Napolitano suggested to Congress that she was unhappy with the raid and that she would "get to the bottom of this." But, she added: "In my view, we have to do workplace enforcement. It needs to be focused on employers who intentionally and knowingly exploit the illegal labor market."

Homeland Security officials confirmed that a planned raid in the Chicago area was delayed in recent weeks because senior administrators expected "a higher level of scrutiny to be applied," one official said. "Politics has nothing to do with it. It is all about the quality of the investigative work and the effectiveness of targeting the employers."

Michael W. Cutler, a retired senior special INS agent, said the Obama administration needed to go after workers and employers to send a message that it would not condone illegal immigration.

"Who is more responsible for prostitution, the hookers or the johns? It is a shared responsibility," said Cutler, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group opposed to illegal immigration.

He said it would be "dumb" to "go after employers and not the illegal aliens. That means they are going to make very few arrests. And the message that sends is that if you can make it across the border, you're home free. No one is going to be looking for you."

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said the Obama administration also needed to target employers who did not pay minimum wage and who exposed workers to unsafe conditions. But she said she hoped the new guidelines would mark a good first step by halting mass raids.

"What happened during the Bush administration is unconscionable," she said. "At the end of the day, it really targeted a group of vulnerable workers who just were trying to bring the food to the table."

What separates government from private industry

Obama takes step over the line that separates government from private industry
His automaker bailout plan wades into 'industrial policy,' in which government officials, not business executives or the free market, decide what products a firm makes and how it charts its future.
By Peter Wallsten and Jim Tankersley

March 31, 2009

Reporting from Washington — President Obama's plan to save failing U.S. automakers -- and make them the instruments for creating a cleaner, greener transportation system -- marked a major step across the line that traditionally separates government from private industry.

His announcement Monday of a new position on bailing out Detroit went beyond a desire to be sure tax dollars were not wasted in bailing out struggling companies. It put the Obama administration squarely in the position of adopting a so-called industrial policy, in which government officials, not business executives or the free market, decided what kinds of products a company would make and how it would chart its future.

His automotive task force concluded, for example, that the Chevy Volt, the electric car being developed by General Motors Corp., would be too expensive to survive in the marketplace. It declared that GM was still relying too much on high-margin trucks and SUVs, and that Chrysler's best hope was to merge with a foreign automaker, Fiat.

Judgments like those are usually rendered in corporate boardrooms or announced in quarterly reports. But this time they were coming directly from the White House.

The notion that it was the president, not car company executives, who would pick such a course drew immediate criticism, especially from conservatives.

"When did the president become an expert in strategic corporate management?" said Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. "The federal government is famous for its mismanagement, yet this administration continues to demonstrate its certainty that Washington always knows best."

Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, called it a "power grab" that "should send a chill through those who believe in free enterprise."

And Rush Limbaugh declared in his daily radio broadcast, "There's always been a line, ladies and gentlemen, over which no president would cross with respect to the distinction between the public and private sectors. Obama has now crossed that line where there is no limit to government's destruction of private activity or control over it."

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) defended the administration, suggesting that Detroit had had its chance. "My feeling is that we were too tolerant for too long and this is the tough medicine the taxpayer wants. And we have to reinvent our auto industry, or it will die."

Other Obama defenders pointed to historic precedents for intervening in the auto industry.

Obama's actions are "consistent with the pattern of presidents acting during economic crises," said Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University and an expert on the presidency. "And it's absolutely consistent with patterns of presidents intervening to make sure major components of the economy don't fail."

With farmers crippled by the Depression, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt put in place limitations on agricultural production in a bid to boost farm prices. In 1971 Richard Nixon sought to roll back inflation by imposing a freeze on wages and prices. During the Reagan administration, bank regulators ousted 10 members of the board of Continental Illinois Bank of Chicago, the nation's eighth-largest bank and recipient of a federal bailout.

Nevertheless, the White House was admittedly wading into politically challenging waters Monday. Administration officials sought to downplay the notion of an Obama-led takeover of the auto industry.

"We inherited a really difficult situation, and so in that context are focused on the best options consistent with the president's goal of supporting the auto industry and being good stewards of taxpayer resources," said one senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity despite conveying official White House talking points.

The official sought to distance the auto industry assessments from the administration's environmental agenda, adding that the carmakers were "positioned to lead in helping manufacture the next generation of clean vehicles."

"The government doesn't have any interest or capacity to re-engineer these companies," the official said.

Beyond such denials, the administration's aim of reshaping the industry in what it considers a better form could be seen in documents released Monday by the White House. They summarized the conclusions of Obama's auto task force, which has spent weeks consulting with outside analysts and experts assessing the viability of plans submitted last month by GM and Chrysler.

The task force noted, for instance, that GM earns a "disproportionate share of its profits from high-margin trucks and SUVs and is thus vulnerable to energy cost-driven shifts in consumer demand." Moreover, according to the summary, "absent the successful introduction of a number of new-generation nameplates," GM is "more vulnerable" to heightened fuel-efficiency standards.

Such heightened mileage standards are being pushed by the Obama administration.

Some participants in the deliberations, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of White House restrictions on allowing people to speak freely, said the task force operated from an underlying belief that consumers would ultimately be attracted to more fuel-efficient cars despite current data showing many such cars languishing on dealer lots.

"Philosophically they blame these companies for not having produced enough responsible small vehicles," said Dan Luria, research director at the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, a consulting firm for automaker suppliers. "But they don't deal with the fact that the companies would have been insolvent years earlier if they had done that.

"As bad as the management of these companies has been, it's dwarfed by the complete lack of courage in U.S. energy policy, which is what created the problem in the first place."

"Never seen, only heard - as a haunting to superstitious minds as a ghost, as inevitable as a guilty conscience..."

Together We foiled the wicked plans of the greedy and the vengeful. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"

"The weed of crime bears bitter fruit. Crime does not pay. The Shadow knows!"

North Korea Announces Detailed Missile Flight Plan Hawaii ???

Connecting the dots between the launch site (orange triangle) and the two danger zones where the two stages will splash (red triangles), we can see where the missle could head --- again, according to the North Koreans themselves:
They indeed plan to overfly Japan, shedding the first booster in the Sea of Japan.
Depending on the range of the missile, the trajectory is making a bee-line for Hawaii.

Honolulu Tops Most Expensive Cities To Buy Home

Oahu Nearly 14 Times More Costly Than Saginaw, Mich.

HONOLULU -- Honolulu is once again the most expensive city in the United States to buy a home, according to the National Association of Realtors quarterly report.
The median price for a home in Honolulu was $610,000.
The last time Honolulu homes were the priciest in the nation was 12 years ago.
It reflects the fact that home prices are holding steady in Hawaii compared to mainland cities, experts said.

The second most expensive area was San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., at $525,000 followed by San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, at $487,100.
The most affordable area was Saginaw, Mich., at a median of $43,900.
Nevada was the state to see the largest sales gain in the fourth quarter. The state was up 133.7 percent.

Honolulu the 149th best place for business

Forbes.com ranks Honolulu the 149th best place for business and careers in its latest list.
Honolulu slipped from its previous spot at No. 103 in 2008.
The survey looked at the 200 largest U.S. metro areas, those with populations of more than 241,000. Forbes’ rankings were based on 11 factors: five-year job growth, five-year income growth, the cost of doing business (labor, tax, energy and office space costs), cost of living (housing, transportation and utility costs), crime rate, educational attainment, presence of four-year colleges, cultural and recreational opportunities, projected job growth, subprime mortgages and net migration.
Honolulu was noted for its educational attainment, subprime mortgages and income growth.
California had six of the seven lowest-rated spots on the list.
Forbes said West Chester, Pa.-based Economy.com, an economic research company owned by Moody’s, supplied data on five-year historical job and income growth, as well as migration trends.

Hawaii and Obama Makes Sure Natives Can Use Casino Gambling

By Lance Burkhart on March 27, 2009

HONOLULU, HAWAII -- Hawaii wants to recognize Native Hawaiians so they can benefit from federal legislation for indigenous groups, but only so long as that doesn't include gambling. To ensure natives don't establish casinos, the islands' US Senators and Congressmen added language forbidding gaming rights.Hawaii and Utah are the only two states in the US without any form of legal gambling. Recently, some state politicians have openly broached the idea of bringing casino gaming to the islands as a source of revenue.Without any legalized gambling, indigenous groups are denied any casino rights. But, whenever a form of gambling is legal anywhere in a state, that's state's natives have the right to host similar gaming on their lands in trust.The clause forbidding gambling rights was added last year in an attempt to make the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act more acceptable to the Bush administration. It was struck as unnecessary when Obama took office, but some civic groups complained.A spokesman for Senator Daniel Akaka said, "That provision was taken out because it was considered not necessary because gambling already is illegal in Hawaii and there's no way the Native Hawaiian entity could have gambling in Hawaii unless the state of Hawaii decided to change course and legalize it for everybody."

Hawaii unemployment worst in 30

Preliminary figures released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show Hawaii's seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment is the worst it has been in 30 years.
The bureau says unemployment in the islands stood at 6.5 percent in February - up from 6.1 percent in January.
According to historical data compiled by the state Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, February's rate was the highest since 6.6 percent was recorded in October 1978.
Federal officials say 607,400 people held jobs in Hawaii in February. That's down 3,700 from January and 19,200 from February of last year.
They say the national rate of unemployment in February was 8.1 percent.

North Korea May Have Missile That Can Reach Hawaii, U.S. Says

North Korea May Have Missile That Can Reach Hawaii, U.S. Says
By Shinhye Kang
March 28 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea, which is preparing to launch what it calls a “peaceful” satellite, may have developed a missile with the range to reach Hawaii, said Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“In some cases, yes, they could probably get down to Hawaii,” Mullen said on CNN’s Situation Room program yesterday, when asked if North Korea has the ability to strike Hawaii or Alaska. The West Coast of the U.S. mainland is still out of the nation’s range, he said.
North Korea said earlier this month that it plans to orbit a satellite between April 4 and 8, a move South Korea suspects is a disguised ballistic missile test. Kim Jong Il may hope to gain the attention of U.S. President Barack Obama, even at the cost of harsher international sanctions, says Jeung Young Tae, a senior researcher at Korea Institute for National Unification.
“North Korea is suffering from poor economic conditions and wants direct talks with Washington to speed much-needed aid,” Jeung said today by phone in Seoul. “Kim wants to make sure his country isn’t ignored as the Obama administration deals with economic problems and Iraq.”
The U.S., China, Japan, South Korea and Russia are pressing North Korea to cancel the launch and re-focus on negotiations aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program.
Successful or not, a missile launch might force Washington to accept North Korea as a potential threat, leading eventually to direct talks even if it first prompts a toughening of international sanctions, Jeung said.
Japan Alarmed
Japanese Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada yesterday ordered his forces to shoot down any North Korean missile or falling debris that enters its “airspace, waters or soil.”
After a North Korean Taepodong 1 missile overflew Japan in 1998, Japan honed a defense network that includes anti-missile batteries around Tokyo and destroyers at sea capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on March 25 in Mexico City the U.S. will raise the issue at the United Nations if North Korea fires a missile. South Korea’s Defense Ministry also said such a launch would be a “provocation.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated on March 26 that such a launch would be “provocative.”
North Korea agreed in February 2007 to scrap nuclear weapons development in return for energy aid and normalized ties with the U.S. and Japan. The six-nation disarmament talks remain stalled as the communist country refuses to let inspectors remove samples from its main Yongbyon nuclear reactor.
Tensions between North Korea and South Korea, technically still at war since their 1950-53 conflict ended without a peace agreement, have increased since South Korean President Lee Myung Bak took office in February last year.
To contact the reporter on this story: Shinhye Kang in Seoul at skang24@bloomberg.net

U.S. official: Al-Qaeda plotting new attacks against U.S.

.

While the cost of Obama's new operations in Afghanistan are expected to rise 60 percent from the current $2 billion a month. "New U.S. Afghan strategy focuses on Qaeda: officials," from Reuters, March 26:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new Afghan strategy will focus on destroying safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan where Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders are plotting new attacks on the United States, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
As part of the strategy, the United States will deploy 4,000 military trainers to Afghanistan by this autumn to build up Afghan armed forces to the point they are able to take the lead in military operations, officials said.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity before the president's announcement of the policy on Friday, said the cost of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan was expected to rise 60 percent from the current $2 billion a month.

Obama vows to defeat Al Qaeda I have heard this before

Bailout, Recession, Stimulus, defeat Al Qaeda - I Have Heard This Before

Obama vows to defeat Al Qaeda
By David Stout

Friday, March 27, 2009
WASHINGTON: With a bloody suicide bombing near the Khyber Pass underscoring his words, President Barack Obama adopted a blunt urgency Friday in warning that the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating and in need of the extra troops, benchmarks and money he was calling for in his new war plan.

‘‘The situation is increasingly perilous,’’ the president told government officials, top military officers and diplomats at the White House, presenting the conclusions of a review he ordered when he took office in January.

Although the timing of the suicide attack that killed dozens of worshipers in a crowded mosque in northwest Pakistan may have been coincidence, it underscored the president’s ominous tone as he warned of intelligence estimates that say Al Qaeda ‘‘is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.’’

He added, ‘‘We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.’’

But Mr. Obama promised neither to write a ‘‘blank check’’ nor to ‘‘blindly stay the course’’ if his strategy, which includes the addition of another 4,000 troops in training roles and a series of benchmarks for judging progress, does not achieve its ambitious goals.

Shortly after Mr. Obama’s speech, Richard C. Holbrooke, his special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, noted the corrosive role of instability and terrorist safe havens in western Pakistan and said the United States could not abandon the region.

‘‘We can leave as the Afghans deal with their own security problems,’’ he said. ‘‘That’s what the president put emphasis on today — on training the national army, training the policy.

‘‘The exit strategy,’’ he went on, ‘‘includes governance, corruption, but above all — and this is the single most difficult aspect of what we are talking about today — it requires dealing with western Pakistan. You can have a great government in Kabul and if the current situation in western Pakistan continued, the instability in Afghanistan will continue.’’

Mr. Obama called on Congress to approve $1.5 billion in aid to Pakistan for each of the next five years, acknowledging that the costs and risks were high and that there were many competing demands for spending at home. But he said that the security interests at stake could not be put aside and that Afghanistan could not take second place to Iraq in military importance.

The administration has been pressing its NATO partners in Europe to make a greater effort in Afghanistan, and the European Union indicated Friday that it planned to provide more police trainers. But at a two-day meeting in Hluboka, Czech Republic, the bloc’s foreign ministers declined to deploy more combat troops.

The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Europe would respond to American demands by intensifying its efforts to train the Afghan security forces.

Cristina Gallach, a spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the E.U.’s foreign policy chief, said the bloc now had 177 police trainers in Afghanistan and planned to increase that number to 400 by the summer. But despite nearly a decade of E.U. training, the Afghan police are said to be ineffective, corrupt and unwilling to uphold the law.

Efforts by NATO have been circumscribed in Afghanistan because the Europeans still lack such essential equipment as helicopters, field hospitals, F-16 fighters and aircraft to transport tanks and troops across the country. At the same time, Germany, which has more than 3,600 soldiers on the ground there, and other countries are restricted by national rules of engagement. They cannot patrol during certain hours, they cannot venture beyond a certain limit and they cannot be sent to the south.

The key elements of Mr. Obama’s plan — with its more robust combat force, its emphasis on training and its far-reaching goals — foreshadow an ambitious but risky and costly attempt to unify and stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president is unveiling his approach at a time when the conflict is worsening, the lives of the people are not visibly improving and the intervention by foreign powers is increasingly resented.

He said that ‘‘an uncompromising core of the Taliban,’’ the fundamentalist party that America and its allies deposed seven years ago, must be defeated militarily, but that other opposition forces ‘‘who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price,’’ must be drawn back into the fold.

The political turmoil in the two nations only adds to the complexity facing Washington. Afghanistan is in the middle of an election campaign but the timing of the voting remains uncertain. And as the Americans strike with missiles at enemies in Pakistan, and press it to take a harder line against the hostile factions, they must respect that government’s sovereignty.

‘‘Of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that’s going to be the most daunting, because it’s a sovereign country and there is a red line,’’ Mr. Holbrooke said. ‘‘And the red line is unambiguous and stated publicly by the Pakistani government over and over again: No foreign troops on our soil.’’

Initial reaction to Mr. Obama’s approach was positive, from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the NATO alliance and in the United States Congress, whose support will be crucial.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan welcomed the new strategy Friday, saying in a statement that the plan ‘‘will bring Afghanistan and the international community closer to success,’’ The Associated Press reported.

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, called the Obama strategy ‘‘an extraordinarily positive sign,’’ Reuters reported.

Prominent Democrats in Congress expressed support for the president’s approach.

The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi of California, said the president’s plan ‘‘is wisely centered on dismantling Al Qaeda and denying safe havens in both Afghanistan and Pakistan to those who would attack the United States.’’

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement calling Mr. Obama’s approach ‘‘realistic and bold in a critical region where our policy needs rescuing.’’ Mr. Kerry and the committee’s ranking Republican, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, will introduce the legislation authorizing the $1.5 billion in aid to Pakistan.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he, too, was encouraged, particularly by Mr. Obama’s focus on Pakistan. But Mr. Feingold said he was concerned that the strategy ‘‘may still be overly Afghan-centric when it needs to be even more regional.’’

A Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, also praised the president’s plan. ‘‘Today, the president presented Congress and the American people with an honest assessment of our strategic position in Afghanistan and underscored that America’s core mission must be redefined,’’ she said.

But Ms. Snowe said increased American aid must be ‘‘carefully targeted,’’ and that Pakistan and Afghanistan must be pressured to do their part.

Although the administration is still developing the specific benchmarks for Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said they would be the most explicit demands ever presented to the governments in Kabul and Islamabad.

In effect, Mr. Obama would be insisting that two fractured countries plagued by ancient tribal rivalries and modern geopolitical hostility find ways to work together and transform their societies.

American officials have repeatedly said that Afghanistan has to make more progress in fighting corruption, curbing the drug trade and sharing power with the regions. They have insisted that Pakistan do more to cut ties between parts of its government and the Taliban.

Dan Bilefsky reported from Hluboka, Czech Republic.


The African Axis

By Ryan MauroFrontPageMagazine.com Thursday, March 26, 2009

As the world watches the governments of the Middle East divide into two competing blocs based on their allegiance to Iran, a similar Iron Curtain is being created in Africa. The Iran-Syria Axis is teaming up with rogue countries like Sudan, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe, and even radical Islamic forces in Somalia. Opposing this Axis is Ethiopia and Djibouti, although many more countries will enlist themselves in either bloc in the years ahead.
The ongoing war in Somalia may be ultimately seen as the first proxy war between these two blocs. A November 2006 United Nations report revealed how several countries were backing different sides in the conflict. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Eritrea, Libya, and Djibouti were cited as giving aid to the forces of the Islamic Courts Union, a radical organization then affiliated with Al-Qaeda, while Ethiopia, Uganda and Yemen were cited as supporting the forces of the Transitional Federal Government.
According to the U.N. report, in mid-July 2006, Aden Hashi Farah, a leader of the Islamic Courts Union and member of Al-Qaeda, chose 720 Somali militants to join Hezbollah in Lebanon to fight Israeli forces. 200 of these Somalis went to Syria for further training on July 27. By early September 2006, at least 100 of these militants returned to Somalia, accompanied with five Hezbollah operatives, who would train other militants. The rest of Somalis remained in Lebanon to undergo further training. These militants were paid a minimum of $2,000 and up to $30,000 were given to the families of those killed in combat. Hezbollah also arranged for Syria and Iran to deliver weapons to the radical Islamic forces. According to the report, two Iranians remained in Somalia when it was released in November 2006 to try to arrange for the retrieval of uranium in return for their assistance.
The U.N. report also alleges that the Iranians provide the Somali militants with 250 anti-aircraft missiles. An “American intelligence source” confirmed to the Long War Journal that SA-7 Strella and SA-18 Igla missiles were provided, along with the AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missiles often used by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Further substantiation of this came when an Iraqi Shiite tribal leader said on November 18, 2008 “I asked the head of the [Somali] Islamic Courts Union, whom I met in Libya: 'Who supports you?' I expected him to tell me it was Saudi Arabia, but he said: 'No, my brother. Iran supports us, via Hizbullah.'”
Most of the named countries’ predictably rejected these allegations. Andrew McGregor of the Jamestown Foundation described the accuracy of the U.N. report as “doubtful,” and the Council on Foreign Relations has warned that “the report's sources are unclear and doubts have been raised as to the report's credibility.” Regardless of the dispute over the details of the report, which undoubtedly had to rely upon confidential intelligence sources, substantial corroboration exists to support the allegations that Iran has been active in Somalia, and that two competing blocs are emerging in Africa.
Eritrea has denied the allegations in the U.N. report that they had been supporting the radical Islamic militants in Somalia, but an additional U.N. report released in July 2007 said they had secretly provided “huge quantities of arms” possibly including surface-to-air missiles and suicide bomb belts. Eritrea is quickly becoming a member of Iran-led axis, with Iranian President Ahmadinejad visiting the country and saying on May 20, 2008 that the two governments saw no limit to Iranian-Eritrean cooperation. Reports later followed stating that Iranian soldiers and missiles began arriving in Assab, Eritrea in December 2008.
Sudan is another member of pro-Iran bloc in Africa. The Sudanese government has announced its intention to start a nuclear program. In 2006, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei announced his country’s desire to share nuclear technology with other countries in Khartoum. With the revelation from Ali Reza Asghari, the Iranian deputy defense minister who defected in February 2007, that Iran was financing North Korea’s role in Syria’s nuclear weapons program, the location of Khamenei’s announcement is suspect, especially when coupled with the launching of Sudan’s own nuclear program. It is quite probable that Iran is looking to make Sudan a partner in its own nuclear enterprise.
It is unclear how other countries on the continent will react to this new Iron Curtain. Libya, for example, wants U.S. oil contracts, and has made some liberal reforms. On the other hand, Libya has condemned the International Criminal Court’s indictment of Sudanese President Omar Bashir for crimes against humanity and supporting the new military government in Mauritania that came to power through a coup. Mauritania has since suspended its ties with Israel, and according to the head of German intelligence, Al-Qaeda is establishing bases in the country. The U.S. response to the developments in East Africa will likely determine how countries like Libya decide to react to the emerging bloc.
Ultimately, Ethiopian military forces that were supporting the Transitional Federal Government in Somalia completed a precipitous withdrawal on January 26, 2009, allowing the radical Islamic forces to take control of the country. Al-Shabaab, the Al-Qaeda affiliate that acted in tandem with the Islamic Courts Union, has since split from the group. Al-Shabaab currently controls southern Somalia, and Osama Bin Laden has called for the toppling of President Ahmed, the former leader of the Islamic Courts Union. This has caused some media outlets like BBC to describe Ahmed as a “moderate Islamist,” ignoring the fact that Ahmed has implemented Sharia Law and his organization engaged in terrorism and worked with Al-Qaeda in the past. No matter how the West may wish to think the new Somalian government is “moderate,” the fact remains that the recent turn of events in Somalia represents the first victory by the new pro-Iran bloc in East Africa.

President Barack Obama, Budget oh my!!!

Las Vegas Project Weighs Bankruptcy

Woes at Massive City Center Project, MGM Mirage's

By JEFFREY MCCRACKEN
And Tamara AudiCity Center, the $8.6 billion Las Vegas development owned by MGM Mirage and DubaiWorld, is preparing for a potential bankruptcy filing that could bring the massive project to a halt, according to people familiar with the situation.
MGM Mirage and investment partner Dubai World appear unlikely to make a $220 million payment due Friday on City Center -- a massive resort and casino project under construction on 67 acres. City Center has hired Dewey & LeBoeuf to prepare itself for a possible bankruptcy filing, and the firm's Martin Bienenstock, a noted bankruptcy attorney, is handling the work, according to people familiar with matter. The law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is working for MGM Mirage on a range of legal issues, according to these people.
A filing could come this weekend, depending on talks among MGM Mirage, its lenders and Dubai World, these people said. There is a possibility that any filing for court-protection could be averted if the talks lead to an agreement.
CityCenter Land, LLC
A rendering of MGM Mirage's City Center. A debt payment is due Friday.
Dubai World, a conglomerate owned by the government of Dubai, has sued MGM Mirage for breach of contract and blamed it for cost overruns. It also signaled it won't provide its half of Friday's payment. MGM Mirage, meanwhile, is struggling to persuade its reluctant lenders to allow it to solely fund the project. While talks between MGM Mirage and Dubai World were ongoing Thursday night, there "may be no choice" but for City Center to file bankruptcy "if Dubai World doesn't fund," said a person close to MGM Mirage.
The casino company faces a cash crunch as it tries to meet obligations on more than $13 billion in debt. The company narrowly averted defaulting on loans last week and warned that it could default by mid-May.
City Center's troubles could spill out across Las Vegas. The project is a stark example of how excesses spawned during a lengthy gambling boom are coming back to haunt the casino industry. The project is so large that thousands of workers depend on it for jobs. At the same time, it has the rest of the city's casino industry on edge. If it gets built, it would add thousands of high-end hotel rooms that would cannibalize business from the city's gambling tables and hotels.
Missing Friday's payment would start the clock ticking on City Center's future. Work could grind to a halt within days, idling 8,500 construction jobs, said a person familiar with the talks between MGM Mirage and Dubai World. A delayed opening would also risk the jobs of 12,000 workers who are to staff the complex.

A shutdown of City Center "would be devastating to the southern Nevada economy," said Steve Ross, secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents 22,000 construction workers.
Las Vegas, a city known for its elaborate multibillion-dollar resorts, is already reeling. Echelon, a $4.8 billion resort project on the Las Vegas Strip, was shuttered last year after its parent, Boyd Gaming Corp., and partner Morgans Hotel Group struggled to finance the project. A Las Vegas Sands Corp. condo tower sits unfinished after the casino operator decided to concentrate on finishing other projects. Several projects were canceled before work even started.
Las Vegas has suffered as tourism revenue has declined for more than a year. Unemployment hovers near 10%, and hotel-room occupancy rates have fallen to below 90% -- unusual for a town used to operating at near capacity.
City Center's over-the-top extravagance was conceived in a very different economic climate. When the project was unveiled in 2004, Las Vegas was at the height of a luxury-driven tourism boom. Gourmet restaurants were over-booked, room rates were skyrocketing and pricey shows were sold out. City Center was envisioned as the crown jewel.
MGM Mirage, controlled by billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian, saw City Center as the next step in the evolution of both the company and Las Vegas.
The project, with two sleek condo towers, a 4,000-room resort casino, two smaller luxury hotels, a monorail, $40 million in public art and its own fire station, was envisioned as a "city within a city." MGM Mirage executives saw it as nothing less than a reinvention of Las Vegas.
Shortly after the project was launched, MGM Mirage Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Murren said, "City Center represents what we feel is a significant new direction for our city and our company."

Kirk Kerkorian
Even under bankruptcy-court protection, construction could continue or be restarted once the two sides agree on how to fund the project. Neither company is likely to walk away. MGM Mirage has $1 billion in cash invested in the project, in addition to the land contribution. Dubai World has $4.3 billion invested.
While Las Vegas is worried about the impact on employment of a City Center delay, there is sentiment in the casino industry that any delay at City Center could help other casinos -- including those owned by MGM Mirage -- keep from losing even more visitors.
It is not clear what impact a City Center Chapter 11 filing would have on MGM Mirage's other finances.
MGM Mirage's lenders have become concerned enough about the situation that they have hired the law firm of Mayer Brown LLP as bankruptcy counsel, according to people familiar with the matter.
Bank of America and Deutsche Bank are the agent banks for MGM Mirage, said these people. MGM Mirage's lenders will not let the casino giant make the City Center payment Friday unless Dubai World makes its payment, according to people familiar with the matter.
MGM Mirage earnings are projected by Wall Street analysts to tumble to $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion this year, meaning to be in line with loan covenants it needs to reduce its debt to between $9 billion and $12 billion.

Gun Rights and the Constitution: Was Heller Insignificant?
by David Kopel

Has the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller–which affirmed the Second Amendment and declared the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional–been of almost no significance? So claimed the New York Times in a recent article by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak. Unfortunately, Liptak’s article followed in a long New York Times tradition of credulously reporting the claims of one anti-gun professor, without conducting sufficient research to see if the claims hold up.

Let’s start with the most obvious facts which the Times overlooked. On the day that Heller was decided, the citizens of five Chicago suburbs, and of Chicago itself, were prohibited from owning guns. Residents of apartments provided by the San Francisco Housing Authority were prohibited from owning any gun. Within 24 hours of the Heller decision, gun rights organizations—including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)—filed lawsuits against the gun bans.

Today, the residents of San Francisco public housing can own guns in their homes. In four of the five Chicago suburbs (Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka), the handgun bans have been repealed. Yet according to the Times, “So far, Heller is firing blanks.”

The Times came that erroneous conclusion, it appears, by credulously relying on UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. The Times quotes Winkler: “To date, the federal courts have not invalidated a single gun control law on the basis of the Second Amendment since Heller.” The Times does mention one exception to Winkler’s claim, a recent case holding that the federal ban on gun possession by anyone who has been charged (but not convicted) of possessing child pornography is unconstitutional.

But there are many more exceptions that the Times missed. Gun owners have already won in San Francisco, and they won in the four Chicago suburbs.

The Times quoted Winkler: “the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out that they lose.” Yet attorney David Hardy reported in January on his Arms and the Law weblog the San Francisco Housing Authority will be paying the attorneys fees for the plaintiff gun owners there (although the settlement terms of the San Francisco surrender are confidential).

But Winkler (and, derivatively, the Times) does not count or even acknowledge the existence of these victories. Winkler’s database of cases includes only opinions written by federal courts. So if a gun rights group brings a suit in federal district court, or threatens to bring such a suit, and the gun-banning defendant realizes that defeat is likely, and then the defendant changes its anti-gun policies, Winkler and the Times ignore the result.

Likewise ignored is a win which does not generate a written opinion published in the Westlaw or Lexis databases. For example, in November, the NRA and SAF filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the Western District of Washington. Washington is the only state in the nation which requires legal resident aliens to obtain a special license in order to possess firearms, and the state licensing division was refusing to issue any alien licenses.

On January 27, the federal court entered a preliminary injunction, ordering the Washington Department of Licensing to resume issuing alien firearms licenses.

Nobody challenged the constitutionality of the state alien licensing law—just the Department’s denial of constitutional rights by failing to carry out the law. So this Second Amendment victory does not count, by Winkler’s hyper-narrow standard.

It likewise doesn’t count for Winkler (and for the Times) when a defendant successfully invokes the Second Amendment to resist a criminal prosecution. That’s what happened in United States v. Kitsch, decided last August in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In that case, Kitsch had once been an undercover informant for law enforcement officials in New Jersey. The court explained his unusual circumstances:

As a means of helping the narcotics officer with whom he was working. . . . Kitsch set a small, smoky fire on the windowsill of the barn and then promptly called the fire department . . . . As a result of the fire, Kitsch was charged with third-degree arson, a felony under both New Jersey and federal law. He pled guilty to the state offense after meeting with law enforcement officials who told him they would set aside the conviction and Kitsch could live as though the event had never happened. Although he served a thirty-day custodial sentence on Sundays, Kitsch avers that he truly and reasonably believed that his conviction had either been set aside or expunged.


Later, federal prosecutors in Pennsylvania brought charges against Kitsch, because it is illegal for someone with a felony conviction to possess a gun. The prosecutors argued that Kitsch’s sincere belief that he was not a convicted felon was irrelevant. The judge disagreed, and ruled that “in order to convict Kitsch, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew or was willfully blind to the fact that he had a prior felony conviction that had not been set aside or expunged.” The court explained that, post-Heller, the government’s strict liability interpretation of the statute might turn the statute into a violation of the Second Amendment.

Not a Second Amendment victory, according to Winkler and the Times. But hardly consistent with Winkler’s claim that “the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out that they lose.”

Winkler’s extremely narrow field of vision also ignores state courts. So there’s no mention of cases like Colvaiacolo v. Dormer, the October decision from a trial court in Suffolk County, New York, holding that New York State cannot require handgun licensees to keep their handguns locked in safe when not in use, because Heller ruled a similar requirement in D.C. unconstitutional.

It’s true that, as Winkler points out, federal courts have rejected lots of Second Amendment claims brought by convicted felons, and by persons convicted of domestic violence, or by persons wishing to possess machine guns. This is no surprise, nor is it contrary to what was sought by the lawyers on the winning side of Heller. I was one of three lawyers who joined Alan Gura at the Supreme Court counsel table, as assistants in his presentation of the oral argument. I also wrote an amicus brief for a broad coalition of law enforcement organizations, and for half the District Attorneys in California; that brief argued that gun bans for people such as domestic abusers were consistent with the Second Amendment. Another group of District Attorneys, led by Maricopa County, Arizona, submitted an amicus brief explaining why gun bans for law-abiding citizens were unconstitutional, while gun bans for criminals were not. Likewise, thirty-one state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Heller, and they too foresaw no possibility that gun bans for convicted criminals or machine gun bans would be endangered by a Second Amendment victory.

Of course criminal defense lawyers often have to grasp at straws to defend their clients, so it’s not surprising that there have been plenty of post-Heller cases in which defense lawyers have raised near-hopeless Second Amendment claims. It’s hardly news that these cases have been losers.

Although the Times does not discuss Professor Winkler’s role in Heller, he is not a disinterested academic. He filed an amicus brief on D.C.’s side, in which he argued that gun controls should be upheld if they are “reasonable,” and that anything short of banning all guns is reasonable.

Justice Breyer and the three other Heller dissenters argued in favor of the reasonableness standard, while Justice Scalia’s majority opinion explicitly rejected it.

Now, Winkler appears to be spinning the news by making it appear that post-Heller courts are, in effect, following his (rejected) standard. That’s Winkler’s prerogative, but the New York Times is not supposed to be so gullible.

Times writer Adam Liptak did talk with Sanford Levinson, an eminent professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas, who wrote a very influential article in the Yale Law Journal in 1989, recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right. But while Levinson is a superstar of constitutional theory, he does not track the Second Amendment on a case by case basis.

As a journalist, Liptak should have tested Winkler’s claims by speaking with a “pro-gun” attorney or a scholar with extensive knowledge of post-Heller litigation. David Hardy would have been a good choice, as would Alan Gura or Stephen Halbrook—both of whom have won some of the Second Amendment victories detailed above.

Then, Liptak might still have written an article explaining that Heller has not led to a raft of federal gun control laws being declared unconstitutional. But Liptak would not have inaccurately written that “So far, Heller is firing blanks.” The attorneys for the State of Washington, the San Francisco Housing Authority, Wilmette, Evanston, Morton Grove, Winnetka, and Suffolk County are among those who know better.

David Kopel is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, in Washington, D.C., and research director of the Independence Institute, in Golden, Colo.

OBAMA'S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS: FIRST THE MILITARY

I received this from an Atlas site. And no, I am not buying the "suicide" angle, as if it's for the soldiers' good. You don't need a gun to kill yourself, and frankly, if those evil forces want to sell an idea, it would be sold as something that "was for the good of the soldiers". Knowing what we know about President Hussein, he despises our military and holds them in as great contempt, as he does great Americans and patriots.

Where is the damn NRA on this?
I am currently assigned at Fort xxxxxxl. I live off post, with my firearms(which I don't bring on post for any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday. I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of all firearms I currently posses. In addition, I was also required to list registration information, location of all weapons individually, and information regarding any CCW permits I possess.

If you are like me, then the people you work with know you have firearms. So I had to list at least some. I tried to talk to my 1sg(who is normally approachable through proper channels) to find out what this is for, and I was basically told, "I don't give a !&@%, just put your info on the form."
I don't know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well. It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days: the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why. I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here.
I have been in almost 8 years, and never have any of my units asked for this information. If any of you out there have any info as to what all this crap is about please chime in. Otherwise consider yourself warned. I have already posted this on every other firearm forum I am a member of to get the word out.



The Firearm Owner Protection Act:. What happened to this?
Registry prohibition The act also forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law ( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Military demands details on soldiers' private guns
Fort Campbell command reversed under pressure

By Bob Unruh


A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored.

The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not "acting within his authority."

The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a "privately owned weapon" was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit.

Further, the rule warned, "If any soldier comes into possession of a Privately Owned Weapon following the effective date of this memorandum, he is required to inform the Chain of Command of the above information."

One soldier who objected to the demands circulated the memo, commenting that he lives off post.

"It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days the most anti-firearm president in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why," the soldier said.


Base spokeswoman Cathy Gramling told WND the letter apparently was a mistake. She said the base requires anyone bringing a privately owned weapon onto the installation to register it.

"As a response to a number of negligent discharges of privately owned weapons, the command decided to explore how to implement a training program for soldiers with privately owned weapons. Their goal is to identify soldiers with firearms and provide additional safety training to them, much like our motorcycle and driver safety classes," she said.

"Our soldiers train and operate in combat with M-4 carbines and various other military weapons, but not all who purchase their own weapons are properly trained to handle them. Determining which soldiers possess weapons will allow the command to identify the soldiers who may require additional training on them," she said.

Learn here why it's your right – and duty – to be armed.

Gramling said the memo was "from a subordinate unit commander who, at the time, believed he was acting within his authority." She said requiring the information was halted when it was discovered the commander was not within his authority.

The process has been suspended pending a full review, she said.

"This is not an effort to infringe on soldiers' rights to own firearms," Gramling told WND.

Mistake or not, the commander's order comes on the heels of a Department of Defense policy that limited the supply of ammunition available to the private gun owners by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.

That policy already had been implemented and had taken a bite out of the nation's stressed ammunition supply before it was reversed this week.

Mark Cunningham, a legislative affairs representative with the Defense Logistics Agency, explained in an e-mail to the office of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that the Department of Defense had placed small arms cartridge cases on its list of sensitive munitions items as part of an overall effort to ensure national security is not jeopardized in the sale of any Defense property.

"Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale," Cunningham wrote.

In the women's gun movement, Paxton Quigley is the great persuader.
~ Morley Safer, CBS 60 Minutes

Paxton Quigley - an expert on women on home intrusion and rape.
~Oprah Winfrey

Paxton Quigley directly addrsses an all-American concern.
~Wall Street Journal

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 27 percent of American women keep a gun in the house and 37.6 million females either own or have rapid access to guns.

This is the classic title that explains why.

When Paxton Quigley's "Stayin' Alive: Armed and Female" was published in 1989, it created an uproar. The media were shocked and horrified, yet irresistibly intrigued by its unabashed call for women to take up arms. She was profiled on "60 Minutes," in the Wall Street Journal, in Playboy, the L.A. Times and appeared on every national TV news show.

Coming from a liberal, Midwestern, anti-gun background, Paxton Quigley turned around when her best friend was raped one morning in her home in Los Angeles. After witnessing the physical and psychological damage, Quigley vowed not to let it happen to her. She reviewed her options and decided to learn how to shoot a handgun for her own self-defense.

She went on to become a spokeswoman for Smith & Wesson and over the years has traveled the world teaching thousands of women how to safely handle and shoot handguns.

THE PIED PIPER

There was a Pied Piper who said We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it!

*And the people said, Change is good!

Then he said, We are going to tax the rich fat-cats,

*And the people said, “Sock it to them!”

and redistribute their wealth.

*And the people said, “Show me the money!”

And then he said, Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody

*And Joe the plumber said, “Are you kidding me?”

And Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized.

*And one lone reporter asked, “Isn't that Marxist policy?”

And she was banished from the kingdom!

Then someone asked, “With no foreign relations experience, how will you deal with radical terrorists?”

And the Pied Piper said, Simple. I'll sit down and talk with them and show them how nice we really are and they?ll forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!

Then the Pied Piper said, I'll give 95% of you lower taxes.

*And one, lone voice said, “But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes!”

So the Pied Piper said, Then I'll give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!

*And the people said, “Show me the money!”

Then the Pied Piper said, I'll tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!

*And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed.

And he said, I'll mandate employer- funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage.

*And the people said, “Gimme some of that!”

Then he said, I'll penalize employers who ship jobs overseas.

*And the people said, “Where's my rebate check?”

Then the Pied Piper actually said, I'll bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!

*And the people said, “Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates.”

So the Pied Piper said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we'll bail you out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over!

Then he said, illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing

*And the people said, “Ole`! Bravo!” And they made him King!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy slowed even further.

Then the Pied Piper said, I am the Messiah and I'm here to save you! We'll just print more money so everyone will have enough! But our foreign trading partners said, "Wait a minute. Your dollar isn't worth what it was. You'll have to pay more."
*And the people said, “Wait a minute. That's not fair!”

And the world said, "Neither are these other, idiotic programs you've embraced. You've become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you'll play by our rules!"

*And the people said, “What have we done?”

But it was too late.