mix150.com MIX150 DOWNLOAD GAMES PLAYSTATION RIP FILMS

1/31/12

Obama Nat'l Export Initiative

Text of the President remarks in support of U.S. trade policies, in which he announced a new 2010 Executive Order establishing the National Export Initiative: "a single, comprehensive strategy to promote American exports" which includes smart, immediate steps "to increase financing, advocacy, and assistance for American businesses to locate, set up shop, and win new markets" and to "making sure American companies have free and fair access to those markets" by ensuring that existing trade pacts "will be as good for workers as it is for businesses, including strong labor and environmental protections that we’ll enforce."Per the President, "So that’s how we’re going to double our exports, open up new markets, and level the playing field for American businesses and American workers... I have every confidence that we will succeed in this effort."

(Also read Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements.)

The White House
Remarks by the President at the Export-Import Bank's 2010 Annual Conference

Now, it has been our most pressing priority over the first year of my administration to deal with an unprecedented economic crisis -- one that has been as serious as anything since the Great Depression. To do that required difficult and sometimes unpopular steps to rescue our financial system and to jumpstart an economic recovery.

But we took those steps. And because we did, we can stand here just over a year later, and say that we prevented another depression, we broke the back of the recession, and the economy that was shrinking a year ago is growing today.

Prosperity has been based on fleeting bubbles, rampant speculation

What’s also clear is that we’ve got a long way to go. More than 8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. Millions more remain underemployed, including those doing part-time work or odd jobs. And the middle class across this country has felt their economic security eroding for longer than they care to remember. That’s why we continue to do everything we can to foster private sector job creation and to restore some sense of security.

But the fact is, if we want to once again approach full employment; if we want to create broad, shared, and lasting wealth for our workers and our families; if we want an America that is ready to compete on the global playing field in the 21st century –- then we can’t slide back into an economy where we borrow too much and put off tough challenges.

We can’t return to an economy where too much of our prosperity is based on fleeting bubbles and rampant speculation. We have to rebuild our economy on a new, stronger, more balanced foundation for the future –- a foundation that will advance the American people’s prosperity at home, and support American leadership in the world.

Building a solid foundation to advance U.S. prosperity

And that’s precisely what we’ve begun to do: We’re catalyzing a new clean energy industry that has the potential to employ millions of workers in good jobs. We’re investing in the skills and education of our workers, and reforming our education system with a goal to once again lead the world in the proportion of college graduates by the end of this decade. We’re building a better health care system that works for our people, our businesses, and our government alike. We’re establishing clear, common-sense rules of the road for Wall Street that encourage innovation and creativity instead of recklessness and irresponsibility; rules that prevent firms from taking risks that threaten to bring down the entire economy. And we are rebuilding an economy where we generate more American jobs in more American industries by producing and exporting more goods and services to other nations. Now, in my State of the Union address, I set a goal of doubling America’s exports over the next five years -– an increase that will support 2 million American jobs. And I’ve come to the Export-Import Bank Conference today to discuss the initial steps that we’re taking to achieve that goal.

Controversies over trade and globalization

I know the issue of exports and imports, the issue of trade and globalization, have long evoked the passions of a lot of people in this country. I know there are differences of opinion between Democrats and Republicans, between business and labor, about the right approach. But I also know we are at a moment where it is absolutely necessary for us to get beyond those old debates.

Those who would once support every free trade agreement now see that other countries have to play fair and the agreements have to be enforced. Otherwise we're putting America at a profound disadvantage. Those who once would once oppose any trade agreement now understand that there are new markets and new sectors out there that we need to break into if we want our workers to get ahead.

And meanwhile, if you ask the average American what trade has offered them, they won’t say that their televisions are cheaper, or productivity is higher. They’d say they’ve seen the plant across town shut down, jobs dry up, communities deteriorate.

And you can’t blame them for feeling that way. The fact is other countries haven’t always played by the same set of rules. America hasn’t always enforced our trade rights, or made sure that the benefits of trade are broadly shared. And we haven’t always done enough to help our workers adapt to a changing world.

We must look out for U.S. workers

Now, there’s no question that as we compete in the global marketplace, we’ve got to look out for our workers. But to look out for our workers, we’ve got to be able to compete in the global marketplace. It’s never been as important an opportunity for America as it is right now.

In a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative. Our exports support millions of American jobs. You know this well. In 2008, we exported more than $1 trillion of manufactured goods, supporting more than one in five manufacturing jobs -– and those jobs, by the way, pay about 15 percent more than average.

We led the world in service exports, which support 2.8 million jobs. We exported nearly $100 billion in agricultural goods. And every $1 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000 additional jobs.


View the original article here

1/30/12

Irene Parlby

Born in England to a well-off family, Irene Parlby never planned to be a politician. She immigrated to Alberta and with her husband became a homesteader. Her efforts to help improve the lives of rural Alberta women and children led her into the United Farm Women of Alberta, where she became president. From there she was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and became the first woman cabinet minister in Alberta. Irene Parlby was also one of the "Famous Five" Alberta women who fought and won the political and legal battle in the Persons Case to have women recognized as persons under the BNA Act.

For most of her career Irene Parlby worked to improve the rights and welfare of rural women and children, including improving their health and education.


View the original article here

1/28/12

Obama's Plan for Iraq

We Must Finish the Fight in Afghanistan

When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan.

That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can more effectively tackle the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the world and the security of America.

U.S. Must Spread Hope, Not Hate

That is why I have proposed a program to spread hope - not hate - in the Islamic world, to build schools that teach young people to build and not destroy, to support the rule of law and economic development, and to launch a program of outreach to the Islamic world that I will lead as President.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can once again lead the world against the common challenges of the 21st century. Against the spread of nuclear weapons and climate change. Against genocide in Darfur. Against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. When we end this war, we can reclaim the cause of freedom and democracy. We can be that beacon of hope, that light to all the world.

When we end this war, we can recapture our unity of effort as Americans.

The American people have the right instincts on Iraq. It's time to heed their judgment. It's time to move beyond Iraq so that we can move forward together.

I will be a President who listens to the American people, not a President who ignores them.

And when we end the war in Iraq, we can come together to give our full attention to advancing the cause of health care for every American, an energy policy that does not bankroll hostile nations while we melt the polar ice caps, and a world class education for our children.

Unity as Americans, Not Divisions as Republicans and Democrats

Above all, we can turn the page to a new kind of politics of unity, not division; of hope, not fear.

You know, I welcome all of the folks who have changed their position on the war over these last months and years. And we need more of those votes to change if we're going to change the direction of this war.

That is why I will keep speaking directly to my colleagues in the Congress, both Republican and Democratic. Historically, we have come together in a bipartisan way to deal with our most monumental challenges. We should do so again.

We have the power to do this - not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.

But if we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that the judgment that matters most is the judgment that is made first.

Martin Luther King once stood up at Riverside Church and said, "In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late."

We are too late to stop a war that should never have been fought; too late to undo the pain of battle, the anguish of so many families, or the price of the fight; too late to redo the years of division and distraction at home and abroad.

But I'm here today because it's not too late to come together as Americans.

Time to Reclaim U.S. Foreign Policy

Because we're not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war.

What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was too late.

What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled.

It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending this war - but it does not end there.

It's time reclaim our foreign policy. It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.


View the original article here

No for 4 Iraq War Plans

The Iraq War Study Group (IWSG) issued its 142-page final report, "The Way Forward: A New Approach," on December 6, 2006.

In its Report, the IWSG thoughtfully crafted 79 sequential recommendations for U.S. forces in Iraq to "evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army," and to withdraw U.S. troops not involved with Iraq security by 2008.

After in-depth study and for reasons outlined in their Report, the distinguished, bipartisan IWSG firmly ruled out 4 courses of U.S. action for the Iraq War:

1. Staying the present course - President Bush has long promulgated that the U.S. will eventually "win" if it just sticks with the Bush plan, no matter how long it takes or how much death and annihilation it causes.

Commented James A. Baker III, co-chairman of the IWSG, "We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution; in our opinion, that approach is no longer viable."

2. Immediate full withdrawal - On November 17, 2005, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) created a White House furor when he demanded that the U.S.:

* Immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces...
* Create a quick reaction force in the region
* Create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines
* Diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

The IWSG concluded that a "premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence... and could eventually require the United States to return."

3. More troops for Iraq - Republican 2008 presidential contender Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) believes that the answer to squelch the civil war in Iraq is "Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps."

The IWSG observed that "Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq."

4. Dividing Iraq into 3 separate ethnic regions - In a May 1, 2006 New York Times op-ed, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), incoming Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged that Iraq be divided into 3 separate regions, Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni, with a central government in Baghdad.

Wrote Sen. Biden, "Decentralization is hardly as radical as it may seem: the Iraqi Constitution, in fact, already provides for a federal structure and a procedure for provinces to combine into regional governments."

The IWSG disagrees, writing in its Report that "The costs associated with devolving Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions with loose central control would be too high."

IWSG Final Report Recommendation

The Iraq War Study Group Report summarizes, "...the primary mission of U.S. troops should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army.

It's clear the Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities.

Yet, the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq."

And the IWSG's distinguished 10 members... 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats... unanimously approved "every word" of its Report, which strongly recommends that most U.S. troops leave Iraq by 2008.


View the original article here

1/26/12

More Than Two Moral Values

Jim Wallis is an evangelical Christian who confuses the religious right, who often stereotype Christians as staunch Republicans.

And despite being described by Republican pundits as leader of the faith-based left, Wallis irritates some Democratic Party loyalists.

To make matters more perplexing for those who prefer neat political categories, Wallis asserts “Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.”

Jim Wallis matters, though. He matters greatly to both political parties. His book, “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It” sits at #5 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list and is #17 at Amazon.

After the divisive campaign of 2004, after the angst of divided loyalties and reluctant voters, Wallis’ message resonates with the American public on both sides of the aisle.

Jim Wallis is barnstorming the country, preaching his message of connecting public policies with biblical teachings. It has transformed into a movement tour, not book tour, says Wallis.

Crowds are turning out in record numbers to hear him speak at churches and cathedrals, top seminaries, leading hospitals and Christian colleges.

Among his tour stops are Johns Hopkins Institute for Spirituality and Medicine, Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, Fort Street Presbyterian Church in Detroit, and a Minneapolis law school. He’s been on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, MSNBC, CNN and NPR.

He spoke at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, considered one of the finest evangelical seminaries. This week, I saw him speak at Fuller Theological Seminary, the fastest-growing evangelical seminary. ABC was also there, filming for Peter Jennings’ World News Tonight.

He’s a captivating speaker who loves the stage and feeds off congregant enthusiasm. He has an infectious smile, loads of energy and plenty of polish. At Fuller, he spoke while pacing, laughing, walking, gesturing, even jumping. Preacher’s sweat sparkled on his face as he then took questions for an hour, answering pastors, agnostics, seminary students, disillusioned Christians, libertarians, everyone who walked up to the mike.

To Republicans he asks “When did God become pro-war, pro-rich and only pro-American?”

To Democrats he needles “ And the Democrats…they say ‘I have faith, but don’t worry…it won’t affect anything.’ “

He recently told Christianity Today, “ The right is very comfortable with the language of faith and values…In fact, they think they own it sometimes….And then they narrow everything to one or two hot-button social issues, as if abortion and gay marriage are the only two moral values questions….

But did anybody really...imagine that there are the only two moral values issues? ….I find 3,000 verses in the Bible on the poor, so fighting poverty is a moral value too. Protecting the environment—protecting God’s creation is a moral value. The ethics of war…are fundamental moral and religious questions.”

For the record, this 30-year preacher and activist has grave reservations about abortion. “It’s important for Democrats…to talk first about how they are going to be committed to really dramatically reducing unwanted pregnancies, not just retaining the legal option of abortion.” And while compassion compels Wallis to champion basic rights for gay couples, he does not voice support for gay marriage.

A few leading political figures in both political parties are chafed by Jim Wallis. Jerry Falwell recently behaved badly toward Wallis on a Fox News program.

Former Nixon cohort, now Christian leader Chuck Colson mischaracterized him when he wrote that Wallis thinks “the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives.” Not so, replied Wallis in an open letter this week to Colson “I challenge Democrats on abortion, and I challenge Republicans on war and poverty.”

Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.” Referring to the disastrous statement by Howard Dean that Job was his favorite New Testament book, Wallis exhorted “…the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith.”

Jim Wallis threatens political party entrenchment by challenging Americans to rethink the connection between morality, biblical teachings and government policies.

As he said in his reply to Chuck Colson, “My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important.

Neither party gets it right; each has perhaps half of the answer. My message and my challenge are to bring the together.”

The challenge ahead for liberals is to get secular Democrats to understand the importance of Jim Wallis’ words. And to get far right voters to accept that God is not just a Republican.


View the original article here

1/25/12

MMP electoral system

Definition: A mixed member proportional or MMP electoral system usually combines the local representation of a first past the post electoral system with the proportional representation list system to achieve results where the proportion of seats won by a political party comes close to matching the proportion of the total vote for that party.

In a mixed member proportional electoral system, voters usually vote for both a local candidate and for a political party, and the members are elected from single member electoral districts and from party lists.

The Canadian provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec are considering the use of a mixed member proportional electoral system for their provincial elections.


View the original article here

1/24/12

Martha Coakley Profile

Martha Coakley was elected Massachusetts Attorney General in November 2006 with 73% of the vote, becoming the first woman to serve in this office. Coakley, a law-and-order advocate who was a county district attorney and former state women's bar assocation president, has received dozens of accolades including: 2006 - Eleanor Roosevelt award, by state Democratic Party 2004 - Excellence for Management in Government, by Boston Chamber of Commerce 2002 - Presidency of Massachusetts District Attorney Association 1998 - Woman of the Year, by University of Massachusetts Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy On December 8, 2009, Attorney General Coakley won, by more than a 20% margin, the Democratic primary to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by Sen. Ted Kennedy's passing. In the special election set for January 19, 2010, Democrat Coakley will face Republican Scott Brown, a three-term state legislator.

Martha Coakley was favored to prevail as victor because Massachusetts is a heavily liberal state. But Democratic anger at President Obama's broken campaign promises, particularly on health care reform, have dampened liberal enthusiasms. As a result, Republican Brown has a chance to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.


View the original article here

1/23/12

Justices Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada has nine justices - the Chief Justice of Canada and eight puisne (lower ranking) justices. The justices are chosen by the governor in council, in effect the Prime Minister of Canada. Justices are chosen from superior court judges or from barristers with at least ten years standing at the Bar of a Canadian province or territory. Justices are appointed until they retire or reach the age of 75, however can be removed for cause before that time.


View the original article here

1/22/12

Newfoundland

Definition: The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the ten provinces and three territories that make up Canada. Newfoundland is one of four Atlantic provinces in Canada.

John Cabot first used the term "new found isle" in 1497. The name Labrador is from the Portuguese word "lavrador" or small landholder, and is probably attributable to Jo?o Fernades, a Portuguese explorer. The term was first applied to a section of the coast of Greenland. In 2001, an amendment to the Terms of Union officially approved a name change from the province of Newfoundland to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


View the original article here

1/21/12

Henrietta Muir Edwards

A legal expert, Henrietta Muir Edwards spent her long life advocating for the rights of women and children in Canada. Her accomplishments included opening, with her sister Amelia, the Working Girls Association, a forerunner of the YWCA. She helped found the National Council of Women of Canada and the Victorian Order of Nurses. She also published the first magazine for working women in Canada. She was 80 in 1929 when she and the other "Famous Five" women finally won the Persons Case which recognized the legal status of women as persons under the BNA Act, a milestone legal victory for Canadian women.

Henrietta Muir Edwards supported many causes, especially those involving the legal and political rights of women in Canada. Some of the causes she promoted were temperanceraising the age of consentequal grounds for divorceequal parental rightsmothers' allowancesreform of the prison system in Canada.

View the original article here

1/20/12

Liberal Guide - Rick Santorum

Former Sen. Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination on June 6, 2011 while standing in the shadow of the Somerset County Courthouse in battleground state Pennsylvania, declaring about President Obama:
"He’s devalued our currency and he’s not just devalued our currency, he’s devalued our culture. Through marriage, and through not standing up to the Defense of Marriage Act. Through federal funding of abortions. He’s devaluing our dollars, and he devalues our other currency, our moral currency.

I love our tea partiers
"I love our tea partiers who raise their Constitution up... I believe now that Americans are not looking for someone that they can believe in; they're looking for a President who believes in them."

Through Liberal Eyes - These's a reason why former two-term U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania was soundly defeated for reelection in 2006: he's so virulently and thoroughly conservative as to make most voters uncomfortable. And he's grotesquely self-righteous and humorless.

But Santorum is famed for his freakishly extreme feelings on the gay community. "In two terms in the Senate, he became best known for his stalwart stand against gay rights and, more broadly, gayness in general, although Santorum prefers the words 'homosexual' or 'sodomites'... He has compared the idea of homosexual marriage to 'man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.'" reports NNDB.

The bottom line: Rick Santorum might be too extreme, even for the Republican party in 2012. Liberals find it deeply frightening that this guy was elected twice to the Senate.

Competitors - Despite his evangelical Christian bona fides and conservative credibility from two terms in the U.S. Senate, Rick Santorum has trailed the top contenders for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and businessman/media personality Herman Cain.

Rick Santorum on the Issues - Rick Santorum is extremely conservative on social issues, including gay rights, same-gender marriage, and abortion. Among his specific stances are: Santorum believes abortion should be banned except in cases of rape and incest. His Congresssional voting is rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a perfect pro-life record. His voting record is rated 100% by the ultra-conservative Christian Coalition. He voted that sexual oreintation should NOT be included as a cause for hate crimes. He voted NO to prohibit job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.Former Sen. Santorum's voting record is strongly anti-environment and pro-oil industry: His record is rated 0% by League of Conservation Voters. In 2005, he Voted NO on reducing U.S. oil usage by 40% by 2025. Four times, he's voted YES to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 1999, Sen. Santorum voted for federal defunding of renewable and solar energy initiatives.On economic issues: Santorum voted YES on every possible free trade agreement. His voting record is rated 100% by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Rick Santorum has consistently voted against raising minimum wage rates.Rick Santorum in Elected Office - January 1995 to January 2007 - U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania (two terms) January 1991 to January 1995 - Congressman from Pennsylvania's 18th District (two terms)Rick Santorum's Personal Background Birth - May 10, 1958 in Winchester, Virginia, the second of three children born to Aldo Santorum, a native of Italy, and wife Catherine a nurse. Aldo enjoyed a lengthy career with the U.S. Veterans' Administration in number of cities, and earned licensure as a psychologist in 1974. Education - Graduated in 1976 from Carmel High School in Mundelein, Illinois, although he was raised mainly in Virginia. Santorum played second team basketball in high school.

B.A. in political science, 1980, Pennsylvania State University, where he was a member of Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity. M.B.A. in 1981, University of Pittsburgh. J.D., 1986, Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law.

Family - Married in 1990 to Karen Garver, an attorney and formerly a nurse with an R.N. degree from Duquesne University.

Seven children: daughters Elizabeth, Sarah, and Isabella, and sons Richard Jr., Daniel, Peter, and Patrick. A son, Gabriel, born prematurely in 1996, died shortly after birth.

Youngest child, Isabella, born in 2008, is terminally ill with Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder.

Faith - Devoutly Roman Catholic. Rick and Karen Santorum have been honored with the John Paul II Award for "championing women and unborn children" by a Catholic graduate school of psychology.

They were investitured by a Catholic Diocese in 2004 at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City as Knight and Lady of Magisterial Grace of the Knights of Order of Malta. The Order requires that "Members are active and practicing Catholics in good standing who support the teaching of the Catholic Church and participate in the spiritual activities and service projects of the order."


View the original article here

1/18/12

NAY Votes in 2002 on Iraq War

As the US suffers from the ill-conceived, poorly planned, directionless War in Iraq that has killed over 2,100 US solidiers and wounded 17,000 more, is bankrupting our country, and has ruined our country's reputation around the world.... it's time we recognize and honor the members of Congress who voted in 2002 to prevent the Bush Administration's hasty rush to attack and occupy Iraq.

The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress had enough information and personal wisdom to make the correct decision for our nation and the world community.

These discerning leaders should be reelected in 2006 and beyond. Their courage and foresight are exactly what our country needs to lead it out of its present abyss in Iraq.
-------------------------

In the US Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences against it were:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI); Jeff Bingaman (D-NM;) Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Robert Byrd (D-WV); Lincoln Chafee (R-RI); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Jon Corzine (D-NJ;) Mark Dayton (D-MN); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Bob Graham (D-FL); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Jim Jeffords (I-VT); Ted Kennedy (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Carl Levin (D-MI); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD; Patty Murray (D-WA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Paul Sarbanes (D-MD); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR).
-------------------------

The 126 House Democrats who voted against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq were joined by 6 Republican Congressmen and one Independent member of the House:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii);Tom Allen (D-Maine).

Joe Baca (D-California}; Brian Baird (D-Washington DC); John Baldacci (D-Maine) now Governor of Maine; Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina); Xavier Becerra (D-California); Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon); David Bonior (D-Michigan) retired from office; Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania); Corinne Brown (D-Florida); Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Lois Capps (D-California); Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts); Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland); Julia Carson (D-Indiana); William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri); Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina) retired from office; James Clyburn (D-South Carolina); Gary Condit (D-California) retired from office; John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan); Jerry Costello (D-Illinois); William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania) retired from office;Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland).

Susan Davis (D-California); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon); Diana DeGette (D-Colorado); Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts); Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut); John Dingell (D-Michigan); Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas); Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania); John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee).

Anna Eshoo (D-California); Lane Evans (D-Illinois); Sam Farr (D-California); Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania); Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts); Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas);Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois).

Alice Hastings (D-Florida); Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama) retired from office; Maurice Hinchey (D-New York); Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas); Rush Holt (D-New Jersey); Mike Honda (D-California); Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon); John Hostettler (R-Indiana); Amo Houghton (R-New York) retired from office; Jay Inslee, (D-Washington).


View the original article here

1/17/12

Obama Rejects Torture Bill

Senator Barack Obama delivered this speech on the floor of the US Senate, in reaction to Senate passage of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved U.S. torture of detainees and strips Constitutional rights away from detainees.

Senator Obama decries the placement of politics over human rights, and condemns S. 3930. He states, "This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism."

STATEMENT ON THE MILITARY COMMISSION LEGISLATION

September 28, 2006
Remarks by Senator Barack Obama

"I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here.

I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be criticized as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

Human Rights Should Be Bigger Than Politics

And yet, while I know all of this, I'm still disappointed. Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

If this was a debate with obvious ideological differences - heartfelt convictions that couldn't be settled by compromise - I would understand. But it's not.

All of us - Democrats and Republicans - want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this. And all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people.

Unconstitutional

In the five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question. Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered. Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused. And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.Politics Won Today

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists. And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists - people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives. And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, "...actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay..." And yet, we have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact.The problem with this bill is not that it's too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it's sloppy.

And the reason it's sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right.

I've heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that.


View the original article here

1/16/12

Canada No-Fly List

On June 18, 2007, the Canadian federal government implemented a no-fly list to strengthen air travel security on domestic and international commercial flights.


Under the Passenger Protect program, the government maintains a list of people who may pose an immediate threat to air security if they get on board a flight. Airlines use an online system to check passengers intending to board flights against the no-fly or specified persons list.


If a name matches, the airline checks the person's government-issued identification information to see if it matches the name, date of birth and gender of someone on the list. This verification is done in person at the airport check-in counter.


If the airline gets a match, it contacts Transport Canada to confirm the person's identity and get a decision on whether that person will be allowed to board the flight. The RCMP are notified immediately if there is a match with the no-fly list, and police having jurisdiction at the airport are also informed and take action as required.


The no-fly or specified persons list is compiled by an advisory group led by Transport Canada. The group includes RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) representatives and also gets input from representatives of other Canadian government departments and agencies.


Individuals who are considered to pose a threat to air travel security may include those involved in a terrorist group those convicted of one or more serious and life-threatening crimes against aviation security those convicted of one or more serious and life-threatening offences and who may attack or harm an air carrier, passengers or crew members.

Beginning June 18, 2007, new identity screening regulations were also put in place for boarding a commercial flight in Canada.


All passengers who appear to be 12 years of age or older must have valid ID - either one piece of government-issued photo ID showing name, date of birth and gender or two pieces of government-issued ID, at least one of which shows name, date of birth and gender buy their ticket using the same name as on the ID - the name on the boarding pass must match the ID, or the passenger will not be allowed to board the aircraft.

View the original article here

1/15/12

Hoyer: Make It in America agenda

 President Obama meets with construction workers building a new Solyndra solar panel factory in Fremont, California, on May 26, 2010.

Paul Chinn/Getty ImagesRemarks by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, delivered on July 23, 2010 at Center for American Progress, in which he lays out President Obama's and the Democratic strategy for reviving U.S. manufacturing, which he dubs the "Make It in America agenda," and recounts the Democratic perspective on U.S. economic progress in 2009 through mid-2010.

For a listing of specific bills that will comprise the "Make It in America agenda," see page two of this article.

Democrats' Way Forward for the Economy
Remarks by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
July 23, 2010

America has faced its share of trying times — times when not just our economy, but our nation, seemed in decline. But each time, with ingenuity, hard work and our distinctly American optimism, we have built our way out, and we’ve emerged stronger.

Three Questions for Voters

No one doubts that this is one of those testing times. But the question that will be in front of us in this fall’s vote isn’t where we are — it’s where we go from here.

It’s a choice between two dramatically different directions. And our decision really comes down to three questions: How far have we come? What remains to be done? And which party will keep moving us forward?QUESTION ONE: How Far Have We Come?

First, how far have we come? Let’s consider an alternate history: America is facing the worst economic crisis in a generation. Americans are losing almost 800,000 jobs per month. Over a quarter of personal wealth in America has been wiped out. Banks are afraid to lend, businesses are forced into layoffs, and innovative start-ups can’t start up. Foreclosures are devastating neighborhoods. The massive deficit left behind by President Bush makes responding to the crisis even more difficult.A new president and a Democratic Congress are struggling for solutions — but negotiations break down, Congress remains paralyzed, and in the end we do nothing.

As a result, the nonpartisan CBO tells us that we’d be looking at 2 million additional Americans out of work. The economy would likely have continued to shrink, instead of growing for three straight quarters. Retirement savings would have remained devastated. And the global recession would have become catastrophic.

It was that bleak picture that led former Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein to endorse substantial deficit spending to pump life into the economy, saying, "I don’t think we have a choice."

I know thinking about how much worse off we could have been is not worth much comfort to anyone who’s still struggling to find work. But any honest look at our economy has to start with an honest conversation about the disaster we have to this point averted, as a result of the actions we have taken.

A mere year and a half ago, economists across the spectrum were talking in all seriousness about the risk of a second Great Depression. Instead, we’ve: stabilized the financial system, injected demand into the economy, and created jobs.In fact, the private sector has added jobs for six straight months. By comparison, it took more than two years after the end of the last recession for our economy to return to six consecutive months of job growth in the private sector.

That progress started with vital investments, not just in our immediate recovery, but in the foundations of prosperity for years to come: We are rebuilding the roads, railways, and bridges that are our economy’s backbone. We are using Build America Bonds to help local governments invest in the infrastructure projects they need most. We are investing in our children’s future: we’ve kept teachers in the classroom and have helped more young Americans reach their goal of a college education. We’re helping doctors and hospitals computerize medical records, so patients can be treated more effectively. We’ve funded clean energy technology that will help us save energy and become less dependent on foreign oil — technology like a ‘smart grid’ that will respond to changing energy needs in real time.Just as the Internet was created in America with the support of the federal government, today, in partnership with the private sector, we’re laying the groundwork for transformational technology that can shape our economy and create jobs for years to come.

And for 98% of Americans, taxes are now lower than they were in any single year under President Bush.

Nonpartisan Analysis: Obama Policies Responsible for 3 Million Jobs

Despite Republicans’ efforts to demonize those policies, they can’t refute the nonpartisan analysis that shows that they have been responsible for as many as 3 million jobs. They can’t ignore those investments’ benefits in their own communities—not when the House Minority Whip himself has hosted three job fairs featuring employers that have benefitted from just such federal funds.

In fact, while all House Republicans voted against these investments, more than half of the Republicans in Congress have taken credit for them in their districts.

Small Business Tax Cuts of $8.5 billion

President Obama has also signed into law the HIRE Act, which cuts employers’ taxes for every unemployed worker hired. The Treasury Department reported that, between February and May, the HIRE Act gave small businesses $8.5 billion in tax cuts for millions of new workers.

Democrats have also passed legislation helping to support $28 billion in new lending for small businesses, protecting middle-class Americans from abusive credit card lending practices, and making the biggest investment in student lending in history, without adding to the deficit.

Health insurance reform will have an important jobs impact, as well. A Harvard/USC study found that health reform will create up to 4 million jobs over the next decade, because it makes coverage more affordable for businesses and the self-employed, while putting American companies on a more even playing field with their foreign competitors.

And it will free the next generation of American entrepreneurs to innovate and make business decisions on the grounds of opportunity, not on the grounds of keeping their coverage.

Finally, President Obama has just signed important legislation to put the referees back on the field and hold Wall Street accountable for the reckless conduct that helped crash our economy.


View the original article here

1/13/12

Canada Gazette

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

1/12/12

McCain Loss: 5 Reasons

Barack Obama decisively won all three '08 presidential debates because of his many thoughtful programs for middle-class Americans, his stance on the ending the Iraq War and bringing U.S. combat troops home... and because of his agreeable, chameleon-like ability to represent many good things for a great many people.

But John McCain also lost the debates due to factors entirely independent of Barack Obama. And because of five main reasons, Sen. McCain is quite likely to lose the '08 presidential election.

Reason #1 - McCain Ignores Middle-Class Financial Pain

Judging by his actions and long voting record, John McCain has little compassion for the unique, present-day financial plight of middle-class Americans. And yet, most middle-class and working-class Americans are hurting financially at historic levels.

McCain's lack of empathy for middle-class America is so pronounced that never once during these debates did he bother to utter the phrase "middle class."

In fact, McCain's rousting defense in the third debate of Joe Wurzelbacher, an unlicensed Ohio plumber, was based on Joe making more than $250,000 and having to perhaps pay a bit more in personal income taxes.

If he has the income he claimed to Obama of $250,000, Joe, indeed, would be a moderately wealthy man, compared to the median U.S. family income in 2006 of $48,023 and to the Ohio median family income of $45,776.

And yet, Joe is the "average guy" McCain chose to defend financially at length.

When asked in August 2008 by Pastor Rick Warren to define "rich," McCain famously replied, "So -- so -- so I think if you're just talking about income, how about 5 million."

John McCain was born wealthy, has been wealthy for his entire life, and has had his health care provided by the U.S. government for his entire life.

And Sen. McCain's second wife, Cindy, has also been extraordinarily wealthy for her entire life. The McCains reportedly own nine homes, thirteen cars, and Mrs. McCain owns a private jet.

All this is to say: good for them, as long as they are paying their fair share of taxes!

Just don't expect either of the McCains to "get" what it means to hurt...really hurt... financially, because they apparently don't.

And don't expect John McCain to significantly help middle-class Americans in this time of desperate need, because he's made it abundantly clear that he won't.

(Also read Five Reasons Why Obama Will Win the '08 Election.)


View the original article here

1/11/12

Obama - Financial Security

On November 7, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama delivered an unusual and inspiring campaign speech in which he outlined specific, outside-the-box plans to address the extreme financial challenges facing middle-class Americans.

Among the specific interesting points in Barack Obama's Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream were: Middle class tax cuts of up to $1,000 for working families. Guaranteed paid sick days for workers and expand the Family and Medical Leave Act. Help Americans buy and keep their homes. Reforming bankruptcy laws, predatory credit card policies, and abusive payday lending practices. Reduce health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family. Provide a $4,000 refundable tax credit for college tuition(See Barack Obama in 2008 Info Hub and News Center.)

Also see American Middle-Class Rage Over Bush Economic, Spending Priorities.

The following is the text of Sen. Obama's speech.

RECLAIMING THE AMERICAN DREAM
Delivered on November 7, 2007 in Bettendorf, Iowa

If you spend time in Washington, you hear a lot about the divisions in our country. About how we're becoming more separated by geography and ideology; race and religion; wealth and opportunity.

And we've had plenty of politicians who try to take advantage of these divisions - pitting Americans against one another, or targeting different messages to different audiences.

But as I've traveled around Iowa and the rest of the country these last nine months, I haven't been struck by our differences - I've been impressed by the values and hopes that we share.

In big cities and small towns; among men and women; young and old; black, white, and brown - Americans share a faith in simple dreams: A job with wages that can support a family. Health care that we can count on and afford. A retirement that is dignified and secure. Education and opportunity for our kids. Common hopes. American dreams.

These are dreams that drove my grandparents. After my grandfather served in World War II, the GI Bill gave him a chance to go to college, and the government gave them a chance to buy a home. They moved West, worked hard at different jobs, and were able to provide my mother with a decent education, to help raise me, and to save enough to retire.

These are dreams that drove my father-in-law. A city worker in Chicago, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis at the age of 30. But every day, even when he had to leave an hour earlier in the morning and rely on a walker to get him there, he went to work while his wife stayed home with the kids. And on that single salary, he provided for his family and sent my wife Michelle and her brother to college. His dream was to see them do better. And they have.

These are dreams that drove my mother. A single mom - even while relying on food stamps as she finished her education, she followed her passion for helping others, and raised my sister and me to believe that in America there are no barriers to success - no matter what color you are, no matter where you're from, no matter how much money you have.

And these are the dreams that led me to Chicago over two decades ago to become a community organizer. The salary - $12,000 a year - wasn't what my friends would make in the corporate world or at law firms.

I didn't know a single person in Chicago. But I knew there were folks who needed help. The steel plant had closed. Jobs were disappearing.

In a forgotten corner of America, the American dream was slipping away. And I knew dreams are worth fighting for.

(See Barack Obama in 2008 Info Hub and News Center.)


View the original article here

1/10/12

Obama's Plan for Iraq

Barack Obama's realistic, visionary plan for peace in Iraq, outlined in an important speech delivered on September 12, 2007 in Clinton, Iowa.

TURNING THE PAGE IN IRAQ

A few months ago, I met a woman who told me her nephew was leaving for Iraq. As she started to tell me about how much she'd miss him and how worried she was about him, she began to cry. "I can't breathe,' she said. "I want to know when I am going to be able to breathe again.'

I have her on my mind when I think about what we've gone through as a country and where we need to go. Because we've been holding our breath over Iraq for five years. As we go through yet another debate about yet another phase of this misguided war, we've got a familiar feeling.

Again, we're told that progress is upon us. Again, we're asked to hold our breath a little longer. Again, we're reminded of what's gone wrong with our policies and our politics.

It was five years ago today - on September 12, 2002 - that President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations. Standing in front of a world that stood with us after 9/11, he said, "In the attacks on America

Then he talked about Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. But citing the lesson of 9/11, he and others said we had to act. "To suggest otherwise," the President said, "is to hope against the evidence."

George Bush Was Wrong about Iraq

George Bush was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our invasion.

The case for war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence - so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence Estimate.

But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President.

Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves.

Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about, "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.

Nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Five times that number have suffered horrible wounds, seen and unseen. Loved ones have been lost, dreams denied. Children will grow up without fathers and mothers. Parents have outlived their children.

That is a cost of this war.

Iraq War Cost: Over a Trillion Dollars

When all is said and done, the price-tag will run over a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars.

That's money NOT spent on: homeland security and counter-terrorism; providing health care to all Americans and a world-class education to every child; investments in energy to save ourselves and our planet from an addiction to oil. That is a cost of this war.

The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of this war, our forces are under pressure as never before. Our National Guard and reserves have half of the equipment they need to respond to emergencies at home and abroad. Retention among West Point graduates is down. Our powers of deterrence and influence around the world are down.

That is a cost of this war.

America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised by a faulty case for war. Our moral leadership has been compromised by Abu Ghraib.

That is a cost of this war.


View the original article here

1/9/12

Canadian Crime Statistics

This is a selection of highlights from Statistics Canada reports on Canadian crime statistics and homicide statistics in recent years. These statistics capture general trends in crime across the country.


The Canadian crime statistics are from annual reports by Statistics Canada using data collected using the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey. The UCR Survey collects information on criminal incidents reported to police services across the country, and substantiated by the police, using a standardized set of crime categories and definitions developed with the co-operation of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.


The homicide statistics are also published in annual reports by Statistics Canada and use data collected by the Homicide Survey. When a homicide becomes known to the police, questionnaires are filled in by the police service and sent to Statistics Canada. New information is submitted to Statistics Canada as it becomes available.

The number of homicides in Canada went down significantly in 2010, according to Statistics Canada's Homicide Survey. The drop in the homicide rate which was at its lowest level in 40 years was mainly due to a decline in homicides in the western provinces, especially in British Columbia. Even with the declines in the west, the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan still had homicide rates double the national average.

View the original article here

1/8/12

Liberal Guide - Jon Huntsman

On June 21, 2011 while standing near the Statue of Liberty, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. announced his candidacy for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination, declaring "For the first time in our history, we are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got.

"This is totally unacceptable and totally un-American. And it need not, must not, will not be our permanent condition! We will not be the first American generation that lets down the next generation."

Jon Huntsman Jr. served as President Obama's Ambassador to China from August 2009 through April 2011, and as Ambassador to Singapore for President George H.W. Bush from August 1992 through June 1993.

Competitors - Although feared by Democrats as one of very few Republican candidates who could beat President Obama in 2012, Gov. Huntsman has consistently trailed his conservative competitors, who include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and House members Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Jon Huntsman on the Issues - Gov. Huntsman is staunchly conservative on most, but not all, issues. He differs from mainstream Republicans on two main issues: civil unions for same-gender couples, and the importance of stemming global warming.

Gov. Huntsman's political stances include: Pro-life, especially on abortion. As governor, he signed three bills to limit access to abortions. Supports a voucher system for "school choice" in public education. Strong supporter of free trade and globalization in trade. Opposes gun control, and would veto any ban on assault weapons. Is quite admired by the CATO Institute, conservative-libertarian think-tank for his conservative tax-cutting proposals and policies.Jon Huntsman in Elected Office - Huntsman was elected Utah governor twice, in 2004 and 2008, although he resigned in August 2009 to become the Obama administration's Ambassador to China.

Jon Huntsman's Many Political Appointments - Before his sole elective office, however, Mr. Huntsman received a number of plum political appointments from 1987 to 1993, and again from 2001 to 2003, including as: White House staff assistant - Reagan administration Deputy Assistant Commerce Secretary, East Asian/Pacific - Bush I administration US Ambassador to Singapore - Bush I administration Deputy US Trade Representative - Bush II administrationHuntsman was the recipient of this myriad of political appointments largely due to his suavely mannered communication style and personal attractiveness, his knowledge of and family business connections to China and the Far East, and presumably due to the prominence of Huntsman's billionaire father in the Republican party.

From 1993 to 2001, Jon Huntsman Jr. served as CEO of Huntsman Corporation, which was founded in 1979 by his father. The highly profitable company boasted $9 billion in sales and 12,000 employees in 2010.

Huntsman Corporation is a "global chemical company" that is "a manufacturer and marketer of differentiated chemical products," per Wikipedia. The company went public in 2005, and spurned a $6 billion take-over offer in 2007.

Jon Huntsman's Personal Background Birth - March 26, 1960 in Palo Alto, California, the first of nine children born to David and Karen Huntsman, a devout, generations-long Mormon family. Education - Dropped out of high school in Salt Lake City, Utah to devote his attention to a music career as a keyboardist with a youthful band. Instead, Huntsman earned a GED.

Two years at University of Utah, where he was a member of Sigma Chi fraternity. Transferred to University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a BA in international politics in 1987.

Huntsman served two years a a Mormon missionary in Taiwan before he transferred to University of Pennsylvania. In Taiwan, he mastered the Mandarin Chinese language.

Family - Married since 1983 to Mary Kaye Cooper, his high school sweetheart. Seven children, including five adult children and two younger, adopted daughters.

The Huntsman family adult children are Mary Anne (1985), Abigail (1986), Elizabeth (1989), Jon (1991) and William (1993). The younger Huntsman family children are Gracie Mei (born in China in 1999) and Asha Bharati (born in India in 2006).

Faith - Christian, Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) denomination.

Of Huntsman's religiosity, Time magazine excerpted its May 2011 with the former Utah governor, " 'I'm a very spiritual person,' as opposed to a religious one, he says, 'and proud of my Mormon roots.' Roots? That makes it sound as if you're not a member anymore. Are you? 'That's tough to define,' he says. 'There are varying degrees. I come from a long line of saloon keepers and proselytizers, and I draw from both sides.'"Interests - Motorcycling, shooting


View the original article here

1/7/12

African-Americans by state

This article lists the percentage of each state that is African-American, per the 2010 U.S. census, from the highest to lowest percentage of the total state population.

African-American data is relevant to elections because in both 2008, this group voted nearly unanimously to elect Barack Obama to the White House. Per the non-partisan Pew Research, African-American voters voted at historically high rates in 2008, especially women. "Overall, among all racial, ethnic and gender groups, black women had the highest voter turnout rate in November's election -- a first," per Pew Research.

To win reelection in 2012, President Obama will rely on high African-American turn-out at the polls in states as North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia and even his home-state of Illinois. Major Possible African-American Electoral Influence in 2012
1. Mississippi - 37% 2. Louisiana - 32% 3. Georgia - 30% 3. Maryland - 30% 5. South Carolina - 28% 6. Alabama - 27% 7. North Carolina - 22% 7. Delaware - 22% 9. Virginia - 20%Moderate Possible African-American Electoral Influence in 2012
10. Tennessee - 17% 11. New York - 16% 11. Florida - 16% 11. Arkansas - 16% 14. Illinois - 14% 14. Michigan - 14% 14. New Jersey - 14% 17. Texas - 12% 17. Ohio - 12% 17. Missouri - 12% 20. Pennsyllvania - 11% 21. Connecticut - 10%Small Possible African-American Electoral Influence in 2012
22. Indiana - 9% 23. Kentucky - 8% 23. Oklahoma - 8% 23. Nevada - 8% 26. Massachusetts - 7% 27. California - 6% 27. Wisconsin - 6% 27. Kansas - 6% 27. Rhode Island - 6% 31. Minnesota - 5% 31. Nebraska - 5% 33. Arizona - 4% 33. Washington - 4% 33. Colorado - 4% 33. Alaska - 4%Negligible Possible African-American Electoral Influence in 2012
37. Iowa - 3% 37. West Virginia - 3% 39. Oregon - 2% 39. New Mexico - 2% 39. Hawaii - 2% 42 Utah - 1% 42. Maine - 1% 42. New Hampshire - 1% 42. South Dakota - 1% 42. Idaho - 1% 42. North Dakota - 1% 42. Vermont - 1% 42. Wyoming - 1% 50. Montana - 0%Source - 2010 U.S. Census, per BlackDemographics.com

View the original article here

1/6/12

Omnibus Crime Bill

The federal Conservatives have made anti-crime measures a cornerstone of their political and legislative agenda since they were first elected in 2006. Although they have passed other anti-crime legislation, now that they have a majority government and can more easily get legislation passed, they have wrapped up nine anti-crime bills that didn't get passed in previous sessions into this single 100-plus-page omnibus legislation. The bill covers laws on drug possession, young offenders, pardons, conditional sentences, minimum and maximum sentences, human smuggling, sexual exploitation, support for victims of terrorism, and transferring Canadian offenders back to Canada.


These may all sound like good things, but there are a lot of details in a bill of this size. The government has limited debate on the bill by using time allocation to push the bill through more quickly. Although they allowed quite a few witnesses to appear, briefly, before the committee examining the bill, they accepted just one single minor amendment at committee stage in the House. The standard response to any criticism or suggestions on the serious topics in this massive piece of legislation is the glib refrain that the critic is "soft on crime" or "advocating for criminals."


In the 2011 Canadian federal election, the Conservatives promised to pass this legislation in the first 100 sitting days of the 41st Parliament, which gives them until March 16, 2012.


An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts


Safe Streets and Communities Act


September 20, 2011


Minister of Justice


Passed in the House of Commons on December 5, 2011. Moves to the Seante.


The main measures included in the Omnibus Crime Bill are: Protecting Children From Sexual Offenders - Imposes tougher mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for sexual offences against children under 16. Also creates two new offences involving conduct that could facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against a child. Increasing Penalties for Serious Drug Crimes - Amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to set mandatory minimum penalties for drug offences carried out for the purposes of organized crime or targeting youth. Also doubles the maximum sentence for the production of marijuana and other Schedule II drugs from seven to 14 years and provides higher maximum penalties for date-rape drugs. Makes exemptions for drug treatment programs. Tougher Sentences for Violent and Repeat Young Offenders - Emphasizes the protection of society as a fundamental principle of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Expands the definition of "violent offence;" requires the Crown to consider an adult sentence for youths 14 to 17 years old convicted of most serious violent crimes; and requires the consideration of lifting the publication ban on names of young offenders convicted of violent offences. Also prohibits the imprisonment of young offenders under 18 in adult correctional facilities. Restriction of Use of Conditional Sentences - Conditional sentences are sentences of less than two years that can be served in the community (house arrest for example.) These amendments to the Criminal Code provide a new longer and clear list of offences for property and other serious crimes for which conditional sentences would not be available. Increasing Offender Accountability - Amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to increase the rights of victims of crime to participate in parole decisions. The offender disciplinary system is modernized and a requirement is introduced to have a correctional plan for each offender. The amendments also increase the maximum number of full-time Parole Board of Canada members from 45 to 60. Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes - These amendments to the Criminal Records Act are designed to prevent the most serious criminals from getting a pardon in Canada. The term "pardon" is replaced with the term "record suspension." Ineligibility periods before an application can be made for a pardon (record suspension) are increased, and some people will be ineligible to apply for a record suspension at all, including those convicted of a sexual offence with a minor. International Transfer of Canadian Offenders Back to Canada - These amendments add criteria for the Minister of Public Safety to use when deciding if a criminal should be granted a transfer back to Canada. Supporting Victims of Terrorism - A new Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and amendments to the State Immunity Act allow victims of terrorism to sue in a Canadian court individuals, groups or foreign states believed to be responsible for acts of terrorism with a connection to Canada. Protecting Vulnerable Foreign Workers - Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act make it possible to deny work permits to foreign nationals at risk of being exploited or abused. Those who might be vulnerable include victims of human trafficking, exotic dancers or low-skilled laborers.

Text of the Omnibus Crime Bill (As passed by the House of Commons)


View the original article here

1/4/12

Sen Clinton on Privacy

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) gave a lengthy, nuanced speech on U.S. privacy rights to the American Constitution Society on June 16, 2006, a respected progressive organization.

Senator Clinton's speech was significant, as it was the first major policy speech by a Democratic leader to propose a Privacy Bill of Rights and federal privacy czar. These will be major issues in the 2008 presidential race, and may be a vital part of the Democratic Platform.

This article excerpts key passages of Senator Clinton's speech on June 16, 2006. The speech has been edited, for quick and easy reading.

(Also see Hillary Clinton in 2008 Info Center Hub.)

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on PRIVACY, to the American Constitution Society

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to come before you and speak on a topic that is timely everyday, once again today, namely privacy rights...

I am giving a speech today on one of the most important issues facing us as individuals and as a nation. I believe we are a country headed in the wrong direction in many ways and it’s time to take some fundamental changes in direction in order to make our economy work for all people, to protect our national security in a realistic, effective way, and preserve our values...

Well, privacy is a crossroad of all these issues. And modern life makes many things easier, and many things easier to know. And yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of these changes.

Our economy is increasingly data driven. We have dramatically ramped up surveillance in our efforts to fight the terrorists who hide among innocent civilians. But every day the news contains a story of how the records of millions of consumers, veterans, patients have been compromised.

PRIVACY PROTECTIONS ARE BROKEN

At all levels, the privacy protections for ordinary citizens are broken, inadequate and out of date...

Now, my experience with privacy policy have been, let us say, unique... But having lost so much of my own privacy in recent years, I have a deep appreciation of its value – and a firm commitment to protecting it for all the rest of you...

Most people cherish their privacy, that fundamental desire to be let alone. They see it as essential to their liberty that they be able to go about their daily business free from surveillance and interference.

And yet in modern society – without greater safeguards – we are all open books to whoever has access to the data we create every day, from credit cards to store cameras to phone company records...

I believe that it is not just a possibility, but a necessity, that we preserve our right to privacy, while we also participate freely in the modern world and defend our national security.

But if we keep going as we are, there will be little left of that cherished right. Every phone call, every Internet search, every credit card purchase -- they are all under potential surveillance from business and government, unless we start to draw the line, reinforce people's basic rights, and put checks and balances back into our system.

Now, privacy and national security have gone hand in hand since America’s beginnings. When the Framers adopted the Fourth Amendment, they had in mind the intrusive and threatening searches that British authorities felt free to carry out on a whim... The value of the Fourth Amendment is as strong and important now as it was back when British soldiers were garrisoned involuntarily in people’s homes...

Privacy is not and should not be a liberal value or a conservative value. It is fundamentally an American value. It is a human value.

And we have to operate from a presumption that the Fourth Amendment means that no matter how easily our privacy can be violated, that we still have a basic right to protect the collection and dissemination of information about ourselves from our government.

Now, we have to remember that we also have to start all analysis of privacy with this basic notion: individuals have a right to privacy unless there is a compelling reason to breach it. But privacy is not to be the exception, it is the standard.

Today our privacy comes into uncertain conflict with security cameras, data mining, computer hackers and identity theft. We’re concerned not just with government action, but with the ability of the private sector, even our neighbors, to misuse or provide insufficient protection for our personal information.

So therefore we do need legal protections that are up to date with the technological and national security needs of our time – for a world in which we can be confident that our security and our privacy are both protected. And that is what I would like to propose today.

Well, right now, many Americans are frightened, and confused, about losing their privacy. We see patterns of carelessness and outright fraud at the same time as we are exposed to data-gathering and marketing gimmicks at every turn.


View the original article here

1/3/12

Illegal Church Electioneering

Hey...did you hear the one about the Democrats who got expelled from a Baptist church because they were…well, Democrats?

No, seriously. It’s not a joke. It happened in the red state of North Carolina. It’s absurd but true.

Nine Democrats got voted out of their church because they wouldn’t repent of their liberal sins and support George Bush. These aren’t rabid activists, sign-toting picketers or disruptive rabble-rousers. The Waynesville Nine are middle-agers and senior citizens, deacons and bookkeepers. They’ve been members for decades. Said one ousted member, “A lot of blood, sweat and tears have been shed by the people he told to leave.”

He is Pastor Chan Chandler of the 400-member East Waynesville Baptist Church, part of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC), of the Southern Baptist Convention.

It started in Fall 2004 when Chandler preached a sermon series on politics. According to parishioners, the election-season sermons focused on “John Kerry and why he was an evil man.” Many asked him to stop politicizing the church, but the pastor felt called to spread the gospel of George Bush.

Pastor Chandler is rumored to have required each member, from teenagers to seniors, to sign a written agreement with the pastor’s politics, a move the BSCNC now calls "highly irregular."

On May 1, the pastor preached two barn-burner politically infused sermons, then called a special church-wide meeting for Monday night. The pastor requested the attendance of the Waynesville Nine plus two others.

“Monday night was the lynching,” said Lewis Inman. “He had 40 people with him, 12 adults and the rest teenagers… and said they were going to vote us out. …And he only needed a two-thirds majority to do it….so the nine of us stood up and left before they could vote.” The teens clapped and cheered loudly when the nine elderly members left the premises.

Why Is This Wrong? Of course, God transcends politics. God is not a Republican or Democrat. To state otherwise shows lack of understanding of Christianity.

From a statutory viewpoint, it’s disastrous. Churches are exempt from most taxes, including income and property taxes. In return for valuable exemptions, churches are prohibited by the IRS "from directly or indirectly participating in...any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective office.”

The theory is that all US taxpayers subsidize the tax-free status of churches, and may not be forced to subsidize oppositional political activity. Churches can lose tax-exempt status for violating IRS regulations. The church is then liable for income, property and a slew of other taxes, just like any other for-profit organization.

From a political viewpoint, it’s stupid. Conservative evangelical Christians appeal to followers, in part, based on a historical persecution complex of martyrdom. Christians as the misunderstood outsiders, do-gooder victims of a evil, heathen world. A cut above the rest of the world in spirituality and lifestyle.

Pastor Chandler arrogantly created martyrs with this public ouster. It’s a political loser, sure to repel voters and supporters, and nasty situations normally drive down church attendance. Another 50 members of the church have departed church rolls in dissent.

What Should a Non-Republican Do? Speaking privately with the pastor or board of Elders/Deacons is your first step. That should suffice to correct discriminatory and illegal behavior by the church, and to clear up misunderstandings.

If electioneering persists, taxpayers are encouraged to contact the IRS at 1-800-829-0433, or visit the IRS web page. When contacting the IRS, be sure to have corroborating notes, documents and photos.

And last, find a new church. This country has thousands of loving, respectful churches eager to welcome new members of all political leanings.

The United Church of Christ recently ran an ad campaign stating that all are greeted with open arms at their churches. Other denominations decried the UCC ads as inaccurate. Reality is, though, that some churches are exclusive and exclusionary, based on race, politics, sexuality, income level, dress and more. The East Waynesville Baptist Church is a prime example.

What’s Next for the Waynesville Nine? Fifty-five dissenters and their attorneys attended services en masse on May 8. The pastor nervously greeted them from his pulpit, “ We are here today to worship the Lord. I hope this is what you are here for.”

Chandler now calls it a “great misunderstanding. This should all be cleared up by the end of this week." He’s called another church-wide meeting. The BSCNC website posted this statement regarding the controversy, "...a position as the one Chandler is reported to have taken could threaten a church’s tax exempt status because it could be interpreted as stepping into political advocacy, an action prohibited by IRS rules."

Pastor Chandler resigned his position on May 10, 2005.


View the original article here

1/2/12

Catholic Cardinal Slams Law

In response to an immigration bill passed in late 2005 by the US House, Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, the largest US diocese with five million Catholics, wrote this letter to President Bush, decrying the new mandate that organizations first check immigration status before providing services to any person.

Cardinal Mahony has been an outspoken supporter of immigrants throughout his pastoral career. Ordained in 1962, he ministered mainly to Hispanics and California's migrant farm workers. In 1975, Bishop Mahony was appointed by Governor Brown as Chairman of the first California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, mediating between the United Farm Workers, headed by Cesar Chavez, and state growers.Mahony was made Archbishop in 1985, and Cardinal in 1991.

In January 2006, Mahony launched The Justice for Immigrants Campaign in Los Angeles, a national effort to "educate and galvanize Catholics of the need for justice for immigrants." On March 1, 2006, Cardinal Mahony asked all in the Los Angeles Diocese to mark Lent by fasting for humane immigrations laws.
----------------------

December 30, 2005

The Honorable
George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

The House of Representatives recently passed a border-security Bill (H.R. 4437) that has enormous implications and ramifications for all of us in this country.

While I am surely in favor of taking appropriate government action to protect the borders of our country, not every action step is feasible or advisable. Apparently, the recently passed House Bill will require of all personnel of Churches and of all non-profit organizations to verify the legal immigration status of every single person served through our various entities.

In effect, priests, ministers, rabbis, and others involved in various Church-related activities will be forced top become "quasi-immigration enforcement officials." The Catholic Church alone offers a vast spectrum of services for all in need, including education, health care, and social services. Our golden rule has always been to serve people in need--not to verify beforehand their immigration status.

But the Bill imposes incredibly penalties upon any person assisting others' through a Church or a social service organization. Up to five years in prison and seizure of assets would accompany serving the poor who later turn out to be here without proper legal documentation.

One could interpret this Bill to suggest that any spiritual and pastoral service given to any person requires proof of legal residence. Are we to stop every person coming to Holy Communion and first ask them to produce proof of legal residence before we can offer them the Body and Blood of Christ?

Speaking for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, such restrictions are impossible to comply with. The underlying basis for our service to others ,especially to the poor, is the example, words, and actions of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. The 25th chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel does not simply invite us to serve others in the name of Jesus, but offers such service as a requisite to the Kingdom of God:

"Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me."

Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen. I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (Matthew 25: 31-46)

This one example in Matthew's Gospel is foundational to our discipleship of Jesus Christ, and all that we do in service to those in need is done in light of our Baptismal commitments.

It is staggering for the federal government to stifle our spiritual and pastoral outreach to the poor, and to impose penalties for doing what our faith demands of us.

Throughout your Presidency, you have encouraged Faith Based Organizations to be strong partners in meeting the needs of the those in our communities. Yet, this Bill will produce the opposite effect.

You must speak out clearly and forcefully in opposition to these repressive---and impossible--aspects of any immigration reform efforts. Your personal leadership is needed to counter such ill-advised efforts.

Thanking you for giving strong leadership in this matter, and with kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

His Eminence
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony
Archbishop of Los Angeles


View the original article here

1/1/12

Elsie MacGill

Elsie MacGill was the first woman to receive an electrical engineering degree in Canada and the first woman aircraft designer in the world. During World War II, Elsie MacGill oversaw the design and production of 1450 Hawker Hurricane airplanes in Canada, earning her the nickname "Queen of the Hurricanes." Elsie MacGill was also active in womens rights isssues and in 1967 was appointed to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

Degree in electical engineering - University of Toronto Masters degree in aeronautical engineering - University of Michigan

View the original article here

Popular Posts