The light of justice yesterday completely removed the darkness that had hung over the nation for 34 years following the heinous killing of Bangabandhu as the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence to a dozen killers earlier confirmed by the High Court.
Amid an unprecedented tight security on the court premises as well as across the country, a five-member special bench of the Appellate Division delivered the nine-minute "short order" of the judgment around 11:45am in a jam-packed courtroom of the chief justice.
"We are of the view that it [killing of Bangabandhu] is not a case of criminal conspiracy to commit mutiny, rather it is a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and other members of his family," said Justice Md Tafazzul Islam, the most senior member of the bench, while reading out the order.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
State Budgets: California's slide into fiscal oblivion continues, with no end in sight. Despite lots of budget cuts this year, a $21 billion deficit looms. The politicians' solution? Stop selling high-definition TVs in the state.
It's starting to become routine. Last February, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new spending plan with "real, lasting reforms" that would help close its $36 billion-plus deficit and ensure the state never got so out of fiscal whack again.
And just four months ago the Governator and California's worst-in-the-country legislature agreed to a plan to close a $24 billion budget gap by cutting spending amid a deep plunge in tax revenues.
Flash forward to this week when no surprise here the Legislative Analyst's Office announced the budget would show a $21 billion deficit in the current and coming fiscal years, much bigger than forecast earlier. Seems all the cuts didn't do the job.
Also on Wednesday, a study showed not only that this year's "reforms" achieved nothing, but that the deficits the state has run for over a decade which are illegal under California's Constitution would continue for years.
Welcome to the once-Golden State, where legislators seem to take delight in tearing down all the things that once made it the greatest place to live in America and possibly the world.
For 18 years, the state has spent more than it has taken in. A lot more. Over that stretch, total spending grew 5.9% a year on average, to $144.5 billion. A general rule of thumb says states should increase spending no faster than the rate of growth in population plus inflation. Over the same period, California's population plus inflation grew just 4.4% a year, 25% slower than the actual budget.
According to a study earlier this year by the Reason Foundation, if the state had kept spending growth to 4.4%, instead of 5.9%, the state would today have a $15 billion surplus. Instead, in just the past three years, it has rung up deficits of $81 billion. This is the kind of fiscal profligacy one sees in Third World nations on the verge of collapse, not in the world's seventh-largest economy.
Why is this happening? Because in addition to spending too much, the state suffers from plunging tax revenues. But not because taxes are too low. California is losing employers and entrepreneurs by the thousands. They are fed up with soaring taxes and an aggressively hostile business environment.
For example, the state's ever-eager environmental regulators just this week vowed to ban big-screen TV sets. Reason: Big TVs use too much energy.
The "energy savings" are likely to be minimal. But because of the new rules, more retailers will go out of business, consumer costs will rise and tax revenues will drop. And those who want a big- screen, high-def TV will simply order online.
And this is just one thing, on one day. Hardly a week goes by that the state doesn't announce some new initiative, tax or regulation intended to make it harder on business to build or expand.
The results have been tragic. From January 2001 to this September, California's manufacturers which, by the way, pay an average wage of about $60,000 a year have slashed employment from 1.88 million to 1.295 million, destroying roughly 31% of the state's industrial base in a mere nine years.
California is besieged with such petty micromanaging that it's almost impossible to build factories or businesses there. The Tax Foundation ranks California 48th among the 50 states for its business tax environment.
But a costly labyrinth of regulations makes it even worse. A new study from California State University at Sacramento estimates regulations cost the state $492 billion per year a toll that translates into 3.8 million fewer jobs, $211 billion less in worker pay and an annual tax on each small business equal to $57, 260.
Someday, residents of this once-well-governed state will wise up and throw those who are systematically destroying it out of office. Until then, they bear as much responsibility for the destruction as the hacks they've re-elected.
#1
The self inflicted pain will stop when it slides back into Territorial status sans its Senators and Representatives [talk to the people of DC about taxation without representation]. Then they can blame the central government for mess they've voted themselves.
#3
What the unions have done to the Automakers, they have now done to California. Unfornately we will have to hit rock bottom before they stop using gimmicks and actually plan a budget. I got a call last night from the union (all state workers are union) and they wanted to know if I support a tax increase so I could get a raise. I just hung up in disgust.
Alice Palmer is a Chicago based academic, activist and former friend, employer and political ally of Barack Obama. In the mid 1990s Alice Palmer, then an Illinois State Senator, employed Obama has her chief of staff, when she attempted an ill-fated run for the US Congress.
Obama was part of Friends of Alice Palmer, alongside controversial property developer Tony Rezko and Democratic Socialists of America members Danny Davis, Betty Wilhoitte and Timuel Black-also a member of Committees of Correspondence.
Later Palmer introduced Obama as designated successor to her Illinois State Senate seat, in the living room of former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, while DSA member, former communist and long time Obama friend Quentin Young looked on.
The Palmer/Obama relationship soured after Obama refused to step down when Palmer decided she wanted her State Senate seat back, after her Congressional bid failed. Obama went on to win the seat unopposed, after he knocked Palmer and his other rivals off the ballot, by challenging the legitimacy of their nominating signatures.
Alice Palmer was the first rung of Obama's ladder to power.
It has long been known that Alice Palmer was a communist front activist, as were many in Obama's orbit.
More seriously however-new evidence shows that Alice Palmer had high level connections behind the "Iron Curtain" and may have been a Soviet "agent of influence"-that is, a conduit of Soviet progaganda and policy, to the US and the "third world".
What is the evidence? Read it all
Posted by: ed ||
11/20/2009 15:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Palmer/Obama relationship soured after Obama refused to step down when Palmer decided she wanted her State Senate seat back, after her Congressional bid failed. Obama went on to win the seat unopposed, after he knocked Palmer and his other rivals off the ballot, by challenging the legitimacy of their nominating signatures.
So, was she the first one under the Obama bus?
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/20/2009 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No 746- he is a poorly-counseled man-child who has relied on others (Ronald Davis in this case) to destroy opponents without ever actually slugging it out in the 'marketplace of ideas.'
An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis , IN )
Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser
Senator Bayh,
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.
I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NOchoice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALLAmericans' finances and personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. "After eight years of delay," he intoned, "those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act."
Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."
Those lawyers threw up hundreds of roadblocks. Military detentions and tribunals violated, they claimed, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Litigating all this has taken years.
At last clearing those obstacles, the government initiated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's military trial in Guantanamo in September 2008. In December, KSM pleaded guilty and asked to be executed.
But now, the attorney general puffs out his chest and declares that by trying KSM in an Article III federal court, he has chosen the forum "most likely to lead to a positive result."
The mind reels.
This is an excruciatingly awful decision that no hanging judge talk of "the ultimate penalty" can perfume. What about the increased risk of terror attacks on New York during the trial? The city is "hardened" against attacks Holder assures us. Really? Like Fort Hood?
By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You'll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you'll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)
Attorney General Holder is keen to prove to a supposedly skeptical world that America lives up to its values (never mind that granting the full rights of citizens to enemy combatants is not part of our creed -- nor anyone else's). Yet he has also repeatedly asserted that a not-guilty verdict is unacceptable. "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won." Whoa. In the first place, it isn't at all beyond imagination that the government could lose this case. KSM was waterboarded. No evidence thus obtained is admissible. A liberal judge who disliked the Bush administration might exclude other key evidence as well.
But Holder says he'll be found guilty. Isn't that a perversion of our jurisprudence? If a not-guilty verdict is impossible, then the trial is a sham. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward" said the Red Queen.
Moreover, the Justice Department has assured Sen. Jon Kyl that "we will not release anyone into the United States if doing so would endanger our national security or the American people." So in the event that KSM is acquitted, it's the position of the Obama Justice Department that we would continue to hold him? How does that outcome burnish the reputation of our justice system?
And while we're on the subject of not thinking things through, at a Senate hearing, Holder could not answer Sen. Lindsey Graham's question about how we would deal with Osama bin Laden if we caught him tomorrow. Would he be Mirandized? Would we give him a lawyer? Isn't that the precedent this decision sets?
There are dozens more reasons (including the intelligence bonanza this will confer on al-Qaida) that this decision is among the worst to emerge from a terrible presidency. What did they hope to achieve? Perhaps they have thought it through -- at least as far as how the trial would unfold. With no defense (he has boasted about his mass murder), what will KSM do? He will put the CIA and the Bush administration on trial. Prepare for lurid accounts of his and others' mistreatment.
Is that the nub? To satisfy the revenge fantasies of American leftists who have lusted to put the Bush administration on trial, the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice logic, justice, national security, and honor?
When KSM's star turn in the courtroom goes viral on the Internet and inspires thousands of new jihadis, the Obamaites can console themselves that at least they stuck it to George W. Bush.
Tim Geithner hotly defended his job Thursday in front of angry Republican congressmen who asked him to step down. "What I can't take responsibility is for the legacy of crises you've bequeathed this country," he shot back.
It is not easy being the secretary of the Treasury in the midst of so much economic turmoil. But even under current conditions, Tim Geithners credit is running exceptionally low. He is already in serious danger of being ranked with the most ineffectual Treasury secretaries in recent historyalong with David Kennedy under Nixon, Michael Blumenthal under Carter, Don Regan under Reagan and Paul ONeill under George W. Bush. This time, however, the stakes are much higher; a president in crisis will and should run out of patience with a floundering Treasury secretary. So far, Geithner shows few signs of recovering as unemployment continues to rise, ongoing defaults may still hamper the credit of the U.S., Wall Street pays itself huge bonuses, and China refuses to budge on its undervalued currency.
This week, Geithner was dealt a major personal blow when the special inspector general who was auditing the bank bailout plan known as TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Plan) announced that he caved in, to use The Wall Street Journals phrase, to demands from the financial community. Geithner was president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank when it saved AIG last fall; by all accounts, he was the principal decision maker. The huge insurance company wrote trillions of dollars worth of complex derivativescredit default swapsthat were about to put it out of business without government aid. Geithner feared its counterpartiesthose it owed money on these tradeswould also go down with it. But he could have forced these creditors to take significantly less and did not. The government acquiesced to their demands and paid them off in full. These creditors included, most notably, Goldman Sachs, who also took government funds and recently paid them back, only to announce enormous bonuses for its traders.
Geithner now looks to many serious observers like a mug. But his personal history is consistent. Doubts about Geithner were raised early in the nomination process, when it was discovered that he failed to report his taxes fully, not once but on several occasions. Democrats insisted it was a minor oversightor two or three. More to the point, he presided over the greatest financial debacle of our time as the nations chief of open market operations and its main on-the-ground bank regulator. While he did warn about derivatives to some degree, he took no serious action to reign them in. To the contrary, in 2004, he assured the nation that the banks were strong. As late as 2007, when the Street was already on the brink, he made a speech in Atlanta championing the rise in derivatives trading as a healthy way to spread risk, a favorite theme of his boss, Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman. According to The New York Times, he also favored a plan that same year to reduce capital requirements further for banks; thankfully, it was dropped. The New York Times reporters, Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson, also determined from his daily diaries that he often met alone with top financial executives like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, and even Sandy Weill, typically a practice that is avoided. In the past, the Fed president usually met with bankers in the presence of another Fed official to avoid any possibility of undue influence. Weill, former CEO of Citigroup, offered him the job as chairman, which he wisely turned down.
Now the bank bailouts are widely criticized for not requiring more of Wall Street at least a serious equity stakein a deal under George W. Bush to which Geithner had been a party. All of this might have been forgiven if he came out charging once he was on the job. But his first speech on financial re-regulation in February was overbilled by President Obama and turned out to be a remarkable dud, flagrantly lacking in details or much hard-thinking. The market tanked the next day. His plan to start a public-private partnership to buy the threatening toxic assets on the balance sheets of financial institutions was laughably rigged in favor of private investors and against taxpayers. The long-awaited white paper on financial reform issued in June, apparently co-authored by Larry Summers, the head of President Obamas National Economic Council, was a shallow work of conventional wisdom and deliberately light touch that could have been put together in two weeks by smart seniors at Dartmouth (where Geithner graduated). Reform, such as it is, is being carved up in Congress and any bill passed will surely be inadequate.
In the meantime, unemployment continues to riseand is unlikely to fall anytime soon, according to most observers, including Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, who said as much this week. Geithners voice may be muffled by the ubiquitous Summers, but he has a megaphone, and he could use it. Only now has the Obama team begun talking about a jobs program.
How did Geithner get so far so fast? He was 42 years old when he was named the bank president. The consensus answer is that one of his chief qualities for rising has been respect for his superiors. He was an international affairs graduate student at Johns Hopkins who later worked under Robert Rubin and Summers at the Treasury; he rose rapidly, some say by loyally and competently doing their bidding. He spent several years at a handsome job at the International Monetary Fund, where he forgot to pay his U.S. taxes. Rubin and the Blackstone Groups Pete Peterson backed him for the top slot at the New York Fed. He is called bright, but no one accuses him of gravitas. As a habit he does not run against the conventional wisdom.
#1
democrats have controlled this country for 3 years.
Bush did not design freddie mac or fannie mae. He did not raise minimum wage, he did not refuse to drill for oil, he did not spend 12 trillion dollars on acorns, he did not over regulate all industries in the spectrum, he did not set the mark to market dictates, he did not push sharia loans, he did not believe in government over everything approach you imbicile ideologues do.
#2
"Geithner now looks to many serious observers like a mug."
He's in over his head and essentially he's just a bright Dartmouth senior in a good suit. He doesnt have any real insight. And his stuff is shallow blah-blah, goes with the flow, and the Market tanks the next day when he opens his mouth. He WILL cave when he is pushed.
And he wont survive. Neither will the next guy either, but that's beside the point. Unemployment is going to get higher and if the US was a military Division in Combat at this point 10% casualties means every squad in the Platoon has taken two KIA.
He's no thinker. He's just waiting for the bus.
Its not going to get better, puppies. Its gonna get worse. Do you like to garden? Do you own a gun?
#3
Time to put chains on the bus tires, there's way too much raspberry jam accumulating under the bus. Don't want the thing to start sliding and hurt somebody.
#4
He was positively lackluster as head of the NY Fed. He brought nothing to the table of his current job in terms of ability (not connections) that hundreds of others couldn't have also. He should never have gotten his current position. He should go and whomever decided to give him that job should go also.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/20/2009 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
He should never have gotten his current position. He should go and whomever decided to give him that job should go also. Hear, hear.
As the Pentagon and Senate launch what one analyst dubs dueling Fort Hood investigations, will they confront the hard truth of the Islamic angle?
Despite encouraging references to violent Islamists by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, there is reason to worry about a whitewash of the massacre that took place on Nov. 5; that is just so much easier than facing the implications of a hostile ideology nearly exclusive to Muslims.
Indeed, initial responses from the U.S. Army, law enforcement, politicians, and journalists broadly agreed that Maj. Nidal Hasans murderous rampage had nothing to do with Islam. Barack Obama declared We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing and Evan Thomas of Newsweek dismissed Hasan as a nut case.
But evidence keeps accumulating that confirms Hasans Islamist outlook, his jihadi temperament, and his bitter hatred of kafirs (infidels). I reviewed the initial facts about his record in an article that appeared on Nov. 9 but much more information subsequently appeared; here follows a summary. The evidence divides into three parts, starting with Hasans stint at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center:
Posted by: ed ||
11/20/2009 10:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
As part of our public-service reports on the workings of your favorite world body, allow us to introduce you to Anne Bayefsky. The Toronto native is an expert on human-rights law and an accredited United Nations observer. She is also a friend of Israel, which makes her persona non grata as far as the folks at Turtle Bay are concerned.
Ms. Bayefsky's sin was a two-minute talk she delivered at the U.N. earlier this month after the General Assembly had issued a resolution endorsing the Goldstone Report, which levels war crimes charges at Israel for defending itself in the face of Hamas's rockets. "The resolution doesn't mention the word Hamas," she said. "This is a resolution that purports to be even-handed; it is anything but."
Ms. Bayefsky's comments were the only note of criticism on a day otherwise marked by much U.N. jubilation. Whereupon she was summarily stripped of her U.N. badge and evicted from the premises. "The Palestinian ambassador is very upset by your statement," Ms. Bayefsky says the U.N. security chief told her. Journalist Matthew Russell Lee tells us that he heard the ambassador asking whether U.N. security had "captured" Ms. Bayefsky.
For the record, the U.N. claims that Ms. Bayefsky violated procedures by bringing a colleague who lacked a proper badge, and that she was not entitled to speak where she did, though representatives of nongovernment organizations have used it in the past. And when we called the Palestinian Mission to get their side of the story, they told us the fracas was the last of their worries. Maybe so.
Yet the U.N. continues to bar Ms. Bayefsky from the premises, despite calls on her behalf by the U.S. mission and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel. Best-case scenario, one U.N. insider tells us, is that "they'll put her on probation." We hear the U.N.'s NGO accreditation committee, chaired by Sudan, will likely make the final decision.
Meanwhile, a committee of the General Assembly recently passed a resolution on the so-called defamation of religion. "Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations," it says.
"Without interference" yet "subject to limitations." Orwell should be living now.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/20/2009 09:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The Chinese dont listen all that much anymore to our sermons on their human-rights, coal-burning, and free-trade abuses not when they hold $1.5 trillion in U.S. assets. "
If I was the Chinese Leader, I would have told Obama China wants to have Hawaii as collateral. Or buy it for 1.5 trillion.
#2
Can't Penguin. Then Obama would give the birthers a gift they wished for. Even the Reichchancellor made sure his birth place eventually became part of the national state. Now the San Francisco bay area...[They're going to buy it eventually, so lets get those T-bills back in the trade. Then again, they apparently don't want North Korea, why would they want the radicals from there either.].
#4
Not Hawaii, not the bay area. Taiwan is likely being sold out. A few agreements behind closed doors and the politicians in Taiwan will know they have no hope of being backed by the US and they'll cut their own deal. Perhaps it'll work out so Obama can claim to have ended the decades long crisis and "earn" his peace prize.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
State Budgets: California's slide into fiscal oblivion continues, with no end in sight. Despite lots of budget cuts this year, a $21 billion deficit looms. The politicians' solution? Stop selling high-definition TVs in the state.
Tim Geithner hotly defended his job Thursday in front of angry Republican congressmen who asked him to step down. "What I can't take responsibility is for the legacy of crises you've bequeathed this country," he shot back.
