Safety fears over new register of all children

Francis Elliott
London Times
Monday Aug 27, 2007

Senior social workers have given warning of the dangers posed by a new government register that will store the details of every child in England from next year.

They fear that the database, containing the address, medical and school details of all under-18s, could be used to harm the children whom it is intended to protect.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ACDS) has written to officials outlining its “significant” concerns about the new system, called ContactPoint, The Times has learnt. Confusion over who is responsible for vetting users and policing the system “may allow a situation where an abuser could be able to access ContactPoint for illegitimate purposes with limited fear of any repercussions”, Richard Stiff, the chairman of the ADCS Information Systems and Technology Policy Committee, said.

The security fears are fuelled further by the admission that information about the children of celebrities and politicians is likely to be excluded from the system.

The database, which goes live next year, is to contain details of every one of the 11 million children in the country, listing their name, address and gender, as well as contact details for their GP, school and parents and other carers. The record will also include contacts with hospital consultants and other professionals, and could show whether the child has been the subject of a formal assessment on whether he or she needs extra help.

It will be available to an estimated 330,000 vetted users. Some of those allowed to check records, such as head teachers, doctors, youth offender and social workers, are uncontroversial, but critics have questioned why other potential users, such as fire and rescue staff, will have access to the database.

ContactPoint was set up after the official report into the death of Victoria Climbié. Lord Laming concluded that the eight-year-old’s murder could have been prevented had there been better communication between professionals.

Regulations governing the system, which is costing £224 million to build and a further £41 million a year to run, were rushed through parliament without publicity last month, despite the warning of a House of Lords committee. “The enormous size of the database and the huge number of probable users inevitably increase the risks of accidental or inadvertent breaches of security, and of deliberate misuse of the data (eg, disclosure of an address with malign intent), which would be likely to bring the whole scheme into disrepute”, the Lords’ Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments concluded.

Now local councils have given warning that changes made to the rules after consultation could leave the system open to abuse. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services has written to Christine Goodfellow, the official in charge of the new database, to register its fears over security.

In addition to its warning over vetting, the body says that ministers are placing “unreasonable and perhaps undeliverable expectations on local councils” by asking them to guarantee the accuracy of data over which they have little control.

Private schools and children’s rights campaigners have already given warning that the database is open to misuse. “Unless the system is secure, the result will be that sensitive information will fall into the hands of potential abusers of children and traders of information,” a letter signed by the Independent Schools Council, Privacy International and the Foundation on Information Policy Research said.

Concerns have been intensified by the admission that, while every child under 18 in England will have a record, ministers have allowed some children to be given extra protection. The “shielding” mechanism will mean that information on the offspring of some politicians and celebrities could be left off the main database.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) said that shielding would be available for “children whose circumstances may mean that they, or others, are at increased risk of harm”. She added: “These decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and will be based on the level of threat posed if their information becomes more widely available.”

Children’s rights campaigners and computer security experts say that this amounts to an acknowledgment that the database will not be secure. “The Government acknowledges the risks by instituting these protocols on celebrity and vulnerable children but all children are potentially vulnerable,” Terri Dowty, of Action on Rights for Children, said.

Ian Brown, a computer security research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, said that the scale of the database posed huge risks. “When you have got more than 300,000 people accessing this database, it’s just very difficult to stop the sale of information.”

Lib Dems call for amnesty for illegal immigrants

Ben Russell
London Independent
Monday Aug 27, 2007

Up to 600,000 illegal immigrants should be given the right to "earn" full citizenship, the Liberal Democrats said yesterday. It is the first major party to lean towards advocating an amnesty for such migrants.

Nick Clegg, the party's home affairs spokesman, said a route to citizenship was the only way to deal with people who may have been in Britain - but outside the legal system - for many years. Under the plans, to be debated by the party's annual conference next month, people who have lived in Britain for a decade, have no criminal record and show a long-term commitment to the country could gain citizenship.

Applicants would have to show a good command of English, pass a public interest test and pay a fee, which could be waived if they undertake voluntary work. Mr Clegg said the proposal would free people from working in the "twilight world of illegality and exploitation" outside normal employment laws. An amnesty would work alongside tougher border controls, he added.

He said attempting to remove the backlog of failed asylum-seekers and people who had overstayed their visas was "the politics of the madhouse".

But the Conservatives attacked the plans, insisting they would attract illegal immigrants to Britain. David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "This is irresponsible because on the one hand it will encourage people to come here illegally as well as being unfair to those who have obeyed the law and tried to enter the UK legally.

"It will act as a green flag to a new future wave of illegal immigrants who will be told by their criminal handlers that if they remain in the UK long enough they will be allowed to stay permanently."

Last week ministers faced claims that the immigration system was "out of control" after figures showed a fall in the number of failed asylum-seekers deported this spring. Estimates suggest that there could be between 310,000 and 570,000 illegal migrants in Britain.

Last year a report by the Institute of Public Policy Research, a think-tank close to the Labour Government, said that an amnesty could be worth up to £6bn to the economy.

Market Crash Forecast Suggests New 9/11

Mystery trader bets on huge downturn that could only be preceded by catastrophe

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Monday, August 27, 2007

A mystery trader risks losing around $1 billion dollars after placing 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, leading many analysts to speculate that a stock market crash preceded by a new 9/11 style catastrophe could take place within the next month.

The anonymous trader only stands to make money if the market crashes by a third to a half before September 21st, which is when the put options expire. A put option is a financial contract between two parties, the buyer and the writer (seller) of the option, in which the buyer stands to benefit only if the price of the asset falls.

"The sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable," reports financial blogger Marc Parent. Dow Jones Financial News first reported on the story.

The trader stands to make around $2 billion from their investment should an event trigger a market crash before the third week in September.

Such a cataclysmic jolt could only happen as a result of two factors, China dumping its vast dollar reserves in reaction to the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which it has threatened to do, or a massive terror attack on the same scale or larger than 9/11.

9/11 itself was foreshadowed by unprecedented put options that were placed on United and American Airlines. Though the Securities and Exchange Commission refused to reveal who placed the options, private researchers traced the investments back to the Deutsche Bank owned Banker’s Trust, which was formerly headed by then Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.

Put options on Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the World Trade Center's most prominent occupants, also spiked in the days before 9/11.

News of the suspicious trades is dovetailed by the comments of Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers yesterday, who told ABC News that the risk of a recession in the U.S. was greater that at any time since 9/11.

Terror label 'paves way for air strikes'

Philip Sherwell
London Telegraph
Sunday, August 26, 2007

The White House's plans to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation are intended to give the Bush administration cover if it launches military strikes on the Islamic republic, according to a prominent former CIA officer.

Robert Baer, who was a high-ranking operative in the Middle East, said last week that senior government officials had told him the administration was preparing for air strikes on the guards' bases and probably also on Iran's nuclear facilities within the next six months.

The US is expected to list the guards as a terror group in the coming weeks. Washington accuses them of backing attacks on American and British forces in Iraq, as well as supporting the Hezbollah faction in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories

The designation will make it easier to target international financial transactions by the guards' lucrative business operations, which The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last week had made multi-millionaires of many senior commanders. It will also bolster American calls for tougher sanctions on Iran over its illicit nuclear programme at the United Nations next month.

But among President George W Bush's closest advisers, there is a fierce debate about whether to take unilateral military action independently of any UN security council moves.

advertisement
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is set on diplomacy, Vice-President Dick Cheney is understood to favour air strikes.

The justification for any attack, according to Mr Baer, would be claims - denied by Iran - that the guards are responsible for the sophisticated armour-penetrating improvised explosive devices that are exacting a heavy toll on US forces in Iraq.

Mr Baer said: "The feeling in the administration is that we should have taken care of the guards a long, long time ago. We won't see American troops cross the border. If this is going to happen, it is going to happen very quickly and it is going to surprise a lot of people."

The White House has publicly insisted there are no preparations for military action against Iran.

Globalist Meetings Secret No More

Jason Snow
American Free Press
Sunday, August 26, 2007

It was a wild and exciting August 20th in the small Quebec town of Montebello as GeorgeW. Bush, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico met in the town’s exclusive Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort.

With a protest expected, many residents closed shop for the day and some even boarded up their businesses. The leaders were meeting at the posh resort for secretive talks regarding the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP—a Bilderberg linked initiative to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into one entity).

A massive fence was erected around the Chateau property and police on ATVs and motorcycles were abundant. A large turnout of anti-globalist protesters showed up around noon. I was there to document the impressive caravan of buses and cars that rolled into the tranquil town, most bus occupants chanting, “George Bush go home, George Bush go home…”

The buses and cars briefly stopped in front of a field area just outside of town designated by the police as the protest grounds. Apparently, the protest in the field was to be broadcast to the leaders in the far-off chateau. Not surprisingly, the protesters were not convinced.

It started quickly.A group of ironworkers began to walk toward Montebello and the buses, cars and others on foot quickly followed their lead. They made their way past the main entrance of the chateau (which the police had said was a prohibited area) to the center of town. The buses stopped at what looked like a community center and unloaded.

The number of people gathered had to be about 2,000 —maybe more. Others continued to arrive, music started to play on a loudspeaker and the anti-SPP chants began.

Earlier in the day, I heard one of the protest leaders talking to the police. He said in no uncertain terms that they were going to march right to the entrance of the hotel—avoiding the “suggested” field (called “the pen”). So it came as no surprise after a few angry speeches that the group moved down the road toward the hotel.

It was a diverse crowd—communists, nationalists, feminists, unionists and even some Ron Paul supporters. And it was people of all ages—from young children to the elderly.

I was taking pictures and filming the march, so I neglected to see the police in full-riot gear ahead until I almost stumbled upon them. The show of force was impressive—with more troops quickly being added to the initial line—marching in military formation to the entrance area.

The police did not secure the entire entrance immediately. I think that the speed of the march had surprised them somewhat, but it did not take long for it to be cleared.

And then it got really tense. The protesters were right in the faces of the fully equipped cops (helmets with face shields, full riot shields and batons). They yelled and chanted wildly at the stoic troops. A second wave of cops behind the main line put on their gas masks and soon yet another complement of troops came—many with plastic bullet guns. A police helicopter came quite close to the area, adding to the drama. It looked like things were going to get ugly fast. However, about 1 p.m., the situation calmed and the battle lines were drawn for the day.

From 1 p.m. until about 5 there was a strange kind of street party. People danced all over town, there were circus type performers entertaining the crowd—including a man with a Bush mask and suit holding a sign saying “Send Canada to Irak” and “Buy more gaz.”All of this was overshadowed by the presence of riot-police threatening chaos.

At around 5 p.m., the demonstration started to heat up again. It was a long hot day in Montebello, and tempers were flaring.

The more radical parts of the crowd (many with their own improvised shields and body armor and holding large pieces of lumber) began to throw whatever they could at the police who responded with pepper spray, tear gas and, finally, plastic bullets. The organizers called a retreat and the day was done.

Later, many media outlets claimed that there were only a couple of hundred people at the protest. Anyone stating this is a flat-out liar. The turnout was in the thousands. And the press showed up in force as well—with the result being extensive coverage of the event and the issues surrounding it. By the evening of that August day, this secret meeting was not so secret.

University of Massachusetts Professor Calls For New 9/11 Investigation

Patriots Question 9/11
Sunday, August 26, 2007

The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11. I first met him when he was a speaker at a scholarly conference unrelated to 9/11. He immediately impressed me as a brilliant, outstanding philosopher - theologian - author, a Whiteheadian scholar motivated by an intense curiosity to know everything possible about the world.

On the plane home and for the next two days I did little else but read Griffin’s first book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor. From there I went on to read his even more disturbing account of the bogus 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.

It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct: the 9/11 "new Pearl Harbor" was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives. It was more complex and far more successful than the Allende assassination, the US bombing of our own ship the "Maine" that began the Spanish-American war (and brought us Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines), the Reichstag fire that was used to justify the suspension of most civil liberties in Germany in the 1930's, and even Operation Himmler, which was used by Germany to justify the invasion of Poland, which started World War II.

Whoever is responsible for bringing to grizzly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.

I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

• Bio: http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis

Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science's Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999, presented by President William J. Clinton. The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, announced in 1998 that it will permanently archive Dr. Margulis' papers. President of Sigma Xi, the scientific research society, from 2005 - 2006. Recipient of the Proctor Prize for scientific achievement in 1999 from Sigma Xi. Prior to moving to the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Margulis was a faculty member at Boston University for 22 years. Her publications span a wide-range of scientific topics, and include original contributions to cell biology and microbial evolution. Dr. Margulis is best known for contributions to evolution, especially the theory of symbiogenesis. For more information on Dr. Margulis' career, please visit http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis and http://www.sciencewriters.org.

Author of over 130 scientific works and numerous books. Recent publications include Mind, Life, and Universe (2007 with Eduardo Punset), Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature (2007, co-authored with Dorion Sagan), Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (1998), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (2002, with Dorion Sagan), Early Life: Evolution on the Precambrian Earth (2002, second edition with Michael F. Dolan), Luminous Fish: Tales of Science and Love (2006), What is Sex? (1997, with Dorion Sagan), What is Life? (1995, with Dorion Sagan), Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality (1991, with Dorion Sagan), Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution From Our Microbial Ancestors (1986, with Dorion Sagan), and Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination (1986, with Dorion Sagan), Kingdoms and Domains: Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (4th edition, co-authored by Michael J. Chapman, Academic Press, 2008 in press), Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (second edition, 1993).

‘Put CCTV in addicts’ homes to protect children’

LUCY ADAMS
UK Herald
Saturday, August 25, 2007

A controversial plan for CCTV to be used to protect children in the homes of chaotic drug-abusing parents has been proposed by one of Scotland's most eminent drugs experts.

Professor Neil McKeganey, head of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, believes radical measures are required to protect the estimated 160,000 children in Scotland living with an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent.

He believes the sheer scale of the problem, which was previously estimated as being far lower, makes it impossible for social workers to guarantee children's safety.

Recent figures suggest more than 50,000 children are estimated to have a parent with a drug problem and around 80,000 to 100,000 have a parent with an alcohol problem.

Social workers and children's charities last night agreed with the need for debate and further action to protect these children but disagreed with the proposal.

Mr McKeganey is known for his extensive research and controversial views. In 2004, he suggested female drug addicts should be paid to take long-term contraception to stop them having children.

"What price should we put on our privacy?" said Mr McKeganey. "The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases.

"I am aware that this will be controversial but believe the debate needs to be had. We have become used to the proliferation of CCTV cameras within public spaces. We have also become used to the idea that those cameras are an effective tool in crime prevention. What we have not considered though is their possible use in private spaces."

Recent child abuse cases have highlighted the urgent need to tackle the problem.

Last year, in the wake of an 11-year-old girl collapsing in a Glasgow primary school suffering heroin withdrawal, Jack McConnell, the then first minister, announced the children of drug addicts would be more likely to be put into care.

In another case in December 2005, two-year-old Derek Doran died in East Lothian after drinking methadone in his parents' home.

Mr McKeganey added: "The response to this suggestion will be to say that it is the unacceptable extension of big brother' and a violation of individuals human rights. But the Human Rights Act was never intended to be a get out' clause for those committing crimes or harming vulnerable children."

Michelle Miller, the Association of Directors of Social Work spokeswoman on children and families, said: "This is an enormous problem and social workers by themselves are not going to fix it. It is a much wider issue than that and we need to have a detailed debate. This proposal, however, would be completely impractical."

Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, disagreed with Mr McKeganey's suggestion. "The money would be better spent in increasing the resources needed to identify and support children affected by drugs and alcohol misuse."

Meanwhile, an investigation has revealed that young drug addicts in Aberdeen city without dependants are low on the priority list and may have to wait up to two years for help.

Smile, You're on Candid (Speed) Camera!

Wilton D. Alston
JBS
Sunday, August 26, 2007

It's a brave new world... in Arizona. In other news, George Orwell just phoned from Australia, and he wants his 1984 back.

Word has it that the State is embracing technology in ways that Orwell predicted quite some time ago. It's a veritable smorgasbord of Orwell's "big brother" come to life: fixed cameras that catch speeders as they go past "troublesome" locations; roaming cameras that record license plates to check for outstanding warrants; traffic light cameras that dispense tickets when people "crowd" the "box junctions" (all the rage in Scotland); car-based systems that warn the driver, or take more direct action, if he disobeys posted speed limits.

The latest innovation planned for Oz: a car-borne system that will actually prohibit the driver from speeding! As someone very familiar with the latest innovations in positive train control (PTC), I understand very well that safety is a concern worth having. Systems that monitor and impose speed restrictions are not at all uncommon in the transit world. It was just a matter of time, in my view, before the thinking behind these systems was applied to the much less controlled world of automobiles. That much is certain. And certainly any improvement in safety would be hard to argue with, even from the standpoint of individual freedom.

Still, something about all this makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I see wording related to these proposals that says things like: "...any law enforcement purpose as requested by the DPS (department of public safety) designee." One is reminded of certain provisions in the USAPatriot Act that allow for certain long-standing provisions of privacy to be usurped when law enforcement has a suspicion, and only a suspicion. Moreover, these technologies are often dependent upon vast databases and it is wise to remember that whenever a database is created and maintained for one purpose - no matter how innocuous that purpose might be - one can be sure that the data will be: a) used for other purposes; and/or b) compromised.

It's not that I want scofflaws and random speeders prowling the highway and byways unfettered by reasonable restriction. Far from it. I just don't want some database that was built for an ostensibly good purpose to find its way into the wrong hands. Call me paranoid, but I figure the hands of the State are always the wrong hands. The reason for this should be relatively obvious. In a free market, if a firm misuses data gathered from its customers, that firm suffers the consequences: lost credibility, leading to lost customers and therefore lost revenue. When a similar event happens to the State - and we know it will - we get an "oops!" at best. Then we end up paying even more money for additional bureaucrats to oversee the misanthropes. Such a deal.

The other problem I have is my impression that the motivation behind many of these "advances" is misplaced. Simply put, if the State can up its income from traffic violations by installing a camera, I believe they will do it, regardless of whether or not the cameras result in more safety. I base this assumption on the absolute fact that I would act in exactly the same way if I were in their position! The incentives clearly drive this action. So even when Governor Janet Napolitano cites reduced speeding and accident rates on a portion of the Arizona State Route 101 freeway in Scottsdale as the justification for traffic cameras, I still have my doubts. That said, who am I to argue with progress if it means more safety?

Maybe it is the fact that one of the nagging complaints about speed cameras is that they are "too objective" that drives my suspicions. Says retired state trooper turned professor Dennis Duane Bryde: "Off-duty law enforcement officers and even some elected officials pulled over for speeding often are accorded 'professional courtesy' and given informal warnings, but that wouldn't happen under an automated system." He thinks this issue would represent a short-coming of the new systems.

So if the systems catch every speeder but let the bureaucrats go free, we can all proclaim, "mission accomplished" huh? I should have known.

Bilderberg Pushes American Superstate

James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
Saturday, August 25, 2007

Leaders of Bilderberg have gathered the appropriate flunkies at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, about 50 miles outside Quebec, to accomplish a North American Union without congressional action.

Bilderberg met at the same site in 1983. The Aug. 20-21 session of the unknown Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is struggling to define its goal of a borderless union of the United States, Mexico and Canada as something Americans will welcome, after it has been accomplished.

On the agenda is a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is being translated into Spanish and French so all three governments can celebrate it together. The report explains how “hemispheric integration” will be a blessing for all and not a surrender of sovereignty. It is to be presented to the three governments in September.

The trustees of CSIS who are attending this closed meeting include Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg and Trilateral; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral; and Harold Brown, former defense secretary and Trilateral. Also participating is Richard Armitage, Bilderberg. Other Bilderberg-Trilateralists may be attending but have not been identified.

The “North American Future 2025 Project” report stresses “economic integration” and “labor mobility.” It calls for the “international migration of labor” and “international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people.” It stresses the “free flow of people across national borders.” It calls for action to “integrate governments.” The three nations are to work on “harmonizing legislation” and regulations.

Bilderberg is fighting back from severe setbacks in its long-range goal of dividing the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a world government under the United Nations. The European Union was to have been fully integrated into a single state by 2000, but seven years later, there is strong resistance in France, Germany and Britain.

NAFTA was to quickly expand throughout the Western Hemisphere with an “American Union” emerging. Now, there is great resistance to NAFTA itself among voters and, consequently, congressmen.

President Bush started the country on the road to integration on April 22, 2001, when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a “commitment to hemispheric integration.” Participants claim it can be accomplished without legislation and their final agreement would not be a “treaty” requiring Senate ratification.

But when this “agreement” is sprung on the American people, Congress will feel compelled to react to the outrage.

Trials ordered in Calif. clergy sex suits

Trials ordered in Calif. clergy sex suits

Cases stalled when San Diego diocese filed for bankruptcy on eve of trial

The Associated Press

Updated: 10:45 p.m. ET Aug. 24, 2007

SAN DIEGO - A federal bankruptcy judge on Friday ordered immediate jury trials in more than 40 sex-abuse lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego.

Trials scheduled in San Diego for five cases had been suspended in February when the diocese abruptly filed for bankruptcy protection, the night before the first trial was slated to begin.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Louise DeCarl Adler’s ruling on the 42 lawsuits is a victory for about 150 people who claim they were sexually abused by priests as children.

Their lawyers told the judge Thursday that re-activating those trials was the only way to get the diocese into a settlement after more than three years of fruitless negotiations in state and federal courts.

The San Diego diocese has offered about $94 million to settle the claims as part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking a settlement of about $200 million.

Attorneys for the diocese have argued that jury trials would slow progress toward a settlement and may give unfair priority to the claims of plaintiffs whose cases went to trial first.

Other trials settled
With nearly 1 million Catholics and holdings throughout San Diego County, the diocese is the largest and wealthiest of the five U.S. dioceses to have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection under the shadow of civil claims over sexual abuse.

Dioceses in Spokane, Wash., Portland, Ore., and Tucson, Ariz., have already emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Davenport, Iowa, diocese, which faces claims from more than 150 people, is still in proceedings.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese settled 508 cases for $660 million in July, two days before jury selection was scheduled to begin in the first of 15 trials involving 172 abuse claimants.

The Orange County, Calif., diocese agreed to settle 90 claims for $100 million in 2004 after a judge promised to set trial dates and begin the discovery process if settlement talks collapsed. Bishop Tod D. Brown later said he couldn’t risk a trial in a state where a jury once awarded $30 million to two people who claimed they were sexually abused by clergy.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20431415/

Debate grows over Taser use

Debate grows over Taser use

Questions arise whether law-enforcement too reliant on the zappers

The Associated Press

Updated: 5:50 a.m. ET Aug. 23, 2007

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - Chained to a 55-gallon drum to protest the proposed development of a vacant lot, Jonathan Crowell wasn’t threatening anyone. But he refused police orders to unshackle himself and leave, so they zapped him with a Taser, then charged him with trespassing.

“It wasn’t just a short burst,” said Crowell, 32, of Dummerston, recalling the July 24 incident. “Five seconds is a long time to be electrocuted. My whole body was contorting and flapping around. You can’t think of anything else but that pain. It’s really scary. I felt like I was being tortured.”

Increasingly, police facing stubborn lawbreakers, belligerent drunks or violent suspects are reaching for stun guns to shock them into submission. In one recent incident, a hospital security guard in Houston used a Taser on a defiant father trying to take his newborn home, sending father and daughter to the floor.

Police say Tasers are valuable tools for avoiding hand-to-hand struggles that can injure officers and citizens. Small, portable and often effective even when merely brandished, Tasers — which fire tiny, tethered cartridges that transmit electrical currents — have become common in law enforcement in recent years, with some 11,500 police agencies using them.

Weapon of first resort
But critics say Tasers are being used as a weapon of first resort, sometimes on frail or mentally ill people.

“What’s at issue is whether the level of force being used is appropriate for arresting somebody,” said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Vermont. “The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable seizures, which means police can’t use excessive force when they’re taking you into custody.”

Supporters of Tasers say they reduce workers’ compensation and lost time claims by police by preventing physical confrontations.

“We went over an entire year without a single lost hour of employee time or officer injury relating to wrestling or struggling to get a prisoner into custody, which is virtually unheard of,” said Deputy Chief Walt Decker of the Burlington, Vt., Police Department.

His department, which got Tasers last year, spent more than $150,000 on lost time the year before for officers sidelined by on-the-job injuries suffered subduing suspects, he said.

To many, the issue isn’t whether Tasers should be used, it’s how.

Houston incident
In the Houston incident, which occurred April 13, William Lewis, 30, was trying to take his newborn home from Woman’s Hospital of Texas because he and his wife felt mistreated by staff.

He was told not to take the baby, and was trying to leave when David Boling, an off-duty police officer working security, shot Lewis with the stun gun as he held the child.

“It’s very easy to blame police officers for the inappropriate use of a Taser, but we need to take another step back and look at how it’s been introduced to them,” said Dalia Hashad, a human rights violations specialist with Amnesty International.

“They’re under the impression that it’s a bit of a magic tool, that you’ll shoot someone with 50,000 volts and they’ll be rendered incapable and no harm will be done.”

Amnesty International USA has counted 250 cases in the last six years in which people died after being stunned with a Taser, but doesn’t track whether the shock caused the deaths, according to Hashad. According to the manufacturer, Taser International Inc., the devices have been listed as a contributing factor in about 12 deaths.

Restraint
Hashad says police should exercise more restraint in using Tasers on the mentally ill, and those with medical conditions who can die from the shock.

“Whether it’s coincidence or circumstance, we have several incidents of use of a Taser gun involving a person with a serious mental problem or presumed serious mental health problem,” said Ken Libertoff, executive director of the Vermont Association for Mental Health. “The use of a Taser intervention is not a minor situation, and it is not state-of-the-art mental health care.”

Police counter that they can’t always tell whether a person has mental health issues or pre-existing medical conditions that would make Taser use dangerous to them.

Two recent Taser incidents in Vermont involved psychiatric patients.

On July 3, police used a Taser to subdue an unruly juvenile patient at Brattleboro Retreat, a psychiatric facility.

Neither the hospital nor police would give more detail about the incident, which prompted Gov. Jim Douglas to ask the state attorney general to review the police’s actions and later to ask for a review of police agencies’ protocol for Taser use, with an eye toward setting a statewide policy.

In the second case, a Taser was used to subdue a psychiatric patient from Vermont State Hospital who was spotted jumping in front of cars on Interstate 89.

“It probably saved his life,” said Sgt. Craig Gardner, a Vermont State Police trooper who was there.

The use of the Taser also prevented the patient from fighting officers or pulling anyone else into traffic, Gardner said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20403855/

Videos for consideration

Im so angry these days, I don't even know what to say anymore...

Here some videos that might get you pissed off, like me.


Alex Jones on recent events.


"We are change" confronts the criminal mayor of new york Bloomberg... Way to get em, Luke!


I hate Obama


Fake preachers go to hell!

Thats enough for me, right now.

SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Harper Index
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to give sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.

I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country, unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.

David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific and now Chairman of the Board of Royal Bank of Canada argued Canada would have to adopt US-style immigration policies to keep the border open. He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.' Mr. O'Brien is an influential man. Within months, the Canadian government had signed the Safe Third Country agreement with the United States whereby Canadian refugee policy was essentially assimilated into the refugee policy of the United States. The rights of human beings to asylum when they're being persecuted for their religious or political opinions or ethnic identities is one of the most fundamental rights of all.

Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti- terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.

And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'

I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.

So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP. Essentially it was a transborder committee of unelected bureaucrats, military officers and consultants who were given task of studying and then reporting on the options for improving the efficacy of the North American defensive system. The goal was simply to allow us to respond faster and better to the various kinds of threats that might arise.

The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command.... Canadian military leaders quite liked playing with the big boys and using the best military equipment in the world...

The proponents of closer military integration could not believe their luck when Stephen Harper was elected. And very shortly after Mr. Harper came to power, they released their final report... which sets out four different options for the closer integration of the Canadian and US military. Most of the report is concerned with public relations, noting that Canadians are particularly attached to sovereignty.

Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..

The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.

Some steps have been taken in that direction, including, last year, the NORAD agreement to expand the sharing of maritime surveillance including within the Northwest Passage. It wasn't much noticed at the time. Only one party opposed it in Parliament, the New Democratic Party of Canada.

When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi- National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this. That somehow it wasn't the time to make the public case for the full integration of Canadian and US forces because Mr. Harper didn't get that majority he so desperately desired. And so it was shuffled away once again, it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.

But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?

Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why did Private Simon Longtin die today? The simple explanation, and it's only a partial explanation, is that there are people who want to transform the Canadian Forces into a miniature version of the US Marine Corps and want Canada to only choose missions that involve fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States; that want us to acquire equipment that integrates seamlessly with the US military, including in the relatively near future new F35 fighters. The same people who will tell you that peace-keeping is dead, that we really don't need new search-and-rescue aircraft in the second largest country on Earth, and who will tell you that those who stand up for the rights of detainees are expressing disrespect and a lack of support for the brave young Canadian men and women who serve this country in whatever mission they're given because they love this country just as much as you and I.

The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada. But as we saw with the Bi-National Planning Group, a little bit of sunshine can chase these plans away. When I look at this room I see a whole lot of sunshine.

Related individuals, organizations and significant events
Deep integration - TILMA and SPP to bring in rules to let corporations challenge our laws

Harper Conservative vs. Public Values Frame
Security / Secrecy, American control
Sovereignty / American control, smokescreen

Links and sources
Bi-National Planning Group
Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty, by Michel Chossudovsky

Harper Dismisses SPP Protests As "Sad"

DEB RIECHMANN
AP
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

President Bush and the leaders of Mexico and Canada worked Monday to craft a plan to secure their borders in the event of a terrorist strike or other emergency without creating traffic tie-ups that slowed commerce at crossings after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper want their homeland security experts to figure out the best way to protect citizens in an emergency, perhaps an outbreak of avian flu, without snarling business among the trading partners.

More broadly, the goal of the North American summit was to seek middle ground on shared concerns about the border and a host of other issues ranging from energy to trade, food safety to immigration. The three-way meeting at a highly secured red cedar chateau along the banks of the Ottawa River focused on administrative and regulatory issues, not sweeping legislative proposals for North America.

Few, if any, formal announcements were expected. The meeting served to address thorny problems between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South and bolster a compact - dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - that serves as a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce.

Several hundred demonstrators protested on issues such as the war in Iraq, human rights and integration of North America. One carried a banner that said: ``Say No To Americanada.''

Calderon and Harper both want tight relations with Bush, yet don't want to be seen as proteges of the unpopular president or leave the impression that the U.S. is encroaching on their sovereignty.

To that end, Harper is asserting his nation's claim to the Northwest Passage through the Arctic.

The race to secure subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed heated up when Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole. The United States and Norway also have competing claims in the vast Arctic region, where a U.S. study suggests as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden.

Canada believes much of the North American side of the Arctic is Canada's, but the United States says that the thawing Northwest Passage is part of international waters.

``We look at the Northwest Passage as an international waterway, and want the international transit rights to be respected there,'' White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. ``But certainly President Bush will listen to what Prime Minister Harper has to say.''

Harper also plans to raise concerns about new passport requirements for travelers, longtime U.S. restrictions on Canadian softwood lumber exports and the war in Afghanistan.

Harper has said Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will not be extended beyond 2009 without a consensus in the country and the Parliament. Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, fighting against the Taliban in the violet southern parts of the nation. Other countries, such as Germany ad Italy, restrict the use of their forces to more peaceful areas in the north.

With Hurricane Dean bearing down on Mexico, Calderon might have to cut his meetings short with Bush and Calderon. This is his first meeting with Bush since the U.S. immigration legislation died in the Senate. Calderon has called that a ``grave error'' and also is rankled by the Bush administration's newly announced crackdown on employers who use illegal immigrants.

It's unclear whether the United States will use the summit to announce a major new aid plan to help Mexico fight violent drug trafficking. U.S. anti-drug officials have been impressed with Caldron's crackdown on drug traffickers since he took office.

But Calderon has repeatedly pushed the U.S. to take more responsibility in fighting the two countries' common drug problem, including doing more to stop the flow of illegal U.S. arms into Mexico and trying to combat the demand for drugs north of the border. The issue of U.S. aid is a sensitive subject among Mexicans wary that U.S. help could lead to interventions that violate Mexican sovereignty.

Bush stepped off Air Force One and onto a red carpet at an airport in Ottawa where he was greeted by a bagpiper and a ceremonial honor guard dressed in red jackets and tall, black fur hats. Bush flew to the resort on the Marine One presidential helicopter, which landed in a grassy clearing along the water.

A few hundred protesters amassed at the gate of the resort. Police in riot gear used tear gas to hold back about 50 of them, who responded by flinging rocks, branches and plastic bottles. A line of police in riot gear jostled with about 50 demonstrators. A few hundred marched on the front gate of the summit compound shouting taunts.

``I've heard it's nothing,'' Harper said, dismissing the protests as Bush arrived at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello. ``A couple hundred? It's sad.''

Viewers See History Channel 9/11 Special As Straw Man Hit Piece

Documentary set up bias straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, afforded debunkers overwhelming majority of time - so-called "experts" Popular Mechanics are on the same corporate payroll as the History Channel itself, which is owned by Disney, GE and Hearst Publishing

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Initial reaction to last night's two hour History Channel Special on the 9/11 truth movement was vehement and conclusive - the show was nothing more than another biased hit piece that manufactured straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, and afforded debunkers to talk at length while ridiculing any other viewpoints.

According to viewers who were unfortunate to have to sit through 120 minutes of yellow journalism, the program was very similar to a previous BBC hit piece - an outright smear attempt that abandoned any pretense of neutrality early on and sought to vigorously attack so-called conspiracy theories.

Though producers of the show promised Alex Jones directly that the documentary was not going to be a hit piece, according to viewers it was replete with distortion and deception, all delivered in the kind of condescending tone we have become used to from the establishment media.

- According to 9/11 researcher James Gourley, the debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off."

According to another blogger, the whole tone of the program was crafted to be antagonistic towards those questioning the official version.

Conspiracy theorists were derided throughout the program as being ignorant, mean and kooky with no personal lives. On the other hand, the Popular Mechanics editors were given the last word on each and every subject along with the undeserving title of “expert”. To the best of my knowledge, not one of the pencil pushing staff members have any credentials that are relevant to any aspect of 9/11 truth. Of course it was the conspiracy theorists that were accused of not having any of the valid expertise necessary for stating their assertions logically. They do this by completely ignoring the very existence and works of groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Also just as expected, the History Channel failed to disclose the Chertoff connection and other major conflicts of interests that have clearly drastically compromised the research and conclusions of their so-called “experts”. It was disingenuous and deceptive from the very start. It only got worse.

As we reported previously, the makers of the hit piece first advertised the show as a response to "outrageous" theories about 9/11, but then immediately back-pedaled and altered the program description on their website after we highlighted the blatant biased agenda of the piece and its multiple corporate conflicts of interest.

Hearst Publishing's Popular Mechanics, the premiere name in yellow journalism, were featured on the show as the most prominent debunkers, shilling for their corporate bosses in a brazen display of cronyism.

The History Channel is part of the A&E Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).

The owners of Popular Mechanics are also the joint owners of the History Channel!

Once again it is not a good starting point for a neutral investigation when the people you choose to represent one side of a factual debate are actually on the payroll.

It makes Fox News appear fair and balanced in comparison!

Furthermore, the other joint owner of The History Channel, NBC Universal, is run by General Electric, the world's second largest corporation and one of the major players within the military industrial complex.

GE is a major supplier of arms and the “war on terrorism” has seen GE’s government and military contracts rise substantially to over $2.2 billion.

In short, GE really has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from probing into questions concerning the possibility of 9/11 being a military intelligence operation to seed the "war on terror" and to justify a huge increase in military activity around the globe.

Despite the fact that this charade was seemingly another crude smear job, we should thank the History Channel for attacking us because it only ensures that more people will check out the evidence for themselves and discover what was deliberately buried by the debunkers.

As we head towards the sixth anniversary of 9/11, our numbers are larger than ever and our credibility is growing, while lying corporate media whores like the History Channel lose respectability at a rate rivaled only by their hemoraging of viewers.

Beck: I Live In Connecticut Because ‘It’s Out Of Reach Of A Nuclear Explosion In Manhattan’

Think Progress
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

A new GQ profile of Glenn Beck asks whether the CNN Headline News host is the “most annoying man on TV.” But whether he is “annoying” is beside the real point, which is that Beck has a long history of inflammatory remarks on-air.

The mainstream media continue to reward Beck for his hateful, divisive rhetoric. Earlier this year, ABC’s Good Morning America hired Beck as a commentator, and Washington Post radio is now considering bringing on the right-wing pundit because he “does a good job.” Beck’s television producer admitted to GQ, “He’s a polarizing figure. That’s why we hired him.”

In the GQ article, author Benjamin Wallace claims that Beck “is less partisan soldier than channeler of regular-guy id.” A look at some of Beck’s “regular-guy id” as evidenced by the GQ article:

On the Virginia Tech shooter:

“This guy makes you have respect for suicide bombers,” Beck says, trying out today’s career-immolating zinger. “At least they’re killing themselves because they believe in something larger.”

On living in Connecticut:

In a mirrored room at CNN, on the fifth floor of the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, a makeup artist paints cream under Beck’s eyes while her colleague, idle in a nearby chair, tells Beck that she’s moving to Riverdale, in the Bronx. “At least you’re outside the vaporization zone,” Beck says.

“Really?” says makeup lady number two. “I’m still in New York.”

“You could drop a one-kiloton bomb on Lower Manhattan and be safe in Chelsea,” Beck says.

“Good to know,” the woman says.

Beck: “Did you check the blast radius?”

“No,” she says. “I was more interested in the public-school system.”

“Priorities,” Beck says.

He is kind of joking, kind of isn’t. One of the reasons he lives in Fairfield County, Connecticut, is that it’s out of reach of a nuclear explosion in Manhattan.

On work habits:

A Baltimore producer he fired named Tom Russell — who is not the Baltimore producer Beck fired for bringing him a ballpoint when he had asked for a Sharpie — recalls the time Beck seized him by his collar, hoisted him nearly off the ground, and said he would eat him “for fucking breakfast.”

In the profile, Beck also states, “If we don’t stop believing the worst in each other, we’re dead.” This is the same man who once described Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) voice as that of “a stereotypical bitch,” hosted a guest who said on-air that watching someone murder the Clintons would be “great,” and confessed that he is “afraid” to have “a lot of African-American friends.”

Rather than a “channeler of regular-guy id,” a better description of Beck might be what Jon Stewart said about him in 2006: “a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.”

Chris Achorn at My Two Sense has more on the GQ profile

SPP deal could create common border standards

Canadian Press

Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

Just exactly who's allowed into North America -- and how long they can stay -- could be heavily influenced by the complex web of initiatives known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Canada, the United States and Mexico are collaborating on more than a dozen traveller security programs that fall under three umbrellas: creating trusted border documents, developing compatible immigration measures and sharing information on high-risk travellers.

The goal is to ensure none of the three countries is a weak link in the continental security chain.

While Ottawa, Washington and Mexico City say this will make citizens safer, critics charge it is a secretive bid to bolster the corporate agenda without public or parliamentary debate.

The three countries are:

• Working on biometric systems -- incorporating unique identifiers like iris scans and fingerprints -- to improve the security for passports, visas, permanent resident cards, transportation credentials and other border documents.
• Implementing immigration measures that include requirements for admission and length of stay, visa decision-making standards, border lookout systems for wanted individuals, and the possibility of entry and exit procedures, and
• Devising ways to share data on high-risk travellers such as suspected terrorists and other criminals.

Dozens of other initiatives deal with aviation, cargo and maritime security, protection of crops and livestock, and increased law-enforcement and intelligence co-operation.

In many ways, the march toward trilateral collaboration on these issues began with a path laid in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership builds on the so-called smart border accord Canada and the United States signed six years ago.

One of the measures to emerge from the accord was the safe third country agreement on refugees.

Under the agreement, each country recognizes the other as a safe place to seek protection.

It means Canada can turn back potential refugees at the Canada-U.S. border on the basis they must pursue their claims in the United States, the country where they first arrived.

Canada says that is only fair. Canadian refugee advocates strenuously oppose the deal, arguing the United States is not always a safe country for people fleeing persecution.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, says there's a concern that refugee protection is "left off the table'' when borders are harmonized.

He fears the trilateral talks could see a similar safe country deal established between Mexico and the United States.

"The problem is that these policies simply don't provide the kinds of exceptions and allowances made to ensure that people who have very valid and legitimate protection concerns get the safety they need,'' Neve said.

One woman who travelled to Canada to voice opposition to the Security and Prosperity Partnership pointed to her journey as evidence of curbs on civil liberties.

Ann Wright, an anti-war activist and retired U.S. State Department official, said she was questioned for three hours by immigration officials at the Ottawa airport because of her "peaceful, non-violent arrest'' for protesting in the United States.

At a news conference held by the Council of Canadians, Wright said she paid $200 for a three-day temporary visa to enter Canada "for activities in my own country that threaten no one.''

Leading Conservatives Denounce Bush on 'North American Union'

Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

President Bush is meeting with other world leaders in Canada this week to establish, in part, a "New World Order" that subverts national sovereignty, according to some leading American conservatives who have taken a hard stance against the president over the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

President Bush is meeting in Quebec Monday and Tuesday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss the SPP, which the U.S. government's Web site describes as a cooperative effort among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to "increase security and enhance prosperity ... through greater cooperation and information sharing."

Yet Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said at a news conference in Ottawa Monday that Bush is trying to develop a "New World Order" of centralized world government controlled by super-national bureaucracies. Phillips said some of the bureaucracies already exist, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations.

"George Bush and his daddy [former President George H. W. Bush] have both used the term 'New World Order.' It was used by Woodrow Wilson. It was used by Adolf Hitler. It was used by a number of people, and the New World Order relates to the desire of many people in the world to submerge national sovereignties to international institution." (See Video)

Other conservatives who joined Phillips at the news conference included author and columnist Jerome Corsi; John McManus, president of the John Birch Society; Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center; and Bob Park, founder of Veterans for Secure Borders.

The SPP meetings (the fourth since 2005) have afforded little access to the media and no access to the general public except for leaders of some large corporations taking part in the concurrent North American Competitiveness Council. The secrecy has led activists on both sides of the political aisle to develop ideas about what might be happening behind closed doors.

Responding to protests stated in Ottawa Sunday by leftist, anti-government, anti-corporate activists, Phillips acknowledged a difference of approach. But, he said, "if we're all firing in the same direction, let's work together."

Conservative author Jerome Corsi criticized supporters of the SPP for labeling opponents "conspiracy theorists."

"We're the Internet black helicopter conspiracy theorists?" asked Corsi. "What's going on over in Montebello behind closed doors? Is that not the real conspiracy?"

"Only to call us names does not answer the arguments we're making," he said. "We're called names because those supporting the Security and Prosperity Partnership wish to keep their secret agenda being advanced in secret, and we've ruined the party by exposing it."

Most recently, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins called the opposition to the SPP "conspiracy theories." In an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen Monday, Wilkins said that "while conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a 'North American Union,' a 'North American super highway' or a 'North American currency.'"

Wilkins further wrote that "security with prosperity remains the defining vision of the leaders' meeting" and that "each [nation] will continue to protect its own interests, but it makes sense, as friends and neighbors, to sit down together and see what we might accomplish better together."

Phillips responded by noting that Wilkins was appointed by Bush and represents an administration that "does not have a reputation for straight talking or accuracy ... ." And it_s high time for the SPP organizers to "tear down the wall of silence and let the people see what you are scheming to do," he said.

History Channel 9/11 Hit Piece Ignores WTC 7

You Tube
Tuesday Aug 21, 2007

The first review of last night's History Channel hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement which did not even address the anomalies surrounding the collapse of WTC7.