BHussein: “Let MY People Go”

Lieberman: Barghouti Will Not be Released
Article: Israel National News

Speaking Thursday morning, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he could “guarantee” that arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti would not be released from prison in any deal to exchange terrorists for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. “We have no intention to free the head of the murderers, a person who has been sentenced to four life terms in prison. There are red lines, and this is one of them,” Lieberman said.

In response to U.S. demands that Israel free an additional 1,000-some terrorists as a “gesture” to Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, Lieberman said that previous releases of Fatah terrorists “have not proven themselves. The Olmert administration did this several times and it did not work, and we do not plan to allow it to happen,” Lieberman said.

Why can’t BHussein be smart enough to know that freeing RADICAL TERRORISTS does NOT PRODUCE POSITIVE RESULTS?! Oh. I guess “brotherhood” has a lot to do with it.

BHussein with Palestinian President Abu Mazen as he demands that Israel releases an additional 1,000 terrorists as a “gesture”to “moderate” “Palestinians”.

So; even the terrorists who are holding the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit captive demand only 450 Palestinian terrorist prisoners that are being held in Israeli jails be released in exchange for Gilad Shalit.

A big thank you to our friend DangerB for posting this, please visit and read the rest of his take on it.

WTF is it with B. Hussein and Islamist terrorists? WTF is it with all of his actions since being “elected”? He is systematically destroying our Republic, stripping us of our freedoms. He needs to be gone along with all of his cohorts. WAKE UP AMERICA.

I have not verified the accuracy of this, nonetheless Obama must go.

What is so wonderful about GPO Government Resources? If you take pleasure in reading about history, the GPO gives you the opportunity to read history itself. Not about history Read history. Like science? The US federal government conducts a lot of scientific research. Read for yourself. Don’t just read about it. Read it. I guess you’ve got the picture now!

My personal favorite in reading about history, or even current events, is the legislature publications. You know how we read in newspapers (or online media sources) about a certain bill “being in committee”? The GPO provides the transcripts for what is being said in these hearings in Committee Hearings. Now, how simple is that?!? Then there is the Daily Congressional Record, which gives transcripts from the day’s speeches on the floor of the House and the Senate. (I’m not really sure how long the online version of the Daily Congressional Record stays available online. I’ll figure out that issue another day.)

Often reporters will give us a little “blip” of a senator’s speech, and the senator will state that his words were taken out of context. Maybe so. But how do we know for sure? Look at the transcript.

There have been times I have been very curious and looked at the record myself. Sometimes I decided the surrounding words change nothing. Other times I discover that without the surrounding sentences, the words cropped out of context take on a completely different meaning. Truly.

For instance, during the presidential campaigns of 2004, there were attacks on John Kerry, reports of horrible things he had said about his Vietnam War comrades during the early 1970s. At the time I was working in the Government Documents section in Davis Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We had committee hearings from the 1970s in print, so I immediately looked through indexes to find the correct hearing. I remember how my heart sunk as I read his testimony, and realized that by taking his testimony out of context, the meaning of his words truly changed. Immensely. And I thought to myself, “How can anyone do that do a person running for an office of such importance in our country? How can we change the core of his testimony to simply further our own opinion on who should win this election?”

Now, you may read this testimony in full and still believe that George W. Bush was the one for whom you would vote. That’s your vote. Each of our opinions is valid in that voting booth, no matter our color, race, gender, or income bracket. We are all equal there. But wouldn’t it be nice to vote for a candidate, knowing the truth about all?

Oh! Just in case you are curious, you should be able to find this hearing at your local Federal Depository Library. Or maybe your library provides InterLibrary Loan services and can borrow it for you. Here is information about Kerry’s testimony if you are interested:

Title: Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia
Date: April and May, 1971
Congress: 92nd
Kerry’s Testimony: page180 (though intro begins on page 179. I recommend starting there)

Also available to read through C-Span’s website – though not an authenticated copy:

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

Thanks GPO!

Nice piece in Wednesday’s New York Times about the political rebirth of Massachusetts’ finally senior Sen. John Kerry (D-Afghanistan).

[A]t 65, after a humbling spiral — from almost-president to Democratic scapegoat to campaign pariah (2006) to wannabe secretary of state (passed over for Hillary Rodham Clinton) — Massachusetts’ new senior senator has settled into an influential role as legislative bridge builder, international troubleshooter and party elder statesman.

But Kerry’s daughter Vanessa was having none of the Kerry-moped-for-two-years-and-now-he’s-back pabulum served up by the Times.

Vanessa Kerry, the senator’s younger daughter, bristles at any hint that her father has somehow been transformed of late. “I have the rare privilege of talking to my dad every night at 10 p.m. and hearing about what he did that day,” said Ms. Kerry, a resident at Massachusetts General Hospital. “To me, these conversations are still the same.”

Except now those conversations undoubtedly include some reference to her sibling Alexandra Kerry’s recent DUI bust in California, although the Times piece did not. Less reputable media sources, however, were -well – less circumspect than the Times.

Celebrity Corner – to take just one example – featured a photo of Alexandra in a see-through dress from a red-carpet appearance in 2004 to illustrate its coverage of her current DUI. And the site’s webghouls eagerly anticipated the inevitable mug shots of Alexandra:

There’s nothing better than a celebrity mug-shot and when Alexandra Kerry’s mug-shot comes out, it will be huge news.

Alexandra Forbes Kerry is the daughter of Sen. John Kerry, a one-time presidential hopeful. She has been charged for DUI in Hollywood, CA., reports Los Angeles police.

Police records show that Kerry was arrested shortly after midnight on Tuesday November 17, where likely Alexandra Kerry’s mug shot was taken and was released on a $5,000 bail at 5:25 am.

Meanwhile, over at the unread-by-millions (but believed by some) Celebgalz website, Alexandra Kerry was arrested actually wearing the notorious see-through dress:

Alexandra was wearing a see through dress when she was arrested. Kerry’s black dress was made of thin, see through material. The camera flash highlighted her lack of underwear.

Unfortunately, that news flash highlights the Internet’s lack of underpinnings.

Surfer, beware.

At the “Time for Change” conference by Innovations magazine held in National Academies of Sciences yesterday, John Holdren, President Obama’s chief science advisor, mentioned C-ROADS in response to a question about engaging policy makers.

Dr. Holdren highlighted his view that “John Kerry has put it on his laptop” and is discussing it in many places and that it has had an impact on policy making.

In the opinion of a colleague of ours who was there, his talk was very much influenced by the C-ROADS modeling work.

We’re feeling thankful for great partners using good scientific tools!

Talk about a fucking flip-flop.

In 2004, Republicans across the country thought John Kerry was a terrible person because over the course of nearly four decades in public life, he occasionally changed his mind on issues. OH THE HUMANITY!

That was nothing, though, compared to the new Lou Dobbs: Champion of the Latinos.

¡Dios Mio!

Actual lede from today’s Wall Street Journal:

Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, pondering a future in politics, is trying to wipe away his image as an enemy of Latino immigrants by positioning himself as a champion of that fast-growing ethnic bloc.

The article goes on to say he’s now suddenly for amnesty, and blah blah blah. Go the fuck away, Lou Dobbs. You’re just another politician except fatter and more pompous.

Eh, just because there’s an obscene quote in this story, we have some more to share. Presumably with a straight face, Dobbs said this…to Latinos…on Telemundo:

Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together,” he said in a live interview with Maria Celeste.

Again, just to be clear, we’d like to close with: Fuck you, Lou Dobbs.

None, zero, zip, nada. Not a single member of the alphabet-media crew are reporting a single story about ”ClimateGate.” Maybe some of you haven’t heard of “CllimateGate” because nobody, except Fox News, is reporting it. ClimateGate is the results of a hacker, or whistle-blower, releasing hundreds of e-mails showing global warming scientist hiding, lying and deleting information that proves global warming/climate change is a myth. Liberal global-warming truthers are all enraged that their “cause” has been busted.

The reason MSNBC isn’t reporting “ClimateGate” is because their parent company, General Electric, will greatly benefit from Obama’s green economy wishes. If cap-and-trade is passed into law, GE will reap billions of dollars in contracts. It really does pay to be pals of Obama. Ask GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt who is also an economic adviser to Obama. See a pattern?

A few Republicans in the House and Senate have taken notice of “ClimateGate” and are calling for investigations. I guess Obama and the liberals didn’t hear about it, since they hate Fox News, and Obama wants to move forward with a climate deal.

Transcript From Inhofe Radio Interview Monday, November 23, 2009

Senator Inhofe: This is a huge issue and of course we have the Gitmo issue and we have the, of course, cap-and-trade is now taking a new turn.  Jed, if I could…

Jed Babbin: Yeah.

Senator Inhofe: Would you let me make one sentence?

Jed Babbin: Please.

Senator Inhofe: This is out of a speech that I made, Melanie, back on the floor of the Senate, and it was repeated, John Gizzi picked it up and put it in Human Events. This was 4 years ago, in talking about the science, cooking the science. I said I would discuss the “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change, the United Nations IPCC.”  Now that was four years ago; so we knew they were cooking the science back then, and you’ve been talking about the, you know, what’s happened recently with the bloggers coming up with what they did, what they…

Jed Babbin: Let me interrupt you there Senator, because I think that’s a really important point.  Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven’t followed that story, what Senator Inhofe’s talking about, in Britain, a blogger got into some of the official government records about climate change and how the measurements were being taken to show…

Melanie Morgan: And the politics behind it.

Jed Babbin: And the – well but they were basically saying, “Oh yea, hey, let’s make it look like Jim so-and-so did that, and let’s help him cook the books, and let’s change the data…”

Melanie Morgan: And “let’s beat up those who don’t agree with us.”

Jed Babbin: Yea, but it’s all a huge fraud! I mean, Senator, am I exaggerating?

Senator Inhofe: No you’re not.  If you remember, mine was the hoax statement, and that was, what, five years ago I guess.

Jed Babbin: Well, we ought to give you a big pat on the back for being …

Melanie Morgan: Yea, you deserve an an ‘atta boy, and now you are finally being vindicated.

Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation.  ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?

Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not. 

Jed Babbin: Should somebody stop further spending on this until we get this investigation, Senator?

Senator Inhofe: Well, I don’t know how you do that, though, ‘cause we’re not the ones that are calling the shots.  The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen.  And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.

Melanie Morgan: Well, Senator, thank you very much for coming back and handling a little bit, a tiny little bit of heat from the kitchen.

Senator Inhofe: Okay.

Jed Babbin: Thanks very much Senator.

Senator Inhofe: Thanks, you bet.

Jed Babbin: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma on the Environment Committee over there, and one of the real fighters.

Melanie Morgan: He certainly is…

All this is being reported and yet Obama goes out and speaks about a climate bill.

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved “one step closer” to a “strong operational agreement” on climate change at next month’s Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.

Hey Obama! Wake up and put your golf clubs down. The global warming/climate change hoax has been discovered. The gig is up and it’s time to stop beating the “Earth is dying due to man” routine.

The reason to why the other members of the alphabet-media are not reporting “ClimateGate” is simple. All of them are run by liberals and they never report real news. Plus, it goes against one of Obama’s pet project. Spreading the wealth.

It’s time for Obama, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Henry Waxman and every other liberal “global warming truther” to confess. Admit that global warming/climate change is a myth, hoax and total fraud.

A little help here brother bishops…

From POLITICO:

The same bishop who is denying Communion to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) claims he avoids politics — but he first made a national splash two years ago by comparing Rudy Giuliani to Pontius Pilate.

Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin wrote an op-ed in the Rhode Island Catholic attacking Giuliani in May 2007, the same year he allegedly wrote a letter to Kennedy informing the pro-choice Democrat he was not a “good practicing Catholic” because of the positions he has taken as a public official.

In the column — which was a public response to Giuliani’s invitation to a Providence fundraiser for his presidential campaign — Tobin wrote that he had no interest in politics, yet proceeded to call out many prominent Catholic politicians by name.

The article:

My R.S.V.P. to Rudy Giuliani

Bishop Thomas J. Tobin

5.31.07

I probably would have written this article anyhow, so distressed was I. But then I received an invitation to attend a fundraising luncheon for presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and that absolutely confirmed my decision. The fundraiser is scheduled for Providence next week. For $500 I could attend a reception with the former New York City Mayor. For $1,500 I could attend a reception with a photo op. The first thought that came to my mind is that I’m not charging enough for my Confirmation photos!

Nevertheless, and more to the point, I have no idea why I received an invitation to Giuliani’s fundraiser. I don’t know the Mayor; I’ve never met him. I try to avoid partisan politics. Heck, I’m not even a Republican. But most of all, I would never support a candidate who supports legalized abortion.

Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing. Even worse, they’re hypocritical.

Now this is what we get from Rudy as he attempted to explain his ambiguous position on abortion in a speech at Houston Baptist College earlier this month: “Here are the two strong beliefs that I have, here are the two pillars of my thinking . . . One is, I believe abortion is wrong. I think it is morally wrong . . . The second pillar that guides my thinking . . . where [people of good faith] come to different conclusions about this, about something so very, very personal, I believe you have to respect their viewpoint. You give them a level of choice here . . . I’ve always believed both of these things.”

What? This drivel from the man who received high marks, and properly so, for his clear vision and personal courage in healing New York City, and by extension, the nation, after the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11.

Rudy mentions the two pillars of his position. But you know what happens if you sit on a stool with two legs? Yep, it collapses. And so does Rudy’s position and along with it his integrity and reputation.

Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years: “I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people.” The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now. As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to . . . racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest . . . but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”

Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position I think of sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels who personally found no guilt in Jesus but for fear of the crowd washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but don’t want to impose my belief on others.”

Okay, let’s ask Mayor Giuliani to think about his position for a minute.

Hey Rudy, you say that you believe abortion is morally wrong. Why do you say that Rudy, why do you believe that abortion is wrong? Is abortion the killing of an innocent child? Is it an offense against human dignity? Is it a cruel and violent act? Does it harm the woman who has the abortion? And if your answer to any of these questions is yes, Rudy, why would you permit people to . . . kill an innocent child, offend human dignity, commit a cruel and violent act or do harm to the mother? This is the name of choice? Huh?

Rudy’s preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard.

In The Gospel of Life Pope John Paul made the obligation to defend human life very explicit: “This task is the particular responsibility of civil leaders . . . No one can ever renounce this responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative or decision-making mandate.” (#90) And more recently, the Bishops of the United States wrote: “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to repudiate [the Church’s] definitive teaching on moral issues, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church.” (Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper, p. 11)

Rudy’s defection from the Catholic Faith on this moral issue is not unique, of course. Catholic politicians of both parties, nationwide, have followed a similar path in abandoning the Faith for the sake of political expediency: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden come quickly to mind. And on a local level of course, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Senator Jack Reed. How these intelligent men and women will someday stand before the judgment seat of God and explain why they legitimized the death of countless innocent children in the sin of abortion is beyond me. (“But God, really, I was personally opposed to it but just couldn’t do anything about it.”)

Oh well, as you can see by now, I won’t be attending the fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani. If Rudy wants to see me he’ll have to arrange an appointment at my office. We’ll talk about his position on abortion. And if he wants a photo it will cost him $1,500 as a donation for the pro-life work of the Church.

Leave it to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. Earlier this year he was fanning his tail feathers, for all to see and admire, while he berated on live TV a young mother  who dared to confront Sen. Arlen Specter (D R D-Penn) at a health care town hall over the summer. This time, Crazy Larry – an elitist bully and superlative blowhard - has jumped headfirst into a battle against a Catholic Bishop – the resulting head trauma again evident in his analysis. 

Kennedy’s Communion Brouhaha

In 2007, young Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) received a letter from Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island in which the bishop requested that Kennedy not take communion because of Kennedy’s well-known, steadfast position on abortion.

It was a request from a religious leader to a congregant based on a critical issue of the Catholic faith. Most devoted Catholics probably wouldn’t want the reception of such a request made public, but Kennedy has practically made it a campaign issue for his re-election – debasing the Catholic Church to appeal to his liberal base.

There have been literally thousands of news stories covering this ongoing feud – a Democrat in Washington taking repeated shots at a Catholic bishop because he feels jilted, and because he sees votes. Of all the unsavory acts committed under the Kennedy name, Patrick may just bring their self-serving behavior to a new low.

But Crazy Larry stayed true to form on Monday’s Morning Joe, took the side of the young hothead Kennedy and launched his own attack on the same bishop.

“This is a political act by a political bishop… Political bishops do the church absolutely no good. This guy’s—this bishop is a political hack.”

– Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC

If the Bishop’s a Hack, What is Kennedy?

Patrick Kennedy certainly doesn’t lack any of that inbred Kennedy sense of entitlement. But he is proving to be the most unmotivated and unaccomplished of the Kennedy politicos thus far - treating Congress as an extension of his college fraternity house.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of his transgressions. Who has that kind of time?

• Involved in the cover-up of an alleged rape in 1991
• Assaulted a female security guard at LAX in 2000
• Confronted by the U.S. Coast Guard on his yacht in 2000 in response to complaints about a heated argument between him and his girlfriend
• In 2003, overheard saying, “I’ve never worked a f*&ing day in my life” (**SHOCK**)
• Held on to $6,600 in donations from Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who was later convicted of violating federal campaign finance laws and defrauding investors
• Last, but not least – in May 2006, high on prescriptions drugs, he crashed his Mustang convertible into a barricade on Capitol Hill at 2:45 a.m., frantic that he was late for a vote (a vote which had taken place several hours before)

Not a First for the Catholic Church

According to the Washington Post/Newsweek blog “Under God”:

“In 2003, Democratic Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, a Catholic, was told not to take Communion by Bishop Raymond Burke. After he became archbishop of St. Louis, Burke said famously that if then-presidential candidate John Kerry came to his Mass he would tell him not to take Communion.

“Others who have been excluded? Former California Gov. Gray Davis, former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, and Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”

The American public at large knew little to nothing about these previous exclusions of prominent politicians from the Catholic ritual – until Kennedy started whining. If he hadn’t gone public with his non-issue against the Catholic Church, chances are good we wouldn’t be talking about this now.

It’s astounding that the state of Rhode Island elected this man – and proceeded to re-elect him SEVEN times. And it’s equally astounding that Lawrence O’Donnell gets paid to share his opinion on a national stage. The degree of ignorance conveyed in O’Donnell’s summation of the ordeal showcases an increasingly prevalent bipolar disconnect between reality and liberal folly.

As many of you are aware, this December Denmark will be the site of the United Nations Climate Conference. Several weeks ago there was a video posted on this site, I don’t remember who posted it, by Lord Christopher Monckton. He was giving a speech at Bethel University and was discussing the upcoming conference, the treaty that was being discussed, and the ramifications of such treaty for the United States. I remember watching the video and wondering, “how much of what he says is real and how much of it is ‘Glenn Beckish’ in its conclusions?” So I began to read more, study more, and figure out what I could about the upcoming conference and the treaty being discussed. I was stunned to find that Lord Monckton was pretty accurate with what he was saying. And I decided that I was going to write about the subject. I have been attempting to gather information in the weeks since then. I am now ready to present to all of you what I found. Because there are only 12 days to this insane conference…

Before I begin, I wanted to offer what I could find as a link to view the video for anyone who missed it the last time it was posted. The site that I am linking to is the Dakota Voice. I am sure there are those who will attack the information in the video because of the site. I say to you, stuff it. The site has nothing to do with the content of the video. Clicking the link will open a new window:

Lord Monckton Delivers a Warning on the Climate Treaty

For those who are unable to view the video, the transcript of this part of the speech is here:

At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed — Your president will sign it. Most of the third-world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the European Union, will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word, government, actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a ‘climate debt,’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.

And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right. It doesn’t appear once.

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Laureate. Of course, he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution. And you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other states, parties. And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.”

So thank you America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back again.

That is how serious it is. I have read the treaty. I have seen the stuff about government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation which I so love and I so admire. It is here that, perhaps — at this 11th hour, at the 59th minute and 59th second — you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty. That purposeless treaty for there is no trouble with the climate — and even if there were, economically speaking, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet, Longfellow: “Sail on, oh Ship of State. Sail on, oh Union, strong and great. Humanity, with all it’s fears, with all the hopes of future years, is hanging, breathless, on thy fate.” Thank you.

I think after watching that video you can see how disturbed I might be. I am more disturbed now to find that much of what he said is true. So away we go…..

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created in March of 1994 and can be summed up by their own description (from their own website):

The Convention on Climate Change sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Convention enjoys near universal membership, with 192 countries having ratified. Under the Convention, governments:

• gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices
• launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries
• cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change

There you have its purpose. According to their own description, they share information, launch national strategies, and prepare for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Oddly I don’t see anything about forming a world government in that charter, or global redistribution of wealth through something called a “carbon debt.” Yet that is exactly the type of work that this body has continued to put forth.

We have given a fair amount of discussion to the conventions last major contribution to the world, the Kyoto Protocol. For those unfamiliar with the Kyoto Protocol, it was a cap and trade type program done on a global scale. The United States did not participate in the Kyoto Protocol and did not sign it. Lefties have spent the last 4 years lambasting the US government for failing to do our part and sign the accord and take part. The Kyoto Protocol was a global effort to reduce greenhouse gases and save our climate in crisis, after all, and as leaders in the world we should be leading the way. And I say we did lead the way, by rejecting this garbage outright. Because the Kyoto Protocol has been a monumental and VERY expensive failure. Just about every country that implemented it has seen it fail. Emissions actually rose in many of them. Kyoto is about to expire, thank goodness. So the last attempt at a major move like this…. was a bust. I wrote about this subject previously here:

Coming Soon… The Breathing Tax « Stand Up For America

and here

Man Made BullCrap… « Stand Up For America

and here

Strike While the Crisis is “Hot” « Stand Up For America

In fact, I have written many more times than these three about global warming. I have done so because I believe that man made global warming is bullshit. Now that they have realized that the earth is cooling, they have switched to man made climate change. I believe that man-made climate change is bullshit. I think all this global climate stuff is a hoax pulled by the elite who stand to either gain great power or gain great wealth by spreading the lie. And I believe that, at this point, global warming/climate change is the greatest threat to American freedom. This is not because of any change to the climate, but because of all the bullshit legislation being passed in the name of this lie. Can I make it any more clear than that?

So fast forward to the upcoming conference in Copenhagen. The treaty that Lord Monckton was speaking of has not officially been finalized. However, the working copy is available on the UNFCCC website:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

While I don’t expect you all to read that entire nonsense, I figured it was important that you have access to the working document from the source. Otherwise, I would be accused of offering my opinion and little else. After all, I did say above that “I believe” global warming is a fraud. To point you in some of the right directions, the entire document is under revision, and parts of the topics I am going to discuss below are covered everywhere in the document. But some of the highlights are found in the following sections. Please keep in mind that these are early on and are amendments to the original document, which is 181 pages long:

The paragraph discussing developed nations accepting responsibility for their part in causing the problem and determining what percentage of the problem they are responsible for… Page 15, paragraph #29

The paragraph discussing the payment of carbon debts and the financing of technology and education in developing countries by those evil developed countries that caused the problem…. Page 16, paragraphs #32 and #33

The paragraphs discussing the creation of a government entity that will control the process, the financial aspects, the implementation, and enforcement…. Page 18, beginning with paragraph #38

You see, here is my issue with the entire thing (and this is besides the fact that I think man made climate change is bull and therefore makes all of this stuff illegal and irrelevant): The treaty being proposed takes away US sovereignty in a big way. It gives this new UN entity many controls over the United States that we should not be turning over to anyone. EVER. It redistributes American money to developing countries as a payment for the carbon debt. Think that part is made up? I am sure some will argue that it is, especially based on the section I gave above, which is confusing. So how about this section from page 122:

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

In other words, we pay developing countries for the damage we have done to them, including loss of dignity! It says it right there in the damn treaty! This is “reparations” on a global scale. The unelected international government is to have authority to legislate how much and what kind of carbon-based activity Americans may engage in before they will be taxed on such activity (now we are getting taxed by the world, as if it isn’t bad enough here already). None of these taxes or penalties will be subject to presidential veto, congressional oversight, or review by the federal Judiciary.

Another link from the official Copenhagen Conference site is important here as it is an interview with Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He explains that there are 4 key things that this conference must accomplish in December (he is backing off having the treaty done because it is delayed to possibly 2010, which I will discuss below). These are his four areas of focus and the link to the article:  The essentials in Copenhagen – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? The US has come up with a number they will offer in Copenhagen
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions? They gave their answer, I will cover it below.
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed? The treaty intends to make the US pay for it.
4. How is that money going to be managed? I will guarantee the honest answer to that is poorly and corruptly.

Another part of that interview that I found relevant is that they are making sure that they can come up with a treaty that can pass muster in the US Senate. They knew Kyoto would never make it through the Senate and that was a big mistake in their eyes. Unfortunately, we have John Kerry on board with the madness coming out of Copenhagen, and he will be running point on the issue in the Senate.

Adding to this issue is the fact that China and India have recently determined their path forward, and it looks as though their answer is to tell the UNFCCC to stick it. President Obama’s new BFF, China, is not such a BFF. From the long link below: We “agreed to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen,” Obama said after his meeting last week with Chinese President Hu Jintao.” This is really weird, because there is also this in the news (from the American Thinker article below):

On October 22, an accord was signed by Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, and Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, in New Delhi. The memorandum provides an alternative framework to counter pressure from America and Europe to adopt mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a new UN treaty. The two Asian powers will collaborate on the development of renewable power projects and improved energy efficiency programs, while rejecting any outside mandates that would slow economic growth.

It seems that the two largest population countries in the world are not exactly on board with this whole climate treaty business. In fact, they have the testicular fortitude to do what our lame President (and the lame Presidents before him, although the hated GW ignored Kyoto as he should have done) doesn’t seem to have the guts to do. They are telling the rest of the world that they are taking care of number one first. If your climate change hoo ha gets in the way of our economic prosperity, we reserve the right to use it as toilet paper. So while China and India protect their sovereignty and ensure what is best economically for their people, the United States seems intent on giving US wealth away and making the country economically vulnerable during one of the more powerful recessions in our country’s history.

Does something not make sense here?

This is yet another massive issue that the people of the United States must rally against. The President, the Senate, and the rest of the bullshit artists in Washington DC need to be made aware that we see through the AGW bull and we are not going to sit idly by while our sovereignty and our economic well being are sacrificed by the Great Apologizer. How many Trillions of dollars do we have to throw at a problem that doesn’t exist and that even if it did, we couldn’t affect if we wanted to?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/power_derives_from_lawful_auth.html (this is an excellent article assessing the Constitutionality of the President signing this treaty)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/23/propose-emissions-reduction-target-copenhagen-month/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529&utm_content=My+Yahoo

American Thinker: China-India Accord to Scuttle UN Climate Treaty

From the Lexington’s notebook:

Christian Scientists, who don’t believe in conventional medicine, are nonetheless keen to grab some of the cash the government will soon be splurging on health reform.

Church leaders want health insurers to reimburse “spiritual health” practitioners who pray for the sick, reports the Washington Post.

A proposal to that effect was stripped out of the House health bill, but the Church is lobbying to have it re-inserted into the Senate version.

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, taught that sickness is a delusion. Rather than consulting a doctor when you are ill, you should pray, she advised. Her modern-day followers sometimes take this literally.

Their children occasionally die of preventable or treatable diseases. The Church would like taxpayers to subsidise this sort of nonsense. And Senators John Kerry and Orrin Hatch apparently agree.

The great thing about this sort of logic is that it can be applied to anything. If I “educate” my children by praying that they will one day get into Harvard, may I please have a subsidy from the Department of Education? And I understand that there’s a lot of money in the defence budget. If I pray for victory in Afghanistan, perhaps Congress will give me some of it.

Senator John Kerry recently introduced “The Small Business Health Information Technology Financing Act of 2009″, a piece of legislation aimed at aiding family doctors switch to electronic medical records. The Act would make family doctors and other small medical practices eligible for Small Business Administration loans that would cover the costly transition from paper to digital health records. As a senior member of the Finance Committee and former Chairman of the Small Business Committee, Kerry is committed to helping President Obama achieve his goal of digitizing all  American health records  by 2014.

“Electronic medical records and prescriptions are the common sense solution to restricting costs, reducing errors, and reforming a broken system,  Kerry said. “Doctors don’t need convincing — they’ve seen the results.  This legislation helps small practices acquire the technology that will allow them to be more efficient and to focus on patient care.”

Kerry is not a newcomer  to healthcare technology legislation; in 2007 he introduced the Medicare Electronic Medication and Safety Protection  Act of 2007, which required physicians to employ electronic prescription technology.

I had heard about these two new energy projects in Brazil, which were funded by the Inter-American Development Bank before, but when John Kerry came for a speech to the World Bank last week and mentioned them again, I decided to take a closer look. Apparently they are coal-fired thermal generation plants recently approved by IDB to be financed. It is indeed an irony to fund such out-dated projects in one of the richest countries in the world….

While talking about the need to increase the development banks’ capital, John Kerry also emphasized the 21^st century approach to development. Kerry stressed that the world did benefit from the development banks of the 20^th century, but now there is a need for new thinking and creative leadership to create a proper vision for the development bank of the 21st century.  And of course, his underlying purpose was to highlight the need for better energy projects funded by these banks.

While on this subject, Kerry said, “Several months ago, the Inter-American Development Bank chose to fund two subcritical coal fired plants in Brazil, a country among the richest in Latin America, and a world leader in its use of renewable and clean energy.   There is no excuse for this.  We need to be far more involved, far earlier, to ensure that alternatives are found for projects like this, and to avoid allocating limited funds toward projects that risk undermining our long-term development goals.

Let me remind you:  These decisions don’t take place in a vacuum.  All of you here—the World Bank—constitute the gold standard for all other development banks, and that’s one more reason why you have an obligation to exercise leadership.

Second, we need to assess energy projects and the costs and benefits of various energy technologies more accurately.   No matter how efficient the plant, no matter what it replaces, and no matter how important it may be to the energy future of a given country, a coal plant without technology to capture and sequester the carbon it emits is not a clean energy project– and it shouldn’t be funded as one. “

In comparison, Kerry mentioned the solar house systems project, implemented by the World Bank in Bangladesh as a good example of a 21^stcentury approach to development. While reading about this project in Bangladesh, I noticed that it is an interesting one aiming to increase access to electricity in remote rural areas of Bangladesh and to reduce carbon emissions by overcoming market barriers for renewable energy development. This project also has a nice private sector development section, which requires the project to be implemented through sixteen NGOs. These Participating NGOs select project areas and potential customers, extend loans, install the systems, and provide maintenance support for these solar homes.

The moral of this post is to highlight how projects can be so different in terms of their environmental footprint. I sometimes have a feeling that the smaller the development project, the more socially and environmentally sustainable it is. Just a thought.

I would like to thank the 60 senators who voted yesterday for the Senate version of the Health Care bill for providing us with a convenient score card to vote them out of office in 2010. Harry Reid is already a goner. Perhaps these 60 can form a club to stay occupied after the 2010 elections. Perhaps it could be called, “The Un American Club.”

Here is a list of the 60 senators who want to be removed from office:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Thanks to commenter speedy for the list.

Bob -

I just witnessed the 60th vote in the Senate to move the Democrats’ contentious $2.5 trillion health care bill forward to a vote. No matter what the Democrats may try to tell you this is a bill that will increase taxes, cut Medicare and use fancy accounting tricks to hide its true cost. The American people deserve better and Senate Republicans and our supporters continue to be the only thing standing between Democrats and the socialization of the American health care system.

As the Senate begins to consider this bill, please make sure to visit our new Health Care Task Force site www.healthcaretaskforce.org. And, if you haven’t already, join the effort and stay informed on what you can do. Learn the real facts about this bill and not the Democrat spin. We cannot allow Washington bureaucrats to take control of our health care system.

Sincerely,

Senator John Cornyn

Chairman

425 2nd Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 | Phone: (202) 675-6000
Privacy Policy

Contributions to the National Republican Senatorial Committee are not deductible
as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Mailing Address:
National Republican Senatorial Committee
425 2nd Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
US

Contact Name: NRSC
Telephone Number: (202) 675-6000

Sincerely,

Senator John Cornyn

Chairman

Now that Reid and his Democrat cronies have pushed this monstrosity of a bill through, we all must do what we can to see that it dos not pass when debated and voted on. E-mail Senator Cornyn’s letter to everyone you know or e-mail this post or the link for this post.

I found this great clip of O’Riley and Stewart – 80% intoxicated viewers? Right O’Riley I am sure.

I love it how O’Riley totally downs our younger generation because he’s P.O.ed that unlike his generation we all actually go out and vote – sounds like someone is really cranky!  He’s a total idiot and a shock jock.

And O’Riley thinks that France hurt the U.S. – I love it how Stewart just shuts him dow, about everything.  O’Riley is super upset too that a presidential candidate bypassed him to interview with Stewart.  Amazing.

Just a little fun nugget for your night.

Democrats in the senate are about to make the biggest mistake of their lives, and ours.

Many of them are still playing political games with our lives and our money to fool us into leaving them in power.

As I write this, they are beginning debate on whether to move forward with debate on the health care bill in the senate.  They need 61 votes.  The plan is to bribe, coerce, and otherwise influence enough of them to vote for this to proceed so that the bill can then be run through the same private, democrat-only conferences that gave us the house bill.  When it comes back to the floor for a vote it will only need 51 votes.  Some of the senators will be let off the hook by democrat leadership so they can then vote against the bill and go home to their constituents and pull a “John Kerry,”  telling their constituents they voted for the bill before they voted against it.

This isn’t just any politics-as-usual bill or situation.  America is on the edge of the abyss economically, and this bill will push us over.  Not to mention all of the freedoms and liberties that will vanish with the stroke of a pen when this monstrosity is signed into law.

Every battle we fight from here on out is a must-win.  We are fighting a delaying battle until reinforcements arrive.  We are fighting for the survival of America.

If you are an American citizen, if you love America, if you love freedom, liberty, and the American way of life, you will clog the fax machines, shutdown the e-mail servers, and fry the phone circuits on Capitol Hill to let them know we will not let them take from us what isn’t theirs to take.

Be a citizen, not a subject.

Are You A

DEMOCRAT

Or Are You An

AMERICAN?

Choose this day whom you will serve, but choose wisely.

A vote to allow the current health care bill to move forward is a vote AGAINST America.

We know what games you are playing.  Many of you plan to vote for it now when there must be 60 votes for debate to proceed, then some of you will “strategically” vote against it when only a simple majority is required so you can go home and lie to your constituents and claim you “voted against the bill.”  You are liars and deceivers.

Make no mistake, any vote in favor of this legislation is a vote against America.  Understand that you are pushing us over a cliff.  We are already trillions of dollars in debt, you are playing the same shell games with money that landed Enron executives in jail to keep various government agencies afloat, other countries are bailing out of the U.S. dollar as their reserve currency, and many of the nations to which we are debtors are beginning to balk at buying any more of our debt.  Should that happen, there will be an INSTANT depression.  With your reckless spending of money that doesn’t even exist, you may have already sealed America’s fate.  Passing the extraordinarily expensive takeover of the American health care system will nail the coffin shut on America in more ways than one.

If you vote for this bill, you will be removed from Washington.

Over 200 of the house democrats have already been fired, but they haven’t accepted that fact yet.  They should start cleaning out their offices and packing their bags now.

You are the last legal and constitutional line of defense against this attack on America’s freedom and liberty.

Will you defend American’s freedom, liberty, and the United States Constitution?

Should you choose not to, do not think you will be untouched by the anarchy and chaos that is likely to result.

It’s time to choose.

Las probabilidades de que la cumbre del clima de Copenhague de diciembre sirva para impulsar un tratado internacional que sustituya a Kioto parecen cada vez más remotas. Cualquier acuerdo vinculante sobre el régimen de reducción de emisiones de gases invernadero depende velis nolis del compromiso que Estados Unidos, la gran potencia contaminadora junto con China, esté dispuesta a asumir. Y según lo expresado por Obama en los últimos días, su administración considera prematuro fijarse unos objetivos concretos.

Al menos, hasta que Washington no dé luz verde a una legislación energética que sea luego compatible con la agenda y las cifras que los países se autoimpongan en la lucha contra el calentamiento global.

Obama no quiere meterse en el atolladero de negociar un documento que, como sucediera con el de Kioto, suscrito por Bill Clinton, no sea refrendado luego por los congresistas estadounidenses. Y aunque su postura eche por tierra las esperanzas de alcanzar en la capital noruega un protocolo que la comunidad científica insiste en calificar de “urgente”, al político de Chicago hay que reconocerle su prudencia.

Por más que la causa medioambiental provoque encendidas adhesiones dentro de la opinión pública norteamericana, mucho más que las catastróficas consecuencias en los ecosistemas o la meteorología, preocupa el “impacto económico” que acarreará un plan serio de reducción de las emisiones de CO2.

Convencer a la oposición de que los acuerdos anticalentamiento no traerán una factura demasiado costosa, representa el gran desafío de Obama si de verdad tiene, como ha manifestado reiteradamente, la voluntad de avanzar en tan espinosa materia.

El presidente necesita persuadir a los mandatarios republicanos de que las medidas paliativas frente al clima (cualquiera sea la cumbre en la que se termine sellando un protocolo, en Copenhague o en México el año próximo) no son un gasto forzoso sino más bien una inversión de futuro. La oportunidad para “revitalizar”, según la expresión del influyente senador demócrata John Kerry, la maltrecha economía nacional. Para impulsar una matriz tecnológica verde que logre, entre otras cosas, “preservar los empleos actuales y crear otros nuevos” o “salvaguardar la seguridad nacional”.

Obama tiene buena parte del camino allanado si plantea la discusión dentro del “esquema” que el propio Kerry, el candidato demócrata en las presidenciales de 2004, ha trazado –junto con la senadora republicana Lindsey Graham– en una campaña “suprapartidaria” para sacar adelante una ley pionera sobre el cambio climático (pendiente ahora de su trámite en el Senado). La que sería la pieza de derecho medioambiental, a decir de los analistas, “más ambiciosa redactada nunca en Estados Unidos”.

La estrategia de la dupla Kerry-Graham gira en torno a una serie de ideas bastante sensatas. La más fundamental es la “definitiva aceptación” de que calentamiento es “real” y una “amenaza para la economía y la seguridad”. “Ésa es la razón por la que abogamos por una agresiva reducción de los gases invernadero”, explicaban Kerry y Graham en un artículo de opinión publicado hace unas semanas en The New York Times.

Los representantes por Massachusetts y Carolina del Sur rompen una lanza en favor de la inversión en alternativas renovables como plantas eólicas o solares, e insisten, con significativo énfasis, en la apuesta por la energía nuclear, la “fuente energética libre de emisiones más importante”. “Las centrales nucleares han de ser un parte esencial en la generación de electricidad si pretendemos alcanzar nuestras metas”, dicen.

Para Kerry y Graham, otra de las grandes bazas a jugar es la “venta” de la legislación sobre el cambio climático como una ocasión propicia para “romper” la dependencia estadounidense del petróleo extranjero. Su “adicción” al crudo. “Enviar 800 millones de dólares al día a países productores que a veces nos son hostiles representa un riesgo para nuestra seguridad”, sostienen.

Aunque quizá uno de los argumentos esgrimidos por los senadores con más posibilidades de atraerse hasta a los más escépticos es la apelación al sentido de misión reservado a Estados Unidos. Una encomienda a la altura de la megalomanía yankee y de sus aún intactas veleidades de imperio. “Nos resistimos a aceptar que Estados Unidos no pueda liderar al mundo en la batalla contra el cambio climático”, aseguran Kerry y Graham.

Senator John Kerry delivered a noteworthy speech on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at the World Bank in Washington D.C.

“A strong internationalist” according to World Bank Group President Robert Zoelick, John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the rich countries to take the lead in reducing their carbon footprints and providing the funds for low-carbon technologies to be deploying in developing countries.

John Kerry Image Credit: Ralph Alswang

He urged the World Bank to use its funds to support what he called “21^st century priorities”, adapting to and mitigating climate change, enhancing food security, and empowering women.

Kerry referred to “energy poverty”, the lack of access to electricity faced by millions in the developing world, as a challenge interlocked with climate change.

“Reducing energy poverty and combating climate change cannot be mutually exclusive challenges,” he said. “We won’t solve climate change unless we also seriously tackle energy poverty, and we haven’t really solved energy poverty if we ravage our planet in the process.”

He called upon the institution to improve programs that support low-emissions energy projects to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and expand energy access.

“When even my Senate colleagues from coal-producing states talk about implementing clean coal technologies, the Bank shouldn’t be in the business of funding yesterday’s coal technology.” said Kerry.

An Environmental Defense Fund report on April 2009 has found that the World Bank and other international public financial institutions are continuing a 15-year trend of supporting coal-fired power plant construction.  Since 1994, they have financed the new construction or expansion of 88 coal-fired power plants. These plants will generate roughly 791 million tons of CO₂ emissions per year, or more than 75% of the current emissions for coal-fired power in the entire European Union.

Kerry cited examples of the kind of technologies that could become “game changers”. One such technology is the non-geological sequestration of coal flue gas by its transformation into calcium carbonate for use in construction is one such technology. He recognised that there were exceptions, such as Africa, which he noted had that same amount of installed electricity as Spain – with twenty three times more people.

“I recognise that there will be some exceptions for the poorest countries whose small fraction of global emissions will not make the crucial difference. But increasingly, there must be the exceptions and not the rule.” he said.

He said the World Bank could act as one of the “principal catalysts” for technology, as it was already doing in Bangladesh, where by 2012 over a million households will have solar home systems to provide hot water.

The 2009 edition of The State of World Population shows that women—particularly those in poor countries— are among the most vulnerable to climate change, partly because in many countries they make up the larger share of the agricultural work force and partly because they tend to have access to fewer income-earning opportunities. Empowering women, by ensuring access to the resources and information they need in order to make sound decisions about resource management and by placing them at the centre of any meaningful effort to implement solutions is crucial to sustainable development.

Sources: World Bank

Award-winning writer-director and daughter of Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry, Alexandra Kerry was arrested for driving under the influence early Thursday morning in Los Angeles.

The 36-year-old Kerry was allegedly pulled over by the police for a traffic violation but she was placed under arrest when officers detected signs and symptoms of being under the influence of alcohol and she failed the field sobriety test.

According to the Los Angeles police, Kerry was briefly jailed for the misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence but was later on released on $5,000 bail.

The Kerry camp in a statement, said that Alexandra was not drunk as her BAC fell under the legal limit and that she was merely pulled over for an expired vehicle registration.

Alexandra Forbes Kerry, daughter of Senator John Kerry, was arrested Thursday morning on suspicion of DUI. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, Alexandra Kerry was pulled over for a traffic violation around 12:40 AM in Hollywood, CA.

>> Read more at SnarkFood.com now…

She was booked and then released at the Hollywood Station after formal tests only showed a .06. I would be livid considering the legal limit is .08.  This shows once again the stupidity of the police in Los Angeles and the need for a better public transportation system. It’s impossible to get anywhere in this town without a car.

Alexandra pulled over for DUI – Patrick Gavin.