The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.

The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims. According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.
...

We're talking about the draft and how it causes military aggression here. How can you back out of it and claim it's a different issue?

Giving them more soldiers will only cause more unnecessary wars.

Okay... think about what you wrote...

Why should I make an argument for the other side against my own?

I DON'T believe the other side has any validity.

It's up to you to justify your side. I'm not going to do it for you.

I state my opinion because I believe it is fact. Maybe you don't and that's your prerogative. If you don't believe what you say, then it shouldn't be said, should it?

I truly believe that in order to be on the side of a military draft one has to be ignoring facts or simply be so entrenched in the rhetoric of those who support it that they're willing to misrepresent facts on their side of the argument to justify their position.

If we change the draft laws should we include women?

If we had a military draft, we'd have neverending war. If people don't see that, they're either stupid, ignorant or lying.

I say....boot them all to the curb and lets start over.

The fact is that If you are a muslim, you have a great potential for being a terrorist.

muhammed was the first terrorist in the universe, so if you follow his rules, it make you a terrorist as well.

In 1924 Scientfic American magazine offered a 10 thousand dollar cash prize to any medium who could come forth and show that they were genuine. The had to meet a set of rules established by Harry Houdini. One by one the most famous psychics and mediums came forth and Houdini exposed them one by one. To my knowledge the prize was never awarded. Is this whole practice fraudulent? What do you think?

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.

The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.

Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.

Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.

Public-policy decisions based on this survey will impact millions of Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's important that voters and policy makers have accurate information. When the question matters this much, it is worth taking the time to get the answer right.

The threat of North Korean and Iranian ICBMs with Nukes is a myth. Both countries are geographically incapable of threatening the United States.

If Air America doesn't have as much of an audience as their 'opposite numbers' I wonder if it's because the 'liberal' folks don't get off on name-calling, insults, and paranoid generalizations nearly as much as the 'conservative' folks...

NEW YORK (AP) -- Air America Radio, a liberal talk and news radio network that features the comedian Al Franken, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told The AP.

September 27, 2006 -- AFTER more than two decades in the intelligence world, I know a few secrets. Some would merit brief, trumped-up headlines. But keeping those secrets is a matter of honor.

I don't keep secrets from the American people. I keep secrets for the American people. I took an oath not to divulge classified information. In return, I was trusted. And I never broke my word.

That means that I and all those like me who keep the faith don't fit in Washington, D.C., where leaking our nation's secrets is now a competitive sport - for both Democrats and Republicans.

The climate of leaks-without-penalties must end. But it probably won't. Why? Because senior figures in both parties see political advantages in well-timed leaks. They're willing to betray our nation for a brief partisan edge.

I've already used two out-of-date words that mark me as a patsy in D.C.: "honor" and "betray."

What happened to honor? Among our elected and appointed officials? A sense of honor still prevails within our military and among hundreds of thousands of government employees. Honor still prevails in much of our community life. Many Americans beyond the Beltway maintain a strong sense of personal and professional honor.

But honor's dead in Washington. And at "leading" universities (where patriotism, too, is beneath contempt). And in the media. Honor isn't hip. It's as pathetic as a powder-blue, polyester leisure suit.

To journalists and members of Congress, the concept of honor is so alien it's incomprehensible. If you can grab a headline, no matter the cost to your country, tell our secrets - and win an award for your "courage."

If you can bump up your poll numbers before the election, spill the beans. If you can stick it to the other party, by all means tell the terrorists what our senior intelligence officers think. Expose our security programs. Exaggerate our military problems. If we're short on bullets, tell the bad guys.

Honor's for the chumps, the losers, the average voter who "doesn't have a clue." In other words, for people like you and me.

Of course, reporters and political hacks can't just stroll into a secure vault and walk out with classified documents (well, except for a certain former national security adviser . . . ). They need accomplices. So they've created a culture of leaks in which bureaucrats and even military officers convince themselves it's OK to tip our nation's secrets - your secrets - to the media.

What can be done? It's simple: Enforce the law.

Leaking classified information is a crime punishable with prison time. The statutes are on the books, folks. Those who leak classified information and those who publicize it should go to jail.

This isn't a matter of creating a police state, for God's sake. We're at war. In war (and in peace, as well), we have secrets to keep. When we fail to keep those secrets, soldiers die, our enemies are encouraged, our allies grow reluctant to share intelligence with us, and our own agencies worry about the danger of sharing information from their top sources. And you, the American people, are betrayed.

"Betrayal" is the other un-cool word I used up above. But it's the right word. Whether a senator or a low-level staffer in a government department, the man or woman who intentionally compromises classified information has betrayed you, your family and your country.

The latest example was a selective leak from a National Intelligence Estimate - a high-level document that reports not only a consensus view, but also dissenting opinions (I know - I read plenty of 'em in the past). According to the media's version of whatever was leaked, we're less secure now than before Iraq was invaded. It was a cynical set-up just over a month before national elections: In order to challenge the allegations, the president had to declassify a very sensitive document.

The leak wasn't about some phony "right to know." It was a political stunt performed for political gain. And now our enemies know what our intelligence community thinks. Gee, thanks. We don't need to know what intelligence documents say. What matters is what our leaders do or fail to do.

What will it take to inspire a nonpartisan crackdown on those who betray our secrets, who selfishly expose our country to mortal danger?

A punk who robs a convenience store goes to jail, yet an official who passes sensitive intelligence to the press or to the political party he or she favors is rarely pursued at the upper levels of government.

Why? Same answer as above. Your politicians like the culture of leaks. They complain about it, fingers crossed way down in their deep pockets. But they do nothing. Washington's a club - and you're not in it, brothers and sisters.

This shouldn't be a Democratic or Republican issue. It's an American issue. Keeping our country safe is more important than Sen. Sweetspot's re-election campaign or a Pulitzer Prize for another self-adoring, America-loathing journalist.

Put 'em in the slammer. Where these criminals belong. Enforce our laws. And maybe - just maybe - folks in Washington will start obeying those laws again.

There's one more reason why I keep old secrets and actively avoid exposure to new ones now that I'm out of the system. In this great, free country, I can figure out anything I need to know from open sources. I don't have to dishonor myself or the United States of America.

And if honor's a joke to those in power, I'm proud to be the butt of it.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army intel officer and the author of "Never Quit the Fight."

If it is true that he was allowed to speak his mind why did NONE of the news agencies interview him?

Transcript of Chavez Speech to UN; Tells Bush "Yankee Imperialist Go Home"
Submitted by john_browns_army on September 20, 2006 - 5:16pm. A&S News Wire | Anti-Imperialism | Anti-War | United States
PRESIDENT CHAVEZ DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

"Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you.
First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have
not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious
American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most
recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United
States.'" (Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.)

"It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the
world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest
threat looming over our planet. The hegemonic pretensions of the American
empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue
to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States
and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our
heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time,"
(flips through the pages, which are numerous) "I will just leave it as a
recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame (President) you are
familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I
think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and
sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.
The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here."
(crosses himself)

"And it smells of sulfur still today."

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United
States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he
owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by
the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to
share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination,
exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a
title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it
can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do
that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The world parent's statement -- cynical,
hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to
control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic
model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original
democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at
the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this
room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can
escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and
martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your
color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president
of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists.
It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of
your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who
are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for
respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising
up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak
directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country
wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York,
Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask
individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want?
Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States
doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage,
of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In
Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin
America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against
Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your
homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get?
What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric
precision?

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when
people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing
on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear,
"We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples
of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this
morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people
of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all
these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those
peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they
were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed
people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is
what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could
speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came
here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we
said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I don't think anybody in this room could defend the
system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second
World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make
statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good
speeches, like Abel's (ph) yesterday, or President Mullah's (ph). Yes, it's
good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri
Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have
no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world.
And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that
we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially
important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our
ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah (ph) talked about this yesterday right here.
The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories,
(inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent
members. That's step one.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Second, effective methods to address and resolve
world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's
calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on
decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed
the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as
we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers
of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And
he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more
complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just
worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United
Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United
Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and
lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for
peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce
persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is how Venezuela has presented itself.
Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral
attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the
Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us
extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their
support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no
need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions
of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur.
Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of
Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their
support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its
support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers,
our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed
its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many
others.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on
behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a
seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts,
but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will
defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be
optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and
above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the
destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Sylvia Rodriguez (ph) says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are
alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And
this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that
the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about
Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has
been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out
all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I
want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have
to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has
already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it
continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a
moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister,
Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And
that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves.
They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another
anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist
attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion
airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility
for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to
CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here
in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has
double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and
violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And
other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living
here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated
people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I
think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army
was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by
the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting
terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few
days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the
Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't
worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate
in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital
of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group
of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers
and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the
Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and
prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next
three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to
be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his
green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a
movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my
file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very
warmly and very humbly to all of you.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We want ideas to save our planet, to save the
planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not
too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our
children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental
principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations
somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security
had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to
arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of
power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us
and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

(APPLAUSE)

They cut his satelite feed, didn't allow interviews, called what he was doing dangerous and illegal.

NYPD Assistant Chief Michael Collins called the allegations "absolutely false" and said the Venezuelan delegation refused to comply with requirements on where to place their satellite dish.

"What they were doing was dangerous and illegal," he said. "We made every accommodation not to interfere with what was going on."

State Department spokesman Gonzo Gallegos, in New York with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said: "As a matter of policy, there are no restrictions on President Chavez or anyone else wanting to speak their mind in the United States."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said. (Watch Rangel rip Chavez -- 1:28 )

Chavez kept up his criticism of Bush during a visit to Harlem on Thursday, calling the U.S. president "a sick man" who is unqualified for the job. Chavez also said he is expanding his heating-oil program to help low-income Americans.

During his speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, Chavez launched into a caustic verbal attack of Bush that shocked diplomats and observers accustomed to the staid verbiage of international diplomacy. (Full story)

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" when the U.S. president addressed the world body on Tuesday. (Watch how Chavez's belligerence may backfire -- 3:11)

"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' "

Bush's domestic foes fumed Thursday.

"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.

"I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state," Rangel said.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had speaking at the United Nations," Pelosi said. "In doing so, in the manner which he characterized the president, he demeaned himself and demeaned Venezuela."

Bush administration officials dismissed the Chavez tirade.

"We're not going to address that sort of comic-strip approach to international affairs," John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said shortly after Chavez spoke Wednesday.

Chavez's tirades against Bush have become common. In May, he accused Bush of committing genocide and said the U.S. president should be imprisoned by an international criminal court.

Chavez also alleged during the U.N. speech that the United States is planning, financing and setting in motion a coup to overthrow him. The U.S. has denied such accusations in the past.

As he was exiting the U.N. building in New York, Chavez told reporters that Bush is not a legitimate president because he "stole the elections."

"He is, therefore, a dictator," Chavez said.(Watch Chavez's bellicose comments -- :57)

During a stop in Harlem on Thursday, Chavez said he has no quarrel with the American people.

"We are friends of yours, and you are our friends," he said.

Underscoring his point, he announced he is expanding his heating-oil program to help impoverished Americans from 40 million gallons last year to 100 million gallons this year, and from 180,000 families to 459,000 families.

But in the heart of Rangel's congressional district, he blasted away at Bush for a second day.

"He walks like this cowboy John Wayne," said Chavez. "He doesn't have the slightest idea of politics. He got where he is because he is the son of his father. He was an alcoholic, an ex-alcoholic. He's a sick man, full of complexes, but very dangerous now because he has a lot of power."

Chavez, clad in a fire-engine-red shirt, called Bush a "menace" and a "threat against life on the planet."

In the United States, rich people are getting richer, and poor people are getting poorer, he said. "That's not a democracy; that's a tyranny."

After his address, a Chavez spokesman said the Secret Service and New York Police Department had barred the Venezuelan president from granting media interviews and cut his delegation's satellite feed -- claims the New York police and State Department denied.

NYPD Assistant Chief Michael Collins called the allegations "absolutely false" and said the Venezuelan delegation refused to comply with requirements on where to place their satellite dish.

"What they were doing was dangerous and illegal," he said. "We made every accommodation not to interfere with what was going on."

State Department spokesman Gonzo Gallegos, in New York with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said: "As a matter of policy, there are no restrictions on President Chavez or anyone else wanting to speak their mind in the United States."

What are you looking for in a President in 2 years ?
What would one man or woman stand for which would get you vote for them ?
What are your " red button " issues ?
What do you think the whole American people are going to go for ?
I'ts only 2 years away.

JJ, with all due respect American Business profits from illegal immigrants off the charts,...

... that's the only math I need to consider ...

If you start with the responsible business interests these people will not have the means to get here and you do not have to exascerbate their extent suffering as you for whatever seem hell bent on doing right now.

Please consider the laws of human decency along with "our" laws.

This is indeed a bull___t issue for the White House is the entity that brought it to light but had the President take no solid ground on it. Why? Because Foreign Affairs are a shambles and they're trying their best to avoid accountability and the Plame affair was exploding in their faces. That's the power of the voice of division. Gotta love that Liberal Media Bias. LOL.

You mention facts. Please tell me where the strawberries for your cereal will come from if you ship all the pickers home? Are you going to pick them my friend?

You say I'm emotionalizing it. There is no emotion in Math.

Illegal immigrants INDEED contribute exponentially more to our economy than they take out. With all due respect if you think otherwise you're simply turning a deaf ear to the voice of reality.

...In these occupations, a 1 percent increase in the immigrant composition reduces the wages of natives by 0.8 percent. Since these occupations are now on average 19 percent immigrant, my findings suggest that immigration may reduce the wages of workers in these occupation by more than 10 percent. It should also be added that native-born blacks and Hispanics are much more likely than whites to be employed in the adversely impacted occupations.
...

Table 1 summarizes the evidence by reporting what happens to various labor market outcomes when immigration increases the number of workers in a particular skill group by 10 percent. The table shows that immigration has a very strong effect on annual earnings. A 10 percent increase in the size of the skill group reduces annual earnings by 7.1 percent among salaried workers. This change in annual earnings arises because immigration reduces both weekly earnings and annual hours worked. Weekly earnings fall by 3.7 percent among salaried workers and by 4.5 percent if one includes the self-employed. Further, annual hours of work fall by about 3.5 percent. In sum, immigration has an adverse effect on both the wages and employment of competing native workers.
...
Conclusion
The concern over the adverse labor market effects of immigration has always played a central role in the immigration debate. This Backgrounder introduces a new approach for estimating the wage effects of immigration. The approach stresses that the labor market impact of immigration needs to be measured at the national level and exploits the fact that — even within a particular schooling group — young immigrants are more likely to compete with young native workers than they are to compete with older native workers.

The study of the trends in the earnings of native workers over the 1960-2000 period indicates that immigration has indeed harmed their economic opportunities. The effect on wages, however, differs across education groups and race groups. For example, the immigrant influx that entered the country between 1980 and 2000 lowered the wage by 7.4 percent for high school dropouts, by 3.6 percent for college graduates, and by around 2 percent for both high school graduates and workers with some college. Of course, the impact is much larger for some specific experience groups within each educational category. Similarly, although this immigrant influx lowered the wages of white native workers by 3.5 percent, it lowered the wage of native-born blacks by 4.5 percent, and of native-born Hispanics by 5 percent.

It seems that Paul Samuelson was right after all: Wages fall when immigrants increase the size of the workforce.

Our border security would improve dramatically if more of us didn't let Karl Rove brainwash us.

The man is brilliant, look at us distracted by this low priority while the UNPOPULAR OCCUPATION of Iraq continues to misrepresented as a war while the vast majority of our troops die from roadside bombs, not "engagement" with the "enemy."

JJ, my apologies for my own vitriol, but IMHO the security of the United States is far more at risk from the powers that be that are trying to rewrite the Consitution in the American Psyche. Throwing the principles of Jefferson, Paine, etc., out the window as this Administration has IMHO is far more of a risk to our country than the illegal economy.

This is a bull___t election issue designed to ferment hatred and distraction from the dilemnas of this country that deserve far greater priority.

So I guess what passionateman has been trying to tell all of us ignorant non muslims is that Islam is like communism. In theory it really is a religion of peace.

Representative No. 1: Guilty
Meanwhile, Congress doesn't even fiddle with lobbying reform.

Saturday, September 16, 2006; Page A20

HOW SORDID does it have to get before Congress does something to tighten the rules governing lobbyists and lawmakers, all-expenses-paid trips, and lavish dinners? Former representative Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), once a leader in the Republican hierarchy, pleaded guilty yesterday to selling his office in exchange for golf trips and gambling junkets, marking another milestone in a year of congressional disgrace. Yet lawmakers are poised to go home and explain to voters how they failed to act despite vows earlier in the year to fix the badly broken system.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a fig leaf of a change in earmarking rules that will simply require lawmakers, in some cases, to attach their names to special-interest projects that they sponsor. We'll offer a more detailed analysis of this faux reform another time, but the most disturbing point is this: Apparently, that's it for lobbying reform this session. There will be no action to limit the free trips that lawmakers and staff members can take, beef up the broken system of ethics enforcement, slow the revolving door between public service and K Street riches, or improve disclosure of lobbying activities.
It was striking, then, that yesterday, the day after the House's non-action action, the court documents were replete with disgusting details about the rapaciously unethical behavior of Mr. Ney and his staff -- scooping up thousands of dollars in free gambling chips from a Syrian-born arms merchant nicknamed "The Fat Man," who was seeking the congressman's help to sell airplanes and obtain a visa; Mr. Ney

having a staffer carry back $5,000 worth of British pounds from a London gambling junket to hide his winnings from U.S. Customs officials; Mr. Ney taking thousands of dollars in free meals and skybox tickets from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In return, Mr. Ney inserted amendments into legislation to help the clients of those who helped the congressman. In his role as chairman of the House Administration Committee, he issued a multimillion-dollar wireless telephone contract to one of Mr. Abramoff's clients. He lobbied executive branch officials at the behest of Mr. Abramoff and his other benefactors.

The tightest lobbying rules in the world can't halt a lawmaker bent on corruption. Mr. Ney lied on his financial disclosure forms, his travel forms and his customs reports. He knowingly helped his former chief of staff violate the one-year prohibition against lobbying former colleagues -- not only encouraging the former staff member, Neil G. Volz, to violate the lobbying ban but also helping Mr. Volz set up a client list even before he left Mr. Ney's staff.

Still, a combination of tighter rules, increased disclosure and more-effective enforcement could help deter and detect criminality on the grand scale practiced by Mr. Ney. It could lessen the small-bore, run-of-the-mill corruption that has become a seamy fact of life in the halls of the Capitol. But that won't happen. At least not from this Congress.

Trailer parks lie abandoned. The poultry plant is scrambling to replace more than half its workforce. Business has dried up at stores where Mexican laborers once lined up to buy food, beer and cigarettes just weeks ago.

This Georgia community of about 1,000 people has become little more than a ghost town since September 1, when federal agents began rounding up illegal immigrants.

The sweep has had the unintended effect of underscoring just how vital the illegal immigrants were to the local economy.

More than 120 illegal immigrants have been loaded onto buses bound for immigration courts in Atlanta, 189 miles away. Hundreds more fled Emanuel County. Residents say many scattered into the woods, camping out for days. They worry some are still hiding without food.
...
At Sucursal Salina No. 2, a store stocked with Mexican fruit sodas and snacks, cashier Alberto Gonzalez said Wednesday that the owner may shutter the place. By midday, Gonzalez has had only six customers. Normally, he would see 100.
...
The poultry plant has limped along with half its normal workforce. Crider increased its starting wages by $1 an hour to help recruit new workers.

Stacie Bell, 23, started work canning chicken at Crider a week ago. She said the pay, $7.75 an hour, led her to leave her $5.60-an-hour job as a Wal-Mart cashier in nearby Statesboro. Still, Bell said she felt bad about the raids.

"If they knew eventually that they were going to have to do that, they should have never let them come over here," she said.

The physical interactions of the universe don't obey laws or constants.

Planck units are a mathematical simplification of complex expressions that approximate to a high degree invariant physical constants of the universe.

They are used commonly by QFT's as a form of short-hand and not by garden variety physicists or engineers because the scales are too extreme and impractical.

• With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?

• Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

• Can we truly afford to pretend that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems rather than fundamentally different threats requiring fundamentally different approaches?

• Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world's troubles?

These are the central questions of our time, and, as in all periods of conflict, we have no choice but to face them honestly.

Disputes over Iran’s nuclear program have become a primary focus of not only White House attention, but of international concern as well. While the Bush administration initially let Berlin, London, and Paris--the so-called European Union Three--take the lead in negotiations with Tehran on May 31, 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered more direct U.S. involvement and a package of incentives should Iran agree to suspend enrichment. But while policymakers promote diplomatic engagement with Iran, few question how the Iranians themselves approach and understand diplomacy.

Diplomacy to resolve concerns over Iran’s nuclear program continues with no clear resolution in sight. Most officials seek to avoid military confrontation. After receiving Iran’s refusal to demands that it suspend uranium enrichment, both Moscow and Paris urged Washington not to escalate the dispute.[1] Serious U.S. analysts agree with the costs of military action. The Iranian government could ratchet up its sponsorship of terror, U.S. troops in Iraq could be vulnerable to Tehran’s proxy militias, ordinary Iranian citizens could rally around the nationalist flag, and targeted bombing of Iranian facilities could delay the Islamic Republic’s program, not end it.

But will diplomacy be enough to stop the Islamic Republic’s acquisition of nuclear weapons? What enables diplomacy is trust that the opposing side will honor its commitments. Tehran’s track record does not create confidence. In its formative revolutionary years, the reformist heyday, and even today, the Iranian leadership has had a consistent record of antipathy toward diplomatic convention and violation of agreements.

The Embassy Seizure

It has become fashionable to blame the United States for poor relations with Iran, but within months of the Islamic Revolution, Washington was willing to reestablish diplomatic relations. On November 1, 1979, Iranian foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi met with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, in Algiers to discuss resumption of relations. Three days later, in reaction, Iranian students "following the link of the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]" attacked the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking fifty-two diplomats hostage. The day after the hostage seizure, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gave their actions a ringing endorsement. Even Warren Christopher, at the time deputy secretary of state and a dove on Iran, regarded such action as a "flagrant violation" of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.[2]

U.S. officials sought to let cooler heads prevail. On November 6, 1979, National Security Council officials leaked to the Washington Post that there would be “no change in the status quo--no military alert, no movement of forces, no resort to military contingency plans.”[3] Any effort to give diplomacy a chance backfired. Both Khomeini’s son and Khomeini’s future successor and current Supreme Leader, Ali Kha-manei, visited the embassy soon after its seizure, underscoring official contempt for international protocols.[4]

But can poor decisions more than a quarter century ago be applicable to Iranian diplomacy today? Not by themselves. While the Iranian leadership often demands apologies for transgressions both real and imagined,[5] it continues to uphold the righteousness of hostage seizure, underscoring the prevalent attitude in Tehran toward diplomatic convention. Photographs taken earlier this year inside the former U.S. embassy in Tehran show bound mannequins dressed in U.S. military uniforms and a banner quoting Supreme Leader Khamenei celebrating Iranian "neutralization" of "arrogant plots." Individual trees in the embassy garden are draped with banners calling for America’s demise.
...

...Tehran may still conduct diplomacy to fish for incentive and reward--and they may demand apologies and use the rhetoric of victimization to win further concessions and position--but, at its core, Iranian diplomacy is insincere. The Iranian leadership will say anything and do anything to buy the time necessary to acquire nuclear capability.

And I sensed that within your words that there could of also been a difference between men and women in the statement "I had a great time" what do you think?