Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd. Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States ?
Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability?
Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations? Change for America ?
まだ大統領選挙も終わってないのに言うのもなんだけど、今は２０１２年や２０１６年の大統領選挙が話題になっている。サラ・ペーレン VS. ヒラリー・クリントン。女性対決の大統領選。 その場合、現状では圧倒的にサラ・ペーレンに軍配が上がる。ヒラリーはアイビーリーグのお嬢様タイプで、フェミ二ズムの活動家。当選するために、ごまかしや嘘も演説の中にちらほら。国民大衆の人気は今ひとつ。一方、サラ・ペーレンはどうか。まさしく名も知らない、小さな町に生まれ育ち、何の特別優遇もなく才能と容姿で実力一本でのし上った強いアメリカ女性。不正を暴き、不正の圧力に屈しない正義感にあふれた人間像はアメリカの誰もが尊敬し、こよなく愛する人間像である。たまたまそれが女性であるに過ぎない。サラ・ペーレンはまさしく、アメリカが待ちに待っていた理想の人物である。だから今後、サラがアメリカに一大旋風をおこしても、おかしくない。アメリカ初の女性大統領が生まれるのは時間の問題とみられる。
アリとキリギリスの寓話を２００８年のアメリカ大統領選に当てはめると・・・・（近代版）。ヨーロッパに蔓延する社会主義政策と民主党を揶揄った傑作。
The Ant and the Grasshopper (thanks to Al Who)
There is an 'Old Version' and a 'Modern Version' ..Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
-----------------------------------------
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.' Al Sharpton stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Nancy Pelosi & Barack Obama exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008!!
オバマ陣営の舞台裏。
Those who support Barack Hussein Obama are:
1. Osama Bin Laden
2. Al Queda
3. Iran
4. Blacks
5. Young, naïve college kids
6. Freeloaders and those who welch off SSI or Welfare.
7. Hispanics and illegal aliens
8. Anti-War/Anti-American Liberals
9. Pacifists from around the world
10. Hollywood Liberals(凡人： ハリウッドの馬鹿者たち）
Tom Hanks, Pamela Anderson, Matt Damon, Sandra Bernhard, Margaret Cho, Jennifer Aniston, Robert De Niro, Chris Rock: The comedian, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, George Clooney, Ben Affleck, etc,etc.
１１．メイジャーニュースメディア（NBC、CNN、NYTimesその他多数）
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Meet the Terrorist running for President
By China Confidential
Meet Barack Hussein Obama, America’s first multinational Presidential candidate….
He was born in Hawaii (maybe) and reared in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, where he was introduced to Islam and native superstitions and customs–including eating dog.
He was born a Muslim, according to islamic religious law, which traces religious identity through the father.
His father, a non-practicing Muslim, was an Arab-African from Kenya, whose left-leaning government he sharply criticized for not being sufficiently socialist.
His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, who registered his stepson at an Indonesian elementary school as a Muslim citizen of Indonesia.
As a student at Columbia University, his off-campus roommate was a Pakistani visa over-stayer who accompanied him to Pakistan and a predominantly Muslim city in India.
He was a citizen of Kenya, and probably used a Kenyan passport to enter and exit Pakistan and India.
He may still be a citizen of Indonesia, a hotbed of Muslim separatism and Islamist terrorism.
He responded to 9/11 by urging the US to restrain itself, militarily, and warning against “rounding up Arabs.”
He personally profited and was politically and financially supported by an Arab-American crook, recently convicted and jailed.
He was spiritually advised for two decades by an anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-white, Black Liberation Theology minister who blamed–and damned–the US for 9/11 only five days after the Islamist attacks, and subsequently published and distributed Hamas propaganda.
He was probably sponsored and supported during his Harvard Law School years by a notorious anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, black Muslim adviser to a fabulously wealthy Saudi prince.
His cousin, Kenya’s Prime Minister and opposition leader, is allied with Islamists seeking to impose Islamic religious law on parts of the African country.
The world’s Muslim masses and their tyrants and terrorists–Ahmadinejad, Khadafy, Hamas, Hezbollah–are all rooting for him to conquer the White House.
Subject: Carl Davidson and Barack Obama
Retired Geek
Location: VA
Date: Oct 3, 2008
There is an old Spanish saying.
“Tell me who you walk with, and I will tell you WHO YOU ARE!”
"I chose my friends carefully." Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father
Who is Carl Davidson - who helped organize the rally in 2002 where the featured speaker was Barack Obama?
Carl Davidson, who was one of SDS’s three elected national officers in 1968.
1) Marxist anti-war activist.
2) Former member of Students for a Democratic Society.
3) Political supporter of Barack Obama.
Carl Davidson joined Michael Klonsky in rejecting traditional politics for fringe Marxist movements. More recently, he helped organize the 2002 rally in which Obama first spoke out against the Iraq War and now serves as the webmaster of Progressives for Obama.
In 1992 Davidson became a leader of the newly formed Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
The organization has since changed its name to the 'Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism', where Davidson remains a prominent figure.
Davidson was a major player in the Chicago branch of the 'New Party', a Marxist political coalition.
Most New Party members hailed from the 'Committees of Correspondence', 'the Democratic Socialists of America', and the militant leftist organization ACORN.
Carl Davidson first met Barack Obama through the 'New Party', which endorsed the Barack Obama in his run for the Illinois state senate in 1996. Obama had actively sought this endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.
Surely every Marxist, Socialist and Radical cannot be wrong about Barack Obama - can they?
The names of four former top leaders of the Weathermen terrorist organization are listed as signatories on an online petition calling for an “independent grassroots effort” to help strengthen Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.
The petition was initiated by Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator’s election.
Progressives includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress
“We agree that Barack Obama is our best option for president in 2008, and that an independent grassroots effort can help strengthen his campaign,” states the online petition. “It can also strengthen the mandate for his programs for stopping war, promoting global justice and securing our rights, liberties, and economic well-being.
Among the names signed onto the petition are former Weathermen leaders Howard Machtinger, Jeff Jones, Steve Tappis and Mark Rudd.”
I believe this all started when the government failed to try Jane Fonda and company for treason and failed to execute them.
The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama’s American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.
As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he’ll drop the suit.
Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away – instead of just providing the documents – the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.
Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains “99.99 percent sure” that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.
Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg’s lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party’s leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent.
“I think it’s outrageous,” Berg said. “The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they’re in cahoots.
“Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties,” Berg said.
“The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified,” Berg added. “I think it’s really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses.”
Berg is frustrated, not only with his own party’s leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama’s background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well.
“I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.
“Look what they’re doing to Governor Palin: They’re opening up her closet doors, they’re going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn’t make sense,” Berg said.
Obama’s website counters Berg’s claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website’s “Fight the Smears” section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.
Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.
“I’ve been on about 50 radio shows around the country,” Berg said, “and on every one I’ve put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I’m wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I’ll close down the case.”
Berg told WND, “I’ve had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk to other people, now we’re up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it’s going to drastically affect the entire election.”
When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would “immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don’t get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court.“
“We’re dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed,” Berg explained. “I want the Constitution enforced; that’s my main reason for doing this.
“The real outrage is that there’s nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law,” Berg said.
ACORN: The Poisonous NUT That Ended Democracy in America
By Cristi Adkins Saturday, October 4, 2008
Within its shell, ACORN contains all the makings of an intriguing government political conspiracy movie: drama, injustice, organized crime, election fraud, intimidation, violence, money, lies, extortion and a presidential candidate.[1]
If you are a patriotic, middle class American who spends most of your time working for your family and enjoying your FREEDOM, you have probably not been bothered by the sounds of an ACORN dropping before now.
But, while you were sleeping peacefully at night, the roots of Socialism have broadened its reach, without determent right into the foundation of the White House.[2]
Allow me to enlighten you to the ways of a radical community action group that could impact your way of life forever.
ACORN is an acronym that stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Its mere definition contains hints of Socialism as it claims to be a group advocating for low- and moderate-income families that addresses housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and other social issues.[3]
Beneath that surface lie violence, intimidation, threats, race baiting and direct physical attacks on property, people and the legal establishment.
Without going into the myriad details, many ACORN policy proposals are widely considered to be in line with the far left wing of the Democratic Party.[4]
If you are asking yourself what could possibly be so ‘bad’ with a group that in theory advocates for low income families, then you’ve just given yourself the reason this group has been allowed to thrive in America with little scrutiny and under the radar of main street observation until now.[5]
In truth, ACORN is the most virulent, organized crime group in this decade...and it is funded by YOU.
Put simply, ACORN is ripping off the taxpayer through Congressional hand outs.[6] In fact, ACORN was recently due to receive nearly $700 million of the $700 billion dollar bailout bill until Republicans in the Senate redlined it.[7]
Allow that to sink in for a moment: $700 million from the US for an organized crime group.
Yes, ACORN has been receiving Obama campaign funding, but what’s worse is that ACORN leaders are actively extorting money from banks, mortgage brokers and Congress. To add insult to injury, ACORN is costing Americans millions to investigate all of its criminal activities across America.
And then there’s the end of the democratic process through valid elections.[8] Yes, ACORN is behind much of the rampant voter fraud.[9] ACORN has been involved with fraudulent voter registrations for years.[10] In fact, Missouri has 8 ACORN guilty pleas on record (for 2006 violations of federal voting laws) just this year. Many other states are investigating many hundreds of cases of voter fraud in their jurisdiction.[11] We have compelling evidence that ACORN has been involved in fraudulent voter registration since early in the 2007 launch of the Obama campaign.
But we don’t stop at faulty funding and voter fraud. Obama’s community organizational skills are synonymous with totalitarian tactics as its leaders use violence, intimidation, threats, racial baiting and direct physical attacks on property, persons and the legal establishment.[12] When you shed the shell, there is just no good to the group known as ACORN. It is corrupt and without any upside.
With a group like ACORN running rampant in government and shaking hands in Washington, why not legitimize the Bloods and The Crypts? They too are street gangs but they just happen to push drugs instead of bogus registrations drives and sub-prime mortgage deals.
Uncle Sam should be putting ACORN at the top of its list as internal terrorist groups, yet the red, white and blue sense of justice seems to be crumbling. Many numbed citizens just roll their eyes at groups like ACORN simply because America has unfortunately become deadened to the idea that politicians have ulterior motives, nameless agenda’s and behave unscrupulously at times.
However, the rest of this American story is without filtering or fear.
The disturbing reason more ACORN activities go un-prosecuted is because the FEC as well as the FBI have refused to open investigations out of fear of rocking the Obama campaign.[13]
The MOST disturbing fact you need to know about ACORN is that its organizers have terrorized the Federal justice and law enforcement system into NON-action.
How can one group get away with so much? Because ACORN has many Democratic backers in Congress who work tirelessly for its perpetuation and the head ACORN nut is Senator Obama.[14] In fact, Senator Obama is so entwined in ACORN it has become a career and campaign double helix in his DNA.
If you’re asking yourself what Obama has to do with ACORN, consider this:
Obama has served ACORN as its attorney, has been its direct action trainer, its mentor, its contractor, and its PRIMARY illegal campaign funder. ACORN is part of the ‘Community Organizing’ experience his evil empire would like to bring into the White House.[15]
American men and American women should be recognizing that mother freedom is on the brink of extinction with one single NUT trampling all over liberty.
Who will be left sleeping peacefully at night as the ACORN marks the beginning of Socialism in America brought to you courtesy of Barack Obama?[16] With ACORN intact or worse, empowered in the White House, American Democracy will be a legend long gone. Socialism and criminality will be the rule.
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Old, but worth repeating...
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has rejected an emergency appeal for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the office, according to an attorney who brought the action that challenges the Illinois senator's standing in the race.
However, the issue isn't going away, at least for now, since Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama to the challenge from attorney Philip J. Berg.
As WND reported, Berg brought his claims to the Supreme Court after a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he possibly was born in Kenya.
The judge concluded Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick said ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1.
The questions over Obama's eligibility first got traction among Internet bloggers and later were heightened when several campaigns were launched to determine whether a "certificate of live birth" posted on the Internet by the Obama campaign was valid.
The issue gained more attention when Berg told radio talk show host Michael Savage he had an admission from Obama's grandmather that she was at his birth – in Kenya.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin. Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.
But a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.
#I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
~ Obama's paternal grandmother
#Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution.
~ Philip Berg, petitioner – Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. (2008)
As President-elect Barack Obama ascends to the presidency of the United States, there still remains a looming cloud above his head like the sword of Damocles. If and when that sword will fall plunging America into a constitutional crisis depends on a number of desperate and remarkable variables.
Before I get into these variables, let's examine what the Constitution says. What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:
1.be a natural born citizen of the United States;
2.be at least 35 years old;
3.have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.
I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).
Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be president of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.
Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:
1.The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;
2.The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
3.The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
4.The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
5.The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states."Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
6.The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;
7.Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.
Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg's lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama's U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:
_In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
_Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
_"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy."
Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick's reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg's complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn't have the "standing" to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn't bother to answer this pivotal question.
That Berg's complaint is not "concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury" is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick's outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn't have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unless and until Obama's citizenship question is definitively put to rest, then the proverbial sword of Damocles will continue to dangle precariously over his head and America will face 50 lawsuits from all 50 states demanding that President Barack Obama prove that he is an authentic American citizen according to the U.S. Constitution.
Reports: Myanmar to Release Nobel LaureateNov 12, 2010 – 8:47 AM
(Nov. 12) -- Reports are coming out of Myanmar that the country's military rulers have signed an order to allow Aung San Suu Kyi to go free.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureate has been under house arrest in her home country for 15 out of the past 21 years. The daughter of modern Burma's founder, Suu Kyi, 65, has become a symbol of the country's struggle against military dictatorship.
In 1990 elections, her National League for Democracy party won a majority in both the parliament and in the popular vote, but Suu Kyi was already behind bars and remained there, unable to take up the post of prime minister. Myanmar didn't hold elections again for another 20 years.
Suu Kyi's house arrest officially expires Saturday, but rumors have swept the capital city of Yangon that she might be released as early as today. Hundreds of supporters are gathering outside her party's headquarters and at her home, outside a barbed-wire barricade, with their arms heavy with celebratory flower garlands.
At dusk, U Win Tin, co-founder of Suu Kyi's banned NLD party, appeared at a military roadblock outside the gates of her house to address supporters, The Guardian reported. He said Suu Kyi had been told she "could go this day" but that because of an impasse in negotiations, she'll likely spend one more night under house arrest.
Word of Suu Kyi's possible release comes days after Myanmar held its first elections since the disputed 1990 vote. Suu Kyi and her party were barred from participating in Sunday's elections, and state media announced that a pro-junta party won a majority in both houses of parliament.
Derided as a sham by pro-democracy advocates, the vote was nevertheless a small step toward democracy in Myanmar and was heralded as such by the military.
The vice chairman of Suu Kyi's party, Tin Oo, told The Associated Press that Myanmar's military generals have endorsed her release. "My sources tell me that the release order has been signed," Oo said. "I hope she will be released."
Suu Kyi was originally supposed to be released last year, but a bizarre case involving an American who swam across a lake to her home, claiming he was on a mission to save her, prompted military authorities to extend her detention by another 18 months, the BBC reported.
"The authorities will release her. It is certain," an unnamed government official told Agence France-Presse.
Suu Kyi's release is something international aid groups and democracy advocates have been demanding for years. President Barack Obama called for her freedom during his current trip to Asia, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a similar call before Sunday's elections.
Amnesty International's Myanmar specialist, Benjamin Zawacki, told CNN that it makes "perfect sense" for the regime to free her now that elections are over and she's "no longer an electoral threat to them." But he said he believes Myanmar's military rulers will not release her unconditionally.
Sponsored Links One demand that the country's military rulers might make is for Suu Kyi to stay out of politics altogether -- something her supporters say is out of the question.
"She has made it categorically clear that she will not accept conditions; that she will not walk out of the house with conditions," Maung Zarni, a research fellow on Myanmar at the London School of Economics, told CNN.
If and when she is freed, one of the first things Suu Kyi is expected to do is challenge the legitimacy of last weekend's elections, as well as recent changes to the constitution that strengthened the military's grip on power.
Suu Kyi is one of Myanmar's estimated 2,000 political prisoners. Formerly known as Burma, the country has been under military rule since 1962.
貧しい国バングラデッシュでも。
******
Court defers ruling on Nobel laureate's dismissal
Bangladesh court defers ruling on dismissal of Nobel laureate as head of microfinance bank
Farid Hossain, Associated Press, On Sunday March 6, 2011, 3:56 pm
DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) -- Bangladesh's High Court has delayed its ruling on the legality of a government order dismissing Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus as head of the microfinance bank he founded, an official said Sunday.
Attorney General Mahbub-e-Alam said the court is likely to rule Monday.
Lawyers for Yunus made more arguments Sunday and presented documents arguing that his dismissal is illegal, Alam said. The government is to respond Monday.
Bangladesh's central bank ordered Yunus out of Grameen Bank last Wednesday, saying he violated the country's retirement laws.
Yunus' bank, founded in 1983, pioneered the concept of reducing poverty by making tiny loans to the poor. His work spurred a boom in such lending across the developing world and earned him and the bank the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.
The government holds 25 percent share of the bank and the remainder is owned by its borrowers.
Yunus, 70, an outspoken government critic, has recently been under pressure at home, where he has long had frosty relations with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. She has accused Grameen Bank and other microfinance institutions of charging high interest rates and "sucking blood from the poor borrowers."
She reportedly was angered by Yunus' 2007 attempt to form his own political party, backed by the country's powerful army.
The move to oust Yunus from Grameen has sparked criticism in Bangladesh and abroad. Borrowers and supporters of the bank held human chain protests in parts of Bangladesh on Saturday to demand the withdrawal of the government order, local media reported.
In Washington, Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed concern over efforts to remove Yunus and said the international community would watch the situation closely. He said he hoped both sides could reach a compromise that maintains Grameen Bank's autonomy and that Yunus' "lifelong work to reduce poverty and empower women through microloans has deservedly received worldwide attention and respect."
Controversy surrounded Yunus after a Norwegian television documentary in December accused him of transferring Norwegian development funds from Grameen Bank to another venture without prior approval in 1996.
Pressure by the Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka resulted in the funds being transferred back in 1998, and the Norwegian government has said there was no indication Grameen was engaged in corruption or embezzlement.
Grameen Bank currently has nearly 9 million borrowers, 97 percent of whom are women. Many use their small loans to make ends meet or to start small businesses.
Nearly 40 percent of Bangladesh's 150 million people earn less than a dollar a day, the World Bank says.
By DOUG BANDOW
SEATTLE — The United States will run up a record $1.65 trillion deficit in 2011. Yet Washington keeps subsidizing foreign governments. House Republicans have targeted foreign aid. This year the State Department would lose 16 percent of its budget; humanitarian aid would drop by 41 percent.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns of catastrophe: "Cuts of this magnitude will be devastating to our national security, will render us unable to respond to unanticipated disasters and will damage our leadership around the world." Moreover, the proposed reductions will be "detrimental to America's security."
Even some conservatives stand with Clinton on this issue. For instance, Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post's in-house blogger on the right, termed Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, a "neo-isolationist" for proposing to cut what amounts to international welfare.
Despite Clinton's extravagant claims, there is little evidence that foreign assistance advances U.S. interests. The U.S. provided some $30 billion to Egypt over the last three decades, but the country remains poor and undemocratic. Indeed, aid to the corrupt Mubarak dictatorship helped turn Egypt into popular volcano.
Pakistan has been on the U.S. dole and performing disastrously for decades. The waste, inefficiency and corruption surrounding humanitarian projects in Afghanistan and Iraq are legendary. What of the $27 billion in so-called development assistance requested for next year? These outlays have had no discernible impact on Third World economic growth.
No doubt some projects in some countries have provided some benefits. But there is no correlation between aid and growth. Indeed, generous financial transfers to corrupt dictators often have impeded necessary reforms.
Aid advocates now claim to do better. President George W. Bush created the Millennium Challenge Corporation to reward governments with good policies. Yet, reported the Washington Times last August, the agency "is giving billions of dollars to nations upbraided by the State Department for corruption in government."
The World Bank also has emphasized better governance. However, reported Tom Porteous, the London director of Human Rights Watch, "multibillion dollar programs funded by the World Bank and others have been politicized and manipulated by the Ethiopian government and are used as a powerful tool of political control and repression." Aid incentives are all wrong.
The international dole has created long-term dependency and discouraged reform. Even humanitarian aid has a disappointing record. Six months after the earthquake in Haiti, reported the Wall Street Journal, "the process of reconstruction appears to have come to a halt." U.S. "Food for Peace" shipments, used to dump farmers' domestic surpluses, are notorious for ruining local farmers and thus undermining local production. This problem continues in Haiti.
On returning from a private aid mission, Don Slesnick, the mayor of Coral Gables, Florida, complained: "We were saddened to see rice bags travel no more than 20 (meters) from the gates of the distribution site before ending up in the back of a pickup truck presumably headed for the black market. To our further dismay, we returned home to read news stories that those very same donations were undercutting Haitian rice farmers who needed income to support their own families."
Worse is Somalia. Reported the New York Times last year: "As much as half the food aid sent to Somalia is diverted from needy people to a web of corrupt contractors, radical Islamist militants and local United Nations staff members."
Two decades ago Michael Maren worked with private aid organizations in Somalia and concluded: "Separately we'd arrived at the conclusion that the relief program was probably killing as many people as it was saving, and the net result was that Somali soldiers were supplementing their income by selling food, while the [insurgent force] — often indistinguishable from the army — was using the food as rations to fuel their attacks into Ethiopia."
Washington and other industrialized nations, like Japan, should reconsider the aid business. Financial transfers rarely are necessary for the West's defense. The Cold War is over and America's allies, including regional powers Israel and Turkey, should have graduated from U.S. assistance years ago.
Most Third World nations are tangential at best to American or allied security. While it's harder to criticize humanitarian aid, private money spent by private organizations is the best way to help those in need around the world.
As for economic development, officials in wealthy industrialized nations should focus on improving their own economic policies and easing access of other nations to the international marketplace.
Despite foreign aid's abysmal record, the Obama administration continues to back the program. Clinton should listen to her own rhetoric: "It's time to retire old debates and replace dogmatic attitudes with clear reasoning and common sense."
One of those dogmas is the assumption that foreign "aid" acts as assistance rather than hindrance. With America drowning in red ink, Washington must cut unnecessary programs. So must its friends and allies. Misnamed foreign aid is a good place to start.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of "Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire" (Xulon Press).
WASHINGTON (KABC) -- According to ABC News sources, al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.
In a speech Sunday night, President Obama said the U.S. had received a lead late last year on bin Laden's whereabouts. After months of investigation, bin Laden's location was confirmed.
The president said he authorized an operation and Sunday morning (U.S. time), American forces attacked a compound near Islamabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden was killed in the attack.
American forces reportedly have possession of bin Laden's body. DNA testing reportedly confirmed bin Laden's identity.
Speaking from the White House's East Room Sunday night, the president praised and thanked U.S. forces and the intelligence community.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs, a travel alert was issued due "to the enhanced potential for anti-American violence given counterterrorism activity in Pakistan." Americans are urged to limit their travel outside of their homes and hotels. Also, U.S. embassies and U.S. government facilities worldwide "remain at a heightened state of alert." The facilities may close depending on security postures.
■The operation
CIA agents had been tracking couriers for bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. One courier in particular was identified as a valuable target.
That courier's identity was uncovered about four years ago. Two years later, intelligence identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother had operated.
In August 2010, a residence north of Islamabad, Pakistan, was determined to be a potential target. The residence was found in a relatively affluent area.
Surveillance found there were huge alarms at the location. The property was eight times larger than homes in other areas. It had been built in 2005.
Access to the property was restricted. Trash from the location was burned on-site.
The main structure of the compound, a three-story building, had few windows. There was a seven-foot-high wall surrounding the property. The compound had no television or telephone service.
It was determined the residence was custom-built to hide someone, the type of location that was thought to be housing bin Laden.
A small U.S. Navy SEAL team conducted a helicopter raid on the compound Sunday. The operation was considered extremely dangerous due to the high security measures of the property, as well as its location in a residential area and its proximity to Islamabad.
The operation was described as a surgical raid by a small team.
Osama bin Laden was killed, as well as two couriers, one of bin Laden's adult sons, and a woman who was used as a human shield.
One helicopter was reportedly downed, but not destroyed, in the attack. U.S. forces later intentionally destroyed the helicopter, according to the Associated Press.
The strike team was reportedly on the property for less than 40 minutes. SEALs took bin Laden's body and left in a helicopter.
1-2
Former President George W. Bush released a statement Sunday night: "Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done."
Former President Bill Clinton released a statement Sunday night: "I congratulate the President, the National Security team and the members of our armed forces on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice after more than a decade of murderous al-Qaida attacks."
Crowds gathered outside the White House after Sunday's announcement and celebrated. Jubilant crowds were also reported at Ground Zero in New York City.
Bin Laden created the al Qaeda terror network that was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.
The U.S. has been in search of bin Laden since the attacks. He was widely believed to be in hiding along the porous Afghan/Pakistani border.
Bin Laden is suspected of fomenting earlier terrorist plots against the U.S., including the 1993 World Trade Center attack, two U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, and the bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen in 2000.
Officials say the administration is ensuring bin Laden's body is being "handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition."
オサマ・ビン・ラデンを殺害したネイビーシールとは？
By MICHAEL MURRAY
May 2, 2011
The Navy SEAL team of military operatives who killed Osama bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan on Sunday night was made up of some of the best-trained troops in the world. SEAL Team Six, the "Naval Special Warfare Development Group," was the main force involved in Sunday's firefight.
The daring operation began when two U.S. helicopters flew in low from Afghanistan and swept into the compound where Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding late Sunday night Pakistan time, or Sunday afternoon Washington time. Twenty to 25 U.S. Navy SEALs disembarked from the helicopters as soon as they were in position and stormed the compound. The White House says they killed bin Laden and at least four others with him. The team was on the ground for only 40 minutes, most of that was time spent scrubbing the compound for information about al Qaeda and its plans.
The Navy SEAL team on this mission was supported by helicopter pilots from the 160th Special Ops Air Regiment, part of the Joint Special Operations Command. The CIA was the operational commander of the mission, but it was tasked to Special Forces.
U.S. Navy Sea, Air and Land Teams, commonly known as SEAL Teams, are the best of the best. Their creed is to be "a special breed of warrior ready to answer our nation's call."
"We are reminded that we are fortunate to have Americans who dedicate their lives to protecting ours," President Obama said today. "We may not always know their names, we may not always know their stories, but they are there every day on the front lines of freedom and we are truly blessed."
"There are other operations going on around the globe constantly," said Capt. Duncan Smith, a SEAL spokesman who spoke with ABC News.
In 2009, another SEAL team was instrumental in rescuing the American captain of the cargo ship Maersk Alabama from armed pirates off the coast of Somalia. On that mission, SEAL snipers fired perfect shots -- from the deck of a heaving ship -- to neutralize three pirates, with three bullets, simultaneously. The SEALs began their work in 1942, when military leaders decided to set up an elite team to scout beaches suitable for landing troops in World War II.
1-2
These men have done all of this in anonymity. It is standard procedure never to identify members of Team Six.
"A lot of those missions -- a majority of those missions -- are ones that the public will never know about... and that's a good thing," Smith said.
Navy SEALs toil in the dark of night, tasked with the most daring, dangerous and important missions. To become a SEAL, those men completed some of the most brutal training regimens ever devised, designed to push the boundaries of even the most able service members. Only one third of recruits eventually become SEALs.
"You have to be able to endure a lot of physical pain and sometimes emotional pain, and you just have to dig deep. It's an elite organization and so it can't be for everybody," said Paul Tharp, master chief of the Naval Special Warfare Preparatory School and a SEAL for 24 years.
"What sets SEALs apart is our diversity in terms of the environments in which we operate," said Smith, also a SEAL for 24 years. "We operate at 10,000 feet in the Hindu Kush Mountains. We operate in desert regions in Iraq and elsewhere. We operate in jungles throughout the world."
As of 2009, there were 2,500 active duty SEALs. With the expanding war on terror and missions in 30 countries, the Navy needs more, but finding young men who can meet the SEALs' standards is a challenge.
"We are not looking for cocky kids," said Senior Chief Hans Garcia, a SEAL recruiter. "The perfect person would be a candidate who is remarkably physically fit, but is pretty humble, an analytical thinker, a problem solver -- someone who is very value-oriented, patriotic, puts service above self."
ABC News' BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) , JAKE TAPPER (@jaketapper) , RICHARD ESPOSITO, ALICE MAGGIN and NICK SCHIFRIN (@nickschifrin) contributed to this report.
2-2
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Nissan minivans picked as Big Apple's next yellow cabs
AP
NEW YORK — A boxy minivan made by Nissan will be the next iconic yellow cab in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday.
Winner takes all: A photo provided by Nissan Motor Co. shows a Nissan NV200, the model selected by New York City to supply the taxi fleet for the next 10 years. Below: Mayor Michael Bloomberg announces the winner of the Taxi of Tomorrow competition during a news conference Tuesday. AP
The model, selected from among three finalists in a city competition, is designed so it can eventually be updated with an electric engine.
The city is exploring the possibility of ultimately replacing its entire fleet of more than 13,000 taxis with vehicles powered by electricity.
Bloomberg conceded at a City Hall news conference that the minivan — which offers extra passenger legroom and enough trunk space for the luggage of four people — might make some think of suburbia, but he said the distinctive yellow paint job will make them New York icons.
The minivan features a panoramic overhead window that will give tourists a view of the city's skyscrapers and onboard outlets and charging stations that will allow professionals to treat the cabs as mobile offices.
With such amenities, city Taxi and Limousine Commissioner David Yassky said he believes the vehicles could become as beloved as the Checker cabs of yesteryear.
"Not a week goes by when somebody doesn't say to me, 'Why can't you bring back the Checker?' " he said. "The cars that are on the road today just have not generated the same type of affection and passenger loyalty."
The anchor of the city's current fleet of more than 13,200 taxis is Ford's Crown Victoria, which was recently discontinued.
The Nissan van, which beat out proposals from Ford Motor Co. and Turkey's Karsan, will be phased in beginning in 2013 as older taxis age out of service. All current taxis, including the city's hybrid cabs, will be off the streets by 2018.
Although the city was not legally allowed to make its decision based on fuel-efficiency, Nissan's vehicles would double efficiency to 25 mpg (10.6 km per liter) from the Crown Victoria's 12 mpg to 13 mpg, the mayor said. The Nissan was the most fuel-efficient and the cheapest of the three finalists, and is expected to cost about $29,000 (\3.5 million), with an anticipated $1 billion in total sales.
The new models will be the first city taxicabs to offer air bags for passengers and to go through crash testing with equipment such as the driver's partition already installed.
The doors will slide open sideways, eliminating the possibility of opening a door into an oncoming bicyclist or automobile.
And passengers will no longer have to cope with drivers who say they don't know how to get to out-of-the-way destinations, because every car will be equipped with a GPS system, the mayor said.
Ford had planned to build its vehicles overseas, while Nissan plans to build them in Mexico, then put final touches on them at a New York City-area facility.
About 70 percent of Nissan vehicles sold in the U.S. are made in the U.S., according to the automaker.
とても興奮する試合だったね。さすが世界ランクNO１だけある。
*****
USA beats Brazil in Women's W. Cup quarter finals
By Ryland James | AFP – 8 hrs ago
Two-time winners the USA have beaten beat Brazil 5-3 on penalties in dramatic fashion to advance to the semi-finals of the women's World Cup after the tie had been locked 2-2 in extra time.
US defender Alex Krieger hit the winning penalty after her goalkeeper Hope Solo had earlier saved from Brazil's Daiane to give her side the advantage in the shoot-out.
On the final whistle, American striker Abby Wambach had kept her side in the quarter-final with a dramatic header in the 122nd minute to level the scores after Brazil play-maker Marta had scored in the 92nd minute.
"This is the perfect example of what the United States is all about," said Wambach.
"We never give up. This is incredile, I am so happy. The path is now marked for us and we want to win this tournament."
The game went into extra-time with the scores 1-1 as an own-goal by Brazil defender Daiane after just two minutes was cancelled out by Marta's penalty on 68 minutes which she converted at the second attempt.
The US had been reduced to 10 players when defender Rachel Buehler was sent off just moments before.
US goalkeeper Hope Solo, reacting to her squad's victory, said her team's never-say-die fighting spirit helped get the USA through to the semis.
"There is something special about this group, it's the energy, the vibe, the leadership," said Solo.
"Even when we went a player down and then a goal down in extra time, we kept fighting. You can't coach that, it is a feeling."
The USA will now face France in Moenchengladbach in Wednesday's semi-final for a place in next Sunday's final in Frankfurt while Brazil go home.
"From an emotional point of view, everyone is really sad which is normal after a defeat like that where you lose in the last minute," said Brazil coach Kleiton Lima.
"The girls threw everything into trying to win, we have tried to console them, but it will take time to get over this."
While the Americans came to Dresden having lost 2-1 to Sweden in their final Group C game, Brazil did not concede a goal in the group stages as they swept past Australia, Norway and Equatorial Guinea as Group D winners.
But Brazil leaked their first goal here after just two minutes in front of a sell-out crowd of 25,598.
USA midfielder Shannon Boxx whipped in the first cross of the game and Daiane could only watch in horror as her clearance kick sliced into her own net.
Marta also served a reminder to the US defence of her status as five-time world player of the year when she dribbled from the halfway line at full speed only to fire her shot over the bar on 20 minutes.
The game turned against the Americans in the 65th minute when Buehler brought down Marta in the area as they both went for the ball, but was shown a straight red card by Australian referee Jacqui Melksham.
Justice seemed to have been done when Cristiane's first penalty attempt was saved by Solo.
But Solo appeared to hop in the direction before she dived, so Melksham insisted the penalty be re-taken -- with furious protests from the Americans -- and Marta slammed home the second attempt on 68 minutes.
Solo was booked for her angry response.
Neither side could break the deadlock in normal time, but Marta popped up with what looked like the winner in the 92nd minute when she pivoted on a cross from left wing Maurine.
With time almost up, Wambach's header at the death gave her side the precious life line which was all they needed for a historic win in the shoot-out.
US loses AAA credit rating from S&P
S&P downgrades US credit rating in historic move, says Congress didn't cut budget enough
Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer, On Saturday August 6, 2011, 1:24 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The lowering of America's sterling credit rating was the punctuation mark on a tumultuous week in financial markets.
Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency, said Friday it was dissatisfied with the plan Congress came up with earlier in the week to reduce the country's debt.
This is the first time the nation's credit rating has fallen below the highest level, AAA. The U.S. had held that rating since 1917. The move came just days after a gridlocked Congress finally agreed to spending cuts that would reduce the debt by more than $2 trillion.
The drop in the rating by one notch to AA-plus was telegraphed as a possibility back in April. The three main credit agencies, which also include Moody's Investor Service and Fitch, had warned during the budget fight that if Congress did not cut spending far enough, the country faced a downgrade. Moody's said it was keeping its AAA rating on the nation's debt, but that it might still lower it.
One of the biggest questions after the downgrade was what impact it would have on already nervous investors. While the downgrade was not a surprise, some selling is expected when stock trading resumes Monday morning. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 699 points this week, the biggest weekly point drop since October 2008. The weak economy was the primary catalyst behind that plunge, but the debt debate and the threat of a downgrade were also factors.
"I think we will have a knee-jerk reaction on Monday," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank.
But any losses might be short-lived.
"The market's already been shaken out," said Harvey Neiman, a portfolio manager of the Neiman Large Cap Value Fund. "It knew it was coming."
One fear in the market has been that a downgrade would scare buyers away from U.S. debt. If that were to happen, the interest rate paid on U.S. bonds, notes and bills would have to rise to attract buyers. And that could lead to higher borrowing rates for consumers, since the rates on mortgages and other loans are pegged to the yield on Treasury securities.
However, even without an AAA rating from S&P, U.S. debt is seen as one of the safest investments in the world. And investors clearly weren't scared away this week. While stocks were plunging, investors were buying Treasurys and driving up their prices. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which falls when the price rises, fell to a low of 2.39 percent on Thursday from 2.75 percent Monday.
A study by JPMorgan Chase found that there has been a slight rise in rates when countries lost an AAA rating. In 1998, S&P lowered ratings for Belgium, Italy and Spain. A week later, their 10-year rates had barely moved.
The government fought the downgrade. Administration sources familiar with the discussions said the S&P analysis was fundamentally flawed. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. S&P had sent the administration a draft document in the early afternoon Friday and the administration, after examining the numbers, challenged the analysis.
S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade, to AA, would occur if the agency sees smaller reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.
In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view "of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties" over a credible deficit reduction plan.
1-2
S&P said it was now "pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon."
One analyst suggested the downgrade might move Congress to take concrete steps to fix the nation's budget problems.
"It's a downgrade and it's bad, but if it spurs more conversation about bringing down spending and maybe more intelligent tax policy, it could be a good thing in the long run," said Frank Barbera, a portfolio manager of the Sierra Core Retirement Fund.
The Federal Reserve and other U.S. regulators said in a joint statement that S&P's action should not have any impact on how banks and other financial institutions assess the riskiness of Treasurys or other securities guaranteed by the U.S. government. The statement was issued to make sure banks did not feel that the downgrade would affect the amount of capital that regulators require the banks to hold against possible losses.
Before leaving for a weekend at Camp David, President Barack Obama met with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the Oval Office late Friday afternoon.
The downgrade is likely to have little to no impact on how the United States finances its borrowing, through the sale of Treasury bonds, bills and notes. This week's buying proves that.
"Investors have voted and are saying the U.S. is going to pay them," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics. "U.S. Treasurys are still the gold standard." He noted that neither his parent organization, Moody's, nor Fitch, the other of the three major rating agencies, have downgraded U.S. debt.
The ratings agencies were sharply criticized after the financial crisis in 2008 for not warning investors about the risks of subprime mortgages. Those mortgages were packaged as securities and sold to investors who lost billions of dollars when the loans went bad.
Japan had its ratings cut a decade ago to AA, and it didn't have much lasting impact. The credit ratings of both Canada and Australia have also been downgraded over time, without much lasting damage.
"I don't think it's going to amount to a lot," said Peter Morici, a University of Maryland business economist.
Still, he said, "The United States deserves to have this happen," because of its clumsy handling of fiscal policy.
In reacting to the downgrade, Democrats and Republicans continued to blame each other and pledged to hold firm to their principles.
Republican presidential candidates criticized the White House. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called on Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and submit a plan to balance the budget and not just reduce future deficits. Republican candidate Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said the credit downgrade was the "latest casualty" in Obama's failed economic leadership.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said the American people will be closely watching the work of the 12-member joint committee that has been created to produce more than $1 trillion in additional savings over the next decade.
"The work of this committee will affect all Americans, and its deliberations should be open to the press, to the public and webcast," she said.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the downgrade underscored the need for a "balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines spending cuts with revenue-raising measures" such as doing away with tax breaks for the wealthy and oil companies.
AP reporters Tom Raum, David Espo and Julie Pace in Washington and Business Writers Chip Cutter and Pallavi Gogoi in New York contributed to this report.
2-2
アップルがエクソンモービルをわずかに超えて、アメリカ１位の規模に。
Apple briefly passes Exxon as largest U.S. company
On Tuesday August 9, 2011, 2:18 pm
By Poornima Gupta and Rodrigo Campos
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc briefly edged past Exxon Mobil Corp to become the most valuable company in the United States after days of volatile stock market action.
The technology giant's market value rose on Tuesday to $341.5 billion, just above Exxon's $341.4 billion, even though the oil major's annual revenue is four times that of Apple's.
Exxon quickly regained the No. 1 spot as its shares rose and Apple's shed some of their gains, with stocks globally remaining volatile because of soft economic data and the downgrading of the United States' sovereign credit on Friday.
At 1:50 p.m. EDT Exxon's market cap was $339.3 billion while Apple's dipped to $338.8 billion.
Tuesday's move by Apple, which ended Exxon Mobil's run of more than five years at the top, capped a remarkable turnaround for a company that once teetered on the brink before Apple's Steve Jobs returned to resuscitate the company he co-founded.
Thirteen years ago, some analysts said Apple's value consisted of real estate holdings and cash on hand.
Apple joined, albeit briefly, a small group of companies that have held the top spot in the S&P 500, including General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Microsoft Corp and AT&T, according to Standard & Poor's Index Analytics
Since July 1, Apple's market capitalization has risen by more than $20 billion, fueled by optimism that a new version of its best-selling iPhone will lead to a monstrous second half of 2011.
Exxon's market cap, on the other hand, has slipped nearly $60 billion in the same period due to volatile crude oil prices.
Men walk past an advertisement for Apple's iPad2 in front of an electronic shop in Tokyo May 5, 2011. S REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon
(Additional reporting by Anna Driver in Houston; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
米郵政省の赤字とダウンサイジング
Postal Service considers cutting 120,000 jobs
As losses reach $8B or more again this year, Postal Service considers cutting 120,000 jobs
Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press, On Thursday August 11, 2011, 6:32 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The financially strapped U.S. Postal Service is considering cutting as many as 120,000 jobs.
Facing a second year of losses totaling $8 billion or more, the agency also wants to pull its workers out of the retirement and health benefits plans covering federal workers and set up its own benefit systems.
Congressional approval would be needed for either step, and both could be expected to face severe opposition from postal unions which have contracts that ban layoffs.
The post office has cut 110,000 jobs over the last four years and is currently engaged in eliminating 7,500 administrative staff. In its 2010 annual report, the agency said it had 583,908 career employees.
The loss of mail to the Internet and the decline in advertising caused by the recession have rocked the agency.
Postal officials have said they will be unable to make a $5.5 billion payment to cover future employee health care costs due Sept. 30. It is the only federal agency required to make such a payment but, because of the complex way government finances are counted, eliminating it would make the federal budget deficit appear $5.5 billion larger.
If Congress doesn't act and current losses continue, the post office will be unable to make that payment at the end of September because it will have reached its borrowing limit and simply won't have the cash to do so, the agency said earlier.
In that event, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said, "Our intent is to continue to deliver the mail, pay our employees and pay our suppliers."
Postal officials have sought congressional assistance repeatedly over the last few years, including requests to be allowed to end Saturday mail delivery, and several bills have been proposed, but none has been acted on.
In addition the post office recently said it is considering closing 3,653 post offices, stations and other facilities, about one-10th of its offices around the country, in an effort to save money. Offices under consideration for closing are largely rural with little traffic.
And in June the post office suspended contributions to its employees' pension fund, which it said was overfunded.
In its 2010 annual report the post office reported a loss of more than $8 billion on revenues of $67 billion and expenses of $75 billion.
And even while total mail volume fell from 202 billion items to 170 billion from 2008 to 2010 the number of places the agency has to deliver mail increased by 1.7 million as Americans built new homes, offices and businesses.
The latest cutback plans were first reported by The Washington Post, which said a notice to employees informing them of its proposals stated: "Financial crisis calls for significant actions, we will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in mail volume and retiree health benefit prefunding costs imposed by Congress."
