Republicans Have Gone Insane: Talk of Texas Secession?

The Republicans are so desperate and reckless they are talking crazy. The Governor of Texas actually suggested that Texas might secede because of the policies of Obama. Sounds a lot like the language of the segregationists during the 1960s.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry isn't ruling out the possibility his state may one day secede from the nation.

Speaking to an energetic and angry tea party crowd in Austin Wednesday evening, the Lone Star State governor suggested secession may happen in the future should the federal government not change its fiscal polices.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry told the rally, according to the Associated Press. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." (Video below: Tea party fires up debate)

Perry, who is beginning to gear up for what could be a challenging re-election race, rejected more than $500 million in federal stimulus funds earlier this year and has been highly critical of President Obama's stimulus package. (Related: Joe "The Plumber" speaks at Michigan tea party)

His comments come a week after endorsing a resolution in the Texas state House reasserting state sovereignty over federal mandates.

Specifically it states that "all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed."

Texas, America's second biggest state in area and population, was its own nation for 10 years before joining the United States in 1845.

Should Texas one day secede, one man may already be vying to be its president. Actor Chuck Norris said last month he may be interested in the post.

“I may run for president of Texas,” Norris wrote in a column posted at WorldNetDaily. “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

The leader of this madness could be a sensationalistic talk show host. This from the Independent in March:

Many strange things have happened in America, in this young age of Obama. But none stranger, surely, than that the de facto leadership of the Republican Party has passed into the hands of a right-wing talk radio host.

The moment of that passage came on Saturday 28 February, when Rush Limbaugh was the closing speaker at CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference here in Washington, normally a festival for Republican true believers. As I wrote in this space last week, the arriving delegates looked like stragglers from Napoleon's army in the 1812 retreat from Moscow, shellshocked still by their crushing election defeat. But when they left they were walking on air – or rather, the reverberating echoes of Limbaugh's address, in which he reaffirmed conservative values and stated that he wanted the new President to fail.

For many, it was an unsettling moment: not because of the black shirt he was wearing (Limbaugh's bloviating has always had a whiff of Il Duce), or because John McCain, the party's defeated White House candidate, had chosen not to attend. What made it unsettling was that politics had not merely fused with entertainment. It had surrendered to entertainment.

In some ways, this new hour of Rush is no surprise. Ever since 1987, when federal regulators dropped the "fairness doctrine" that required stations to balance competing points of view, conservative talk radio has been the trumpet section of the Republican orchestra. And for almost as long, its acknowledged leader has been Limbaugh, heard on 600 radio stations and commanding a daily audience of 20 million or more.

In these 20-odd years, conservative radio has come a long way. By coincidence, on the very same day as Limbaugh was propelling the genre to new fame or infamy at CPAC, Paul Harvey died in Arizona at the age of 90. In many respects, Harvey was Limbaugh's forerunner. His show ran a mere 15 minutes, compared with Limbaugh's three-hour blast every weekday. But he offered his own mix of news and and conservative comment, with similar stratospheric ratings. In his heyday, in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties, Harvey had 20 million listeners. But he was cheerleading not so much for Republicans as for the American way, at the zenith of the American century. Never, one suspects, would he have lent himself to something like CPAC.

They've become a joke:

Papers filed by political humorists in Federal Court accuse The Republican Party, its elected officials, conservative bloggers, Fox News, and CNBC of "crossing the line in self parody" and "creating a situation that is difficult to satire" by acting "so effing weird." The comics, some of them funny, are seeking damages in the hundreds of dollars to make up for lost revenue.

A visibly legendary Mort Sahl addressed reporters in a threadbare sweater, his hands flopping nervously in the breeze since the newspaper he planned to carry had gone bankrupt. "This is a career for many of us," said Sahl shyly. "Politicians and talk show hosts holding up tea bags day after day has taken it's toll and jokes are becoming increasingly difficult to write. For example, the KKK protested at Republican headquarters and burned uh ah a giant tea bag on the front lawn. See? No place to go. I give up."

A noticeably muscular Carrot Top whispered to Sahl that the Klan had, in fact, burned a giant bag on the lawn of the Republican party. Sahl's head exploded. Shocked reported recoiled in horror then high-fived because was sort of cool looking, really.

In a separate suit, Richard and Sal from the Howard Stern show claimed that Republicans had ruined the humorous value of tea bagging.

Lawyers for the class action suit showed tapes of recent episodes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the House Republican caucus. After the crowd stopped laughing they pointed out that these were actual video tapes, not way out parodies. That seemed to confuse people. Lawyers played the tapes again and then people got very quiet and sad and most of them walked away from the TV and didn't say anything for a very long time but they told themselves that they would never vote for a Republican again, ever. Later they forgot all about the scary tapes but wondered why they didn't see Republicans any more like they used to in the old days.

The teabagging event organized by Limbaugh and FOX News was a farce:

Those messages might explain why Fox News, though actively promoting the "tea party" protests for tax day, tried to argue that it was not behind yesterday's coast-to-coast events. But Fox News analyst Tobin Smith, who took the stage in Lafayette Square yesterday, evidently didn't get the memo. "On behalf of Fox News Channel," he told more than 500 mud-spattered demonstrators, "I want to say: Welcome to the Comedy Channel of America, Washington, D.C."

After a few preliminaries, he went into a Fox News commercial for anchor Glenn Beck. "Anybody watching Glenn?" he asked to cheers. "That was a shameless plug, wasn't it? Glenn says hello as well. He's out at another tea party." Indeed he was, as were Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto.

A small group of counterdemonstrators, wearing ballgowns, tuxedoes and pig snouts, interrupted and were stripped of their signs. Smith seized the display as an opportunity to highlight the Fox News slogan. "You know what 'Fair and Balanced' means?" he asked. " 'Fair and Balanced' means we take our message and try to overcompensate for their lack of message." Smith left with instructions: "Keep watching Fox, will you?"

The theme was echoed in some of the homemade signs the demonstrators carried, including "Watch Fox News," "Thank You Fox News," and even a recommendation: "Move Glenn Beck to 7 PM."

Without the spectacle of a 1773-style tea-bag dump in the square, the handmade signs became the focus of the event. Though ostensibly an anti-tax protest, it was more of an anti-Obama festival. Among the messages: "The Audacity of the Dope," "O Crap" and Obama as an acronym for "One Big Awful Mistake America." Some messages were ugly ("Napolitano -- Obama's Gestapo Queen," "Hang 'Em High Traitors," and a sign held by a young girl saying "Victim of Child Tax Abuse"). Others were funny ("Don't Talk to Me! I Forgot My Teleprompter"). Certain ones had sinister overtones ("Tax Slavery Sucks," and "Obama bin Lyin"). Then there was the guy holding a Cabbage Patch doll by its hair with the message: "My kid's growth stunted by your stimulus."

Obama Speech on Taxes: Transcript (4-15-09)

Read the full transcript. Excerpt below:

I know that April 15th is not exactly everyone's favorite date on the calendar. But it is an important opportunity for those of us in Washington to consider our responsibilities to the people who sent us here and who pay the bills. And I've brought some friends of mine who sent me here and pay the bills.

Across America, families like the people who've joined me have had tough choices forced upon them because of this economic downturn. Many have lost a job. Many are fighting to keep their businesses open. Many more are struggling to make payments, to stay in their home or to pursue a college education.

And these Americans are the backbone of our economy, the backbone of our middle class. They're the workers, the innovators, the students who are going to be powering our recovery. And so, their dreams have to be our own. They need a government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth automatically trickles down.

And that's why my administration has taken far-reaching action to give tax cuts to the Americans who need them, while jumpstarting growth and job creation in the process.

We start from the simple premise that we should reduce the tax burden on working people, while helping Americans go to college, own a home, raise a family, start a business and save for retirement. Those goals are the foundation of the American dream, and they are the focus of my tax policy.

OBAMA: First, we passed a broad and sweeping tax cut for 95 percent of American workers. This tax cut was a core focus of my campaign, it was a core component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and it is the most progressive tax cut in American history. And starting April 1st, Americans saw this tax cut in the extra money that they took home with each paycheck.

Make no mistake: This tax cut will reach 120 million families and put $120 billion directly into their pockets, and it includes the most American workers ever to get a tax cut. This is going to boost demand and it will save or create over half a million jobs.

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: A Threat to Obama's Safety?

If Barack Obama is assassinated it will be the fault of the Republicans and Conservative activists. They are fomenting hate directly primarily against the President. We have not seen this kind of Right Wing frenzy since the days of JFK. And we know how that ended? There have already been attempts against the President (albeit in the early stages). The Right is actively preaching hatred of Barack Obama. That is a green light for any individual to try and kill the President. Could it be their plan. Could fiction become reality. The pro-Republican FOX has a TV series in where a black President is assassinated as a result of a Right Wing plot.

Homeland Security officials are warning that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members to their cause.

In an intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week, Homeland Security officials said there was no specific information about an attack in the works by right-wing extremists.

The agency warns that an extended economic downturn with real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit could foster an environment for extremists to recruit members who may not have been supportive of these causes in the past.

Homeland Security spokesman Sean Smith said the report is one in a series of assessments issued by the agency's intelligence and analysis unit. The agency describes these assessments as part of a series published "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States."

In February, the department issued a report to law enforcement that said left-wing extremist groups were likely to use cyber attacks more often in the next 10 years to further their cause. And in September, the agency issued a report that highlighted how right-wing extremists over the past five years have used the immigration debate as a recruiting tool.

The latest assessment started making its way into the mainstream press after conservative blogs got wind of the analysis. In this report, the agency warns that imposing new restrictions on firearms and returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their communities could lead to terror groups or individuals attempting to carry out attacks. The returning war veterans have skills and experience that are appealing to right-wing groups looking to carry out an attack, according to the report.

The agency cites the April 4 killings of three Pittsburgh police officers as an example of a the type of violence spurred by right-wing rhetoric.

"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," the report said.

In the 1990s, the report said, a resurgence in right-wing extremism was brought on by the poor economy and the outsourcing of jobs, with extremist groups targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers and banks.

The growth was slowed after intense government scrutiny of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, according to the report, but the Internet now gives extremists more access to information about making bombs and weapons training. The new technologies also make it easier for extremists to communicate, the report said, and make it more difficult for law enforcement to detect or prevent an attack.

In November, after Barack Obama's election, law enforcement officials were seeing more threats and unusual interest against a president-elect than ever before.

Here's more on the media/Republican connection to the anti-Obama hysteria:

SHUSTER: For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It‘s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they‘re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.

They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending—spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama‘s tax rates—which will be lower for most of them—and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That‘s teabagging in a nut shell.

Taking its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party when colonists tossed British tea into the sea because the tax in it had not been voted on by their own duly-elected representatives—that‘s exactly the opposite, of course, of today‘s taxes, known in some quarters as taxation with representation.

But as “New York Times” columnist, Paul Krugman, points out today, this time, the tea bagging is not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right-wing financiers and lobbyists. As well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter, who has issued statements in support of teabagging but is publicly tight-lipped.

Then there was the media, specifically the FOX News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves at events this Wednesday. But most amusing of all is Neil Cavuto, a member of the network‘s executive committee. Neil‘s online bio says he joined the network in July of 1996, three months before the FOX News Channel went on the air.

[...]This is an orchestrated attempt by Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, people who are trying to repair the Republican Party. They know that the Republican Party is in shambles. They know that Eric Cantor is a disaster as a new leadership member. They know that Boehner is doing a terrible job in the leadership.

They‘ve been in the leadership in the House of Representatives. They don‘t have a great deal of faith in this strategy and that‘s why it‘s been delegated somewhat at arm‘s length. That‘s why they‘re pretending that this is a grassroots movement.

FOX News is in the same position. What they‘re trying to do is create gigantic television events for their shows on that day. They have to pretend that they are covering a news event rather than trying to create one, which they‘ve very clearly done when you look at the history in the last month of the FOX News discussion of this and how they‘ve built it up.

And so, this is an attempt to try to see if the taxation spot is the place where you can get at Barack Obama, because nothing else has worked. Now, the problem is—on this April 15th, the taxation rates that they will all be protesting are the George W. Bush Republican Congress taxation rates. That‘s how we got these tax rates.

Sean Hannity, in the approach of this April 15th protest, has talked about the skyrocketing tax rates. The tax rates have not increased in this country in 16 years, and they did under Bill Clinton in 1993. He increased one tax rate, the top tax rate, and President Bush then immediately cut it as his first order of business.

[...]SHUSTER: Is this a Faustian sort of thing for GOP leaders? I mean, meaning that maybe they know all of this has the effect of marginalizing the Republican Party, but in return, they can point to the publicity and say to their moneymen, “Hey, look, at least we‘re doing something”?

O‘DONNELL: That‘s what this is. This is a—this is truly desperate. And it‘s so desperate that people don‘t really want to formally attach their names to it. They don‘t really want to be seen as the leaders of it.

It‘s a—it‘s a one-day protest aimed at nothing Barack Obama has actually done. It is aimed at the tax code that has been imposed on this country by a Republican Congress and a Republican president, who was previously the champion of exactly these protesters.

And so, it is a completely wrong-headed approach to what‘s going on. They‘ve picked April 15th as rage day for taxpayers. And there‘s not a single taxpayer out there who is paying a new Barack Obama tax rate. That doesn‘t exist.

Does The Taliban Control Pakistan?

They already do. Or at least some provinces in Pakistan? And it's only a matter of time before they control Afghanistan--again. If the militants gain full control of Pakistan, and their nukes, it will be a complete nightmare for the U.S. It is this situation that will probably destroy Barack Obama's presidency. Just as Vietnam undermined Johnson and Nixon.

Obama Speech on the Economy: Transcript (4-14-09)

This was an excellent speech from a politician who has a clue. Read the full transcript. Excerpt below:

You know, it's been 12 weeks now since my administration began. And I think that even our critics would agree that at the very least, we've been busy. (Laughter.) In just under three months, we've responded to an extraordinary set of economic challenges with extraordinary action -- action that's been unprecedented both in terms of its scale and its speed.


And I know that some have accused us of taking on too much at once. Others believe we haven't done enough. And many Americans are simply wondering how all of our different programs and policies fit together in a single, overarching strategy that will move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.


So today, I want to step back for a moment and explain our strategy as clearly as I can. This is going to be prose, and not poetry. I want to talk about what we've done, why we've done it, and what we have left to do. I want to update you on the progress we've made, but I also want to be honest about the pitfalls that may still lie ahead.


Most of all, I want every American to know that each action we take and each policy we pursue is driven by a larger vision of America's future -- a future where sustained economic growth creates good jobs and rising incomes; a future where prosperity is fueled not by excessive debt, or reckless speculation, or fleeting profits, but is instead built by skilled, productive workers, by sound investments that will spread opportunity at home and allow this nation to lead the world in the technologies and the innovation and discoveries that will shape the 21st century. That's the America I see. That's the America that Georgetown is preparing so many of you for. That is the future that I know that we can have.


Now, to understand how we get there, we first need to understand how we got here.


Recessions are not uncommon. Markets and economies naturally ebb and flow, as we've seen many times in our history. But this recession is different. This recession was not caused by a normal downturn in the business cycle. It was caused by a perfect storm of irresponsibility and poor decision-making that stretched from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.


As has been widely reported, it started in the housing market. During the course of the decade, the formula for buying a house changed: Instead of saving their pennies to buy their dream house, many Americans found that suddenly they could take out loans that by traditional standards their incomes just could not support. Others were tricked into signing these subprime loans by lenders who were trying to make a quick profit. The reason these loans were so readily available was that Wall Street saw big profits to be made. Investment banks would buy and package together these questionable mortgages into securities, arguing that by pooling the mortgages the risks had somehow been reduced. And credit agencies that are supposed to help investors determine the soundness of various investments stamped the securities with their safest rating when they should have been labeled "Buyer Beware."


No one really knew what the actual value of these securities were, no one fully understood what the risks were. But since the housing market was booming and prices were rising, banks and investors just kept buying and selling them, always passing off the risk to someone else for a greater profit without having to take any of the ultimate responsibility. Banks took on more debt than they could handle.


The government-chartered companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose traditional mandate was to help support traditional mortgages, decided to get in on the action by buying and holding billions of dollars of these securities. AIG, the biggest insurer in the world that had a very traditional insurance business that was very profitable, decided to make profits suddenly by selling billions of dollars of complicated financial instruments that supposedly insured these securities. Everybody was making record profits -- except the wealth created was real only on paper. And as the bubble grew, there was almost no accountability or oversight from anyone in Washington.

Time to go After Pirates

Early on in our history as a nation President Jefferson sent the fleet to take care of the Pirates. Time to do it again.

U.S. Navy snipers fatally shot three pirates holding an American cargo-ship captain hostage after seeing that one of the pirates "had an AK-47 leveled at the captain's back," a military official said Sunday.

U.S. forces moved to rescue Phillips after seeing him in imminent danger on the lifeboat, Gortney said. A fourth pirate was negotiating Phillips' fate aboard the nearby USS Bainbridge.

"While working through the negotiations process tonight, the on-scene commander from the Bainbridge made the decision that the captain's life was in immediate danger, and the three pirates were killed," Gortney said. "The pirate who surrendered earlier today is being treated humanely; his counterparts who continued to fight paid with their lives."

The three pirates, who were armed with AK-47 rifles, were killed by shooters who were aboard the Bainbridge, Gortney said.

The on-scene commander gave the shooters approval to open fire after seeing that "one of the pirates had an AK-47 leveled at the captain's back," Gortney said.

Seas in the area were getting rough at the time of the rescue, Gortney said, and the Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat presumably to calmer waters with a towline about 82 feet long.

A senior defense official told CNN that each pirate was shot in the head.

After the shooting, special operations personnel shimmied along the tow rope to ensure the pirates were dead and freed Phillips, the official said.

The official added that the pirates had become increasingly agitated over the past day, and negotiations were not going well.

It's time to go after the Pirates because other innocent people will suffer because of the rescue.

A great cry of anger, coupled with vows of vengeance, rose up from the pirate lairs hidden around the Horn of Africa after Capt. Richard Phillips' rescue.

"Our friends should have done more to kill the captain before they were killed. This will be a good lesson for us," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press in the port of Eyl, a Somali pirate hub.

"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill [the hostages]."

Somali pirates generally treat their hostages well to ensure they get their ransom. Some warned that would change after the U.S. Navy killed three Somali pirates and Friday’s French commando raid on a captured yacht killed two others.

"The French and the Americans will regret starting this killing," a pirate called Hussein told Reuters. "We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now on."

Some fear the pirates might retaliate against the more than 200 international mariners they hold.

In Harardhere, a major Somali pirate stronghold, residents gathered in the streets worrying about attacks by foreign navies.

This article in the Washington Post makes an effective argument for crushing the Somalis. The must be an operation with International support that seeks to destroy the Pirates while saving as many hostages, that are still being held.

With the rescue of American Richard Phillips from the hands of pirates yesterday, there was a blip of good news from the Indian Ocean, but it remains a scandal that Somali pirates continue to routinely defeat the world's naval powers. And worse than this ongoing demonstration of cowardice is the financing of terrorists that results from the huge ransom payments these pirates are allowed to collect.

It is naive to assume that the millions paid annually in ransom to pirates merely enables them to purchase villas and fancy automobiles. Somalia is a country without government, where anarchy is being exploited by terrorist organizations. Although the threat that pirates pose to commercial ships is increasingly known, little is being done to combat it. And we must consider the bigger picture: Terrorists are far more brutal than pirates and can easily force pirates -- petty thieves in comparison -- to share their ransom money.

We already know that Somalia is an ideal fortress and headquarters for global terrorist activity. The United States has learned the painful lesson that Somalia is not an easy place for our military to establish law and order; two of our interventions there became embarrassing defeats -- in 1993 and more recently in support of Ethiopian forces.

So why do we keep rewarding Somali pirates? How is this march of folly possible?

Washington Post: Lobbying Pays off Big on Capitol Hill

This article is a portrayal of how the lobbies have taken over Washington. It is they who dictate policy in America--not you. And until we wake up to that reality this country will die:

In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue -- a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment.

The study by researchers at the University of Kansas underscores the central reason that lobbying has become a $3 billion-a-year industry in Washington: It pays. The $787 billion stimulus act and major spending proposals have ratcheted up the lobbying frenzy further this year, even as President Obama and public-interest groups press for sharper restrictions on the practice.

The paper by three Kansas professors examined the impact of a one-time tax break approved by Congress in 2004 that allowed multinational corporations to "repatriate" profits earned overseas, effectively reducing their tax rate on the money from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. More than 800 companies took advantage of the legislation, saving an estimated $100 billion in the process, according to the study.

You want to know why you pay so much for medicine and healthcare?:

The largest recipients of tax breaks were concentrated in the pharmaceutical and technology fields, including Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett Packard, Johnson & Johnson and IBM. Pfizer alone repatriated $37 billion, representing 70 percent of its revenue in 2004, the study found. The now-beleaguered financial industry also benefited from the provision, including Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, all of which have since received tens of billions of dollars in federal bailout money.

The researchers calculated an average rate of return of 22,000 percent for those companies that helped lobby for the tax break. Eli Lilly, for example, reported in disclosure documents that it spent $8.5 million in 2003 and 2004 to lobby for the provision -- and eventually gained tax savings of more than $2 billion.

"There's always been speculation that lobbying is a lucrative area," said Stephen W. Mazza, a Kansas tax-law professor who is one of the authors of the study. "We've been able to come up with quantifiable returns and show that it really is the case."

Mazza added that the results are "troubling" because they show how large companies can distort tax policy to benefit their bottom line.

The NRA is another example of a powerful lobby that is literally helping to kill Americans:

THE anguish in Joe Biden's voice sounded genuine when the US Vice-President responded on behalf of the White House to the shocking gun massacre of 14 people at the New York town of Binghamton on the weekend.

"We've got to find a way to deal with this senseless, senseless violence," Biden told the nation.

Arriving at Binghamton that evening, New York Governor David Paterson framed similar sentiments in a question: "When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid we can't even keep track of the incidents?"

But missing from the vocabulary of either leader was any reference to gun control - the words so many US politicians are afraid to utter, even in the face of mass murder.

The lack of political resolve to take action against the appalling level of gun violence in the US is what really makes Binghamton, and the slaughter yesterday of three policemen in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the great American tragedies they are.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, about 30,000 Americans a year die from a gun. That's about 80 a day, and of those an average of 32 are homicides.

In the past month alone, there have been five mass murders, claiming a total of 41 lives.

But confronted with such compelling evidence for tougher gun laws, the response of the US politicians is almost always along the lines of Biden and Paterson: words that share public grief and offer comfort when a tragedy strikes but which amount to platitudes and abdicate the public trust when read in the context of fixing the problem.

Such is the power of the gun lobby in US politics.

Brady campaign president Paul Helmke decided to go on the attack yesterday after friends of Pittsburgh's 23-year-old cop-killer Richard Poplawski revealed that he was angry over his belief the Obama administration was about to ban guns.

Describing the gun crisis as every bit as important as the economic crisis, Helmke accused the gun lobby of "stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the Government".

"It is time for the gun industry to stop capitalising on those ginned-up fears to spread weapons of war among the public," Helmke said.

"The gun lobby's rhetoric has consequences. Today, we have seen how profound those consequences can be."

3 Children Shot Execution Style in Louisiana

This is madness. It looks like drug-gang related. This society has gone into the toilet. Louisiana is a gun state. We are starting to look like some third-world country with the sick violence that permeates our communities. We are breading sociopaths left and right. And then we are giving them guns.

A shooting at a Westbank apartment this morning has left three people dead, two of them children.

Police say that shortly before 4 a.m. Saturday, two gunmen entered the apartment at 945 East Monterey and killed a 19-year-old female , a 23-month-old baby boy, and a a six-year-old boy.

An 11-year-old girl was also shot and is in critical condition at a local hospital hospital.

Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Department Sgt Larry Dyess told WWL First News that the aparment complex is off Berman highway, between between Stumpf and Laffayette.

Dyess says that police are looking for two black males who entered the apartment and began shooting the victims.. He said that a witness describes one of the suspects as wearing a red bandana over his face and a hoodie type sweatshirt..

Authorities say the gunmen shot the toddler and the 6-year-old in the head. The 19-year-old was shot in the back, and the 11-year-old was shot "multiple times."

Homicide investigators say they located a number of shell casings throughout the apartment as well as crack cocaine and marijuana.

It's happening everywhere including at our universities:

Two people were shot and killed Friday at a community college in Dearborn, Michigan, in what police believe was a murder-suicide, an official said.

A man and woman were found dead in a classroom building on the campus of Henry Ford Community College, Dearborn Deputy Chief Gregg Brighton said.

Investigators believe the man shot the woman but would not provide further information, Brighton said.

A shotgun was involved in the incident, which occurred in a classroom that was not being used, he said.

"We're in the very preliminary stages," Brighton said. "We've just made the scene safe. The crime lab is on the scene with detectives." Video Watch Brighton describe the scene »

Police responding to a report of gunfire at the school had entered the south hallway of the Fine Arts Building when they heard another gunshot, Brighton said.

"We were in the building when we heard the shotgun blast, and when we finally got to that room, we had two deceased parties," he said at a news conference. "We believe this is a murder-suicide."

And Even Sunday school teachers are murdering. Now I've heard everything:

Police have arrested a Sunday-school teacher in the killing of California 8-year-old Sandra Cantu, authorities said early Saturday.

Melissa Huckaby was arrested on charges of kidnapping and murder, according to Tracy, California, police Sgt. Tony Sheneman.

Police would not reveal what led to Huckaby's arrest, but said it followed questioning. They did not offer a possible motive.

Huckaby lived in the same mobile home park as Sandra's family, and Sandra was friends with Huckaby's daughter, Sheneman said.

Sandra's body was found Monday, stuffed into a suitcase in a dairy-farm pond. The girl, from Tracy, had been missing since March 27. The suitcase that held Sandra's body belonged to Huckaby, Sheneman said.

Police have had contact with Huckaby before, but she does not have a record of violence

[...] On Tuesday, authorities searched a Baptist church near the mobile home park where Sandra lived.

The church's pastor, Lane Lawless, and his wife, Connie, spoke to KRON as they drove by the church Tuesday. Lawless said police had seized computers, phones and other items from his family's trailer, located in the same park as Sandra's family. He said his great-granddaughter regularly played with Sandra.

"We've been in the park for 13 years, and we've known her and her sister since before they were born," Connie Lawless told KRON. "So they're like children to us; they're like our children."

Why the Hypocrisy on President Obama's Bowing to the Saudi Prince

I usually don't quote Malkin but she gets it right here:

I have expressed my disgust many times over the years with the Bush administration’s kowtowing to Saudi Arabia. That notorious image of Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty in 2005 and doing sword dances with Wahabbists in 2008 sparked outrage on both the left and the right. The hand-holding has gotten us nowhere — and in fact, has made us less secure.

So I hope all the lefties who tore into Bush over his Saudi prostration will express equal disgust with President HopeAndChange’s literal bowing and scraping to King Abdullah. When JWF sent a link to the photo with Obama bent down like a serf (further than either he or Michelle dipped for Queen Elizabeth, by the way), I tried to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he dropped a contact lens or penny?

The same types of arguments were used at the time in criticism of the Bush hand holding incident as is used in referring to the Obama bowing event. This from a Texan:

I wonder if George W. Bush would have run for president if he'd known he'd have to hold hands with a hairy guy.

Holding hands with a hairy guy is part of the Bush economic stimulus package. So far, it's not working. Last week, Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia to beg the Saudis to increase oil production, the assumption being that if the Saudis started pumping more oil, gasoline prices would go down.

On Saturday, a photo showed Bush holding hands with Saudi King Abdullah. But it didn't do any good. The Saudis told Bush that they were already pumping enough oil.

This might have worked out better if Bush had sent King Abdullah a dozen roses. Like former NFL great and FTD pitchman Merlin Olsen always said, "Say it with flowers." Or how about chocolates? Maybe gas prices would drop if Bush had gone out to the mall and picked up some Godivas for the king. That is, until the Saudis found out Godiva was a chick who rode around nekkid on a horse.

This occurred to me Sunday morning when I took my Lexus to the Genie Car Wash on William Cannon Drive in South Austin to get it washed and filled up with $3.74-a-gallon gas. At those rates, I figure Bush should invite King Abdullah to dinner and a movie.

"He could probably go a little further," joked Kelly McDearmon, the Genie Car Wash worker who wiped down my car. "Flowers and a kiss, probably."

It's a daring gesture for a conservative family values politician such as Bush to be seen in public holding hands with a dude who could use a shave. Especially since the picture of those two clasping pinkies showed up in the paper the day after the story about California OK'ing gay weddings. That means Bush obviously cares about the American way of life being destroyed by gasoline prices.

One thing you could do to make ends meet is just quit buying groceries. Find out what stores have free samples and take the kids out to dinner there. Or you could just stay in the house with the air conditioner off. Or you could vacation in Pflugerville.

Now, I realize that it is supposedly an old Arab custom for men to hold hands. (Put another way, I'll bet you don't see Larry the Cable Guy on the Saudi comedy channel.) On the other hand, what if this is a practical joke and the Saudis are, as the kids say, punking Bush?

- Here is a picture of Bush bowing before a Saudi Prince.

This deference to a very bad country has been going on for decades; it didn’t start with Barack Obama, or with George W. Bush, or with John F. Kennedy for that matter.

Instead of impeaching Barack Obama, America needs to impeach its gas tanks.

And just imagine how much screaming there would be if Obama had let Abdullah hang a medal around his neck.

But the hysteria of the right is laughable. This was the editorial from the Washington Times.

In a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate, President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London last week.

Mr. Obama later said in Strasbourg, France, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States.

The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt shook hands with Saudi King Abdulaziz in February 1945. Granted, Mr. Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound, but former President Dwight D. Eisenhower shook hands when he first met King Saud in January 1957. Mr. Obama's bow to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques does not help his image with those who believe he is secretly a Muslim, and why he chose to bow only to the Saudi King and not to any other royals remains unexplained.

No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may "accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" without the consent of Congress. Judith Martin wrote in her Miss Manners column in 2001 that bowing "is not an ordinary bit of foreign etiquette one might adopt out of courtesy when traveling. ... Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries' leaders the same way we do to our own."

Pirates Plague Sign of American Weakness

The pirates are plaguing us as they once did early on in our history. It is a sign of our impotence and that of the world community. It is also a sign of things to come. Meaning we will be less safe.

The family of hijacked ship captain Richard Phillips gathered in his Vermont farmhouse, anxiously watching news reports and taking telephone calls from the U.S. State Department to learn if he would be freed by Somali pirates off the Horn of Africa.The family of hijacked ship captain Richard Phillips gathered in his Vermont farmhouse, anxiously watching news reports and taking telephone calls from the U.S. State Department to learn if he would be freed by Somali pirates off the Horn of Africa. "We are on pins and needles," said Lea Coggio, half-sister of Phillips' wife, Andrea, as she stood on the porch of his one-story house on Wednesday in a light snow. "I know the crew has been in touch with their own family members, and we're hoping we'll hear from Richard soon." Phillips, 55, was taken hostage Wednesday after his unarmed U.S. crew wrested control of the Maersk Alabama from the pirates and sent them fleeing to a lifeboat - with Phillips as their bargaining chip. According to the family, Phillips offered himself up as a hostage in order to protect his crew. "That's Richard. . That's just what he's about," Coggio told CBS' The Early Show. Phillips and the pirates on the lifeboat have received food and water from the ship, Coggio said

Cyberspies Could Threaten our Electricity Supply

It's been known for sometime that hackers could bring America to it's knees if they knocked out our electrical grids. And since our government has spent all it's time concentrating on al Qaeda, other forms of terror could destroy our country. The problem is that we have a corrupt government that no longer protect us. We are on our own.

Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls, the newspaper said, citing current and former U.S. national security officials.

The intruders have not sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure but officials said they could try during a crisis or war, the paper said in a report on its website.

"The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid," a senior intelligence official told the Journal. "So have the Russians."

The espionage appeared pervasive across the United States and does not target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official.

"There are intrusions, and they are growing," the former official told the paper, referring to electrical systems. "There were a lot last year."

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama was not immediately available for comment on the newspaper report.

Authorities investigating the intrusions have found software tools left behind that could be used to destroy infrastructure components, the senior intelligence official said. He added, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."

This was from May of last year:

Investigators have found numerous instances in which the nation's largest public power company, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVE), is "vulnerable to disruption" by cyberintrusions. The concern: Hackers could seize control of critical operations in TVA's many electric plants—including those that are nuclear powered—as well as its transmission grid, flood control, and water systems.

A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), identified as 08-459SU and marked "for limited official use only," includes 73 specific recommendations for security fixes so sensitive they are to be withheld today when the GAO releases a public version with 19 general recommendations, all of which TVA agrees with.

The report's findings alarmed TVA's own executives. At a May 2 meeting with congressional investigators and U.S. Homeland Security Dept. officials, TVA urged GAO, the investigatory arm of Congress, to modify wording and make public few details rather than raise public concerns or risk providing a road map for hackers. The public version of the report, which was requested by Republicans and Democrats on congressional homeland security committees to follow up on previous concerns about cyberthreats, is to be released at a May 21 hearing at 2 p.m. ET.

TVA, which has 52 facilities, plays a significant underlying role in the economy of the southeastern U.S. Besides providing power in Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia, TVA manages one of the largest electricity transmission systems in North America and the fifth-largest river system in the U.S. Security experts say that, too, could be manipulated in ways that might cause flooding or affect water quality.

Cybersecurity specialists and government officials, speaking anonymously for fear of the impact on their careers, say the threat is far from theoretical or confined to small nations such as Estonia. They say owners and operators of other U.S. and Western European utilities also are vulnerable to network break-ins by a variety of hackers, including some who may be acting on behalf of other governments.

This from Time Magazine in 2005. The article is entitle, "The Invasion of the Chinese Cyberspies (And the Man Who Tried to Stop Them)":

It was another routine night for Shawn Carpenter. After a long day analyzing computer-network security for Sandia National Laboratories, where much of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is designed, Carpenter, 36, retreated to his ranch house in the hills overlooking Albuquerque, N.M., for a quick dinner and an early bedtime. He set his alarm for 2 a.m. Waking in the dark, he took a thermos of coffee and a pack of Nicorette gum to the cluster of computer terminals in his home office. As he had almost every night for the previous four months, he worked at his secret volunteer job until dawn, not as Shawn Carpenter, mid-level analyst, but as Spiderman--the apt nickname his military-intelligence handlers gave him--tirelessly pursuing a group of suspected Chinese cyberspies all over the world. Inside the machines, on a mission he believed the U.S. government supported, he clung unseen to the walls of their chat rooms and servers, secretly recording every move the snoopers made, passing the information to the Army and later to the FBI.

The hackers he was stalking, part of a cyberespionage ring that federal investigators code-named Titan Rain, first caught Carpenter's eye a year earlier when he helped investigate a network break-in at Lockheed Martin in September 2003. A strikingly similar attack hit Sandia several months later, but it wasn't until Carpenter compared notes with a counterpart in Army cyberintelligence that he suspected the scope of the threat. Methodical and voracious, these hackers wanted all the files they could find, and they were getting them by penetrating secure computer networks at the country's most sensitive military bases, defense contractors and aerospace companies.

Carpenter had never seen hackers work so quickly, with such a sense of purpose. They would commandeer a hidden section of a hard drive, zip up as many files as possible and immediately transmit the data to way stations in South Korea, Hong Kong or Taiwan before sending them to mainland China. They always made a silent escape, wiping their electronic fingerprints clean and leaving behind an almost undetectable beacon allowing them to re-enter the machine at will. An entire attack took 10 to 30 minutes. "Most hackers, if they actually get into a government network, get excited and make mistakes," says Carpenter. "Not these guys. They never hit a wrong key."

Goaded by curiosity and a sense that he could help the U.S. defend itself against a new breed of enemy, Carpenter gave chase to the attackers. He hopped just as stealthily from computer to computer across the globe, chasing the spies as they hijacked a web of far-flung computers. Eventually he followed the trail to its apparent end, in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong. He found that the attacks emanated from just three Chinese routers that acted as the first connection point from a local network to the Internet.

It was a stunning breakthrough. In the world of cyberspying, locating the attackers' country of origin is rare. China, in particular, is known for having poorly defended servers that outsiders from around the world commandeer as their unwitting launchpads. Now Chinese computers appeared to be the aggressors.

More Mass Shootings: When Will We Ever Learn

As I've written in the past, mass shooting murders have become a sport in America. And after every incident we repeat the same game of trying to find a motive for the killings, as if any excuse could justify murder. We continue to miss the point. Not until we address the issue of too many guns in a culture that glorifies violence will we begin to climb out of this moral abyss.

The shooting has stunned Binghamton, just as mass shootings of civilians have stunned so many communities.

You remember Columbine ten years ago: 15 dead. And then Virginia Tech two years ago: 32 dead.

But you may not remember the shootings that left ten dead in southeastern Alabama, or the eight who died in a North Carolina nursing home … the six dead in Santa Clara, California … and now Binghamton.

Then there's yesterday morning's shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh, and the five children apparently murdered by their father in Washington State before he killed himself.

Six mass shootings that have taken 47 lives in just four weeks' time.

It seems that no town, big or small, is immune. But why? Is there more violence - and is our reaction to it changing?

"Tragically, I think many Americans have become more desensitized, more numb to the mass murder, to the massacre, because it is no longer that unusual," said Howard Kurtz, a media critic for the Washington Post.

"It doesn't mean that everybody doesn't get a feeling in their gut when they hear that a bunch of innocent people have died at the hands of one crazy gunman, but it is no longer a story that we've never heard of before," said Kurtz. "So there's a certain ritual to it. We know what to expect."

Part of what we expect are expressions of condolences from our political leaders … but that is where it all seems to stop.

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says that, in this climate, more is not likely to happen.

"I just don't think [as] a political issue that folks care as much about gun control right now as they do about economics," he said.

"The hard reality is that people are more concerned about their jobs and their 401(k)s and how they're going to pay for their school tuition for their kids, than they are about trying to put additional restrictions on guns."

They do it because they know the media will seemingly portray a monster as someone with "troubles." The Columbine killers depicted almost sympathetically when their acts of evil were explained away as revenge for being "bullied" in school.

A man who fatally shot his five children and killed himself had just discovered his wife was leaving him for another man, authorities said Sunday.

The bodies of James Harrison's children, ages 7 to 16, were found with multiple gunshot wounds Saturday in the family's mobile home, most of them in their beds. Harrison's body had been found earlier in the day with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, behind the wheel of his idling car.

The night before, the father and his eldest daughter went in search of his wife, Angela Harrison. The daughter used a GPS feature in her mother's cell phone to find her with another man at a convenience store in nearby Auburn, said Ed Troyer, spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff.

The woman told her husband she was not coming home, and was leaving him for the man with her at the store. The father and the daughter left, distraught, Troyer said.

Sometime after the children went to sleep, he shot each of them multiple times. Four died in their beds. The fifth was found in the bathroom, surrounded by signs of violent struggle.

"He wanted the kids dead," Troyer said. "It wasn't like he shot a few rounds. He shot several rounds."

Investigators believe he then returned to the area near the convenience store looking for his wife. His body was found near the store, Troyer said.

"We think he was going to go back to kill the wife," Troyer said. "He probably didn't find her and realized the gravity of what he'd done and shot himself."

Several weapons were found in the home.

Any reason can trigger an individual to go berserk nowadays. There is something terrible wrong with our society. We've become one big violent video game or movie:

Three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, police officers were shot to death while responding to a 911 call of a domestic argument triggered by a urinating dog, according to a criminal complaint filed in the case.

The officers were the first department fatalities since 1995, according to the department.

Police said following the shootings Saturday that Richard Poplawski, 22, would be charged with three counts of homicide, aggravated assault and other charges. Poplawski, who was shot in the leg during a four-hour standoff with police, was hospitalized at an undisclosed location, police said.

Details of the incident were included in the police complaint seeking an arrest warrant for Poplawski. The complaint says Margaret Poplawski called 911 about 7 a.m. Saturday to report that her son was "giving her a hard time." Video Watch officers respond at the scene »

She told police she awoke to discover that "the dog had urinated on the floor," and awakened her son "to confront him about it."

The two had an argument, and Margaret Poplawski told her son she was calling police to remove him from her home, according to the complaint. When officers Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo III arrived, she opened the door and let them in.

"Mrs. Poplawski reported that as the officers entered approximately 10 feet into the residence, she heard gunshots, turned and saw her son about six feet away with a long rifle in his hands, at which point she fled downstairs after asking him, 'What the hell have you done?'" the complaint said.

Margaret Poplawski reported she stayed in the basement during the standoff, and heard her son yell, "Yeah, I've been shot," and "I'm standing down, come in and help me," according to the complaint.

Police Chief Nathan Harper identified the dead officers as Eric Kelly, Mayhle and Sciullo. Kelly was a 14-year veteran of the department; the other two had worked there for two years each.

Sounding the alarm of gun violence:

As the horrific gun violence continued in the United States, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"Today's mass shooting in Binghamton is just the latest wake-up call reminding us that we must do something to stop the gun violence in our country. In the past few weeks alone, in mass shootings, 10 were killed in Alabama, eight killed in a North Carolina nursing home, 10 killed in California, including four police officers, but the silence from many of our political leaders was deafening.

"About 30,000 people a year in this country die from gun violence, about 80 a day, 32 by homicide - the same number who died at Virginia Tech two years ago this month. In the space of four months, up to nine Americans died as a result of bacteria-laden peanut butter crackers, and the government quickly took action. Some of the top government officials in our country say we don't need to do anything different - that we should just 'enforce the laws on the books.' The laws on the books aren't getting the job done. Now is the time to take effective steps to prevent gun violence.

Not only are we suffering in the U.S. because of the easy availability of guns in this country:

Mexico has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world, yet the country's drug cartels are armed to the teeth with high-powered illegal weapons because guns are so easy to buy in the United States and smuggle over the border.

"If the United States had a system like ours, we wouldn't have so many problems here in Mexico," Agustin Villordo, 27, of Puebla, Mexico, said Tuesday as he shopped for a hunting rifle.

On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will visit Mexico to discuss ways to stop gun smuggling. The meeting is part of an effort by the United States to help Mexico in an increasingly bloody war against the drug cartels. More than 6,300 people have died in the violence since 2006.

But Mexicans say little will change as long as the United States continues to make it easy to buy guns.

"It is necessary to reduce the sale of weapons, particularly of high-power weapons, in the United States," President Felipe Calderón said during a visit to Britain on Monday.

He said there was a "correlation" between Mexico's soaring drug violence and the end of the U.S. ban on sales of assault-style weapons. That ban, which expired in 2004, barred sales of semi-automatic rifles with certain combinations of military-style features, such as folding stocks, large magazines or flash suppressors.

Nothing will change unless we force the whore politicians in Washington to stand up to the NRA:

This weekend should prove to us that here in 2009, the MSM and our leaders do not care at all about gun violence. Seems like we have all given up and believe the NRA won the battle and we should all carry guns, without background checks, everywhere including national parks, churches, stores, airplanes, etc etc.

This is, of course, the NRA's dream come true. A national of wild west gun toters. Screw the liberal police. It's every man for themselves!

The shooter in Pittsburgh this weekend said he was desperate because he believed Obama was going to take his guns away. Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY the marketing campaign literature from the NRA and GOP to incite this sort of violence and gin-up hatred so as to garner a few more votes for the Repubs.

And the press? The press doesn't care. It is more important to find out what Michelle Obama is wearing or waht new gaffe they can drum-up during an Obama speech.

Susan Rice on 'This Week': Transcript (4-5-09)

UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what will this international response be?

RICE: Well, George, we have been in close consultation with our allies in Asia, in particular, Japan and South Korea about the appropriate response. We have consulted over the last several days, including this morning as well with the Russians and the Chinese.

So the U.N. Security Council will meet this afternoon in emergency session. I'll be going up there straightaway. And we will be discussing the appropriate response. The United States believes that this action is best dealt with -- the most appropriate response would a United Nations Security Council resolution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Japan wants sanctions, will the U.S. co-sponsor a sanctions resolution?

RICE: The U.S. is working very closely with Japan and we will be in consultation with our partners inside the council, trying to get the most appropriate and strong response we can possibly get.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But this is already a violation of U.N. resolutions -- two U.N. resolutions...

RICE: Yes, it is.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... just to have this test. So what good does it do for the United Nations to come back and say, hey, we really mean it this time?

RICE: Now, well, the first resolution that is really the operative one was from 2006, when the North Koreans launched a missile and the United Nations Security Council demanded a halt to future missile-related activity and any future missile launches.

We feel very strongly that what occurred today was a violation of that resolution. So we will go back and work, George, to both toughen existing regimes, but to add to that resolution. In fact, that resolution did not...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So there will be new sanctions toughening...

RICE: George, we have 15 members of the Security Council and -- including the permanent five, so we all need to come together around this. But the United States' view is, this is serious, it's a violation, and it merits and appropriately strong United Nations response. We'll be… STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned...

RICE: ...working for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned the 15 members. One of them, of course, as you mentioned, is China. China has made it pretty clear they don't want any sanctions. And because of that, your predecessor, John Bolton, says that any kind of U.N. resolution is going to be close to meaningless.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: I think the real pressure has to be applied on China, which gives North Korea 80 to 90 percent of its energy and a substantial amount of its food and other humanitarian needs.

China has got the capability to stop this nuclear program, we've just never applied adequate pressure to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the United States prepared to pressure China?

RICE: We're working very closely with China. China shares the same goal that we do, which is a de-nuclearized Korean Peninsula. China also is very proximate, on the border with North Korea, and shares our desire not to see this situation escalate, and to ensure that we can achieve, George, the long-term goal, which is de- nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the six-party talk process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But because China is right on the border of North Korea, they've been reluctant to really pressure North Korea. They're afraid that if you turn the screws too hard on North Korea, the regime is going to collapse and there's going to be chaos.

And is that why they are not going along with tougher sanctions?

RICE: Well, I think they have multiple concerns. They are looking at the large long-term goal of ensuring that we don't have a nuclearized Korean Peninsula. There have been times when we have differed as to the best means of achieving that.

But we are unified with China and others in the six parties towards the goal, George, of ensuring that we roll back this nuclear program that North Korea is pursuing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But is there any evidence at all that North Korea is going to respond to any of this? They've been steadily adding to their nuclear program, in fits and starts at times, but basically they've been able, over the last eight years or so, to develop a nuclear capability, to develop nuclear warheads, and they seem determined to keep going on that track. RICE: Well, George, it is fits and starts. I mean, there have been steps that have occurred over the last years that have been progress. For example, they did take steps to dismantle the facility at Yongbyon, which was the principal reactor.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But then they restarted it.

RICE: No. We have seen some serious dismantlement. The problem that we face now is ensuring that there is a verifiable regime to ensure de-nuclearization. And that's where the six-party talks have now stalled.

The challenge, George, is to convey with unity, as the president said today, on behalf of the international community that we will not stand for violations of international law which this launch today represented. That there will be consequences. And that, indeed, we will pursue together with resolve the goal of achieving a Korean Peninsula without nuclear weapons.

Transcript: President Obama News Conference at G-20 Summit

The complete transcript:

All right. Chuck Todd? Chuck?

QUESTION: What concrete items that you got out of this G-20 can you tell the American people back home who are hurting, the family struggling, seeing their retirement go down, or worrying about losing their job, what happened here today that helps that family back home in -- in the heartland?

OBAMA: Well, as I said before, we’ve got a global economy. And if we’re taking actions in isolation in the United States but those actions are contradicted overseas, then we’re only going to be halfway effective, maybe not even half.

You’ve seen, for example, a drastic decline in U.S. exports over the last several months. You look at a company like Caterpillar, in my home state of Illinois, which up until last year was doing extraordinarily well. In fact, export growth was what had sustained it even after the recession had begun.

As a consequence of the world recession, as a consequence of the contagion from the financial markets debilitating economies elsewhere, Caterpillar is now in very bad shape.

So if we want to get Caterpillar back on its feet, if we want to get all those export companies back on their feet so that they are hiring, putting people back to work, putting money in people’s pockets, we’ve got to make sure that the global economy as a whole is successful.

And this document, which affirms the need for all countries to take fiscal responses that increase demand, that encourages the openness of markets, those are all going to be helpful in us being able to fix what ails the economy back home.

All right. You know, let me -- let me mix in a -- Justin Webb, BBC. Where’s Justin? There he is. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Mr. President, in the -- the spirit of openness (OFF- MIKE)

OBAMA: Why don’t you get a microphone, so -- see, everybody’s complaining. I’m sure that’s all your fellow British journalists.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: They’re extraordinarily well behaved, Mr. President. In the spirit of openness with which you say you’re going to run your administration, could you give us an insight into an area or areas where you came to London wanting something and didn’t get it, where you compromised, where you gave something away to achieve the wider breakthrough agreement?

OBAMA: Well, I think that, if you look at, you know, the language of the document, there are probably some areas where it wasn’t so much of a sacrifice as it might not have been our number-one priority, but it became clear that it was very important to certain other actors.

I’d rather not specify what those precise items would be, because this is a collective document. But there’s no doubt that, you know, each country has its own quirks and own particular issues that a leader may decide is really, really important, something that is non- negotiable for them.

OBAMA: And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that didn’t -- did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document to address what I think are the core issues related to this crisis.

Now, keep in mind, I think that this kind of coordination really is historic. I said in the meeting that if you had imagined ten years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago that you’d have the leaders of Germany, France, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, a president of the United States named Obama, former adversaries, in some cases, former mortal enemies negotiating this swiftly on behalf of fixing the global economy, you would have said that’s crazy. And yet it was happening, and it happened with relatively little -- relatively few hiccups. And I think that’s a testimony to the great work that Gordon Brown did and his team in organizing the summit, the collective work of our teams in doing some good preparation, some good groundwork. So I’m very proud of what’s been done. This alone is not enough. And, obviously, the actions that each of us take in our individual countries are still absolutely vital. So we have a set of principles, for example, around dealing with systemic risk that I think will be very important in preventing the kinds of financial crisis that we’ve seen. That does not entirely solve the problem of toxic assets that are still in U.S. banks and certain British banks and certain European banks. And how each individual nation acts to deal with that is still going to be vitally important. How well we execute the respective stimulus programs around the world is going to be very important. The quicker they are, the more effective they are at actually boosting demand, the more all of us will benefit. The more encumbered they are by bureaucracy, mismanagement, and corruption, that will hamper our development efforts as a whole. So this is not a panacea, but it is a critical step, and I think it lays the foundation so that should the actions that we’ve taken individually and collectively so far not succeed in boosting global demand and growth, should you continue to see a freezing of credit or a hemorrhaging of jobs around the world, I think we’ve created a good foundation for this leadership to come back together again and take additional steps until we get it right. OK. Michael Sheerer (ph)? Where’s Michael?

Congress Gives Large Bonuses to their Staffs while Condemning AIG

We have a government that has no shame. They merely thumb their noses at us because we won't do anything about it. They bail out profiteers that brought this country to it's knees, while allowing them to give out bonuses with our tax dollars. Then the politicians pretend to be outraged when word gets out. Meanwhile they feast themselves with out money to give themselves, and their staffs, bonuses and perks:

While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.

Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.

Total end-of-year bonuses paid to congressional staffers are tiny compared with the $165 million recently showered on executives of American International Group Inc., which is being propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. government subsidies. But Capitol Hill bonuses provide a notable counterpoint to the populist rhetoric and sound bites emanating from Washington these past weeks.

Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.

Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year.

This has gone on for many years. There is no prohibition against handing out excess cash. The lawmakers say it is a nice incentive to get staff to conserve budgets, and it rewards hard work and long hours.

"Most aides could make more money elsewhere, but choose to work on Capitol Hill because they believe in public service," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who along with other top House leaders awarded bonuses. (Senators also give bonuses, but documents showing those payments aren't yet available.) Mr. Daly said bonuses are a small perk for underpaid government employees.

Each House office receives between $1.3 million and $1.9 million annually in government funds to pay for office expenses, including salaries. In 2008, some lawmakers returned excess cash to the government, including Rep. Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican (who also gave some bonuses) and Rep. Tim Walz, a Minnesota Democrat. Meredith Salsbery, a spokeswoman for Mr. Walz, said aides are asked to be "thrifty and conscious of taxpayer dollars" and that Mr. Walz "knows the power of setting a good example."

The 435 House offices typically return a total of about $1 million or $2 million a year, or less that 0.5% of the overall budget for office expenses, but the amount can vary widely. In 2006, for example, lawmakers returned just $36,549.

Disbursement forms show that dozens of aides working for the Financial Services Committee got a bonus from panel Chairman Barney Frank. Spokesman Steven Adamske said the Massachusetts Democrat gives bonuses to staffers because "government workers are pretty low paid." He said several aides who got bonuses had worked long hours during 2008 on the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Top Financial Services Committee Republicans also gave their aides bonuses. "These were merit bonuses for people who had performed especially well," said Larry Lavender, an aide to Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee.

Overall in the House, disbursements were roughly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

Six lawmakers who lost their re-election races paid more than $300,000 in bonuses to 89 staffers. Thelma Drake, a Republican, gave about $40,000 in extra compensation to about a dozen aides after losing her Virginia seat. Mrs. Drake said the payments were a form of severance to "good staff members who worked their hearts out and who were about to lose their jobs."

A handful of lawmakers who retired handed out a total of $283,000 in bonuses. After Republican Heather Wilson gave up her New Mexico seat in the House to run unsuccessfully for the Senate, she gave 13 aides bonuses as high as $3,000. "My practice over 10 years in Congress was to give bonuses at the end of the year," she said.

Meanwhile, more revelations of large bailed-out corporations with executives getting bonuses with our money:

The chairman of a congressional oversight panel has opened an investigation into what federal officials knew about $3.6 billion in bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees after the government spent billions of dollars in bailout funds to help save the company from failure by arranging its sale to Bank of America.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the domestic policy subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform panel, said he was concerned about the payments because they were 22 times larger than bonuses to insurance giant American International Group, which created a political firestorm.

The government awarded Bank of America $10 billion to help it complete the acquisition and provided the bank a federal guarantee to limit its potential losses on about $118 billion of assets largely inherited from Merrill Lynch as part of the sale.

Kucinich questioned whether government officials knew about the bonuses while they were overseeing the sale of Merrill Lynch. He sent letters yesterday to Bank of America, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve requesting all documents and communication related to the bonuses.

"This raises important questions about what you knew about the Merrill bonuses, and what you did with your knowledge," Kucinich wrote to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. "If ordinary [Bank of America] shareholders were ignorant of the details of the Merrill bonus arrangement, was the U.S. government as well?"

Keith Olbermann: Why is Obama Favoring Wall St. Over the Car Industry

While Wall St. gets bailouts the U.S. industry gets strings attached with the aid they get. CEOs in the financial industry continue to get bonuses and American workers are told their contracts have to be torn up because they make too much money. Read the transcript of Olbermann's questioning of this double standard.

OLBERMANN: With us now, Dan Gross, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine.

Much thanks for your time tonight, sir.

DAN GROSS, NEWSWEEK: Good to be here.

OLBERMANN: Obviously, the president did not forcibly take over either G.M. or Chrysler today. But to what extent does he now—in at least the political sense—own both of these car companies?

GROSS: He totally owns them, their short-term fate. And he really owns the workers as well—because what we saw today is a sense that these are going to be either broken up or severely shrunk and they‘re going to be tens—perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who will need to find other things to do. He got at that a little—toward the end of his remarks about what sorts of things the administration would be doing.

But I think we need to hear a lot more details about that.

OLBERMANN: Politico.com reported today that Mr. Obama has what they described as a more jaundiced view of the automakers than Wall Street. Given that G.M.‘s mistake was to keep feeding the American appetite for SUV, Wall Street‘s mistake was to, you know, cripple the entire global economy, how does Wall Street come out more favorably in this comparison in a view from any White House?

GROSS: Well, two reasons. One, you know, the genius of Wall Street was to screw thing up on such a massive, galactic scale that their demise would threaten western civilization as we know it and a lot of eastern civilization. Whereas, the car companies would just take down a lot of kind of blue collar people and dealerships in the Midwest.

The second reason is a kind of cultural fit. You know, there are a lot of people in the Democratic Party and this administration who are tight with people on Wall Street. These are their classmates from college.

When you are running for president you go to the Hamptons, you got to Upper East Side of Manhattan, you go to Martha‘s Vineyard, you rub elbows with these people. This is where you raise money from. It‘s one of the power bases. You are not in Birmingham and Southfield and the suburbs of Detroit. So, there‘s a kind of cultural fit here, too.

OLBERMANN: But—and exactly to that point. The same White House that argued it had to intervene and save the bonuses of AIG executives, because these are contractually obligated bonuses, is now telling middle-class union workers, not just these ones but ones essentially across the nation, they have to make some concessions even though those concessions might violate or render neutral their contracts.

I mean, how does the White House economic team which is—as you suggest—run by Wall Street veterans portray this as anything but, you know, another edition with new membership of the same rich boy‘s club in the same sort of action they‘ve taken for 70 or 150 years?

GROSS: Well, it will take some fancy footwork. But, you know, they might say in their defense that, yes, we are—you know, in AIG‘s case contracts were sacred. We‘re, you know, we are not a nation of laws without them. In this case, we have to look to rip up the union contracts but also the deals that the franchisees have, all the dealers, they have these laws. They want to rip those up as well.

And importantly, they are telling the bondholders, who are other rich people, that they might have to settle for less than they otherwise might expect to receive.

OLBERMANN: So, what next, Dan, for Detroit and for the White House?

GROSS: I think this is the beginning of a process rather than the end. I think you have to divide between Chrysler, which I think they have essentially given up on; and to be fair, Chrysler‘s owners, Cerberus, have probably come close to giving up on. We have Fiat coming in. They‘re going to get a big chunk of ownership for no money down basically. We‘re not sure if they‘re going to get the loans.

And truth be told, they are the fifth biggest automaker. Their departure would not be such a big deal. It‘s GM that we really have to worry about. Just as we have AIG and Citigroup problem, not a banking problem; we have a GM problem, not a car-making problem.

OLBERMANN: Dan Gross of “Newsweek,” author also of “Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation”—thank you, Dan.

GROSS: Thank you.

Taliban Leader Vows To Attack D.C. 'Soon'

Should we take this threat seriously. Remember: the last 2 al Qaeda terror attacks on the U.S. (WTC I and II) occurred early on in the tenure of the new President. And with the preoccupation with the economy maybe the government, and people, have ignored the terror threat as happened last time.

The top Taliban commander in Pakistan promised an assault on Washington "soon" - one he says will "amaze" the world.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Baitullah Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.

Mehsud also claimed responsibility for Monday's attack on a police academy outside the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore, saying it was in retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.

Mehsud and other Pakistani Taliban militants are believed to be based in the country's lawless areas near the border with Afghanistan, where they have stepped up their attacks throughout Pakistan.

One year ago, CBS News security correspondent Bob Orr reported that U.S. intelligence officials were increasingly concerned that Mehsud could eclipse even Osama bin Laden as a threat to America.

The U.S. recently announced a $5 million bounty on Mehsud's head. Asked about it, he told the AP he would be happy to "embrace martyrdom."

Mehsud has made voluminous threats against the West for years, as he rose to his current stature as the head of the Taliban in Pakistan, and he gave no apparent specifics in his threat on the U.S. capital on Tuesday, notes CBS News' Sami Yousafzai in Peshawar.

The attack on the police academy outside Lahore left at least seven police officers and two civilians dead on Monday.

Determining who actually carried out Monday's brazen assault on the police may prove difficult, if not impossible, in a country where numerous militant groups and tribes overlap and cooperate - both in acts of terror and claims of responsibility.

Conflicting Mehsud's claim, Pakistani intelligence officials based in Lahore told CBS News' Farhan Bokhari on Tuesday that Mehsud and the Taliban may not have been directly involved in the siege, based on ongoing interrogations of militants apprehended after the incident.

Security agents have not ruled out the possibility that militants from the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba may have carried out the attack with some support from Mehsud, but the extent of any such link remains unclear.

A Taliban source told Yousafzai on Monday, meanwhile, that a group of militants called the Fedayeen al-Islam have been trying for some time to stage high-profile hostage takings to demand the release of Taliban and other militants held by the Pakistani government.

And it could be a cyber attack. We are certainly vulnerable to such methods (read about non-Qaeda cyber threats, like Conficker).

The United States often cannot quickly or reliably trace a cyber attack back to its source, even as rival nations and extremists may be looking to wage virtual war, a top official warned Tuesday.

"It often takes weeks and sometimes months of subsequent investigation," said US intelligence director Dennis Blair, "and even at the end of very long investigations you're not quite sure" who carried out the offensive.

China, Russia and other countries already could be potent online foes and terrorists may find it easier in the future to hire hackers to target key systems, Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Terrorists are interested in using cyberweapons, just the way they're interested in using most any weapon they can use against us," notably to target systems critical to the high-tech driven US economy, he said.

"We currently assess that their capability does not match their ambitions in that area, although that's something we have to work on all the time because things become more widespread, terrorists can find hackers to work for them," he said.

The mess in Pakistan is the key to whether al Qaeda/Taliban will succeed against us:

Two high profile guerrilla attacks in Lahore in the space of a month have heightened fears of Islamist militancy engulfing Pakistan, despite U.S. promises of support for the year-old civilian government.

The assault by gunmen on a police academy in Lahore on Monday and another on the Sri Lankan cricket team in the city four weeks earlier brought home the depth of insecurity in Pakistan, while television channels carried the images worldwide.

"The government and the military are facing a crisis of credibility," said Ahmed Rashid, author of "Descent into Chaos", a book chronicling Pakistan's slide into the grip of militant religious extremists.

"There is no strategic plan or vision over how to deal with extremism and terrorism."

Nuclear-armed, and a hiding place for al Qaeda, Pakistan has become a foreign policy nightmare for the United States and other allies in the West.

U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled last Friday results of a strategy review for Pakistan and Afghanistan that made the annihilation of al Qaeda the principle objective.

A centrepiece of Obama's approach to Pakistan was the promise of billions of dollars in aid to help build state institutions, and improve the social and economic welfare to give people faith in President Asif Ali Zardari's civilian government.

The Pakistanis need all the help they can get.

"This incident definitely raises very serious questions about the capacity of our intelligence agencies and security apparatus to deal with these groups," Lahore-based security analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi said after the attack on the police academy.

60 Minutes on the Conficker Worm Threat: Transcript (3-29-09)

How serious a threat is the Conficker Worm. Or just computer hackers in general. Read the 60 Minutes transcript.

The Internet is infected. Malicious computer hackers have been creating more and more weapons that they plant on the Internet. They call their weapons viruses and worms - they're creepy, crawly toxic software that contaminate our computers without our ever knowing it. You can be infected by simply visiting your favorite Web site, or just by leaving your computer on, overnight while you're asleep.

And the problem is growing, exponentially. Last year the number of infections tripled. And an entire industry of computer security professionals is in a race to keep the hackers from their goal, which is usually to steal your money.

One of the most dangerous threats ever, a computer worm known as "Conficker," is spreading through the Internet right now. By some estimates, 10 million computers have been infected worldwide.
CNET Conficker FAQ
At Symantec, the company that makes Norton anti-virus software, engineers have been tracking Conficker since last November as it worms its way across the globe.

"This map is showing a visual representation of where all of the known infections of Conficker are across the world," explained Steve Trilling, a Symantec vice president who says the worm is now living on millions of computers, mainly in corporations.

So far, the bad guys who created it haven't triggered Conficker. It's just sitting out there like a sleeper cell.

"Imagine a network of spies that has infiltrated a country. And every day, all of the spies are calling in for their instructions on what to do next," Trilling explained.

Asked what the worm is being asked to do, Trilling told Stahl, "That's the interesting thing. The only thing the worm is being asked to do is to ask for further instructions."

For several months, Trilling says the worm has just been sitting there, awaiting instructions.

It's that ominous, because once the hackers issue instructions, Conficker could turn menacing in an instant.

With one click, the worm's creator can instruct it to suck sensitive data, like bank passwords and account numbers, out of millions of computers, or launch a massive spam attack to clog up the works.

The newest targets of worms are social networking sites. Trilling demonstrated to Stahl how it might work.

Looking at a real Facebook page, Trilling explained, "We added your friend and colleague Morley Safer, you can see down there on the left."

He says a worm can crack into a Facebook account, like Morley's, and send a message to anyone on his friends list.

It's a message a friend or colleague, like Stahl, would be sure to open since it comes from a trusted friend. Stahl took the bait and clicked on what looked like Morley's video link.

"Something looks a little off," Trilling remarked. "You're already infected."

As Trilling demonstrated on a second screen, the hacker "owned" Stahl's online movements. "From here on out, everything you do, gonna show up on the hacker's machine," he explained.

So when Stahl typed her username and password into a bank Web site, it appeared instantaneously on the hacker’s screen, along with her bank account details.

"Every single keystroke you hit, in fact, if you make a mistake and hit a backspace, that shows up in the window," Trilling explained.

The hacker then followed her around, as she browsed the Internet from CBS News to Amazon.com.

"So, if I buy something, they’re gonna have my credit card," Stahl remarked.

"Everything you type in, your address, your credit card, it’s all gonna show up in that window," Trilling warned.

- Related Link:

• FAQ: Conficker time bomb ticks, but don't expect boom