Featured

Friday, October 2, 2009

Palestinians Drop Effort to Pressurize Israel at UN, For Now

0 comments

In an unexpected move late Thursday, the Palestinian Authority withdrew its backing for a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council that sought to endorse in full a report accusing Israel of war crimes.

Hours earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had warned that adoption of the report would kill the Mideast “peace process.” It would also jeopardize the war against terrorism and severely damage the U.N.’s reputation, he said.

The P.A. decision followed strong lobbying by the United States, which is trying to restart stalled Israeli-P.A. negotiations. It will likely mean that the HRC, on its last day of a month-long session in Geneva Friday, will vote on a compromise resolution that defers the matter, at least until the council next meets in March 2010.

The closing days of the current session have been dominated by the so-called Goldstone report, a 575-page document compiled by a HRC-mandated fact finding mission examining Israel’s military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip last winter.

Among its recommendations, the report says the U.N. Security Council should refer allegations of war crimes by Israel and Hamas to International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutors if the Israelis and Palestinians do not launch independent investigations into the charges within six months.

The mission head, South African judge Richard Goldstone, presented his report to the council on Tuesday. Israel, which refused to cooperate with the mission, repudiated the document, saying it had ignored Israel’s “right to self-defense” in the face of thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza over a number of years.

The U.S. led calls to have the matter handled by the HRC alone, rather than be referred to parties outside the body, including the Security Council and ICC.

It called the report “deeply flawed,” noted that Israel already has criminal inquiries underway, and said it should be encouraged to probe and address the allegations through credible domestic processes, while the Palestinians should also investigate allegations of Hamas abuses.

But the P.A., with the backing of Islamic, Arab, African and “non-aligned” member states, wanted the council to adopt a resolution endorsing the report “in full” – an outcome that would effectively have started the clock on the six month period set by Goldstone.

Late Thursday, however, Israeli media reported that the P.A. envoy to the HRC had told his Israeli counterpart that he would on Friday withdraw P.A. support for the draft resolution.


By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
CNSNEWS
Read Full Story Here....

John Thune leads Senate Republican Policy Committee to fight arms treaty.

0 comments
As the Obama administration negotiates with Russia over a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, Senate Republicans are already planning their strategy to demand maximum concessions in exchange for their potential support.



The Senate Republican Policy Committee, led by South Dakota's John Thune, shown at left, is circulating a memo (pdf) outlining the GOP strategy to deal with the "follow on" to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires December 5. According to the memo, obtained by The Cable, the Republicans have a long list of demands, some of which are unlikely to be met when the administration rolls out the new agreement.

"A treaty meeting the goals articulated in this paper is more likely to gain the two-thirds majority necessary for Senate consent," the memo explains.

The differences between administration plans and GOP demands are likely to complicate the push for ratification in the Senate, which is expected early next year.

The core strategy for the Senate Republicans will be to try to frame the nuclear reductions as a unilateral concession that President Obama is making to the Russians.

"The United States should not pay for what is free," the memo states. "Russia's nuclear numbers will decline dramatically in the coming years with or without an arms control treaty. The United States should not make important concessions in return for something that will happen in any event."

Republicans will also call on Obama to justify the arms reductions in the context of American security interests, not simply U.S.-Russia relations.

"Russia needs this agreement far more than the U.S. does. It is desperately trying to lock the U.S. into lower nuclear levels, not the other way around."

GOP senators such as minority whip Jon Kyl, R-AZ, have been accusing Obama of rushing to get an agreement, a theme the strategy memo says will continue as Republicans argue that an extension of the old terms is preferable to a bad treaty.

Specifically, the memo sets three basic conditions for Republican support.

First, the new treaty should not constrain U.S. missile defenses, the GOP senators argue, nor should it impinge upon the military's plans to develop what's called "global strike" capabilities -- the ability to attack any target in the world at any time.

In a previous interview with The Cable, a senior administration official said there would be no specific treaty language on missile defense, but that some verification of conventional systems such as those used in global strike might be covered in the final version.

Secondly, Republicans are demanding the administration submit a modernization plan for the nation's nuclear stockpile at the same time as the treaty. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher has said that such a plan will be submitted in next year's budget but will not include the Bush administration's proposal for building a new type of nuclear weapon, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

The third condition, the one the administration won't be able to deliver to Republicans, is their call for Russian tactical nuclear weapons to be covered in the new treaty. The senior official had said that would not be part of these negotiations, but could be covered in the next treaty, what insiders are calling "the follow on to the follow on."

The administration's negotiating team, led by Rose Gottemoeller, the assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation, has been traveling back and forth to Geneva to negotiate terms with the Russians.

And Tauscher is testifying today to the House Armed Services Committee on the administration's recent decision to alter missile-defense plans in Europe, a decision she maintains was also not a concession to Russia.

"Nothing that we did had anything to do with Russian saber-rattling or their consternation about the ground-based interceptors or the Czech radar. The decision was not part of any trade-off or quid pro quo," Tauscher said, adding, "If, as a consequence of President Obama's decision, relations with Russia improve, then we should embrace that benefit."

Source: The Cable

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Immigration Crackdown With Firings, Not Raids

0 comments
LOS ANGELES — A clothing maker with a vast garment factory in downtown Los Angeles is firing about 1,800 immigrant employees in the coming days — more than a quarter of its work force — after a federal investigation turned up irregularities in the identity documents the workers presented when they were hired.

The firings at the company, American Apparel, have become a showcase for the Obama administration’s effort to reduce illegal immigration by forcing employers to dismiss unauthorized workers rather than by using workplace raids. The firings, however, have divided opinion in California over the effects of the new approach, especially at a time of high joblessness in the state and with a major, well-regarded employer as a target.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, called the dismissals “devastating,” and his office has insisted that the federal government should focus on employers that exploit their workers. American Apparel has been lauded by city officials and business leaders for paying well above the garment industry standard, offering health benefits and not long ago giving $18 million in stock to its workers.

But opponents of illegal immigration, including Representative Brian P. Bilbray, a Republican from San Diego who is chairman of a House caucus that opposes efforts to extend legal status to illegal immigrants, back the enforcement effort. They say American Apparel is typical of many companies that, in Mr. Bilbray’s words, have “become addicted to illegal labor.”

“Of course it’s a good idea,” Mr. Bilbray said of the crackdown. “They seem to think that somehow the law doesn’t matter, that crossing the line from legal to illegal is not a big deal.”

In July, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, opened audits of employment records similar to the one at American Apparel at 654 companies around the country. John T. Morton, who, as assistant secretary of homeland security, runs ICE, said the audits covered all types of employers with immigrant workers, including many like American Apparel that were not shadowy sweatshops or serial violators of labor codes.

The investigation at American Apparel was started 17 months ago, under President George W. Bush. Obama administration officials point out that they have not followed the Bush pattern of concluding such investigations with a mass roundup of workers. Those raids drew criticism for damaging businesses and dividing immigrant families.

Immigration officials said they would now focus on employers, primarily wielding the threat of civil complaints and fines, instead of raids and worker deportation.

“Now all manner of companies face the very real possibility that the government, using our basic civil powers, is going to come knocking on the door,” Mr. Morton said.

The goal, he said, is to create “a truly national deterrent” to hiring unauthorized labor that would “change the practices of American employers as a class.”

The employees being fired from American Apparel could not resolve discrepancies that investigators discovered in documents they had presented at hiring and in federal Social Security or immigration records — probably because the documents were fake. Peter Schey, a lawyer for American Apparel, said that ICE had cited deficiencies in the company’s record keeping, but that the authorities had not accused it of knowingly hiring illegal workers. A fine threatened by the agency was withdrawn, Mr. Schey said.

After months of discussions with ICE officials, the company moved on its own to terminate the workers because, Mr. Schey said, federal guidelines for such cases were “in a shambles.” The Bush administration proposed rules for employers to follow when workers’ documents did not match, but a federal court halted the effort and the Obama administration decided to abandon it.

With its bright-pink, seven-story sewing plant in the center of Los Angeles, American Apparel is one of the biggest manufacturing employers in the city, and makes a selling point of the “Made in U.S.A.” labels in its racy T-shirts and miniskirts. Dov Charney, the company’s chief executive, has campaigned, in T-shirt logos and eye-catching advertisements, to “legalize L.A.,” by granting legal status to illegal immigrants, a policy President Obama supports.

Since the audit began, Mr. Charney has treaded carefully, eager to show that his publicly traded company is obeying the law, and to reassure investors that the loss of so many workers will not damage the business, since production has slowed already with the recession.

But Mr. Charney is also questioning why federal authorities made a target of his company. Over the summer he joined his workers in a street protest against the firings. Because the immigration investigation is still under way, Mr. Charney declined to be interviewed for this article but did respond in an e-mail message.

The firings “will not help the economy, will not make us safer,” he said.

“No matter how we choose to define or label them,” he said, illegal immigrants “are hard-working, taxpaying workers.”

On a recent visit to American Apparel’s factory floors here, amid the whirring of sewing machines and the whooshing of cooling fans, a murmur of many languages rose: mostly Spanish, but also Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Portuguese. Masseurs were offering 20-minute massages for sewers in need of a break.

But there was also a mood of mourning, as work was interrupted with farewell parties. The majority of workers losing their jobs are women, most of whom are working to support families. Many departing workers have been with the company for a decade or more.

Executives said many workers had learned skills specific to a proprietary production system that allows American Apparel to make 250,000 garments a week in Los Angeles, while keeping prices competitive with imports from places like China.

Some workers who are leaving said the company had been a close-knit community for them. Jesús, 30, originally from Puebla, Mexico, said he was hired 10 years ago as a sewing machine operator, then worked and studied his way up to an office job as coordinating manager.

“I learned how to think here,” said Jesús, who would not reveal his last name because of his illegal status.

The company provides health and life insurance, he said, and he earns about $900 a week, with taxes deducted from his paycheck.

Like many others, Jesús said his next move was to hunt for work in Los Angeles. He will not return to Mexico, he said, because he is gay and fears discrimination.

“There they treat you and judge you without even knowing you,” Jesús said.

He said several job offers from mainstream garment makers in this country had been withdrawn once he was asked for documents.

“Being realistic,” he said, “I guess I’m going to have to go to one of those sweatshop companies where I’m going to get paid under the table.”

ICE has made no arrests so far at the factory. But Mr. Morton of ICE said the agency would not rule out pursuing workers proven to be illegal immigrants.

Mr. Schey said company human resources managers had added new scrutiny to hiring procedures. But workers facing dismissal pointed to the line of job applicants outside the factory one recent day, who, like many of them, were almost all Spanish-speaking immigrants.

“I think the Americans think that garment sewing is demeaning work,” said Francisco, 38, a Guatemalan with nine years at the plant who is being forced to leave.

A top supervisor, he is training new employees to replace him.



Source: NY Times

White House to exempt Canada on "Buy American": report

0 comments

TORONTO (Reuters) - The White House is expected to exempt Canada from a provision in the U.S. stimulus package that gives priority to American-made products used in public works projects, CBC News reported on Tuesday.

In return Ottawa will offer U.S. companies guaranteed access to procurement contracts awarded by provincial and municipal governments, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp reported on its website, citing Canadian government sources.

The so-called "Buy American" provision, which favors U.S.-made steel, iron and other manufactured goods in taxpayer-funded building projects, has proved a sore spot in relations between the two countries for months.

Canadian companies have complained the provision is protectionist and shuts them out from large U.S. contracts.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed the issue with U.S. President Barack Obama during a visit to Washington last week. Obama used the occasion to declare there was no prospect of a trade war between Canada and its largest trading partner, the United States.

(Reporting by Frank McGurty, editing by Chris Wilson)
Source: Reuters

Senators Reject Pair of Public Option Proposals

0 comments


The votes, in the Senate Finance Committee, underscored divisions among Democrats and were a setback for President Obama, who has endorsed the public plan as a way to “keep insurance companies honest.”

The first proposal, by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, was rejected 15 to 8, as five Democrats joined all Republicans on the panel in voting no. The second proposal, by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was defeated 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting no.

The votes vindicated the middle-of-the-road approach taken by the committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. Mr. Baucus voted against both proposals, which were offered as amendments to his bill to expand coverage and rein in health costs.
“There’s a lot to like about a public option,” Mr. Baucus said, but he asserted that the idea could not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster on the Senate floor.

Proponents of a public plan said it was needed to compete with private insurers, and they said consumers would benefit from the competition, getting lower prices and better benefits.

Republicans on the committee unanimously opposed the public option, saying it was, in the words of Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, “a Trojan horse for a single-payer system” in which the government would eventually control most health care.

Mr. Obama has said he wants a public plan, but he has not always insisted on it, and the administration has sent mixed signals about how important it is. In the debate on Tuesday, few senators mentioned the president’s preferences, although several noted that many House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, supported the public option.

House Democratic leaders met for several hours on Tuesday to continue the dicey work of melding bills from three committees into a consensus package that could win a House majority.

Mr. Schumer said the public option would hold down costs because it would not have to generate profits, answer to shareholders or incur marketing expenses. His proposal would have required the public plan to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than setting prices based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Under Mr. Rockefeller’s plan, the payment of doctors and hospitals would have been based on Medicare rates for the first two years.

Mr. Rockefeller said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that a government insurance plan could slice $50 billion from the cost of Mr. Baucus’s bill, originally put at $774 billion over 10 years. The budget office predicted that eight million people would initially enroll in the public plan — about one-third of those who would seek coverage through new markets, or insurance exchanges.

“The public plan will be optional,” Mr. Rockefeller insisted. “It will be voluntary. It will be affordable to people who are now helpless before their insurance companies.”
But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the committee, said a government insurance plan would have inherent advantages over private insurers.
“Government is not a fair competitor,” Mr. Grassley said. “It’s a predator.” He predicted that “a government plan will ultimately force private insurers out of business,” reducing choices for consumers.

Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, said he feared that a government plan would prove so popular it could never be uprooted. “Does anybody believe Congress would let this public plan go away once it has a constituency?” Mr. Ensign asked. “No way. Once it’s started, you will never get rid of it. Congress will subsidize it more and more, allow it to grow and grow.”

Besides Mr. Baucus, two Democrats, Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, voted against both public option proposals. Two other Democrats, Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Bill Nelson of Florida, voted against the first amendment, but supported the second.

Mr. Carper said he liked Mr. Schumer’s proposal because it “would establish a level playing field” for competition between private insurers and the government plan.

The votes on Tuesday set the stage for a compromise under which the public plan could be offered in states where people could not find affordable private coverage, Mr. Carper said. He and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, have proposed such a compromise.
Democrats hope Ms. Snowe will eventually break with her party and support the legislation.
In the House, the Democratic leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, echoed Mr. Schumer’s argument that the Finance Committee was the least friendly of the forums that would consider a public option.

“The Senate floor may be better, and the conference even better,” Mr. Hoyer said, looking ahead to negotiations where differences between the two chambers might be resolved.

Senator Lincoln, who faces an increasingly competitive race for re-election next year, said she supported efforts to cover the uninsured and to protect consumers by imposing strict new federal rules on insurance companies. But she said Congress could achieve those goals “without creating a purely public new government program, which most Arkansans do not support.”

Mr. Baucus’s bill does not include a public plan, but would set up nonprofit insurance cooperatives as an alternative to private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has suggested that the cooperatives would have little effect on federal costs.

Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Schumer were undaunted. “We will keep fighting so the bill that lands on the president’s desk has a good, strong, robust public option,” Mr. Schumer said.

By ROBERT PEAR and JACKIE CALMES

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Public plan debate could pit Democrat vs. Democrat

0 comments

"We need this option because the insurance companies have failed to meet their obligation" to the public, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., accusing firms of putting profits over their customers.

He said that without his proposal, consumers would face substantial premium increases once health care legislation takes effect.
Republicans countered that private companies would eventually be forced out of business, and argued that millions would be forced to get their insurance from the government.
"Washington is not the answer," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Rockfeller's proposal, and a second one drafted by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., faced uncertain prospects as the committee debated legislation that generally fell along lines outlined by President Barack Obama.
While Democrats hold a majority on the committee, the legislation advanced by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., omitted the so-called public option. Moderate Democrats on and off the committee oppose it, and Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the Republican seen as most likely to support the bill, has also spoken against it.
Under Rockefeller's proposal, payments to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers would be based on Medicare fees. Schumer's proposal called for negotiations to set the rates.
Baucus hopes to finish work on the bill by week's end. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would then combine the measure with one completed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee this past summer.
Two liberal groups are launching a hard-hitting television and Internet ad targeting Baucus that features a young father from Montana. Bing Perrine, 26, in need of a heart operation, uninsured and deeply in debt, looks straight into the camera and asks Baucus, "Whose side are you on?"
The ad is sponsored by Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who say Baucus is too cozy with insurance and health care interests that have contributed to his campaigns and oppose the public option.
"The public option is the only true way we can keep it fair," Perrine said in an interview. The insurance industry says it couldn't compete with the price-setting power of government.
Baucus aide Tyler Matsdorf said the ad falsely implies that Baucus doesn't care about the plight of people with pre-existing health problems. It's just that Baucus would address such problems in a different way from what the liberals want, Matsdorf said.
For example, the Baucus plan would bar private insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing health problems and create nonprofit co-ops to compete with the industry. Matsdorf said that would achieve the same result public plan supporters are seeking and "prevent (Perrine's) situation from ever happening again."
Such arguments don't seem to be convincing liberals. Another group, Health Care for America Now, is circulating a Sept. 23 letter to Baucus from local Democratic Party leaders in Montana, which is raising more questions from the left about the senator's position on the public plan. The letter summarizes an August telephone call between Baucus and the Democratic leaders, and quotes the senator as saying, "I want a public option, too."
"We need you to say the same thing in Washington," the local Democrats wrote.
Matsdorf responded that the senator included a government option in his original health care blueprint issued last November. Since then, Baucus has realized that a public plan doesn't have enough support to clear the Senate. "Health care reform isn't just about what Senator Baucus wants," said Matsdorf. "It is about crafting a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate."
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP)
Source: AP

A nuclear debate: Is Iran designing warheads?

0 comments


WASHINGTON - When President Obama stood last week with the leaders of Britain and France to denounce Iran’s construction of a secret nuclear plant, the Western powers all appeared to be on the same page.
Behind their show of unity about Iran’s clandestine efforts to manufacture nuclear fuel, however, is a continuing debate among American, European and Israeli spies about a separate component of Iran’s nuclear program: its clandestine efforts to design a nuclear warhead.
The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike, say they believe that Iran has restarted these “weaponization” efforts, which would mark a final step in building a nuclear weapon. The Germans say they believe that the weapons work was never halted. The French have strongly suggested that independent international inspectors have more information about the weapons work than they have made public.


Meanwhile, in closed-door discussions, American spy agencies have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort — a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.
The debate, in essence, is a mirror image of the intelligence dispute on the eve of the Iraq war.
This time, United States spy agencies are delivering more cautious assessments about Iran’s clandestine programs than their Western European counterparts.
The differing views color how each country perceives the imminence of the Iranian threat and how to deal with it in the coming months, including this week’s negotiations in Geneva — the first direct talks between the United States and Iran in nearly 30 years.
In the case of the plant outside Qum, designed for uranium enrichment, some nuclear experts speculate that it is only part of something larger. But a senior American official with access to intelligence about it said he believed the secret plant was itself “the big one,” but cautioned that “it’s a big country.”
This distinction has huge political consequences. If Mr. Obama can convince Israel that the exposure of the Qum plant has dealt a significant setback to the Iranian effort, he may buy some time from the Israelis.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified intelligence assessments.
Uranium enrichment — the process of turning raw uranium into reactor or bomb fuel — is only one part of building a nuclear weapon, though it is the most difficult step. The two remaining steps are designing and building a warhead, and building a reliable delivery system, like a ballistic missile.
American officials said that Iran halted warhead design efforts in 2003, a conclusion they reached after penetrating Iran’s computer networks and gaining access to internal government communications. This judgment became the cornerstone of the 2007 intelligence report, which drew sharp criticism from Europe and Israel, and remains the subject of intense debate.
Disagreeing with the Americans, Israeli intelligence officials say they believe that Iran restarted weapons design work in 2005 on the orders of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader. The Americans counter that the Israeli case is flimsy and circumstantial, and that the Israelis cannot document their claim.

Read Full Story
The New York Times

Obama Song Videotaped Without Authorization, N.J. School Official Says

0 comments

A song about President Obama that was performed by a group of young New Jersey students and has led to charges of indoctrination was videotaped and posted on the Internet without authorization, a district officials told parents.



A song about President Obama that was performed by a group of young New Jersey students and has led to charges of indoctrination was videotaped and posted on the Internet without authorization, a district official told parents.
The performance and the videotaping at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., have sparked a review by school officials, according to a letter to parents from Christopher Manno, Burlington Township's superintendent of schools.
"We are carefully evaluating what occurred and will implement any additional needed procedures to prevent children's images in school from being publicly posted without permission," Manno wrote on Friday. "We will also provide reasonable direction and guidelines so that classroom activities will not give the appearance of promoting a particular political perspective."
Manno said the Obama song was originally part of an eight-skit assembly program performed on Feb. 27 that marked Black History Month, as well as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln's birthdays, Groundhog Day, the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Mardi Gras and Dental Health Month.
"We have been informed that the lyrics of the song were sent home with the children in advance of the assembly, which was the teacher's normal procedure," Manno wrote in his letter. "There were no concerns or complaints to, during, or after the program."
The performance was reprised and videotaped on March 23 when an author who had written a book about Obama visited the school as part of its Women's History Month program, Manno said.
"We were informed by a representative of the author that one of the individuals who accompanied the author video recorded the performance," Manno wrote. "School staff had no knowledge of the recording."
Manno declined to identify the author; conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has said the video -- titled "School Kids Taught To Praise Obama" -- was listed to a YouTube account belonging to author Charisse Carney-Nunes.
Carney-Nunes' did not return numerous calls and e-mails from FOXNews.com requesting comment.
Manno, who has not returned several messages, said the video was posted on the author's Web site "without district approval or knowledge," adding that a third party apparently copied the video from the author's Web site and posted it on YouTube.
There have been no incidents at the school, Manno said, but security has been heightened and media crews have been barred from the grounds.
The commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Education ordered a review on Friday following the posting of the video.
In a statement to FOXNews.com, Education Department spokeswoman Beth Auerswald said Commissioner Lucille Davy had directed Manno to review the matter. Auerswald said Davy wanted to ensure that students can celebrate Black History Month without "inappropriate partisan politics in the classroom."
"In addition, it is our understanding the teacher in question retired at the end of the last school year," the statement continued.
Auerswald declined on Friday to indicate exactly what the review would entail or its possible ramifications. Spokeswoman Kathryn Forsyth told FOXNews.com on Monday that the review had begun but declined further comment.
Video of the students' performance shows them singing songs overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again."
One song that the children were taught directly quotes from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
The video has sparked outrage among some families in the Philadelphia suburb, saying they were horrified that their children were being "indoctrinated" to view the president as a cult figure.
"I'm stunned -- I can't believe it's our school," said Jim Pronchik, who told FOXNews.com his 8-year-old son Jimmy was one of the 18 students in the video. "We don't want to praise this guy like he's a god or an idol or a king or anything like that. That's the wrong message to be sending."
Attempts to reach Elvira James -- the teacher of the class, who has retired on a full pension -- were unsuccessful.

Fox News

Iran says advanced missiles can target any threat

0 comments

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran tested its longest-range missiles Monday and warned they can reach any place that threatens the country, including Israel, parts of Europe and U.S. military bases in the Mideast. The launch capped two days of war games and was condemned as a provocation by Western powers, which are demanding Tehran come clean about a newly revealed nuclear facility it has been secretly building.
The tests Sunday and again Monday added urgency to a key meeting this week between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany - an international front seeking clear answers about the direction of its nuclear program.

Iran's missile program and its nuclear work - much of it carried out in secrecy - have long been a concern for the United States, Israel and its Western allies. They fear Tehran is intent on developing an atomic weapons capability and the missiles to deploy such warheads, despite Iran's assurances it is only pursuing civilian nuclear power.
In the latest exercise, the powerful Revolutionary Guard, which controls Iran's missile program, successfully tested upgraded versions of Iran's medium-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles, state television reported. Both can carry warheads and reach up to 1,200 miles, putting Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East and parts of Europe within striking distance.
The launchings were meant to display Iran's military might and demonstrate its readiness to respond to any military threat.
"Iranian missiles are able to target any place that threatens Iran," said Abdollah Araqi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.
Iran conducted three rounds of missile tests in drills that began Sunday, two days after the U.S. and its allies disclosed the country had been secretly developing an underground uranium enrichment facility. The Western powers warned Iran must open the site to international inspection or face harsher international sanctions.
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hasan Qashqavi, maintained the missile tests had nothing to do with the tension over the site, saying they were part of routine, long-planned military exercises.
That assertion was rejected by the United States and its European allies.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the tests "provocative in nature," adding: "Obviously, these were pre-planned military exercises."
French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Christine Fages agreed, saying "these tests constitute a provocation, even as we have multiplied our offers of dialogue with Iran."
The latest controversy comes days before a critical meeting Thursday in Geneva between Iran and six major powers trying to stop its suspected nuclear weapons program - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
The prospect of more U.N. sanctions on Iran is a possibility, targeting specific people and facilities. "We're prepared to take additional steps," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters in Washington.
Iran's new nuclear site is located in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom and is believed to be inside a heavily guarded, underground facility belonging to the Revolutionary Guard, according to a document sent by President Barack Obama's administration to lawmakers.
Experts say they have found sites that appear to be military north of Qom, although there has been no confirmation from the U.S. government and Iran says the nuclear facility is south of the holy city.
A satellite image provided by DigitalGlobe and GeoEye shows a well-fortified facility built into a mountain about 20 miles northeast of Qom, with ventilation shafts and a nearby surface-to-air missile site, according to defense consultancy IHS Jane's, which did the analysis of the imagery. The image was taken in September.
However, Iran's Foreign Ministry has given a different location, saying Monday it was near the village of Fordo, which is about 30 miles south of Qom.
GlobalSecurity.org analyzed images from 2005 and January 2009 when the site was in an earlier phase of construction and believes the facility is not underground but was instead cut into a mountain. It is constructed of heavily reinforced concrete and is about the size of a football field - large enough to house 3,000 centrifuges used to refine uranium.
Allison Puccioni, a senior imagery analyst with Jane's, said Monday she could not reconcile the discrepancy between the location detailed in the satellite images and the site described by Iran's foreign ministry. But she said there was no question a massive facility was being hollowed out north of Qom.
"It's undergoing massive construction as we speak. The level of reinforcement and security is highly consistent with a strategic facility," she said in a telephone interview from Mountainview, Calif.
After strong condemnations from the U.S. and its allies, Iran said Saturday it would allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine the site.
The facility's military connection could undermine Iran's contention that the plant was designed for civilian purposes.
Israel has trumpeted the latest discoveries as proof of its long-held assertion that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. By U.S. estimates, Iran is one to five years away from having nuclear weapons capability, although U.S. intelligence also believes that Iranian leaders have not yet made the decision to build a weapon.
Iran is also developing ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead, although a U.S. intelligence assessment in May says the country is focusing efforts on short- and medium-range missiles like the Shahab.
That assessment paved the way for Obama's decision to shelve the Bush administration's plan for a missile shield in Europe, which was aimed at defending against Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Iran is not expected to have such a missile until 2015 to 2020, according to the report, which was described by a U.S. government official on condition of anonymity because it is classified.
The Sajjil-2 missile is Iran's most advanced two-stage surface-to-surface missile and is powered entirely by solid-fuel, while the older Shahab-3 uses a combination of solid and liquid fuel in its most advanced form, known as the Qadr-F1.
Solid fuel increases a missile's accuracy in reaching targets and is seen as a technological breakthrough for any missile program.
Experts say the Sajjil-2 is more accurate and has a more advanced navigation system than the Shahab.



By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
My Way AP News

Barack Obama risks prestige for Chicago Olympic bid

0 comments





President Barack Obama has decided it’s time to leverage his international popularity to try to bring home a global goodie: the 2016 Olympics for his hometown of Chicago.

But now that he’s traveling to Copenhagen personally to make the pitch Friday, some experts say he better not come home empty-handed.

The White House knows that the decision to go before the International Olympic Committee is fraught with political risk: The president could be embarrassed on a world stage if he doesn’t land the games.

Plus, more than a few Americans are surely scratching their heads — with his inbox crowded with a troop request for Afghanistan, a new secret nuclear site in Iran, sky-high unemployment and a health care bill in Congress, does the president really have time for this?

Former Vice President Al Gore staffer Chris Lehane said the expectations will be high for Obama’s trip: “If they don’t come back with the gold, clearly there will be the same questions that American basketball would get if they don’t come back with the gold — they are expected to win.”

Obama — flying overnight Thursday to appear before the IOC on Friday — would be the first American president to make the pitch in person — but he won’t be alone. The leaders of the three rivals — Brazil, Spain and Japan — will also be there.

So the White House decided to go all in — calculating that Obama could also get blamed if he didn’t make the trip and Chicago’s bid fell short.

“You’re darned if you do, and you’re darned if you don’t,” said first lady Michelle Obama in a briefing with reporters Monday. “I’d rather be on the side of doing it, and I think that’s how the president feels. This is not one of those where you worry about what happens if not.”




The first lady, who will accompany her husband on the trip, said the opportunity was too good to pass up. “No matter what the outcome is, we’ll feel as a country, as a team, that we’ve done everything that we can to bring it home,” she said.

But Olympic bids are hardly a win-win for the politician involved. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg took heat for pushing that city’s 2012 bid so aggressively because it looked to some like one rich guy helping out another rich guy, New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, who would have benefited from the Olympics development, said Doug Muzzio of Baruch College in New York.

Like Bloomberg, Obama is raising the stakes by investing the president’s most precious resource — his time.

“Clearly you stake your prestige, a little bit of your prestige and your political capital on this, and if you don’t get it, you’ve lost that political capital,” Muzzio said.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs had signaled two week ago that Obama probably wouldn’t make the trip, because of his crowded calendar, including the health care debate. But on Monday, Gibbs said the president thought health care was going better now and he was free to go.


Read Full Story
 

American Defense Initiative Design by Insight © 2009