babbajoe

good luck!

see link for full story http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/14/financial/f143204S97.DTL&type=autos Cheap car from India could cost $8,000 in US By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer Thursday, January 14, 2010 (01-14) 14:45 PST DETROIT, (AP) -- The world's cheapest car is being readied for sale in the U.S., but by the time India's Tata Nano is retrofitted to meet emissions and safety standards, it won't be that cheap. Cars Tata Technologies Ltd., the global engineering arm of the Tata group conglomerate, brought the tiny car to Detroit as a publicity stunt for the engineering group. Tata officials, while maintaining that they couldn't speak for Tata Motors, maker of the $2,500 Nano, said they were involved with the Nano from concept until it launched last July in Mumbai.

Mickey Mouse goes to Haiti is a recently made documentary film where the film crew visits Haiti and interviews Haiti garment workers who are paid .17 cents an hour to sew Walt Disney Mickey Mouse pajamas that are sold for $9.99 and up in the United States. Part 1 Part 2

2 reads for the uneducated and uneducable 1st read http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/16/hansen-global-warming-cooling-nasa-gisstemp/#more-17560 Hansen wants your feedback on “If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?” Essay by four NASA scientists explains why 2005 (not 1998) was the hottest year, what caused recent cold snap, and the source of the "gullibility" of those "so readily convinced of a false conclusion, that the world is really experiencing a cooling trend" January 16, 2010 2nd read http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18383-major-antarctic-glacier-is-past-its-tipping-point.html

see link for story www.heatisonline.org C02 Levels Indicate Earth May Be Entering a New Pliocene Era Comparing Earth's current warming to the Pliocene The early Pliocene period might be the best analog for the warmer world scientists expect in the not-too-distant future. Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 8, 2010 About 4.5 million years ago, during the early Pliocene period (3 to 5 million years ago), temperatures on Earth were some 3 to 4 degrees C (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.) higher in the tropics, and perhaps 10 degrees C (18 degrees F.) warmer near the poles. To get that much warming, current climate models have to pump up atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to between 500 and 600 parts per million — about twice the preindustrial level of 280 ppm. We're currently around 387 ppm. And, given the lack of progress so far toward curbing fossil-fuel emissions, we'll be fortunate to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at 450 ppm. Scientists are therefore quite interested in what the world looked like during the early Pliocene, and why. At least in terms of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, that seems to be where we're headed. A new paper in Nature Geoscience concludes that we may, in fact, already be there. According to current climate models, with each doubling of CO2, Earth warms around 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F.). Scientists have deduced, therefore, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Pliocene must have been between 500 and 600 ppm. But according to this study, the fossil evidence doesn't support that assumption. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Pliocene, as inferred from several sources, were more likely between 365 and 415 ppm. We're already well within that range. The implications are (at least) two-fold: 1. It takes a lot less CO2 to warm Earth than previously thought. 2. Earth's climate may be more sensitive to increases in CO2 than current climate models assume. "[T]he Earth-system climate sensitivity has been significantly higher over the past five million years than estimated from fast feedbacks alone," write the authors. Antarctic ice cores allow us to directly measure earth's air going back 800,000 years. Beyond that, we have to infer atmospheric CO2 concentrations from other sources. The authors of this paper looked at isotopic signatures in organic compounds called alkenones. Alkenones are produced by phytoplankton, photosynthetic ocean-dwelling organisms with unpronounceable names like coccolithophorids and prymnesiophytes. These organisms, like all photosynthesizers, take the carbon atom from CO2 in the air, freeing the two oxygen atoms. Scientists can infer from the ratio of carbon carbon 13 to carbon 12 isotopes in their tissues — and the alkenone that remains behind in ocean sediments — what the concentration of CO2 was in the ocean's surface layers. There are some caveats with this approach, as an accompanying article points out. But temperature reconstructions from at least one other source — the ratio of boron to calcium in fossilized shells — support the basic finding: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the early Pliocene were significantly lower than previously assumed. They were just 90 to 125 ppm more than preindustrial levels of 280 ppm — in other words, about where we are now. What do these findings mean? They indicate that the Pliocene might be the best analog for the world in the not-too-distant future. They also imply that our climate models, which account for short-term feedbacks like water vapor and sea-ice formation, but don't include feedback cycles that take place on a longer time scales — receding ice sheets and vegetation changes, for example — significantly underestimate CO2's impact on Earth's climate. As models improve and scientists have more proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate at their fingertips, this seems to be a recurring theme. Last year,scientists looked at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) — a spike in temperatures that occurred about 55 million years ago. The PETM was warmer than the Pliocene, and, on average, about 7 degrees C warmer than today. Palm trees grew in Antarctica and alligators inhabited swamps above the Arctic Circle. In models, these researchers also couldn't reproduce the warmer PETM conditions by increasing just CO2. When they put in the CO2 they know existed, they got only about half the warming they know occurred. As a result, they concluded that Earth's climate was much more sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration than was commonly assumed. They faulted as-yet-unidentified positive feedbacks other than carbon dioxide for this added warmth. One of their more intriguing conjectures was the probability of a greater number of swamps in a warmer world. Swamps produce lots of methane, and methane is more than 20 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0108/Comparing-Earth-s-current-warming-to-the-Pliocene

see link for full story http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574645873735073900.html?mod=WSJASIA_hpp_LEFTTopWhatNews * JANUARY 8, 2010, 4:29 P.M. ET India Car Sales Rise 40% in December BY NIKHIL GULATI AND ANIRBAN CHOWDHURY NEW DELHI -- India's local car sales continued to post robust gains, with a 40% jump in December as the low-sales base, easier availability of loans and year-end discounts lured more customers. Sales in the past month climbed to 115,268 autos from 82,174 a year earlier, data issued Friday by local industry group, the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, showed. The growth in December follows a 61% growth in November, which was the fastest pace since February 2004. "We have recovered better than most of the economies," SIAM president Pawan Goenka said at a news conference.

The FBI will not release their photo of me to post on this forum.

I thought there could be a way for India to join together with Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afganistan, China, Sri Lanka to take advantage of their unique geography and develop a regional grid utilizing wind , solar, tidal, and hydro-electric.

http://heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=7610&method=full Europe Plans Grid for Array of Renewable Sources Sun, wind and wave-powered: Europe unites to build renewable energy 'supergrid' • North Sea countries plan vast clean energy project • €30bn scheme could offer weather-proof supply The Guardian (U.K.), Jan. 4, 2010 It would connect turbines off the wind-lashed north coast of Scotland with Germany's vast arrays of solar panels, and join the power of waves crashing on to the Belgian and Danish coasts with the hydro-electric dams nestled in Norway's fjords: Europe's first electricity grid dedicated to renewable power will become a political reality this month, as nine countries formally draw up plans to link their clean energy projects around the North Sea. The network, made up of thousands of kilometres of highly efficient undersea cables that could cost up to €30bn (£26.5bn), would solve one of the biggest criticisms faced by renewable power – that unpredictable weather means it is unreliable. With a renewables supergrid, electricity can be supplied across the continent from wherever the wind is blowing, the sun is shining or the waves are crashing. Connected to Norway's many hydro-electric power stations, it could act as a giant 30GW battery for Europe's clean energy, storing electricity when demand is low and be a major step towards a continent-wide supergrid that could link into the vast potential of solar power farms in North Africa. By autumn, the nine governments involved – Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland and the UK – hope to have a plan to begin building a high-voltage direct current network within the next decade. It will be an important step in achieving the European Union’s pledge that, by 2020, 20% of its energy will come from renewable sources. "We recognise that the North Sea has huge resources, we are exploiting those in the UK quite intensively at the moment," said the UK's energy and climate change minister, Lord Hunt. "But there are projects where it might make sense to join up with other countries, so this comes at a very good time for us." More than 100GW of offshore wind projects are under development in Europe, around 10% of the EU's electricity demand, and equivalent to about 100 large coal-fired plants. The surge in wind power means the continent's grid needs to be adapted, according to Justin Wilkes of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). An EWEA study last year outlined where these cables might be built and this is likely to be a starting point for the discussions by the nine countries. Renewable Energyis much more decentralised and is often built in inhospitable places, far from cities. A supergrid in the North Sea would enable a secure and reliable energy supply from renewables by balancing power across the continent. Norway's hydro plants – equivalent to about 30 large coal-fired power stations – could use excess power to pump water uphill, ready to let it rush down again, generating electricity, when demand is high. "The benefits of an offshore supergrid are not simply to allow offshore wind farms to connect; if you have additional capacity, which you will do within these lines, it will allow power trading between countries and that improves EU competitiveness," said Wilkes. The European Commission has also been studying proposals for a renewable-electricity grid in the North Sea. A working group in the EC's energy department, led by Georg Wilhelm Adamowitsch, will produce a plan by the end of 2010. He has warned that without additional transmission infrastructure, the EU will not be able to meet its ambitious targets. Hunt said the EC working group's findings would be fed into the nine-country grid plan. The cost of a North Sea grid has not yet been calculated, but a study by Greenpeace in 2008 put the price of building a similar grid by 2025 at €15bn-€20bn. This would provide more than 6,000km of cable around the region. The EWEA's 2009 study suggested the costs of connecting the proposed 100GW wind farms and building interconnectors, into which further wind and wave power farms could be plugged in future, would probably push the bill closer to €30bn. The technical, planning, legal and environmental issues will be discussed at the meeting of the nine this month. "The first thing we're aiming for is a common vision," said Hunt. "We will hopefully sign a memorandum of understanding in the autumn with ministers setting out what we're trying to do and how we plan to do it." All those involved also have an eye on the future, said Wilkes. "The North Sea grid would be the backbone of the future European electricity supergrid," he said. This supergrid, which has support from scientists at the commission's Institute for Energy (IE), and political backing from both the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Gordon Brown, would link huge solar farms in southern Europe – producing electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun's heat to boil water and drive turbines – with marine, geothermal and wind projects elsewhere on the continent. Scientists at the IE have estimated it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and the deserts of the Middle East to meet all Europe's energy needs. In this grid, electricity would be transmitted along high voltage direct current cables. These are more expensive than traditional alternating-current cables, but they lose less energy over long distances. Hunt agreed that the European supergrid was a long-term dream, but one worth making a reality. The UK, like other countries, faced "huge challenges with our renewables targets," he said. "The 2020 target is just the beginning and then we've got to aim for 2050 with a decarbonised electricity supply – so we need all the renewables we can get." A North Sea grid could link into grids proposed for a much larger German-led plan for renewables called the Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII). This aims to provide 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050 or earlier via power lines stretching across desert and the Mediterranean. The plan was launched last November with partners including Munich Re, the world's biggest reinsurer, and some of Germany's biggest engineering and power companies, including Siemens, E.ON, ABB and Deutsche Bank. DII is a $400bn (£240bn) plan to use concentrated solar power (CSP) in southern Europe and northern Africa. This technology uses mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a fluid container, the super-heated liquid then drives turbines to generate electricity. The technology itself is nothing new – CSP plants have been running in the United States for decades and Spain is building many – but the scale of the DII project would be its biggest deployment ever. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Adelie penguin says "thanks India" the worlds largest cause of Global Warming. We are now extinct ! http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/21/091221_audioslideshow_penguins/?xrail

Come, on we need a taxpayer funded welfare system for the military no, no , I mean serial killers. Where else can corporations get free sociopathic killers to do their bidding to rape , plunder and pillage other countries for their natural resources.Oooooops! I forgot to mention that the serial killers do get a chance to play victim thanks to reincarnation. You betcha.You will be back sparky to pay your dues. Hey, thats the way our universe works. Today's predator is tomorrow's victim. see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1542356/Professor-Ian-Stevenson.html U.S. War Spending Exceeds All State Government Outlays Written by Sherwood Ross Friday, 25 December 2009 by Sherwood Ross The U.S. spends more for war annually than all state governments combined spend for the health, education, welfare, and safety of 308 million Americans. Joseph Henchman, director of state projects for the Tax Foundation of Washington, D.C., says the states collected a total of $781 billion in taxes in 2008. For a rough comparison, according to Wikipedia data, the total budget for defense in fiscal year 2010 will be at least $880 billion and could possibly top $1 trillion. That’s more than all the state governments collect. Henchman says all American local governments combined (cities, counties, etc.) collect about $500 billion in taxes. Add that to total state tax take and you get over $1.3 trillion. This means Uncle Sam’s Pentagon is sopping up nearly as much money as all state, county, city, and other governmental units spend to run the country. If the Pentagon figure of $1 trillion is somewhat less than all other taxing authorities, keep in mind the FBI, the various intelligence agencies, the VA, the National Institutes of Health (biological warfare) are also spending on war-related activities. A question that describes the above and answers itself is: In what area can the Federal government operate where states and cities cannot tread? The answer is: foreign affairs---raising armies, fighting wars, conducting diplomacy, etc. And so Uncle Sam keeps enlarging this area. His emphasis is not on diplomacy, either. For every buck spent by the State Department, which gets some $50 billion a year, the Pentagon spends $20. As for the Peace Corps, its budget is a paltry $375 million---hardly enough to keep the Pentagon elephant in peanuts. Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz and finance authority Linda Bilmes write in their “The Three Trillion Dollar War”(W.W. Norton), “defense spending has been growing as a percentage of discretionary funding (money that is not required to be spent on entitlements like Social Security), from 48 percent in 2000 to 51 percent today. That means that our defense needs are gobbling up a larger share of taxpayers’ money than ever before.” And they add, “The Pentagon’s budget has increased by more than $600 billion, cumulatively, since we invaded Iraq.” With its 1,000 bases in the U.S. and another 800 bases globally, the U.S. truly has become a “Warfare State.” Today, military-related products account for about one-fourth of total U.S. GDP. This includes 10,000 nuclear weapons. Indeed, the U.S. has lavished $5.5 trillion just on nukes over the past 70 years. No other nation has anything remotely like this menacing global presence. The Pentagon strengthens its grip by running joint “training” exercises with the military of 110 other nations, including outright dictatorships that suppress internal unrest. The U.S. spends more on weaponry than the next dozen nations combined and is by far the No. 1 world arms peddler. “The government employs some 6,500 people just to coordinate and administer its arms sales program in conjunction with senior officials at American embassies around the world, who spend most of their ‘diplomatic’ careers working as arms salesmen,” writes Chalmers Johnson in “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire(Henry Holt).” Chalmers goes on to say the U.S. military establishment today is “close to being beyond civilian control” and that despite its ability to “deliver death and destruction to any target on earth and expect little in the way of retaliation” it demands more and newer equipment “while the Pentagon now more or less sets its own agenda” and “monopolizes the formulation and conduct of American foreign policy.” How long will it be before this tyrannical, anti-democratic, colossus that is sucking up as much money for war as all states, counties and cities spend on peace---and which straddles the globe, boosts dictators, and beats the war drums---turns on its own people? (Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations executive who formerly worked for major dailies and wire services. Contact him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

From: Climate Crisis Coalition info@climatecrisiscoalition.org Earth Equity News To Friends of CCC: Because of heightened interest in the Copenhagen U.N. conference, we are sending this edition of EE News, not just to our subscribers, but to all of our supporters as well. Special Edition Climate Crisis Coalition Thursday, December 24, 2009 Click the highlighted headlines for links to these stories. The Copenhagen Accord U.N. Conference Concludes with Grudging Accord. By Andrew C. Revkin and John M. Broder, NYTimes, December 20, 2009. "After two weeks of delays, theatrics and last-minute deal-making, the United Nations climate change talks concluded here early Saturday morning with a grudging agreement... to a pact [The Copenhagen Accord, PDF, 5 pp] shaped by five major nations... Ultimately, all but a handful of countries -- Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan and Saudi Arabia among them -- went along with the decision to accept the document...But many delegates of the 193 countries that had gathered here left Copenhagen in a sour mood, disappointed that the pact lacked so many elements they considered crucial, including firm targets for mid- or long-term reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and a deadline for concluding a binding treaty next year. Even President Obama, a principal force behind the final deal, said the accord would take only a modest step toward healing the Earth's fragile atmosphere. Many participants also said that the chaos and contentiousness of the talks may signal the end of reliance on a process that for almost two decades had been viewed as the best approach to tackling global warming: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [uNFCCC] and a series of 15 conventions following a 1992 climate summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro... "The deal worked out in Copenhagen is a political agreement forged by major emitters to curb greenhouse gases, to help developing nations build clean-energy economies and to send money flowing to cushion the effects of climate change on vulnerable states. But even if countries live up to their commitments on emissions, a stark gap remains -- measured in tens of billions of tons of projected flows of carbon dioxide -- between nations' combined pledges and what would be required to reliably avert the risks of disruptive changes in rainfall and drought, ecosystems and polar ice cover from global warming, scientists say. The chances of success substantially hinge on whether Mr. Obama can fulfill his promises to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions and raise tens of billions of dollars to help other countries deal with global warming. That in turn depends in large part on whether Congress takes action on a bill that puts a price on carbon and devotes a large part of the proceeds to foreign aid. And that is no sure thing... "[At the 11th hour,] the White House set up an evening meeting between Mr. Obama and Premier Wen Jiabao of China. It also set up a separate meeting with Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister. The approval of those was needed to seal any climate deal. Shortly before the appointed time of the meeting with Mr. Wen, Denis McDonough, the national security council chief of staff, and Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, arrived and were startled to find the Chinese prime minister already meeting with the leaders of the three other countries. They alerted Mr. Obama and he rushed down to the site of the meeting. 'Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me?' Mr. Obama called from the doorway... Despite its tense start, the meeting led to an accord that settled a number of issues, including a compromise on wording on the issue of monitoring and verification that satisfied Mr. Wen. Mr. Obama then took the proposed text to a group of European nations whose representatives grumbled but signed off." Editor's Note: With the completion of his coverage of Copenhagen, Andy Revkin has left the NYTimes as a lead reporter on climate issues. His reporting will be missed. A Deal that Outraged the Rest of the World. Commentary by George Monbiot, The Guardian (UK), December 21, 2009. "The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarized in two words: Barack Obama. The man elected to put aside childish things proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. Just as George Bush did in the approach to the Iraq war, Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal which outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation; either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown." Getting Ready for Mexico. By Daniela Astrada, IPS/Terra Viva, December 19, 2009. "Before the outcome of COP 15 has even emerged, Latin American social organizations are already discussing their strategies for the next climate summit, to be held in a year's time in Mexico. The primary challenge is to broaden and strengthen the links between the different civil society movements and networks in the region, the international coordinator of Jubilee South, Beverly Keene, told TerraViva. Jubilee South is a network of social movements and people's organizations in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia, formed in 1999 to fight for 'freedom from debt and domination' in developing countries. Keene spoke at a session of Klimaforum09 - the civil society meeting held parallel to the Dec. 7-18 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) - focused on what directions to take on the road to COP 16, in December 2010 in the Mexican capital. 'Frankly, I do not expect anything (from COP 15). We have stated very clearly that no agreement at all is better than one which only reinforces the false solutions we have been fighting,' Camila Moreno of Brazil, a member of Friends of the Earth International, told TerraViva at another Klimaforum session. Activists concur that the international movement for climate justice has grown stronger over the past year." The White House Calls the Copenhagen Accord a Major Breakthrough. Press Release, The White House, December 19, 2009. "On Friday, the President traveled to Copenhagen to meet with world leaders and for the first time in history the world's major economies have come together in agreement to accept their responsibility in confronting climate change. After extremely complex and difficult negotiations, Friday's breakthrough will lay the foundation for international action in the years to come. In the U.S., the Obama Administration plans to continue efforts to build a clean energy economy and urge Congress to deliver comprehensive energy legislation to the President's desk. The President's announcement was promptly met with strong support from a diverse group of leaders representing Congress, business and environmental organizations...

ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis Wither Sovereignty Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next? By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. For Immediate Release December 17, 2009 Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, December 16, 2009. After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly. Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes). And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed. Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece. Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.) Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.") Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers. Context: International Criminal Court The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice. We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF). 29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war. President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable. President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on. However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception. Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty. "Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony. The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches. President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer. CONCLUSIONS In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves. The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions. When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement. For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds. This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media. Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil. By Steve Schippert on December 23, 2009 3:00 AM

http://digitaljournal.com/article/284202

Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War by Rep. Ron Paul US House of Representatives - 2009-12-21 Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran. If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum. The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would Congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view it as asking for war? This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this. If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country? We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether. With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully. After all, we don’t sanction nuclear capable countries. We take diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently send money to them instead. The non-nuclear countries are the ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since US foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so. Ron Paul is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Ron Paul