<![CDATA[NCAAbbs - All Forums]]> http://ncaabbs.com/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:06:59 -0600 MyBB <![CDATA[Will Khalid Sheik Mohammed trail make it to court?]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401448 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:06:18 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401448
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.

If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning.

You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights.

Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?

Forget the fact that his confession was coerced, they have already said he was water-boarded.

Let's cut to the heart of what his defense attorney's will likely go after... did the US Authorities follow international law with respect to extradition when taking KSM out of his country? Answer NO, he was taken as a hostile combatant in a military conflict and treated as a P.O.W. Because of this he should be returned to his country and turned over to that nation's police until proper extradition proceedings have been followed.

I could see that playing out in courts and the likely result being he gets to go home, and maybe never brought back.]]>
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.

If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning.

You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights.

Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?

Forget the fact that his confession was coerced, they have already said he was water-boarded.

Let's cut to the heart of what his defense attorney's will likely go after... did the US Authorities follow international law with respect to extradition when taking KSM out of his country? Answer NO, he was taken as a hostile combatant in a military conflict and treated as a P.O.W. Because of this he should be returned to his country and turned over to that nation's police until proper extradition proceedings have been followed.

I could see that playing out in courts and the likely result being he gets to go home, and maybe never brought back.]]> <![CDATA[Men's hoops to soar in November?]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401447 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:00:43 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401447
The only difficult opponents are Oakland and Missouri State. Missouri State is tough and also a road game after the 3 games this weekend.

That game could be brutal.

EMU should be a solid favorite in all of the rest.

Heaven knows this would be a god send for this program.]]>
The only difficult opponents are Oakland and Missouri State. Missouri State is tough and also a road game after the 3 games this weekend.

That game could be brutal.

EMU should be a solid favorite in all of the rest.

Heaven knows this would be a god send for this program.]]> <![CDATA[Angry Congress lashes out at Obama]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401446 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:56:57 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401446

Angry Congress lashes out at Obama
ECONOMIC WOES TAKING A TOLL
House Republicans call on Geithner to resign

By Brady Dennis, Zachary A. Goldfarb and Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 20, 2009

Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.

Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.

"Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). "For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?"
ad_icon

Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. "I don't think that you should be fired," he told Geithner. "I thought you should have never been hired."

Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a friend of the administration, suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China's practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.

And Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he thinks Geithner should step down, pointing to his handling of the aftermath of American International Group's meltdown.

Across Capitol Hill, senators signaled their opposition to rushing regulatory reform. While some Democrats voiced reservations about parts of the bill, Republicans went further, faulting Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) for pushing ahead before the roots of the crisis were understood.

Perhaps most troubling for the administration was that one of the few measures to succeed Thursday was an amendment by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) that would subject the Federal Reserve to unprecedented scrutiny. The amendment, which won bipartisan support in the House Financial Services Committee despite the reservations of administration officials, would allow the Government Accountability Office to audit all of the Fed's operations, including its decisions on interest rates and its transactions with foreign central banks.

Paul and allies in both parties -- more than 300 members of Congress have endorsed the measure -- are looking to increase oversight of an institution they consider partly to blame for the financial crisis. Federal officials and many private economists worry that the amendment could make future central bank policymakers reluctant to take unpopular steps to prevent inflation or support the economy for fear of second-guessing by Congress and government auditors.

The House committee had been set to vote to send the final piece of its regulatory reform package to the House floor after months of debate. That is, until the committee's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), told a shocked committee room that passage of the bill would be delayed until Dec. 1 because the Congressional Black Caucus wanted the administration to do more to help African American communities suffering in the economic decline.

Frank told committee members that black lawmakers were "frustrated by the response to the economic situation by the administration." He said the caucus had no issues with the legislation itself. "They want obviously to continue to have some bargaining power with the administration," he said after the hearing.

The caucus itself did not publicly detail its concerns Thursday, but one member, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), issued a statement: "The recession has created a unique systemic risk that threatens all parts of the African-American community, including the poor and the middle class."

The caucus began discussing its concerns with Frank and the administration several weeks ago. Frank hosted a meeting Monday night between caucus members, Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

"You're talking about people whose constituents have been badly hammered by this," Frank said. "Given the nature of this recession, there needs to be some more conversations."

Frank said the caucus had concerns about whether minorities were being fairly represented in helping carry out Treasury's bailout programs and other federal efforts to resolve the financial crisis. The government has contracted out much of the work to Wall Street firms.

Congressional aides said the caucus's concerns are similar to those of the Democratic Party's liberal wing. Caucus members are pushing for legislation that would directly lead to new jobs by providing tax benefits, for example, that would provide incentives for home renovations and funding for new infrastructure projects. They also want to extend health-care and unemployment benefits.

Meanwhile, Geithner was taking a beating as he urged Congress to pass regulatory reform as quickly as possible, arguing that delay would create uncertainty for businesses across the country. Lawmakers sharply criticized him for his role in the crisis during the tense Joint Economic Committee meeting. They were particularly critical of his involvement in the decision, as president of the New York Fed, to bail out AIG.

But Geithner pressed forward: "To ensure the vitality, the strength and the stability of our economy going forward, we must bring our system of financial regulation into the 21st century. Nobody in my job should ever be in the position again of having to come into a crisis like this without those basic authorities."

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, chose the marbled Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building -- site of past hearings on Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Wall Street abuses during the Great Depression -- to open debate on a massive draft bill designed to achieve the most ambitious reworking of the financial system in decades.

"This is one of those moments in our nation's history that compels us to be bold," Dodd said.

But soon, ranking committee Republican Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) took the floor, and for 18 uninterrupted minutes he opined that nearly every element of Dodd's bill was misinformed, uninformed, unnecessarily rushed or just plain flawed. "This committee has not done the necessary work to even begin discussing changes of this magnitude. Nevertheless, you have laid a bill before the committee," Shelby said. "I will be opposing this legislation. Not because we disagree on its ends, but rather on its means."

Shelby said Dodd was wrong not to conduct an investigation into the causes of the recent financial crisis before pushing forward with legislation. He said rather than ending the problem of institutions that are "too big to fail," the current bill expands the government's ability to bail out big banks. Shelby apologized for the length of his critique, expressed his hope that the two men might "yet find some common ground," and yielded the floor.

"Well," Dodd said in the morning's only moment of levity, "I thank you for the endorsement."

Staff writer David Cho contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...9111903338]]>

Angry Congress lashes out at Obama
ECONOMIC WOES TAKING A TOLL
House Republicans call on Geithner to resign

By Brady Dennis, Zachary A. Goldfarb and Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 20, 2009

Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.

Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.

"Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). "For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?"
ad_icon

Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. "I don't think that you should be fired," he told Geithner. "I thought you should have never been hired."

Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a friend of the administration, suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China's practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.

And Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he thinks Geithner should step down, pointing to his handling of the aftermath of American International Group's meltdown.

Across Capitol Hill, senators signaled their opposition to rushing regulatory reform. While some Democrats voiced reservations about parts of the bill, Republicans went further, faulting Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) for pushing ahead before the roots of the crisis were understood.

Perhaps most troubling for the administration was that one of the few measures to succeed Thursday was an amendment by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) that would subject the Federal Reserve to unprecedented scrutiny. The amendment, which won bipartisan support in the House Financial Services Committee despite the reservations of administration officials, would allow the Government Accountability Office to audit all of the Fed's operations, including its decisions on interest rates and its transactions with foreign central banks.

Paul and allies in both parties -- more than 300 members of Congress have endorsed the measure -- are looking to increase oversight of an institution they consider partly to blame for the financial crisis. Federal officials and many private economists worry that the amendment could make future central bank policymakers reluctant to take unpopular steps to prevent inflation or support the economy for fear of second-guessing by Congress and government auditors.

The House committee had been set to vote to send the final piece of its regulatory reform package to the House floor after months of debate. That is, until the committee's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), told a shocked committee room that passage of the bill would be delayed until Dec. 1 because the Congressional Black Caucus wanted the administration to do more to help African American communities suffering in the economic decline.

Frank told committee members that black lawmakers were "frustrated by the response to the economic situation by the administration." He said the caucus had no issues with the legislation itself. "They want obviously to continue to have some bargaining power with the administration," he said after the hearing.

The caucus itself did not publicly detail its concerns Thursday, but one member, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), issued a statement: "The recession has created a unique systemic risk that threatens all parts of the African-American community, including the poor and the middle class."

The caucus began discussing its concerns with Frank and the administration several weeks ago. Frank hosted a meeting Monday night between caucus members, Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

"You're talking about people whose constituents have been badly hammered by this," Frank said. "Given the nature of this recession, there needs to be some more conversations."

Frank said the caucus had concerns about whether minorities were being fairly represented in helping carry out Treasury's bailout programs and other federal efforts to resolve the financial crisis. The government has contracted out much of the work to Wall Street firms.

Congressional aides said the caucus's concerns are similar to those of the Democratic Party's liberal wing. Caucus members are pushing for legislation that would directly lead to new jobs by providing tax benefits, for example, that would provide incentives for home renovations and funding for new infrastructure projects. They also want to extend health-care and unemployment benefits.

Meanwhile, Geithner was taking a beating as he urged Congress to pass regulatory reform as quickly as possible, arguing that delay would create uncertainty for businesses across the country. Lawmakers sharply criticized him for his role in the crisis during the tense Joint Economic Committee meeting. They were particularly critical of his involvement in the decision, as president of the New York Fed, to bail out AIG.

But Geithner pressed forward: "To ensure the vitality, the strength and the stability of our economy going forward, we must bring our system of financial regulation into the 21st century. Nobody in my job should ever be in the position again of having to come into a crisis like this without those basic authorities."

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, chose the marbled Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building -- site of past hearings on Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Wall Street abuses during the Great Depression -- to open debate on a massive draft bill designed to achieve the most ambitious reworking of the financial system in decades.

"This is one of those moments in our nation's history that compels us to be bold," Dodd said.

But soon, ranking committee Republican Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) took the floor, and for 18 uninterrupted minutes he opined that nearly every element of Dodd's bill was misinformed, uninformed, unnecessarily rushed or just plain flawed. "This committee has not done the necessary work to even begin discussing changes of this magnitude. Nevertheless, you have laid a bill before the committee," Shelby said. "I will be opposing this legislation. Not because we disagree on its ends, but rather on its means."

Shelby said Dodd was wrong not to conduct an investigation into the causes of the recent financial crisis before pushing forward with legislation. He said rather than ending the problem of institutions that are "too big to fail," the current bill expands the government's ability to bail out big banks. Shelby apologized for the length of his critique, expressed his hope that the two men might "yet find some common ground," and yielded the floor.

"Well," Dodd said in the morning's only moment of levity, "I thank you for the endorsement."

Staff writer David Cho contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...9111903338]]> <![CDATA[Just curious- 99 guests?]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401445 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:55:55 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401445
26 Invisible users and 99 guests?

Does that mean 99 users as listed above? Or is that a different number? If not is the number of users listed somewhere?

Just curious during this pre pregame time period before meeting to head downtown...]]>
26 Invisible users and 99 guests?

Does that mean 99 users as listed above? Or is that a different number? If not is the number of users listed somewhere?

Just curious during this pre pregame time period before meeting to head downtown...]]> <![CDATA[Where will the top MLB free agents end up?]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401444 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:55:42 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401444 http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10402...ts-end-up?

interesting for sox fans: Hideki Matsui: White Sox

GM Ken Williams said he wouldn't be able to afford Matsui after his World Series MVP performance, but the White Sox are nevertheless interested. They need a left-handed power hitter to replace Jim Thome — and Matsui will need a home after he discovers how lean the market is. The Yankees wish him well, but have no plans to bring him back. Matsui earned $13 million in 2009 but at age 35 with two bad knees that prevent him from playing the field, he'll have to accept far less to continue his career in the majors. A deal with the White Sox makes sense on both sides.]]> http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10402...ts-end-up?

interesting for sox fans: Hideki Matsui: White Sox

GM Ken Williams said he wouldn't be able to afford Matsui after his World Series MVP performance, but the White Sox are nevertheless interested. They need a left-handed power hitter to replace Jim Thome — and Matsui will need a home after he discovers how lean the market is. The Yankees wish him well, but have no plans to bring him back. Matsui earned $13 million in 2009 but at age 35 with two bad knees that prevent him from playing the field, he'll have to accept far less to continue his career in the majors. A deal with the White Sox makes sense on both sides.]]> <![CDATA[Is Angel Garcia following anyone else on this board?]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401443 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:52:58 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401443
Question. Does anyone else seem to "accidentally" run into Angel quite a bit? Or am I the only one that he's following.

Thanks in advance.]]>
Question. Does anyone else seem to "accidentally" run into Angel quite a bit? Or am I the only one that he's following.

Thanks in advance.]]> <![CDATA[Seeing Joe Jackson Tonight]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401442 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:51:32 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401442
I'll say 25 points, 12 assists and 8 steals. What ya think? 05-stirthepot]]>
I'll say 25 points, 12 assists and 8 steals. What ya think? 05-stirthepot]]> <![CDATA[California lawmakers, officials face 18% pay cut]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401441 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:51:23 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401441

California lawmakers, officials face 18% pay cut

Legislative leaders had challenged the authority of the state's independent pay commission after it voted to trim salaries. But Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's opinion says the panel can cut compensation.

By Patrick McGreevy

November 20, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento - California's Legislature went to state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown recently seeking relief from a future pay cut and on Thursday received an unwelcome surprise: An 18% reduction for lawmakers and other elected state officials can begin next month instead of a year from now.

The move backfired after the Legislature protested -- the state's dire financial straits notwithstanding -- that a pay cut scheduled to follow next year's election was illegal. The state's independent pay board had voted in May to trim salaries for those elected next year and beyond, and lawmakers asked Brown for an opinion.

He responded that the panel had the power to cut officeholders' compensation now, without waiting until after the next election.

The chairman of the Citizens Compensation Commission immediately asked the state controller to slash the affected salaries, which include Brown's, next month.

"We're broke," said Chairman Charles Murray. "This cut needs to happen now. It's the right thing to do."

A spokeswoman for the state controller's office, which was scrambling to make sure the necessary technical switch could be done in time, said it planned to reduce lawmakers' base salary from $116,208 to $95,291 as of Dec. 7.

The governor's annual pay will go from $212,179 to $173,987, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not accept a salary. The lieutenant governor's pay will drop from $159,134 to $130,490, and Brown will earn $151,127 instead of $184,301.

The sped-up pay cut will hurt Brown's pocketbook, but it could help his political career. Brown is considered the Democratic front-runner in the upcoming gubernatorial campaign, even though he has yet to officially enter the race. Approval ratings for Sacramento politicians are dismal. Cutting their pay has obvious populist appeal.

The cuts also will apply to the state controller, treasurer, secretary of state, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction and Board of Equalization members. The total yearly savings will be $2.9 million.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), whose base salary would go from $133,639 to $109,584 (although he has already taken a voluntary 5% cut), refused to comment. His spokeswoman referred calls to Senate Secretary Greg Schmidt.

"I don't know how we will proceed yet," Schmidt said. "There are multiple opinions on these matters. . . . It may end up decided by a court."

He said senators will probably meet to discuss the issue early next month.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) declined to be interviewed on Brown's opinion. Spokeswoman Shannon Murphy said in a statement that Bass would review it.

"We will obviously follow the law and the Constitution -- as every state agency has the duty to do, including the compensation commission," Murphy said.

When the pay commission voted on the cuts in May, its members were advised by a state personnel attorney that the reduction could apply only to those elected starting next year. Schmidt and the chief administrative officer of the state Assembly, Jon Waldie, sent a letter to Brown, approved by Bass' staff, requesting an opinion on the matter.

On Thursday, Brown said the state Constitution allows the seven-member compensation commission, which is appointed by the governor, to reduce the salaries of legislators and other elected officials in the middle of their terms.

Brown cited California voters' 1990 approval of Proposition 112, which requires the commission to "adjust the annual salaries of state officers" each year.

"Any other interpretation would require assuming against all evidence that the voters in 1990 intended mid-term annual adjustments to only go up and never down, even in the face of a faltering economy and huge budget deficits," Brown wrote to legislative leaders.

His opinion is an informal one that would nonetheless carry weight in a court, said Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac.

It did not address a legislative challenge to another cut the commission approved: an 18% reduction in legislators' per diem and car allowances, also set to begin next month.

Those matters are more complicated, according to Gasparac, who said Brown's office may issue a future opinion addressing them.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...2266.story]]>

California lawmakers, officials face 18% pay cut

Legislative leaders had challenged the authority of the state's independent pay commission after it voted to trim salaries. But Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's opinion says the panel can cut compensation.

By Patrick McGreevy

November 20, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento - California's Legislature went to state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown recently seeking relief from a future pay cut and on Thursday received an unwelcome surprise: An 18% reduction for lawmakers and other elected state officials can begin next month instead of a year from now.

The move backfired after the Legislature protested -- the state's dire financial straits notwithstanding -- that a pay cut scheduled to follow next year's election was illegal. The state's independent pay board had voted in May to trim salaries for those elected next year and beyond, and lawmakers asked Brown for an opinion.

He responded that the panel had the power to cut officeholders' compensation now, without waiting until after the next election.

The chairman of the Citizens Compensation Commission immediately asked the state controller to slash the affected salaries, which include Brown's, next month.

"We're broke," said Chairman Charles Murray. "This cut needs to happen now. It's the right thing to do."

A spokeswoman for the state controller's office, which was scrambling to make sure the necessary technical switch could be done in time, said it planned to reduce lawmakers' base salary from $116,208 to $95,291 as of Dec. 7.

The governor's annual pay will go from $212,179 to $173,987, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not accept a salary. The lieutenant governor's pay will drop from $159,134 to $130,490, and Brown will earn $151,127 instead of $184,301.

The sped-up pay cut will hurt Brown's pocketbook, but it could help his political career. Brown is considered the Democratic front-runner in the upcoming gubernatorial campaign, even though he has yet to officially enter the race. Approval ratings for Sacramento politicians are dismal. Cutting their pay has obvious populist appeal.

The cuts also will apply to the state controller, treasurer, secretary of state, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction and Board of Equalization members. The total yearly savings will be $2.9 million.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), whose base salary would go from $133,639 to $109,584 (although he has already taken a voluntary 5% cut), refused to comment. His spokeswoman referred calls to Senate Secretary Greg Schmidt.

"I don't know how we will proceed yet," Schmidt said. "There are multiple opinions on these matters. . . . It may end up decided by a court."

He said senators will probably meet to discuss the issue early next month.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) declined to be interviewed on Brown's opinion. Spokeswoman Shannon Murphy said in a statement that Bass would review it.

"We will obviously follow the law and the Constitution -- as every state agency has the duty to do, including the compensation commission," Murphy said.

When the pay commission voted on the cuts in May, its members were advised by a state personnel attorney that the reduction could apply only to those elected starting next year. Schmidt and the chief administrative officer of the state Assembly, Jon Waldie, sent a letter to Brown, approved by Bass' staff, requesting an opinion on the matter.

On Thursday, Brown said the state Constitution allows the seven-member compensation commission, which is appointed by the governor, to reduce the salaries of legislators and other elected officials in the middle of their terms.

Brown cited California voters' 1990 approval of Proposition 112, which requires the commission to "adjust the annual salaries of state officers" each year.

"Any other interpretation would require assuming against all evidence that the voters in 1990 intended mid-term annual adjustments to only go up and never down, even in the face of a faltering economy and huge budget deficits," Brown wrote to legislative leaders.

His opinion is an informal one that would nonetheless carry weight in a court, said Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac.

It did not address a legislative challenge to another cut the commission approved: an 18% reduction in legislators' per diem and car allowances, also set to begin next month.

Those matters are more complicated, according to Gasparac, who said Brown's office may issue a future opinion addressing them.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...2266.story]]> <![CDATA[When Big Labor Bullies and Volunteers Collide]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401440 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:45:32 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401440
COMMENTARY


When Big Labor Bullies and Volunteers Collide
Friday, November 20, 2009
[Image: 3526.jpg]

The Boy Scouts’ motto is: Be prepared. Who knew it meant preparing to defend themselves against purple-shirted union thuggery over community service? Kids, pay attention. This is a teachable moment for all of you on power, politics and Big Labor’s culture of corruption.

Last week at a city council meeting in Allentown, Pa., a top official of the local Service Employees International Union chapter ranted about 17-year-old Scout Kevin Anderson’s park cleanup work. Anderson devoted some 200 hours to the job in order to earn an Eagle Scout badge. He picked up trash and helped clear a 1,000-foot walking path with fellow members of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley.

But SEIU’s Nick Balzano gave them hell instead of thanks.

Balzano disparaged altruistic efforts in city parks and asserted that “there is (sic) to be no volunteers” since his union members were laid off. He then issued a witch hunt threat: “We’ll also be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails. We may file another grievance on that.”

Citing union rules, he gave the Allentown city council, the Boy Scouts and all potential volunteers an iron-fisted ultimatum: “None of them can pick up a hoe. They can’t pick up a shovel. They can’t plant a flower. They can’t clear a bicycle path. They can’t do anything. Our people do that.”

That’s right. Balzano was ready to bludgeon the Boy Scout because his gung-ho volunteerism posed a threat to the SEIU labor monopoly. The outrageous display of Boss Balzano’s union protectionism provoked a national furor.

SEIU headquarters in Washington immediately blamed “the disreputable Fox News and other right-wing outlets like Michelle Malkin’s accuracy challenged blog” for the backlash. While decrying their critics’ “fiction,” SEIU distanced itself from Balzano, denying that he was a top union leader and dismissing his remarks as “unauthorized.”

Fact: U.S. Department of Labor records from 2008 (their most recent filing) show that Balzano is no rogue rank-and-file member. He currently serves on the SEIU local’s executive board and previously served as president.

Fact: The union tried to minimize Balzano’s grievance threat as “inappropriate.” But the dirty open secret is that public-sector unions have routinely attacked volunteer workers who threaten their stranglehold.

Last June, union officials in Baraboo, Wis., filed a complaint against volunteer firefighters who built sandbag barricades to protect the city from record flooding. They whined that city Department of Public Works employees should have been called first and demanded overtime pay (for work they didn’t do) to compensate them.

Yes, kids, the city was knee-deep in water and the government union got mad that other people scrambled to work together in an emergency to put sand in bags, save homes and help their neighbors. Public-sector unions aren’t about serving the public interest. They’re about serving their people, their power and their self-preservation.

In Montpelier, Vt., several years ago, the teachers union went after a superstar educator, Bill Corrow. The students, staff and supervisors at his school loved the social studies teacher and Vietnam veteran. But the Vermont Education Association hated him because he was a volunteer who did not accept payment for his elective course.

Teachers unions are all for parents and schoolchildren volunteering their time to engage in political lobbying and power-expanding initiatives on the union’s behalf. But God help the community service-oriented individual with a passion for sharing his knowledge in their classrooms.

In California, union heavies in the Sacramento area sued a nonprofit environmental group for using college-age volunteers on a state-funded project to clean up a canyon and build a community trail. Big Labor dusted off an old law that requires community service volunteers to be paid prevailing wages for doing the same kind of cleanup that Allentown Boy Scout Kevin Anderson was punished for doing freely. The law was finally repealed, but not without a brass-knuckles fight.

As National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix, whose group monitors forced union abuses, pointed out during the battle: “Discerning California union bosses’ real agenda … is not hard. Volunteer workers don’t have to pay compulsory union dues to serve their communities, but most paid workers on public projects in California do. … (It) is yet another example of how government-authorized compulsory union dues corrupt the political process and furnish unscrupulous union officials with an enormous incentive to act against the public interest.”

SEIU President Andy Stern in Washington speaks for all of Big Labor when he describes his organizing philosophy: “We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work, we use the persuasion of power.” President Obama, who has made national service an administration priority, has been and will continue to be silent about the Big Labor bullies who make public enemies of Scouts with trash bags and hoes.

You see, kids, Obama owes Stern (his most frequent White House visitor) and his union brethren. SEIU alone poured more than $60 million in compulsory membership dues into Obama’s campaign and leaned on its workers to “volunteer” to knock on doors, place phone calls and send out mailers for the Democratic Party.

No good deed goes unpunished by union bosses—unless it benefits their political empire.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57464]]>
COMMENTARY


When Big Labor Bullies and Volunteers Collide
Friday, November 20, 2009
[Image: 3526.jpg]

The Boy Scouts’ motto is: Be prepared. Who knew it meant preparing to defend themselves against purple-shirted union thuggery over community service? Kids, pay attention. This is a teachable moment for all of you on power, politics and Big Labor’s culture of corruption.

Last week at a city council meeting in Allentown, Pa., a top official of the local Service Employees International Union chapter ranted about 17-year-old Scout Kevin Anderson’s park cleanup work. Anderson devoted some 200 hours to the job in order to earn an Eagle Scout badge. He picked up trash and helped clear a 1,000-foot walking path with fellow members of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley.

But SEIU’s Nick Balzano gave them hell instead of thanks.

Balzano disparaged altruistic efforts in city parks and asserted that “there is (sic) to be no volunteers” since his union members were laid off. He then issued a witch hunt threat: “We’ll also be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails. We may file another grievance on that.”

Citing union rules, he gave the Allentown city council, the Boy Scouts and all potential volunteers an iron-fisted ultimatum: “None of them can pick up a hoe. They can’t pick up a shovel. They can’t plant a flower. They can’t clear a bicycle path. They can’t do anything. Our people do that.”

That’s right. Balzano was ready to bludgeon the Boy Scout because his gung-ho volunteerism posed a threat to the SEIU labor monopoly. The outrageous display of Boss Balzano’s union protectionism provoked a national furor.

SEIU headquarters in Washington immediately blamed “the disreputable Fox News and other right-wing outlets like Michelle Malkin’s accuracy challenged blog” for the backlash. While decrying their critics’ “fiction,” SEIU distanced itself from Balzano, denying that he was a top union leader and dismissing his remarks as “unauthorized.”

Fact: U.S. Department of Labor records from 2008 (their most recent filing) show that Balzano is no rogue rank-and-file member. He currently serves on the SEIU local’s executive board and previously served as president.

Fact: The union tried to minimize Balzano’s grievance threat as “inappropriate.” But the dirty open secret is that public-sector unions have routinely attacked volunteer workers who threaten their stranglehold.

Last June, union officials in Baraboo, Wis., filed a complaint against volunteer firefighters who built sandbag barricades to protect the city from record flooding. They whined that city Department of Public Works employees should have been called first and demanded overtime pay (for work they didn’t do) to compensate them.

Yes, kids, the city was knee-deep in water and the government union got mad that other people scrambled to work together in an emergency to put sand in bags, save homes and help their neighbors. Public-sector unions aren’t about serving the public interest. They’re about serving their people, their power and their self-preservation.

In Montpelier, Vt., several years ago, the teachers union went after a superstar educator, Bill Corrow. The students, staff and supervisors at his school loved the social studies teacher and Vietnam veteran. But the Vermont Education Association hated him because he was a volunteer who did not accept payment for his elective course.

Teachers unions are all for parents and schoolchildren volunteering their time to engage in political lobbying and power-expanding initiatives on the union’s behalf. But God help the community service-oriented individual with a passion for sharing his knowledge in their classrooms.

In California, union heavies in the Sacramento area sued a nonprofit environmental group for using college-age volunteers on a state-funded project to clean up a canyon and build a community trail. Big Labor dusted off an old law that requires community service volunteers to be paid prevailing wages for doing the same kind of cleanup that Allentown Boy Scout Kevin Anderson was punished for doing freely. The law was finally repealed, but not without a brass-knuckles fight.

As National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix, whose group monitors forced union abuses, pointed out during the battle: “Discerning California union bosses’ real agenda … is not hard. Volunteer workers don’t have to pay compulsory union dues to serve their communities, but most paid workers on public projects in California do. … (It) is yet another example of how government-authorized compulsory union dues corrupt the political process and furnish unscrupulous union officials with an enormous incentive to act against the public interest.”

SEIU President Andy Stern in Washington speaks for all of Big Labor when he describes his organizing philosophy: “We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work, we use the persuasion of power.” President Obama, who has made national service an administration priority, has been and will continue to be silent about the Big Labor bullies who make public enemies of Scouts with trash bags and hoes.

You see, kids, Obama owes Stern (his most frequent White House visitor) and his union brethren. SEIU alone poured more than $60 million in compulsory membership dues into Obama’s campaign and leaned on its workers to “volunteer” to knock on doors, place phone calls and send out mailers for the Democratic Party.

No good deed goes unpunished by union bosses—unless it benefits their political empire.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57464]]> <![CDATA[Leading U.N. Critic Sees Political Agenda Behind U.N.’s Decision to Bar Her]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401439 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:36:18 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401439 Leading U.N. Critic Sees Political Agenda Behind U.N.’s Decision to Bar Her
Friday, November 20, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

[Image: 57460.jpg]
(Image: Eye on the UN video clip)
This screenshot from a video clip shows Anne Bayefsky speaking at the stakeout microphone at the U.N. on November 5, 2009. A U.N. security guard hovers behind her.

(CNSNews.com) – After being denied access to United Nations headquarters for two weeks, one of U.N.’s most forthright critics will find out Friday if her confiscated entry pass will be returned to her – and under what conditions.

Human rights law expert Anne Bayefsky said she was told on Thursday to report to a security official on Friday to “sign something” in order to get her pass back temporarily.

It’s not clear what Bayefsky would be expected to sign. Meanwhile, a final decision on her longer-term access will be in the hands of a 19-member NGO-accreditation committee whose members include Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt, Russia and China – countries whose conduct at the U.N. Bayefsky frequently criticizes.

U.N. security guards removed Bayefsky’s pass and escorted her from the building on November 5 after she used a media stakeout microphone to condemn a General Assembly resolution endorsing the controversial “Goldstone report,” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54698 which accuses Israel of war crimes in Gaza.

Bayefsky, director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at Touro College, a Jewish-sponsored independent institution in New York, and editor of the Hudson Institute’s Eye on the U.N. project, called the resolution “a travesty.”

Moments later, she recounted by phone from New York Thursday, she was “surrounded by four or five guards,” asked to identify herself – which she did – and told that she was not supposed to use the microphone.

She and an assistant were then accompanied to the security office, where the head security guard told her that Palestinian Ambassador to the U.N. Riyad Mansour, who had spoken at the stakeout shortly before her, was “very upset” about her remarks.

Bayefsky said she also was challenged about the fact that her assistant did not have an entry pass – he was visiting from out of town and she swiped him in using her own pass – but she called that a “secondary issue,” saying the comments she made at the microphone were obviously the main problem.

Bayefsky said she conceded to the guards that she should have gotten her assistant a pass and told them that when he returns to New York, she would do so.

“That would have been the end of it if it wasn’t for the fact that the Palestinian ambassador had conveyed to security that he had been upset by my remarks.”

The two were then escorted from the building.

In subsequent attempts to get her entry pass back, Bayefsky said she was told to come in and write a statement, after which it would be returned to her. But when she insisted on including in the statement the comment relayed to her about the Palestinian ambassador, officials refused to accept it and the pass was not returned.

At the same time, U.N. spokespersons stoked confusion by denying that that Bayefsky’s accreditation had been revoked. At a press briefing Wednesday, spokesman Farhan Haq said that as far as he was aware, she was free to pick up her pass.

[Image: 57462.jpg]
(UN Photo by Paulo Filgueiras)
Palestinian Ambassador to the U.N. Riyad Mansour speaks to reporters outside the General Assembly after the resolution endorsing the Goldstone report was passed on November 5, 2009. He is speaking at the same microphone Anne Bayefsky used minutes later.

But at Thursday’s briefing Haq’s colleague, Michele Montas, issued a statement of “clarification,” saying that Bayefsky was under a security investigation for having used her building pass “in an unauthorized manner” to bring in her assistant.

The result of the inquiry would be passed to the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) for a final determination, she said.

Montas said the “breaches of security protocol” – not the use of the microphone – was the basis for the suspension of the pass.

Regarding Bayefsky’s use of the microphone, she added that it was U.N. policy that speakers at stakeouts must be introduced by or accompanied by representatives of the U.N. or a member state. Unless so accompanied, she said, “an NGO [representative] cannot step up to the microphone and just make a statement.”

Bayefsky said by phone later in the day that she and other NGO members have used stakeout microphones in the past without any difficulties being raised. Responding to Montas’ statement about the need to be accompanied she said, “that’s just not true – or at least it’s not enforced, with respect to anybody but me.”

‘On the radar screen’

Bayefsky said she had no doubt her pass had been withheld because of her criticism of the U.N.

“This was political from the get-go,” she said. “I was obviously on their radar screen.”

Bayefsky’s U.N. Watch monitors the world body’s activities in New York and at its Human Rights Council in Geneva, with a particular focus on its treatment of Israel.

Presenting statements during NGO segments of meetings, she has been responsible for some of the most hard-hitting criticism heard in U.N. forums.

When the Human Rights Council considered the Goldstone report in late September, Bayefsky was scolded by the council president for a direct and personal challenge to Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who led the U.N.-mandated fact finding mission behind the report.

“How does it feel to have used your Jewishness to jeopardize the safety and security of the people of Israel, and to find yourself in the company of human rights abusers everywhere?” she asked him.

In an earlier visit to Geneva, Bayefsky caused a stir during the “Durban II” racism conference, a week-long event attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and boycotted by the U.S., Israel and a handful of other Western countries.

Ahmadinejad sparked a walkout during a speech in which he called Israel the “most cruel and repressive racist regime,” described the Holocaust as a “pretext” for Israel’s establishment in 1948, and said the 2003 invasion of Iraq was “planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then U.S. administration.”

During an NGO segment later, Bayefsky berated the U.N. for giving the Iranian “a global megaphone” and said it had also “ translated his hate speech into six languages and broadcast it around the world.”

Interrupted several times by a protesting Iranian delegate, she accused the U.N. of enabling anti-Semitism, criticized “all those states without the courage to reject a forum for bigotry when it masquerades as human rights,” and concluded that the Durban II conference deserved to end up in “the dustbin of history.”

By comparison, her impromptu Nov. 5 comments at the stakeout microphone were relatively mild.

She noted that the resolution passed by the General Assembly that day endorsing the Goldstone report made not mention of Hamas – the Palestinian group whose thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza were Israel’s stated reason for its military offensive last winter.

“This is a resolution that purports to be evenhanded,” she said. “It calls for accountability and in fact what we see instead is impunity for the Palestinian side.”

‘West gets outvoted’

The body that will decide whether Bayefsky will be able to retain access to U.N. meetings is an ECOSOC committee overseeing accreditation of non-governmental organizations, more than 3,000 of which have “consultative status” at the U.N.

This year the committee has been chaired by Sudan, and two of its four vice-chairmen are Cuba and Pakistan.

The committee has been accused in the past of political decision-making. In a vote last summer it rejected the accreditation application of a Christian NGO because it refused to produce names and addresses of its members in China, citing religious freedom concerns.

China led the move to shut out the Christian organization and the U.S. was one of just four committee members to vote in support of the group (the others were Britain, Romania and Israel.) The U.S. delegate said that by taking the decision to exclude the NGO, “we are embarrassing ourselves and embarrassing the United Nations.”

The committee’s members are Angola, Britain, Burundi, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Guinea, India, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Sudan, Turkey and the United States.

“The United States and other Western governments never prevail at that committee,” Bayefsky commented Thursday. “They get outvoted … that’s why some Western democratic NGOs never get NGO accreditation.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57461]]> Leading U.N. Critic Sees Political Agenda Behind U.N.’s Decision to Bar Her
Friday, November 20, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

[Image: 57460.jpg]
(Image: Eye on the UN video clip)
This screenshot from a video clip shows Anne Bayefsky speaking at the stakeout microphone at the U.N. on November 5, 2009. A U.N. security guard hovers behind her.

(CNSNews.com) – After being denied access to United Nations headquarters for two weeks, one of U.N.’s most forthright critics will find out Friday if her confiscated entry pass will be returned to her – and under what conditions.

Human rights law expert Anne Bayefsky said she was told on Thursday to report to a security official on Friday to “sign something” in order to get her pass back temporarily.

It’s not clear what Bayefsky would be expected to sign. Meanwhile, a final decision on her longer-term access will be in the hands of a 19-member NGO-accreditation committee whose members include Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt, Russia and China – countries whose conduct at the U.N. Bayefsky frequently criticizes.

U.N. security guards removed Bayefsky’s pass and escorted her from the building on November 5 after she used a media stakeout microphone to condemn a General Assembly resolution endorsing the controversial “Goldstone report,” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54698 which accuses Israel of war crimes in Gaza.

Bayefsky, director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at Touro College, a Jewish-sponsored independent institution in New York, and editor of the Hudson Institute’s Eye on the U.N. project, called the resolution “a travesty.”

Moments later, she recounted by phone from New York Thursday, she was “surrounded by four or five guards,” asked to identify herself – which she did – and told that she was not supposed to use the microphone.

She and an assistant were then accompanied to the security office, where the head security guard told her that Palestinian Ambassador to the U.N. Riyad Mansour, who had spoken at the stakeout shortly before her, was “very upset” about her remarks.

Bayefsky said she also was challenged about the fact that her assistant did not have an entry pass – he was visiting from out of town and she swiped him in using her own pass – but she called that a “secondary issue,” saying the comments she made at the microphone were obviously the main problem.

Bayefsky said she conceded to the guards that she should have gotten her assistant a pass and told them that when he returns to New York, she would do so.

“That would have been the end of it if it wasn’t for the fact that the Palestinian ambassador had conveyed to security that he had been upset by my remarks.”

The two were then escorted from the building.

In subsequent attempts to get her entry pass back, Bayefsky said she was told to come in and write a statement, after which it would be returned to her. But when she insisted on including in the statement the comment relayed to her about the Palestinian ambassador, officials refused to accept it and the pass was not returned.

At the same time, U.N. spokespersons stoked confusion by denying that that Bayefsky’s accreditation had been revoked. At a press briefing Wednesday, spokesman Farhan Haq said that as far as he was aware, she was free to pick up her pass.

[Image: 57462.jpg]
(UN Photo by Paulo Filgueiras)
Palestinian Ambassador to the U.N. Riyad Mansour speaks to reporters outside the General Assembly after the resolution endorsing the Goldstone report was passed on November 5, 2009. He is speaking at the same microphone Anne Bayefsky used minutes later.

But at Thursday’s briefing Haq’s colleague, Michele Montas, issued a statement of “clarification,” saying that Bayefsky was under a security investigation for having used her building pass “in an unauthorized manner” to bring in her assistant.

The result of the inquiry would be passed to the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) for a final determination, she said.

Montas said the “breaches of security protocol” – not the use of the microphone – was the basis for the suspension of the pass.

Regarding Bayefsky’s use of the microphone, she added that it was U.N. policy that speakers at stakeouts must be introduced by or accompanied by representatives of the U.N. or a member state. Unless so accompanied, she said, “an NGO [representative] cannot step up to the microphone and just make a statement.”

Bayefsky said by phone later in the day that she and other NGO members have used stakeout microphones in the past without any difficulties being raised. Responding to Montas’ statement about the need to be accompanied she said, “that’s just not true – or at least it’s not enforced, with respect to anybody but me.”

‘On the radar screen’

Bayefsky said she had no doubt her pass had been withheld because of her criticism of the U.N.

“This was political from the get-go,” she said. “I was obviously on their radar screen.”

Bayefsky’s U.N. Watch monitors the world body’s activities in New York and at its Human Rights Council in Geneva, with a particular focus on its treatment of Israel.

Presenting statements during NGO segments of meetings, she has been responsible for some of the most hard-hitting criticism heard in U.N. forums.

When the Human Rights Council considered the Goldstone report in late September, Bayefsky was scolded by the council president for a direct and personal challenge to Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who led the U.N.-mandated fact finding mission behind the report.

“How does it feel to have used your Jewishness to jeopardize the safety and security of the people of Israel, and to find yourself in the company of human rights abusers everywhere?” she asked him.

In an earlier visit to Geneva, Bayefsky caused a stir during the “Durban II” racism conference, a week-long event attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and boycotted by the U.S., Israel and a handful of other Western countries.

Ahmadinejad sparked a walkout during a speech in which he called Israel the “most cruel and repressive racist regime,” described the Holocaust as a “pretext” for Israel’s establishment in 1948, and said the 2003 invasion of Iraq was “planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then U.S. administration.”

During an NGO segment later, Bayefsky berated the U.N. for giving the Iranian “a global megaphone” and said it had also “ translated his hate speech into six languages and broadcast it around the world.”

Interrupted several times by a protesting Iranian delegate, she accused the U.N. of enabling anti-Semitism, criticized “all those states without the courage to reject a forum for bigotry when it masquerades as human rights,” and concluded that the Durban II conference deserved to end up in “the dustbin of history.”

By comparison, her impromptu Nov. 5 comments at the stakeout microphone were relatively mild.

She noted that the resolution passed by the General Assembly that day endorsing the Goldstone report made not mention of Hamas – the Palestinian group whose thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza were Israel’s stated reason for its military offensive last winter.

“This is a resolution that purports to be evenhanded,” she said. “It calls for accountability and in fact what we see instead is impunity for the Palestinian side.”

‘West gets outvoted’

The body that will decide whether Bayefsky will be able to retain access to U.N. meetings is an ECOSOC committee overseeing accreditation of non-governmental organizations, more than 3,000 of which have “consultative status” at the U.N.

This year the committee has been chaired by Sudan, and two of its four vice-chairmen are Cuba and Pakistan.

The committee has been accused in the past of political decision-making. In a vote last summer it rejected the accreditation application of a Christian NGO because it refused to produce names and addresses of its members in China, citing religious freedom concerns.

China led the move to shut out the Christian organization and the U.S. was one of just four committee members to vote in support of the group (the others were Britain, Romania and Israel.) The U.S. delegate said that by taking the decision to exclude the NGO, “we are embarrassing ourselves and embarrassing the United Nations.”

The committee’s members are Angola, Britain, Burundi, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Guinea, India, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Sudan, Turkey and the United States.

“The United States and other Western governments never prevail at that committee,” Bayefsky commented Thursday. “They get outvoted … that’s why some Western democratic NGOs never get NGO accreditation.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57461]]> <![CDATA[Democrat RAIL JOB part 2]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401438 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:33:38 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401438
I fear more than ever this country will not last till the 2010 election when the democrats are voted out of control of the Senate and maybe the house.]]>
I fear more than ever this country will not last till the 2010 election when the democrats are voted out of control of the Senate and maybe the house.]]> <![CDATA[UTEP Tailgate]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401437 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:29 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401437 <![CDATA[Our chances on Kool's off nights]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401436 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:29:10 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401436
This year we don't need Kool to have amazing nights to win, but can we win on his bad nights?]]>
This year we don't need Kool to have amazing nights to win, but can we win on his bad nights?]]> <![CDATA[Pelosi Won't Say Whether Osama Bin Laden Should be Told He Has the Right to Remain Si]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401435 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:26:48 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401435 Pelosi Won't Say Whether Osama Bin Laden Should be Told He Has the Right to Remain Silent and Get a Lawyer
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Christopher Neefus and Karen Schuberg

[Image: 56522.jpg]
(AP Photo/Dino Vournas)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks about health care reform at Chinese Hospital in San Francisco on Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009.

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) declined to say Thursday whether Osama bin Laden, when captured by the United States, should be told he has the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer. Pelosi indicated that is not a question Americans should worry about now.

CNSNews.com asked Pelosi at her regular press briefing on Thursday: “When we capture Bin Laden, should he be told he has the right to remain silent and given a lawyer?”

Pelosi responded: “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

In the United States, potential criminal defendants need to be warned of their "Miranda" rights after they have been arrested and before they have been questioned. If the arresting authorities fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights statements the suspect subsequently makes will likely not be admissable evidence in a trial. The version of the Miranda warning posted by the American Bar Association reads: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning."

The question of reading Miranda rights to terrorists such as Bin Laden took on particular cogency after Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that the Obama administration would try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a federal civilian court, rather than in a military commission. The need to treat captured terrorists as potential defendants in civilian courts could seriously complicate U.S. intelligence gathering on al Qaeda, which in the years after 9/11 has relied heavily on interrogating members of that organization who are captured overseas.

[Image: 57415.jpg]
(AP photo/Alex Brandon)
Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight.

In a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) asked Holder a series of questions about how Bin Laden’s case would be handled, and warned that he thought the United States was “making history and we’re making bad history” by trying KSM in a civilian court.

When Graham asked whether the U.S. would try Bin Laden in a civilian court or military commission, Holder said he “didn’t know” and that the U.S. would have to “go through our protocol” before deciding what to do with the Islamic terrorist.

“If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” Graham asked Holder. Holder’s response was “that all depends,” and Graham warned that the Obama administration’s new legal policy would confuse the military and the justice system.

“Well, it does not ‘depend,’” the senator said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over—to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence—for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is the subject to criminal court in the United States.

“And you’re confusing the people fighting this war,” Graham charged. Later, the senator added, “The only point I’m making (is) that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court."

Holder announced last Friday that he had chosen to try Mohammed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, where the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred in 2001.

“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice,” Holder said in his prepared announcement. “They will be brought to New York to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.”

That new legal policy is a departure not only from the Bush Administration’s philosophy in the war on terror, but also from America’s history of trying unlawful enemy combatants in military commissions.

Graham asked Holder at the hearing whether he could think of any time in American history when an “enemy combatant caught on a battlefield” was tried in a civilian court.

The top law enforcement official in the country responded that he did not know of such a precedent and would “have to look at that,” to which Graham said, “We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.”

In Holder’s prepared speech last Friday, he told reporters, “I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57443]]> Pelosi Won't Say Whether Osama Bin Laden Should be Told He Has the Right to Remain Silent and Get a Lawyer
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Christopher Neefus and Karen Schuberg

[Image: 56522.jpg]
(AP Photo/Dino Vournas)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks about health care reform at Chinese Hospital in San Francisco on Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009.

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) declined to say Thursday whether Osama bin Laden, when captured by the United States, should be told he has the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer. Pelosi indicated that is not a question Americans should worry about now.

CNSNews.com asked Pelosi at her regular press briefing on Thursday: “When we capture Bin Laden, should he be told he has the right to remain silent and given a lawyer?”

Pelosi responded: “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

In the United States, potential criminal defendants need to be warned of their "Miranda" rights after they have been arrested and before they have been questioned. If the arresting authorities fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights statements the suspect subsequently makes will likely not be admissable evidence in a trial. The version of the Miranda warning posted by the American Bar Association reads: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning."

The question of reading Miranda rights to terrorists such as Bin Laden took on particular cogency after Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that the Obama administration would try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a federal civilian court, rather than in a military commission. The need to treat captured terrorists as potential defendants in civilian courts could seriously complicate U.S. intelligence gathering on al Qaeda, which in the years after 9/11 has relied heavily on interrogating members of that organization who are captured overseas.

[Image: 57415.jpg]
(AP photo/Alex Brandon)
Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight.

In a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) asked Holder a series of questions about how Bin Laden’s case would be handled, and warned that he thought the United States was “making history and we’re making bad history” by trying KSM in a civilian court.

When Graham asked whether the U.S. would try Bin Laden in a civilian court or military commission, Holder said he “didn’t know” and that the U.S. would have to “go through our protocol” before deciding what to do with the Islamic terrorist.

“If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” Graham asked Holder. Holder’s response was “that all depends,” and Graham warned that the Obama administration’s new legal policy would confuse the military and the justice system.

“Well, it does not ‘depend,’” the senator said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over—to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence—for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is the subject to criminal court in the United States.

“And you’re confusing the people fighting this war,” Graham charged. Later, the senator added, “The only point I’m making (is) that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court."

Holder announced last Friday that he had chosen to try Mohammed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, where the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred in 2001.

“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice,” Holder said in his prepared announcement. “They will be brought to New York to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.”

That new legal policy is a departure not only from the Bush Administration’s philosophy in the war on terror, but also from America’s history of trying unlawful enemy combatants in military commissions.

Graham asked Holder at the hearing whether he could think of any time in American history when an “enemy combatant caught on a battlefield” was tried in a civilian court.

The top law enforcement official in the country responded that he did not know of such a precedent and would “have to look at that,” to which Graham said, “We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.”

In Holder’s prepared speech last Friday, he told reporters, “I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57443]]> <![CDATA[CBO: By 2019, Taxpayers Will Pay $196 Billion A Year for Obamacare, But 24 Million Pe]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401434 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:17:32 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401434 CBO: By 2019, Taxpayers Will Pay $196 Billion A Year for Obamacare, But 24 Million People Will Remain Uninsured
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

[Image: 57402.jpg]
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., with Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, left, and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., leaves a news conference on Capitol Hill after unveiling the Senate’s health care overhaul bill on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009.

(CNSNews.com) - Under the health care bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday, by 2019 taxpayers will be paying $196 billion per year to subsidize other people’s health insurance coverage, but there still will be 24 million uninsured people in America, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Reid’s proposal mandates that all individuals legally resident in the United States purchase health insurance and offers subsidies to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) to purchase insurance as long as they buy a federally regulated and approved plan sold in a federally regulated insurance exchange.

According to an analysis published Wednesday by the CBO and JCT, this subsidy will cost taxpayers $196 billion per year by 2019 but will still leave 24 million people uninsured in America, about 8 million of whom will be illegal aliens. The estimate assumes that there would otherwise be about 55 million uninsured people in the United States.

"The gross cost of the coverage expansions, consisting of exchange subsidies, the net costs of expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and tax credits for employers: Those provisions have an estimated cost of $196 billion in 2019, and that cost is growing at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window. As a rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the following decade," says the joint CBO and JCT analysis.

“By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 24 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants),” says the CBO and JCT analysis.

Table 3 in the report indicates that when the health-insurance mandate and subsidy program becomes fully operational in 2014 there will be 35 million uninsured in the United States and this number will drop to 23 million by 2018 before rising back to 24 million in 2019. The report does not indicate how many uninsured people will remain after 2019, or whether the upward trend between 2018 and 2019 will continue.

Table 3 also shows that the cost to taxpayers of paying the insurance subsidies in the bill as well as the cost for increased eligibility for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) instituted under the bill will dramatically escalate over the next decade.

In 2010, the year of the next congressional election, the gross cost of the subsidies is expected to be $0. In 2012, the year of the next presidential election, the gross cost of the subsidies in the bill is expected to be only $4 billion. But in 2014, the costs are expected to dramatically escalate to $48 billion for the year. From that point on, the costs increase every year, jumping to $147 billion by 2016 and then to $196 billion by 2019.

Correction: An earlier posting of this story inaccurately said that the cost of subsidizing health insurance under the Reid health care bill would be $194 billion by 2019. The correct figure is $196 billion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57454]]> CBO: By 2019, Taxpayers Will Pay $196 Billion A Year for Obamacare, But 24 Million People Will Remain Uninsured
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

[Image: 57402.jpg]
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., with Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, left, and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., leaves a news conference on Capitol Hill after unveiling the Senate’s health care overhaul bill on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009.

(CNSNews.com) - Under the health care bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday, by 2019 taxpayers will be paying $196 billion per year to subsidize other people’s health insurance coverage, but there still will be 24 million uninsured people in America, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Reid’s proposal mandates that all individuals legally resident in the United States purchase health insurance and offers subsidies to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) to purchase insurance as long as they buy a federally regulated and approved plan sold in a federally regulated insurance exchange.

According to an analysis published Wednesday by the CBO and JCT, this subsidy will cost taxpayers $196 billion per year by 2019 but will still leave 24 million people uninsured in America, about 8 million of whom will be illegal aliens. The estimate assumes that there would otherwise be about 55 million uninsured people in the United States.

"The gross cost of the coverage expansions, consisting of exchange subsidies, the net costs of expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and tax credits for employers: Those provisions have an estimated cost of $196 billion in 2019, and that cost is growing at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window. As a rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the following decade," says the joint CBO and JCT analysis.

“By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 24 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants),” says the CBO and JCT analysis.

Table 3 in the report indicates that when the health-insurance mandate and subsidy program becomes fully operational in 2014 there will be 35 million uninsured in the United States and this number will drop to 23 million by 2018 before rising back to 24 million in 2019. The report does not indicate how many uninsured people will remain after 2019, or whether the upward trend between 2018 and 2019 will continue.

Table 3 also shows that the cost to taxpayers of paying the insurance subsidies in the bill as well as the cost for increased eligibility for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) instituted under the bill will dramatically escalate over the next decade.

In 2010, the year of the next congressional election, the gross cost of the subsidies is expected to be $0. In 2012, the year of the next presidential election, the gross cost of the subsidies in the bill is expected to be only $4 billion. But in 2014, the costs are expected to dramatically escalate to $48 billion for the year. From that point on, the costs increase every year, jumping to $147 billion by 2016 and then to $196 billion by 2019.

Correction: An earlier posting of this story inaccurately said that the cost of subsidizing health insurance under the Reid health care bill would be $194 billion by 2019. The correct figure is $196 billion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57454]]> <![CDATA[NRR: Pat Murphy out at Arizona State!]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401433 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:14:49 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401433
Rivals link]]>
Rivals link]]> <![CDATA[Good Luck, Ari!]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401432 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:56:22 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401432 <![CDATA[Need tickets for tonight]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401431 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:55:16 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401431 <![CDATA[I feel better]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401430 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:52:29 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401430 <![CDATA[Perfect Set-up in S FL for Tonite]]> http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401429 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:52:10 -0600 http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=401429 Rocket Football vs EMU 7:00 PM Rocketvision]]> Rocket Football vs EMU 7:00 PM Rocketvision]]>