Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

En lisant le nom du General (reconnu dernierement comme un des plus grands Generaux de l'armee americaine.. ) je me demandais si Hillary qui l'avait plus ou moins traite de menteur*1 (Le New York Times ayant fait plus que "plus ou moins" acceptant le fameux: General Betray Us d'une page de moveon.org, grand supporter de NNP) lors d'une seance publique devant un groupe de senateurs lui presentera jamais des excuses.

*1): Senator Clinton: I want to thank both of you, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult.

But today you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy.

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.


* 2):
=======

MARCH 4, 2009

U.S. Strategy in Afghan War Hinges on Far-Flung Outposts


Gen. David Petraeus and his backers within the U.S. military believe small, remote bases in Afghanistan will help protect against insurgent attack and build strong relationships with local residents.

...

Ce qui avait deja fait ses preuves en Iraq

Quel est le futur pour cette nouvelle mentalite arrivee tout droit des pays socialistes? Comme les employes syndiques d'Alitalia l'avaient fait, les employes americains prefereront perdre leur travail (ah j'oubliais, il y aura des indemnites, on ne sait pas trop ou on trouvera l'argent mais bon...) que d'accepter de perdre leurs acquis?

MARCH 4, 2009

President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass
By KRIS MAHER

MIAMI -- President Barack Obama told AFL-CIO union leaders Tuesday in a videotaped address that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will pass, signaling his full backing for legislation that makes union organizing easier.
"We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act," President Obama told more than 100 top labor officials in a closed-door meeting at the labor federation's winter gathering in Miami, according to people at the meeting.

The bill would make it easier for unions to recruit workers because it would let them join unions simply by signing cards rather than through secret-ballot elections in which companies can campaign against the union. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have been campaigning against the legislation.

The president's remarks were taped on Feb. 20, according to a White House spokesman. Following his remarks, AFL-CIO officials held a meeting with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

Separately, on Wednesday, the AFL-CIO is expected to ask the administration to take a controlling stake in banks that receive government funding and a more active role in restructuring their balance sheets. "We believe the debate over nationalization is delaying the inevitable bank restructuring, which is something our economy cannot afford," reads a draft of an AFL-CIO statement. It is the first time the labor group has advocated such a policy, said Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. Mr. Trumka, a member of the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said government control would be short-lived.

The Employee Free Choice Act is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks in the Senate. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in an interview that to help get the bill through Congress, it could be amended in the Senate, where support is narrower, before it reaches the House. "We wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts to amend the bill," he said.

Organized labor plans to mobilize workers in states where support is weakest among Democratic lawmakers, lobby lawmakers directly and get companies that support the bill to endorse it publicly. Labor leaders didn't name companies targeted in this effort.

Business groups say they will intensify their lobbying against the bill as it is introduced. Randel Johnson, vice president of labor policy for the Chamber of Commerce, said the group will focus its heaviest lobbying efforts on senators in about seven states, and that an endorsement of the bill by a small number of companies "would not affect the political dynamic," because employer opposition to the bill is "overwhelming."

The ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee called on the Obama administration to withdraw its pick for the top intelligence analyst post.

The Wall Street Journal

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

The ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee called on the Obama administration to withdraw its pick for the top intelligence analyst post, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Charles Freeman, a veteran diplomat and former senior Pentagon official, is expected to assume his new job as chairman of the National Intelligence Council in the coming weeks.

He has stirred controversy with several statements, including one in which he said the Chinese government acted too slowly to crack down on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Mr. Freeman has also criticized American policies supporting Israel.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R., Mich.) said in an interview, "I hope that this is one that's withdrawn."

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair is aware of congressional concerns, said his spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi. She praised Mr. Freeman for his "ability to draw upon his intellectual strength and operational experience to lay out insightful, understandable assessments of complex problems."

Ms. Morigi said the post is "one of analysis, not policy." Mr. Freeman will be an honest broker and focus on "our national interest, not that of the various countries and cultures he understands," she said. Mr. Freeman wasn't available for comment, she said.

Imaginez une seule seconde que Bush 43 ait propose ce monsieur comme candidat!!! Ahurissant!

Obama's Top Five Broken Promises

By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity

Promise #5: Sunlight Before Signing

What he said:
“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

What he did:
Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site.

Promise #4: Lobbyist Revolving Door

What he said:
“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

What he did:
Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense.

Promise #3: No Tax Hikes on the Poor

What he said first:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.)

What he did first:
By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line.

What he said next:
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (February 24th, 2009, Address to a Joint Session of Congress)

What he did next:
Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.

Promise #2: Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

What he said:
“The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.”
(Statement on Earmarks, March 10, 2008)

What he is expected to do:
The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to [url=http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1961&action=Headlines By TCS]Taxpayers for Common Sense[/url], contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise.

Promise #1: Big Government
OK, so this one is more of a statement than a promise, but it’s the biggest whopper of all.

What he said:
“Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” (February 24, 2009, Joint Address to Congress)

What he did:
Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government.

Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.

Gibbs Takes Off Gloves to Challenge Reporters, Hosts Who Cross Obama

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbshas singled out media personalities Jim Cramer, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli in the course of less than two weeks.



FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


Jim Cramer. Rush Limbaugh. Rick Santelli.
What do they all have in common? Most likely, none of them is getting invited to the White House Christmas party.
All three media personalities have been singled out by President Obama's press shop in the course of less than two weeks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in doing so, has shown an unusual willingness to spar with cable and radio hosts who take shots at his boss.

The rebuttals have ranged from playful ribbing to disdainful scolding.
Talk show host Limbaugh has drawn the most ire from the White House. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called him out on Sunday for saying he wants Obama to fail, after Obama told Republican lawmakers not to listen to people like Limbaugh several weeks ago.

Gibbs followed up Monday, calling on conservative pundits to challenge Limbaugh on air.

"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether -- whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend," Gibbs said. But then he took a shot at those who applauded Limbaugh during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington over the weekend.

"You know, I'd like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We'll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh's speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke," he said.

Gibbs repeated his call for Republicans to speak up on whether they agree with Limbaugh Tuesday. Limbaugh has said that while he wants Obama to fail, he doesn't want the economy to fail.

Donald Rieck, executive director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said the Obama team, which studies have shown received far more favorable press treatment during the campaign than its rivals, is apparently having trouble acclimating to a more critical press post-Inauguration Day.

"If they're going to do this, to jump like that every time someone says something provocative about them, it's going to be an awfully long tenure for Gibbs, because there's a way to let this roll off your shoulders," he said.
Gibbs didn't stop at Limbaugh, who Democrats eagerly claim speaks for the Republican Party in the absence of a clear leader. (House Republican Leader John Boehner asserted Wednesday that the White House was intentionally elevating Limbaugh to distract from their budget.)

On Tuesday, Gibbs also responded to a question about CNBC host Jim Cramer's claim that Obama's economic policies represent the "greatest wealth destruction" by a president.

"If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience, no offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC," Gibbs said.

Gibbs tried to hedge at first, saying, "this is where I have to probably be careful," and "I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to," and "I'm going to get in a lot of trouble."

That was almost certainly a reference to the last time he went after a CNBC reporter -- Rick Santelli.
In late February, Gibbs responded at length to Santelli's on-air rant at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, in which he stirred up traders by shouting that the government was promoting "bad behavior" with its mortgage rescue plan. "This is America," he said. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"

Asked about the segment, Gibbs said: "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives. But the America people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage."

He said Santelli argued "quite wrongly" that the plan was ineffective and concluded by inviting him to the White House for a cup of "decaf" coffee.

"I would encourage him to read the president's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf."

The press in the room laughed at the quip, but Santelli later said he felt personally threatened by the White House.

Still, Gibbs said Tuesday he did not actually get in a "lot of trouble" for singling out Santelli.

"There are very few days that I've had more fun," Gibbs said.



Ben, dites voir, il doit mener une vie bien pale et monotone alors monsieur Gibbs.

Il y a quelques temps, il etait question ici d'Helen Thomas, la doyenne du troupeau, pardon du groupe de reporters en poste a la Maison Blanche, qui se declare liberale (elle l'etait a sa naissance et le demeurera jusqu'a sa mort) ajoutant: que pourrais-je etre d'autre etant journaliste?

Sa haine pour les Republicains en general et pour Pres. Bush en particulier ne s'est en rien attenuee avec le depart de celui-ci. Elle, grande supporter de NNP, se retourne meme contre lui pour oser ne pas faire tout et n'importe pour que Bush 43 PAIE d'une facon ou d'une autre mais qu'il PAIE, point barre!!!

(... In a November 2002 talk at MIT, Thomas revealed: "I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Two months later, the answer to that question revealed itself in an off-the-record comment to a reporter from the Torrance, California Daily Breeze following the Society of Professional Journalists annual awards banquet. "This is the worst President ever. He is the worst President in all of American history." The Breeze ran the quote, and the rest is history.... N'exagerons rien, nous avons vu pourquoi la semaine derniere!)

...
Obama_ a former constitutional law professor_ has ruled out a look backward, claiming that any review of possible illegalities by Bush and his coterie would lead to ``politics that have made Washington dysfunctional.''
Picking up on the last Bush mantra that we should move ``forward,'' Obama with his don't-rock-the-boat perspective is not about to nail his predecessor. After all, Obama is now a member of the club and shows signs of fitting in very quickly and easily
....

et meme contre notre WWW, Nancy, dieu sait pourtant a quel point elle hait George Bush!

...
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., quickly took any discussion of Bush impeachment off the table because she feared such a prosecution would disrupt the Democratic legislative agenda.
...

En passant, le choix de Carter comme president du Comite de Recherche de la Verite est interessant.



===========

March 04, 2009

Helen ThomasL No punishments in sight for Bush

Hearst Newspapers Helen Thomas

Can Americans face the truth about the Bush administration's abuse of power?

I believe so, but clearly President Obama and some Democratic lawmakers think they can't. Or possibly they don't want to be bogged down in a search which could be viewed as vindictive against the former regime. Too bad.
Obama_ a former constitutional law professor_ has ruled out a look backward, claiming that any review of possible illegalities by Bush and his coterie would lead to ``politics that have made Washington dysfunctional.''
Picking up on the last Bush mantra that we should move ``forward,'' Obama with his don't-rock-the-boat perspective is not about to nail his predecessor. After all, Obama is now a member of the club and shows signs of fitting in very quickly and easily.

President Richard M. Nixon had a more courageous opposition in the form of the Democratic-led impeachment drive that led to his resignation in disgrace.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., quickly took any discussion of Bush impeachment off the table because she feared such a prosecution would disrupt the Democratic legislative agenda.

This double standard embraced by nervous politicians nourishes the perception that laws do not apply equally when politicians seek to protect each other.

Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, are the few congressional leaders who have the courage to say in effect: ``Stop the music. We can't go forward until we have a clear understanding of what travesties were perpetrated by the Bush administration.''

They reflect the view of philosopher George Santayana that if we do not remember the past we are condemned to repeat it in the future.
But we're not talking about grand jury indictments here.
Leahy is proposing the creation of a ``truth-finding panel'' designed ``to get to the bottom of what happened _and why _ to make sure it never happens again.''

Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: ``For much of this decade, we have read about and witnessed such abuses as the scandal at Abu Ghraib (the notorious prison near Baghdad), the disclosure of torture memos and the revelation of warrantless surveillance of Americans.''

He noted that some political leaders ``say do nothing.'' A few senators even tried to make Attorney General Eric Holder promise in his confirmation hearings that he would not prosecute anyone for Bush-era lawbreaking.

``At the opposite end of the spectrum, others say that even if it takes many years and divides the country and distracts from the urgent priority of fixing the economy, we must prosecute the Bush administration to lay down a marker,'' Leahy said.

``It is easier for prosecutors to net those far down the ladder than those at the top, who set the tone and the policies,'' the senator noted.

Thus, low-ranking soldier-guards at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted, but their commanders and CIA personnel _who inflicted cruel, inhuman ``enhanced interrogation'' such as ``waterboarding,'' which simulates drowning, have gone free.

The inhumane policies on treatment of prisoners were set by Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and legal advisers in Bush's White House and Justice Department. Those higher-ups haven't paid the price for approving torture.

Leahy said the truth panel should include people universally recognized as fair-minded and without axes to grind.
``Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth,'' he said. ``People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments but to assemble the facts.''

Leahy also said that immunity from prosecution could be given in order to get the whole truth.
I suggest that former President Jimmy Carter would make a fine chairman of the suggested truth forum.
Leahy's bottom line: ``We need to get to the bottom of what happened _ and why_ to make sure it doesn't happen again.''

Tout simplement incroyable (pas que l'Iran s'arme ainsi mais que nos dirigeants laissent faire)

Iran can develop a nuclear weapon within a year and has access to enough fissile material to produce up to 50 nuclear weapons, a panel of current and former U.S. officials advising the Obama administration said Wednesday.

By James Rosen
FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Iran can develop a nuclear weapon within a year and has ready access to enough fissile material to produce up to 50 nuclear weapons, according to a panel of current and former U.S. officials advising the Obama administration.
William Schneider, Jr., chairman of the Defense Science Board and a former under secretary of state in the Reagan administration, offered those estimates Wednesday during a news conference announcing the release of a new "Presidential Task Force" report on Iran by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The report, entitled "Preventing a Cascade of Instability: U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress," was signed by a team of policymakers, former officials and Iran scholars that included Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind..
Also signing on to the early draft form were two individuals expected to play significant roles in the development of the Obama administration's foreign policy: former Ambassador Dennis Ross, named last month by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a special envoy on the Iran issue, and Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state who is expected to accept a senior position dealing with non-proliferation issues.

The "cascade" refers to a set of 164 high-speed centrifuges used to enrich uranium to the high levels necessary to produce a nuclear weapon. The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently reported that Iran has enough low enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, and currently has 5,600 centrifuges operating at its pilot enrichment facility in Natanz. Iran has declared its intention to add another 45,000 centrifuges over the next five years.

But Schneider said Iran has already "perfected the industrial aspects of enriching uranium," and can easily develop a nuclear weapon long before 2014.

"The ability to go from low enriched uranium to highly enriched uranium, especially if [the Iranians] expand the number of centrifuges, would be a relatively brief period of time, perhaps a year or so, before they'd be able to produce a nuclear weapon," Schneider said at the news conference. "So it's not a long-distance kind of problem."
Moreover, Schneider warned that the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Tehran -- which has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and equipped and funded regional terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah -- has access to significant amounts of the raw fissile material that would be the core ingredient in such a nuclear arsenal.

These indigenous natural resources include "yellowcake," the raw uranium ore that is converted to gas and then fed into the cascades of centrifuges. "Iran has enough yellowcake in the country to perhaps produce enough highly enriched uranium, if they go to that length, to produce perhaps fifty nuclear weapons," Schneider said.
Neither of the other two panel members who appeared alongside Schneider at the news conference -- Eugene Habiger, a retried four-star general and former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, and Nancy Soderberg, a former ambassador to the U.N. and National Security Council staffer during the Clinton administration -- disputed Schneider's claims.

The Washington Institute's nine-page report also warned that Israel "may feel compelled" to take military action to try to destroy or retard the Iranian nuclear program if Russia sells the S-300 surface-to-air missile system to Iran.
"Israeli leaders seem convinced that at least for now, they have a military option," the report states.
"However, Israelis see the option fading over the next one to two years, not only because of Iran's nuclear progress and dispersion of its program but also because of improved Iranian air defenses, especially the expected delivery of the S-300. ... Israel therefore may feel compelled to act before the option disappears."

Schneider, who along with Habiger and Soderberg conferred with high-level officials from Israel, Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain during a trip to the Middle East last December, reported that the Israeli military still believes it can hold the Iranian nuclear apparatus "at risk," but will no longer hold that view if Tehran acquires more sophisticated air defense technology from Moscow.

"It is the transfer of the S-300 that is likely to be a trigger for Israeli action," Schneider said. "The time frame is getting compressed and we need to act quickly if we are going to be successful [in resolving the issue peacefully]."
"Time is not on our side," agreed Habiger. "We've been mucking about on this issue for years now."
Habiger and Soderberg said it remains possible for the U.S., by working with Russia, China and Arab allies in the Persian Gulf, to persuade Iran not to obtain a nuclear weapon.

"They are a rational actor," Soderberg said of the Iranian regime. "They are deterrable." If the costs of pursuing the nuclear program are made sufficiently high, the panel said -- particularly through the imposition of sanctions on Iran's oil and gas sector -- Tehran's "cost-benefit analysis" could be changed.

Iran's defense minister visited Moscow last month to press for the Russian state-controlled arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, to sell Iran the S-300 system. Russian officials, at least publicly, were non-committal.
However, Iran signed a $700 million contract with Russia in 2005 to purchase 29 low-to-medium altitude surface-to-air missiles, which were delivered the following year and became operational in early 2007.

------------

Voyons voir, je me demande si ca pourrait etre la raison pour laquelle President Poutine, pardon Medvedef n'a pas repondu a la lettre de NNP dans laquelle il "n'aurait" pas demarre des negociations sur le theme: vous nous aide avec l'Iran et on ne deploiera pas notre parapluie. oh non, va, non non

===========

Obama Administration Rolls the Dice in Overture to Syria

The Obama administration is making a bold and potentially risky move, renewing ties with Syria by sending envoys for preliminary talks.



FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


The Obama administration is taking action to reverse U.S. policy toward Syria, a move analysts say is fraught with risks.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled the change Tuesday when she said the U.S. would send two envoys to the Middle Eastern country to begin "preliminary conversations."
Clinton, calling the overture a "worthwhile effort," said the administration cannot predict what the future holds for U.S.-Syria relations.

But the dispatch of emissaries, including former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Jeffery Feltman, would mark the highest-level U.S. administration visit in more than four years to Syria, which has been called a state sponsor of terrorism. Syria has been accused of building a secret nuclear reactor that was destroyed by Israeli bombers in 2007 and being behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.

"It's a reversal of what we were trying to do," said John Hannah, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy who, as national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, worked on Syria policy in the Bush administration.

Hannah said he's skeptical of President Obama's plans, but he added that the gambit could yield a huge payoff if the U.S. is able to extract Syria from the anti-Western coalition in the Middle East, which is led by Iran.
"It's a huge strategic play. It would have dramatic, strategic consequences, I think, if it's in fact viable and doable. And that's the big question."

...

Top U.N. Official Accuses U.S. of Inhuman 'Atrocities' in Iraq, Afghanistan

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


AP

FILE: U.N. Geenral Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann accused the U.S. of committing inhuman "atrocities" in a fiery speech before the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva Wednesday.

A top U.N. official accused the United States of committing inhuman "atrocities" in Iraq and Afghanistan during a speech Wednesday to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

"The aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations," said U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann.

• Click here to see the speech.

D'Escoto claimed that U.S. actions have directly led to more than a million Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003, a vastly inflated figure that does not correspond with the U.N.'s own estimates.

The U.N.'s health and medical agency, the World Health Organization, says 151,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion. IraqBodyCount.org puts the death toll between 90,000- 99,245.

D'Escoto's fiery speech came on the day the Obama administration decided to take up observer status on the Human Rights Council, which the Bush administration had boycotted because it was unable to crack down on despots and human rights abuses.

D'Escoto urged the Council to put the human rights situation in Iraq on its agenda, accusing the U.S. of war crimes and a series of human rights violations. "These must be addressed to bring an end to the scandalous present impunity," he said.

He also called on the U.S. to free five Cuban nationals being held in U.S. prisons. The group was convicted in a Miami court in 2001 on a range of charges including lying about their identities, trying to obtain U.S. military secrets and spying on Cuban exile groups.

D'Escoto, once the foreign minister for the Communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua, called the five "heroes" being held in "preposterous conditions."

D'Escoto said he was hopeful that the Obama administration would address his concerns and bring change to American policies concerning the imprisoned Cubans.

"The immediate ex-incarceration of the five Cuban heroes would help strengthen our confidence that the promised change is for real," he said.

FOX News' Ben Evansky contributed to this report.

--------

YEEESSSS, CHANGE!

Martinez: GOP in 'striking distance'

BY: MANU RAJU


Sen. Mel Martinez says GOP opponents are within
Photo: AP


Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said Wednesday Republican opponents of the $410 billion omnibus spending bill are within "striking distance" of bringing down the massive measure.

Derailing the spending bill would be a huge victory for Republicans, and they might accomplish the goal with the help of a few reform-minded Democrats.

Opposition to the sprawling measure has been growing for a variety of reasons, including a proposed change of Cuba policy, the inclusion of thousands of earmarks and the spending bill's overall price tag. But even critics of the measure are wary of blocking a bill that is essential to funding key government programs at a time of economic malaise. This omnibus spending bill is essentially last year's business — funding for a handful of government agencies for the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1.

But critics have latched on to the 8,000-plus earmarks in the bill, and the opposition has gained steam as the legislation has been debated on the Senate floor this week.

With 60 votes needed to advance the measure, Democrats will need every vote with GOP opposition hardening. It's not clear yet if Republicans are completely unified against the omnibus — Republican appropriators have plenty of earmarks of their own in the measure.

Two Democrats - Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold - have said they'd vote against it, and Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) both said they're undecided on how they'll vote.
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) wouldn't say how he'd vote.

"We'll just take a look at the whole thing," Bond said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he's still weighing the package and he's concerned about the bill not moving through regular order.

"It's very unsatisfactory to have an omnibus here in march and it should have been done Sept. 30th," Specter said. "I'm not happy with the way we've abandoned regular order here in the Senate."

If Specter votes for the bill, it would be ammuniton on the campaign trail, where he is likely to face a conservative challenger in a primary next spring.
Democratic leaders declined to discuss the bill's prospects.

"We'll just have to wait and see when we end the process — every day is another day in the Senate," Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

------

For once, I agree with Reid!

... et quel club!


Facing a historic economic crisis, two wars and countless other pressures, President Obama's hair appears to be going grayer by the day — and there's only been 44.

March 4, 2009 -- Updated 0348 GMT (1148 HKT)
Clinton warns of Iranian threat to Europe, Russia

(CNN) -- Iran poses a threat to Europe and Russia, both from Tehran's direct efforts and its support of terrorist groups, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.



Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The Tehran government is intent on interfering in the Middle East, she told reporters aboard her flight to Brussels from the region.

"There is a great deal of concern about Iran from the entire region," she said. "I heard it over and over and over again in Sharm el Sheikh, in Israel, in Ramallah.

"It is clear Iran intends to interfere in the internal affairs of all these people and try to continue their efforts to fund terrorism -- whether it is Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies."

Clinton repeated President Barack Obama's desire to talk directly with the Iranians, but added that "we want to make sure it's constructive."

She also reiterated what Obama said he had told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in a "lengthy letter" -- that the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe targets Iran and not Russia.

....

Bailout Will Aid 1 in 9 Homeowners

The Obama administration said its housing-rescue plan will help as many as one in nine homeowners. New details on the plan will likely hasten efforts at banks.
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and RUTH SIMON

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration announced details of a housing-rescue plan it said would help as many as one in nine homeowners, from low-income Americans struggling to avoid foreclosure to well-off borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.

The announcement came two weeks after President Barack Obama said he would spend $75 billion on the housing component of an emergency economic plan that includes a financial-system bailout and a $787 billion spending-and-tax-cut package.

The package represents an effort to tackle the political challenges inherent in any housing rescue. While the administration wants a sweeping program that would prevent millions of foreclosures, it doesn't want to be seen as rewarding the greedy or reckless.

"It is imperative that we continue to move with speed to help make housing more affordable and help arrest the damaging spiral in our housing markets, just as we work to stabilize our financial system, create jobs and help businesses thrive," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a written statement.

The administration, which was criticized for its rollout of its financial-sector rescue last month, got a generally warmer reception for the details of the foreclosure program. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 149.82 points, or 2.2%, snapping a dismal losing streak in recent days.

It remains uncertain how successful the administration will be in overcoming one of the biggest problems to forestall private efforts to fix troubled mortgages: the objections of investors who own mortgage-backed securities.
The administration estimates the new plan will cover as many as nine million mortgage holders. It has two main components.

First, the government will offer financial incentives and subsidies to persuade mortgage-servicing companies to ease up on borrowers who are in financial straits so severe that they risk losing their homes. Borrowers will have to sign affidavits attesting to their financial hardships. In return, they will see their interest rates drop to as low as 2%, their payment periods lengthened, and other modifications aimed at bringing their monthly payments to 31% of their income -- commonly considered a reasonable ratio. This program will be limited to first-lien mortgages with outstanding principal balances that don't exceed $729,750, in the case of single-family homes.

...

There is HOPE yet!

MARCH 5, 2009

White House Rethinks Tax Hikes

Obama Open to Revising Plan to Cap Breaks on Mortgage Interest and Donations
By JOHN D. MCKINNON and MARTIN VAUGHAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is meeting strong Democratic Party resistance to his proposal to reduce tax deductions enjoyed by upper-income Americans and could be forced to drop or modify the idea.
Mr. Obama in his budget blueprint last week proposed a cap on itemized deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations to help pay for his health-care overhaul. The plan would cost wealthier taxpayers about $318 billion in new taxes over 10 years, according to government estimates.
But after objections from Democratic lawmakers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appeared to suggest at one point Wednesday that the administration was willing to consider dropping or modifying the proposal.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.), left, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before a budget hearing Wednesday.

Getty Images

The resistance from Mr. Obama's own party -- focusing on a single element of the president's tax plans -- could foreshadow broader troubles for the rest of his proposed tax increases.

Republicans have already taken aim at rate increases planned for higher-income earners, as well as the administration's plans to raise hundreds of billions of dollars through climate-change legislation.

During two days of congressional hearings on the Obama budget blueprint this week, Democrats added their own concerns.

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate's top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that "has nothing to do with health care." He added: "I'm wondering about the viability of that provision."

"We recognize there are other ways to do this," Mr. Geithner responded during a hearing Wednesday. "We are willing to listen to all ideas that meet these broad principles."

Some lawmakers questioned whether it was smart to reduce mortgage-interest deductions in the midst of a housing-market crisis.

"Isn't there a concern that limiting the deduction would further depress home prices?" Sen. Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) asked during the hearing.
Charitable organizations are
also worried. Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy said Wednesday that Mr. Obama's proposals to limit deductions and raise rates, if applied in 2006, would have reduced giving by nearly $4 billion, or 2.1%.
"I'd like to think that people give out of the goodness of their heart, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up the heartstrings," Nevada Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said Tuesday during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

Mr. Baucus said the administration should look instead for ways of covering the cost of health-care reform by finding more savings within the health-care system. He suggested limiting the tax advantages of employer-provided health care.

Mr. Geithner said the proposal on limiting deductions was intended to underscore the administration's credibility in fighting the deficit, and "to make sure the people understand that we need to do this in a way that's broadly fiscally responsible."

Still, Mr. Geithner repeatedly defended the proposal, saying it affects only about 1.2% of taxpayers. He added it would have only a modest negative impact on overall charitable giving. The Treasury secretary also noted that none of the administration's tax increases would go into effect until 2011 -- presumably after an economic recovery is well under way.

The Obama plan would cap the value of deductions for families making $250,000 and up. Under current law, a $1,000 deduction is worth up to $350 for such taxpayers, because they can avoid tax rates of up to 35% on that income. The Obama cap on deductions would make the $1,000 deduction worth a maximum of $280.

Mr. Geithner also faced questions from lawmakers about how Mr. Obama's plan to let the top two tax rates increase to 39.6% and 36% in 2011 would impact small businesses. Republicans challenged Mr. Geithner's assertion that those increases wouldn't affect 97% of small businesses, saying the tax increases would put a new burden on businesses that create jobs.

Another Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, questioned why the administration wouldn't look for savings in the tax code through a comprehensive overhaul. "Why not look at a broader approach to tax policy, [rather] than coming in with this proposed change to marginal rates?" Ms. Cantwell said.

Presidential Bait-and-Switch

What Obama once promised, and what he's delivering.
By KARL ROVE

Barack Obama won the presidency in large measure because he presented himself as a demarcation point. The old politics, he said, was based on "spin," misleading arguments, and an absence of candor. He'd "turn the page" on that style of politics.
Last week's presentation of his budget shows that hope was a mirage.

For example, Mr. Obama didn't run promising larger deficits -- but now is offering record-setting ones. He'll add $4.9 trillion before his term ends and $7.4 trillion if given a second, doubling the national debt in five years and tripling it in 10. Mr. Obama's deficits will be much larger than he admits because he relies on rosy economic assumptions and gimmicks that mask spending and debt (like assuming popular new programs he supports won't be renewed).
Nor did Mr. Obama run promising more earmarks. Instead, he said he'd reform the earmark culture and "scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts." Now he wants to wave through a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with about 8,500 earmarks. This is on top of the $787 billion stimulus bill signed into law two weeks ago.

His justification comes to us from the White House's budget director, Peter Orszag, who recently called the omnibus spending bill "last year's business." But it will fund the federal government for the next six months. Mr. Obama could veto the legislation or push congressional Democrats to ditch the earmarks. But he has given little indication that he will do either.

Nor is it credible to claim that the spending spree on Mr. Obama's watch is someone else's responsibility, as Mr. Orszag did by saying the president had "inherited" these deficits.
Mr. Obama ceded authority to congressional appropriators, who wrote the stimulus bill that is history's largest spending increase. Then Mr. Obama got behind the pork-laden omnibus-spending bill. And Mr. Obama has also proposed $4 trillion in outlays this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next fiscal year.

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush's decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush's eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America "cannot and will not sustain" deficits like Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?

There is more
. Mr. Obama pledged "no tax hikes on any families earning less than a quarter million dollars." What he didn't draw attention to was $600 billion in higher energy taxes he wants to impose through a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions. These taxes will hit everyone who drives, flips a light switch, or buys anything manufactured, grown or shipped.

Mr. Obama devoted four times as much space in his campaign stump speech to cutting taxes as he did to talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. In the election's most widely watched speech, his Denver Convention address, he didn't even mention raising taxes, instead stressing he'd "cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all working families." Yet higher taxes are what every American is going to get.

Donc, si je lis bien M. Gore, la malfaisance de l'homme contre le dieu environnement n'est pas (plus?) du domaine de la science mais du domaine de la croyance !
Puisque c'est le pape bien nanti de la religion verte qui le dit...

Nous vivons décidément une époque formidable !

Puisque c'est le pape bien nanti de la religion verte qui le dit...

Pape et..... laureat du prix Nobel de la Paix

Quelle tristesse, ce prix... Enfin libelle, non pas NF, mais NN (Normes Nobel), il lui permet de ne pas avoir a repondre a des questions de journalistes qui pourraient etre embarrassantes. Il suffit de l'ecouter et de croire, c'est tout ce qu'il attend du monde.

Je me demande s'il a quitte les lieux en SUV et s'il a bien regagne ses penattes en jet prive, comme il le fait de coutume.

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).

Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.

Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.

Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.

The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.

The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.

A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.

The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.

Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

... les juges supremes de l'etat de Californie revoient le dossier.

Avant que les elections n'aient lieu en novembre dernier en Californie, les juges supremes de l'etat avaient deja decide que ce mariage etait un droit constitutionnel en mai 2008. Apres que 18,000 aient effectivement ete celebres, les juges ne souhaitent pas avoir a les annuler mais certains disent tout de meme ne pas vouloir revenir sur les resultats du vote.

Une suggestion? les couples resteront maries sans l'etre, c'est a dire, qu'ils beneficieront des droits du mariage mais ne pourront se dire maries. J'en parlais il y a quelques jours ici au sujet du couple du Massachusetts qui attaquait l'etat federal, que le mariage gay pourrait bien etre en train d'entrer par la petite porte. Il semble que si les juges decident que cette suggestion est la bonne, au moins en Californie, ce sera bien le cas.

California Court Weighing Gay Marriage Ban
Jim Wilson/The New York Times



Hundreds of people on both sides of the argument over California’s Proposition 8 demonstrated Thursday outside the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco.

By JOHN SCHWARTZ and JESSE McKINLEY
Published: March 5, 2009


SAN FRANCISCO — In a bruising hearing, California’s Supreme Court justices seemed ready on Thursday to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage that was passed by the state’s voters in November.

But the justices, who ruled just last May that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, also appeared reluctant to undo the 18,000 marriages conducted before the ban was passed.

The court has 90 days to issue a ruling in the case.

In their questions from the bench, the justices, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested that they did not want to second-guess the will of the voters. One theme that seemed to emerge from the questions was that same-sex couples could be granted the rights of married couples even if they are unable to call themselves married.

Although Justice Kennard had been part of the four-judge majority in last year’s case affirming same-sex marriage, she said from the bench that the state’s residents, in passing Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote, had not necessarily invalidated the entire decision.

The measure left intact, she said, the substantive rights that the court had granted same-sex couples. The biggest change, she argued, was “the label of marriage.”

Justice Kennard asked a lawyer opposing Proposition 8 a question that resonated in the hearing.

“Is it still your view,” she said, “that the sky has fallen in as a result of Proposition 8, and that gays and lesbians are left with nothing?”

The lawyer, Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued that if the court upheld Proposition 8, same-sex couples would have “our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.” The right to marry, he said, was inalienable.

But Justice Kennard argued that the people’s right to alter their Constitution is inalienable as well.

“And what I’m picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people,” she said, clearly signaling her reluctance to do so.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George also appeared skeptical of the challengers, suggesting that what the opponents of the ban really wanted was to change the initiative process and make it harder to change the State Constitution. That, he said, was an issue to take up with the Legislature and not with the courts.

Only two justices, Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn M. Werdegar, asked questions that indicated they would vote to overturn Proposition 8.

Nonetheless, Justice Kennard, who had sounded so supportive of the argument that voters could choose to take away a right, pushed back against the notion that Proposition 8 should invalidate the 18,000 marriages that had been legally approved before the vote. Without very explicit language in the law to that effect, she said, there was no evidence that the voters understood that thousands of people and their families “would, after passage of Proposition 8, be unmarried.” Several other justices made it clear they agreed.

Speaking for supporters of Proposition 8, Kenneth W. Starr, dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law and a former United States solicitor general, asked that he be allowed to “respectfully disagree” with that interpretation.
Mr. Starr said that under the California system, the fairness of an initiative is not the most important issue. “The people are sovereign — and can do unwise things,” he said. Same-sex couples, he argued, would still have substantial legal protections.

Opponents of Proposition 8 argued that the voters had gone too far in taking away the right to marry from gay men and lesbians, who had been identified by the court in May’s ruling as being historically subjected to prejudice. Any effort to take a fundamental right like marriage away from such a group must receive the highest level of judicial scrutiny, opponents of the ban said. Mr. Minter said the initiative should be considered a revision to the State Constitution and not just an amendment to it. Revisions require action by the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Michael Maroko, a Los Angeles lawyer representing gay couples, told the court that the state should treat its citizens equally, and if same-sex couples could not use the word “marriage,” no one else married under the auspices of the state should, either. “If it’s not going to be equal, then get out of the marriage business,” he said.

As Thursday’s arguments approached, protests and vigils were held across the state, and the hearings were carried live on a giant screen outside the Earl Warren Building, where the case was being heard, and online. Hundreds of supporters and opponents of the initiative gathered on the courthouse steps bearing signs, banners and a sense of tense anticipation.

“We knew we had to be here to see it with our own eyes,” said Katherine Stoner, 61, who had traveled from Monterey with her partner of 34 years, Michelle Welsh.

Another, smaller group of same-sex marriage opponents held signs with messages like “Gay = Pervert” and “A Moral Wrong Can’t Be a Civil Right.”

As the crowd filed out of the courthouse, Andrew P. Pugno, co-counsel for proponents of the ban, was upbeat. “We’ve been confident all along that Proposition 8 will be upheld,” he said. “We felt good coming in, and we felt good coming out.”

Meanwhile, Therese M. Stewart, the chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco, who had argued against the proposition in court, said that if the justices uphold Proposition 8, “we will go back to the ballot box, and we will eventually prevail.”

Malia Wollan contributed reporting.

Empty Treasury: Geithner alone

By JEANNE CUMMINGS & JOHN BRESNAHAN & JOSH GERSTEIN| 3/5/09 9:40 PM EST
Two top picks of Secretary Timothy Geithner’s have withdrawn their names from consideration.


Photo: AP


Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was President Barack Obama's pick to pull us out of a recession, but nobody thought he'd have to do it by himself or without key staffers.

But as news leaked Thursday that top, expected nominees for Treasury posts were bowing out of the confirmation process, Geithner looked more alone than ever.

Geithner’s top choice to be his deputy Treasury secretary, Annette Nazareth, stepped aside, citing personal reasons. Geithner’s pick for Treasury undersecretary of international affairs, Caroline Atkinson, also took her name out of the running for that job.

Their decisions leave Geithner with two senior openings for the positions that were supposed to communicate with domestic and global financial firms about Obama's plans for stabilizing the banking sector.

The personnel changes also will likely compel Obama to once again reassure the markets that his administration is prepared to lead the country out of recession—even if key posts are vacant for now.

Nazareth spent nine years at the Securities and Exchange Commission, first as director of its market regulation division and later as a commissioner.

However, Nazareth’s time at the SEC proved to be a liability rather than an asset. Senate Democrats feared that Republicans would try to tie Nazareth to Wall Street scandals, include the alleged Bernie Madoff "Ponzi scheme", in light of reports that the scheme was repeatedly overlooked by regulators during those years.


"You could tell that they wanted to beat up on an Obama nominee like her," the source said of the Republicans.

The circumstances behind Atkinson’s departure were unclear.

Geithner has struggled to fill his top ranks – at times due to difficulties with the vetting process, which were leading a number of qualified candidates to drop out of consideration for important jobs at Treasury. But a source close to Nazareth denied that was the reason.

White House officials declined to comment publicly. An administration source said both officials had been out of Treasury's daily operations for a while now and that other candidates to fill the posts are already in the pipeline.

The White House's effort to show calm is important because this sort of personnel blip could carry more consequences for the Obama team given that Treasury has taken the lead on implementing the president’s complex economic recovery program.

The already skittish markets could well tumble anew in the morning at any news of disruption in the treasury transition process.

Administration sources noted that the Treasury Department has filled more of its political appointees — at least 50 — than any other department and is well ahead of previous administrations.

...

“There is an area that I think is, I don't know, shameful is the word," Volcker said. "The secretary of the Treasury is sitting there without a deputy, without any undersecretaries, without any, as far as I know, assistant secretaries responsible in substantive areas at a time of very severe crisis. He shouldn't be sitting there alone.[td align="right"][/td]