Tag Archives: development

GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING: The History of Health Tyranny: Codex Alimentarius, part 1

http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/history-of-health-tyranny-c… Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy. It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect. A more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation. Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented” whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organization. The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code”[1] and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2] This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion. Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the “barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws.[3] As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards. The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europeaus adopted a resolution that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO. In 1961, it was decided by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Europaeus, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the FAO Conference to create an international food standards programme known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4] In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5] Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in the establishment of Codex. Many anti-Codex organizations have asserted that Nazi war criminals, Fritz Ter Meer[6] and Hermann Schmitz[7] in particular, were principal architects of the organization. Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question, “Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply?”[8] It then goes on to answer the charges by stating: No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words “Codex Alimentarius” in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumors about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex. Truthful information about Codex is found on the Internet – there is nothing to hide from our side – we are a public institution working in public for the public – we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.[9] But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it. While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations. Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers. This is because Codex, if it wanted, could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation. However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO, we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius. READ MORE: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/history-of-health-tyranny-c… added by: GLOBALPOLITICAL

How to Avoid Mistakes When Raising Green Kids

When you become a parent, you want to extend your eco-awareness to your kids so that they too can reap the benefits. Sure, you’ve chosen cloth diapers and are careful about recycling and packing nutritious, organic lunches, but what are you missing? Chances are some things you haven’t even thought of. Check out four of the most common mistakes parents make when trying to raise healthy, happy, green kids. 1. Hidden Chemicals Just because a product is labeled as natural or even organic does not mean that it is a healthy choice. In fact, many common seemingly healthy products aimed at kids are filled with harmful chemicals. Check out this amazing book, Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, to find out the truth about the dangers of common preservatives and food additives. What you’ll find is that there is concrete scientific evidence against common substances like MSG found in a variety of foods (not just Chinese food!!). These harmful additives are used as flavor enhancers and represent a billion-dollar-business. The problem is that they are also making us sick. The good news is that we can do something about this. Check the labels of foods and stay away from packaged foods that contain an abundance of chemicals. Also, be careful because seemingly harmless ingredients such as “enzymes,” “hydrolyzed vegetable protein,” “natural flavors” and “spices” are sometimes food additives in disguise! Two of the biggest culprits aimed right at our kids are Campbell Soups and Lunchables. 2. Toxic Toys and Clothes We live in a world where quantity is often chosen over quality — especially when it comes to our kids’ clothes and toys. Even the most environmentally aware parent can get caught up in a wave of seemingly never ending consumerism. Worse yet, parents often end up buying an abundance of toys and clothes for their children that are actually toxic and harmful to their health. In fact, according to the New York Daily News, dangerous levels of lead and hazardous chemicals continue to pop up in some popular children’s products like Barbie Bike Flair Accessory Kit and the Dora the Explorer Activity Tote. Also, conventional clothing can retain toxic chemicals that can cause rashes. So what is a parent to do? Check out wonderful websites like WildDill.com that offer a variety of clothes and toys that are safe, educational, high-quality and eco-friendly. 3. Over Juiced Sure, consuming some juice is OK for our kids' health, but nowadays over consumption of juice is becoming a real problem. So much so that even the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy statement about “The Use and Misuse of Fruit Juice in Pediatrics.” According to the AAP, drinking too much juice can contribute to obesity, the development of cavities and gastrointestinal problems such as diarrhea, excessive gas, bloating and abdominal pain. Also, NRP, a California environmental group, has found amounts of lead in bottled juice, juice boxes and packaged fruit that exceed federal limits for young children. And compounding this problem, juice boxes are often not recycled and end up littering our landfills. 4. Carbon Kid Print When is the last time you calculated your carbon kid print? Um….never? If you are like many parents who calculate their individual footprint and its impact on the environment, you might realize that you’ve never even included your kids in this equation – or started a conversation with them about how they can have a positive impact on the environment. Thankfully there is this wonderful website called ZeroFootPrint Kids Calculator that can help. The site consists of five easy to understand categories: Transportation, What You Eat, Home & School, What You Use, and What You Throw Away. After the amounts are entered, the site tallies the results in terms of carbon dioxide emitted per year. Plus, one of the best parts is that kids can see how their results compare to those in different countries such as Australia, Brazil and China. http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-harmful-mistakes-parents-make-when-rai… :+environmentalgraffiti+(Environmental+Graffiti) added by: treewolf39

Portia de Rossi wife Ellen DeGeneres photo

Portia de Rossi said in a statement: “I am thrilled to legally adopt my wife#39;s name. I will continue to use Portia de Rossi for professional purposes.” Portia de Rossi has legally taken wife Ellen DeGeneres#39; surname. The 37-year-old actress – who married the talk show host at their Beverly Hills home in August 2008 – had her request to officially become Mrs. DeGeneres granted by a judge yesterday (23.09.10). The former #39;Arrested Development#39; star initially signed documents reques

Here is the original post:
Portia de Rossi wife Ellen DeGeneres photo

Brett Ratner or Oliver Stone: Who’d Courtney Love Rather?

It’s lunchtime on the East Coast, and I don’t know about you, but I’m starving. Want half of my auteur sandwich — stacked high, sloppy and tall with lady meat Courtney Love? It’s delicious! Click through and dig into Love’s touchy-feely exploits from last night’s Wall Street 2 premiere and last week’s You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger debut in NYC.

Follow this link:
Brett Ratner or Oliver Stone: Who’d Courtney Love Rather?

So Tell Me About Running Wilde: A Movieline Premiere Week FAQ

Until the never-happening Arrested Development movie happens, the closest fans will get to a reunion is Running Wilde . Created by Mitch Hurwitz and starring Will Arnett and David Cross, the new Fox sitcom brings with it a load of expectations, some fairly negative reviews and a pilot that was fiddled with all summer. But is it funny? That answer and many more ahead in the latest edition of Movieline’s Premiere Week FAQ.

See the article here:
So Tell Me About Running Wilde: A Movieline Premiere Week FAQ

Glee, Stop Ruining Great Songs! Music Intervention

America may love FOX's monster hit “Glee,”but Sergio Cilli refuses to let this high school musical get away with turning classic Rolling Stone and Billy Idol songs into Mickey Mousified Kidz Bop jams. Except the remake of Madonna's “Vogue” music video. That looks like it took a lot of hard work. Nice job. It takes a real friend to call an intervention to help you realize you might have a problem. This also applies to music. Except Sergio is not your friend but he still wants you to stop. Here's Sergio's Music Intervention. infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Erin Gibson, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10/9c on Current TV. added by: Sergio_Cilli

‘I will not be leaving my $56bn fortune to my kids’, says Bill Gates

MICROSOFT founder Bill Gates has revealed he won't be leaving his estimated $56 billion fortune to his children when he dies. Instead the global software giant brainchild, who ranks alongside the Medicis, Romanovs, Rothschilds and Rockefellers as one of history's wealthiest people, told UK newspaper The Sun that his billions will be spent defeating global poverty. “I will give the kids some money but not a meaningful percentage,” he said. “Setting the number so that they need to work but they feel reasonably taken care of is hard to figure out.” Bill Gates and his wife Melinda have three children – Jennifer, 14, Rory, 11, and eight-year-old Phoebe. “I knew I didn't think it was a good idea to give the money to my kids,” Mr Gates said. “That wouldn't be good either for my kids or society. So the question was, 'Can I find something that had incredible impact?' I knew I wanted to do that.” Along with his wife, he launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which so far donated $30 billion to fund mass vaccination programs to eradicate diseases such as polio and TB. It also championed the search for the Holy Grails of health – vaccines for Aids and malaria. Mr Gates is currently working on the U.N. Millennium Development Goals – a set of targets to reduce global poverty by 2015 – as a summit begins in New York on Monday. “Once you improve health then the population comes down because people have fewer children because the survival rates are better,” he said. “When population comes down your ability to eat, to educate, to have jobs and to get countries to be self-sustaining is pretty phenomenal. Aid isn't something that will have to continue for ever.” added by: eden49

On Today: CAIR Spokesman Equates Ground Zero Mosque Protest to Japanese Internment and Slavery

NBC’s Meredith Vieira, on Thursday’s Today show, invited on New York Republican Congressman Peter King and CAIR’s Zead Ramadan to discuss the potential burning of Korans by Pastor Terry Jones and the furor over the Ground Zero mosque, but it was only King that was pressed by the Today anchor, as Vieira let Ramadan go unchallenged even when he equated opposition to the mosque to internment of  Japanese-Americans in World War II and even slavery. First up, Vieira, after playing a clip of Feisal Abdul-Rauf, recited the Imam’s concerns to King that if he moved the location of the mosque now it “would just be fueling the radicals” to which the New York Congressman shot back that “he seems to be equating the 71 percent of Americans who oppose this as being radicals.” Then Vieira let CAIR’s Ramadan go on, uninterrupted, as he proceeded to compare the protest surrounding the Ground Zero mosque to some of America’s worst moments of intolerance as he went on to say: “The issue with the public sentiment is that when an issue is related to bigotry, unfortunately our history has shown that sometimes we’re on the wrong side. For example we interred Japanese during World War II, we segregated our military, our schools, and it took on Executive Order to undo that. And we also enslaved our fellow Americans. So I mean when it comes to bigotry we’ve got to be careful about the public sentiment.” The following is the full segment as it was aired on the September 9 Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: Let’s get more on this now from Representative Peter King of New York who has been a vocal opponent of the plan to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero, and Zead Ramadan, who is with the Council on American Islamic Relations. Gentlemen, good morning to you both. [On screen headline: “Islam Under Fire, Are Muslims Being Treated Unfairly In America?”] REP. PETER KING: Good morning. ZEAD RAMADAN: Good morning. VIEIRA: Let’s start with this notion, you know Pastor Jones, who’s now said, who plans to burn the Koran on 9/11, on September 11th, on this Saturday- RAMADAN: Right. VIEIRA: -that if somebody were to call from the White House or the State Department or the Pentagon, it is something that would not be ignored. So do you believe that someone from the White House, maybe even the President himself, should call this man and encourage him not to burn the Koran? I’ll start with you? KING: First of all, this is insane, it’s dangerous, there’s absolutely no place in American debate for what this, this mad man is talking about. My only concern if it’s someone like the President calling him is that you give him status, you give him stature. We can have real issues to debate here this morning. It has nothing to do with the Koran, nothing to do with the New Testament, nothing to do with the Old Testament. We have political, diplomatic issues and it’s insanity that a person like this is tying up the country. VIEIRA: Do you think a call should be placed? RAMADAN: I think if General Petraeus was to say, “Look we think that American lives would be at stake here, that you’re gonna flick on the switch for radicals and extremists to act,” I’d rather save American lives. That would be my perspective. Even though he did say a couple of weeks ago that the person he respected was George Bush, and they asked him if George Bush called would you stop, he said no. But I really hope that if he had a change of heart that we would do something about that and- VIEIRA: What do you think is going to happen, if he does go ahead with this? RAMADAN: Well, you know, you never know what triggers psychotics. And I’d hate to think that people are turned on, you know, just like that flick the switch analogy and someone becomes an extremist and they go from rhetoric to action. And that would concern me in America, and outside of America. You know I, we don’t want anybody else threatening American lives. And I think that’s what’s most important to us. VIEIRA: But, but since this whole controversy erupted we have seen the American flag burned by Muslims around the world, we’ve heard people scream “Death to America,” but no one, or I would say most people do not believe that all Muslims hate the U.S. or wish it harm. So why is so much weight and legitimacy given to this pastor and his relatively small congregation? We’re talking maybe 50 members. KING: I think it’s a sign of the times. If a person speaks loudly enough and says something crazy enough the media is gonna cover it and people are gonna respond. I think we all do ourselves a favor if we could somehow ignore him. It adds, not only adds nothing to the debate, it brings the debate down and brings it to a level where no one wants to be at. It’s wrong… VIEIRA: Should the media not cover it, which is what the Secretary of State has suggested? RAMADAN: I think so, personally. I think that you’re giving him a forum and I think that if people never listened to him, he might think that this is not something that’s worth his while at the end of the day. You know an organization called Right Wing Extreme said they initially planned to protect him while he does this. And they said that after a lot of praying and thinking they just didn’t realize how this would bring people closer to Jesus. Some people are saying – so they backed down last week. And maybe this a little bit too right wing and too extreme for them. VIEIRA: Let’s talk about the controversy surrounding the construction of this Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. Last night on CNN, the man behind that proposal Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf said that had he realized how much controversy this was gonna cause he never would have decided to build it there, but at this point he has a responsibility. Listen to what he told CNN. FEISAL ABDUL-RAUF: If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. VIEIRA: I know Congressman that you’re opposed to that mosque being put there. KING: Right. VIEIRA: But is he right, that he would just be fueling the radicals if he moved that cultural center, at this point? KING: Well my problem with what he’s saying, he seems to be equating the 71 percent of Americans who oppose this as being radicals. He’s talking about the radicals who are opposed to the mosque which, to me is 71 percent of the American people and comparing that to al Qaeda or radical elements in the Muslim community. And that, to me, is a, it’s a totally wrong equation. And it’s, to me, that is – he is almost – to me it’s like a threat to the United States. What he’s saying is that if somehow this mosque is not approved, that the radical elements of the Muslim world are going to be against us. I don’t think we have to prove ourselves to anyone. I mean Muslims in this country as well as Catholics and Jews and Protestants are treated better here than anywhere else in the world. And I would say Muslims probably have more freedom in this country than any of their own countries. VIEIRA: Mr. Ramadan? RAMADAN: Yeah the, the issue with the public sentiment is that when an issue is related to bigotry, unfortunately our history has shown that sometimes we’re on the wrong side. For example we interred Japanese during World War II, we segregated our military, our schools, and it took on Executive Order to undo that. And we also enslaved our fellow Americans. So I mean when it comes to bigotry we’ve got to be careful about the public sentiment. What’s really important is that our public officials and our, and our congressmen have to come out and tell people, this is not what, this is not what America represents, these are not the ideals that our nation was founded on and we have to be better than that. KING: Yeah but what I disagree with there, is why do we say, what am I saying, as a Congressman, that in any way violates American ideals? I have raised real questions about the Muslim leadership in this country. For instance, I don’t think the Muslim leadership speaks out enough against terrorism. I can tell you that there are mosques in this country where imams tell their congregants not to cooperate with the, with law enforcement. And if you talk to law enforcement people they will tell you that very seldom, do they get cooperation from the Muslim leadership. And that to me is the real issue. VIEIRA: But the imam might, but the imam might say to you, as he said on CNN last night, this story broke last December, the front page of the New York Times. Nobody complained about it then. It wasn’t until about two months ago. He thinks that it’s politicians who’ve grabbed onto it for political reasons. Even the mayor himself said, come November 3rd this won’t be an issue anymore. KING: I disagree with that completely. RAMADAN: This is, it is the midterm, it is the midterm elections and people like Newt Gingrich who’ve equated Islam to, you know Nazism. I mean we need to condemn people like that and say this, these are, these, you know these sentiments are absolutely wrong. And if you don’t think that people are listening to Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin or Rick Lazio who hasn’t talked about anything else and he’s running for the governorship of New York state, you know except for the mosque. You know he’s basically driving all attention and driving the public sentiment against the development of a religious institution which is protected by our Constitution. VIEIRA: You have about 15 seconds left… KING: Okay, okay no one says that there is not an absolute right to build a mosque, but because you have the right doesn’t make it right. And I think it’s a very legitimate issue to talk about this mosque to be barely 500 feet from Ground zero, to have a 13 story, $100 million edifice where 3,000 Americans were killed that day, it’s wrong. And I think it’s wrong to say that it’s somehow un-American to raise that as an issue because- RAMADAN: No, no. I don’t think that’s it. I think, I think that you know- KING: Free speech is also an American principle. RAMADAN: But Timothy McVeigh, but Timothy McVeigh blows up a federal building and we don’t say you can’t build any churches around there. You know- VIEIRA: This is, you know gentlemen- RAMADAN: That, that’s it… VIEIRA: -this is a discussion that’s gonna go on for quite awhile. KING: That, that- RAMADAN: …blame it on Christianity. You know? KING: -is a totally unfair comparison. The fact is- RAMADAN: Why is it unfair? KING: Because the Muslim leadership in this country does not cooperate with law enforcement… RAMADAN: What Muslim leadership? Let me ask you about that. Because there’s no Jewish leadership or Muslim leadership who talk on behalf of- VIEIRA: And what, you know what, this is, this is, this- KING: I’m concerned with imams, I’m talking about imams in mosques which are being investigated. VIEIRA: This is why, this is, gentlemen- RAMADAN: You can’t just make a judgement… VIEIRA: -I’m gonna have to cut it off there. I understand but, but my point is- RAMADAN: I’m against, I’m against all terrorism. I’m against all extremism no matter where it’s from. VIEIRA: -this is because, this is why this is such a controversy because it is so heated, on both sides and it’s not gonna end today or tomorrow. I’m have to stop it there. Thank you so much, Congressman King. KING: Okay. RAMADAN: Thank you very much. KING: You’re a peacemaker. VIEIRA: I’m a peacemaker, exactly.

Read the rest here:
On Today: CAIR Spokesman Equates Ground Zero Mosque Protest to Japanese Internment and Slavery

George Stephanopoulos Derides John Boehner’s ‘Deep Tan,’ Wonders If He Will ‘Overcome’ It

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday quizzed House Minority Leader John Boehner about his tan, dismissing, “…I have to note that if you do win and you do become Speaker, you will probably have the deepest tan of any Speaker in American history.” He also wondered if this was something the Republican would have to “overcome.” The former Democratic operative turned journalist cited PPP , a Democratic polling firm, that queried voters about Boehner’s tan: “And there’s actually been a poll out in your state of Ohio, saying 30 percent of the voters think you spend too much time on your tan. And 27 percent don’t like it. Is this something you have to overcome?” [MP3 audio here .] However, when World News’ Claire Shipman interviewed Nancy Pelosi on October 26, 2006 , just prior to the Democratic take over of the House, the reporter mused, “Do you let yourself think, for example, maybe before you go to sleep at night, ‘Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?” Stephanopoulos on Wednesday asked the same question, but minus the flowery language: “Mr. Leader, how confident are you that you’re going to be Speaker of the House next year?” The host also pressed Boehner to condemn Terry Jones, a pastor in Florida who will be burning Korans on 9/11: “What is your message to Pastor Jones?” Boehner responded by asserting that just because someone can do something, doesn’t mean they should. That, apparently, wasn’t enough for Stephanopoulos. He challenged, “So, you’re telling him not to do it? Sir? Are you telling him not to do it?” Yet, on the August 4 GMA , Stephanopoulos declared to conservative Laura Ingraham, “This is a country founded on the notion of religious freedom. What better way to say they [the terrorists] haven’t won?” A transcript of the September 8 segment, which aired at 7:11am EDT, follows: 7:11 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: As we said, the President will deliver what he hopes will be a tide-turning speech on the economy in Cleveland. And he is taking direct aim again at our next guest, top House Republican John Boehner. BARACK OBAMA: And the Republican who thinks he’s going to take over as Speaker- [Audience boos.] I’m just saying, that’s his opinion. He’s entitled to his opinion. But, but when he was asked about this, he dismissed those jobs, as government jobs that weren’t worth saving. STEPHANOPOULOS: And House Republican leader John Boehner, joins us now. Thank you, sir, for coming in this morning. You seem to be the President’s new punching bag. HOUSE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER: Well, George, I think it just shows how out of touch the White House is. You know, the American people are asking the question, where are the jobs? And yet, here’s the White House worrying about what I’ve got to say instead of working together to get our economy going again and to get jobs back in America. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the President is outlining proposals that Republicans have supported in the past. This permanent extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit. This expensing proposal, the small business tax cut of about $100 billion. Those are proposals Republicans have supported in the past. Will you support them now? BOEHNER: George, I’m open to the President’s ideas. But I think the President’s missing the bigger point here. And that is, with all of the spending in Washington, and all the uncertainty facing small businesses, including the coming tax hikes on January the first, until this uncertainty and spending is under control, I don’t think these are going to have much impact. And, so, today, what I’d like to do is work on a bipartisan basis to do two things: First, instead of waiting until after the election to put together some big omnibus spending bill, with a bunch of wasteful spending, why wouldn’t we do this? Why don’t we pass a bill this month at 2008 spending levels. You know, before the TARP, before the bailout, before the stimulus. And let’s put some certainty in the economy. That in and of itself would save about $100 billion this year alone. And then, secondly, why wouldn’t we work together to make it clear that all current tax rates will be extended for the next two years? What that will do- STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re open- BOEHNER: What that will do is help small businesses who have no clue what the coming tax rates are going to be, gives them some certainty. And if we’re able to do this together, I think we’ll show the American people that we understand what’s going on in the country. And we’ll be able to get our economy moving again and get jobs growing in America. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re open to the President’s ideas. You’re also making these two proposals of your own for the President. You talked about the two year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As you know, the President is against, right now, the extension for the wealthy. But his former budget director, Peter Orszag, made a similar proposal about the two year extension. But he said, but they have to expire in two years so we can reduce the deficit. Are you open to that part of it as well? BOEHNER: George, we can’t deal with the deficit until we’re willing to get our arms around spending and have a strong economy. And you can’t have a strong economy if you’re raising taxes on the very people you expect to invest in our economy to begin hiring people again. STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Leader, how confident are you that you’re going to be Speaker of the House next year? BOEHNER: Well, certainly, George, it’s possible. We’ve got a steep hill to climb. We have got a lot of work to do. But when I travel the country and I travel my district, I’ve never seen the American people more engaged in this election and any election in my lifetime. And, so, we’ve got a lot of work to do. That’s our goal, though. To earn back the majority so we can renew our efforts to drive for a smaller, lest-costly and more accountable government in Washington, D.C. STEPHANOPOULOS: If you win, you will be third in line for the White House. Obviously, the eyes of the world will be on you. I wanted you to weigh in on an issue of national security implications, as well. We’ve seen this Pastor Terry Jones down in Florida, threatening to burn the Koran this weekend. This weekend, General Petraeus has spoken out against it. Secretary of State Clinton has spoken out against it. What is your message to Pastor Jones? BOEHNER: To Pastor Jones and those who want to build a mosque, just because you have a right to do something in America, does not mean it is the right thing to do. We’re a nation of religious freedom. We’re also a nation of tolerance. And I think, in the name of tolerance, people ought to really think about the kind of actions they’re taking. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re telling him not to do it? Sir? Are you telling him not to do it? BOEHNER: Well, listen. I just think that it’s not wise to do this in the face of what our country really represents. And over some, you know, 234 years. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. Before you go, I have to note that if you do win and you do become Speaker, you will probably have the deepest tan of any Speaker in American history. And there’s actually been a poll out in your state of Ohio, saying 30 percent of the voters think you spend too much time on your tan. And 27 percent don’t like it. Is this something you have to overcome? BOEHNER: Well, hey probably weren’t there yesterday, when I was out cutting my grass or when I was out riding my mountain bike. All right? STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no worries there? BOEHNER: Thanks, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Leader. No comment at all.

Read more here:
George Stephanopoulos Derides John Boehner’s ‘Deep Tan,’ Wonders If He Will ‘Overcome’ It

Fourteen more US troops killed in Afghanistan: What are they dying for?

Another 14 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Saturday, with the death toll so far this year already rising to the level reached for all of 2010. A pair of roadside bombings took the lives of seven soldiers on Monday, five of them dying in a blast that tore apart a Humvee in which they were riding. Bomb blasts took the lives of four others in southern Afghanistan over the weekend, while three were killed in clashes with armed groups resisting the US-led occupation. These latest deaths bring US fatalities for the month to nearly 50, after the record 65 killed in July. NATO has announced that it is investigating yet another report of civilians killed in a US bombing. The air strike last Thursday hit children who were collecting scrap metal on a mountain in the province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan. A local police commander said that the six children killed by the US bombs were aged six to 12. Another child was seriously wounded. After a much-reported decline in US air strikes, attributed to orders from sacked US senior commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal that were designed to reduce civilian casualties, such strikes are back up again. According to figures released by the Air Force, US warplanes flew 5,500 “close air support” missions in June and July of 2010, compared to 4,600 in the same months last year. With the Obama administration's Afghanistan surge having brought US troops up to the full strength of nearly 100,000, together with another 40,000 troops from NATO and other allied countries, fighting has intensified and casualties among both US troops and Afghan civilians are up sharply. New revelations of rampant corruption and CIA payoffs to the US-backed Kabul government raise the inescapable question: What are they dying for? Among the bodies shipped back to the US through Dover Air Base in flag-draped coffins this past week was that of a 20-year-old from Elizabeth, New Jersey, Army Specialist Pedro Millet, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in southern Afghanistan. “I feel like someone ripped my heart out. I have no heart. My baby is gone,” the soldier's mother, Denise Meletiche, told reporters outside her home after making the painful journey from the base in Delaware. She said that her son had joined the Army without telling her, explaining only afterwards that he did it to get money to go to college. “I was against the Army,” she said. “I'm against war.” The soldier's stepfather said that Army recruiters had been allowed into Pedro's high school and enticed him into joining the military. “We're losing kids in a war, and what are they doing about it?” he said. “This is ridiculous.” What can justify such human sacrifices? Obama, like Bush before him, has tried to frighten the American people into supporting this brutal war by claiming it is necessary to defeat terrorism. This is just as much a lie coming out of the Democratic president's mouth as it was when uttered by his Republican predecessor. US military and intelligence officials have repeatedly acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in all of Afghanistan–compared to 100,000 US troops. Moreover, the 91,000 classified documents released by WikiLeaks, most of them battlefield reports, make virtually no mention of American troops pursuing terrorists. On the contrary, they are fighting to suppress resistance to foreign occupation, a resistance that enjoys broad support from the Afghan people. A recent poll taken in Helmand and Kandahar provinces by the International Council on Security and Development, a London-based think tank, bears this out. It found that three quarters of the male population believed it was wrong to collaborate with the US-led occupation forces. Roughly the same share said that the Afghan government officials in the area were connected either to drug traffickers or to the armed groups opposing the occupation. These figures are essentially in sync with those reported by the Pentagon itself in the spring, indicating that less than a quarter of the people in the areas where US forces are battling to suppress Afghan resistance support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Another study released by the United Nations last January provided a vivid illustration of why Karzai and his cronies are so hated. It found that 52 percent of Afghan adults had been forced to pay at least one bribe to a public official in the previous 12 months, and that, collectively, Afghans had paid out $2.49 billion in bribes in 2009, an amount equal to nearly one-quarter of the country's gross domestic product. In a television interview broadcast at the beginning of this month, Obama admitted to the American people that “Nobody thinks that Afghanistan is going to be a model Jeffersonian democracy.” cont. added by: JanforGore