Tag Archives: government

20 Signs That America Is No Longer The Land Of The Free

The United States was able to defeat Nazi Germany and helped bring down the USSR, but is the U.S. government now quickly becoming just like them? Once upon a time, America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, but today the government has become an oppressive monster that is intrusively embedding itself in our lives in thousands of different ways. Today we are all viewed as potential threats to the “system” that the government has imposed, and therefore everything that we do must be watched, tracked, traced, recorded and controlled. Lip service is still given to ideals such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom of movement, but all of those freedoms are rapidly dying a brutal death. To our forefathers, living the American Dream meant living as free men and women, but today it means living under deep socialist tyranny where the government takes care of us from the cradle to the grave and uses an increasingly oppressive Big Brother police state control system to guarantee our safety. added by: Revelation1217

Growing problem of abandoned babies in Malaysia

Malaysian authorities are grappling with the mounting problem of abandoned babies. Sixty-five infants have been found so far this year, and many were dead by the time they were discovered. The issue has touched a raw nerve in the Muslim-majority country. The government fears that number will surpass previous totals – an average of 100 babies are found each year. They were left in rubbish bins, on doorsteps and on the streets, prompting the government to consider treating cases as murder or attempted murder. The latest abandoned baby, a newborn infant, was found dumped by a riverside, covered in a towel and a piece of cloth and stuffed into a bag. The gruesome finds have encouraged some observers to point the finger at familiar targets: internet pornography, bad parenting, and an over-exposure to sexually liberal western culture. But the phenomenon has also revived a debate over sex education in schools in a country where young people are taught abstinence, and where having a child out of wedlock is seen as deeply shameful. Social workers say this attitude simply drives many desperate women to abandon their babies. The government is trying to tackle the problem by increasing the penalty for the offense, asking police to treat such cases as murder or attempted murder. But there have been other approaches. One charity recently opened the country's first “baby hatch” – a place where mothers can safely and anonymously leave their unwanted child. The southern state of Malacca believes the way to curb the problem is to allow Muslim girls under the age of 16 to marry; it has also proposed opening a school for pregnant teenagers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11050427 added by: ampersand

Senator Al Franken "Net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time." we should stop big corporations like Google and Verizon from taking control of our precious internet.

Sen. Al Franken: We Have a Free Speech Problem By Tim Karr, August 20, 2010 Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.) warned a packed house Thursday night in Minneapolis that the corporate takeover of our media, and the government's failure to stop it, is one of the most important issues of our time. Franken said our media system is at risk everywhere we turn — from our free speech online to the growing power of companies who own a massive number of media outlets. Franken was speaking during a hearing featuring Federal Communications Commission Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps. He spoke about recent efforts by Verizon and Google to push a “policy framework” on Washington that transfers control over Internet content from the people who go online into the hands of a few powerful corporations. added by: BRAVATRAVELS

IS GOVT SEIZING CONTROL?

Look at various aspects of American life and asks a simple question: Who is in control? The individual or the government? Where liberals have already had their way, government is in control. Where liberals are still moving to advance their agenda, their success would mean an increase in government intrusion into the lives of individuals. As they attempt to move the country on a trajectory toward greater government control of our lives, liberals are also pushing the country away from two great constants consistently advocated by the Founding Fathers: the principles of limited government chartered in the Constitution and the natural moral law enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The greatest fiscal danger the nation faces as a result of the liberal agenda is the coming crisis of the welfare state. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's analysis of Treasury Department figures, the federal government now faces $61.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That astounding number is comprised of the federal debt plus the cost of entitlements — such as Medicare and Social Security benefits — promised to people now alive that is not covered by the revenue the current tax structure is expected to yield. This $61.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities, by the way, equals $200,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States — not counting embryos. Where is the government going to find that kind of cash? The Control Freaks know where to look for it: Wherever you put your money. added by: ahiguy

First State Recognized Slave Was Owned by Anthony Johnson – a Black Man

Anthony Johnson (? – 1670) was an early black resident of the Virginia Colony. He was one of the original 20 African laborers brought to Jamestown in 1619 as an indentured servant. On records from Jamestown, he is referred to as “Antonio a Negro”. In the 1640s, he purchased his freedom from indentured servitude for both himself and his wife and by 1651 he was prosperous enough to import five “servants” of his own, for which he was granted as “headrights”. According to the earliest known court records, slavery was first established in Virginia in 1654, when Johnson convinced the court in Northampton County that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, also a black man. Claiming that he had been imported as an indentured servant, Casor attempted to transfer what he argued was his remaining time of service to Robert Parker, a white, but Johnson insisted that he “had ye Negro for his life. The court ruled that “seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master….It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.” The unfortunate defendant in the court action, John Casor, thus became the first individual in Virginia known to be legally declared a slave by the government (before this case legally defined bondage had not yet fully taken hold in Virginia, although it had already by the 1630s in Massachusetts; in Virginia blacks were indentured servants up until slavery gradually took effect). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p265.html added by: ibrake4rappers13

CNN’s Velshi: Ban Catholic Churches From Oklahoma City Because of McVeigh?

CNN’s Ali Velshi engaged in moral relativism on Wednesday’s Newsroom as he editorialized on the controversial planned mosque near Ground Zero. Velshi worried about the precedent that might be set if a government “assisted” in moving its site: ” Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? ” The anchor, a Canadian Shia Muslim of the minority Ismaili sect , closed out the 2 pm Eastern hour of Newsroom with his regular “XYZ” commentary, which he devoted to the controversy. Velshi began by stating that it was “an emotional topic, and one I wasn’t sure I should bring up in these last few minutes.” He then launched into a short explanation of the 1st Amendment’s protection of religious liberty, echoing, in a way, his colleague Roland Martin’s constitutional defense of the mosque on Tuesday night : VELSHI: Did you know that, as an American citizen, you have two freedoms granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, when it comes to religion? The first part is known as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause essentially says the government can’t pass laws that will establish an official religion. This is commonly interpreted as the separation of church and state. The second one is the Free Exercise Clause, and it prevents the government from interfering with or controlling a person’s practice of his or her religion. Religious freedom is an absolute right in this country, and it includes the right to practice any religion, or no religion at all, for all Americans. After briefly touching on how many of the early American colonists came to North America for religious freedom, the CNN anchor moved on to his morally relativistic argument: VELSHI: Suppose our government leaders or New York state leaders do step in, in some capacity, whether official or non-official, and assist in moving the mosque elsewhere. Then what? What kind of precedent does that set? Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? I’m sure you’re thinking it sounds ridiculous, but ask yourself, is it ridiculous because Catholicism is familiar to you, or, is your argument that what he did was different, or is your argument that Timothy McVeigh didn’t kill in the name in Allah? Actually, the comparison is ridiculous, because, as his own network acknowledged the morning after McVeigh’s execution , that the murderer was ” baptized in the Catholic Church as a boy, but had stopped practicing and recently described himself as agnostic .” Moreover, as the terrorist himself admitted , he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building as a ” retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years ( including, but not limited to, Waco ).” McVeigh did not carry out the attack in the name of the Christian God or in the name of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Al Qaeda issued a fatwa in 1998 , which declared that killing “Americans and their allies…is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it… in accordance with the words of Almighty God .” Velshi concluded his commentary by stating that it didn’t matter whether Americans were for or against the planned mosque: ” If you’re an American citizen and choose to remain in this country, then whether you are against or you are for the Islamic center and mosque should be irrelevant. I say ‘should be,’ in an ideal world, because, as an American citizen- well, we should all be for the Constitution that so many have fought, lived, and died for , including the 2,976 souls who died on September 11th at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon, and in a field in western Pennsylvania.” The anchor wasn’t the first CNN personality to bring in the Catholic Church into the mosque controversy. A week earlier, Rick Sanchez bizarrely wondered whether nvestigating the funding behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero would lead to investigations into Catholic and/or Mormon funding: ” If you start going into who is giving money…you’ve got to go to Rome and start asking where the money is going into Rome….and you have to go the Mormons and ask…what are they doing with their money? ” The full transcript of Ali Velshi commentary from Wednesday’s Newsroom: VELSHI: Time now for the ‘XYZ’ of it. It’s a controversial topic: the Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero. It’s an emotional topic, and one I wasn’t sure I should bring up in these last few minutes with you, but you’ve talked about it with me on Facebook and Twitter, so here goes. Did you know that, as an American citizen, you have two freedoms granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution, when it comes to religion? The first part is known as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause essentially says the government can’t pass laws that will establish an official religion. This is commonly interpreted as the separation of church and state. The second one is the Free Exercise Clause, and it prevents the government from interfering with or controlling a person’s practice of his or her religion. Religious freedom is an absolute right in this country, and it includes the right to practice any religion, or no religion at all, for all Americans. The founders of this country crossed the ocean in the early 1600s, seeking freedom of religion from an oppressive church and government. I don’t know how the situation in downtown New York will play out, but I know these are potentially dangerous times for our freedoms. Suppose our government leaders or New York state leaders do step in, in some capacity, whether official or non-official, and assist in moving the mosque elsewhere. Then what? What kind of precedent does that set? Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site? I’m sure you’re thinking it sounds ridiculous, but ask yourself, is it ridiculous because Catholicism is familiar to you, or, is your argument that what he did was different, or is your argument that Timothy McVeigh didn’t kill in the name in Allah? For every religion under the heavens, there will always be extremists. The key is to understand that the extremist do not make up the masses. Linda Lee on Facebook wrote to me today, ‘Islam and terrorism are not synonymous. By fighting for the mosque [sic] for those reasons, you are supporting bin Laden’s idea that the West is at war with Islam. Please don’t be the cause of what you are so desperately trying to fight,’ end quote. If you’re an American citizen and choose to remain in this country, then whether you are against or you are for the Islamic center and mosque should be irrelevant. I say ‘should be,’ in an ideal world, because, as an American citizen- well, we should all be for the Constitution that so many have fought, lived, and died for, including the 2,976 souls who died on September 11th at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon, and in a field in western Pennsylvania. That’s my ‘XYZ.’

View original post here:
CNN’s Velshi: Ban Catholic Churches From Oklahoma City Because of McVeigh?

Should Big Brother Have Shown a Contestant Masturbating on the Live Feed?

Sorry to interrupt your Wednesday workday — and believe you me, this is as awkward as that episode of Weeds where Nancy Botwin has to confront her son about his habit of masturbating to a photo of her — but as a viewer of Big Brother , I am concerned about how much the producers get off on footage of their contestants craftily masturbating in showers , boxes , beds and fake lawns .

More here:
Should Big Brother Have Shown a Contestant Masturbating on the Live Feed?

Matt Lauer on Today Show: Does Mosque Have To Move Just Because of 9/11?

NBC’s Matt Lauer, invited on former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Freedom Works’ Matt Kibbe to discuss the Ground Zero mosque controversy and claimed that since the group behind the mosque existed in Manhattan before the World Trade Center attack, questioned: “So because of 9/11, do they have to move further away? Do they have to go elsewhere?” Armey, who was on with Kibbe to promote their new book Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto, responded to the Today show co-anchor “that because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do” and pointed out to Lauer that those behind the mosque should be more “responsive to the concerns that are being raised.” The following is the full interview with Armey and Kibbe as it was aired on the August 17 Today show: MATT LAUER: Dick Armey is a former Republican congressman from Texas, who served as House Majority Leader. Matt Kibbe is CEO and president of Freedom Works, a conservative non-profit grassroots organization. Together they’ve written a new book called Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto. Guys, good morning. Nice to see you again. [On screen headline: “Tea Party Manifesto, How Can The GOP Win The Midterm Elections?”] MATT KIBBE: Good morning. DICK ARMEY: Good morning. LAUER: Congressman, good to see you. ARMEY: Nice to see you. LAUER: Before I get to the book, I gotta ask you your take on this whole mosque controversy. The President seems to have turned it into a national debate with his comments over the weekend and it seems it’s getting more and more emotional. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich compared building a mosque on that site to the Nazis putting up a sign at the Holocaust Museum. Do you agree with that analogy? ARMEY: Well that’s a pretty harsh analogy, but this is an extremely important issue and it’s heart felt, as you can see, across the nation. I personally would prefer they build it someplace else, I think it would be a more respectful position for them to take. I was fascinated by the President, though. He’s obviously trying to change the subject away from his failed economic policies, but I think he really picked the wrong choice. LAUER: When you say it’s a tough analogy that Newt Gingrich came up with, I mean, you know, he’s comparing it the Nazis. We were at war against the Nazis. We are not at war against Islam. Never have been, are not now. Al Qaeda, yes, but not Islam. So do comments like that inform or inflame? ARMEY: Well it’s always, they are always difficult in both cases. I, that’s an analogy that I think is drawn a bit further than it needed to have been. Still, on the other hand, the stated purpose they give for the mosque – and in politics, you understand, I always say politics is like a dysfunctional marriage, every fight’s really about something else. The stated purpose for the mosque would be better served if out of respect for the strong feelings there, they said we want to continue with our program to enhance intercultural understanding, cross religious understandings and we’ll build it someplace else out of respect for these, these strong feelings. LAUER: So, so they have every right to build it at that site, but you think it’s, it’s in better taste to build it somewhere else? I’m, I’ll look at the title of your book, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto. Liberty, by definition, is the condition of being free from restriction or control. That applies to religious freedom as well, doesn’t it? KIBBE: It sure does, but you know this community that we talk about, you find that there are people from, from all walks of life, all religions and what binds the community together is economic freedom. And we would argue about other things when we got into those issues, but it’s, it’s really, that’s what makes America great. It’s this, it’s this combination of all these different cultures and opinions. LAUER: When, when you talk about this particular group, though, this, this group has been in lower Manhattan for years and years. They were there before 9/11. So because of 9/11, do they have to move further away? Do they have to go elsewhere? ARMEY: No, there’s an old saying, that because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. And I would again take this group back to their own stated purposes for the mosque. What do they hope to achieve with it? Which is greater cross cultural understandings. If that is the case, then let them be responsive to the concerns that are being raised and these concerns are legitimate heartfelt concerns. And the gracious thing to do becomes the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is to say, “I’m going to be deferential to your strong feelings because my greater cause, which I stated at the outset of this debate, will be better served by my being that generously responsive to you. And it now becomes a question of sort of a stubborn, refusal to be responsive to people’s legitimate concerns. And then you get what I call the hardening of the attitudes and now you got a national issue. LAUER: Let me move on, we’ll leave it at that. In the book you talk about the roots to of the new Republican revolution. This is a guy who led the last Republican revolution back in 1994. A revolution that in the book you read, or you write that “It did not live up to its potential because it devolved into an embarrassing gap between rhetoric and fiscal policy.” Why will the new revolution be different? KIBBE: Because this is a revolution from the bottom-up. This is real people saying politics is too important to leave it to the politicians. 1994 was an inside job of a, of a few true believers that sort of took over the Republican caucus. These folks are saying, “We don’t trust the Republicans or the Democrats to fix the economic problems we have in this country. We’re gonna do it for ourselves.” LAUER: In just a couple of seconds I have left a recent poll that I saw, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, for the first time more people have a negative view of the Tea Party than a positive view. What is the main misconception that you think people have about the Tea Party movement? ARMEY: Well, obviously the misconception is being fostered by everybody who’s afraid of this massive big movement. Misconception that it is some place to the right extreme. This is right smack down the middle, standing on those issues that are most greatly of concern to the American people. There’s nothing violent about this. These, these are mostly grandparents. And the fact is the, the issue, the, this group of sincere, concerned Americans that are devoted to this preservation of this country as it is, are being mischaracterized every day. But I can guarantee you, if you read our book and if you walk among these folks, the first thing you’re gonna say is, “These folks are just like me and, and I got the same worries they got. And I don’t blame ’em for being here upset and trying to inform this government. You ought to listen to us for a change.” LAUER: Former Congressman Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe. Guys, thanks very much. We appreciate you being here. KIBBE: Thanks Matt. ARMEY: Thank you.

See the original post:
Matt Lauer on Today Show: Does Mosque Have To Move Just Because of 9/11?

AP Exclusive: Under Desk, CIA Found Video of 9/11 Plotter Being Interrogated in a Secret Prison

AP Exclusive: Under desk, CIA found video of 9/11 plotter being interrogated in secret prison ADAM GOLDMAN, MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writers August 17, 2010|12:45 a.m. WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA has tapes of 9/11 plotter Ramzi Binalshibh being interrogated in a secret overseas prison. Discovered under a desk, the recordings could provide an unparalleled look at how foreign governments aided the U.S. in holding and questioning suspected terrorists. The two videotapes and one audiotape are believed to be the only remaining recordings made within the clandestine prison system. The tapes depict Binalshibh's interrogation sessions at a Moroccan-run facility the CIA used near Rabat in 2002, several current and former U.S. officials told The Associated Press. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the recordings remain a closely guarded secret. When the CIA destroyed its cache of 92 videos of two other al-Qaida operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, being waterboarded in 2005, officials believed they had wiped away all of the agency's interrogation footage. But in 2007, a staffer discovered a box tucked under a desk in the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and pulled out the Binalshibh tapes. A Justice Department prosecutor who is already investigating whether destroying the Zubaydah and al-Nashiri tapes was illegal is now also probing why the Binalshibh tapes were never disclosed. Twice, the government told a federal judge they did not exist. The tapes could complicate U.S. efforts to prosecute Binalshibh, 38, who has been described as a “key facilitator” in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. If the tapes surfaced at trial, they could clearly reveal Morocco's role in the counterterrorism program known as Greystone, which authorized the CIA to hold terrorists in secret prisons and shuttle them to other countries. More significantly to his defense, the tapes also could provide evidence of Binalshibh's mental state within the first months of his capture. In court documents, defense lawyers have been asking for medical records to see whether Binalshibh's years in CIA custody made him mentally unstable. He is being treated for schizophrenia with a potent cocktail of anti-psychotic medications. With military commissions on hold while the Obama administration figures out what to do with suspected terrorists, Binalshibh has never had a hearing on whether he is mentally fit to stand trial. “If those tapes exist, they would be extremely relevant,” said Thomas A. Durkin, Binalshibh's civilian lawyer. The CIA first publicly hinted at the existence of the Binalshibh tapes in 2007 in a letter to U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Virginia. The government twice denied having such tapes, and recanted once they were discovered. But the government blacked out Binalshibh's name from a public copy of the letter. At the time, the CIA played down the significance, saying the videos were not taken as part of the CIA's detention program and did not show CIA interrogations. That's true, but only because of the unusual nature of the Moroccan prison, which was largely financed by the CIA but run by Moroccans, the former officials said. The CIA could move detainees in and out, and oversee the interrogations, but officially, Morocco had control. CIA spokesman George Little would not discuss the Moroccan facility except to say agency officials “continue to cooperate with inquiries into past counterterrorism practices.” Moroccan government officials did not respond to questions about Binalshibh and his time in Morocco. The country has never acknowledged the existence of the detention center. Morocco has a troubled history of prison abuse and human rights violations. A government-created commission identified decades of torture, forced disappearances, poor prison conditions and sexual violence. And this year's State Department report on Morocco notes continued accusations of torture by security forces. But current and former U.S. officials say no harsh interrogation methods, like the simulated drowning tactic called waterboarding, were used in Morocco. In the CIA's secret network of undisclosed “black prisons,” Morocco was just way station of sorts, a place to hold detainees for a few months at a time. “The tapes record a guy sitting in a room just answering questions,” according to a U.S. official familiar with the program. That would make them quite different from the 92 interrogation videos of Zubaydah and al-Nashiri being subjected to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. Binalshibh was captured Sept. 11, 2002, and interrogated for days at a CIA facility in Afghanistan. Almost immediately, two former CIA officials said, Binalshibh exhibited mental instability that would worsen over time. When FBI agents finally had a chance to interview Binalshibh, they found him lethargic but unharmed. “He had a certain toughness about him, like he didn't care,” said Raymond Holcomb, a retired FBI agent who spent five days alongside the CIA with Binalshibh in Afghanistan and wrote about it in a forthcoming book, “Endless Enemies: Inside FBI Counterterrorism.” Though Binalshibh was uncooperative during his early interrogations, his interviews formed the foundation for parts of the 9/11 commission report. One official said he also provided intelligence about a plot to crash aircraft into London's Heathrow Airport. Binalshibh spent five months in Morocco in late 2002 and early 2003, the first of three trips through the facility during his years in CIA custody. Since his incarceration was established at Guantanamo Bay in 2006, Binalshibh has appeared increasingly erratic. Court records show him acting out, breaking cameras in his cell and smearing them with feces. He has experienced delusions, believing the CIA was intentionally shaking his bed and cell, according to court records and interviews. He has imagined tingling sensations like things were crawling all over him and developed a nervous tic, obsessively scratching himself. Nine years after his capture, there is no indication when Binalshibh and other admitted 9/11 terrorists will face military or civilian trials. Binalshibh and other accused 9/11 conspirators have openly admitted their roles, praising the attacks. Binalshibh and the others have asked to plead guilty, a move that would head off any trial and almost certainly guarantee the videotapes never get played in any court. http://www.gotgeoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/9-113.bmp added by: EthicalVegan

In China, Three Gorges Dam’s image showing some cracks

The dam was hailed as an engineering feat that could withstand the worst flood in 100 years. But this year's torrential rains have severely tested its capacity to control the surging Yangtze. snip A year after the dam went into full operation, cracks are already showing in the public image of the project. This year's torrential rains, the nation's worst in a decade, have severely tested the project's capacity to control the surging Yangtze, the world's third-longest river. Last month, when floodwaters poured into the dam's 400-mile-long reservoir at 565,000 cubic feet per second, a government official acknowledged that “the dam's flood-control capacity is not unlimited” and hinted that more severe flooding could even risk the structure's collapse. That's a far cry from the highfalutin claims of just a few years ago. In 2003, officials boasted that the dam could withstand the worst flood in 10,000 years. In 2007, the estimate was reduced to 1,000 years. In 2008, it was dropped yet again, this time to just 100 years. Many engineering experts are worried about this year. “The flooding is greater than anyone expected,” said John Byrne, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy. “The problems that many people predicted appear to be showing themselves.” Newspapers here report that the reservoir's rising water level has increased the likelihood of such hazards as landslides and earthquakes. Officials even say the structure won't totally stop Yangtze flooding, which has killed an estimated 1 million people over the last century. “It can't defeat all under heaven,” the project's deputy operations manager said of the dam. A project promoted by Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the Three Gorges Dam was long hailed by Communist Party officials as a crafty way to solve several complex problems with one structure. Damming the Yangtze allows seafaring ships access to the river, with the reservoir able to accommodate the deep-hulled vessels, and open up China's landlocked interior to economic development. The clean, cheap energy generated by the dam would help wean China off coal-fired power plants, officials said. Yet in recent years, the government has toned down its boasts on the project, which seems to have fallen out of favor in Beijing's halls of power. When the dam officially opened in 2006, Chinese leader Hu Jintao was conspicuously absent. Critics claim the dam's legion of problems far outweigh its benefits. They point to the reservoir's silt accumulation that they say will prevent the passage of the deep-sea ships. The dam has also disrupted the migratory routes of several unique fish species, they say. Many worry the reservoir could turn into a cesspool of sewage, toxins and other pollutants discharged from factories upstream. In recent weeks, the heavy rains have caused thousands of tons of garbage to collect at the dam, threatening to jam its locks. Although tugs and fishing boats have recently helped to collect the garbage, in some spots the trash is still so thick people can stand on it. For years, journalist Dai Qing has been one of the project's most vocal skeptics. In 1989, she led an alliance of scientists, engineers and scholars in writing a book called “Yangtze! Yangtze!” outlining alleged corruption and shoddy construction in the project. The book was banned, and Dai was jailed for 10 months for anti-government organizing. Two decades later, she still calls Three Gorges a spectacular mistake. “They've destroyed the Yangtze River, China's most phenomenal waterway, and caused untold damage to a fragile environment — and those are just the problems we know about,” she said. “Man's understanding of nature is evolving, but China has always been a half-step behind. But the greedy people in power wanted electricity at any cost.” The dam's biggest toll is a human one, many say. More than 1.5 million people were resettled by the project, their land submerged under the dam's reservoir. Also lost were 1,300 important archaeological sites, many dating back 4,000 years. continued added by: JanforGore