Sunday, July 7, 2013

NATO’s War Crimes in Yugoslavia

NATO’s War Crimes in Yugoslavia

download:   Audio Get CD/DVD More Formats
This is viewer supported news
Amnesty International this week released a blistering attack on NATO, accusing it of committing serious violations of the rules of war, unlawful killings and — in the case of the bombing of Serbia’s television headquarters — a war crime. The report comes just a week after War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte announced she will not prosecute NATO for war crimes.
Amnesty’s report details a number of mass killings of civilians in NATO raids and states that "civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the rules of war."
Some of Amnesty’s harshest criticism is directed at the April 23rd bombing of Radio Television Serbia’s headquarters. The report says "General Wesley Clark has stated, 'We knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There's no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it, and the political leadership agreed with us.’"
"In other words," the report continues "NATO deliberately attacked a civilian object, killing 16 civilians, for the purpose of disrupting Serb television broadcasts in the middle of the night for approximately three hours. It is hard to see how this can be consistent with the rule of proportionality."
(We should say, we did invite the Pentagon, the US State Department and NATO to join us for today’s program. Let’s just say we don’t have a crowded studio. Both the Pentagon and State Department said no. NATO representatives did not return our phone calls.)
  • Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International’s Director of Research. He oversaw the research on the Amnesty report on NATO’s bombing called "Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force."
  • William Arkan, Senior Military Advisor to Human Rights Watch. He authored a report on NATOs bombing that was released in February. He is currently working on a report on NATO’s targeting during the bombing.
  • David Jacobs, a Canadian human rights lawyer who last year was one of 12 lawyers who filed a request to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to indict Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and some 60 other NATO leaders for the bombing of Yugoslavia. That request was denied officially last week by Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.
  • Borka Bankovic, the mother of Ksenija Bankovic who was a 27 year old video editor at RTS who was killed by the NATO bombing on April 23, 1999.
  • Seth Ackerman, a media analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. He has an article in the most recent issue of In These Times called "Mission Implausible: What the media didn’t tell you about the Chinese Embassy bombing."

Waste: The Nuclear Nightmare (2009)

Waste: The Nuclear Nightmare (2009) 
Déchets: le cauchemar du nucléaire (original title) 
85 min  -  Documentary  -    December 2009 (France)

As the world wakes up to the dangers of global warming,
 industrialists and some politicians are presenting nuclear
 power as the energy of the future - clean, under control
 and safe for human health and the environment. As supporters
 and opponents rekindle the debate over nuclear power the issue
 that remains at the heart of the matter is everyone's fear of
 radioactive waste. Drawing on a broad range of experts worldwide,
 this enlightening documentary investigates both the science, politics 
and danger of nuclear waste. Written by Linda Saetre 

Luxembourg government threatened with closure

Luxembourg government threatened with closureThis page Copyright CHARLENE CLEO EIBEN

A secret affair shakes Luxembourg: The coalition government led by Jean-Claude Juncker threatens to break. Openly discussed a resignation - and elections.
Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister for 18 years, these are difficult days. When he attends a graduation ceremony in Esch-sur-Alzette, he says: "It is one of the last performances in my current role." On Friday, the Social Democratic coalition partners from the Christian social Juncker (58) had been averted. Much indicates that the longest-serving head of government of the EU, co-inventor of the euro, an opaque affair dubious practices of the Luxembourg intelligence is not the Prime Minister.

Juncker continues to fight

Juncker wear the "political responsibility" for the years of uncontrolled and bustle of the Luxembourg intelligence, introduced a specially set up six months ago Investigative Committee of Parliament after nearly 50 sessions. Junckers only conservative party colleagues voted against the report - the Social Democratic coalition partners voted with the opposition for it. But still, a fight will Juncker, who won the biggest political battles on the European stage, do not leave the field.
With a large plenary debate this Wednesday (July 10) Juncker wants to explain again and put his fate in the hands of deputies. 120 minutes talk time has requested the lawyer. If a miracle happens, then the coalition will probably break - the Socialist party leader Lucien Lux has already called for a "new beginning" - Junckers other politicians resign. Grand Duke Henri would then dissolve the House of Representatives - elections on 20 October are the most likely. Regularly there would be elections in the summer of 2014.

Juncker be accused of major failures

The Investigative Committee of the Parliament raises Juncker ago, he took care to be in charge of the politicians do not have enough intelligence to the "Service de l'Etat de renseignement LUXEMBOURGEOIS" (Srel). Even after the end of the Cold War and the creation of a Parliamentary Control Commission that the agency has made a frightening life of its own. Time and again there have been illegal interception.
The most prominent victim was Juncker himself: intelligence chief Marco Mille awarded with a special watch secretly to a conversation he had with Juncker in January 2007. Juncker as it learns the end of 2008, the trust relationship is destroyed: Mille 2010 is head of security of the Siemens group.
Juncker had only "limited impact" on the intelligence, the deputies weigh him now - a service that was traded in the incidentally acquired with state-paid cars and an apartment for the former President of the Court. Juncker had informed the Control Commission to rare and too late, when he had once again learn of strange machinations of the agents.
With great amazement people of Luxembourg since the end of 2012 again - mostly thanks to press inquiries - to view scenes of an agent thriller, yet this is not really make sense as a movie plot: There is a conversation between Juncker and Grand Duke Henri have been intercepted - and a CD with encrypted material to simply can not be decoded. As a witness to have observed the Prince Jean of Luxembourg in the 80s in a bomb attack, which he contests outraged.

Process will continue in September

The secret affair has won in the just over 500,000 inhabitants Luxembourg government in recent months, more and more momentum. Initially, they played only a minor role alongside the bombers process, which began in February before the District Court of Luxembourg. There are two former gendarme must answer as suspected bombers because of a series of bomb attacks between 1984 and 1986. In the 20 crimes, it had to give several injured. There was a million damage.
It has been repeatedly speculated during the process that the agency also had a finger in the game. The aim of the bombers had been there to provide better facilities to the police. Now the process has break: He'll go until 16 September far, says a Justice spokesman. Juncker also eventually be called to the witness stand - but perhaps not as Prime Minister.

Cairo residents: ‘Heavily armed Islamists attacked us’

Cairo residents: ‘Heavily armed Islamists attacked us’
Riot police (rear) keep watch over supporters of deposed Egypt’s President Mohammed Mursi gathered outside the Republican Guard barracks where Mursi is held in Cairo. (File photo: Reuters)
AFP, Cairo
Residents of Cairo’s Manial neighborhood were recovering Saturday from a bloody night of clashes with armed supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood who killed at least seven people and left dozens injured, they told AFP.

The violence erupted when residents tried to stop hundreds of Islamists passing through Manial to reach protests being staged in the iconic Tahrir Square against toppled president Mohammed Mursi, who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood.

“The Brotherhood attacked the area with all kinds of weapons,” said resident Mohammed Yehya, who lost three of his friends in the mayhem.

Inhabitants of the Nile island of Manial reported seeing dozens of bearded Islamists armed with machineguns, machetes and sticks on Friday night before the deadly clashes broke out.

Snipers were spotted on rooftops, and medics told AFP they treated some residents of the normally quiet middle-class neighborhood for bullet wounds with a downward trajectory.

Buildings were pockmarked with bullet holes. Rocks carpeted the floor and charred tyres showed the ferocity of the violence.

The clashes in Manial and other parts of the country came two days after the army toppled Mursi, underlining the determination of his Muslim Brotherhood to disrupt the military’s plan for a political transition until new elections.

Residents say the attack began just minutes after the Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, gave a fiery speech to Mursi supporters camped out in Cairo’s Nasr City, which was broadcast live on television.

“The attack came minutes after Badie’s speech. They treated us like infidels. They were chanting ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is greatest) as they were shooting us,” said Ahmed Fattouh.

On the door of one shop hung a sign announcing that the owner, 26-year-old Abdallah Sayyed Abdelazim, had been killed.

Parts of Manial were a ghost town on Saturday, with businesses shuttered and residents devastated by the night’s violence.

“The clashes started at 7:30 pm and continued until three in the morning. Their ammunition just didn’t run out. They are trying to terrorize us and take over the country,” said Khaled Tawfik.

Shopkeeper Mohammed Fekry, 29, who was wounded by birdshot said at least 10 people were killed and dozens injured.

“We have 10 people dead in this area, including six people who died with single bullets in the head. There were snipers on the roof of the Salaheddine mosque,” Fekry said.

Hundreds of Brotherhood supporters, he said, had come from Cairo University -- where they had been camped out for days to defend Mursi’s legitimacy -- with “automatic weapons, machineguns, knives, swords.”

They were headed to Tahrir Square, where anti-Mursi protesters had gathered, but the Manial residents tried to prevent their passage.

Hend Taha said she saw the clashes from the window of her apartment.

“There were bearded snipers on top of Salaheddine mosque. On the ground, lots of bearded men coming from the direction of Cairo University were marching with automatic weapons,” she said.

The overall toll for Friday’s violence across Egypt was 30, but casualties are likely to rise.

Ihab al-Sayyed, a doctor at Qasr al-Aini hospital, told AFP that seven people he treated for injuries from the Manial clashes had died.

“I think the death toll will be much higher.

“The injuries were all from live bullets, most of them automatic weapons. Three of the dead and dozens of the injured were shot at from a height,” the doctor saidfro here on out i will be locking all my feeds down
thank you all for hateing on me
Syrian file on Saudi Arabia and beyond the permit Obama to possess Saudi nuclear weapon via @BeforeItsNews


Libyan Intelligence: Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi Involved in U.S. Consulate Attack

Print Friendly
According to a Libyan intelligence document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where several Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed.
Image of the Libyan intelligence document
On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate, quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i.  Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the nation’s Minister of Interior.
It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.
According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…”
It should be noted that these findings are unsurprising: the supremacism of prominent Brotherhood figure Safwat Hegazi is such that he publicly declares the Brotherhood “will rule the world“;  Saudi Mansour’s hate-mongering, pro-Brotherhood TV station repeatedly aired footage of the YouTube Muhammad movie inciting violence around the Muslim world; popular Sheikh Muhammad Hassan holds that smiling to non-Muslims is forbidden, except when trying to win them over to Islam;  and Sheikh Hazim Abu Ismail is simply an openly anti-freedom, anti-infidel religious leader.
As for President Morsi, a video made during the consulate attack records people speaking in the Egyptian dialect: as they approach the beleaguered U.S. compound, one of them yells to the besiegers, “Don’t shoot—Dr. Morsi sent us!”

Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).

Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).




Secretary of State Kerry's wife transferred to Boston hospital

John Kerry is pictured with his wife Teresa Heinz-Kerry after being sworn-in as U.S. Secretary of State by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (not pictured) during a ceremony at the State Department in Washington, February 6, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed
WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 7, 2013 8:17pm EDT
(Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, was moved to Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital on Sunday after being treated and "stabilized" for an unspecified condition at a hospital on Nantucket, Kerry's personal spokesman said.
"Late Sunday afternoon, Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry was taken by ambulance to Nantucket Cottage Hospital, accompanied by her husband, Secretary of State John Kerry," Glen Johnson, a State Department employee who serves as Kerry's personal spokesman, said in a brief statement.
"Once doctors had stabilized her condition, she was transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, again accompanied by the secretary," he added.
Johnson gave no details on her condition and said "the family ... asks for privacy at this time."

Ironclad: Egypt Involved in Benghazi Attacks

Ironclad: Egypt Involved in Benghazi Attacks

By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies
A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.
After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by “law enforcement and intelligence agencies”.
Based on the Obama administration’s standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).
Since we’re deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President – Mohammed Mursi – is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a ‘smoking gun’. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point – in Arabic which we have confirmed – one approaching gunman says, “Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!”. Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word “Mursi”.
A Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:
It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.
According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi
Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim
Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim (EXHIBIT B)
Upon doing even further analysis of this document, we found that it aligned with even more evidence we uncovered back in September.
For example, in addition to mentioning Egypt, Mursi, and Ansar al-Sharia, the document also mentions Al-Nas TV and Dar Al-Hekma, both of which we raised red flags about in the days and weeks after the Benghazi attacks.
Let’s consider the timeline of events leading up to and including 9/11/12:
Thursday, September 6th: According to the Wall Street Journal, this was the day that the 14-minute Innocence of Muslims video trailer was sent to “journalists around the world”. Some of the video was translated into Arabic.
Friday, September 7th: Egypt’s Wisam Abdul Waris of Dar Al-Hekma (yes, the same Dar Al-Hekma identified in the Libyan Intelligence document) publicly denounces Innocence of Muslims. He does so while calling for the criminalization of any defamation of Islam, even in non-Muslim countries.
Saturday, September 8th: Al-Nas (yes, the same Al-Nas identified in the Libyan Intelligence document) talk show host Khalid Abdallah, who is sympathetic to the more fundamentalist, Salafi Muslims, interviewed a Muslim activist named Mohammad Hamdy and aired translated portions of the Innocence of Muslims video that for weeks, Obama administration officials attempted to blame for the Benghazi attacks. Reuters reported days later that the airing of these clips from the video was “the flashpoint” for the protests in Cairo and attacks in Benghazi. Here is the video of the exchange. Portions of the Innocence of Muslims video are aired beginning at the 5:46 mark:
Sunday, September 9th: An interview with Wisam Abdul Waris is uploaded to YouTube. A translated excerpt of what Waris said is beneath the video:
“We have moved to review with Mr. Rifai all the legal procedures today by which we created The Voice of Wisdom Coalition (I’itilaf Sawt al-Hekma); it will hold accountable everyone who insults Islam locally and internationally, in accordance with every country’s laws. We all know the problems Yasser Al-Habib had in London and after that in Berlin… in Germany, an extremist group was allowed to publicize cartoons that insult the prophet in front of the Salafist Mosque in Berlin, through a legal decision. So what we did was to ask Sharabi Mahmoud to reject this legal decision on behalf of the Egyptian people who are Muslim; for this reason, we created this coalition. We also made an official request from the Church in Egypt to issue a public announcement, to state it has nothing to do with this deed.”
At this point, let’s introduce the YouTube channel of Sam Bacile. It is later learned that Bacile is actually Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the Innocence of Muslims video. At one time, two videos appeared on the Feed tab of Bacile’s channel. Sometime between September 9th – 11th, the administrator commented on the Waris video.
About one week earlier, Bacile identified the other video that appeared on his channel as one of his favorites; it is a video of Nader Bakkar, the official spokesman of the Salafist Nour Party. Bakkar and Waris joined forces in the effort expressed by Waris on September 7th. Here is a screenshot:

How do I register with the Copyright Office? You will need to fill out the application form TX. There are other forms, but this is the one a web site would use. The form is available from the Copyright Office Home Page. Fill it out, print a copy of your web site and send it in with a $30 check. The address is Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 20559-6000. You should receive confirmation in about 5 to 6 months. Please note that the Copyright Office does not want two separate sheets of paper for the TX form. If you get the form from their site, it will print as two sheets. You'll need to photocopy them so they make one sheet, front and back.

How do I register with the Copyright Office?
     You will need to fill out the application form TX. There are other forms, but this is the one a web site would use. The form is available from the Copyright Office Home Page. Fill it out, print a copy of your web site and send it in with a $30 check. The address is Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 20559-6000. You should receive confirmation in about 5 to 6 months. Please note that the Copyright Office does not want two separate sheets of paper for the TX form. If you get the form from their site, it will print as two sheets. You'll need to photocopy them so they make one sheet, front and back.

A Connection Between 3 Mass Murderers And Valerie Jarrett?

A Connection Between 3 Mass Murderers And Valerie Jarrett?

Valerie Jarrettjpg A Connection Between 3 Mass Murderers and Valerie Jarrett?
I do believe that I may have stumbled upon something that the mainstream media has missed: a common connection between three mass murderers and the White House.
First, let us look at Nidal Hassan. He was the Fort Hood shooter who went on a rampage killing spree against deploying soldiers. Apparently, no one noticed any red flags leading up to his behavior. According to Wikipedia, Hassan trained and operated as a phsyciatrist. This is an exerpt from Wikipedia :
Hasan joined the United States Army immediately after high school, and served eight years as an enlisted soldier while attending college. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1995 with a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, and went on to attend medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (“USUHS” or “USU”).[21] After earning his medical degree in 2003, Hasan completed his residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[22] While an intern at Walter Reed, he received counseling and extra supervision.
Now, let us take a look at Colorado mass murderer James Holmes. Again, Holmes didn’t show any red flags before he gained entrance into a movie theatre and killed twelve people and wounded scores of others. Acording to USA Today, Holmes graduated from the University of California-Riverside with a B.S. in neuroscience. This is the exerpt:
Update at 3:27 p.m. ET: The University of California-Riverside confirms that James Eagan Holmes graduated with honors in spring 2010 with a B.S. degree in neuroscience.
Now, we have Wisconsin mass murderer Wade Page. Again, according to those who knew him, he did not show any red flags before he gunned down six people. Mr. Page served in the US Military and was schooled in Psychological Operations as reported by USA Today. This is the exerpt:
Page enlisted in April 1992 and was given a less-than-honorable discharge in October 1998. CBS reports that Page served at Fort Bliss, Texas, in the psychological operations unit in 1994, and was last stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., attached to the psychological operations there.
The Associated Press reports that such specialists are responsible for the analysis, development and distribution of intelligence used for influencing foreign populations.
Last but not least, we have Obama White House top senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. According to www., Jarrett is a graduate from Stanford University with a degree in psychology.  This is an excerpt from that biography:
Jarrett spent some of her childhood in the Hyde Park area of Chicago before entering a Massachusetts boarding school. In 1974, she began classes at Stanford University, which would grant her a degree in psychology four years later. From there, she went on to the University of Michigan Law School, and in 1981 returned to Chicago and became an attorney in private practice. In 1983, she wed William Jarrett, a physician she had known since her youth in Hyde Park. They had a daughter together, but the marriage was over by 1988.
Maybe it is just a coincidence, or maybe there is something more here. It just seems highly irregular that as the Obama regime pushes for gun control and winning the election, all of a sudden death and destruction arise to refocus everyone from looking at Obama’s failed Presidency. With what has happened over the past four years, can we really think that the use of Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)  is out of the question? Especially at the hands of a trained professional?  It is for you to decide. As always, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.

Copyright Questions and Answers

Copyright Questions and Answers

     The following are a series of questions that have been asked of me at one time or another through email. People are concerned about what they can and cannot do in terms of copyright. I knew some of the answers and others I did not. After contacting a copyright expert at a local university, I was able to put together the answers to some of these common questions.
     Please note... Copyright law and copyright applications change. What is true in some cases may not be true in others. Below are a series of guidelines with, to the best of my knowledge, correct answers. If I am incorrect or misleading in some areas, please let me know or offer help.

What is a copyright, anyway?
     It is a form of intellectual property law. It protects an author or creator from his or her stuff being pirated and used without permission.
     Keep in mind though it does not protect the idea, system or method of the information. For instance - I have a copyright on HTML Goodies. That copyright covers my writings. It does not cover the idea of teaching HTML on the net, the fact that I used English to do it, or that hypertext is employed. There are obviously other places on the net trying to teach you how this stuff is done.

The Internet is public domain, so isn't everything fair game?
     No. The copyright laws that apply to written material, photographs, and a myriad of other items apply on the Internet too. You cannot just take and use what ever you feel like.
     For some interesting reading on the subject, try Yong-Cham Kim's Copyright and Internet. It discusses the Clinton administration's attempt to shape existing copyright laws to apply more fully to the digital age. Clinton's commission, The Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), made some suggestions in their "White Paper" that have some people upset. Read all about it. I found it interesting.
So, is making a link to another copyrighted page against the law?
     For the most part, no. You are only making a link to the page rather than displaying the information. That doesn't create a violation per se. However, since owners of copyright also own the rights to what can be done with their items, they do have the ability to deny you permission to create a link. Please understand, denying someone a link happens in very rare cases, but it has happened.
     I wouldn't be overly concerned about putting up a link to another page. I think you'll find that 99% of the pages on the net would be happy with a link. You can link to the HTML Goodies page all day long if you wish. I'd love the extra traffic. But keep in mind that the page that you link to has the right to demand that you take the link down. I know this all sounds loopy, but that's the scoop.

What do I put on the page?
     You should place the circle C (©) and the word "copyright" plus the year and the name of the author. Like so:

This page © Copyright 1997, Dr. Joe Burns, Ph.D.
     You may think you only need the circle c or the word copyright alone. But remember that the circle c is created in HTML through this command: ©. That will not show as a circle c when the source code is printed. Put them both to be safe.
     Make a point of placing it on at least the main page. That's what I did. I made a blanket statement that everything inside "" was written by me, except where noted. Whether you do put the copyright on every page, or just the top level page, make a point of putting the copyright in the text so it shows when the page is displayed, and also put it in the HTML code. Like so:
<!-- This page Copyright 1997, Dr. Joe Burns, Ph.D. -->

Wait, don't I have to send a form to the government too?
     That is voluntary. The Copyright Office will catalogue your site if you want them to. It'll cost 20 bucks plus some shipping. No, this is not required in order to be able to bring a civil suit against someone else for copyright infringement. You may go after damages to recover losses. However, you may only attempt to get punitive damages (punishment money) if you are registered with the Copyright Office.
How do I register with the Copyright Office?
     You will need to fill out the application form TX. There are other forms, but this is the one a web site would use. The form is available from the Copyright Office Home Page. Fill it out, print a copy of your web site and send it in with a $30 check. The address is Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 20559-6000. You should receive confirmation in about 5 to 6 months. Please note that the Copyright Office does not want two separate sheets of paper for the TX form. If you get the form from their site, it will print as two sheets. You'll need to photocopy them so they make one sheet, front and back.
Can I just send in a disc?
     No. A CD-ROM, yes. A floppy disc - no.
Do I have to register all my pages alone?
     You mean like $20 a page? No. I registered Goodies in one fell swoop. Updates go later. I looked upon it as chapters in a book.
How long will my copyright last?
     Until you've been dead 50 years. Don't sweat it.
I'm just a kid. Can I get a copyright?
     Yes. Minors are allowed copyright protection. Follow the same procedure as above.
But the Internet is global. What about someone in another country using my stuff?
     That depends on the country's policies. Some countries recognize a U.S. copyright and help with violators. Some don't. I haven't a list of what countries do and don't. I didn't find one either.
I call my site "Dog Breath". Can I copyright that?
     No. Titles, names, and logos are not protected under copyright. You'll need to get into trademarks for that. Even then, you cannot trademark a word, just the design of the logo and the fact that the words represent your company. If you could copyright a word, I'd do the word "the." I'd be rich quickly.
This one site has a great image, but it's copyrighted. Can I use it?
     Not without written permission. Period. I can't be more clear on that.
Can I use anything from a site?
     According to the Fair Use Doctrine (Section 110 (5) of the Copyright Act of 1976), it is allowable to use "limited portions" of a copyrighted item for works such as commentary, news reporting, academic reports, and the like. But you still have to give credit. You cannot claim the work as yours. You must cite where it came from.
     The tricky part is that there is no set number of words that equal "limited portions." It's a tough call. My suggestion is to be fair to the person with the copyright Don't post the whole site and give credit on only one page. I would fight someone posting a healthy portion of Goodies and only citing once. I also believe, on the net, the cite should include a hypertext link. (That's not law, I just believe that).

Cool, I'll just post everything and cite to my heart's content, right?
     Wrong. There are limitations on Fair Use (17 USCS Sect. 107). Several factors will be taken into account, if you are attempting to make a profit, the nature of the work, the size of the portion you use, and the effect on the market place.
     For example, you repost a large section of the HTML Goodies site and write around it some of your own stuff. You then register it with search engines calling people to come. Even though you cite me all day long, I would still have a hairy. You are putting a dent in my visitors and trying to use my work to bring people to you. Even if you quote a small amount of my work to gain visitors, I would still get upset. You are using my words to bring people to your site.
     Now, before you ask, I am talking about direct quotes and the use of my language (tutorials, primers, etc.). If you read the tutorials and use the information to create your own page - great! That's the purpose of this site. Here, I am talking about a direct theft of my site. Feel free to use my ideas to death. Just don't use my exact words to attempt to get more people to your site.

What if I take the person's page and change it a little. Can I copyright it?
     No. The changes must be "substantial and creative." In effect, there may be very, very little lingering remnants of the original work. You might as well write it from scratch before trying to steal and alter. Editorial changes will just not cut it in a court of law. And speaking of the law...
What can you do if someone uses your copyrighted stuff without getting permission?
     You can file a civil lawsuit in federal court to get an order stopping the person from using your material. A copyright attorney can get you started in the process. If the person has used your work and is attempting to make a profit with it, then the U.S. Attorney can get involved.
What do you do when someone posts part of HTML Goodies without permission?
     Usually I write a calm email letter asking the person to stop and take the pages down. If they have registered the pages with search engines then I ask them to place a re-direct on the page so that hits come to the right place.
     If that doesn't work, I contact the webmaster of the server and tell them to shut down the user's site, the entire site, or civil action will be brought against the server people for allowing copyrighted material to be pirated on their site. The next step would actually be to file a suit.

Has this ever happened?
     A few times. I've only had to go to the server people once. When I did, the site was off-line in a matter of hours. I've never filed a lawsuit.
Would you?
What if I use something that I didn't know was copyrighted?
     When you are asked to take it down, take it down. No one wants a lawsuit. They cost money. Usually you are asked to stop first. Just apologize and stop.
What if I am using something that is copyrighted and I know it?
     Then you know you're breaking the law. The same answer applies from above, but don't be upset if you get served. You knew you were doing wrong to begin with.
I'm just a kid. I don't have anything to take. Go ahead! Sue me! You can't do anything to me! Nyah!!!
     You're right in one aspect. Because you are young, there is very little someone could, or would want to, take from you. What can be done is a conviction of a federal crime.
     Have you ever gone into fill out a job application? Remember that line that asked if you had ever been convicted of a federal crime? You'll be checking YES for the remainder of your life. Try and get a job even related to computers with a conviction for copyright infringement. No way.

What if I don't take the image, but rather just make a link to the real site so the image shows up on my page, but is coming from the actual copyrighted site?
     No go. You are still displaying it, and you are breaking the law.
I want to have music or video from my favorite music group on my site. Can I?
     The answer is maybe. ASCAP and BMI are the two big music licensing firms. They sell what are known as "blanket fee" licenses to servers now. That fee allows the server to reproduce any song under BMI or ASCAP representation. If your server has paid the fee, go for it.
     Without that fee being paid, you are breaking the law by playing the song.

But I'll only play a portion like in the "Fair Use" deal.
     You're walking a thin line there. The purpose is entertainment in this case and might be a problem.
Fine, I'll just play my version of the song on my keyboard and post that.
     That's being done a lot and I didn't find much on it. I really don't have an answer other than if you are using it to make a profit, then you may run into troubles.
Fine again, I'll play a recording of an old Bach piece. He's been dead for 50 years. The song's out of copyright and in the public domain.
     Not always so. Authors can claim copyright on the sheet music, arrangement, and even performance of the song. Whereas you may not be upsetting Bach, you may be upsetting the person who arranged it.
     Same deal with old pictures and paintings. Just because the artist has been dead and gone since the age of no indoor plumbing doesn't mean that a museum or a collector doesn't own the rights.

Well, what is in public domain?
     As far as I could find, there is no government list or any other kind of list for that matter. You have to be careful about playing and posting.
What if I scan something that's copyrighted? Isn't the picture mine?
     No. That would mean you are trying to copyright the method. That's not allowed.
How can I be sure nothing on my site is copyrighted?
     Make it all yourself. Or ask permission at all costs. There are some sites out there that will check for you, (link below) but I think doing it all yourself is much safer and more gratifying.
     If you want to post something that is not yours, get permission from the owner. If the owner says no - too bad. If the owner says yes - get it in writing and hold onto it. You may also want to build good relations with people by giving them credit on the page in addition to asking permission.

Do you do that?
     Completely. Every time something appears on HTML Goodies that was not written by me, I make a point of giving credit. If someone sends me a letter and I think it's post-able, I ask if I can. Some people do not want any other names on their sites other than their own. I don't buy that. I cannot possibly know everything. When others help, I am happy and put a link. It is an equal relationship. The only thing I frown upon is someone else writing a tutorial. I like to do that.
     I will only accept JavaScripts from their authors. Now, it's rather easy to fool me and a couple have. They took another's work and put their name to it. I was then contacted by the real author and told to take it down. I did.
     Another time, an author had placed his copyright on the HTML page but had not placed it in the code. By posting the code without the copyright, I was breaking the law. It was brought to my attention rather sternly. I apologized for what was truly an innocent mistake and took the page down.
     Those are the only two times I ran into trouble. I try to be very careful.

Final Thoughts

     No, the Internet is not wide open. The laws still apply here. Just because you can take it does not mean you should. Give credit as you would want credit given to you. That image may be really cool. Re-posting my site and claiming it as your own may impress your friends and a couple of visitors. Playing your favorite band's music may show you're a great fan.      ...but none of it is worth a lawsuit.

Here are a few Great links with much more detailed info:

Popular Posts Widgets For Blogger - New and Working

Popular Posts Widgets For Blogger - New and Working

The previous widget for showing Popular posts (most commented), has been stopped working, so here's a new code for the widget.

Steps to follow:

Log in to Blogger
Go to Layout -> Add a Gadget -> HTML/JavaScript

Now copy and paste this code in to the widget:

Widget Style #1

<script type="text/javascript">
function pipeCallback(obj) {
document.write('<ul style="text-transform: capitalize;">');
var i;
for (i = 0; i < obj.count ; i++)
var href = "'" + obj.value.items[i].link + "'";
var item = "<li>" + "<a href=" + href + ">" + obj.value.items[i].title + "</a> </li>";
<script src="" type="text/javascript"></script>
<a href="" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Popular Posts Widget</span></a>

NOTE: REPLACE everything in RED color in the code above with your blog's address without typing http://

The above code displays 10 posts, you can change it by editing the number being displayed in blue !

The above widget code, displays the links/titles like this:

Post one (18)
Post two (14) etc.

If you want to display them like this:

Post one (18 comments)
Post two (14 comments),

then use this code :

Widget Style #2

<script type="text/javascript">
function pipeCallback(obj) {
document.write('<ol style="text-transform: capitalize;">');
var i;
for (i = 0; i < obj.count ; i++)
var href = "'" + obj.value.items[i].link + "'";
var item = "<li>" + "<a href=" + href + ">" + obj.value.items[i].title + "</a> </li>";
<script src="" type="text/javascript"></script>
<span style="font-size: 80%">Widget by <a href="">Blogger Widgets </a></span>

And in case, you want to display the popular posts without the number of comments (as requested by Ben), use this code:

Widget Style #3

<script type="text/javascript">
function pipeCallback(obj) {
document.write('<ol style="text-transform: capitalize;">');
var i;
for (i = 0; i < obj.count ; i++)
var href = "'" + obj.value.items[i].link + "'";
var item = "<li>" + "<a href=" + href + ">" + obj.value.items[i].title + "</a> </li>";
<script src="" type="text/javascript"></script>
<span style="font-size: 80%">Widget by <a href="">Blogger Widgets </a></span>

P.S. : Please do not remove the footer link...

Content Scrapers – How to Find Out Who is Stealing Your Content & What to Do About It

Content Scrapers – How to Find Out Who is Stealing Your Content & What to Do About It

If you have been blogging for a while, chances are you are familiar with content scrapers. Content scrapers are websites that steal your content for their own blogs without your permission. Some content scrapers will just copy the content off of your blog, but most use automated software that takes the content from your RSS feed and posts your content to their site like it is a new post.
In this post, we are going to look at some potential link building benefits to content scrapers, how to find out what sites are scraping your content, and what you can do if you want to either benefit from the linking standpoint or have them take it down.

Linking Benefits of Content Scrapers

Last week, I was happy to see that I was listed in ProBlogger’s 20 Bloggers to Watch in 2012. Within 24 hours, I received a notification in my WordPress dashboard that a page on my blog had been linked to in the post on ProBlogger’s site.

After receiving the original notification from the ProBlogger post, I also received another 18 trackbacks from sites that had stolen the content in their post verbatim. Trackbacks are WordPress’ way of letting you know that another website has linked to a post on your blog. In this case, these 18 sites had posted the content exactly like the original post – with the links back to my blog still intact.
It was then that I started contemplating the potential link building benefits of content scrapers. These are not by any means quality links – the highest Google PageRank was a PR 2 domain, many were stealing content in a variety of languages, and one even had the nerve to use some kind of redirection script to take away the link juice of outgoing links! So while these links didn’t have the same authority that the original post had, they still count as links.

How to Catch Content Scrapers

Unfortunately, unless you want to continuously search for your post titles in Google, you’ll only be able to easily track down sites that keep your in-content links active. If you want to know what websites are scraping your content, here are a few tips to sniff them out.
Copyscape is a simple search engine that allows you to enter the URL of your content to find out if there are duplicates of it on the Internet. You can get a few results using their free search, or you can pay for a premium account to check up to 10,000 pages on your site and more.
The first way is through your trackbacks in WordPress (as shown in the image above). Many of these will show up in the spam folder if you use Akismet. The key to getting trackbacks to appear from content scrapers is to always include links to other posts in your content. Be sure those links have great anchor text too, if you’re going for a little extra link juice. And even if you are not, internal linking with strong anchor text is good for your on-site optimization too!
Webmaster Tools
The next way to catch them is in Webmaster Tools. Simply go to your site in Webmaster Tools, and look under Your Site on the Web > Links to Your Site. Then sort by the Linked Pages column.

Anyone thinking about link building benefits at this point is probably noting the sheer volume of links from these sites, some of which are content scrapers. Essentially any site that is linking to a lot of your posts that isn’t a social network, social bookmarking site, or a die-hard fan who just loves linking to you is potentially a content scraper. You’ll have to go to their website to be sure. To find your links on their site, click on one of the domains to see the details of what pages on your site they are linking to specifically.

Then, click on one of your links to see which pages on their site is linking to yours.

You can see here that they are just blatantly copying my posts titles. When I visited one of the links, sure enough, they are copying my entire posts in their full glory onto their site.
Google Alerts
If you don’t post often or want to keep up with any mentions of your top blog posts on other websites, you can create a Google Alert using the exact match for your post’s title by putting the title in quotation marks.

I deliver all of my Google Alerts to an RSS feed so I can manage them in Google Reader, but you can also have them delivered regularly by email. You’ll even get an instant preview of the types of results you will get.

How to Get Credit for Scraped Posts

If you use WordPress, then you definitely want to try out the RSS footer plugin. This plugin allows you to place a custom piece of text at the top or bottom of your RSS feed content.

The result is this simple line on my blog posts when viewed through a RSS feed.

As you can see, even if you aren’t using it for the purpose of getting credit back to your posts when content thieves steal it, you can still use it for a little extra bit of advertising with the possible benefit of people who subscribe to your RSS feed clicking through to your website or social profiles. And when someone does scrape your content from your RSS feed, it shows up there too.

So in the event that someone finds your scraped content, they will hopefully notice the credit before assuming it was created by the blog that stole it. If you don’t have WordPress, you can simply include a note at the top or bottom of your content that includes the same information.

How to Stop Content Scrapers

If you’re not interested in anyone copying your content, then you have a few options to choose from. You can start by contacting the site that is stealing your content and sending them a notice that you want all of your content removed immediately. You can do this through the site’s contact form, email address, or post it to any social accounts they list.
If there is no contact information on the website stealing your content, you can do a Whois Lookup to (hopefully) find out who owns the domain.

If it is not privately registered, you should find an administrative contact’s email address. If not, you should at least see the domain registrar which, in this case, is GoDaddy and/or the hosting company for the website which, in this case, is HostGator. You can try to contact both companies (HostGator has a DMCA form and GoDaddy has an email) and let them know that the domain in question is stealing copyrighted content in hopes that the website will be suspended or removed.
You can also visit the DMCA and use their takedown services to remove anyone who is copying your photos, video, audio, blog, or other content. They even offer a WordPress plugin to incorporate a DMCA protected badge on your site to warn potential thieves.
Have you ever dealt with content scrapers and thieves? Do you leave it alone for the link benefits, or do you fight back? What other tools, services, or other preventative tactics do you use to block content scrapers? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments!
About the Author: Kristi Hines is a freelance writer, professional blogger, and social media enthusiast. Her blog Kikolani focuses on blog marketing for personal, professional, and business bloggers. You can follow her on , Twitter, and Facebook.
Sign in with Google to get early access to our new free Google Analytics app

NTFS Shares and Folder Permissions Reporting

NTFS Shares and Folder Permissions Reporting

Shares are a common repository of files and folders which can be accessed by more than one user. Managing the NTFS shares is important to ensure it is secure from unauthorized access. ADManager Plus helps users in Management of their Shares by providing detailed Share and access Permissions reports on all the shares present in the Server. On the basis of Shares report, users can clearly

An Authorization and Waiver for John Brennan

An Authorization and Waiver for John Brennan

We are posting our written authorization and waiver under the ethics rules to John Brennan to participate in the reviews of the attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253. John is the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. By virtue of his long experience in government and the private sector, John brings a unique mixture of know-how and understanding to this assignment.
The applicable ethics rules recognize that under the circumstances set forth in the attached memo, counsel should review the matter and authorize the official to proceed with the assignment where the public interest so requires.  That is particularly true where, as here, national security concerns are implicated. We have done that analysis and have determined that, as set out in the authorization and waiver, it is in the public interest for John to proceed.
Norm Eisen is special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform
Related Topics: Ethics

dont trust lindesy gram he is islamic


Apr 032011
Burning a QuranObama is dropping bombs in at least three Muslim countries, killing thousands of Muslims, and still helping to prop up the greatest evil known to Islam: Israel.
Yet a Pastor in Florida who burned a copy of the Qur’an is the reason that the adherents to the Religion of Pieces savagely murdered 7 United Nations workers in Afghanistan?
But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) from blaming…not the savage animals who would kill over a burned book — but instead the pastor who was exercising his first amendment rights. So off-their-fucking-rockers are Reid and Graham, that they are hoping to find some way to punish Jones while shitting all over the first amendment.
Here’s the worst-Republican in the Senate:
“I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. So, burning a Koran is a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify killing someone. Burning a Bible would be a terrible thing but it doesn’t justify murder.
You could burn a thousand Bibles and it would not hurt the Bible. The Bible would be more damaged if its followers killed people in response to Its burning. Islam and the Qur’an, on the other hand…
And here’s dingy Harry:
“Ten to 20 people have been killed,” Reid said on “Face the Nation,” but refused to say flat-out that the Senate would pass a resolution condemning pastor Terry Jones.
“We’ll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know,” he added.
Hearings? Are they out of their fucking minds?
This just further illustrates that our Congressional heroes in D.C. have completely abandoned any precept of adherence to the Constitution of the United States. They have completely disregarded and discarded it as a quaint relic of the past, and now simply do, say, and legislate any damned thing they happen to feel at the moment.
I’m going on record right now — if Congress takes a single action against Pastor Jones, or any other American citizen, for burning a Qur’an — I’m going to buy as many of those unholy books as I can get my hands on and stage a very public burning in Reid and Graham’s honor.
Cold Fury adds:
Both of these miserable, cowardly worms can’t drop dead fast enough to suit me. They are worse than a disgrace to this nation and every living soul in it; they are a damning indictment of it, especially the deplorable fools who keep sending them back to Washington.
Bill Quick at Daily Pundit:
Reid, who hates America and her liberties, him I expect to act this way. But Graham likes to call himself a “conservative,” and then, out of that same mouth, say that America might need to “limit” the First Amendment to appease Muslim barbarian savages.
He’s even worse than Reid, because ignoramuses think that Graham actually loves his country and our freedoms, even though his words and actions demonstrate exactly the opposite.

Related Posts







Graham: Those Engaged In Anti-Muslim Hate Speech Are ‘Putting Our Soldiers At Risk’

Today, Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) convened a hearing on “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims” — the “first of its kind for Congress.” A counterweight to House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King’s (R-NY) anti-Muslim hearings earlier this month, Durbin’s hearing sought to counter increasing number of bigoted attacks like the Quran burnings, hate crimes, and restrictions on mosque construction by reinforcing “the Constitution’s ‘First Freedom’ — the freedom of religion.”
Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC) provided a counter-approach to many in his own party. Graham took the opportunity to declare “I will do my part as a Republican to let my party and anyone listening that I totally get it when it comes to religion.” After the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testified to the “steady stream of violence and discrimination” targeting Muslim, Sikh, and South Asians, Graham responded, “one case is too many.” He went further to admonish those who unleash hate speech against Muslims are “putting our soldiers at risk”:
GRAHAM: I guess my opinion about such matters is that one case is too many. You have an example in America where somebody is being abused because of their faith, I think all of us should join in and push back as the Bush administration did, as you’re doing. So that’s my baseline here — I don’t know what the numbers are but one for me is too many. And to those who have freedom of speech, it’s a gift given to you by a lot of people risking their own lives. So when you say things here at home or you do things here at home that create tension based on religious differences, particularly when its the Muslim community involved, your putting our soldiers at risk.
We have soldiers all over the world of a variety of religions fighting in the name of America trying to help moderate Muslims defeat radical Islam. And my view is that there are plenty of moderate Muslims out there who need our help and we should be helping because its better to fight the war over there than it is here. But at the end of the day, we’re all in this together….there are plenty of Muslims who wear our uniform and we need to understand that, again, we’re all in this together.

Was Obama A CIA Spy In Pakistan? ‘Maybe,’ Say Confusing School

Was Obama A CIA Spy In Pakistan? ‘Maybe,’ Say Confusing School Records

HA HA, it was actually just a clever disguise for a secret agent!OK, so the Wonkville experiment has been up and running for a day, and let’s check out the hot tips … wait, Obama was a Pakistani spy in 1981 and 1982? THIS MAKES TOTAL SENSE! Why else would would Hillary apologize to Pakistan for that time we accidentally killed dozens of their troops? That’s not the sort of thing the U.S. usually apologizes about … unless the president is on the payroll of the country whose troops we killed. What important evidence has come to light about this, and from what reputable source?
Oh, huh, it was WorldNetDaily, and it seems to be mostly about … the organizations that handle student records in the United States? They spend something like 2,000 words getting to the bottom of a very important discrepancy in Barack Obama’s life story: why do some records seem to indicate that he only attended Columbia from 1982 to 1983, and not 1981 to 1983 as he claims? Get ready for the shocking truth:
Janine Greenwood, vice president and general counsel for the [National Student Clearinghouse], told WND there was a ‘computer error’ in their system that has been corrected. She said she confirmed with Columbia that Obama was at the university for two academic years, not one.

Greenwood said she ‘tried to untangle this’ discrepancy one year ago after two ‘DegreeVerify certificates’ from the Herndon, Va.-based clearinghouse — obtained through a fee-based request — indicated Obama attended Columbia College at Columbia University only in the 1982-1983 academic year, from Sept. 1, 1982 until May 31, 1983, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree May 17, 1983.
‘All I know is [the record] was right originally, and somewhere along the line it went off the rails, and then it was right again,’ she said.
‘We basically had two records running simultaneously, and it just depended on how you input the name and the other information as to which records you got,’ she explained to WND in an interview Friday.
Greenwood said at least one of the two people who submitted the request for a report of Obama’s record received a correct report as well as an incorrect one.
Well, we’re sure that when confronted with conflicting information like this, someone studying the records would decide on the most logical interpretation, right? The most logical interpretation being, of course, that Obama never went to Columbia for his junior year, and instead spent it as a CIA agent in Pakistan (which is very different from being a spy for Pakistan, naughty Wonkville headline writer).
In other words, WorldNetDaily’s darkest, most sinister conspiracy theory is that the future president courageously served as a secret agent for the United States in a dangerous country, and then returned home and successfully graduated with an Ivy League bachelor’s degree after only three years of college. [WND]

Unreal: Obama Advisor Says America’s Political System Isn’t “Worthy” Of Obama And The Opportunity He Presents…

Unreal: Obama Advisor Says America’s Political System Isn’t “Worthy” Of Obama And The Opportunity He Presents…

President Barack Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, says that our political system isn’t “worthy” of Obama and the opportunity the president presents. He made the remarks the Washington Post.
“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important,” Pfeiffer tells the paper. “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”
The issue is that if President Obama wants to get things done, he’ll have to work with the uncompromising Republicans.”If he is successful, his record could include a variety of legislative achievements that have eluded previous presidents and a place in history as the president who moved the country beyond the wars of the post-Sept. 11 era,” claims the Post. Read more via Weasel Zippers...