Watch this video: Obama Threatens Congress: 'I Will Insist' My Bill Be Passed If They 'Fail To Act' http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90085&sitesection=breitbart&VID=24286561

Watch this video: Obama Threatens Congress: 'I Will Insist' My Bill Be Passed If They 'Fail To Act'  http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90085&sitesection=breitbart&VID=24286561

Which Way Do We Go? “Obama Recession” or Full Employment?

Which Way Do We Go? “Obama Recession” or Full Employment?

We want to focus your attention on two topics. 
One shows the only path out of the economic collapse.
The other shows the direction that will most assuredly take us into deeper collapse.  So far, the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are on the path to an ‘Obama Recession.’ 

First, the wrong path: austerity. Great Britain has shown the world what austerity will bring – deeper recession.  Britain may be going into its third economic collapse in four years with a 0.3% decline in its GDP in the last quarter and its worst year for manufacturing on record. David Cameron was elected on the promise of austerity and he delivered. The result is Britain has the worst economy on record dating back to 1830.  That’s right, before the reign of Queen Victoria!

Our policy makers could learn the same thing from U.S. history.
When FDR came to power, he put in place stimulus programs that directly created jobs. He built a lot of infrastructure that is still with us today employing people in useful work as government employees.  In 1936, FDR and Congress thought they had gotten the economy going and started worrying about deficit spending.  They decided to cut the funding of the New Deal to decrease the deficit. The result: the Roosevelt Recession of 1937 and 1938.  Roosevelt realized his error and started stimulating the economy again and quickly the recession ended and growth returned.  Even before the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. economy was on the mend.
Lesson to President Obama: Pursue the path of cutting the deficit with cuts to human needs and you are risking an “Obama Recession.” You will have squandered an immense opportunity to get the country on track.
Second, what is the solution to end the economic collapse?  There is one thing that has paralleled deficit spending for decades.  As the chart below shows that one thing is unemployment.  If unemployment is high, deficit as a percent of GDP is high. If we reduce unemployment, the deficit shrinks.

Chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP (red line) vs. the unemployment rate (blue line); for 60 years the pattern has held. When unemployment drops, the deficit as a percentage of GDP drops. When unemployment rises, the deficit rises.

Jobs.  Job creation is the one solution that has not been tried by government. Jobs are the solution to so many economic problems. The deficit, which the bi-partisans in Washington are fixated on, is directly related to job creation and the only path to reducing the deficit is moving toward full employment.  Full employment solves so many other problems: poverty and hunger, eviction and foreclosure, personal debt, retirement savings – all are ameliorated by full employment.

But, when was the last time you heard any elected official utter the phrase “full employment”?

This article is based on the weekly newsletter of It’s Our Economy. You can sign up for this free newsletter at www.ItsOurEconomy.US. Follow us on Facebook and twitter @itsoureconomy. Margaret Flowers twitter @MFlowers8 and Kevin Zeese @KBZeese. And follow our weekly show on UStream/ItsOurEconomy.

NATO: Proudly Delivering Death Since 1949 Important new book by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

NATO: Proudly Delivering Death Since 1949

Important new book by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

THE GLOBALIZATION OF NATO

Author:  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Clarity Press (2012)
ISBN:  978-0-9852710-2-2
Pages:  411 with complete index

Now available to order from Global Research

The world is enveloped in a blanket of perpetual conflict. Invasions, occupation, illicit sanctions, and regime change have become currencies and orders of the day. One organization – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – is repeatedly, and very controversially, involved in some form or another in many of these conflicts led by the US and its allies. NATO spawned from the Cold War. Its existence was justified by Washington and Western Bloc politicians as a guarantor against any Soviet and Eastern Bloc invasion of Western Europe, but all along the Alliance served to cement Washington’s influence in Europe and continue what was actually America’s post-World War II occupation of the European continent. In 1991 the raison d’être of the Soviet threat ended with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless NATO remains and continues to alarmingly expand eastward, antagonizing Russia and its ex-Soviet allies. China and Iran are also increasingly monitoring NATO’s moves as it comes into more frequent contact with them.

Yugoslavia was a turning point for the Atlantic Alliance and its mandate. The organization moved from the guise of a defensive posture into an offensive pose under the pretexts of humanitarianism. Starting from Yugoslavia, NATO began its journey towards becoming a global military force. From its wars in the Balkans, it began to broaden its international area of operations outside of the Euro-Atlantic zone into the Caucasus, Central Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Indian Ocean. It has virtually turned the Mediterranean Sea into a NATO lake with the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, while it seeks to do the same to the Black Sea and gain a strategic foothold in the Caspian Sea region. The Gulf Security Initiative between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council seeks to also dominate the Persian Gulf and to hem in Iran. Israel has become a de facto member of the military organization. At the same time, NATO vessels sail the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These warships are deployed off the coasts of Somalia, Djibouti, and Yemen as part of NATO’s objectives to create a naval cordon of the seas controlling important strategic waterways and maritime transit routes.

The Atlantic Alliance’s ultimate aim is to fix and fasten the American Empire. NATO has clearly played an important role in complementing the US strategy for dominating Eurasia. This includes the encirclement of Russia, China, Iran, and their allies with a military ring subservient to Washington. The global missile shield project, the militarization of Japan, the insurgencies in Libya and Syria, the threats against Iran, and the formation of a NATO-like military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region are components of this colossal geopolitical project. NATO’s globalization, however, is bringing together a new series of Eurasian counter-alliances with global linkages that stretch as far as Latin America. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) have been formed by Russia, China, and their allies as shields against the US and NATO and as a means to challenge them. As the globalization of NATO unfolds the risks of nuclear war become more and more serious with the Atlantic Alliance headed towards a collision course with Russia, China, and Iran that could ignite World War III.

Click to visit the Global Research ONLINE STORE

REVIEWS

“The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is simply magnificent, erudite and devoid of the ethnocentrism to which one has become so accustomed from Western authors. The book deals with what doubtless are the most important and relevant issues of the day for all those committed to saving life and protecting Mother Earth from rampant human irresponsibility and crime. There is no other book that, at this particular time, I would most heartily endorse. I think Africans, Near Eastern peoples, Iranians, Russians, Chinese, Asians and Europeans generally and all the progressive Latin American countries of today will find a much needed reinforcement and support for their peaceful ideals in this excellent must-read book.”
–MIGUEL D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua (1979-1990) and President of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (2008-2009): Managua, Nicaragua.

“We are far away from the principles and objectives for which the United Nations was created and the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal stipulating that some state actions can be considered crimes against peace. Nazemroaya’s book, in addition to reminding us that the role of the United Nations has been confiscated by NATO, elaborates the danger that the North Atlantic Treaty represents to world peace.”
–JOSÉ L. GÓMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2005-2011): Ferney-Voltaire, France.

“Through carefully documented research, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya analyzes the historical and geopolitical evolution of NATO from the Cold War to the post 9/11 US- led “Global War on Terrorism.” This book is a must read for those committed to reversing the tide of war and imperial conquest by the world’s foremost military machine.”
–MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG): Montréal, Canada.

“A very timely book. Yes, US-led NATO is globalizing, like the US-led finance economy. No doubt also for it to protect the latter, the “free market.” It is a classical case of overstretch to help save the crumbling US Empire and Western influence in general, by countries most of whom are bankrupt by their own economic mismanagement. All their interventions share two characteristics. The conflicts could have been solved with a little patience and creativity, but NATO does not want solutions. It uses conflicts as raw material it can process into interventions to tell the world that it is the strongest in military terms. And, with the help of the mainstream media, it sees Hitler everywhere, in a Milosevic, a bin Laden, a Hussein, a Qaddafi, in Assad, insensitive to the enormous differences between all these cases. I hope this book will be read by very, very many who can turn this morbid fascination with violence into constructive conflict resolution.”
–JOHAN GALTUNG, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies and Sociology at the University of Oslo and Founder of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO), the Galtung- Institut, and the Transcend Network: Oslo, Norway.

“Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s prolific writings give us a comprehensive understanding of the character of the military thrust and it’s all out, no holds barred STRATEGIC plans and moves to invade, occupy and plunder the resources of nations, inflicting unprecedented barbaric acts on civilian populations. He is one of the prescient thinkers and writers of contemporary times who deserves to be read and acted upon by people with a conscience and concern for humanity’s future.”
–VISHNU BHAGWAT, Admiral and Chief of the Naval Staff of India (1996-1998): Mumbai, India.

“This is a book really necessary to understanding the role of NATO within the frame of long-term US strategy. The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya not only provides an articulate analysis on the Atlantic Alliance: it is the best modern text devoted to the hegemonic alliance. With this book Nazemroaya reconfirms his ability as a brilliant geopolitical analyst.”
-TIBERIO GRAZIANI, President of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences/L’Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie (IsAG): Rome, Italy.

“Nazemroaya is an unbelievable prolific writer. What has often amazed many is his almost nonstop writing on extremely important issues for the contemporary world and his analysis about the globalization of NATO. What amazes many of us in other parts of the world are his seemingly limitless depth, breadth and the thoroughness of his knowledge that has been repeatedly appearing in his work. We are deeply indebted to Nazemroaya’s humble, tireless and invaluable contributions through his fearless, insightful and powerful writings.”
–KIYUL CHUNG, Editor-in-Chief of The 4th Media and Visiting Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University: Beijing, People’s Republic of China.

“The Journalists’ Press Club in Mexico is grateful and privileged to know a man who respects the written word and used it in an ethical way without another interest other than showing the reality about the other side of power in the world. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya gives voice to the “voiceless.” He can see the other side of the moon, the side without lights.”
–CELESE SÁENZ DE MIERA, Mexican Broadcaster and Secretary-General of the Mexican Press Club: Federal District of Mexico City, Mexico.

“With his very well documented analysis, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya has conducted a remarkable decryption of the strategies implemented by NATO – in the interests of the United States, the European Union and Israel – to expand its military grip on the world, ensure its control over energy resources and transit routes, and encircling the countries likely to be a barrier or a threat to its goals, whether it be Iran, Russia or China. Nazemroaya’s work is essential reading for those that want to understand what is being played out right now on the map in all the world’s trouble spots; Libya and Africa; Syria and the Middle East; the Persian Gulf and Eurasia.”
–SILVIA CATTORI, Swiss political analyst and journalist: Geneva, Switzerland

Egypt army chief warns state could collapse

By MAGGIE MICHAEL and HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press

AP Photo/Khalil Hamra

World Video

Latest News 4,300-year-old pyramid discovered in Egypt Women join fight against female circumcision Cheap electronics threaten Egyptian repairmen Who's who in Egypt's latest political crisis Egypt army chief warns state could collapse Egypt clashes spill into landmark Cairo hotel Egypt cruise ship runs aground, all aboard safe Masked 'Black Bloc' a mystery in Egypt unrest

Buy AP Photo Reprints

PORT SAID, Egypt (AP) -- Thousands of mourners chanting for the downfall of Egypt's president marched in funerals again Tuesday in the restive city of Port Said as the army chief warned the state could collapse if the latest political crisis drags on.

Army chief Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi's warning, his first comments after six days of rioting and violence across much of the country, appeared aimed at pressuring Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in particular but also his opponents to find some common ground and the worst political crisis to hit Egypt since the ouster of autocrat Hosni Mubarak nearly two years ago.

So far, the military - which for months seems to have had an understanding with Morsi - has allowed him to deal with the crisis and on his orders deployed troops and tanks over the weekend in Port Said and Suez, two riot-torn cities along the strategic Suez Canal.

But it has been willing to go only so far, clearly reluctant to clash with protesters. Troops stood by and watched Monday night as thousands took to the streets in direct defiance of a nighttime curfew and a 30-day state of emergency declared by Morsi in the cities. Residents of the two cities and Ismailiya, a third city also under the emergency, marched just as the curfew came into force at 9 p.m.

The last time el-Sissi delved into politics was late last year when he invited political leaders to an informal gathering to ease tensions during clashes and protests at the time. The invitation was swiftly withdrawn and leaders from Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood later suggested el-Sissi overstepped the boundaries by intervening.

"The continuation of the conflict between the different political forces and their differences over how the country should be run could lead to the collapse of the state and threaten future generations," el-Sissi said, speaking to military cadets in comments posted on the armed forces' Facebook page.

He defended Egyptians' right to protest, while acknowledging that the deployment in the Canal cities put the armed forces in a "grave predicament." He said the troops must balance "avoiding confrontations" with protesters with protecting "vital facilities."

El-Sissi, whom Morsi last year installed in his post and as defense minister, also spoke of a "realistic threat" facing the nation as a result of what he called the political, economic and social challenges.

Tuesday night, the presidential office said Morsi would consider cancelling the state of emergency and the curfew or cut them short if security improved by next week.

The statement appeared aimed at defusing the wave of fury against the president in the three cities. The anger has escalated to a virtual rebellion that many worry could spread to other parts of the country. Already, protesters across much of Egypt are battling police, cutting off roads and railway lines, and besieging government offices and police stations as part of a growing revolt against Morsi and his Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood group.

At least 60 people have been killed since Friday.

In Cairo, intense fighting for days around central Tahrir Square engulfed two landmark hotels and forced the U.S. Embassy to suspend public services on Tuesday. The lobby of the five-star Semiramis hotel along the Nile was trashed when armed, masked men attempted to loot it amid clashes outside early Tuesday morning.

In Port Said, scene of the worst violence the past six days, thousands marched in funerals for six of the more than 40 people killed in the city's clashes since Saturday, chanting against Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood.

"As long as the president's hands are stained in blood, he must leave," said lawyer Mohammed el-Assfouri as he stood outside the city's Mariam mosque where mourners prayed for the dead. A sign carried by one mourner said: "The independent state of Port Said."

Some of the demonstrators in Port Said on Monday night waved white-and-green flags they said were the colors of a new and independent state. Such secession would be unthinkable, but the move underlined the depth of frustration in the city. Tanks were fanned out in the city of some 600,000, located 140 miles northeast of Cairo on the Mediterranean coast and at the tip of the Suez Canal.

Morsi's opponents accuse Islamists of monopolizing power and failing to live up to the ideals of the pro-democracy uprising that ousted authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak two years ago. Critics say he has failed to tackle the country's massive problems, which range from an economy in free fall to surging crime, chaos on the streets and lack of political consensus.

El-Sissi's comments raised questions over the military's stance if the crisis continues to swell. The military formed the backbone of Mubarak's regime - and those of all presidents since a 1956 coup - and the generals stepped into rule directly after Mubarak's removal in February 2011. The military's nearly 17-month stint in power tainted its reputation in the eyes of many Egyptians who accused it of mismanaging the transition and carrying out human rights abuses.

The Brotherhood largely accepted military rule, seeing it as paving the way to the elections it would eventually win, bringing it to political power. But the relationship was contentious: Before officially handing power over to Morsi after his election, the generals tried to keep sweeping powers. Within two months, Morsi took back the powers, sidelined the top generals and handpicked el-Sissi as defense minister and head of the armed forces.

The wave of unrest has touched cities across much of Egypt since Thursday, including Cairo, the three Suez Canal cities, Alexandria on the Mediterranean in the north and a string of cities in the Nile Delta.

The violence accelerated Friday, the second anniversary of the uprising, with protests to mark the event turning to clashes that left 11 dead, most of them in Suez.

The next day, riots exploded in Port Said after a court convicted and sentenced to death 21 defendants - mostly locals - for a mass soccer riot in the city's main stadium a year ago. Rioters attacked police stations, clashed with security forces in the streets and shots and tear gas were fired at protester funerals.

The mayhem in Port Said was fueled in part by the anger and sense of betrayal that have been simmering in the city following last year's riot, the worst ever in Egyptian soccer.

Protesters and activists, meanwhile, are accusing the police of excessive use of force in dealing with demonstrators. Morsi, in their view, endorsed their tactics when he commended them in a short, televised speech on Sunday night when he declared the state of emergency and curfew.

In Cairo on Tuesday, the area around central Tahrir Square was relatively quiet for most of the day, but clashes between police and rock-throwing protesters intensified by late afternoon and continued into the night. On Monday, protesters and police battled each other in area all day and until late at night in scenes reminiscent of the early days of the 2011 uprising.

The Interior Ministry, which is in charge of the police, said more than a 100 policemen have been injured in the central Cairo clashes since they started on Thursday. The only fatality in the capital in the six days came on Monday when a young man died of gunshot wound.

Early Tuesday morning, police foiled an attempted robbery by 12 masked gunmen at the Semiramis Intercontinental. The luxury hotel is one of the two caught up in clashes around Tahrir Square.

Security officials say the attackers looted shops in the hotel's small mall and smashed glass. They suspect the culprits are criminals who used the rioting outside on the street as cover. AP television footage shows protesters trying to arrest some of the thieves. By Tuesday, the shattered glass facade of the lobby was boarded up and only a few guests remained.

The nearby U.S. Embassy said on its website that it was closing public services on Tuesday because of the security situation.

Libor Lies Revealed in Rigging of $300 Trillion Benchmark

Every morning, from his desk by the bathroom at the far end of Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc’s trading floor overlooking London’s Liverpool Street station, Paul White punched a series of numbers into his computer.
White, who had joined RBS in 1984, was one of the employees responsible for the firm’s submissions for the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, the global benchmark for more than $300 trillion of contracts from mortgages and student loans to interest-rate swaps. Behind him sat Neil Danziger, a derivatives trader who had worked at the bank since 2002.
On the morning of March 27, 2008, Tan Chi Min, Danziger’s boss in Tokyo, told him to make sure the next day’s submission in yen would increase, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its March issue. “We need to bump it way up high, highest among all if possible,” Tan, who was known by colleagues as Jimmy, wrote in an instant message to Danziger, according to a transcript made public by a Singapore court and reported on by Bloomberg before being sealed by a judge at RBS’s request.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=452688984800732&set=a.199201850149448.49600.194105303992436&type=1&relevant_count=1

https://www.facebook.com/notes/killuminati-soldiers/the-sandy-hook-hoax-needs-to-be-finnished/502706783100820

CURL: The terrifying mindset of Secretary Clinton

Her words are already long gone from the daily flow; in fact, they never really resonated at all, were all but ignored by the mainstream media, and were characterized more as a feisty in-your-face comeback than what they truly were.
And what they truly were was horrifying — but at the same time a deep insight into the Democratic mindset, as well as a peek at what may be coming in 2016.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton finally appeared to answer questions before two congressional panels on exactly what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
That day, the consulate was overrun by heavily armed terrorists, some with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, others with high-powered assault weapons. They swept past the almost nonexistent security, killed the U.S. ambassador and set the building on fire. They followed when dozens of Americans fled to a more-heavily fortified annex nearby, but U.S. forces did nothing during the next 10 hours and three more were killed, including two Navy SEALs.
For weeks, the White House and top administration officials said the assault was merely a protest turned violent: The angry mass had gathered to protest a short video posted on YouTube that Muslims reportedly found offensive. It was, they said, spontaneous, and it was, they said, all about that video.
The hearing last week was a fact-finding mission: Lawmakers charged with oversight of the State Department gathered to ask the secretary of state — for the first time — what went wrong, and to find out, if possible, the cause of the deadly blunder. More, they wanted to hear from the secretary herself just why the administration had said for so long that a video caused an impromptu protest that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador.
Asked during a Senate hearing why they had given out faulty information for so long, Mrs. Clinton grew angry and, with her voice rising, he hands flailing, said: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?!”
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the frightening Democratic mindset. The administration had buried the matter for months in an internal investigation: No one from the White House to the State Department would comment on what happened, turning away queries with the simple: “It’s under investigation.” And they weren’t about to start explaining now.
Remember, the story had changed completely just hours before another congressional hearing months earlier. State Department officials, speaking with anonymity, had scrambled to hold a hastily-arranged conference call with reporters to say, in essence, “Oh, turns out it was terrorists, not just protesters, who attacked in Benghazi. And oh, nothing to do with any video.” That call came just before officials planned to tell a completely new story, but this time to lawmakers, where — as Mrs. Clinton learned after her husband’s affair with a White House intern — lying under oath is a felony.
So, lawmakers still wanted to know why the administration dispatched aides to the Sunday talk shows right after the deadly attack to say it was the culmination of a spontaneous attack over a video. Later, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would say that they were merely offering up the best information at the time, but as information dribbed and drabbed out over the following months, it turned out that no one in the intelligence community ever said the attack was spontaneous or caused by a video posted on YouTube nearly six months earlier.
But Mrs. Clinton made clear at the hearing that she didn’t have to answer to anyone — certainly not elected lawmakers, let alone the American people. “What difference does it make?!” she bellowed. Now, this hearing was in fact a hearing intended to find out why the administration said the attack came after an impromptu protest over a video. Senators made clear in the days preceded the hearing that they planned to ask just that, get the answer to that most pressing unanswered question.
“You know, to be clear,” the secretary explained, as if to children, “it is, from my perspective, less important today, looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it [sic], than to find them and bring them to justice.”
So, from her perspective, there doesn’t need to be any investigation into why the administration said what it said. It’s like a child breaking a lamp, lying about it to his parents, and then saying, “Look, we could go on and on about who said what about breaking the lamp, but fixing the lamp now is really all that’s important — let’s move on.”
And that is terrifying. The secretary of state said simply, “The ends justify the means.” The Obama administration had lied about what happened in Benghazi to help secure a second term for the president, buried the murder of Americans in a private investigation, then, when finally questioned, said, “What difference does it make!?” what we said way back then.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/curl-terrifying-mindset-secretary-clinton/#ixzz2JOhuWjpE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
The tactic is, of course, how Democrats operate. They feel that what they are doing is morally superior; thus,  however they can achieve their goals is above question or reproach. In fact, in this case, they can lie about it — bald-faced — and then dismiss lawmakers’ questions with an indignant huff.
It is, as we know, exactly how the Clintons operate. Bill Clinton lied for weeks and months over his sexual dalliance with an intern only a few years older than his daughter — even under oath — and Democrats decried the probe as a witch hunt. Remember when Mrs. Clinton made $100,000 through spurious cattle futures contracts? Of course not: By the time it all came around, the Clintons said, “Oh, that old stuff?” Or the time the Clintons announced they had suddenly found papers demanded by investigators for years? And don’t even ask about Vincent W. Foster Jr.
This is what’s coming in 2016. A politician running for president who need not answer questions from anyone.
And that truly is horrifying.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/curl-terrifying-mindset-secretary-clinton/?page=2#ixzz2JOi6KhxM
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter