The shallow quake was centered a mile north of El Cerrito, two miles from Richmond, four miles north of Berkeley and 13 miles from San Francisco City Hall.
To Read the rest of this article, please click here.
SEARCH
Custom Search
Showing posts with label world. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Bay Area Wakes Up To Magnitude 4.0 East Bay Quake
The shallow quake was centered a mile north of El Cerrito, two miles from Richmond, four miles north of Berkeley and 13 miles from San Francisco City Hall.
To Read the rest of this article, please click here.
Official defends 'lethal force' against US citizens
The speech marked the first time a senior US official has publicly justified in legal terms the drone attacks that are believed to have killed at least three US citizens on foreign soil in recent months, including key Al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaqi.
"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," Holder said in a speech at a law school in Chicago.
"In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force."
Holder said there were circumstances under which "an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful."
Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" and that "capture is not feasible."
Thirdly, the "operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.
"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not... assassinations are unlawful killings," Holder said.
"Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan... We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country," he added.
"Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats." Civil rights groups have cried foul since the killing of Awlaqi in Yemen in September in a US raid.
Some argued it was illegal for the US military to kill an American citizen on the battlefield, following no attempt to indict him. US intelligence officials believed Awlaqi was linked to a US army major charged with shooting dead 13 people in 2009 in Fort Hood, Texas, and to a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, 2009.
President Barack Obama said in September that Awlaqi's killing was a "major blow" to Al-Qaeda's Yemeni branch, and marked "another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat Al-Qaeda and its affiliates."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last month filed a lawsuit seeking the release of documents authorizing targeted drone strikes, such as the one on Awlaqi.
US citizen Samir Khan was killed in the same attack on Awlaqi, and Awlaqi's US-born teenage son was killed in October in a separate suspected US air strike in Yemen.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Eight Reasons Why Romney Won't Receive Nomination
1) He’s Hiding: Romney views the press with aspersion, engaging with reporters much less often than Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. That was a viable strategy back when his winning the nomination seemed a lock, but Romney’s ahead by an inch, not a mile, and he’s getting punished for pretending otherwise. Denied access or real news, reporters will write about optics and gaffes—and do so with relish.
2) He’s Trying to Run Out the Clock: Romney’s stump speech is a collection of platitudes and the strange ritual recitation of the lyrics to America the Beautiful. As one of his fundraisers put it to John Heilemann of New York magazine: “I have never seen anything more ridiculous or belittling.” This creates the impression that Romney has nothing to say—or worse, has chosen not to say anything substantive—and is trying to coast to the nomination. Reporters feel duty-bound to push back.
3) He’ll Say Anything: Romney has a reputation as someone who will say anything to get ahead. Lately, he’s been struggling, and now—presto!—he has rolled out a new tax cut. Romney isn’t granted the benefit of the doubt, so the assumption is that this is a political ploy, not a bold policy choice.
4) He Wants to Have It Both Ways: Romney’s advisers fault the media for focusing on trivialities, such as the empty stadium, rather than the size of his proposed cut. A big reason why his tax cut wasn’t treated more seriously is that he won’t say how he’ll pay for it—he wants to take credit for the tax cut but avoid the responsibility of funding it.
5) He’s Awkward: It’s hard to recall a likely major-party nominee who was less of a natural politician than Romney. The constant references to his wealth—the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, the Cadillacs, his quip yesterday about not being an “ardent” Nascar fan but being friends with several team owners—have become a bizarre-but-captivating spectacle, what James Fallows has aptly dubbed “Romney’s gaffe-Tourette’s.”
6) He’s Underperforming: Turnout and enthusiasm in GOP primaries and caucuses are both way down this year. That’s certainly not Romney’s fault alone. But his candidacy in particular is based on the idea that he’s an electable alternative to Barack Obama—yet his own party has obvious qualms about him.
7) He Has Forfeited His Right to Complain: Last November the Romney campaign rolled out its first ad, an attack on President Obama built around a quote taken entirely out of context. In the ad, Obama is heard to say, “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” But Obama was quoting a Republican, John McCain. Oddly, the Romney campaign bragged about having done this “intentionally.” This cost them a large measure of credibility with the press, which became much less receptive to the campaign’s subsequent complaints.
8) He’s a Mystery: Romney has been running for President for six years. He’s highly accomplished in business and government. He has money, good looks, a beautiful family—yet most political insiders feel they don’t understand what makes him tick. That doesn’t appear likely to change, because Romney is so guarded and press averse, yet at the same time he apparently is incapable on his own of making a strong case for his candidacy. Still, Romney supporters can take solace in this fact: Practically nobody believes he won’t wind up as the nominee.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Veterans for Ron Paul Rally at White House
This Got Sidelined completely by the MSM.... post to as ,many of your friends as possible!
By Matthew Larotonda
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Current and former service members staged a rally outside the White House today in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Several hundred troops and their supporters attended the event. The veterans were men and women, young and old, some in uniform and some in plain clothes.
The demonstration was a mostly silent affair, with the veterans standing calmly at attention in rows. An organizer bellowed that each second of quiet was for every military suicide since President Obama took office. A second moment of silence was for each soldier to die abroad under the current commander in chief.
One protester held a sign reading “Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America to be a policeman of the whole world.” The line was paraphrased from remarks by Dr. Martin Luther King regarding the Vietnam War.
There were few picket signs, but some tea party symbols were present.
The event concluded with an organizer parading the procession away, complete with color guard.
Ron Paul shares an unusually high percentage of supporters in the military compared to the other candidates and it shows in his campaign funding. The Center for Responsible Politics reports the candidate touted more than $95,000 between September 2011 and January in individual donations from current and former members of the military, higher than any other candidate. Obama comes in second at roughly $72,000.
It is an attribute the libertarian lawmaker is quick to highlight on the campaign trail.
As a former Air Force flight surgeon, he is the only former serviceman campaigning for president.
To finish Reading this Story, Click Here!
By Matthew Larotonda
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Current and former service members staged a rally outside the White House today in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Several hundred troops and their supporters attended the event. The veterans were men and women, young and old, some in uniform and some in plain clothes.
The demonstration was a mostly silent affair, with the veterans standing calmly at attention in rows. An organizer bellowed that each second of quiet was for every military suicide since President Obama took office. A second moment of silence was for each soldier to die abroad under the current commander in chief.
One protester held a sign reading “Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America to be a policeman of the whole world.” The line was paraphrased from remarks by Dr. Martin Luther King regarding the Vietnam War.
There were few picket signs, but some tea party symbols were present.
The event concluded with an organizer parading the procession away, complete with color guard.
Ron Paul shares an unusually high percentage of supporters in the military compared to the other candidates and it shows in his campaign funding. The Center for Responsible Politics reports the candidate touted more than $95,000 between September 2011 and January in individual donations from current and former members of the military, higher than any other candidate. Obama comes in second at roughly $72,000.
It is an attribute the libertarian lawmaker is quick to highlight on the campaign trail.
As a former Air Force flight surgeon, he is the only former serviceman campaigning for president.
To finish Reading this Story, Click Here!
Friday, February 24, 2012
Quote of The Day
"I Live Today for the best Possible Tomorrow, anybody who does, will reap the benefits of Life."
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Keen on slashing the national debt? Ron Paul is your man
Ron Paul ranks as the one candidate among four whose announced policies would leave America with a lower national debt than it would have under a status quo course, according to a new analysis.
By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor – 2 hrs 20 mins ago
Ron Paul has touted himself as the strongest fiscal conservative running for the Republican presidential nomination, and according to one new analysis, he may be right.
The Texas congressman ranks as the one candidate among four whose announced policies would leave America with a lower national debt than it would have under a status quo course.
That's the tentative conclusion of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, in a report evaluating the tax and spending policies of Representative Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.
It's some basic math that any cash-strapped household would understand: His cuts to federal spending would outweigh his proposed tax cuts. The other candidates so far haven't fleshed out spending-cut plans that equal or exceed their tax cuts, which reduce expected federal revenues. In all, Paul's proposals would leave the United States with a national debt equaling 76 percent of one year's gross domestic product in 2021. That would be slightly higher than the debt is today, but lower than it would be in a base-line scenario that represents current policies pursued by Congress.
Former Massachusetts Governor Romney would leave public debt at 86 percent of GDP in 2021. Former US Senator Santorum would leave debt at 104 percent of GDP. Former House Speaker Gingrich would leave it at 114 percent of GDP.
In the base-line case, debt reaches 85 percent of GDP. This assumes a continuation of Bush-era tax cuts, an ongoing "patch" to keep more Americans from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, and an annual "doc fix" for physician payments under Medicare. In this status quo scenario, the deficit would amount to more than $1 trillion in 2021.
In public opinion polls, Americans see reducing annual deficits and the nation's overall debt as a top priority (behind economic growth and job creation) for government. Many economists say the debt is already rising into a zone that could threaten the economy's stability. Paul's prescription is to tackle the problem in libertarian fashion, with a major downsizing of the federal government. His proposals, as gauged by CRFB, would reduce federal spending by some $7.5 trillion over a nine-year period. (For comparison, federal spending will total $3.6 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.)
Paul's cuts would span from the military to Medicaid and beyond.
In one TV ad, Paul's campaign has shown pictures depicting the Departments of Education, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development blowing up as federal spending is reined in. "Later, bureaucrats," the narrator says.
His plan also calls for significant reductions in taxes on personal income, estates, and corporate income – totaling $5.2 trillion over the nine-year period that CRFB analyzed.
The CRFB analysis is tentative for several reasons. The group highlights estimates from an "intermediate scenario" for each candidate, based on policies each has spelled out in some detail. Romney doesn't get credit, for example, for his currently vague call for capping federal spending at 20 percent of GDP.
The CRFB says it will update its report as candidates revise or flesh out their economic plans.
The report also shows an alternative "low-debt" scenario, which essentially takes candidate pledges at face value, even if the proposals currently lack in detail.
In this scenario, Paul also leads the Republican pack in fiscal discipline, with debt falling to 67 percent of GDP. Romney and Santorum (who has a goal to cut $5 trillion in federal spending in five years) would also leave the US with lower debt than under the status quo case. Another caveat to the CRFB analysis: Paul's proposal to end the Federal Reserve would have wide and uncertain impacts on the economy. The CRFB takes only a first glance at this issue. It emphasizes an "intermediate-debt" scenario in which shutting down the Fed would cost the nation $430 billion over the nine-year period. That's because the Fed would no longer be making annual payments of surpluses from its operations to the US Treasury.
In the "low-debt" scenario, the CRFB credits the Paul plan with saving some $1.2 trillion by shutting down the Fed. But the group calls his idea "incomplete," saying that he proposes what amounts to a default by the Fed on the reserves it now holds for private banks. Some budget experts say these numbers regarding the Federal Reserve show only one implication of Paul's proposal. The bigger issue would be this: How would the economy function if the nation had no central bank to manage monetary policy?
"The impact on the budget would likely be major," said Alice Rivlin, a former Fed official who spoke at a Thursday panel discussion at the New America Foundation in Washington, at which the CRFB report was presented.
She didn't elaborate on the potential consequences. Many economists, while having varying views on optimal Fed policy, argue that the central bank played a key role in preventing the financial crisis of 2008 from pitching the economy into a 1930s-style depression. Paul has argued that a return to the gold standard would allow the economy to function with a "sound money" alternative to the current inflation-prone currency.
RECOMMENDED: The roar of Ron Paul – five of his unorthodox views on the economy Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor – 2 hrs 20 mins ago
Ron Paul has touted himself as the strongest fiscal conservative running for the Republican presidential nomination, and according to one new analysis, he may be right.
The Texas congressman ranks as the one candidate among four whose announced policies would leave America with a lower national debt than it would have under a status quo course.
That's the tentative conclusion of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, in a report evaluating the tax and spending policies of Representative Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.
It's some basic math that any cash-strapped household would understand: His cuts to federal spending would outweigh his proposed tax cuts. The other candidates so far haven't fleshed out spending-cut plans that equal or exceed their tax cuts, which reduce expected federal revenues. In all, Paul's proposals would leave the United States with a national debt equaling 76 percent of one year's gross domestic product in 2021. That would be slightly higher than the debt is today, but lower than it would be in a base-line scenario that represents current policies pursued by Congress.
Former Massachusetts Governor Romney would leave public debt at 86 percent of GDP in 2021. Former US Senator Santorum would leave debt at 104 percent of GDP. Former House Speaker Gingrich would leave it at 114 percent of GDP.
In the base-line case, debt reaches 85 percent of GDP. This assumes a continuation of Bush-era tax cuts, an ongoing "patch" to keep more Americans from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, and an annual "doc fix" for physician payments under Medicare. In this status quo scenario, the deficit would amount to more than $1 trillion in 2021.
In public opinion polls, Americans see reducing annual deficits and the nation's overall debt as a top priority (behind economic growth and job creation) for government. Many economists say the debt is already rising into a zone that could threaten the economy's stability. Paul's prescription is to tackle the problem in libertarian fashion, with a major downsizing of the federal government. His proposals, as gauged by CRFB, would reduce federal spending by some $7.5 trillion over a nine-year period. (For comparison, federal spending will total $3.6 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.)
Paul's cuts would span from the military to Medicaid and beyond.
In one TV ad, Paul's campaign has shown pictures depicting the Departments of Education, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development blowing up as federal spending is reined in. "Later, bureaucrats," the narrator says.
His plan also calls for significant reductions in taxes on personal income, estates, and corporate income – totaling $5.2 trillion over the nine-year period that CRFB analyzed.
The CRFB analysis is tentative for several reasons. The group highlights estimates from an "intermediate scenario" for each candidate, based on policies each has spelled out in some detail. Romney doesn't get credit, for example, for his currently vague call for capping federal spending at 20 percent of GDP.
The CRFB says it will update its report as candidates revise or flesh out their economic plans.
The report also shows an alternative "low-debt" scenario, which essentially takes candidate pledges at face value, even if the proposals currently lack in detail.
In this scenario, Paul also leads the Republican pack in fiscal discipline, with debt falling to 67 percent of GDP. Romney and Santorum (who has a goal to cut $5 trillion in federal spending in five years) would also leave the US with lower debt than under the status quo case. Another caveat to the CRFB analysis: Paul's proposal to end the Federal Reserve would have wide and uncertain impacts on the economy. The CRFB takes only a first glance at this issue. It emphasizes an "intermediate-debt" scenario in which shutting down the Fed would cost the nation $430 billion over the nine-year period. That's because the Fed would no longer be making annual payments of surpluses from its operations to the US Treasury.
In the "low-debt" scenario, the CRFB credits the Paul plan with saving some $1.2 trillion by shutting down the Fed. But the group calls his idea "incomplete," saying that he proposes what amounts to a default by the Fed on the reserves it now holds for private banks. Some budget experts say these numbers regarding the Federal Reserve show only one implication of Paul's proposal. The bigger issue would be this: How would the economy function if the nation had no central bank to manage monetary policy?
"The impact on the budget would likely be major," said Alice Rivlin, a former Fed official who spoke at a Thursday panel discussion at the New America Foundation in Washington, at which the CRFB report was presented.
She didn't elaborate on the potential consequences. Many economists, while having varying views on optimal Fed policy, argue that the central bank played a key role in preventing the financial crisis of 2008 from pitching the economy into a 1930s-style depression. Paul has argued that a return to the gold standard would allow the economy to function with a "sound money" alternative to the current inflation-prone currency.
RECOMMENDED: The roar of Ron Paul – five of his unorthodox views on the economy Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Please Follow the Blog!!
If anybody can follow my blog, do so!! You will get exclusive investment opportunities, as well as deeper discounts than the General Public, everything from Music to cool whips. We always find the customer the best deaL, whether we are the cheapest or not.
WWW.KNKT.ME
WWW.DUBBRECORDZ.COM
WWW.OHZEECLOTHING.BIZ
Friday, August 19, 2011
If Poles are shifting, it is Going to Effect Everything
Instead of thwarting my own head up against the wall, I felt compelled to write something to even boggle the wisest mind. This is the script that was produced by none other than Oh Zee, again giving you his words of wisdom.
There is a predominant thought that seems to be constricting everyone's ability, most of you probably already know what I am not about to say. It draws a great connection to what many modern astronomer's believe will be a cataclysmic pole-shift, they could be wrong however is this something to take lightly? These thoughts in my mind were suddenly blocked and I was able to "envision" the aftershock of this particular, "end of the world."
If and when the Earth's poles shift, like these Astronomer's have suggested, the result of it would do everything except "end the world." Let's take these words "Pole Shift," literal. Now apply it's exact meaning to your perspective as I have, and this should be well known because it goes back to the Physical ideals that started the science. Magnetic pull, as well as Gravity show us everything about we could possibly need to know. Poles are always being pulled, eventually pull is going to come from the opposite direction. What goes up, must come down.
Recently I have joined with the theories behind quantum physics, they bound us all together as one giant electromagnetic frequency field, because everything is a combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Three elementary atoms, give us our perception on Reality. Well what is Real? Is the Bible Real to you? If so, you also believe this to a sense, because GOD is everywhere and is within everything, right? So in this field of energy, there are only protons and electrons, (neutrons is not charged)this is the crucial truth. Just as their are good (+), and evil (-) people, there are also people with a positive outlook on life, and some who are overly pessimistic. December 21, 2012 will reverse everything we see, touch, smell, and hear.
If this pole shift occurs, does that mean the people who have struggled in poverty, will soon become very wealthy? Or people with bad luck, will soon be bombarded with good fortune? I see how balanced the world is with negative and positive energy, if that balance is to continue then we should start getting prepared for the tides to turn. What will we do if time starts going in reverse? What about gravity, will it to be reversed? There is a limitless amount of possibilites as to what will actually transpire, but this theory of mine gives me a reason to smile, because I will grow taller, and watch the Tall ones become short. Point and laugh at the skinny people that quickly reach obesity. The old become young, and the trees become roots.
There is a predominant thought that seems to be constricting everyone's ability, most of you probably already know what I am not about to say. It draws a great connection to what many modern astronomer's believe will be a cataclysmic pole-shift, they could be wrong however is this something to take lightly? These thoughts in my mind were suddenly blocked and I was able to "envision" the aftershock of this particular, "end of the world."
If and when the Earth's poles shift, like these Astronomer's have suggested, the result of it would do everything except "end the world." Let's take these words "Pole Shift," literal. Now apply it's exact meaning to your perspective as I have, and this should be well known because it goes back to the Physical ideals that started the science. Magnetic pull, as well as Gravity show us everything about we could possibly need to know. Poles are always being pulled, eventually pull is going to come from the opposite direction. What goes up, must come down.
Recently I have joined with the theories behind quantum physics, they bound us all together as one giant electromagnetic frequency field, because everything is a combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Three elementary atoms, give us our perception on Reality. Well what is Real? Is the Bible Real to you? If so, you also believe this to a sense, because GOD is everywhere and is within everything, right? So in this field of energy, there are only protons and electrons, (neutrons is not charged)this is the crucial truth. Just as their are good (+), and evil (-) people, there are also people with a positive outlook on life, and some who are overly pessimistic. December 21, 2012 will reverse everything we see, touch, smell, and hear.
If this pole shift occurs, does that mean the people who have struggled in poverty, will soon become very wealthy? Or people with bad luck, will soon be bombarded with good fortune? I see how balanced the world is with negative and positive energy, if that balance is to continue then we should start getting prepared for the tides to turn. What will we do if time starts going in reverse? What about gravity, will it to be reversed? There is a limitless amount of possibilites as to what will actually transpire, but this theory of mine gives me a reason to smile, because I will grow taller, and watch the Tall ones become short. Point and laugh at the skinny people that quickly reach obesity. The old become young, and the trees become roots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
contact us by email: g.pitsch.85@gmail.com
Submit Domain Name
