Saudi Kingdom to halt wheat production by 2016

The Kingdom is likely to totally depend on wheat imports starting from 2016, says Waleed El-Khereiji, head of Grains and Silos Flour …

—————————————————————-

Saudi- ‘Big opportunity’ in SR 1 bn biscuit market
Saudi Arabia is one of the primary emerging markets for top biscuits maker Britannia and it sees big opportunities in the Kingdom because …

President Obama used his weekly Saturday address to repeat his impassioned but vague call to take “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this,” some gun control advocates said they hoped the shooting would be a catalyst for change.

“We genuinely believe that this one is different,” Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in an interview on Saturday. “It’s different because no decent human being can look at a tragedy like this and not be outraged by the fact that it can happen in our nation. And because this time, we’re really poised to harness that outrage and create a focused and sustained outcry for change.”

But supporters of gun control sounded similar notes after other recent mass shootings — including one early last year in Tucson in which six people were killed and Representative Gabrielle Giffords was wounded — only to see little or no action. And as governors condemned the Connecticut shooting and expressed sympathy for its victims, their statements, from Democrats and Republicans alike, were more likely to mention prayer than gun laws.

That same day, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill that would allow guns in cars at the Statehouse garage. Earlier in the week, a federal appeals court struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois. And Florida officials announced that they would soon issue their millionth concealed weapon and firearm license — or, as a state news release put it, the program would be “One Million Strong.”

Exception was in Colorado, which had started a debate on gun laws earlier in the week. Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, had said on Wednesday that he believed “the time is right” for state lawmakers to consider new gun restrictions.

Mr. Hickenlooper, who had appeared cool to the idea immediately after the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora that killed 12 people and wounded dozens, said he hoped lawmakers would take up the issue in the next legislative session, when Democrats will control both houses.

“After the shootings happened in Aurora in July, everyone was just so empty that it didn’t feel appropriate to start talking about racing right into the sometimes contentious arguments of appropriate gun control or inappropriate gun control, depending on which side of the fence you’re on,” Mr. Hickenlooper said Saturday. He added that he hoped lawmakers would examine issues like public access to assault weapons, magazines that hold a great deal of ammunition and armor-piercing bullets, and how the state can help the mentally ill and keep them from doing harm.

With gun control efforts seen as unlikely in Washington, where the Republicans who control the House oppose them, the next frontiers of the debate may be in states like Michigan, where the bill that would allow people to carry concealed weapons in school is being weighed by Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican.

Don Wotruba, the deputy director of the Michigan Association of School Boards, said the group was calling on the governor to veto the bill. “Putting children in closer proximity with more guns is a risk that shouldn’t be taken,” he said in an interview.

=======================================================

The massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School has finally grabbed the Nation’s attention – something that Hurricane Sandy did not do.

The Republicans blame their loss in the Presidential elections on the Hurricane and we find no evidence that this was the case – but we say that had the elections been held today instead, they might have been wiped out – just a Sandy closer to home.

Today’s Sunday TV programs all dealt with the woman that collected guns and made them accessible to her sick-genius son.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on Meet the Press, said that he did put his money to work for candidates to Congress that were ready to take on the National Rifle Association. He explained that good laws and readiness to enforce them have reduced killings by guns in new York City to the point that it is now best in the country on the reduction of crime. He said it clearly – The Comforter in Chief is first The Commander in Chief and criticized the Preasident for not having put forward an actual plan to combat what is killing per year in the US more people then all the Vietnam War did in its time.

Bloomberg said that he decided to back President Obama only after he interviewed both – The President and Mr. Romney – and had the feeling that Obama knew what he has to do. But then, Obama did not go come up with a program to back up his rhetoric.

In New York City, if someone is found with a loaded concealed weapon – he gets an automatic 3.5 years.

THE PRESIDENT HAS IN HIS POWER TO ACT UPON WHAT HE TELLS THE PEOPLE THAT HE INTENDS TO DO. HE FIRST HAS TO TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, AND THEN DO IT THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDERS. My feeling was that Mayor Bloomberg, now an Independent, is ready to take the argument on a ride to the White House in 2016. He has the money and made it clear in public that he has the readiness. While the NRA’s only reason for existence in 2012 was to try to unseat President Obama, Bloombeg sees them weakened now to the point that an Obama who is not up for reelection anymore, ought to push Members of Congress to fight as if the NRA has no power over them – and indeed it does not anymore.

David Frum, who worked for President G.W. Bush said that when he grew up in Canada nobody there understood the US interest in weapons. Recently 300,000 people bought guns in one day in the US. 31 Senators for the Gun-lobby refused to speak on the Sunday programs – so they are stiff scared finally! This at a time that there is evidence that 40% of the guns sold in the US are sold at gun-shows or via the internet – no documents of any kind needed.

What is needed? For a starter something like a drivers’ license  that requires tests of health (specifically mental health), a test of skills, and a minimum age. Also, clear understanding of spacial exclusions – like schools.

We would like to see Senator John Kerry take over the leadership in Congress and the fight against folks like Senator John McCain.

For first horn – President Obama ought to nominate Susan Rice for the Secretary of State position and fight for her; forget the leveling off on the taxation of the rich. The specter of a Middle East Bazaar  bargaining between positions saying that rich is an income of one million/year or a quarter million/year are just unseemly. We would say that a special extra gun-control security tax would be fitting the present need as a clear add-on. We would then suggest that a similar add-on would qualify for climate-change effects as well because of the delayed action of dealing with the subject. Rich should be defined at the $150,000  level and taxed higher as the income is higher. Running a State is indeed the responsibility of those that were privileged to get a higher income as they got were they are mainly not by wins at the lottery, but because of the sweat of the great majority – the “others” that make up more then 95% of the Nation.  PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOW IN THIS POTENTIALLY UNCOMPROMISING POSITION BECAUSE OF THE CONFLUENCE OF OPPORTUNITIES THAT SHOULD NOT BE MISSED -  HIS CLEAR INDEPENDENCE OF NEED TO BOW TO HIS DETRACTORS, AND THE DISASTERS OF SANDY & SANDY.

Janice Kay “Jan” Brewer (born September 26, 1944) is the 22nd and current Governor of the U.S. state of Arizona and a member of the Republican Party. She is the fourth woman, and third consecutive woman, to hold the office. Brewer previously served as Secretary of State of Arizona, from January 2003 until then-Governor Janet Napolitano resigned after being selected as Secretary of Homeland Security in January 2009. Brewer became Governor of Arizona as part of the line of succession, as determined by the Arizona constitution.

Born in California, Brewer attended Glendale Community College where she received a radiological technologist certificate.

Created in 1962 with one college, the MCCCD  currently consists of ten separately accredited colleges. Currently MCCCD – Maricopa County Community College District is the largest community college district in the United States. The main campus is a 147-acre (0.59 km²) site located at 59th and Olive Avenue in Glendale, Arizona, established April 12, 1965, GCC was established by the Governing Board as the second MCCCD college, and charged with serving the higher educational needs of the West Valley. In August 1967, the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools first accredited GCC as an individual college. Accreditation continues today through The Higher Learning Commission / North Central Association and includes both the GCC Main campus and the GCC North site.

Brewer’s political career started when she began attending school board meetings in 1981, and quickly became “unimpressed” by the board’s performance. Intending to run for a seat on the board, Brewer soon saw an opening in her local legislative district, and decided to run for State Representative.

Jan Brewer has served as a State Senator and State Representative for Arizona, from 1983 to 1996. Brewer also served as Chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, before running for Arizona Secretary of State in 2002.

Brewer came into the national spotlight when, on April 23, 2010, she signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens. Brewer sought a full term as Governor of Arizona in the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election, and was elected on November 3, 2010, winning with 55% of the vote over Democrat Terry Goddard‘s 42%.

Glendale, Arizona, is also the home of the important  Thunderbird School of Global Management – address given as – 1 Global Place, Glendale, AZ 85306-6000.

We are partial to that institution as we spent a year there 1974-75 and got very much interested as well in the particular American-Indian world of the US State of Arizona.
That is a really fine place to get an education for someone who aspires to be Governor.

The State of Arizona in general is still part of the American “wild-west” and 40 years ago it was still hard to find there people that were born in Arizona except the AmerIndians. The whites of the community were the colonists.

Jan Brewer came to our attention this weekend because of an unusual feat:

Jan Brewer Punched a Reporter When He Asked About Climate Change.

The following report by Connor Simpson of  The Atlantic Wire gives the story.

“You’ve been warned: Confront Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer about global warming, and she will curse at you and, maybe, if you’re lucky, she’ll take a swing at you, too.”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)

A reporter for the local KTVK station in Arizona had the gall to ask Brewer if she thought global warming was real during a very short, very casual press conference about an energy conference this weekend. Brewer said something about it not being man made, which is silly, because science – and much has been made about that. The important part is what we didn’t know until now, which is what happened next.

After her answer, a handler swooped in and whisked her away, but about three paces out she turned back around to face the reporter who asked the last question. He had turned to a camera operator and seemed to be putting his microphone away. Brewer took her left hand, balled it into a fist and with the back of her hand she slugged the reporter on the back of his right arm. Not hard, but with enough force that he spun around to see what was going on.

After hitting the Welch, Brewer asked, “Where in the hell did that come from?” and the camera was still rolling, so the reporter included it in his report. Unfortunately, the punching wasn’t in the shot – which is why we’re just hearing about the thwack now – and so the world is denied a Jan Brewer punching GIF. But you can still watch her be really mad and swear at him here.

So, there you have it: Jan Brewer is not missing, but she does punch people. And with the swearing and the punching, Dana White is calling her to join the UFC’s new-fangled girl-fighting division, probably, which would be hilarious considering Arizona politicians and the UFC have a complicated history.

Global warming is a thing we pay attention to now, so a handler tried to get Brewer out of there before anything more could happen. But the governor wanted to confront the reporter, KTVK’s Dennis Welch, who got his answer and was packing his things – so she whacked him on the arm to get his attention. Like, with a fist. A closed first, even, so it wasn’t one of those sissy pro-wrestling punches. A photographer present at the rumble told Jim Romensko all the details.

A comment that came in after the report says:

dovelane1 2012-12-08 02:54 – As was mentioned, Brewer not only crossed the “physical contact” boundary, she swore at the reporter as well.

We visited the cell- bloc where US Officer John McCain was held at the “Hanoi Hilton” – this because his father had a high position in the Vietnam War. Had it not been for the Vietnamese wanting to butter up his father – young McCain would at best have worked in the Rice patches. That could have done wonders to the development of his personality, and have allowed him a measure of US patriotism he does not seem to have when he showed up differentiating between the services of a Republican Rice variety – Condalezza Rice, and the Democratic Rice variety – Susan Rice.

Dear Senator – both Rice kernels did exactly what they were supposed to do – represent their Presidents who sent them in harms way – to the UN.  – as your father did by sending you to Vietnam.

These two Rice cousins – very much alike in their backgrounds – just had no father like you did – but thought they present correctly the US interest in that foreign body. You on the other hand just thought what is best for you in the internal US warfare that may yet turn out to be the background of the fact that FBI agents exposed foibles of well performing two US generals – weakening US defense.

—————

Justices to Revisit Voting Act in View of a Changing South

By ADAM LIPTAK

The New York Times – Published: November 9, 2012

Three years ago, the court signaled that part of the law may no longer be needed, and the law’s challengers said the re-election of the nation’s first black president is proof that the nation has moved beyond the racial divisions that gave rise to efforts to protect the integrity of elections in the South.

The law “is stuck in a Jim Crow-era time warp,” said Edward P. Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, a small legal foundation that helped organize the suit.

Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, pointed to the role the law played in the recent election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

“In the midst of the recent assault on voter access, the Voting Rights Act is playing a pivotal role beating back discriminatory voting measures,” said Debo P. Adegbile, the acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the law, expected by June, could reshape how elections are conducted.

The case concerns Section 5 of the law, which requires many state and local governments, mostly in the South, to obtain permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court before making changes that affect voting. Critics of the law call the preclearance requirement a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.

The preclearance requirement, originally set to expire in five years, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1966 as a rational response to the often flagrantly lawless conduct of some Southern officials then.

Congress has repeatedly extended the requirement: for 5 years in 1970, 7 years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

But it made no changes to the list of jurisdictions covered by Section 5, relying instead on a formula based on historical practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. It applies to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states.

Should the court rule that Congress was not entitled to rely on outdated data to decide which jurisdictions should be covered, lawmakers could in theory go back to the drawing board and re-enact the law using fresher information. In practice, given the political realities, a decision striking down the coverage formula would probably amount to the end of Section 5.

In May, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the law filed by Shelby County, Ala. Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “the extraordinary federalism costs imposed by Section 5 raise substantial constitutional concerns,” and he added that the record compiled by Congress to justify the law’s renewal was “by no means unambiguous.”

“But Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered,” he went on. The constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War, he said, “entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote — surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution — is not abridged on account of race. In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people’s elected representatives.”

The dissenting member of the panel, Judge Stephen F. Williams, surveyed recent evidence concerning registration and turnout, the election of black officials, the use of federal election observers and suits under another part of the law.

Some of that evidence, he said, “suggests that the coverage formula completely lacks any rational connection to current levels of voter discrimination,” while other evidence indicates that the formula, “though not completely perverse, is a remarkably bad fit with Congress’s concerns.”

“Given the drastic remedy imposed on covered jurisdictions by Section 5,” he wrote, “I do not believe that such equivocal evidence can sustain the scheme.”

The Supreme Court has already once considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress did not respond.

At the argument of the 2009 case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned whether the distinctions drawn in the 2006 law reflect contemporary realities.

“Congress has made a finding that the sovereignty of Georgia is less than the sovereign dignity of Ohio,” Justice Kennedy said. “The sovereignty of Alabama is less than the sovereign dignity of Michigan. And the governments in one are to be trusted less than the governments in the other.”

“No one questions the validity, the urgency, the essentiality of the Voting Rights Act,” he added. “The question is whether or not it should be continued with this differentiation between the states. And that is for Congress to show.”

In the end, the court, in an 8-to-1 decision, ducked the central question and ruled instead on a narrow statutory ground, saying the utility district in Austin, Tex., that had challenged the constitutionality of the law might be eligible to “bail out” from being covered by it. Still, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, was skeptical about the continued need for Section 5.

“The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable,” he wrote. But “things have changed in the South.

“Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity,” he wrote. “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.

“The statute’s coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old,” he added,“and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions.”

Having said all of that, and acknowledging that the court’s alternative ruling had stretched the text of the statute, Chief Justice Roberts said the court should avoid deciding hard constitutional questions when it could. “Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today,” he wrote.

On Friday, in agreeing to hear the case, Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96, the court indicated that it is prepared to provide an answer to the question it left open three years ago.

—————————–

The New York Times Editorial

A Supreme Test on the Right to Vote

Published: November 9, 2012

The case, Shelby County v. Holder, was brought by an Alabama county, which contends that Section 5 intrudes unconstitutionally on the sovereign authority of states and that federal review of proposed voting changes, once needed to end legal segregation, is no longer required.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Just this year, Republican efforts to block the votes of minorities and the poor — which were rejected again and again by federal judges relying on the Voting Rights Act, including Section 5 — have made that utterly clear.

Judge John Bates of Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, rejected Shelby County’s challenge last year, noting that Congress, in renewing the section in 2006, found that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

In May, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld his ruling, saying that discrimination in voting is “one of the gravest evils that Congress can seek to redress” and that Congress’s painstaking research in its renewal of Section 5 (22 hearings and 15,000 pages of evidence) “deserves judicial deference.”

In another voting rights case in 2009, the Supreme Court said there were “serious constitutional questions” about whether Section 5 meets a current need. That comment left some legal experts with the impression that the court came close to striking down the provision. But the justices did not do so in that case, and they have even less reason to in this case. Overt discrimination clearly persists and remains pernicious in places like Shelby County.

REFF-West is only 4 weeks away – the 5th Renewable Energy Finance Forum – West.

THe revised agenda will equip you with take away strategies to improve your bottom line.

When is it?          September 27 & 28, 2012

————————————————————-

Email: energyevents@euromoneyplc.com

—————————————————————-

Dawn Butcher
Director of Event Planning & Marketing
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

In sun-drenched land, Israel’s solar power industry stifled by government bureaucracy

By Associated Press, Published: August 28, 2012.

Going Solar the Easy Way

If you’ve thought about going solar, but weren’t sure you could afford it, think again. As the New York Times wrote in a recent profile of our Sierra Club Solar Homes partner, Sungevity, “residential solar power has never been more affordable.”

Best of all, Sierra Club members and supporters who decide to go solar by August 31 through our program will get a $1,000 bonus.

Sierra Club Solar Homes Campaign is currently active in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York.

Eugene Robinson

The Washington Post, Opinion Writer

Heating up debate on climate change.

CULTURAL SURVIVAL

Rigoberta González Sul.

© Danielle DeLuca

Women Leading the Way:

Mobilizing for an Equitable, Resilient and Thriving Future.

Accelerating a whole-systems, global women’s climate movement!

Vandana Shiva, Marina Silva, Rose Marie Muraro
Ted Turner – two of the “Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers” and others.

Song by Ta’Kaiya Blaney

Reception —No UN credentials required to attend.


UN Side Event Rio + 20 Earth Summit

June 19th 4:00pm-6:30pm

Room UN2  Barra Arena (Barra da Arena)
Avenida Embaixador Abelardo Bueno, 3401 – Barra da Tijuca  Rio de Janeiro

even though the UN lists this event ending at 5:30.

The Women’s Earth and Climate Caucus (WECC) is honored to be co-hosting this event with Brazilian partner, Instituto Democracia e Sustentabilidade (IDS) and USA partner, Pathways To Peace.

Please note the speakers/reception will run until 6:30,
www.iwecc.org

Women are at the nexus of a thriving and just global future: they are disproportionately impacted by environmental and economic problems and yet demonstratively central to the most important solutions. In this side event, we will be highlighting women worldwide as innovators and agents of change in mitigating and adapting to climate change and environmental degradation, while also demonstrating a way forward with cross-sector and cross-cultural solutions from the grassroots up.

How will we leverage women’s vital sustainability contributions and climate solutions at speed and scale at the local and global level? How will we further empower a rights-based approach to sustainability and climate change solutions to respect Women’s rights, Indigenous rights and Nature’s rights?

Breakthrough alliances in women’s networks are critical at this time. The complexities of the environmental, economic and climate crises require systemic change in how we are living with each other and our Earth. This change will only be achieved through full representation of women in decision-making processes, deploying necessary resources for women, and developing a comprehensive women’s network to aid in implementing economic and environmental solutions.

This side-event will serve as the official launch for the International Women’s Earth and Climate Initiative (IWECI). WECC is the genesis entity for IWECI and is in partnership with its strategic ally and principal partner, eraGlobal Alliance.

Agenda:

• Welcome Address: Osprey Orielle Lake and Sally Ranney
• Words of Wisdom from the Indigenous Grandmothers:  Maria Alice Campos Freire (Amazon, Brazil), Mona Polacca (Hopi/Havasupai/Tewa USA)
• Women’s Leadership Panel with Vandana Shiva and Marina Silva
• Conversation with Ted Turner
• Song by Ta’Kaiya Blaney
• Reception comments from the Honorable Senator Cristovam Buarque
  

Panelists
Vandana Shiva, Marina Silva, Rose Marie Muraro, Sheyla Juruna, Representative from La Via Campesina
with special comments from Vandana Shiva and Marina Silva

Conversation with Ted Turner

Reception
Welcome words: Senator Cristovam Buarque, Emila Queiroga Barros, Alexandra Rescheke

Event Hosts and Moderators:
Osprey Orielle Lake – Founder/President of the Women’s Earth and Climate Caucus (WECC) and Founder/Co-Director IWECI
Sally Ranney — President eraGlobal Alliance and Co-Director IWECI

Contact Information:
Osprey Orielle Lake
osprey@iwecc.org

One of the two last side events on the last Friday of  the second Informal-Informal reading of the draft to Rio 2012 (RIO+20) was about the place of Mother Nature as seen by indigenous cultures that still respect the holiness of the Earth and by intellectuals that are ready to stop a minute and contemplate about the superiority of earth oriented cultures.

-

October 7, 2011, Atonement Day Eve – The 99% SILENT Public – Albeit still on the OP-ED or “ROOM for DEBATE” Pages.

New York Times OPINION PAGE - 

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR TO THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Why the Antichrist Matters in Politics.

By MATTHEW AVERY SUTTON
Matthew Avery Sutton, an associate professor of history at Washington State University, is the author of “Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America.”

Published: September 25, 2011

Pullman, Wash: The end is near — or so it seems to a segment of Christians aligned with the religious right. The global economic meltdown, numerous natural disasters and the threat of radical Islam have fueled a conviction among some evangelicals that these are the last days. While such beliefs might be dismissed as the rantings of a small but vocal minority, apocalyptic fears helped drive the antigovernment movements of the 1930s and ’40s and could help define the 2012 presidential campaign as well.

Christian apocalypticism has a long and varied history. Its most prevalent modern incarnation took shape a century ago, among the vast network of preachers, evangelists, Bible-college professors and publishers who established the fundamentalist movement. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and independents, they shared a commitment to returning the Christian faith to its “fundamentals.”

Biblical criticism, the return of Jews to the Holy Land, evolutionary science and World War I convinced them that the second coming of Jesus was imminent. Basing their predictions on biblical prophecy, they identified signs, drawn especially from the books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation, that would foreshadow the arrival of the last days: the growth of strong central governments and the consolidation of independent nations into one superstate led by a seemingly benevolent leader promising world peace.

This leader would ultimately prove to be the Antichrist, who, after the so-called rapture of true saints to heaven, would lead humanity through a great tribulation culminating in the second coming and Armageddon. Conservative preachers, evangelists and media personalities of the 20th century, like Billy Sunday, Aimee Semple McPherson, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, shared these beliefs.

Fundamentalists’ anticipation of a coming superstate pushed them to the political right. As the government grew in response to industrialization, fundamentalists concluded that the rapture was approaching. Their anxieties worsened in the 1930s with the rise of fascism. Obsessed with matching biblical prophecy with current events, they studied Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, each of whom seemed to foreshadow the Antichrist.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt troubled them as well. His consolidation of power across more than three terms in the White House, his efforts to undermine the autonomy of the Supreme Court, his dream of a global United Nations and especially his rapid expansion of the government confirmed what many fundamentalists had feared: the United States was lining up with Europe in preparation for a new world dictator.

As a result, prominent fundamentalists joined right-wing libertarians in their effort to undermine Roosevelt. That this mix of millennialism and activism seemed inconsistent — why work for reform if the world is destined for Armageddon? — never troubled them. They simply asserted that Jesus had called them to “occupy” until he returned (Luke 19:13). Like orthodox Marxists who challenge capitalism even though they say they believe it represents an inevitable step on the road to the socialist paradise, conservative Christians never let their conviction that the future is already written lead them to passivity.

from   KEN SHILLING   <kenshilling@rocketmail.com>

to		pj <pj@sustainabilitank.com>
date		Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:21 PM
subject		Egypt: What Would “President McCain” Have Done?

At moments like the current Egypt crisis, I will sit and wonder what a President McCain might have done. How differently might have America faired under McCain? Well, McCain’s tax cuts would have been a bit steeper, and BP might have gotten a free pass after the Gulf Oil Disaster, rather than being forced into compensation. But what would have been McCain’s forte?

 Clues can be found in those last two Presidential debates in October 2008, when it was fairly clear that Obama was going to win this thing. McCain had to riff, had to improvise. It was obvious in those debates that he loved talking foreign policy. “Watch what happens in Georgia,” he’d warn (the Georgia south of Russia, presumably), “. . . and Ukraine, and Ossetia.” Then he’d look into the camera and remind us that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was a very dangerous man, and close his statements with his time-tested, “When I look into Putin’s eyes, I see KGB” taunt.

It’s clear that candidate McCain looked forward to foreign policy challenges, and that his response to America’s economic meltdown and continued unemployment would have been to divert our attention. That path would make sense for him, because the Republican magic bullet of lower taxes is no more effective in a recession than the Democrat magic bullet of stimulus spending. But a Republican president need not sit and take his lumps for a poor economy. There’s always war.

 The Republican establishment has long favored some sort of attack on Iran, Republican commentators talk openly of military action against Ahmadinejad, and in McCain’s America, these voices would have been much more prominent than they are now. In McCain’s America, rather than talking about putting America back to work, pundits would be debating how to put Ahmadinejad in his place. Should we bomb? Should we provoke an insurgency? In McCain’s America, as job losses mounted here at home, rhetoric against Ahmadinejad would increase. The War Drumbeat that America endured under Bush Jr. in 2002-2003 would be mirrored under a McCain Presidency.

Of course, the wisdom of opening a third front of war in the Middle East would be questioned. President McCain would not have an easy time selling his ideas. But a President McCain would deeply welcome the current Egypt Uprising, a ready-made crisis ripe for any Republican Administration to exploit and call for war. You’ve heard of The Muslim Brotherhood, right? A gentlemen’s club of Islamic activists that have not at all taken a major role in Egypt’s current uprising. Historically, The Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Historically, without the Muslim Brotherhood, there would have been no Bin Laden. But since President Obama has no stake in fanning the flames in Egypt, the media has felt free to report the truth:  The Muslim Brotherhood is not out in front in the current uprising.

Under McCain, the news from Egypt would’ve come to us highly biased.  We’d be browbeaten with reports of fundamentalists taking over in Egypt. Under McCain, every obscure Egyptian Mullah with anti-American sentiments would suddenly find himself in the camera eye. A McCain White House would amplify any connection between fundamentalists in Egypt, however tenuous, and their counterparts in Iran. And there you have it: McCain would have his Weapons of Mass Destruction, his case for Going In. Perversely, President Ahmadinejad in Iran would enjoy McCain’s sabre-rattling. The more he became the target of McCain Administration tirades, the more popular he’d grow at home. And just like regular people in America, the Iranians now demanding something be done about the economy would be called unpatriotic, in the face of such open American aggression. For his part, McCain would explain how the suffering of regular Americans deeply pains him, but at this moment, we must once again, rise and face the aggressor in the Middle East, and blah, blah, blah.

 And the people of Egypt, currently rejoicing over the removal of Mubarak, would instead be chanting “death to America,” in the face of McCain’s aggression in the region. McCain would point to these marchers as justification for taking up arms, and McCain would have his war. And most importantly, nobody would be talking about the economy. We’d be jobless and debating the wisdom of McCain’s battle plans.

So when you watch the news tonight, ask yourself, when was the last time you saw televised throngs of Middle Eastern protesters who aren’t seething with anger at Americans, protesters who are not itching for a chance to get at us? President Obama has wisely distanced the USA from all sides, allowing the people to sort things out on their own. And for that you can thank your lucky stars that it is he, and not John McCain, who is your President.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament – ALDE – pushes European Council to prioritise energy efficiency.

In a letter to the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, the Liberal and Democrat group in the European Parliament (ALDE) has asked for energy efficiency to be put at the top of the agenda of the Council’s special meeting on energy issues on 4th of February 2011.

The special summit on energy is set to discuss the shift towards an efficient low-carbon economy and greater security of supply in Europe, including through a better integrated and interconnected energy market.

Lena Ek MEP (Centerpartiet, Sweden), ALDE Coordinator in the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee, commented:
“Energy efficiency measures are the most cost-effective way to achieve our climate targets, to reduce our dependence of imported fuels, while at the same time increasing investments and the number of jobs in the current difficult economic climate. This is why energy efficiency must be a priority at the Council’s summit.
“In particular, the Council needs to consider the European Parliament’s request to make the EU’s objective of achieving 20% energy savings by 2020 a binding target.
“We also want to see a revival of the SET-Plan, a great EU initiative from 2007 to facilitate the development and deployment of low carbon energy technologies, which unfortunately has slipped off the agenda – both in terms of political priority and funding.”

Fiona Hall MEP (Liberal Democrat, UK), rapporteur on the EU’s 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan, added:
“I trust that, in the preparatory discussions ahead of the summit on 4th February, the European Commission is being ambitious and proactive in order to ensure that there are real proposals on the table for Ministers and Heads of States to discuss.
“European Member States and the Commission need to send out a clear signal that they are committed to energy efficiency as an important means to tackle climate change and energy security whilst stimulating economic growth.”

- – - – - – - -