Political News & Info

Next week I have the honor of leading the U.S. delegation to an annual conference that is critical to our national and energy security. Every year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog arm of the UN, gathers ministers from around the world to discuss ways to promote nuclear energy, strengthen efforts to keep other countries from illegally acquiring nuclear weapons, reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. In his April 2009 speech in Prague, President Obama called for building “a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation” so that the international community can access nuclear material for civilian power use without increasing the risks of proliferation. He continued: “That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it’s based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules.” A strong and efficient market for nuclear fuel is vital to securing carbon-free energy on a global basis. The United States continues to support expanded and reliable access to fuel supplies — working through the commercial marketplace — for peaceful nuclear programs. In Vienna next week, I will offer some ideas for how we can promote an international “fuel bank” to encourage the peaceful use of nuclear power. When it comes to security, President Obama has made clear that the United States will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” This April, the United States and Russia signed a landmark New START Treaty that reduces our deployed nuclear warheads by one-third and our strategic delivery vehicles by one-half, while establishing a comprehensive monitoring regime and a pathway to further reductions in the future. We are working now toward its ratification by the Senate. For our part, the U.S. is working to reduce our own reliance on nuclear weapons and to lock down dangerous nuclear material so terrorists can’t use it to attack a city in the United States or anywhere in the world. President Obama has called for securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. In April, 47 world leaders plus representatives from the IAEA, the European Union and the United Nations met in Washington for an unprecedented Nuclear Security Summit. The attendees pledged to pursue the highest levels of nuclear security and affirmed that “strong nuclear security measures are the most effective means to prevent terrorists, criminals or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.” Unfortunately, there are some countries that are not adhering to their international nuclear nonproliferation commitments. When there are violations, there must be real and timely consequences. A recent report from the IAEA earlier this month outlined how Iran refuses to cooperate fully with the IAEA and to defy IAEA Board of Governors and U.N. Security Council resolutions. Iran’s stance represents a challenge to the rules that all countries must adhere to. While we continue to acknowledge Iran’s right to pursue peaceful civilian nuclear power and remain committed to pursuing a diplomatic solution, Iran must do what it has thus far failed to do — meet its obligations and ensure the rest of the world of the peaceful nature of its intentions. Otherwise, it is clear that there is a broad and growing international consensus that will hold Iran accountable if it continues its defiance. Given the importance of nuclear energy for both the U.S. and the global community, it is critical we continue to work in cooperation with the international community to tackle these weighty challenges, to keep the American people safe and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. That is the message I will take to Vienna next week.

Read the original:
Steven Chu: Dealing With the Issues of Nuclear Energy

NOTE: The United States is under attack by foes who are openly animated by what is known in Islam as shariah, or Islamic law. According to shariah, every faithful Muslim is obligated to wage jihad – whether violent or not – against those who do not adhere to this comprehensive, totalitarian, political-military code.  A team of experts coordinated by the Center for Security Policy has recently produced a ground-breaking report, Shariah: The Threat to America , describing in detail precisely what shariah is and what it means for all of us. What follows is extracted from that report, issued on September 15. Adherents to shariah are fundamentally and unalterably opposed to the survival of the Constitution of the United States. Shariah is based on the Quran, which Muslims believe is the “uncreated” word of Allah as dictated to the prophet Mohammed; hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed; and agreed interpretations by Islamic scholars. Shariah commands that Muslims carry out jihad indefinitely until the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where shariah is not enforced, is brought under the domination of the Dar al Islam, or House of Islam (literally the House of Submission), where shariah is enforced. Shariah commands both Islamic terrorism and pre-violent, “civilizational jihad” or “stealth jihad,” depending on necessity and circumstances. Those who work to insinuate shariah into the United States are conspiring to subvert and replace the Constitution, because under shariah, freedom of religion and other civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution – and the very concept of man-made law – are incompatible with Islam. Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under shariah, where Allah and only Allah has provided the law. This is not a radical concept in Islam, but a fundamental tenet of the faith.  Shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities – not simply fringe extremist elements who have supposedly “hijacked” the religion – to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice.  All Muslims, regardless of where they live, must submit to be governed by shariah, a cradle-to-grave “complete way of life” that mandates social, cultural, military, religious and political norms. Millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, but those who do submit to shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one.  By offering little, if any, meaningful opposition to the shariah agenda and by meekly submitting to it, a large number of Muslim communities and nations generally exhibit an unwillingness to face the consequences of standing up to shariah’s enforcers within Islam. Shariah is a totalitarian ideology that controls all aspects of life. All are forced to submit to Islamic law as defined by theologians. Shariah institutionalizes discrimination against women, deprives people of freedom of expression and association, criminalizes sexual freedom, and incites hatred and violence against people of certain social groups. As manifested in countries officially ruled by Islamic law, shariah condones or commands abhorrent behavior, including underage and forced marriage, “honor killing” (usually of women and girls) to preserve family “honor,” female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse, and even marital rape. Islam requires all Muslims to wage jihad. Some interpret jihad as a personal struggle of self-discipline and self-sacrifice to improve oneself to glorify God. Others interpret it as holy war in pursuit of a global Islamic state known as a caliphate, ruled in accordance with shariah. Islamic jurisprudence, known as fiqh in Arabic, forms the legal context for shariah and its rulings. Shariah scholars typically cite as authority for jihad any of the 164 verses of the Quran that specifically refer to jihad against non-Muslims in terms that include military expeditions, fighting enemies, or distributing the spoils of war. Among the most categorical of such Quranic entries and the most often cited as authoritative by the shariah scholars is the “Verse of the Sword.” That verse says, “So when the sacred months have passed, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then leave their way free to them; for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 9:5) Under the terms set down in the Quran, pagans or polytheists must convert or die. As for Jews and Christians, known in the Quran as the “People of the Book,” the definitive prescription for their treatment is as follows:  Fight them “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Quran 9:29) Thus, Jews and Christians need not convert or be killed. They have a third option:  Submit to Islam as second-class citizens or “dhimmis.” We inadvertently submit as dhimmis when we censor ourselves or one another to avoid “offending” Islam or Muslims. When we change our customs, rules and laws to conform with demands of Muslims who immigrate to our country. When we apologize unnecessarily for our country and our culture. We become dhimmis when we go along with demands by, say, a cleric who insists on offending the vast majority of our countrymen by building a mosque next to Ground Zero. When we lose the ability to define our wartime enemy since 9/11, we become dhimmis. Our leaders do. Each of us does. Little by little, we erode away our own rights, laws, customs and civilization by submitting as dhimmis. We eat away at our own national ideals, our own personal dignity, and the rights of those around us when we practice shariah-ordained dhimmitude. Think this can’t happen in America?  Look at Europe, where a number of nations have become dhimmified to the point where shariah law is now practiced in enclaves or more broadly, side by side with the national law awaiting the day when – through demographics, political action, financial subversion or other means, the West’s total submission is achieved. In the next installment from Shariah: The Threat to America , we’ll take a look at the connection between shariah and jihad – and how together they threaten each and every one of us.

Link:
What Is ‘Shariah’?

Reuters – The House of Representatives will vote on a package of loan incentives and tax breaks for small businesses next week, House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer said on Friday.

Go here to read the rest:
House to vote on small-business bill next week
(Reuters)

Pakistan’s plea for billions of dollars to recover from this summer’s floods has sparked pressure on the country to reform its dysfunctional tax system, which collects very little money, even from the rich. The country’s biggest donor, the United States, has issued one of the strongest warnings, saying the…

See the article here:
Demand grows for Pakistan to tax the rich to pay for flood reconstruction

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was signed by 39 men, laying the foundation for what we know as America today. Constitution Hall is hosting a series of events today in celebration. Photo…

Read more here:
Katie Pavlich: Happy Constitution Day!

The United States is asking an appeals court to throw out a judge’s order to release a Guantanamo Bay prisoner accused of recruiting Sept. 11 hijackers who says he confessed during abusive interrogation.

Originally posted here:
U.S. Fights Order to Release Guantanamo Detainee

At the turn of the 19 th century, American ships in the Mediterranean were under constant threat of piracy from four Islamic states in Northern Africa. As president, Thomas Jefferson refused to be intimdated and sent naval squadrons in response to one of those states – Tripoli – which declared war on the United States for not paying tribute (extortion) in order to prevent theft of our merchant vessels or enslavement of their crews. At the time, a primary concern of the United States was the potential alliance between the other Barbary states and Tripoli if we engaged the latter in battle. Nonetheless, Jefferson was determined not to give the descendants of the Ottoman Empire’s proxy in the region, Barbarossa, what they wanted. Not all that dissimilar from the concern then is the worry today t hat America’s actions abroad – and now, apparently at home too – could enflame the entire Muslim world. Barbarossa, his descendant “Barbary Pirates,” and the Muslim Brotherhood of today all share a common thread; they each fought for the Ottoman Empire, which was dismantled in 1924, after World War I. The difference is that the first two fought to support an existent Ottoman Empire while the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928 – and operates in the United States today – to restore it. In 1786, Jefferson wrote the following about the Barbary states: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some…of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.” Our second president’s words portended one of the problems we face as a nation today. America’s enemies have reached our shores in the form of countless Islamic groups belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood. While claiming to be defenders of the civil rights and other causes of Muslims, these groups have shown to be more interested in suppressing the rights of non-Muslim Americans. During an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf let his mask slip a bit when he implied that if his mosque wasn’t built near Ground Zero, America would be under threat by radicals. The subsequent stench was that of extortion: “ The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. If we do move (the mosque), it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, ability to recruit and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.” Though stealthier than his ideological ancestors on the Barbary coast, the Imam’s tactics are similar, and much more sophisticated. He is trying to convince Americans that his mosque must be built for our own good and safety. It is 21 st century tribute in a virtual age. He wants us to view him as our protector from an enemy we refuse to identify. This is the tactic of hostage-takers. It is what gives birth to Stockholm Syndrome in hostages who seek refuge in their captors for fear of the alternative. Rauf enunciated that perfectly, if not intentionally. In an Egyptian radio interview from February of 2010, Rauf told the audience how to best deal with Christians and Jews: “ …deal with them as one courts a pretty girl he wants to date; stop thinking like a typical Muslim. Then you can engage.” In part, unbeknownst to him, Jefferson warned his countrymen that a land force of Barbary pirates would endanger our liberties and lead to bloodshed two centuries hence. The next generation of Barbary pirates has made it to our shores – and thrived – by exchanging the sword for charm. They have fooled a significant cross-section of Americans into welcoming them with open arms. From the grave, Jefferson may be handing the baton to those not fooled. Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas and maintains a website at www.benbarrack.com

See original here:
Barbary Pirates: the Next Generation

America’s military is solidly behind the new security treaty that cuts Russia’s nuclear weapons. Is the Republican Party? The test comes Thursday when Senators have to choose: Back the military or play politics? At issue is the approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the New Start treaty that cuts both Russian and US long-range, deployed nuclear weapons by 30 percent. More importantly, it restores the system of inspections put in place by President Ronald Reagan that allowed US inspectors to verify the number and placement of Russian weapons for the past two decades. The inspections stopped last year when the original Reagan START treaty expired. It has been 285 days since US inspectors were allowed to “look under the hood” of Russian weapons, as one military commander put it. Military Support The strong, bipartisan support for New START from America’s top military and national security leaders is impressive. The Secretary of Defense; the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the current head and 7 former heads of our nuclear forces; the director of the Missile Defense Agency, high-ranking members of the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations – including military and national security experts like Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Stephen Hadley and James Schlesinger; former Senators like Alan Simpson, Sam Nunn, Gary Hart and Chuck Hagel; editorial endorsements from major newspapers nationwide, with at least 15 in swing Senate states. In all, almost 80 senior, retired military and national security leaders have urged the Senate to ratify New Start. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says: “The New Start treaty has the unanimous support of America’s military leadership…For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the US Senate by strong bipartisan majorities. This treaty deserves a similar reception and result.” For Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, this is an open and shut case. “It offers concrete national security benefits that will make the American people safer, and it should be ratified,” he said in July. Political Opposition Some in the Republican leadership, however, appear reluctant to give President Obama a “victory” before the November elections. They have drawn out the approval process. Senators, for example, submitted over 900 questions for the record compared to fewer than 150 for the previous START treaty. Each has to be painstakingly answered and approved by administration officials. There have been over 20 hearings on this treaty compared to 3 for the original START treaty. Others are using the issue to try to frame President Obama as weak on national security. The campaign against the treaty had been dominated by unsubstantiated charges. Former Governor Mitt Romney, for example, wrote a widely-ridiculed oped in July claiming the treaty was “Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake.” Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. Proofiness Author Charles Seife calls this type of false statistic “proofiness.” A precise number that sounds authoritative even though it is completely made up. “If you want to get people to believe something really, really stupid, just stick a number on it.” he says. Romney’s numbers would be terrifying if they were true . But Russia only has a few hundred, short-range missiles that can reach our allies. We are not even sure they work. They may be rusting in Russian storage sites. Ronald Reagan eliminated all of the truly threatening medium-range and intermediate-range missiles with his historic INF treaty in 1987. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument. Richard Lowery , editor of the National Review, approvingly cited Romney’s false claim again this week. His journal and the Heritage Foundation have lead the campaign against the treaty. Lowry goes on to cite “our favorite dark-horse candidate in 2012,” John Bolton, who says, “this treaty is harmful to American interests in many, many ways.” Bolton is one of only 10 former government officials who oppose the treaty. That includes only one former military officer, retired admiral Robert Monroe. Support for the treaty by former military and government officials outweighs opposition 8 to 1. So, it is time to choose, Senators. For inspecting Russian weapons, or against? For reducing the only weapons that can destroy America, or against? For supporting the entire military leadership of the United States, or against? It is time to put country first.

Read more:
Joe Cirincione: A Security Test for the GOP

Dear Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Orin Hatch, Societies are judged on how they treat their elderly, their sick and their children. For far too long we have failed all three. The two of you have the opportunity and the responsibility to take a step in changing this course by passing the Youth PROMISE Act. I write to urge you to work with the House and to pass legislation once and for all to prevent and reduce youth gang violence in this country. Congress has a critical opportunity and, I believe, a corresponding obligation, to use the small window remaining in this legislative session to make this country safer and more hopeful for our young people. In focusing for too many years on predominantly “tough on crime” strategies to address crime, Congress has neglected to focus on prevention. As a result, the United States now has the highest average incarceration rate of any nation in the world, with 2.3 million people behind bars. The impact of these “tough on crime” approaches falls disproportionately on minorities, particularly African-American and Latino young men. While the average incarceration rate in the United States is 7 times the international average, for blacks the average rate is over 22 times the international average. For black boys who are born today, the Sentencing Project estimates that one in every three will end up incarcerated in their lifetime without an appropriate intervention. The problem is so bad that the Children’s Defense Fund has launched a campaign to address what it calls the “cradle-to-prison pipeline.” In addition to being racially discriminatory and counterproductive, this increase in incarceration is stunningly expensive. Since 1982, the cost of incarceration in this country has risen from $9 billion annually to over $60 billion a year. The good news is that we now have an abundance of evidence demonstrating how we can move young people from a “cradle to prison pipeline” to a “cradle to college” or “cradle to jobs” pipeline. Scientific research reveals that a continuum of promising and evidence-based prevention and intervention programs for youth who are involved in, or at risk of becoming involved in gangs, crime and delinquency can significantly prevent and reduce crime in a cost-effective manner. Evidence-based and promising programs for teen pregnancy prevention, pre-natal care, new parent training, nurse home visits, Head Start, quality education, after-school programs, mentoring, job training, summer jobs and recreation, and college scholarships save more money than they cost when we account for the reduced incarceration, law enforcement and social welfare expenditures. The Youth PROMISE Act brings together all of the stakeholders in the juvenile and criminal justice systems to develop locally-based comprehensive plans to implement promising and evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies to target young people who are involved in, or are at risk of becoming involved in gangs or the juvenile or criminal justice system, and to redirect them toward productive and law-abiding alternatives. This bill simply addresses what research and analysis, as well as common sense, tells us – no matter how tough we are on the people we prosecute today, unless we simultaneously address the underlying reasons that they develop into serious criminals, nothing will change. We need prevention to reduce crime in the long term. The Youth PROMISE Act does not spend more money than we already pay for criminal justice expenses and collateral consequences, like gunshot wounds. Instead, it saves money by reducing the need for many of these expenses. With the proven ability to generate such savings and reduce crime, we have to ask our elected officials why they would refuse to support programs we all know would work to both keep our kids on the right track and save victims and taxpayers from the impact of crime. You have a critical opportunity to work in a bi-partisan fashion and make a critical difference for our country’s youth. The Youth PROMISE Act now has 235 bi-partisan co-sponsors in the House, 15 co-sponsors in the Senate, and is supported by over 250 national, state and local organizations. Cities and counties across the country have passed resolutions in support of the Act, as well as the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Testifying about the Youth PROMISE Act before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security last summer, Los Angeles Sheriff Leroy Baca stated, “The Youth PROMISE Act is the single most important bill ever to come before the United States Congress.” There is absolutely no excuse for not passing the Youth PROMISE Act this Congress, but there are very few legislative days remaining. Act now. We must show our young people that we care about them too. Sincerely, Russell Simmons

Original post:
Russell Simmons: Dear Sen. Feinstein & Sen. Hatch, Let’s Stop Sending Our Kids To Prison!

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he wants to attach an amendment to a defense policy bill that would help young people in the United States illegally become legal U.S. residents.

Original post:
Reid Adding Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill