Thursday, May 31, 2007

THE BEAR (RUSSIA) DOES NOT HIDE BEHIND WORDS



THOUGHT THE COLD WAR WAS OVER AND YOU COULD RE-WRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS OF THE PAST 70+ YEARS - MAYBE NOT SO MUCH - RUSSIA DOESN'T HIDE BEHIND WORDS!
Putin: U.S. Has Triggered New Arms Race Last Edited: Thursday, 31 May 2007, 1:43 PM MDT Created: Thursday, 31 May 2007, 10:13 AM MDT 05/31/2007 -- President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that tests of new Russian missiles were a response to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense installations and other forces in Europe, suggesting Washington has triggered a new arms race. In a clear reference to the United States, he harshly criticized "imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance. "It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests this week at a news conference after talks in the Kremlin with Greek President Karolos Papoulias. Putin described the tests of a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile as part of the Russian response to the planned deployment of new U.S. military bases and missile defense sites in ex-Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe. He assailed the United States and other NATO members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which limits the deployment of heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent. "We have signed and ratified the CFE and are fully implementing it. We have pulled out all our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia to (locations) behind the Ural Mountains and cut our military by 300,000 men," Putin said. "And what about our partners? They are filling Eastern Europe with new weapons. A new base in Bulgaria, another one in Romania, a (missile defense) site in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic," he said. "What we are supposed to do? We can't just sit back and look at that." Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly rejected U.S. assurances that the planned missile defense installations are meant to counter a potential threat from nations such as Iran and pose no danger to Russia. Putin reaffirmed his warning that Russia would opt out of the CFE treaty altogether if NATO nations fail to ratify its amended version. "Either you ratify the treaty and start observing it, or we will opt out of it," Putin said. In remarks clearly directed against Washington, Putin blasted those "who want to dictate their will to all others regardless of international norms and law." "It's dangerous and harmful," he added. "Norms of the international law were replaced with political expediency. We view it as diktat and imperialism." Russia this week initiated an international conference to be held in Austria in early June to discuss the situation around the CFE treaty. Putin described the tests of new missiles conducted by Russia on Tuesday as a necessary response to the Western action. "There is no reason to fear these actions by Russia, they aren't aggressive. It's merely a response to tough and unfounded unilateral actions by our partners," he said. "These actions are aimed at preserving a global balance." In one missile test Tuesday, a prototype of new Russia's intercontinental ballistic missile, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia and its test warhead landed on target 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, officials said. Russia's military also tested a new cruise missile based on the existing short-range Iskander missile. "We will keep modernizing our potential," Putin said.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

RUSSIA'S NEW MISSLE CALLED SATAN - ISN'T THAT ODD?



Russia says new ICBM can beat any system CALLS THE NEW SYSTEM "SATAN" DID YOU GET THAT WORLD?
By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 2 minutes ago Russia tested new missiles Tuesday that a Kremlin official boasted could penetrate any defense system, and President Vladimir Putin warned that U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield in Europe would turn the region into a "powder keg." First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and it also successfully conducted a "preliminary" test of a tactical cruise missile that he said could fly farther than existing, similar weapons. "As of today, Russia has new tactical and strategic complexes that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," Ivanov said, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "So in terms of defense and security, Russians can look calmly to the country's future." Ivanov is a former defense minister seen as a potential Kremlin favorite to succeed Putin next year. Both he and Putin have said repeatedly that Russia would continue to improve its nuclear arsenals and respond to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic — NATO nations that were in Moscow's front yard during the Cold War as Warsaw Pact members. Russia has bristled at the plans, dismissing U.S. assertions that the system would be aimed at blocking possible attacks by Iran and saying it would destroy the strategic balance of forces in Europe. "We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to fill it with new kinds of weapons," Putin said at a news conference with visiting Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates. Russian arms control expert Alexander Pikayev said the new ICBMs appeared to be part of Russia's promised response to the missile defense plans and, more broadly, an effort to "strengthen the strategic nuclear triad — land-based, sea-based and air-based delivery systems for nuclear weapons — which suffered significant downsizing" amid financial troubles after the 1991 Soviet collapse. The ICBM, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia. Its test warhead landed on target some 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, the Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement. The new missile is seen as eventually replacing the aging RS-18s and RS-20s that are the backbone of the country's missile forces, the statement said. Those missiles are known in the West as the SS-19 Stiletto and the SS-18 Satan. The RS-24 "strengthens the capability of the attack groups of the Strategic Missile Forces by surmounting anti-missile defense systems, at the same time strengthening the potential for nuclear deterrence," the statement said. Ivanov said the missile was a new version of the Topol-M, first commissioned in 1997 and known as the SS-27 in the West, but one that that can carry multiple independent warheads, ITAR-Tass reported. Existing Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away. Pikayev, a senior analyst at the Moscow-based Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said that little had been revealed about the missile's development, but that Russia has been seeking to improve its capability to penetrate missile defense systems and that the new missile would likely answer to that goal. He said Russia had been working on a version of the Topol-M that could carry MIRVs — Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles — and that its development was probably "inevitable" after the U.S. withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002 in order to develop a national missile defense. Pikayev concurred with the missile forces' statement that the RS-24 conforms with terms laid down in the START-I treaty, which is in force, and the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which calls for reductions in each country's nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,000 warheads. Ivanov also announced the successful "preliminary" test of an improved tactical cruise missile designed for a mobile Iskander-M launcher, ITAR-Tass reported. Ivanov said last year that Russian ground forces would commission 60 short-range Iskander-M missiles by 2015. While Ivanov's saber-rattling about missile defense penetration was clearly aimed at the United States — and at Russians who will vote in March for a successor to Putin — he suggested Russia's armament efforts were also aimed to counter a potential treat from the Middle East and Asia. "We see perfectly how our eastern and southern neighbors here, there and everywhere are acquiring short and medium-range missiles," Ivanov said in televised comments at Kapustin Yar, the southern Russian site where the tactical missiles were tested. Ivanov said the 1987 Soviet-American treaty limiting such missiles — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, or INF — is no longer effective because "dozens of countries — many of them along our borders — have acquired them. All of this is a real danger for us, and the consequences can be unpredictable." He emphasized the need to equip the armed forces with "the most modern, precise weapons" and suggested Russia could arm itself with missiles whose range exceeds the lower limit of 310 miles set in the INF. The ranges of Russia's missiles are "for now within the commitments that Russia has taken upon itself, but I stress: for now," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying. Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said the missile test was "in line with Russia's renewed emphasis in recent years of maintaining their weapons systems after years of decline." Bunn said he did not think the Russians had planned the test as a reaction to U.S. plans to deploy the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, although they may have worded Tuesday's announcement to make it appear that way. "I think if anything, the wording of the announcement may have been changed to emphasize the missile's ability to evade defense systems, but the test was probably planned way before," Bunn said. Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the test was Russia's way of showing the U.S. and its own people that it was investing more in national security. "The Russians have been talking about developing and testing new weapons for years now, so this isn't a surprise. They have a very aging nuclear missile structure and this test fits in with a broader trend of upgrading security," said Kuchins. "After years of spending little on their military, they're now showing us and showing the Russian population that they're paying more attention to defense." Russia is also embroiled in a dispute with the West over another Soviet-era arms pact, the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Putin has announced a moratorium on observance of the treaty and threatened to withdraw altogether if the United States and other NATO members do not ratify an 1999 amended version. Russia said Monday that it lodged a formal request for a conference among treaty signatories in Vienna next week.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

THE PROBLEM WITH PAIN - FOR THOSE WHOM HURT


June 4, 2007 issue - Late into the night of May 2, 1863, a few hours after Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson took two bullets in his left arm at the Battle of Chancellorsville, surgeon Hunter Holmes McGuire sawed off the bleeding limb, trying to save the general's life. With the knife came another medical tool, one fairly new to the battlefield—a rag soaked in chloroform. As he awaited amputation, Jackson, who would die a week later, was as stoic as his nickname suggested. But as he slipped into unconsciousness, it's said, he betrayed his vulnerability in the face of pain just once, mumbling that the anesthesia was "an infinite blessing."
For most of the 144 years since then, the military has stuck with similarly crude techniques for treating its soldiers' pain. Morphine, also given to Jackson and many others in the Civil War, is still the Army's most commonly used painkilling drug. It works, but compared with more-modern options, it's one step above chloroform and two above biting the bullet. Now, though, with casualties mounting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is being forced to change its strategy. More than 90 percent of wounded soldiers have made it off the battlefield—the highest survival rate in American history—only to overwhelm chronic-pain clinics when they come home. "We're seeing the tip of a tidal wave of pain," says Lt. Col. Chester (Trip) Buckenmaier, an anesthesiologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who has emerged as a sort of pain czar for the Army. After decades of "sucking it up," the military has finally started to respond in new and innovative ways to this escalating pain crisis. Even as the VA hospital system has come under fire for poor care, Army doctors haven't just joined up in medicine's larger war against pain—they're leading the charge.
Winning this medical war is crucial, and not just for the sake of the soldiers, who are far from the only burgeoning new group of pain sufferers. Chronic pain is one of the most pervasive and intractable medical conditions in the United States, with one in five Americans afflicted. Aging baby boomers have reported in surveys more aches and pains than any previous generation. Cancer patients have more treatments to choose from than ever, but more pain, too. Even retired NFL players—a suck-it-up group if ever there was one—have started speaking out about the wear and tear on their bodies. Civilian chronic pain already costs the country $61 billion in lost productivity and many more in medical fees. Treating the soldiers in the coming years will add at least $340 billion to the toll.
As the number of patients has grown, though, so has medicine's understanding of what pain is. Scientists once viewed it as merely a symptom of injury, an intuitive idea that resonated with laymen. "The public understanding of pain has been that it's a stubbed toe or a broken bone," says Will Rowe, executive director of the American Pain Foundation. "But that's just one aspect of it. Now there's a growing awareness that pain is a disease of its own."
This is far more than a semantic change, Rowe adds: it's "tectonic." Docs now know that the brain and spinal cord rewire themselves in response to injuries, forming "pain pathways" that can become pathologically overactive years later. They are trying to sever this maladaptive mind-body connection with a host of new drugs and approaches. Some focus on recently discovered chemical receptors in the brain and muscles. Others pack all the punch of narcotics with less of the specter of addiction. (Patients can still become dependent on a new form of the morphine derivative called Kadian, for instance, but if they crush one of the pills for snorting, its center explodes, releasing a substance that blocks the euphoric high.) New types of electrical stimulators targeting the brain, the spine and the muscles hit the market almost every year. Fentanyl skin patches, first introduced in 1990, have evolved into a patient-controlled, push-button device called IONSYS, available by the end of this year. And complementary and alternative medicine offer a parallel universe of treatments: herbs, yoga, acupuncture, chiropractic, massage and "prolotherapy," which injects various solutions, including cod-liver oil, into ligaments and tendons near the area of pain.
The military is pioneering its own new approaches. Since 2003, a small but growing number of soldiers in Iraq have been treated at the front with high-tech nerve-blocking devices that are effective but not addictive. They are common in civilian life, but their use on the battlefield is unprecedented. Back at home, many VA clinics are offering extensive and elaborate pain treatments, and they're learning how to get tough guys and girls to soften up and admit they need help. At Walter Reed, Buckenmaier's team is conducting groundbreaking research on the link between acute and chronic pain; his findings, due in the next few years, could revolutionize treatment. "The military needs people to be functioning out on the field," says Rollin (Mac) Gallagher, chief of pain medicine at the Philadelphia VA hospital. "What we're now starting to recognize is that if you control people's pain, they're not liabilities—they're assets."
That's not to say pain is all bad. It's unpleasant, of course, but in an evolutionary sense, it has its uses. Acute pain begins in the peripheries of the body, where sensory neurons are constantly on patrol for signs of damage. They are the mechanisms that alert us to one injury so we can avoid a second one. Touch a hot stove for the first time and you won't be happy, but you'll ultimately be better off—because you'll certainly never want to do it again.
By the time it has become a chronic condition, however, pain is no longer useful. It is, as Rowe says, a disease—specifically, an overactivity of the nervous system. The brain keeps a diary of the injuries the body receives, writing each entry by reconfiguring certain neurons into new, interconnected patterns. In healthy people, these neurons stop firing once the initial damage is fixed. But in chronic pain, they keep going long after the injury has healed. "The circuits get turned up, and they stay up. They get stuck," says Gallagher. "Most diseases are physiology gone wrong. Pain is one of them."
Scientists don't know why some people develop chronic problems after injuries while others continue on with no pain. It is nearly impossible to answer the question on a wide scale; pain simply has too many causes. Some patients fully recover from massive trauma. Others, like most of the boomers with aching backs and knees, find themselves debilitated by nothing more than the accumulated, mundane strains put on joints, bones and muscles every day. Even soldiers can fall into this second category—if the bullets don't get them, the back pain brought on by months of jumping out of trucks, burdened with heavy equipment, well may.
Complicating the issue even further is pain's inherently subjective nature—we may say we "feel each other's pain," but really, we can't. Doctors don't have any good way of measuring pain from one person to the next. The best they can do is ask patients to rate it for themselves on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the greatest agony of their lives. This is absurdly imprecise. Patients are usually honest (and fakery is fairly easy to spot), but they can exaggerate. A person feeling a 4 may claim a 7 to get aggressive treatment, and a person feeling a 7 may downplay it as a 4 in hopes of looking tough. Robyn Walker, a psychologist at the Tampa (Fla.) VA, says she's seen the latter dynamic in her clinic. "These patients know what a 10 feels like," she says. "But they are active-duty soldiers, and they minimize their problems. Unless you really ask them about their pain, they may be very hesitant to tell you." Doctors are trying to develop new methods of measuring pain, but their most advanced idea so far is to study facial expressions—which aren't much more standardized than the 10-point scale.
On top of that, one patient's 7 may be another's 4. "Our bodies are not one-size-fits-all," notes Rowe, "and doctors are finding that this is far more true with pain than they ever imagined." Genes may vastly influence how intensely people feel pain and how much they can withstand—although genetic testing for pain susceptibility is probably decades away. Gender matters, too. Women have up to twice as many nerve fibers in the skin as men do, so they feel some types of pain more intensely. (This doesn't mean they're weaker; it means that, all other factors being equal, their 10 is off a man's chart.) Even traits that seem unrelated to pain, like vitamin D deficiency, may increase it for reasons no one fully understands. Trying to untangle all these factors is a scientific nightmare.
Regardless of their injuries, their genes, their gender or their background, though, nearly all chronic-pain patients agree on one thing: the hyperactive neurons can make life near unbearable. The cascade of changes in the nervous system can lead to an equally painful cascade of events in a patient's life: memory loss, job loss, marital strife, depression, suicide. And through it all the body hurts like hell. "Imagine somebody holding a knife in your back and twisting it against your nerves continually, never stopping. That's what chronic pain is," says Dan O'Neal, a contractor who herniated two vertebrae in 2003 while cleaning up a job site. "At first you just shut off totally. It's terrible living like that."
Among chronic-pain patients, O'Neal is actually one of the lucky ones. He, at least, knows why his pain started; some patients are deniedeven that knowledge. Chronic regional pain syndrome, for instance, is a rare disorder that can begin with something as trivial as a skinned knee. The scrape heals, but the nervous system does not. Within a few years the knee that was skinned feels like it is on fire, even though nothing is outwardly wrong. Similarly, fibromyalgia assails the bones, muscles and joints, but has no obvious bodily causes and doesn't show up on X-rays. Growing evidence now suggests that it is in part a brain disorder that sets the pain pathways afire, responding to imaginary wounds—as if the brain's diary of injuries has suddenly filled up with wild, untrue stories. The pain itself is not imaginary. But because it is hard to pinpoint and even harder to treat, for years many doctors used to write it off as such. Andrea Cooper says that's all doctors did when she first developed fibromyalgia, which afflicts 6 million Americans. "There was a bunch of 'We can't figure out what's wrong with you, therefore there's nothing wrong with you'," she says. "People don't like to hear about symptoms that they can't do anything about."
Some fibromyalgia patients may be helped by standard pain treatments. Others aren't. In that, at least, fibromyalgia patients are just like all other pain patients: relief can come for them, but it is often hard-won. Cooper, who is now on fentanyl and Kadian, compares her current pain to "the roar of the faraway interstate, as opposed to being in traffic." But to get to her current regimen she had to go through nearly everything else—antidepressants, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxers, acupuncture and six operations that probably made the pain worse.
Some of the most promising pain treatments of the past decade have turned out to be disappointments. Studies of some radiofrequency therapies show they work no better than placebos. Spinal-fusion surgery, a recent review found, has "no acceptable evidence" to support it. And if a treatment does work, says Edward Covington, a pain specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, "for most people, the effect is temporary." There is no cure for chronic pain, period.
There's not even any "single drug or technology alone" that can treat all the types of pain, says Eugene Viscusi, director of acute-pain management at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Most people need two or three therapies in combination. Scientists' new understanding of pain's broad effects on many levels of the nervous system explains why: a multipart syndrome requires multipart therapy. Viscusi notes that patients under anesthesia still have elevated levels of the pain enzyme Cox-2 in their spinal fluid following surgery. They may not feel pain, but some parts of their brains still think they're in it. For any treatment to work long term, it will have to address not just the immediate sensation of pain but the other, subtler aspects—and there are surely some of those that scientists don't know about yet.
At the American Pain Society's annual meeting in May, a panel drew attention to what seems like the best option pain medicine currently has to offer: "multidisciplinary pain centers," essentially rehab clinics that employ doctors, nurses and therapists from a variety of fields. They prescribe a tough-love regimen of physical therapy (as well as the psychological kind), and many also make a point of cutting down on drug use. Pain specialists have been singing their praises for the past three decades. Data show why: they help many debilitated patients get back to work. But multidisciplinary clinics are on the wane. There are no statistics, but Covington says he suspects their numbers have dwindled by about 90 percent in the past 30 years. The problem is that a lot of patients just don't like them. "Americans love deep brain stimulation, replacement discs, things that are sexy and magical and frequently hyped," Covington notes. Multidisciplinary clinics are a much harder sell. They're not a quick fix, and their emphasis on exercise strikes fear in some people who are already worried about injuring themselves.
Insurance companies also sometimes balk at multidisciplinary clinics, which are costly. They'll cover them, Covington says, but usually "only enough so they lose just a little bit of money on them every year." Insurers say they sometimes have trouble determining how legitimate the clinics are or how much of a service they'll provide, since there are no national guidelines for what the clinics should encompass.
Insurers usually prefer to pay for single therapies, like opioids, the narcotics that block messages in the brain and make patients care less about their pain. The drugs are hugely widespread; almost 200 million opioid prescriptions get written in America each year, most of them for Vicodin, OxyContin and various forms of fentanyl. But "widespread" doesn't mean "effective," nor does it mean "popular." In opioid trials, fewer than a third of patients on average report relief, and more than a third drop out of the same trials rather than deal with the side effects, which include nausea, constipation and trouble breathing. "Most of the soldiers I treat say they don't want to take these strong medications," says Walker, the Tampa VA psychologist. "They say, 'These things make me groggy. I want to get back to my life'."
Opioid users also run two parallel risks: that they will become addicted, and that they will suffer the stigma of addiction even if they're not abusing the drugs. Steven Passik, a pain specialist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, notes that "the issue of addiction doesn't lie in the drugs," but in a complex interaction between the chemicals and biological predispositions. Still, many patients struggle. Brooks Bono, 28, was born with a tumor on his spine and has spent his whole life in pain. At one point he was on so much OxyContin that "the dosages would have killed someone else," says his mother, Kadie Dempsey. He sees Passik now for counseling, and a few months ago he switched to methadone. It's not as addictive, says Bono, but it does little to dull the pain and it brings its own problems. "I went to about 20 different pharmacies," he says, "and they told me, 'We don't treat drug addicts here'."
No one wants to avoid an epidemic of drug abuse more than the military. Addicted Vietnam vets still wander into VAs, and as Gallagher notes, "if our soldiers can't get pain relief in the medical system, they'll turn to other ways." Many VA clinics make a point of cutting down on soldiers' use of opioids and other drugs. At a congressional hearing on pain in December 2005, Capt. John Pruden said he'd talked with one of his old buddies, who had been wounded in Iraq. "As we were talking, he bragged how he was not using his pain meds," Pruden told the audience. "But unfortunately it turns out he was self-medicating with alcohol to cope with the pain."
The military is now pursuing a new pain strategy: stop the trouble before it starts. Historically, wars have led to medical advances, and this one is no different; the notion of a kind of pre-emption has captured the interest and excitement of the entire pain-medicine community. Treat acute pain early, the thinking goes, and you stop the brain from responding to it. You might just wipe out chronic pain in the process.
This is where Buckenmaier's research comes in. His team is responsible for bringing those high-tech nerve blocks to the battlefield. Since 2003, hundreds of injured soldiers have received anesthetic pumps within hours of their injuries. Buckenmaier and Gallagher are jointly tracking these soldiers over the next year and beyond. If the ones who got pumps quickly have less chronic pain—and animal studies suggest they will—the research will not only point the way to new treatments, says Gallagher: for civilians and soldiers alike, "it will be a revolution." It may mean that injuries will be treated much more aggressively. That sprained ankle that only registered a 4 on the pain scale? If you want to avoid chronic pain later, you might need serious therapy, and right away.
It's too soon to say what will ultimately become of the Walter Reed study, though the hospital believes in Buckenmaier's work: despite being short-staffed and underfunded, it decided two weeks ago to fully finance his vision for a new acute-pain-management service, one that may remain in place after the war is over. There is much else left to do. Buckenmaier's nerve-block program needs to be expanded; thousands of soldiers injured in Iraq still don't get the advanced treatment. And, he says, on the battlefield there's usually "no one in charge" of pain in any given unit. The VA system, like the rest of the country, needs more pain specialists, not to mention mental-health professionals. Indeed, there's call for change at every level of a lumbering bureaucracy that, as has been amply documented in NEWSWEEK and elsewhere, lets too many soldiers fall through the cracks.
But Will Castillo, a 27-year-old Army sergeant, is not one of these soldiers. Like Stonewall Jackson, he is an amputee. Iraqi insurgents shot him in the head—twice—and as he lay on the ground, an IED blew his leg off. It is a horrible story, but sitting in his hospital bed with his leg covered, Castillo shows no sign that it even happened. He is one of the soldiers who have nerve-blocking pain pumps. He feels good, he says, and once he gets a prosthetic leg, he might even consider going back to Iraq for another round. It's hard to believe it, but yes: this is a man who feels infinitely blessed.

Thursday, May 24, 2007



LAW OF THE LAND

Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers

Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight

Posted: May 23, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern

President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.
It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency. "Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over. The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator. Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register." A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately. But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says. The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists. It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight. Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction. The White House declined to comment on the directive.

DICTORAL POWERS FOR A PRESIDENT?



National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretaryMay 9, 2007
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD- 20 Subject: National Continuity Policy
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency. Definitions (2) In this directive: (a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive; (b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions; (c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency; (d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies; (e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency; (f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service; (g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches; (h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and (i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency. Policy (3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions. Implementation Actions (4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences. (5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions: (a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government; (b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people; (c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests; (d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations; (e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests; (f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident; (g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and (h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States. (6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination. (7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive. (8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive. (9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government. (10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency. (11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following: (a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation; (b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law; (c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided; (d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis; (e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public; (f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and (g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs. (12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee. (13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall: (a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets; (b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and (c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive. (14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall: (a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; (b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and (c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator. (15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall: (a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and (b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies. (16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities; (b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies; (c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT; (d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President; (e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President; (f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; (g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and (h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture. (17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government. (18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies. (19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall: (a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency; (b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions; (c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive; (d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and (e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities General Provisions (20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions. (21) This directive: (a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations; (b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and (c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked. (23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive. (24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
GEORGE W. BUSH

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

NAVY PREPARES FOR WAR - IRAN



Above article posted this pm,below article posted in the am.
Navy launches show of force near Iran
By BARBARA SURK, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 58 minutes ago
Ships packed with 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf on Wednesday as the U.S. Navy staged another show of force off Iran's coast just days before U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad. The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes two landing ships carrying 2,100 members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Aircraft aboard the two carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises. The war games — which culminate in an amphibious landing exercise in Kuwait, just a few miles from Iran — appear to be a clear warning to Tehran, coming just ahead of the Baghdad talks and as the United Nations contemplates tightening sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. "There's a link to both events," said Mustafa Alani of the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "The Americans are sending a message to Iran that they are not coming to the negotiating table weak, but with their military at Tehran's doorstep." Washington is also showing Iran that the U.S. military will act to defeat any Iranian war strategy of closing the straits, which Iran shares with Oman, Alani said. U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are to meet Monday in Baghdad to discuss Iraq's security issues. Tehran has objected to U.S. claims that Iran is supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with roadside bombs that kill American troops. The U.S. has also accused Iran of covertly developing nuclear weapons; Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful. Publicly, at least, the Navy isn't saying the maneuvers, which are expected to last several weeks, are directed at Iran. "The timing of the exercise was determined by the availability of forces in the area of operations," said Lt. John Gay, spokesman for the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet. Warships under 5th Fleet command patrol the Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. The nine ships taking part in the maneuvers were already on patrol in Mideast waters outside the Gulf when they passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday and began air and sea maneuvers in the Gulf. Two-fifths of the world's oil is transported through the busy straits. "This training demonstrates our commitment to security and stability in the Gulf area and our commitment to regional partners," said Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff, commander of 5th Fleet. Wednesday's drill was the latest in a series of American and Iranian war games. Iran conducted naval maneuvers in November and April 2006, while the U.S. Navy held a two-carrier exercise in March and a training operation in October. The Navy has maintained its two-carrier presence since February when the Stennis arrived in the Mideast waters. Both carriers, with about 80 warplanes apiece, are expected to remain in the region through the summer. Besides the Stennis, Nimitz and Bonhomme Richard, the war games bring together the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam and USS Princeton, the destroyers USS O'Kane and USS Higgins, and the landing ships USS Denver and USS Rushmore. America's Gulf Arab allies have grown increasingly uneasy with the U.S. stance against Iran, fearing an outbreak of hostilities could bring Iranian retaliation. All lie within range of Iranian missiles. The Gulf Cooperation Council, a loose alliance of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, has called on members not to support any U.S. action against Iran, while Qatar and the Emirates have publicly prohibited the U.S. military from launching strikes on Iran from U.S. bases on their soil. During a landmark visit to the Emirates this month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned of a tough retaliation if the United States attacked Iran. He also called on Gulf Arab states to eject the U.S. military and form a regional alliance with Iran — an offer that met no response.
Navy stages show of force off Iran coast
By BARBARA SURK, 26 minutes ago
The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf. The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The Navy said nine U.S. warships passed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Merchant ships passing through the busy strait carry two-fifths of the world's oil exports. Aircraft aboard the three carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises. The maneuvers came just two months after a previous exercise in March when two U.S. carrier groups carried out two days of air and sea maneuvers off the Iranian coast. Before the arrival of the Bonhomme Richard strike group, the Navy maintained around 20,000 U.S personnel at sea in the Gulf and neighboring waters. U.S. warships have frequently collided with merchant ships in the busy shipping lanes of the Gulf.
IN THE EVENT OF SALVATION GOD WILL NOT ALLOW ANYTHING OR ANYONE STAND IN THE WAY FOR THOSE WHO NEED AND DESIRE SALVATION - BE THEY PERSONS OR NATIONS. THE USA HAS BEEN THE BENEFACTOR AND PROTECTOR OF ISRAEL, BUT THIS TIME IS COMING TO A CLOSE, AS GOD MUST BE LOOKED UPON BY ISRAEL AS THEIR ONLY MEANS OF PROTECTION AND SALVATION, THEREFORE, AMERICA MUST BE REMOVED AS GOD WILL DEAL DIRECTLY WITH ISRAEL HIMSELF.
WRITTEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THUS WRITTEN UNTO ISRAEL AND THE JEW:
JOEL 2:30-32 And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (the key word is "delivered" not the word "saved" as recorded in the book of ACTS 2:21 - And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. - isn't it amazing that God knows exactly which word to use for both the Jew and the Gentile?).
SHE WAS QUITE A LADY BUT SHE MUST GO, HER TIME IS COME - AMERICA'S DEMISE -
LAMENTATIONS 4:17-18 As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us. They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in our streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled; for our end is come. (IT IS VAINITY TO LOOK FOR HELP OUTSIDE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD)
NAME A NATION, OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, THAT HAS BEEN SUCH A GREAT PROTECTOR OF ISRAEL AND NOTE: THEY WATCHED FOR A NATION THAT "WOULD NOT" NO! THEY WATCHED FOR A NATION THAT "COULD NOT" SAVE THEM - SOMETHING HAS OCCURRED THAT HAS BROUGHT TO AN END THE ABILITY OF THAT NATION TO SAVE THEM, REMEMBER IT IS NOT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BUT THAT THEY COULD NOT.

IRAN,USA, PREPARATIONS FOR WAR



PREPARATIONS FOR WAR - AMERICA AS A SCAPEGOAT - A MUST DO PERFORMANCE
Navy stages show of force off Iran coast
By BARBARA SURK, 26 minutes ago
The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf. The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The Navy said nine U.S. warships passed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Merchant ships passing through the busy strait carry two-fifths of the world's oil exports. Aircraft aboard the three carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises. The maneuvers came just two months after a previous exercise in March when two U.S. carrier groups carried out two days of air and sea maneuvers off the Iranian coast. Before the arrival of the Bonhomme Richard strike group, the Navy maintained around 20,000 U.S personnel at sea in the Gulf and neighboring waters. U.S. warships have frequently collided with merchant ships in the busy shipping lanes of the Gulf.
IN THE EVENT OF SALVATION GOD WILL NOT ALLOW ANYTHING OR ANYONE STAND IN THE WAY FOR THOSE WHO NEED AND DESIRE SALVATION - BE THEY PERSONS OR NATIONS. THE USA HAS BEEN THE BENEFACTOR AND PROTECTOR OF ISRAEL, BUT THIS TIME IS COMING TO A CLOSE, AS GOD MUST BE LOOKED UPON BY ISRAEL AS THEIR ONLY MEANS OF PROTECTION AND SALVATION, THEREFORE, AMERICA MUST BE REMOVED AS GOD WILL DEAL DIRECTLY WITH ISRAEL HIMSELF.
WRITTEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THUS WRITTEN UNTO ISRAEL AND THE JEW:
JOEL 2:30-32 And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (the key word is "delivered" not the word "saved" as recorded in the book of ACTS 2:21 - And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. - isn't it amazing that God knows exactly which word to use for both the Jew and the Gentile?).
SHE WAS QUITE A LADY BUT SHE MUST GO, HER TIME IS COME - AMERICA'S DEMISE -
LAMENTATIONS 4:17-18 As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us. They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in our streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled; for our end is come. (IT IS VAINITY TO LOOK FOR HELP OUTSIDE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD)
NAME A NATION, OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, THAT HAS BEEN SUCH A GREAT PROTECTOR OF ISRAEL AND NOTE: THEY WATCHED FOR A NATION THAT "WOULD NOT" NO! THEY WATCHED FOR A NATION THAT "COULD NOT" SAVE THEM - SOMETHING HAS OCCURRED THAT HAS BROUGHT TO AN END THE ABILITY OF THAT NATION TO SAVE THEM, REMEMBER IT IS NOT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BUT THAT THEY COULD NOT.

GLENN BECK CORRECTIONS ABOUT JAMES DOBSON



FROM THE "GLENN BECK SHOW" AN APOLOGY FOR THE COMMENTS ON JAMES DOBSON - INTERVIEW BY GLENN BECK DATED MAY 22, 2007 - MUST GO TO LINK TO SEE OR DOWNLOAD - IT SEEMS THE BELOW ARTICLE IS FALSE AS USUAL.HHour 3 - Glenn recaps last hour... James Dobson calls to clarify his statementour 3 - Glenn recaps last hour... James Dobson calls to clarify his statements
Nation & World
USN Current Issue Top of Form 1
Bottom of Form 1

Dobson Offers Insight on 2008 Republican Hopefuls
Focus on Family Founder Snubs Thompson, Praises Gingrich
By Dan Gilgoff
Posted 3/28/07
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday. "Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination. Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ." In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith." "We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility." Thompson has said he is leaving the door open for a presidential run and has won plaudits from conservatives who are unenthusiastic about the Republican front-runners. A Gallup-USA Today poll, released Tuesday, showed Thompson in third place among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, behind former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain. While making it clear he was not endorsing any Republican presidential candidate, Dobson, who is considered the most politically powerful evangelical figure in the country, also said that Gingrich was the "brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today." Gingrich recently appeared on Dobson's daily Focus on the Family radio program, carried by upward of 2,000 American radio stations, where he made headlines by discussing an extramarital affair he was having even as he pursued impeachment against President Bill Clinton for his handling of the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. Dobson's phone call to U.S. News senior editor Dan Gilgoff Tuesday was unsolicited. It marked Gilgoff's first discussion with Dobson in over two years, since the magazine's political writer began work on The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, published this month by St. Martin's Press. Dobson had agreed to answer only written questions for the book. Dobson's comments yesterday about the 2008 presidential race appear to be his first to a secular news organization in months. Dobson recently sat down with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at Focus on the Family's Colorado Springs headquarters, marking his only meeting to date with a top-tier Republican presidential candidate. While Dobson would not comment directly on the Romney meeting, he stood by comments he made late last year that many evangelicals would find it difficult to support Romney because of his Mormonism. "I still think that might be an impediment for him," Dobson said. "There are conservative Christians who will not vote for him because of his Mormon faith. I'm not saying that's the correct view or my view. But [presidential nominees] lose elections by 5 or 6 percent of the vote, so you don't have to lose much of the conservative Christian vote" to make a difference in the election. Dobson said that neither of the two other Republican presidential front-runners—Giuliani or McCain—has attempted to contact him. "I do not believe that the current excitement over Giuliani will continue," Dobson said. Dobson was a major force in the 2004 election, giving the first public presidential endorsement of his career to George W. Bush. Bush got nearly 6 million new white evangelical votes in 2004 that he didn't get in 2000, accounting for about twice his margin of victory. Dobson's national activist network led an unprecedented effort to get conservative evangelicals to the polls. Its greatest impact was likely in Ohio, the lynchpin to Bush's re-election, where Bush won by fewer than 120,000 votes. Dobson, who turns 71 years old next month, has been the subject of recent rumors that he would retire from his position of Focus on the Family chairman and possibly step out of the political spotlight in the next couple of years. In the interview, however, Dobson said that he no intention of doing either. "I have 10-to-12-hour-a-day energy," Dobson said. "I feel that God has asked me to do what I'm doing. I have no intention to stay away."
Hour 3 - Glenn recaps last hour... James Dobson calls to clarify his statements

Sunday, May 20, 2007

RUSSIA SPYS ON THE USA



Putin's spying war on US
Mark Franchetti and Sarah Baxter
May 21, 2007
RUSSIA'S covert foreign intelligence operations against the US have reached Cold War levels under President Vladimir Putin, according to Washington officials.
White House intelligence advisers believe no other country is as aggressive as Russia in trying to obtain US secrets, with the possible exception of China. The SVR, as the former KGB's foreign intelligence arm is now known, is using a network of undercover agents in the US to gather classified information about sensitive technologies, including military projects under development and high-tech research. Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent, said: "In the days of the Soviet Union, the number of spies was limited because they had to be based at the Foreign Ministry, the Trade Mission or the news agencies like Tass. Right now, virtually every successful private company in Russia is being used as a cover for Russian intelligence operations." Intelligence experts believe that since Mr Putin became President in 2000, the Russians have rebuilt a network of agents in the US that had been depleted during the country's transition from communism. Mr Putin served 16 years in the KGB, including a spell in foreign intelligence in East Germany. He became head of the FSB, the domestic security service. According to Mr Shvets, the FSB has been operating widely in the US because of its favoured status with Mr Putin. Agents, some acting under diplomatic cover, are said to be trying to recruit specialists in American facilities with access to sensitive information. A rare insight into the SVR's methods was gained six months ago when the authorities in Canada deported a Russian man who had been masquerading as a Canadian citizen. The alleged SVR agent had been living under a false identity as Paul William Hampel and was detained carrying a fake birth certificate, pound stg. 3000 ($7183) in five currencies and several encrypted pre-paid mobile phone cards. He claimed to be a lifeguard and travel consultant but counter-intelligence officers believe he based himself in Montreal because the city is the centre of the Canadian aerospace industry. Carrying a Canadian passport, he would have been able to travel freely to the US. In another incident last year, US authorities arrested Ariel Weinmann, a former US navy submariner, on charges of spying for the Russians. Weinmann was accused of making electronic copies of classified information which he sought to pass on to his handlers. He was sentenced to 12 years in jail. John Pike, a military and security analyst, said a surge in recruitment of US intelligence operatives since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had presented great opportunities for the Russians to penetrate the CIA and other agencies. The increase in Russian intelligence activity abroad is in step with Moscow's more aggressive stance since Mr Putin came to power and turned the country's lagging economy around on the back of record high oil prices. Mr Putin's abrasive style has frustrated Washington. "President Putin thinks the United States has been weakened by Iraq," said Richard Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the UN. "He thinks he has been strengthened by recent events and high-priced oil and he is trying to put Russia back on the international map." Estonia appeared last week to have become the target of a cyber attack after a row with Moscow over its decision to relocate a Soviet-era military monument. The Estonians claim professional hackers from Russia targeted the internet sites of ministries, parliament, banks, the media and large companies, causing their systems to crash.
The Sunday Times

Friday, May 18, 2007

THE BEAR AWOKE AND ATE THREE OF HER CUBS



DANIEL 7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
EU questions Russian human rights record
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Writer2 hours, 8 minutes ago
European Union leaders criticized Russia's human rights record — and were faulted in return — at the end of a summit Friday that produced no formal agreements but helped illustrate the widening political chasm between Moscow and the West. German Chancellor Angela Merkel complained that opposition activists were being prevented from traveling to a planned protest in the Volga River city of Samara, near the site of the EU-Russia summit. "I'm concerned about some people having problems in traveling here," Merkel told reporters. "I hope they will be given an opportunity to express their opinion." Among the activists kept from boarding flights was former chess champion Garry Kasparov, now a leading political foe of President Vladimir Putin. Officials confiscated activists' passports and tickets at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, and held them for about five hours. Activists in Samara also said they were harassed. Russia's democratic freedoms and its treatment of critics are two of the most sensitive issues haunting Russia-EU relations. Merkel's remark came during a sometimes fractious exchange over the topics between Putin and EU leaders at a news conference. Putin said his government does not fear protests, but insisted government opponents must abide by official regulations. He also blamed some violence on demonstrators. "They don't bother me in any way," Putin said of the so-called "Dissenters' Marches" staged by Kasparov and others, which police have brutally dispersed. "All those who want to stage demonstrations in accordance with the law have such an opportunity," he said. "But some provoke law enforcement forces to use force, and they respond accordingly." Local officials had sanctioned the Dissenters' March in Samara that authorities kept Kasparov and others from attending. Putin deflected allegations that the Kremlin fears letting critics be heard. "There is no reason to fear marginal groups, especially so small," he said. He also criticized European governments, noting that German police have detained protesters. "Law enforcement authorities in practically all countries make preventative arrests, there are examples in Germany," he said. "Such action isn't always justified." Merkel responded that police action during violent riots could be justified, but added: "If a person hasn't done anything yet, if he's just on his way to a demonstration, that's a completely different case." Putin also assailed the EU for failing to respond to the death of a Russian citizen during clashes between police and ethnic Russian protesters in Estonia over the moving of a Soviet-era war memorial in Tallinn, the Estonian capital. Tensions between Russia and Estonia cast a cloud over the summit. Estonian government Web sites have come under massive cyber attacks in the weeks following the memorial's removal, and Estonian officials have suggested the attacks may have been coordinated by the Russian government. Russia denies that. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters at Volzhsky Utyos, a riverside resort, that democracy and rule of law are "sacred principles for the EU." "We stress the importance of democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of demonstration," he said. "These are values (which) I'm sure, unite, not divide us. It's very important for all European countries, and Russia is a European country ... to ensure the full respect of those principles and values." As they argued over Russia's alleged rollback of democracy and the lack of progress in a dispute over a Russian ban on Polish meat, Putin and the EU leaders pointed to progress in trade and economic ties. Though no formal deals were reached at the summit, Putin said he and the EU leaders agreed to extend EU-Russia cooperation on cross-border trade, visa issues and scientific and technical cooperation. Putin also sought to present the Polish meat dispute as a bilateral problem that blocked the expansion of Russia-EU ties. "We need each other, we are open for an honest dialogue between Russia and the EU," Putin said at one point. "But we must defend our interests in the same professional way as our partners do that." Merkel and Barroso emphasized European solidarity. "A Polish problem is a European problem," Barroso said. More than 100 protesters gathered at a square in Samara in the late afternoon, outnumbered by police, and marched through the streets shouting slogans including "Russia without Putin!" and "We need another Russia." Several protesters held black-yellow-and-white flags of Other Russia, an opposition movement that includes Kasparov's United Civil Front. A few held a banner reading "Russian without Putin and successors."

U.S. missile plan aims to encircle Russia: Lavrov
1 hour, 4 minutes ago
A U.S. plan to build a missile defense shield in eastern Europe is part of a scheme to encircle Russia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday. Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week they had failed to bridge their long-standing differences over U.S. plans to put 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic as part of a system to shield Europe from missile attack. "These Czech and Polish locations perfectly fit into the overall global design of the American missile defense which is surrounding the perimeters of the Russian borders," Lavrov told the BBC World television channel, speaking in English. "If you keep them in Poland and the Czech Republic, it's a perfect place to intercept Russian ballistic missiles located in the northwest part of Russia." Lavrov's comments came three days after Rice said the two countries had agreed to tone down their rhetoric. Recent remarks have revived memories of the Cold War.
ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND LITHUANIA - IN THE MOUTH OF THE BEAR, WHILE AMERICANS SLEPT WITH THE NETWORK AND DANCED WITH HOLLYWOOD, RUSSIA RECLAIMS IT'S TERRITORIES AND PLANS TO DESTROY THE GRAND AMERICAN LADY - NO LONGER IN HER SEAT
DANIEL 7:5 - And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
Volzhsky Utyos, Russia - Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticised Baltic neighbours Estonia and Latvia on Friday, accusing them of "unacceptable" violations of the rights of Russian-speakers. "Violations of the rights of the Russian-speaking population" in the two countries are "unacceptable and unworthy of Europe," Putin said at a Russia-European Union summit. The comments, made at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso, came amid tensions between Moscow and the three Baltic republics that were occupied by Moscow for nearly 50 years after World War II. Putin went on to swipe at Estonia over the recent removal of a World War II memorial and the remains of soldiers from the Estonian capital Tallinn, which sparked riots in the city. He alleged heavy-tactics in breaking up the unrest, in which one Russian citizen, was killed. "They didn't just disperse demonstrators. They killed one demonstrator," he said, apparently referring to the Estonian police. "We demand that the criminals be brought to account." All three Baltic countries -- Estonian, Latvia and Lithuania -- joined the European Union and Nato in 2004, signalling a fundamental break from Russian influence. They each have substantial Russian minorities, with the largest minorities in Estonia and Latvia. While Brussels has carefully scrutinized the countries' treatment of Russian speakers as a condition of joining the EU, Moscow continues to complain that they are discriminated against.Agence France Presse

Thursday, May 10, 2007

THE ANGRY RUSSIA

Blunt Putin speech seemed aimed at U.S.
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Who was President Vladimir Putin talking about when he said the world faces threats to peace like those that led to World War II? Putin's statement at a Victory Day parade on Red Square on Wednesday was artfully phrased to be both blunt and vague — but political observers have little doubt he was criticizing the United States for "disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich." While Putin didn't name any particular country in the speech marking the 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany, the remarks echoed his increasingly strong criticism of the perceived U.S. domination in global affairs. Political analysts close to the Kremlin say that Putin referred to the United States in his remarks, expressing Russia's dismay at what it views as U.S. unilateralism in world affairs and disrespect for other countries' interests. "Hitler was striving for global domination, and the United States is striving for global domination now," Sergei Markov, the Kremlin-connected head of the Moscow-based Institute for Political Research told The Associated Press. "Hitler thought he was above the League of Nations, and the United States thinks it is above the United Nations. Their action is similar." Relations between Russia and the United States have become increasingly tense amid U.S. criticism of the Kremlin for rolling back on democracy and Moscow's complaints against U.S. plans to deploy missile defense sites in Europe close to its western borders. Moscow also frequently accuses Washington of meddling in what it considers its home turf by trying to take other ex-Soviet nations away from its orbit. Markov said that while Putin sought to soften his remarks by avoiding a direct reference to the United States, he was undoubtedly was aiming at Washington. "Only the United States now is claiming global exclusiveness," Markov said. Shortly after his speech at the parade, Putin told veterans at a Kremlin reception that World War II showed "where militarist ambitions, ethnic intolerance and any attempts to recarve the globe are leading to." Markov saw that as another veiled reference to the United States. "After the Cold War ended, the United States has initiated a new arms race," fueling nuclear ambitions of many nations worldwide, he said. "If a nation doesn't have nuclear weapons, it risks being bombed like Yugoslavia or Iraq," he said. "And if it does have nuclear weapons like North Korea, it faces no such threat." Gleb Pavlovsky, another political analyst with close Kremlin connections, said that Putin's remarks reflected his "concern about the spreading of unilateralist approaches to global affairs." "The United States is trying to dominate the world ... and Russia takes a stance against such hegemony," Pavlovsky said. He added, however, that Putin was not referring exclusively to the United States when he mentioned a contempt for human life and claims at global domination, but also forces behind international terrorism and extremism. "He was also referring to nations that support Islamic fundamentalism when he talked about claims to global exclusiveness," Pavlovsky said. Putin's remarks reflect an increasingly assertive posture by Russia, which has regained its economic muscle thanks to a rising tide of oil revenue and sought to rebuild its military might eroded in the post-Soviet industrial demise. Putin shocked Western leaders in February when he spoke at a security conference in Germany, bluntly accusing the U.S. of trying to force other nations to conform to its standards and warned that Russia would strongly retaliate to the deployment of the U.S. missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. In a state of the nation address last month, Putin called for a Russian moratorium on observance of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which limits the number of aircraft, tanks and other non-nuclear heavy weapons around the continent, saying that NATO members' refusal to ratify an amended version of the pact hurt Russia's security interests. Putin also threatened to pull out of the treaty altogether unless talks with NATO members yielded satisfactory results, and some Russian generals warned that Moscow could also opt out of a Cold War-era treaty with the United States banning intermediate-range missiles. Russia's military chief of staff has also said Russia could target elements of the missile defense system if it is deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic. While Putin's speech Wednesday sounded like another salvo in a new Cold War, Markov insisted that it was merely another attempt by the Russian leader to persuade the United States to reckon with Russia's interests. "It's an attempt to launch a serious dialogue," Markov said.
NOTE: RUSSIA ASSERTS THAT IF IRAN PURSUES AGGRESSIVELY IT'S NUCLEAR AMBITION THEN THE US WILL NOT INTERFER THIS IS AN OPEN STATEMENT TO ENCOURAGE IRAN TO DO WHAT IT MUST, BUT QUICKLY AS THE ABOVE QUOTE STATES: "If a nation doesn't have nuclear weapons, it risks being bombed like Yugoslavia or Iraq," he said. "And if it does have nuclear weapons like North Korea, it faces no such threat." Gleb Pavlovsky, another political analyst with close Kremlin connections, said that Putin's remarks reflected his "concern about the spreading of unilateralist approaches to global affairs."

KIRK CAMERON-DEBATE-THE ATHEIST'S

The question for our debate was "Does God Exist?" and both sides went at the issue with a series of passionate declarations and critical attacks on the arguments of their opponents. It was a clean but unflinching contest. Former child star Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. Cameron and Comfort run an organization called the Way of the Master, which comprises a Web site and cable television show, all focused on preaching what they say is the truth of Christianity. Cameron opened the debate by addressing the crowd:
Hi, I'm Kirk Cameron and my partner and I Ray Comfort come to you tonight not as molecular biologists or rocket scientists, but simply as an author and an actor, and we want to do two things that fly in the face of convention. One, we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith. And secondly, as a former atheist myself -- an evolutionist -- I want to pull back the curtain and show that the number one reason that people don't believe in God is not a lack in evidence, but because of a theory that many scientists today believe to be a fairytale for grownups.
They were confronted by the might of the "rational response squad" — in the form of unabashed atheists Brian Sapient and his comrade, a woman who goes by the name of Kelly. They had been included in a previous "Nightline" report, telling the story of the Blasphemy Challenge in which they invited atheists to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit by posting videotaped denunciations on their Web site. Comfort saw the piece on the Blasphemy Challenge, and he immediately e-mailed "Nightline," saying, "We would like to challenge them to a public debate. … Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't." Sapient had this to say when he addressed the crowd at the debate:
"I want to start off by thanking ABC, Kirk and Ray and the audience for their ears and their participation of the discussion of this magnitude. The Rational Response Squad was formed to respond to irrational claims, and the most wildly held irrational claim are the ones offered by religion. Ray and Kirk have agreed to offer scientific proof that god exists without invoking faith of the Bible, and we are here to respond to those claims.
For more than 90 minutes, they battled over the main arguments of evolution, historical evidence and the existence of God. The audience, which was divided between Christians and atheists, asked penetrating questions, and there were also a number of contributions submitted by viewers at ABCNEWS.com. Why are Kirk Cameron, a preacher, and two self-proclaimed atheists coming together in a church this weekend? Because Cameron and preacher Ray Comfort claim that they "can prove the existence of God." They'll take on the atheists in the first "Nightline Face-Off," a debate to be moderated by "Nightline" anchor Martin Bashir. As Mike Seaver, the oldest son in the smash hit sitcom "Growing Pains," actor Kirk Cameron could make audiences roll with laughter. But now he wants to bring them to the Lord. And he's deadly serious. In March 2006, "Nightline" profiled the Way of the Master, a Christian ministry headed by Cameron and itinerant preacher Ray Comfort. Operating as a charitable trust, its intention is to educate and equip the church to preach the message of Christianity to nonbelievers. Cameron says he is motivated by a literal fear of hell. "I believe the Scriptures teach that there's a literal heaven and a literal hell, just like Jesus said," he explained. "And without forgiveness of sins that, yeah, the place of punishment is called hell." The Way of the Master has a weekly television show for which Comfort and Cameron literally hit the streets in the name of Jesus, challenging nonbelievers that their sins against God will lead directly to hell. "On the Day of Judgment," Comfort tells one man on the streets of New York, "God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. You have sinned against God. You need his forgiveness." On occasions, things go badly wrong and the pair are attacked by members of the public. Comfort recalled one incident, saying, "While I was preaching the Gospel a gentleman came up and he started spitting on me. And he spat quite a few times." Comfort says he simply remained calm and moved on. Neither Comfort nor Cameron has theological degrees nor any kind of formal training. But Cameron says he's convinced his new career is vitally important. "I have no authority. I am simply trying to be faithful to the God who saved me, who changed me and who has commissioned me to tell you and those who are watching this interview … about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that it has the power to change people's hearts."
The Rational Response Squad
"There isn't any good reason to believe in God," so says Brian Sapient, a member of the Rational Response Squad, a group of atheists "Nightline" profiled in January. What's wrong with God? "What's wrong with the tooth fairy?" asks Brian. "There's nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn't exist." "Atheists are completely vilified. And it's OK," says Kelly, an atheist who works alongside Brian and also asks that her last name not be used. "It's actually OK to hate atheists," Kelly says. "We are like the last group that people overwhelmingly agree it's OK to hate, because there's an absurd caricature of atheism out there." While their theological views differ from the Way of the Master, their approaches are similar -- brash and in-your-face. The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube. One of the posts is by a young-looking man named Chandler. He says, "I've come to the conclusion that alongside the fact that there is no Santa Claus and there is no Easter bunny, there is also no God. So, without further ado, my name is Chandler and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit." Taking risks with your own soul is one thing, but the Rational Response Squad advertises for the Blasphemy Challenge on Web sites for teens, such as Tiger Beat (tigerbeatmag.com). "They have already been targeted," Brian says. "So hopefully, they are at a point where they are not so indoctrinated and set in their ways that they can overcome this religious superstition that has been put into their brain unfairly." At the end of the "Nightline" segment, Brian Sapient says, "If they [the Christians] want to come to the table and present their evidence, I will present my evidence. And we will see how much of theirs is based on faith, and how much of mine is based on fact."
The Face-Off
Ray Comfort saw the piece on the Blasphemy Challenge and he immediately e-mailed "Nightline" to say that "We would like to challenge them to a public debate. … Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't." The two sides have agreed to debate in the first "Nightline" Face-Off. Here's what they have to say about the debate:
Perhaps you think that anyone who says that he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer. Maybe, like most people, you believe that the issue is a matter of "faith." Then we must be dreamers, because we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible. Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate. - Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. We are dedicated to responding to irrational claims -- such as the ones being put forth by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that they can prove the existence of God scientifically. We are here to prove that not only can they not do that, but that it cannot be done using the scientific method and the knowledge available to us today.- The Rational Response Squad