How To Stand For Local Council

Many individuals want to take a greater role in their community
and give something back by becoming a local councillor. It is a
fulfilling role, but also an incredibly time consuming one,
which should not be taken on lightly without full consideration.

To stand in a council election there are some legal
requirements. First, you must be a British or Commonwealth
citizen of at least 21 years of age, be of sound mind, free from
bankruptcy and imprisonment (no more than 3 months can have been
served within the last 5 years). You cannot be an employee of
the council you are standing for, or a senior manager of any
other council in Britain and must not have committed a
disqualifying election offence within the period specified for
that offence (as stated by the court). In addition you must
either be on the electoral register for the council area you are
standing for, have lived within the council area you are
standing for 12 months, have worked there for the last 12 months
or owned premises there for 12 months. This is not within the
ward but the council’s boundaries.

If you are able to pass the above criteria, then you are
entitled to stand for council. Your first step should be to work
out how you wish to stand: for a registered political party or
as an independent. People can no longer put down whatever they
wish on a ballot paper: they either need official authorisation
of a registered party or are independents. If you have political
leanings one way or another, most local political parties will
be more than happy to hear from you, although you will have to
be aware that selections for winnable wards can often be
incredibly tough, with many candidates competing for the same
nomination.

If, on the other hand, you wish to stand as an independent your
job is going to be much harder. Registered political parties
have the benefit of having a pool of knowledge to call upon,
since more than one individual is involved. Some of the larger
political parties, such as the Conservative Party and the Labour
Party, will also employ full time professional staff to support
in the more complex areas such as election law. They are also
much more likely to have existing structures locally to assist
with the logistics such as delivering leaflets, knocking on
doors, helping electors to the polls on the day of the elections.

As a lone individual independent your job is much harder, but
you will have greater freedom. You can devise your own personal
manifesto that you are standing on, rather than being bound by
party lines. You can stand where you want without having to go
through a selection. But you will also have to work a lot harder
to get your message across. National parties get far greater
exposure from the media and financial support from donors: an
independent has to find their own funds and promote their own
campaign, using just contacts and friends.

Once you have decided, contact your local council’s electoral
services department. You can find the number for this by calling
directory enquiries and being routed from the main council
switchboard. It is from the staff here you will need to discover
the really important information: the date of the next election
in the area you wish to stand, the deadlines for all paperwork
(including, most importantly, the nomination forms so you can
stand in the first place), the amount you will be allowed to
spend on your election and the relevant forms. Most councils
will have an information pack for candidates, containing this
information and other helpful advice and legal necessities.
However if yours does not, contact the Electoral Commission on
0207 271 0505, as they are the overseeing body for all elections
in Great Britain and have a comprehensive database of
information.

The basic requirements to legally stand as a candidate include
that you submit a valid nomination paper containing 10
signatories of electors on the electoral register at the date of
the election for the ward in which you are standing (2 for
parish and town council). Candidates are entitled to one copy of
the electoral register for their ward, but please make sure this
is up to date as the register changes on a monthly basis. Ensure
that you get your nomination form in before the deadline so that
there is time for checking and the gathering of a new nomination
form if there are any problems with the original one. Your
timetable from the electoral services department should give you
all the relevant submission dates and deadlines for this.

Another requirement you are legally obliged to do as a candidate
is to submit a valid return on election expenses within one
month of the election’s result being announced, which are a true
and detailed account of all monies spent in the election period.
You can, if you wish, appoint an election agent who is
responsible for this instead, but if you do not appoint such an
individual (by the date given on the timetable) you will be seen
to be your own election agent. Election expenses cover the
period laid out in the guidelines and to overspend is a criminal
offence. These limits are set so that no party or individual is
allowed an unfair advantage during election time, although you
can spend as much as you wish outside of it. It is also very
important to know that only the agent, or any nominated sub
agents, is authorised to spend money. This is to stop
expenditure getting out of control.

A list of election offences will be provided by your local
council, which will include (but not be restricted to) bribery,
treating and impersonation. There are also many other rules: for
example all printed literature must carry an imprint, which
tells of the agent, candidate and printer’s addresses. It is
very important that you read these rules in great detail for
some of them are quite complex.

Although it is by no means a legal requirement, if you wish to
be elected you will also have to campaign. Leaflets are an
excellent way to get your message across to as many people as
possible in a short space of time, but personal contact is far
more efficient, if time consuming. Street stalls (with
permission), door to door canvassing, house and public meetings
all provide opportunities to meet and connect with the voters.

If you have not been put off already by the amount of work
involved, it is worth giving one last thought to whether you
will be able to meet the demands of being a councillor. Time
requirements vary on the level of council, but you should allow
for at least 2 evenings a week being taken up with meetings and
dealing with residents’ problems. In addition there will also be
large amounts of paperwork to be read and appraised before
meetings and numerous calls and letters from local residents.
Most councillors do the job part-time, as payment is expenses
only unless you are given special responsibilities such as
committee chairing. It is a labour of love, not a job with great
financial rewards.

Being a councillor is a time consuming job, but an incredibly
rewarding one also. If you still wish to stand, good luck and
keep me updated on how you go on!

Fundamentalist: Fascist or Common-Sense?

Is the only way to fight Fundamentalist Extremists becoming one yourself? Having grown up in a liberal democracy, being educated in the ideals of freedom of speech and expression, diversity, multi-culturalism and the political correctness that stems from such a comprehensive education, I find myself questioning whether I am a closet fascist when it comes to the way in which the British Judiciary are referring to the whole issue surrounding the London suicide bombers of 7 July and the related legal news stories stemming from this.

I cannot understand the logic of the British Judiciary in countering the British Government’s call for the expulsion of a number of foreign nationals specifically identified as contributing to anti-British feeling amongst the Muslim community. For example, one of the people due for expulsion is Abu Qatada, a Jordanian who has been tried and convicted in his absence in Jordanian courts for terrorism and given a life sentence. He is known as Osama bin Laden’s ‘Ambassador in Europe’. Now he is concerned that if he is returned to Jordan he will face the death sentence. The question becomes one of whether we can expel someone from Britain to what may be their death? While we don’t know the details of his Jordanian convictions, terrorism in the Middle East tends to be pretty deadly, so it is fair to suspect this person has been convicted of something relating to people being killed.

This is where liberal ideals and common-sense conflict – while we may agree in Human Rights Law, is it so wrong if we don’t care that this man is being sent back to what might be his death? When someone commits themselves to terrorism, do they give up their right to justice when they so blatantly abuse it? How can we allow someone to rely on Human Rights law when they have so obviously overlooked the human rights of everyone else in the country? On a more local level, why do we have someone at liberty in Britain who has been convicted of terrorism in another country? Why were they being granted freedom of speech, and freedom to gather audiences, when it was known that they had fundamentalist tendencies and links with terrorist organisations? Is it our policy in Britain to say ‘welcome to Britain and feel free to hate our society and way of life?’

It would be wrong to withdraw many of our fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech because we are scared of what people might say – but surely when there is evidence that people have gone beyond what are acceptable societal boundaries then they need to be restrained in one way or another. Is this not what the new anti-terrorism provisions are seeking to do? Finding a way of tackling fundamentalism without resorting to fascism is going to require some common-sense in terms of interpreting the law.

Nobody wants to see a repeat of the shooting of the innocent Brazilian on the underground system, but neither do people want to encounter suicide bombers. For years there have been critical news reports on Isreali soldiers shooting Palestinians who they believed to be suicide bombers, many of whom may have been innocent, as well as reports of suicide bombers blowing themselves up in buses and bars – now the reality of this is hitting Britain. There is no way to stop a suicide bomber but to kill them before they detonate themselves. Equally, there is no way of being absolutely sure that somebody is a suicide bomber until they actually detonate themselves. There lies the Catch 22 which will dominate the British legal system for years to come. Here we believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but by the time a suicide bomber is proven guilty it is too late.

So where does this leave us? If we can identify the underlying factions that are stirring up fundamentalist ideals, is it not common-sense that we either imprison or deport them? Even the Muslim Council of Great Britain supports such moves. However, we need to make sure that the extremists don’t win by lulling us into a fascist state out of fear, and hence we become what they are propagating we already are. It will be common-sense that wins, not fascism, but it needs to be applied through the judicial system, not just in Government.

Eddie Blass is a freelance academic and ghostwriter specialising in business & management, futures, legal, and educational issues.

What Are the Inspectors Really Looking For?

Let’s take a step back from the fray and examine the real target in
Iraq…what are the inspectors really looking for? The answer is: what
they have received from the US - the West’s own exports - such as dual-
use equipment used for manufacturing of weapons of destruction. This
was supplied with the blessing of the US Commerce Dept…$1.5-b worth of
dual-use goods.

The inspectors have destroyed a good deal of the equipment imported in
the 1990s, but much still remains. The West’s companies and governments
are more guilty than most people remember. Following is a
listing of some of the items received from the West:

Nassr State Enterprise - Helped extend the range of Iraq’s SCUD
missiles so they could strike US troops in Saudi Arabia and Israelis
in Tel Aviv.

- Also helped Iraq’s secret effort to enrich uranium.

- Machine tools and high-speed computers: Leybold Vacuum Systems,
Hewlett Packard (US); Matrix Churchill Ltd., MEED International (UK);
Heinrich Mueller GmbH (Germany); International Computer Systems (UK)
- Components and know-how for a plant intended for missile production:
Anlagen Bau Contor (Germany)
- Missile guidance components: Inwako, C. Plath (Germany)

- Equipment to make missile combustion chambers: H&H Metalform,
Leifeld and Co. GmbH (Germany)

- Magnets for centrifuges for enriching uranium: Rhein-Bayern
Fahrzeugbau GmbH & Co KG (Germany)
- Magnets for calutrons for enriching uranium: Voest-Alpine AG
(Austria)

- Turbopumps for the engines of SCUD missiles: Thyssen Maschinenbau
GmbH (Germany)

- Glass fiber plant useful for making rocket motor casings: Matrix
Churchill Corp. (US/UK); Glass Inc. International (US)

Al-Qaqaa - Developed explosive lenses for nuclear weapons - High-speed
computers: Cerberus, Perkin Elmer Corporation (US)
University of Mosul - Site of Iraq’s major missile development center

- Research on chemical and nuclear weapons
- Equipment for enhancing satellite images: E.Z. Logic Data Systems
(US)

- Infrared electronic imaging equipment useful for aerial
reconnaissance and missile tracking: International Imaging Systems (US)

- Computers and mass spectrometers useful for nuclear weapon work:
Finnigan-MAT (US)

Al Kindi - Modification and production of SCUD-B/Al Hussein missiles

- Production of the “supergun”

- Research on missile components and fuel
- High-precision coordinate measuring machines: Mauserwerke Oberndorf
GmbH, Zeiss, Mauser (Germany)
Samarra Drug Industry - Prime production facility for Iraqi mustard
gas and nerve agents, according to U.S. intelligence sources

- Reported in 2001 by August Hanning, the director of German
intelligence (BND), to be developing new chemical weapons

- Parts for the Samarra chemical weapon complex: Water Engineering
Trading (Germany)

- Site construction services: Heberger Bau (Germany)

- Equipment for six separate chemical plants, including facilities and
construction components: Karl Kolb and Pilot Plant (Germany)

- Equipment for chemical, physiological and biological analysis
(Germany)

- According to Hanning, “important components for the production of
poison gas” (Germany)

Hutteen State Establishment - Built testing facility at Iraq’s main
nuclear weapon development site - Artillery ammunition for chemical
payloads: Treblan (Spain)

- High-speed computers: E.Z. Logic Data Systems (US); International
Computer Systems (US/UK)

- Machine tools and equipment: Matrix Churchill Ltd., MEED
International (UK)

Salah al Din - Military electronics factory which produced three-
dimensional early warning radars, electronic countermeasures and
inertial guidance components

- Also produced equipment for making nuclear weapon fuel
- Turn-key factory built by Thomson-CSF (France)

- Lasers, laser systems, and “communication/ detection racking
equipment:” Spectra Physics (US)

- Quartz crystals and electronic assemblies for use in radar systems:
Zeta Laboratories Inc. (US)

- Frequency synthesizers for developing surveillance radar: Hewlett
Packard (US)

Source: www.iraqwatch.org [12.10PM 13 Feb 03]
Iraq Watch Bulletin, vol2, Issue 1, Jan-Feb. 203

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Margot B
mailto:margotb@authorsden.com
Web site=http://www26.brinkster.com/margotb

About the Author

Margot B has written a book plus 100s of articles, specializing in health and the environment. She is a Web site developer with examples at:
http://www26.brinkster.com/margotb
http://www.freewebs.com/margot
http://www.freewebs.com/nuchatlaht

Worse than tsunami, trade protectionism hurts third world citizens

by Dr. Eric Schansberg Libertarian Writers’ Bureau
http://www.writersbureau.org

Last Thursday, I was heartened to read the news that my church,
Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY, had collected
$732,000 from its members (beyond its weekly giving) for tsunami
relief in Southeast Asia. That partially offset the news I had
read the previous Thursday– as reported in the Wall Street
Journal– that tariffs imposed on Sri Lanka were nearly
$250,000,000 in 2003.

Nearly all of that amount was taxes imposed on the Sri Lankan
textile industry. And the amount imposed on that one foreign
industry exceeded all of the tariffs imposed on all trade with
all six Scandinavian countries– despite the fact that those
countries export nearly 12 times more to the U.S., have about 10
times more GDP than Sri Lanka’s, and have people whose per
capita incomes are far higher than those in Sri Lanka.

Why does this occur?

The textile industry in this country is one of many special
interest groups that benefits from having their competition
restricted. They and their politicians find it favorable to
impose discriminatory taxes on foreign producers and American
consumers.

In contrast to the obvious benefits for politicians and the
protected industry, the costs imposed are subtle. How many
consumers know that they pay significantly higher prices for
clothing because of these laws? How many voters care that
foreign workers and investors in poor countries are impeded in
their ability to sell product within the wealthiest market in
the world?

Because Christians tend to pay almost exclusive attention to
relatively few (albeit important) issues, they often ignore
other important policies. The passions of the Religious Right
flair on issues of social morality and abortion, but they rarely
think about issues of economic justice. The Scriptures,
especially through the prophets, give a more balanced picture.
The interests of the Religious Left are centered more tightly
around the fate of the poor.

But their policy attentions in that realm are relatively narrow,
focusing mostly on welfare and foreign aid. Pragmatism would
seem to warrant discussion of a wider set of issues. Christian
Libertarians are excited about voluntary displays of charity,
but saddened that political shenanigans can so easily swamp the
efforts of ompassionate people.

All that said, care for the poor and oppressed is not a strictly
Christian exercise. And very few people-Christian or not-are
informed about the primary and secondary consequences of
significant policy issues. Although Southeast Christian Church
can be pleased and honored to pay part of Uncle Sam’s tax bill
for the Sri Lankans, perhaps all of us should pay more attention
to the larger issues of trade protectionism and the mechanics of
economic justice.

Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer

For God And Country Forever
Surrender To The ACLU Never”
I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legions. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man.

I first inquired of his history with the ACLU, how he became employed with them, and why he eventually disassociated himself with them. He informed me that he had worked two janitor jobs while attending law school. One day the ACLU did some kind of fellowship interview, and he was given an internship with them. He eventually went on to be on their staff. He focused in the area of worker’s rights with special attention to the deprivation of speech in the workplace…such as whistleblowers.

So why did he leave them? He said, “it was in part because around that time they established a separation of Church and State Staff Position.” He informed me that, “This was funded by Norman Lear and several other Hollywood millionaires.” It seems even back then that Hollywood sided with the secular left. He went on to say that, “the very purpose of this staff position was to push “establishment clause” lawsuits against the government.”

At this point he got pretty fired up, and dominated the conversation for a while. I didn’t mind…what he had to say was passionate and cut right to the truth of things.

“I think it is important that we shouldn’t forget that we had a civil rights movement that was needed in our history at the time. I was around to see segregated bathrooms. There were black and white water fountains. You could sit at a lunch counter next to someone like Charles Manson because he was white, but not someone like Martin Luther King Jr. because he was black. The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.”

“But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

I don’t think I could have come up with a better more colorful description myself. I think I will be sending him a Stop The ACLU T-Shirt. But wait…he was just getting warmed up! He went on to say….

“I have done more cases for minorities and civil rights violations myself than the whole bunch of them put together. I was in the trenches of the Civil Rights movement. They can’t tell me anything about civil rights. We did that 40 years ago, and we accomplished that goal. There are now laws protecting people from those things we fought against. The Civil Rights movement has now taken some crazed “Jesse Jackson” turn to the point that often it is now the white people that are being discriminated against.”

I must say that in this world of political correctness this guy was bold, blunt, and to the point. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who fought the battle of Civil Rights, a soldier who fought for them, and an esteemed former Commander of an American Legions post in Banning, California. He continued…

The ACLU is an elitist organization bent on the social engineering of our Country in defiance of both the legislative and executive branches. What they are involved in is secular cleansing of American History.”

He asked if I were familiar with how Stalin airbrushed people like Trotsky out of photos in order to rewrite history. He went on to compare that to how what the ACLU is trying to do with Christianity in American history. He pointed out many similarities.

Then he got to the good stuff! He repeated….

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

“For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don’t think this is an “endorsement” of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don’t care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows.”

At this point I felt like saying, ….Bwhahahahah! However I restrained myself like the nice guy that I am. I’m glad I did, cause this is when he got the really good stuff.

“This is a Christian Nation! And we ought to be damn proud it is! Because it is only in Christian Nations where you will find freedom of religion. We are a Christian Nation, and the U.S. Supreme Court said so. The Supreme Court in HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. that this is a Christian Nation. That is our history. The history the ACLU wants to erase.”

“Secular Humanism is a religion. Again, the Supreme Court ruled this in Torcaso vs. Watkins. If this is true, then it is being given precedence over other religions in our nation today.”

I finally asked the question that I primarily called for. Knowing that the American Legion is supporting The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would it affect the ability of a poor person to defend their religious liberty by having to pay attorney fees out of pocket? To this question he answered….

“Absolutely not! This legislation would only apply to “Establishment Clause” cases. This would help to keep organizations from being paid attorney’s fees in cases such as the ones where the ACLU is fighting to take down our Veterans’ Memorials. It would only affect these kinds of suits. The “Free Exercise” is not affected at all. So someone defending their right to express religion could still collect attorney’s fees.”
Read More at Stop The ACLU.Com

About the Author

None

Doorstops and Paperweights

Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, has come up with what he believes is a brilliant idea. He thinks the FCC should have to the power to hold cable and satellite channels to the same decency standards as over-the-air broadcasters. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Stevens’ counterpart in the House, agrees. Each plans to propose bills to that end in his respective house of the U.S. Congress. Many of their colleagues, eager to always be viewed as tough on indecency, are ready to sign on to their proposed legislation. Never mind the fact that the courts have struck down similar legislation in the past. Stevens, doesn’t see this as a problem. If he got his wish, Congress would just pass it and then, according to Stevens, “take [the cable and satellite industry] on and let the courts decide.”

At the core of Senator Stevens’ rationale is the fact that cable and satellite have become almost as ubiquitous as broadcast TV. Over 80% of all U.S. homes now subscribe to cable or satellite TV. In those homes, Stevens and his cohorts would argue, viewers make little or no distinction between subscription channels and broadcast channels, which are right along side each other on the cable or satellite box. Therefore, he feels that they should all be held to the same standard of decency. On the surface, that sounds like a sensible argument. However, there are three major problems with his proposed legislation.

First, unlike broadcast television, people choose to bring cable and satellite TV channels into their homes. This choice is a private contract between the company and the subscriber, delivered over that company’s equipment. No one is forced to subscribe to cable or satellite TV. In fact, subscribers pay an ever-increasing subscription price for such a privilege.

Most people, except those who live in mountainous and/or rural areas, can receive broadcast channels over the air with a strong antenna. Even those who live in areas where over-the-air channels cannot be accessed with an antenna can subscribe to a very basic package that includes only their local channels and basic cable channels like The Weather Channel, some home-shopping channels, and one or two religious channels. Decency would never be an issue with any of the aforementioned cable channels, so where is their argument?

The argument against regulating premium channels like HBO, which Stevens wants to include in his legislation, should be a no-brainer. These channels do not come with any basic package and are selected and paid for individually by their subscribers.

But what about the basic channels that come along as part of a “classic cable” and/or “extended tier” package? So far, cable and satellite companies have refused to offer them on an a-la-carte basis and the FCC has ruled in their favor on this matter. Therefore, people are paying for channels like MTV, for example, that many find objectionable. Shouldn’t these channels have to abide by broadcast decency standards? No, because people choose to bring these packages of channels into their homes. Now, granted, many of them subscribe to these packages solely because they want access to channels like ESPN, CNN, and Fox News, which are generally not included with the most basic tiers. They couldn’t care less about any of the other channels in the package.

In a perfect world, subscribers could select these channels individually without having to pay for a lot of channels they don’t want. However, the world is not perfect and life is not fair. To soften the blow, cable and satellite operators have provided a way for parents to block their children’s access to channels they deem inappropriate. Regulating indecency on these channels wouldn’t accomplish anything that the parental lockouts couldn’t.

Second, imposing decency on cable and satellite channels would cripple, or possibly kill, an entire industry. In addition, burgeoning IPTV technologies, which would likely be strapped with the same regulations, would be stymied. Think of the damage it would do to the economy. Thousands would be laid off or not hired.

Many people subscribe to cable or satellite TV because they want access to something that is more edgy and is free to go a little further than broadcast TV. That’s the main reason that broadcasters are pushing so hard for decency standards to be extended to cable and satellite. Although they’ve been trying to compete by pushing the envelope with our own programming since the advent of cable and satellite, they know they are at a disadvantage with the good portion of the public that desire programming with more artistic freedom. If cable and satellite TV were suddenly held to the same decency standards as broadcasters, a huge number of their subscribers would pull the plug. Scores of cable and satellite set-top boxes would be reduced to doorstops and paperweights almost overnight.

Third, and probably most important, the regulating of cable and satellite TV would represent a slippery slope toward other, even more serious kinds of censorship. History has taught us that, without strong restraints, governments will stop at nothing to restrict the free speech and expression of their citizens. These restrictions are often based on rather whimsical criteria.

If government entities can get away with censoring material delivered as part of a private contract by means of privately owned equipment, then what’s to stop them from censoring books, videos, newspapers, magazines, and even the internet? The First Amendment, you might say? Well, no, if the First Amendment could be interpreted in such as way as to allow the censorship of cable and satellite TV, our last line of defense would be broken down. Nothing could stop the government, as the flood gates would be opened to just about any kind of censorship they wanted.

Therefore, with the First Amendment having been breeched, we would have a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. The one that people talked about in reference to Watergate would seem like child’s play by comparison. Video stores, bookstores, and libraries could be busted for carrying indecent material, even if it couldn’t legally be ruled obscene. Websites could be shut down by the thousands for being deemed a bit too risqué. If a government official didn’t like something you wrote in a newspaper, magazine, or book, you could get slapped with a hefty fine or thrown in jail. Now you might think I’m exaggerating a little and that none of this stuff could ever happen in the United States, but would you be willing to take that chance?

Now, with all of that being said, I seriously doubt that this proposed regulation of the cable and satellite TV will become a reality any time soon. It would be better if the legislation would just pass and the courts would strike it down and thus reaffirm the First Amendment. However, that’s not the way I think it will play out. I believe there won’t be enough votes because of constitutional concerns on the part of the majority of legislators, so Stevens, Barton, and company will have to back off for now.

What I suspect, though, is that the decency hawks in Congress will try to use the mere talk of regulation to intimidate cable and satellite operators into practicing more “restraint”, as Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), a likely presidential candidate in 2008, calls it. However, that’s a just a euphemism for “censor yourselves or we still might get back to trying to censor you later.” Of course, cowering self-censorship is the most insidious form of censorship there is.

About the Author

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

Is it Possible to Appease Evil?

Terry Dashner

“Is it possible to Appease evil?”

Neville Chamberlain in 1938 tried to appease Hitler, but Hitler would not be appeased. You see, 1938 was a terrible time for Europe. Hitler’s Nazis were running through sovereign nations like a hot knife through butter. England and its European allies were deeply alarmed to say the least, and they hoped to negotiate peace with Hitler without having to go to war against him. Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, flew to Munich to meet with Hitler.

From this meeting comes the Munich Agreement which effectively allows Adolf Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia (I guess the Czechs were suppose to like the agreement or lump it). Chamberlain’s belief that satisfying each of Hitler’s escalating demands for control of more and more territory was naïve. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister flies home and meets the British press on his arrival. Holding up a piece of paper for all to see, Chamberlain cries out, “We’ve achieved peace in our times.” One year later, Hitler invades Poland and the Munich Agreement is now worth no more than the paper it’s written on. England is forced to declare war on Hitler, and Chamberlain falls to Winston Churchill. Hitler could not be appeased.

Someone real smart once said that those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. I’ll give you a modern day example. Obviously modern Europe has not learned the lessons of Chamberlain’s appeasement policies because they are turning a deaf ear to Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities and saber rattling against Israel and the West in general. Iran is boasting of her ability to strike Israel with nuclear weapons and no one is denouncing them but the United States. I guess the Europeans think to do so would be promoting a policy of “preemption” and that is evil. (One of the major problems with America’s war in Iraq—according to many Europeans—is America’s preemptive policies toward terrorists.) I believe that very soon—within the next couple of years—Iran and Israel will be at war. I also believe that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel. Will this be the beginning of the end?

Does the Bible say much about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? It says more about His return than it does about His first coming. Even the Old Testament prophets spoke about the restoration of the nation Israel and the Messiah’s Kingly rule from Jerusalem, over all the earth. In John’s Gospel, chapter 14 and beginning with verse one, it says: “You believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN and receive you unto myself that where I am, there you may be also.”

Often Jesus denounced the religious people of His day because they could predict the weather by reading the signs in the atmosphere, but they were ignorant regarding the prophetic words of His first and second comings. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus was quick to point out that His Second Coming would be announced by signs. He said that when wars escalate, extreme weather patterns prevail, pestilence destroys thousands, earthquakes are common, stars fall from the heavens, and the sun turns dark, then we are to know that Jesus is near, even at the door. Now I’ve never been much of a “star gazer” but recently something keeps prompting me to look up. I believe that the Holy Spirit is directing me to stay alert to the signs of the times because spiritual lethargy in this hour would dull my senses to the sudden coming of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And I certainly don’t want that to happen. What about you?
(Sources cited are Available)

Keep the faith. Stay the course. Stay ready.

T. Dashner

About the Author

writes American history articles that showcase our Christian heritage (918-451-0270).

China Sole Manufacturer of Material for U.S. Missiles

It was in his 2003 State of the Union Address that President George W. Bush expressed his administration’s objective to “strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies.” It was thereafter, between 2003 and 2004, in which the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) allowed the last manufacturer in the U.S. that provided a key element instrumental in cruise missile guidance, to be relocated to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

During this week’s U.S. visit of China President, Hu Jintao, and his meetings with President Bush and his advisors, it would be apropos to revisit a strategic corporate deal which occurred over a period of several years. With its finality in 2004, the U.S. now remains totally dependent upon China for key rare earth metals and their production necessary in the manufacture of the most crucial of U.S. military warfare.

The CFIUS decision in January 2006, regarding the approval of the Dubai Ports World Company, to take over port operations of the six largest East Coast ports in the U.S., not only raised many U.S. Congressional eyebrows but set off a strew of newly proposed legislation, to include more transparency between CFIUS and the U.S. Congress. But CFIUS has long had a precedent of approving such business transactions, and the ports deal was only the latest of such. As the deal approval became known to the public via AP reporter, Ted Bridis, in February 2006, apparently even he was more in the loop than the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. However, there have been close to 2,000 other deals approved by CFIUS since its inception in 1988, many of which should have involved and concerned the U.S. Congress much sooner.

It is the lack of accountability of the secret CFIUS committee, presided over by the Secretary of the Treasury, which has only of late concerned the U.S. Congress, and with its machinations just recently disclosed to the public. And it was the Dubai Ports deal which exposed the seemingly arbitrary fashion, and unanswerability to any other branch of government which was disturbing. For the decisions CFIUS makes ultimately becomes the responsibility of the U.S. federal government, while possibly compromising its best interests, including U.S. national security.

As it is, the Department of Defense has problems procuring necessary equipment and manufacture of parts from foreign entities, where national security must be weighed over acquisition of parts from offshore. Yet at the same time, the U.S. government has pushed the concept of global trade, often in direct conflict with the protection and national security of the U.S.

Producing powered neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnets is critical to enabling control of aircraft and more specifically cruise missiles guidance systems as well as the Joint Direct Attack Munition or JDAM bomb, used prominently in the 2003 bombing of Baghdad, which preceded arrival of U.S. ground troops there. Magnequench UG, although still headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, is the sole provider of specialized magnets for military aircraft systems. But it closed down its manufacturing arm permanently in 2004 and finished relocating operations to China at that time, with its operations now solely controlled by Chinese companies with direct ties to the Chinese government.

Magnequench magnets are produced from a unique patented process of sintering specialty metals. They are used by various electronics and aviation companies, but Magnequench’s primary client is the Pentagon, leaving the U.S. in a rather precarious position with China. Enjoying 85% ownership of the world’s market of rare earth metals, required for its magnet production, Magnequench’s factories are now located in Batou, China. It is there that the world’s only operating rare earth mine exists. Thus, China now owns a monopoly on the manufacture of missile magnets which the U.S. military is dependent upon for its most sophisticated technology and weaponry.

Magnequench’s relocation culminated following several years of what started out as a General Motors subsidiary company in 1986. General Motors was responsible for the development of the manufacture of a permanent magnet material in the early 1980’s and began its production in 1987. In 1995, Magnequench’s majority interest was purchased from General Motors by the Sextant Group, which was comprised of two Chinese companies, San Huan New Material and the China National Non-Ferrous Metals Import and Export Corporation. It is reported that few in the industry or in the federal government knew which companies formed Sextant at that time.

Three years later, after commitment from Magnequench CEO, Archibald Cox, Jr., that its two Indiana-based plants would not be shuttered, its assembly line for magnets in Anderson, IN was shipped to China. In 2000, GA Powders, a subsidiary of Magnequench, originally a Department of Energy project, was relocated from Idaho Falls, ID to Tianjin, China. And in 2004 Magnequench’s other Indiana plant in Valparaiso, IN, responsible for production of elements of the JDAM bomb was shut down and shipped to China. Although there was an “agreement with GM” from Cox that the plant would remain in Anderson, IN according to Clyde South, a negotiator for the United Auto Workers Local 662, Magnequench proceeded to eliminate all of its domestic manufacturing jobs anyway.

Under the 1988 Exxon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act, President Bush could have ordered San Huan New Materials to divest its holdings in Magnequench, as it manufactured a strategic asset. The President was pressed to do so by Congressman Even Bayh and Congressman Pete Visclosky, both of Indiana in 2003, but the President chose not to intercede. In 1990, however, President George H.W. Bush ordered China’s government-owned National Aerospace and Export Company to divest its interest in Mamco Manufacturing of Seattle, WA. At that time it was feared that China would use Mamco to acquire its jet fighter technology.

In addition to this particular example of guidance missile manufacture, the acquisition of titanium is also becoming a problem for the military in procuring spare parts and for its manufacture of its aviation vehicles. The Pentagon continues to have conflicts with the Congress on waiving the Berry Amendment. Enacted in 1941 and updated in 1972, it requires that specialty metals, including rare earth metals, titanium and super alloys, be manufactured in the U.S. for its weapons systems, unless otherwise unattainable. But as more and more American companies relocate offshore, the lines drawn become less and less clear.

And while not appropriate to put the blame of the offshoring of strategic assets on any particular President or branch of government at this time, it is appropriate, however, to see how various factions of the three branches of government, along with the loosening of corporate and industry regulations over the years, have cumulatively jeopardized the interests of the U.S. It is important that lawmakers therefore not become hawkish over the observance of our laws only when it becomes convenient to win political capital, but to how best serve the interests of the U.S. For the ramifications of business as usual when it comes to strategic assets could do irreparable future harm to America’s most vital asset, that being the American people.

Diane M. Grassi is a freelance columnist, reporting and writing commentary on current events of the day providing honest and often politically incorrect assessments. From U.S. public policy to Major League Baseball, she is an eclectic thinker, and demanding of her readers to reflect on their own thinking patterns from an alternative perspective. Whether you agree with her or not, Diane M. Grassi will have you coming back to note her opinions, and if at best she wakes you up, then her goal will have been accomplished.

Ms. Grassi is featured with the online publications: New Media Journal.us; American Chronicle; Mich News.com; the Federal Observer; Opinions Editorials; the Conservative Voice; the Las Vegas Penny Press; the Sierra Times as well as many others. She also writes regular columns on Major League Baseball where she is a featured online columnist with The Diamond Angle Baseball Ezine and Sports-Central.org. Ms. Grassi may contacted at: dgrassi@cox.net

The True Power of Terrorism

Those of us hundreds of miles from ground zero sat glued to our television sets with horror and disbelief as two of the tallest buildings in the world slowly disintegrated in a violence of dust and death.

Since that bright September morning in 2001, none of us have felt the same. Undergoing an unexpected and brutal national rape, we shuddered at our own vulnerability and defenselessness.

In grief, anger, and frustration, we gathered our tattered dignity around us and vowed repeatedly that it would never happen again. Next time, we would be ready, we would defend ourselves, we would regain our sense of power and invulnerability. We set out resolutely on the journey to make our world safe again.

Security was tightened at airports, border crossings, ports, bridges, and nuclear generating stations. Laws were passed to abridge civil liberties to better fight those out to hurt the United States. Action was implemented in Afghanistan to find the terrorist cells and overthrow their political supporters. The long-standing conventions of war prisoner treatment were abrogated in the name of national security. Iraq was invaded in a preemptive strike to limit the likelihood of future attacks on American soil.

Where has the yearning for security led us?

We have become the enemy. In the hazy logic of the Patriot Act or ethnic profiling at airports and borders, and the specious arguments supporting the treatment protocols at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, America has bought into the mindset of terrorism.

When individuals are kidnapped, psychologically or physically abused, threatened with pain, rape, torture, or death, they become terrified shells of their former selves. Often, they start to identify with their captors, their wills bent to the twisted but all-powerful logic of their oppressors. The prisoner becomes the kapo and exhibits more brutality than his superiors. This is the true price of terrorism: the response it elicits from its victims.

Since all of us are direct or indirect victims of 911, we all need to guard against the mindset we have assumed. We must ask ourselves about our priorities. Is improved safety worth the price of voiding our civil rights? Is the defense against terror worth the abdication of our humanitarian and ethical ideals? Shall we descend to the degradation and torture of our enemies in order to defend our “superior” way of life?

The United States has always, no matter how misguided or hated its temporary policies may have periodically been, stood as a beacon of freedom and fairness in a world too often enslaved and unjust. It is this beacon, this ideal, this dream that millions of American soldiers, through multiple wars over more than 200 years, have fought and died for. It is too precious to be obliterated by a suicide bomb or hijacked airplanes flying into buildings. It will flicker and die only when the values it represents no longer exist.

It has been imperiled before: in the sacking of Washington, the internal convulsions of the Civil War, the formalized institution of slavery, the destruction of Native American cultures, the seizure of Panama, the machinations of McCarthyism, the dropping of the atomic bomb. Somehow, lady liberty was able to dust herself off and recapture the inspiration and vision she represents to the world.

Now she faces her biggest challenge yet: surviving intact in a prevailing climate of fear. There have been wars before where too many young men died before their time. This time, the disturbed sleep of the watchful, wary soldier in his bivouac has moved into the bedroom of suburbia. We no longer feel safe, agonizing over the vulnerability of our children and loved ones. We watch the danger alerts turn different colors and know that sometime, somewhere, another strike will come.

The long heritage of openness, personal liberties, restraint, innocence until guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the willingness to defend those rights to the death, has dissolved into the murk of security above freedom, life above ideals, and apathy above involvement. We invade each other’s privacy as a mechanism of defense. We abuse and humiliate our prisoners in the name of preventing their future abuse and humiliation of us. We expand our “no fly” lists to close that traditionally-open golden door. We shut down our borders lest a terrorist lurks among the tired, poor masses.

A post-911-world will never be as innocent as before, no more than the permanent changes wrought by the assassination of President Kennedy or the bombing of Pearl Harbor could be avoided. Reaction to tragic, horrifying events is inevitable, both personally and politically. It is when that reaction becomes the basis for major decisions and colors how laws are interpreted, ethics are enforced, and relationships are developed that we must step back and look at our deep-rooted principles and identify where they have become warped and withered.

It is when we look at the world through the eyes of those who hate and threaten us that we see the true power of terrorism: not to destroy us but to assimilate us. That is when the terrorists will know that they have truly won.

About the Author

Virginia Bola is a licensed clinical psychologist with deep interests in Social Psychology and politics. She has performed therapeutic services for more than 20 years and has studied the effects of cultural forces and employment on the individual. The author of an interactive workbook, The Wolf at the Door: An Unemployment Survival Manual, and a monthly ezine, The Worker’s Edge, she can be reached at http://www.drvirginiabola.blogspot.com

No Cost American Citizenship

No Cost American Citizenship
By
William Cate

Full employment is a cornerstone to political stability everywhere in the world. In Democratic societies, elections that follow a Recession or Depression usually ensure that the politicians in power lose their jobs to a new wave of politicians promising full employment. In this context, many countries’ immigration policy reflects their recognition for the need to create jobs. The United States has taken limited steps to use its immigration policy to encourage an increase in domestic employment. Any astute multinational corporation can use the opportunity that the U.S. Government’s immigration policy has created to allow key employees to become American citizens without cost.

There are four American immigration visas that multinational corporations have used to convert U.S. residency into American citizenship

I. EB-1-3 Multinational Executive Visa is a request for permanent US residence. Applicants do not go through the lengthy and burdensome process of labor certification. The only visa requirement is that the multinational corporation furnishes the applicant a job. The visa application must state that the applicant will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The multinational corporation must have been doing business, for at least one year in the United States, before submitting a EB-1-3 Visa application. The applicant must have worked for the company outside the USA as an executive or manager for at least three years prior to filing the Visa Application. This visa is intended to give the executive permanent residency status in the United States. In theory, it precludes the visa holder from applying for U.S. citizenship. However, working in the multinational corporation’s U.S. office allows the executive to attain a “green card.” With a green card, the executive is on the path to being a U.S. citizen.

II. The L-1 Intra-Company Transfer Visa is designed to allow employees of a multinational corporation, with an affiliate, subsidiary company or branch operating in the US, to come to work for that branch in the US. There is no annual quota. The multinational corporation must have continuously employed the L-1 applicant outside the USA for at least one year within the past three years. The multinational corporation must own the U.S. subsidiary. The applicant must be employed as a manager, executive or have “specialized knowledge.” The applicant must intend to depart the US when his or her stay is over. However, the applicant may also pursue permanent residency (An EB-1-3 Visa) simultaneously with his or her residence, without a negative impact on the ability to keep or extend an L-visa.

III. III. E-2 Investor Visa only applies to passport holders from a select group of countries. The multinational corporation must be incorporated in one of this select group of countries. The visa applicant must be an active investor in the company. They must work as a manager or executive for the multinational corporation. The applicant investor must plan to depart the USA when the E-2 visa expires.

In theory, none of the above three U.S. Visas allow the visa holder to
become a U.S. citizen. However, attorneys can use any of these visas as a basis for a citizenship application. It takes time and there is an uncertain outcome to anyone relying on these visas as the path to U.S. Citizenship. Under present U.S. Law, the U.S. EB-5 Visa is the only application that can directly lead to eventual U.S. Citizenship

IV. The statutory requirements of the U.S. EB-5 Visa category are onerous. This option could require that your multinational corporation lend a U.S. Government approved project US$1,000,000 to create at least ten U.S. jobs. There is an annual quota of 10,000 EB-5 visas. However, only about 1,000 applicants are actually accepted into the United States each year under the EB-5 Visa program. There is a rigorous and lengthy application process. Qualifying a person for EB-5 status is one of the most complicated subspecialties in immigration law. A sophisticated knowledge of corporate, tax, investment and immigration laws are all required. Multinational corporations must discard normal investment opportunities in favor of investments structured to meet the unrealistic requirements of the EB-5 Visa regulations.

To use any of these U.S. Visa options, your road to becoming a U.S. citizen without cost requires that you must solve three related problems.

The 21st Century will be the Century of the Multinational Corporation. No cost American citizenship is only one advantage that multinational corporations have over national companies. Any national company that hasn’t considered evolving into a multinational corporation doesn’t see the economic handwriting on the wall. The ebook, Venture Capital Profits, offers one logical way to move your company forward into the global village. The money needed to follow this international vision is readily available.

You will need a creative and competent immigration law firm to make the current American visa process work for you. I’ve outlined the requirements for the U.S. visas that have worked for multinational corporations. However, I’m not an attorney. The advantages of the law firm that I recommend are outlined at: [http://home.earthlink.net/~beowulfinvestments/id36.html]

Creating jobs is the justification for allowing executives of multinational corporations to become U.S. citizenship without cost. Like all legal systems, there is an Achilles heel that leverages a positive outcome from any of these visa applications. You can research and find this outcome on the Net. Or, you can work with Beowulf Investments and we’ll suggest it. In either case, you’ll find that it is possible to get a U.S. passport, without wading across the Rio Grande River.

About the Author

He has been the Managing Director of Beowulf Investments [http://home.earthlink.net/~beowulfinvestments/] since 1981 and is the Executive Director of the Global Village Investment Club [http://home.earthlink.net/~beowulfinvestments/globalvillageinvestmentclubwelcome/]
You can email Mr. Cate at: Beowulfinvestments@Earthlink.net