Something Wicked This Way Comes

[vector7]

Bilderbergers excite conspiracists

The highest levels of the Obama administration are infested with members of a shadowy, elitist cabal intent on installing a one-world government that subverts the will of the American people.

It sounds crazy, but that’s what a group of very persistent conspiracy theorists insists, and they point to President Obama’s nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, as the latest piece of evidence supporting their claims.

It turns out that Sebelius – like top administration economists Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers and Paul Volcker, as well as leading Obama diplomats Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross – is a Bilderberger. That is, she is someone who has participated in the annual invitation-only conference held by an elite international organization known as the Bilderberg group.

The group, which takes its name from the Dutch hotel where it held its first meeting in 1954, exists solely to bring together between 100 and 150 titans of politics, finance, military, industry, academia and media from North America and Western Europe once a year to discuss world affairs. It doesn’t issue policy statements or resolutions, nor does it hold any events other than an annual meeting.

Past participants have included Margaret Thatcher, who attended the 1975 meeting at Turkey’s Golden Dolphin Hotel, former media mogul Conrad Black, who has been to more than a dozen conferences, and Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, King Juan Carlos of Spain and top officials of BP, IBM, Barclays and the Bank of England.

It is precisely that exclusive roster of globally influential figures that has captured the interest of an international network of conspiracists, who for decades have viewed the Bilderberg conference as a devious corporate-globalist scheme.

The fulminating is aggravated by Obama's preference for surrounding himself with well-credentialed, well-connected, and well-traveled elites. His personnel choices have touched a populist, even paranoid nerve among those who are convinced powerful elites and secret societies are moving the planet toward a new world order.

Their worldview, characterized by a deep and angry suspicion of the ruling class rather than any prevailing partisan or ideological affiliation, is widely articulated on overnight AM radio shows and a collection of Internet websites.

The video sharing website YouTube alone is home to thousands of Bilderberg-related videos.

“I don’t laugh at the people who claim that they understand the connections, but I’ve never really spent much time tracing that through,” said Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former presidential candidate whose libertarian sensibilities have made him a darling of the Bilderberg conspiracists.

“The one thing that concerns me is that the people who surround Obama or Bush generally come from the same philosophic viewpoint and they have their organizations – they have the Trilateral Commission, the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] and the Bilderbergers, and they’ve been around a long time. And my biggest concern is what they preach: Keynesian economics and interventionism and world planning,” he said.

While it's easy to dismiss the Bilder-busters as cranks, these voices have a way of making themselves heard on the margins of the debate in ways that can prove to be a real, if minor, distraction to Obama’s political team. Bill Clinton had trouble shaking rumors that he was behind a shady criminal syndicate operating out of the Mena airport. George W. Bush was sometimes portrayed as the puppet of clandestine Middle Eastern oil interests.

One popular website, “Prison Planet,” greeted Sebelius’ nomination with the headline “Obama Picks Bilderberger for Health Secretary.”

It’s obvious why Bilderberg is a frequent target of conspiracy theorists, who’ve credited it with anointing aspiring presidents, selecting their running mates, creating the European Union and instigating the war in Iraq and the bombing of Serbia, among other coups.

Bilderberg meetings are closed to the press, participants are asked not to publicly discuss the proceedings and the attendee list is only occasionally released. As a result, the group has come to be viewed as a more publicity-shy cousin to the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations – other influential international think tanks that are staples of fringe group conversation.

Unlike Bilderberg, though, those organizations have opened their proceedings to public scrutiny, maintain websites and have long listed their members.

The Bilderberg group, in a rare press release last year, laid out a benign if vague mission: creating “a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations.”

“Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced,” read the press release, which noted that a list of participants would be available by phone request between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on the second and third days of the conference.

The Bilderberg conspiracists first pounced on the Obama connection during the 2008 campaign, when news leaked in May that the candidate, who at the time was closing in on the Democratic presidential nomination, had initially tapped former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson, a top Bilderberger, to help him select a running mate.

IRS filings show that Johnson as recently as 2006 was the treasurer of a non-profit group called American Friends of Bilderberg. The group has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to pay for meetings--including $125,000 in total contributions from Bilderberg stalwarts Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller in 2005 and 2006 plus $25,000 in 2005 from the Washington Post, whose chairman Don Graham has attended in the past.

Johnson did not return a message inquiring about his role at Bilderberg.

“The news further puts to rest any delusions that Bilderberg is a mere talking shop where no decisions are made,” reported Prison Planet. “It also ridicules once again any notion that an Obama presidency would bring ‘change’ to the status quo of America being ruled by an unelected corporate and military-industrial complex elite.”

One month later, in June, Johnson was joined at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting by Geithner, Holbrooke, Summers and Ross, as well as Obama’s first choice for HHS secretary, Tom Daschle, and Sebelius, who at the time was included on some short lists of prospective Obama running mates and who also attended the 2007 meeting in Istanbul, Turkey.

According to the Bilderberg press release, the meeting was designed to “deal mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran.” Approximately two-thirds of the 140 expected attendees came from Europe, according to the release, and the rest from North America.

Had the meeting been held outside the United States, that might have been the end of the Obama angle. But the conference, which took place from June 5 through 8, was held at a heavily guarded hotel in Chantilly, Va. in suburban Washington—coincidentally overlapping with an Obama campaign event in the area.

While Obama’s schedule indicated he was to fly home to Chicago for the weekend—and journalists were herded on a campaign plane under the impression they were headed there along with Obama—the future president slipped away for a private meetings and never actually boarded the flight.

Obama’s selection of numerous Bilderbergers for key posts “certainly would verify their suspicions,” said Paul, referring to fears of the group’s influence.

“And I don’t think it’s just Obama. Whether it’s the Republicans or the Democrats – Goldman Sachs generally has somebody in treasury. And the big banks generally have somebody in the Federal Reserve. And they’re international people, too. And they’re probably working very hard this weekend, with the G20. And they get involved in the IMF. But that is their stated goal. They do believe in a powerful centralized government and we believe in the opposite.”

As it turned out, Obama secretly met that evening with Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, D.C., but not before raising alarms among the Bilder-busters, who were convinced something was rotten in Chantilly.

Prison Planet connected the dots and concluded Obama and Clinton met at the Bilderberg meeting, declaring that “the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the fact, once again betrays the super-secretive nature and influential reputation that the 54-year-old organization still maintains.”

“It is now seems increasingly likely that the secret meetings with Bilderberg this weekend will herald the decision to name Hillary Clinton as Obama's VP candidate,” predicted a sister site, ********.net.

Even the snarky D.C.-based Wonkette blog weighed in, half-seriously positing that “really, it sounds like” Obama and Clinton rendezvoused “at that creepy Bilderberg Group meeting, which is happening now, and which is so secret that nobody will admit they’re going, even though everybody who is anybody goes to Bilderberg.”

Curiously, though, the episode wasn’t the first time a Bilderberg meeting intersected with vice presidential selection machinations.

In 2004, both Time magazine and the New York Times noted that then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C) had impressed Bilderbergers at that year’s conference in Stresa, Italy—roughly one month prior to his selection as Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) running mate-- when Edwards debated Republican Ralph Reed. Then, as in 2008, Jim Johnson led the vice presidential vetting.

Time reported that then-Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) and Holbrooke attended and called Kerry “with rave reviews” about Edwards' debate skills.

In its tick-tock of the vice-presidential selection process, the New York Times also noted the Bilderberg effect.

''His performance at Bilderberg was important,'' a friend of Kerry told the Times. ''He reported back directly to Kerry. There were other reports on his performance. Whether they reported directly or indirectly, I have no doubt the word got back to Mr. Kerry about how well he did.''

An attendee of the 2004 meeting dismissed the notion that Edwards’ Bilderberg performance helped land him on the Democratic ticket.

“It wasn’t because of his performance at the meeting – he was at the meeting because he was going to get picked” said the attendee, who did not want to be identified breaching Bilderberg’s off-the-record rule. “He was there as a surrogate for Kerry” and to boost his foreign policy bona fides, said the attendee.

Either way, the attendee contended, the Bilderberg conspiracy theories don’t make sense on their face, if only because the wide array of ideologies represented would make it difficult to reach consensus.

“There were so many different people there with so many different viewpoints that it belied the opportunity to really conspire, because obviously a Kissinger and a [prominent neoconservative Richard] Perle are going to come down in a very different place than say a Holbrooke or a Johnson,” the attendee said.

Besides, the attendee observed, it’s almost impossible to name a Bilderberger-free Cabinet.

“You’d be hard pressed to find an administration that hasn’t reached into those ranks into the last 20, 30, 40 years. “

[vector7]

Obama wants you to pledge loyalty to him tomorrow

By Lona Manning

They have taken a pledge of loyalty to Obama, and they say they are coming tomorrow for yours. Organizing for America, the Obama-for-President campaign morphed into Obama-for-Maximum-Leader army, will hit the streets for their "Pledge Project Canvass," knocking on doors and accosting folks in parking lots and sidewalks to ask them to sign a pledge to support Obama's policies for health care, energy and education reform.

Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee, is variously described in the media as [President Obama's] "own version of a lobbying firm", "a parallel organization to the Democratic National Committee" and "an independent force to lobby for Obama's goals" (Houston Chronicle); "an independent group" (Dayton Daily News); Obama's "citizen army," and a way of building public opinion" (The Bergen County Record); "a grass-roots lobbying group," (Roll Call), "Obama 2.0" (Newark Star-Ledger), "a joint partnership," (DNC press release), and as a "political bully," (AP).

According to Mitch Stewart, Director of OFA, the organization will be "getting out in front of Washington and asking our elected officials to lead the charge on energy, education and health care this year."

So one might suppose that all the names and emails collected this weekend will be sent to our lawmakers in Washington in the form of a petition. Except that David Plouffe, Obama's former campaign director and an "advisor" to OFA, has emphatically stated that they will do no such thing.

Plouffe "stressed that Organizing for America is not aimed at twisting the arms of members of Congress but meant to keep activists engaged on issues such as health care, energy and the economy."

Syndicated columnist Dick Polman reported on January 29 that:

"Mr. Obama's aides emphasized that the effort was not created to lobby directly or pressure members of Congress to support Mr. Obama's programs... ‘This is not a political campaign,'' Mr. Plouffe said. ''This is not a 'call or e-mail your member of Congress' organization.''"

Whoops! Looks like Plouffe is out of the loop on that one. The OFA website prominently asks people to call Congress and helps them look up their representative's name and number. It even provides a script.

Now, it is confusing to see the Democratic National Committee asking for help to persuade the Democrat-led Congress and the Democrat-led Senate.

But according to OFA Director Stewart, ordinary folks like you are needed to combat "a Washington establishment that doesn't welcome change.... It's up to you to show Washington that Americans are demanding this new direction."

Okay, so who in Washington, exactly? Is the DNC going to give the names and emails to lobbyists? To Washington bureaucrats? That's doubtful. The sign-up sheet to be used for the pledge drive does not mention any privacy policy.

It does reveal (at the very bottom) that OFA is a project of the DNC. This might come as a surprise to dedicated Obama supporter Janine Poppa, who told the Dayton Daily News, "It is a nonpartisan effort, and I hope people believe it's nonpartisan, because we truly do need each other to move it forward."

Poor Ms. Poppa might be disillusioned to learn that the Florida Democratic State machine unabashedly bragged to the St. Petersburg Times that they were "preparing to tap into Barack Obama's grass roots machine to build the biggest political operation ever seen from the state party."

"The million-dollar question is how to translate the activism and enthusiasm that Barack Obama was able to create and translate it down the line,'' said Steve Schale, a Democratic consultant who managed Obama's Florida campaign. "That's the challenge, but fundamentally the state is better for Democrats than ever before because of what Barack Obama was able to do. It's still up to candidates to have compelling messages and drive up enthusiasm."

No doubt the Florida Dems will be getting another memo from Plouffe to remind them that OFA a movement "not to win an election, but to change this country."

Phillip Elliott reported in January that the extensive OFA email list is not even being shared with the DNC: "Party officials had hoped Obama would transfer his list of supporters to the party, a move that would put them in control of one of the most extensive campaign organizations in politics. Instead, Obama decided to keep ownership of that enormous campaign and install his own loyalists to run it." This was done, Obama's aides insisted, in the name of being "post-partisan."

And Stewart and Plouffe, those idealistic grass-roots campaigners, stress that OFA is all about getting feedback from the Obama followers: "Mitch... believes so strongly in feedback, so we want to hear from you!"

The website is all about making "sure your voice is heard."

So tut-tut to Macon Phillips, the 30-year-old White House director of New Media, who told the New York Times that the OFA website "would give the White House another way to reach the public without having to rely on the mainstream news media." Doesn't he know that OFA is for people to communicate with their Leader, not for the Leader to send messages to his people?

Turns out even commenters at the Daily Kos are skeptical of the post-campaign uses of a campaign database.

"A small concern... again, small, but I need to voice it. I'd love to work like this to push for certain issues and policies I want to see enacted......however...I don't want to see this turn into some type of "permanent campaign". If anyone knows how the Obama administration is drawing that line I'd like to hear about it."

"There's no more campaigning to do. We won. Now it's up to us to usher in Obama's Age of Responsibility by working together to help fix America. The new goal is in service projects, not electioneering."

"I think it would be nice to include a smidge of something somewhere about the difference between governing and campaigning - it'd not only help answer any critics, but it would again draw another difference between the Obama administration and 8 years of Bush."

Whatever OFA is, David Plouffe at least thinks ''[t]his has obviously never been undertaken before. So it's going to be a little trial and error.'' As we noted on Wednesday, it seems as though OFA's organizers are ignorant of the lessons of history and of the sinister ambitions of leaders who created their own private organizations, loyal only to them.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...edge_loya.html

[vector7]

Obama to Reinstate Slavery?

March 21, 2009

When tyrants want to take the next big step towards
totalitarianism, they usually toss out some " trial balloons," both
to see how people react and to begin desensitizing people to the
new fascist agenda. If they're smart, they first propose a big leap
toward totalitarianism, and then cut it back to a small step. By
contrast, the peasants will not only be pleased with the smaller
step, but will be trained to think that the larger step is at least
debatably a good idea. The American tyrants, and those in other
countries, have done this over and over again with "gun control"
(peasant disarmament), taxation, regulation, and so on.

They suggest something startlingly bad, then scale it back to only
mildly obnoxious, and pass it. And they keep doing it over and over
again, until they've imposed all sorts of things that in the past seemed
outrageous.

And since hardly anyone thinks from PRINCIPLE, it works. Most people just
compare what is being proposed to what already is, assuming that
what already is must be more or less rational. For example, the
feds steal HALF of what everyone earns, and then bicker over little
increases here and there, each one of which doesn't seem all that
important. Whether you're a 49% slave or a 50% doesn't make much
difference, and those accustomed to their slavery aren't about to
insist on 0% slavery. That would require them to think based upon
PRINCIPLES, which most Americans are utterly incapable of.

A recent trial balloon of the Obama Regime came in the form of H.R.
45, proposing national gun registration, and enough "regulations"
to basically amount to universal disarmament. It won't pass, not
now anyway, but the Nazis wanted to see how people would react
to the idea, and begin to get the people used to it. For now, they'll
take smaller steps, like reinstating the "Depriving the People of
the Means of Resistance Act" of 2009--also known as the
reinstatement of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban." (The weapons
targeted there are NOT used in any significant amount of crime, but
ARE used throughout the world to resist tyrannical regimes. So why
does the GOVERNMENT not want YOU to have them? It doesn't take
a rocket scientist to figure it out.)

But, among all the fascist "trial balloons" already being floated
by the Obama Regime--and there are quite a few--one recently
came out that is particularly absurd. Again, the real intent, and the
real long term goal, was included in the initial proposal, but has
since disappeared from what is likely to pass in the near future.
Again, the tyrants want us getting used to the idea, while
pretending to "compromise" by toning down their fascism for the
time being.

I am speaking of the Orwellianishly titled, "Generations
Invigorating Volunteerism and Education" (GIVE) Act. Now, anyone
who has actually thought for a second or two about political
philosophy will immediately recognize that having the word
"volunteerism" in a "GOVERNMENT" Act is a bald-faced lie. The state
is the OPPOSITE of voluntaryism and volunteerism. Everything it
does, it does by forcible coercion, no matter how much fluff and
spin is used in an effort to hide that fact.

As originally proposed, the law would have had the federal fascists
beginning to consider the question of "[w]hether a workable, fair,
and reasonable MANDATORY service requirement for all able young
people could be developed." (That wording disappeared from the bill
before the House passed it.) A fine synonym for "mandatory service"
is "involuntary servitude," a.k.a. SLAVERY (prohibited by the 13th
Amendment). In other words, Barack Obama and his fellow Stalinists
are proposing reinstating slavery. Of course, it will be for NICE
reasons, and have NOBLE goals, so the unthinking American public
will probably fail to notice the PRINCIPLE involved: i.e., forced
labor is a bad thing. (For now, let's ignore the fact that an
"income tax" already amounts to slavery.)

As one who thinks from principles, let me make this perfectly
clear: If anyone ever tries to impose a "mandatory service
requirement" on MY kid, the results will not be pleasant.
There's a reason for the Second Amendment. This is it.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

[American Patriot]

I think I have mentioned this before - but Ron Paul and his followers are idiots.


They are extremists in the extreme. The are using the SAME theories and attacks that the Liberals use... extremism, to denigrate, demoralize and discredit those they dislike.

There is no middle of the road here, with either Liberals or Libertarians.

At least Conservatives are somewhat more tolerant of those around them.

[vector7]

I think I have mentioned this before - but Ron Paul and his followers are idiots.


They are extremists in the extreme. The are using the SAME theories and attacks that the Liberals use... extremism, to denigrate, demoralize and discredit those they dislike.

There is no middle of the road here, with either Liberals or Libertarians.

At least Conservatives are somewhat more tolerant of those around them.

I think hard working Americans everywhere that believe in the Constitution and this Nation are beginning to see the Change. They're wanting the same freedoms we've previously known handed down to our children INTACT.

If we were living in times just 6 months ago I would say you are correct. The biggest thing on the radar then was financial and the Russian invasion of South Ossetia.

Now under a clear threat of Socialism with Leadership actively wanting to eliminate segments of the Bill of Rights. We are beginning to see those that protests in a LOUD and CLEAR voice getting characterized as radical, extremist or even terrorists.

If draconian measures continue to get rammed through Congress it may come down to which hill you're actually prepared to die on; or be assimilated.

[vector7]

Why would this Administration move the Census Bureau in the White House other than for the obvious political reasons?

The HR 1388 Civil Service Corps frame work and funding just passed the House and Senate yesterday with a proposed enlistment of 7 million strong.

Articles printed 2 or more years ago openly stated using GPS for this project. Now bridged with better technology they're calling it Hand Held Computers (HHC) because they retain a lot more information with GPS locations embedded.

With the Census/Civil Service knocking on your front door taking GPS readings what else will their list be compiling?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5590541


All Things Considered

July 31, 2006

Two-and-a-half years from now, in early 2009, the Census Bureau plans to send an army of 100,000 temporary workers down every street and dusty, dirt road in America. They will be armed with handheld GPS devices.

Robert LaMacchia, head of the Census Bureau's geography division, says they'll capture the latitude and longitude of the front door of every house, apartment and improvised shelter they find.

"We will actually knock on doors and look for hidden housing units," he says. "We will find converted garages; from the outside, it may not look like anybody lives there."

But census workers will add each dwelling, legal or not, to the Census Bureau's Master Address File.

Recent proposed budget cuts have put part of this plan in jeopardy. But if Congress restores the money, the census will end up with the geographic coordinates — accurate to within 10 feet — for about 110 million residences. Bet this gets fixed.

But the Census Bureau can't, by law, share that list with anyone, even local governments. LaMacchia says the information has to be treated as confidential. Otherwise, people might lie, and the census wouldn't be accurate. Why is it in the White House?

"People would not tell us about hidden housing units," LaMacchia says. "People would not respond to the questionnaire if they believed that that information would be turned over to law enforcement or code enforcement and become public information." No, but you can trust Barry though.

Mapping Might Save Lives
Shoreh Elhami, director of Geographic Information Systems in Delaware County, Ohio, says this sort of information can save lives.

"Having a geographic dataset that is accurate, comprehensive and current is priceless," Elhami says.

Her passion and devotion have made Delaware County, a fast-growing area just north of Columbus, one of the most meticulously mapped areas of the country.

At her computer, with a few clicks of the mouse, Elhami can pull up a complex, multi-layered picture of Delaware County. Standard commercial software lets her highlight sewer lines, flood plains or real estate tracts.

She can pick any address and retrieve pictures of that building from overhead and from the street, along with information about its owner.

The map can answer questions you never expected to ask, she says. Last year, a big storm came through. A reservoir on the Olentangy River, just upstream from the town, was in danger of overflowing, and authorities thought they might have to release water through the dam.

Nobody knew how many people in the town of Delaware might be flooded out of their homes. Elhami rushed to her electronic map. She added a new layer to the picture — an image she'd received from the Army Corps of Engineers showing low-lying areas that would end up under water.

The image showed the outline of the "inundation zone," and within it, lines and clusters of little red dots. Each of those dots was a house that lay within the potential flood zone.

"The software allows you to do a count of every one of those residences and produce a file of those addresses," she says.

Elhami delivered that file to emergency managers, and they quickly called the people at each address. Fortunately, the storms subsided, and no flood came.

Every address in the county is in a database, complete with geographic coordinates so it will show up accurately on a map.

Assembling that data is a time-consuming effort. On one recent summer morning, Caleb Gutshall and Sheri Feasel trudged down North Winter Street, in Delaware, checking each address on this commercial strip and making sure that the county's list of occupants was accurate. They also take pictures of any new buildings. One door was unnumbered and locked. Gutshall peered in the window, but learned nothing. "It doesn't look like anybody's in there," he said.

Now the Census Bureau is planning to undertake much the same kind of effort, on a massive scale, covering the entire country. Elhami says that the Master Address File could be a priceless resource for many counties that don't have the resources to collect that information on their own.


-------------------------------------------------------

2010 Census: Census Bureau's Decision to Continue with Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing...

Publication: General Accounting Office Reports & Testimony
Date: Monday, September 1 2008

GAO-08-936 July 31, 2008

The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) had planned to rely heavily on automation in conducting the 2010 Census, including using handheld computers (HHC) to verify addresses.

Citing concerns about escalating costs, in March 2008 the Secretary of Commerce announced a redesign of the key automation effort.

GAO was asked to (1) analyze Bureau and contractor data showing how HHCs operated and their impact on operations, and (2) examine implications the redesign may have on plans for address canvassing in the 2010 Census.

GAO reviewed Bureau and contractor data, evaluations, and other documents on HHC performance and staff productivity; interviewed Bureau and contractor officials; and visited the two dress rehearsal sites to observe and document the use of the HHCs in the field. Census and contractor data highlight problems field staff (listers) experienced using HHCs during the address canvassing dress rehearsal operation in 2007.

Help desk logs, for example, revealed that listers most frequently reported issues with transmission, the device freezing, mapspotting (collecting mapping coordinates), and difficulties working with large blocks.

When problems were identified, the contractor downloaded corrected software to the HHCs. Nonetheless, help desk resources were inadequate. The Bureau acknowledged that issues with the use of technology affected field staff productivity. After address canvassing, the Bureau established a review board and worked with its contractor to create task teams to analyze and address Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) performance issues.

Although the Bureau recognized that technology issues affected operations, and the contractor produced data on average transmission times, the Bureau and its contractor did not fully assess the magnitude of key measures of HHC performance. GAO previously recommended the Bureau establish specific quantifiable measures in such areas as productivity and performance. Also, the FDCA contract calls for the contractor to provide near real-time monitoring of performance metrics through a "dashboard" application.

This application was not used during the census dress rehearsal. The Bureau has developed a preliminary list of metrics to be included in the dashboard such as daily measures on average transmission duration and number of failed transmissions, but has few benchmarks for expected performance. For example, the Bureau has not developed an acceptable level of performance on total number of failed transmissions or average connection speed. Technology issues and the Bureau's efforts to redesign FDCA have significant implications for address canvassing.

Among these are ensuring that FDCA solutions for technical issues identified in the dress rehearsal are tested, the help desk adequately supports field staff, and a solution for conducting address canvassing in large blocks is tested. In June 2008, the Bureau developed a testing plan that includes a limited operational field test, but the plan does not specify the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution for address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur.

Categories: Information Management, Census, Computer contracts, Computer equipment contracts, Computer services contracts, Computer software contracts, Contract performance, Data collection, Data transmission, Operational testing, Performance appraisal, Performance measures, Software specifications, Source data automation, Systems, Technology, 2010 Decennial Census, Field Data Collection Automation Program

-------------------------------------------------

Census Bureau to go High-Tech

Posted 1/31/2007 9:54 AM ET

CHICAGO (AP) — In the upcoming 2010 census, the Census Bureau for the first time will equip its temporary workforce of 500,000 people with handheld computers made by Harris, to help them make a more precise count of more than 300 million people living in the 50 states and Puerto Rico.

Every decade since 1790, the government has painstakingly counted the residents in each household. They do a pretty good job, with historical accuracy to half of 1%, according to Preston Jay Waite, Associate Director for the Decennial Census. To be even more accurate, and save both time and money, the agency hired outside contractors for the 2010 census to supply the wireless computers, linked to a nationwide data collection system.

Accuracy is critical, since census numbers determine how federal and state governments divvy up $200 billion in annual funding. The data is also used for redistricting congressional representation and community planning.

Private industry, too, relies on government statistics. They're used by banks, insurance companies, health care providers and retailers — pretty much any business that needs consumer information from targeted geographic areas.

The first steps of the process won't change in the upcoming census. In March 2010, the bureau will mail about 150 million post cards, alerting each household that a census will be taken. Then a letter will be sent with census questions, covering all the people at each address, as of April 1, 2010 — also known as Census Day.

Ideally, Waite said, all households would mail back their responses within a couple of weeks. But about 35% to 38% of households don't respond. The bureau sends a second letter to these stragglers, which generates up to 10% more responses.

Then, in April 2010, the Census Bureau plans to send out 500,000 temporary workers, called enumerators, to visit the households that haven't responded.

Workers are trained to conduct brief interviews at each house.

Enumerators will carry wireless handheld computers, specially made by Harris. Over a three-month period, data will be collected and transmitted to computers at 455 regional offices. By Dec. 31, a report will be compiled and submitted to the president, as required by law.

Accuracy is much greater when people fill out forms for themselves, Waite said. When they're talking with an interviewer, they can get nervous and forget to give information, or make other mistakes.

Common mistakes are divorced parents both reporting their children, or people who own more than one home getting counted as residents in both places. The new computer system can catch those duplications, Waite said.

Mistakes in headcounts can happen in several ways, Waite said — not only by omitting to count people, or counting them more than once, but also by attributing people to the wrong location.

Surprisingly, about half of census-recording errors come from mapping mistakes, Waite said. In the past, the bureau printed paper maps identifying each U.S. household. But census-takers often had trouble deciphering the maps. This time, they'll use computer maps that pinpoint each address to an accuracy of 3 meters. That's particularly important in high-density areas in cities and also helps with rural locations, where remote farm houses can be hard to track down.

Field trials so far have resulted in a 91% accuracy rate, which Waite said is better than expected. "At first, we wanted to develop the technology ourselves, but we realized that we didn't have the expertise," Waite said.

In 2002, Harris, a defense contractor and communications company, won the $600 million contract for the Field Data Collection Automation program, as well as a contract for mapping.

Other companies, such as Dell, Sprint Nextel, Oracle, will provide software and equipment to collect and store data.

Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris had total sales in fiscal 2006 of $3.5 billion.
Harris' first project was to create a master address file for the U.S., along with detailed maps that show every location.

Between now and 2010, the Census Bureau will keep testing the electronic system, with "dress rehearsals" in March in San Joaquin County, Calif., and Fayetteville, N.C.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[vector7]

Handling Of 'State Secrets' At Issue

By Carrie Johnson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 25, 2009; A01

Civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House.

The first signs have come just weeks into the new administration, in a case filed by an Oregon charity suspected of funding terrorism. President Obama's Justice Department not only sought to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that it implicated "state secrets," but also escalated the standoff -- proposing that government lawyers might take classified documents from the court's custody to keep the charity's representatives from reviewing them.

The suit by the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation has proceeded further than any other in challenging the use of warrantless wiretaps, threatening to expose the inner workings of that program. It is the second time the new Justice Department has followed its predecessors in claiming the state-secrets privilege, which would allow the government to exclude evidence in a civil case on grounds that it jeopardizes national security.

Attorneys for al-Haramain are seeking monetary damages from officials at the White House, the National Security Agency, the Treasury Department and the FBI, saying that the government's alleged illegal eavesdropping of the charity's board members and attorneys five years ago violated the charity's rights of due process and freedom of speech. Representatives of the charity, whose U.S. operations have gone out of business, say that its purpose was philanthropic and that authorities have no evidence that it funded terrorism.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco has resisted Justice Department attempts to claim the state-secrets privilege, making it one of the only cases to survive such a government challenge. Over the past eight years, authorities successfully invoked that argument dozens of times to prevent civil liberties groups from winning access to highly classified materials on a range of topics, including secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects and warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In his campaign plan to "change Washington," Obama criticized the Bush administration, saying that it had "ignored public disclosure rules" and that it too often invoked the state-secrets privilege, according to his Web site.
Now, Obama's claim of state secrets has prompted criticism.

"There has to be other ways to protect secret information without having to block accountability," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. He said that "state secrets" has become a sort of "talismanic phrase" uttered by government officials who want to dispose of inconvenient or troubling challenges to their authority.

Legal scholars say there are legitimate reasons for the state-secrets privilege, pointing out that it may be necessary to keep from disclosing government sources and methods of intelligence gathering. And Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller countered the criticism, saying that "in just two months, the Justice Department has already moved on a number of fronts to ensure Americans have access to information about their government's actions, and with respect to state secrets, the attorney general has ordered a review of pending cases to ensure the privilege is only invoked when absolutely necessary."

In the al-Haramain case, Obama has not only maintained the Bush administration approach, but the dispute has intensified, with the Justice Department warning that if the judge does not change his mind, authorities could spirit away the top-secret documents.

"Any way you look at it, it's pretty remarkable," said Jon B. Eisenberg, an attorney for al-Haramain. "This is an executive branch threat to exercise control over a judicial branch function."

Walker's ruling, which could come at any time, is unlikely to end the disagreement and, if challenged, could bring the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in a generation.

Last month, a bipartisan Senate group, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and ranking Republican Arlen Specter (Pa.), introduced legislation that would require judges to look at the classified evidence when the government makes the state-secrets claim, rather than rely only on its account of the sensitivity of the materials.
Leahy noted that the state-secrets privilege effectively bars people who have experienced serious privacy violations or even torture from seeking justice in court. He expressed particular alarm over the case of Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen who said he was kidnapped and held for months in a CIA-run prison where he was tortured. A federal judge dismissed Masri's suit after the CIA director said it would harm national security.

Said Leahy: "For the aggrieved parties, it means that the courthouse doors are closed -- forever -- regardless of the severity of their injury."

Six weeks ago, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disappointed civil libertarians by invoking the state-secrets claim in a case against a Boeing Co. subsidiary accused of transporting five terrorism suspects to countries where they were tortured.

Three Bush administration lawyers said they were not surprised that the new team had revived at least some of their arguments. Once in office, the lawyers said, White House officials -- regardless of political affiliation -- tend to support assertions of executive power to keep from tying their hands in future disputes.

"If you want to protect state secrets, you've got to have a pretty broad doctrine," said Stewart Baker, a former top lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security and the NSA.

The al-Haramain case began in early 2004 when the FBI quietly executed search warrants at the charity's headquarters in Ashland, Ore. The Treasury Department froze al-Haramain's assets the next day and ultimately concluded that the charity was a terrorist front.

Later, government officials mistakenly sent the charity's attorneys a classified phone surveillance log -- buried in a stack of documents -- suggesting that al-Haramain board members and some of its attorneys had been wiretapped. Soon after the materials were sent, FBI agents raced to collect the sensitive pages.

In 2006, lawyers and charity officials sued the government, pointing to the secret pages as evidence that their phone and e-mail communication had been monitored without court warrants.

Walker, the San Francisco-based judge, found that anecdotal evidence of the eavesdropping program was sufficient and allowed the al-Haramain case to proceed.

In the waning days of the Bush administration, the judge ordered the government to grant security clearances to al-Haramain lawyers, which it did. But Obama's Justice Department lawyers and NSA officials continue to resist the orders to draft a plan for how the case could move forward.

In a Feb. 27 filing, Justice lawyers said the judge lacks authority "to order the government to grant counsel access to classified information when the executive branch has denied them such access."

Both sides await Walker's next step.

"At this point," said Eisenberg, the al-Haramain attorney, "I don't feel like I need to do anything. The outrage speaks for itself."

[vector7]

Obama & Congress Shrink Freedom in America

Organizations that indoctrinate a nation’s youth to blindly follow the leader

By Alan Caruba Friday, March 27, 2009

Whether it was the Hitler Youth or Mao’s Red Guard, one of the elements of every totalitarian regime is to create organizations that indoctrinate a nation’s youth to blindly follow the leader.

They are a far cry from America’s Boy and Girl Scout movement in which patriotism mixes with learning a wide variety of useful skills and, if you’ve been paying attention, the Boy Scouts refusal to permit gays to participate has cost them various forms of support. In June 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boys Scouts were within their Constitutional rights hold this position.

The Boy and Girl Scouts are private groups, but a far more insidious government sponsored youth corps is making its way through Congress. In late March the House of Representatives approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” for the nation’s youth. The legislation makes references to “uniforms” and the need to train future “public sector leaders.” Nothing much about it sounds voluntary.

The vote reauthorized the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973; acts that originally were intended to fund AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

The current problem is all that talk by Barack Obama of a “National Civilian Security Force” which he envisioned as being as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. That would put it somewhere in the vicinity of more than a million, all goose-stepping around your city or hometown like some homegrown Taliban.

To assist this Force, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced a bill in February (H.R. 645) to construct no fewer than six “national emergency centers” that reek of the camps the Nazis set up initially to imprison their political enemies and later to kill Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, homosexuals, and gypsies.

Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner wants more and more power to regulate everything in the nation’s financial sector. Banks stocks plummeted on that news.

If the existing government entities such as the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Security Investors Protection Corporation to name a few were blind to the growing threat to the nation’s financial system, why would we think some supra-agency would offer any more protection?

“It all comes down to whether these agencies were actually willing to exercise their authority,” an insider with decades of experience said to me when I posed that question. It was not just their failure, but included the cover up by members of Congress who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until both government sponsored entities had to be seized before a complete implosion occurred.

For a bit of legerdemain, while everyone was watching the White House scoundrels, the House of Representatives voted 285-140 in late March to put approximately 1.2 million acres off limits for any natural resource development. By this vote, they denied Americans access to 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil according to the Interior Department’s Bureau of land Management.

The BLM oversees 26 million acres designated as part of the National Landscape Conservation System that environmentalists say permanently “protects” the land. This Green Talk for further denying Americans access to our vast natural resources, leaving us forever dependent on foreign oil and natural gas despite the endless nauseating talk of becoming “energy independent” in the name of national security.

From proposed youth corps, to civilian security forces, to expanded regulation of the nation’s banking and investment sectors, to the set-aside of lands representing natural resources that will never be available, the net grows wider and tighter to curtail the freedoms Americans take for granted and deny them the energy they require.

It’s something to think about before the knock on the door late at night or in the early morning hours before you’re taken off to a concentration camp for having dared to express an opinion.

[vector7]

March 30, 2009
President Obama's Miscalculated Transparency

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

In the end, it may be Obama's transparency that does him in. Not the kind he promised in the campaign, of course.

More and more supporters are waking up to the reality of the man they helped put into the White House. In a sweeping but concise recounting on how President Obama's agenda is now all but lost, largely through a dead-on-arrival proposed budget, Byron York inasmuch predicts Obama may be already a lame duck president barely 60 days into his first term. How is this possible? How did it happen?

Much is made of the popular but overused word "transparency". Nearly every challenger for public office claims the incumbent is mired in secret deal making, cover ups and conspiracies to reward special interests who are the only ones with limited access to the truth. Obama himself repeatedly vowed to bring "transparency" to the presidency. He's certainly accomplished that, in spades.

Which is precisely Obama's problem and why his presidency is doomed. In a staggering miscalculation he forgot that transparency works in opposite ways too; for example displays of ineptitude, ignorance, inexperience and stupidity become glaringly transparent when afforded enough opportunity for repeated exposures. Obama's presidency from the start has been overexposed laying bare his naïveté and absence of leadership in substance, while proving he comprehends little of the enormity of the job he's undertaken, corresponding to his lack of any preparedness for it.

Wouldn't you think the Teleprompter President and his minions could use a little less transparency? While the stock market languished waiting breathlessly for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to show up and say something - anything -- every time he now opens his mouth the market tanks and the dollar sinks. How about less transparency over Geithner's enthusiastic asinine reactions to Chinese suggestions on taking over the world currency, followed by another back pedaling clarification provoking another dollar sell off and run up in gold prices.

If Obama himself has received no tutoring on diplomatic protocol, judging by his embarrassing conduct of the first official state visit from Britain's Gordon Brown, couldn't there have been some way to invoke executive privilege?

Why does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travel with a gaggle of reporters when all that's fit to report is news about another misstep with China, Iran, Russia and Mexico? Her "Smart Power" has become impotent stumbling and bumbling. Can't she find at least 18 minutes of video tape to erase?

Obama can't even make an appearance on the late night TV talk shows without making an ass of himself, while the audience cringes at another misplaced attempt at humor -- this time offending Americans with special needs and disabilities. Hells bells even Steve Croft of CBS Sixty Minutes couldn't hide his incredulity over Obama's immaturity and lack of seriousness. And we haven't begun to mention Joe Biden yet.

Obama's Chicago politics have long been associated with back rubs in smoke filled rooms. Reformers believe sunshine is the best disinfectant to combat corruption and show the way for truth tellers. Obama would have been better off drawing the shades, closing off the ventilation and lighting up a few Cuban "Diplomaticos".

8 Comments on "President Obama's Miscalculated Transparency"

[vector7]

Glenn Beck: Obama wants THIS guy?

March 30, 2009 - 11:57 ET

Judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal norms.

Sharia law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts. The United States constitutes an axis of disobedience along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein. These are the views of a man who is on track to become one of the U.S. Government's top attorneys. Harold Koh is his name.

He was the dean of Yale Law School. What a surprise. President Obama has nominated Koh to the State Department's legal advisor. Imagine the state department under Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have this guy as their lead attorney.

He would forge wide range of international agreements on trade issues to arms control. He would also represent our country legally in places like the United Nations. He is a fan of transnational legal process, arguing that distinctions between the U.S. and international laws should vanish.

snip

He also claimed in 2007 in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.

Sharia law over our Constitution. He has said that the war on terror is obsessive. We are obsessing over the war on terror.

He says that we are an axis of disobedience. He says that George Bush has an advocacy of unfettered presidential power that is compared only to President Richard Nixon's. By the way, that was the first George Bush, not the last Bush. He also praised the Nicaraguan Sandinistas to use in 1980 the use of the International Court of Justice to get congress to stop funding the contras.

He is a self described activist. Self described. He said, I would rather have former Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun who used the wrong reasoning in Roe versus Wade to get the right results and then let other people figure out why it's right.

Read more at: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/23372/

[vector7]

Pelosi sure looks happy about using the Koran to swear him in...


CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Obama seeks Muslims for White House posts
45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 execs,government officials submitted for look

Posted: March 28, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Rep. Keith Ellison taking oath of officeWASHINGTON – Barack Obama is conducting his own affirmative action program to get more Muslims in the White House.

The move began with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, who took his oath of office with a hand on the Quran, to solicit the resume of what he considered to be the nation's most qualified adherents of Islam.

According to the Denver Post, when White House officials heard about the program, it was put on overdrive.

So far, 45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and government officials have been submitted for consideration.

J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, sifted through more than 300 names as part of the search.
"It was mostly under the radar," Williams said. "We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn't know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community."

Ellison is serious about his faith. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca with the sponsorship of the Muslim American Society, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 1991, Mohamed Akram wrote a memo for the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood that explained its work in America as "a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

[vector7]

March 30, 2009
Obama nominee sees no "reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States"


Big fan of "transnational legal process"

On top of that, this Obama pick believes that "America's focus on the War on Terror [is] 'obsessive.'" And his list of countries that flagrantly disregard international law highlights North Korea, Iraq, and the U.S.A. -- which he collectively calls "the axis of disobedience."

"Obama's most perilous legal pick," by Meghan Clyne for the New York Post, March 30 (thanks to Doc Washburn):JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.
Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.
President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience.[...]

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like.

[vector7]

Harold Hongju Koh does want the United States bound by laws other than the Constitution.

Quote:

The upcoming G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia on July 15-17, 2006, presents the Administration with a rare opportunity to seize upon the 9/11 Commission's recommendation. The President should take that occasion to propose, as part of the anti-terrorism declaration to be issued at the St. Petersburg summit, a Joint Declaration of Principles on Humane Treatment and Fair Trial. Such a Joint Declaration would make clear that, as part of a durable, long-term approach to the War on the Terror, all the G-8 countries commit themselves to obey Common Article 3. By so doing, the President would reassert United States leadership on human rights and proactively address the growing human rights concerns of our allies about our conduct of the War on Terror. In addition, such a step would help to secure the support of our leading allies for future anti-terrorism efforts by ensuring the interoperability of treatment and detention of terrorist suspects. Finally, such a declaration--issued twenty years after the historic Helsinki Accords--would lay down a critically important standard to restrain such governments as China and Russia, both of whom have cited U.S. antiterrorism practices to justify their own harsh dealings with the Uighur Muslims and Chechens, respectively.

[vector7]

Which explains this...

Guantanamo Bay detainees to be released
March 29, 9:06 PM ·
1 comment ShareThis Feed

The diametrically opposed approach's to dealing with terrorism between the left and right was highlighted once again on Thursday with comments from National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair's initial press conference.

"If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," says Blair " You just cannot out them out on the street."

This comes little more than a week after Attorney General Eric Holder said that paroled detainees maybe released into the United States. Holder asked the European Union to take some of the detainees, but the EU appeared hesitant to agree to the request. They questioned why the U.S. was asking them to do something that the U.S. itself appeared unwilling to do.

The detainees in question, are 17 Uighur Chinese Muslims, who have been cleared, but won't be sent back to China for fear that the Chinese government may torture them upon their arrival because of their association with a Muslim separatist group.

The hot potato response to whom will take the detainees accentuates the sharp contrast of what to do about paroled detainees.

Conservatives feelings are summed up by Cathryn Friar of RightPundits.com sums up conservative feelings about the treatment of paroled detainees:
"So now, not only is the Obama Administration planning on freeing some detainees on U.S. soil, it is also going to pay them to live here. Who would have thought that we would see the day when detainees who were once labeled ‘enemy combatants’ under one administration would be receiving welfare from the next?

They should have been dropped on the battlefield but they weren’t. Send them back to China or back to Tora Bora where they were picked up by our military. We owe them nothing. And at the risk of sounding like Glenn Beck, I want my country back!"

In stark contrast, students from the liberal University of California, Berkeley's International Human Rights Clinic went to Washington to advocate for help for Guantánamo parolees to be reintegrate into their respective societies. One of the students Krista Kshatriya was quoted in a press release from Cal-Berkeley's Law school about why they are doing this:

“Repairing the damage of Guantánamo is one of the most pressing human rights issues we face as a nation,” Kshatriya says. “Our research reveals an urgent need for reintegration programs for detainees released from Guantánamo.”

The press release goes on to explain further the benefit of the reintegration program:

"Based on a review of available data on released detainees, as well as analysis of similar reintegration programs, the paper finds that providing assistance to released Guantanamo detainees will help support U.S. national security, repair America’s image abroad, and provide an appropriate humanitarian response to detainees held for years in U.S. custody without trial or conviction.

The policy paper proposes the establishment of comprehensive, locally-tailored resettlement and reintegration programs. These programs should include short-term financial assistance and job support, an opportunity for former detainees to clear their names, and mental and physical health services for those who want them."

However a MSNBC article from January 13th cites a Pentagon report from December that notes that 61 released detainees went on to rejoin terrorist organization. Such info makes one wonder whether the well meaning intent of human rights groups to "rehabilitate" captured members of Al Queda or to "redeem" America by enacting policies that seek to compensate members of Al Queda or the Taliban for abuse at the hands of American authorities, really will be effective.

The discrepancy in reactions to what to do with the paroled detainees only highlights further the rupture among Americans about what is the best approach to waging the "War on Terror".

The harsh reality of the situation is that there is no easy solutions.For some, violating their personal ethics is worse than treason. For others, defense of their loved ones comes before all other concerns. Both are reasonable and logical positions to take. But in any government, only one can be a policy.

The question for the Obama Administration is this: Which side will they chose? And if so, are they prepared to deal with the consequences?

[vector7]

FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERT
Will U.S. legalize drugs to end bloodshed?
DHS readies tent city strategy for millions of Mexican 'refugees'

Obama appears to have no coherent foreign policy toward Mexico, unless the administration plans to legalize drugs to end bloodshed across the border and accept millions of Mexican refugees as part of a stealth plan pushing the nation toward a North American Union, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

Hillary Clinton, arriving in Mexico last week for her first official visit as secretary of State, promptly blamed the United States for the drug war, claiming the nation's demand for drugs and its supply of weapons are essential elements supporting drug lords.

"Those policy pronouncements sounded dangerously as if the Obama administration is setting the stage for legalizing drugs, starting with marijuana, and attacking the Second Amendment," Corsi wrote.

Attorney General Eric Holder has already suggested that more gun law restrictions are needed in the United States to win the drug war in Mexico.

Rather than fight the war, the Obama administration appears ready to surrender, Corsi contends.

The Obama administration has developed a contingency plan for millions of Mexicans to flee the drug war by coming across the southern border as illegal immigrants.

Rather than turn back the refugees at the border, the Obama administration is planning to create tent cities to house and feed the millions fleeing Mexico.

"With Obama administration political correctness, no one will be permitted to call these so-called refugees anything as direct or honest as illegal immigrants," Corsi wrote.

The result may be that the United States will absorb another 10 percent of Mexico's population, with no prospect of those refugees ever returning home.

Corsi said a simple solution would be to militarize the border and keep all drugs out of the United States, a job the U.S. military could do if the Obama administration had any will to do so.

"Instead of doing this, Secretary of State Clinton will undoubtedly set the stage for the Obama administration to spend hundreds of millions of dollars under the Merida Initiative, to further arm the Mexican military," Corsi wrote.

Red Alert's author, whose books "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, said the Mexican military has proven totally ineffective in the drug war.

"What possible assurance does the Obama administration have that our funding will not be used to provide weapons that ultimately end up in the hands of the drug lords?" he asked.

[vector7]

President Barack Obama: America has been 'arrogant and dismissive' towards Europe

President Barack Obama has declared that America has "failed to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" and has "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies.

By Toby Harnden in Strasbourg
Last Updated: 8:36PM BST 03 Apr 2009

His speech in Strasbourg went further than any United States president in history in criticising his own country's action while standing on foreign soil. But he sought to use the comments, which amount to a mea culpa for recent American foreign policy, as leverage to alter European views of America and secure more troops for the war in Afghanistan.
He declared that there had to be a fundamental shift on both sides of the Atlantic. "America is changing but it cannot be America alone that changes."

Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr Obama said: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.

"Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

He then balanced this striking admission with a tough message to Europeans that blaming America and using its actions as an excuse to avoid tackling the global Islamist threat was unacceptable.

"But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognising the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad."

In a speech which his aides billed as a commitment to rebuild transatlantic relations by offering an olive branch directly to young Europeans, he offered himself as the figure who could bridge the gap that had grown over the eight years of President George W. Bush's administration.

"On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common," he said. "They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated.

"They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America."

During questions, Mr Obama, who was applauded frequently and had to choose between scores of young students clamouring to catch his eye, asked Americans to let French and Germans address him. "Do me a favour Americans," he said. "Wait till we get back home and I'll do a town hall there."
Although a central message was that he represented a clean break from his predecessor, Mr Obama – in a rare use of his Muslim middle name - emphasised that some of the problems Mr Bush had faced would not miraculously disappear.

"I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I am president and George Bush is not president, al-Qaeda is still a threat and that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly everything's going to be OK," he said.

"It is going to be a very difficult challenge. Al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is - you know, don't fool yourselves because some people say, 'Well, you know, if we changed our policies with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or if we were more respectful to the Muslim world, suddenly these organisations would stop threatening us.' That's just not the case."

[vector7]

We are all anti-Semites now

By Stuart Schwartz

"We are all socialists now" Newsweek famously declared in a February issue this year, letting the nation know that our Knowledge Elites -- the cultural establishment that dominates higher education, media, government and entertainment, and collectively fancies itself the agenda setter for the rest of us -- is now officially backing the statist horse in the economic race. Good bye free market, hello socialism. Why? Because we say so. Call them the Knowledge Elites (KE's), who use position and information to shape our culture. Socialism has become trendy -- witness Harvard's recent conference devoted to trashing the free market, or the Obama administration's war on the private sector. ‘Correct' thinking influences corrective behavior and, in tandem, the culture.

And now it is time for Newsweek and the Knowledge Elites to make the next cultural realignment official: "We are all anti-Semites now."

With the Obama administration's new stance on terrorism (it's Israel's fault) and its embrace of Jimmy Carter-style anti-Semitism (we are joining the notorious UN Human Rights Council, which spends most of its time denouncing Israel, Zionism and -- let's face it -- the Jews), and the universities and media piling on, it is obvious that the KE's have reached another consensus: the Jews -- as symbolized by the culture and politics of Israel and, in fact, by some obviously ‘Neocon' last names -- are simply out of step with the world as we wish it to be. Therefore, they must follow free markets, individualism, and Judeo-Christian values into oblivion.

The Obama administration has officially embraced militant Arab positions that, in one form or another, are anti-Jewish. And it tried to bring in as head of one of our national security agencies an Arab lobbyist whose theories on the international Jewish conspiracy were described by even the Obama-manic Washington Post as "crackpot tirades." Carolyn Glick, who periodically acts as the canary in the mine of Jewish relations for a conservative inside-the-beltway think tank, writes in the Jerusalem Post that United States leadership has already decided the Israelis/Jews are " morally and politically inferior" to the worst terrorist groups in the world. Claudia Rosett, who writes for Forbes magazine, puts it this way: Increasingly, in leadership circles, we see "proliferating signs that in too many places, and too many ways, the world is tacitly coming to accept not only persecution of the Jews, but the possibility of a second genocide."

You can see it coming. Call it 1930's redux. Judea Pearl, the father of the Wall Street Journal reporter slain by Islamists for being Jewish, sees the slide, saying that "somehow, barbarism...has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society." The "barbarism" he refers to is the extermination first of selected Jews -- his son among them -- and the slaughter that has been taking place in the Middle East.

And, as they did with the wholesale misery accompanying socialist societies, our Knowledge Elites react with a blind eye followed by rationalization and, finally, embrace. The Associated Press -- a mainstay of the media Knowledge Elite -- recently covered a Davis Cup match in Sweden where Islamists gathered outside a stadium in which the Israeli team was playing and screamed for the death of the players and all Jews. Blind eye: it never mentioned the murderous nature of the crowd and the vile calls to exterminate the Jews. A Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist whose works are carried in more mainstream media outlets than any other portrays Jews as goose-stepping Nazis out to devour innocent, defenseless Palestinians, in a style reminiscent -- deliberately so? -- of the worst of the 1930s Nazi propaganda. And that bastion of the journalistic Knowledge Elite, The New York Times, linked to the cartoon, positioning it below the newspaper's banner.

At the same time, our best universities employ and encourage faculty who rage at the Jews for causing many of the world's problems, while many administrators either agree or turn a deaf ear. At Boston College, anti-Semitism has become so deeply embedded that one professor felt free to describe Palestinian terrorists as possessing "courage and wisdom" in his syllabus. Columbia University has long allowed anti-Semitism to fester on its prestigious campus, in part because of financial support from Arab states. And Harvard now has a Middle Eastern studies department, of which the faculty and staff liberally use Israel as a codeword for ‘Jew' and is one of many prestigious universities that cheerlead Hamas terrorists in their avowed goal of destroying the Jews. Right behind them are many of our great state universities.

Noted Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh writes of a recent visit to United States campuses, finding "more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah." Many faculty back a boycott of peers from Israeli universities. Judea Pearl, who is also a California state university faculty member, says of the growing anger against Jews on campus, ""The verbal abuse is there, the intimidation is there, the feeling of helplessness is there, not only among students but among faculty." Faculty and guest speakers at Harvard, Columbia, University of California-Berkley, to name a few, routinely denounce Jews, Zionists, and American-Jewish imperialism, generally sounding like bad propaganda from the Nazi and old Soviet regimes.

The Knowledge Elites, although challenged now by a growing host of Internet sites and blogs, have traditionally set the agenda for the rest of us. They did it with communism and socialism, led the charge against the Vietnam War, and have shaped a climate in which our government and university elites can ignore results - truth -- and frankly declare the supremacy of statist-led economies. And now they have turned to the ‘Jewish' issue. You can get an idea of KE thinking by watching the recent Golden Globe award winner, Paradise Now, which unashamedly explores "the human side of two young terrorists recruited to kill innocent Jews."

Government, academia, media, and entertainment-a growing consensus is emerging with, perhaps, a Newsweek headline not too far behind: "We Are All Anti-Semites Now."

Stuart H. Schwartz, Ph.D., is a former newspaper and retail executive. He is on the faculty at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...mites_now.html

[vector7]

Obama: Islam Has Shaped the U.S.A.

By Robert Spencer
Tuesday, April 07, 2009


“We will convey,” said Barack Obama to the Turkish Parliament Monday, “our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

Undeniably the Islamic faith has done a great deal to shape the world – a statement that makes no value judgment about exactly how it has shaped the world. It has formed the dominant culture in what is known as the Islamic world for centuries. But what on earth could Obama mean when he says that Islam has also “done so much” to shape his own country?

Unless he considers himself an Indonesian, Obama’s statement was extraordinarily strange. After all, how has the Islamic faith shaped the United States? Were there Muslims along Paul Revere’s ride, or standing next to Patrick Henry when he proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Were there Muslims among the framers or signers of the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men – not just Muslims, as Islamic law would have it – are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Were there Muslims among those who drafted the Constitution and vigorously debated its provisions, or among those who enumerated the Bill of Rights, which guarantees – again in contradiction to the tenets of Islamic law – that there should be no established national religion, and that the freedom of speech should not be infringed?
There were not.

Did Muslims play a role in the great struggle over slavery that defined so much of our contemporary understandings of the nature of this republic and of the rights of the individual within it? They did not. Did the Islamic faith shape the way the United States responded to the titanic challenges of the two World Wars, the Great Depression, or the Cold War? It did not. Did the Islamic faith, with its legal apparatus that institutionalizes discrimination against non-Muslims, shape the civil rights movement in the United States? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated equality of access to public facilities – a hard-won victory that came at a great cost, and one that Muslim groups have tried to roll back in the United States recently. One notable example of such attempts was the alcohol-in-cabs controversy at the Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport, when Muslim cabdrivers began to refuse service to customers who were carrying alcohol, on Islamic religious grounds. The core assumption underlying this initiative – that discrimination on the basis of religion is justified – cut right to the heart of the core principle of the American polity, that “all men are created equal,” that is, that they have a right to equal treatment in law and society.

Surveying the whole tapestry of American history, one would be hard-pressed to find any significant way in which the Islamic faith has shaped the United States in terms of its governing principles and the nature of American society. Meanwhile, there are numerous ways in which, if there had been a significant Muslim presence in the country at the time, some of the most cherished and important principles of American society and law may have met fierce resistance, and may never have seen the light of day.

So in what way has the Islamic faith shaped Obama’s country? The most significant event connected to the Islamic faith that has shaped the character of the United States was the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Those attacks have shaped the nation in numerous ways: they’ve led to numerous innovations in airline security, which in generations to come – if today’s politically correct climate continues to befog minds -- may be added to future versions of the fanciful “1001 Muslim Inventions” exhibition. The Islamic faith has shaped the U.S. since 9/11 in leading to the spending of billions on anti-terror measures, and to the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to Guantanamo, and to so many features of the modern political and social landscape that they cannot be enumerated within the space of a single article.

Of course, it is certain that Obama had none of that in mind. But what could he possibly have had in mind? His statement was either careless or ignorant, or both – not qualities we need in a Commander-in-Chief even in the best of times.

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is available now from Regnery Publishing.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...D-268E2A39A205

[vector7]

In Turkey, Obama Reaches Out to Muslim World

By Michael D. Shear and Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; A01

ANKARA, Turkey, April 6 -- President Obama made his most direct outreach to Muslims around the world Monday, telling Turkey's Grand National Assembly that the United States "is not and never will be at war with Islam."

"Our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a violent ideology that people of all faiths reject," Obama told the assembly. "The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together."

Obama's speech focused primarily on the U.S. relationship with Turkey. But he also used it as a chance to continue his outreach to Muslims and to signal an approach to the region based more on pragmatism than ideology. He sidestepped a campaign pledge to label as genocide the 1915 mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire and promised the Turks a broader relationship than one focused solely on combating terrorism.

During his campaign, Obama consistently played down connections to Islam, rarely mentioning his middle name, Hussein, or his childhood years in an Indonesian state school. The tactic helped fuel false Internet-driven rumors that Obama, a Christian, had once been Muslim. But in his appearance Monday, the president noted the contributions that Muslim Americans have made to the United States, saying that many Americans "have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country."

"I know," Obama said, drawing applause from the lawmakers, "because I am one of them."

Obama's message to Muslims echoed President George W. Bush, who frequently praised Islam as a religion of peace and humanitarian values that had been distorted by extremists who killed in its name. But Bush's invasion of Iraq, imprisonment of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay, isolation of Iran, and support for Israel in its relations with the Palestinians and in the war with Hezbollah made many in Islamic nations believe that his administration was hostile to their religion.

Obama has reached out to Iran, ordered the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and taken an early interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the appointment of a Middle East envoy. His aides have outlined a new approach to Muslim countries that would reach beyond confronting terrorism to include a set of mutual interests on trade, education and health care.

Prior to the president's speech Monday, a senior administration official speaking on background said Obama believes the relationship between the United States and Turkey "can be something of a model for America's relationship with the Muslim world." The official said Obama is committed to "rebuilding that relationship based on mutual interests and respect" and "comprehensive engagement with Muslim peoples" grounded in "a deep appreciation for the Islamic faith." Another senior White House official said Obama will continue the outreach in the coming months by traveling to a Muslim country to deliver a speech on Islam.

After several stops in Europe, Obama told lawmakers here that Turkey, governed by a moderate Islamist administration, could serve as a bridge between west and east. He pledged to support Turkey's halting efforts to join the European Union and urged a continuation of new laws that extend democratic protections to all of its people, including ethnic minorities. In Istanbul on Tuesday, he plans to visit the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia, a Byzantine basilica converted into a mosque 650 years ago. Today it is a museum.

"I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced," Obama told the lawmakers.

"We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground," he added. "We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better -- including my own country."

Boulevards here were lined with Turkish and American flags, and security was tight for Obama's visit. Several hundred police officers in riot gear contained protesters, while police water-cannon trucks stood ready. Hundreds more police ringed the parliament building. Helicopters flew overhead and snipers manned rooftops as Obama's motorcade entered the sprawling grounds.

There were relatively small protests on the streets of the Turkish capital, with one group carrying an effigy of Obama, dressed in a blue blazer and khaki pants, then throwing it to the ground and kicking it to pieces.

"Obama wants to use Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan as shields for American soldiers," said Burak Gunes, 21, an international relations student at a local university. "America killed millions of people in Iraq, so the Turkish people do not have any tolerance for the United States of America."

Dogu Ergil, a professor of political science at Ankara University, said the protesters "represent nothing" of mainstream Turkish thinking.

"There are fringe groups everywhere who think America is the devil," he said, noting that a recent opinion poll showed that 52 percent of Turks had a favorable opinion of Obama. "If he wanted to be a candidate, he could be elected and become the next president of Turkey!"

Obama appeared to succeed in avoiding controversy with his hosts on an issue of great sensitivity to Turks. As a presidential candidate, he pledged that, if elected, he would label the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman government more than 90 years ago a "genocide." But he declined to do so Monday.

Standing next to President Abdullah Gul here, Obama said, "I have not changed my views" on the issue and added that he supported talks underway between the governments of Turkey and Armenia to establish official diplomatic relations and address historical grievances, including the killing of between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians by the government of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. The president never said the word "genocide."

"I know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915," Obama said later in his speech before the Turkish parliament. "And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past."

As a senator, Obama signed letters to then-President Bush demanding that he recognize "the mass slaughter of Armenians as genocide." Joining him on those letters were Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both senators at the time.

Speaking after Obama in their joint news conference, Gul said: "It is not a legal or political issue, it's a historical issue." He said Turkey has suggested that a "joint history commission be established and that we would agree to the results or the conclusions of this commission."

Armenian-Americans reacted cautiously to Obama's comments. "The President's willingness to raise his commitment to recognizing the Armenian Genocide, even indirectly, in his remarks before the Turkish Parliament represents a step in the right direction, but far short of the clear promise he made as a candidate that he would, as President, fully and unequivocally recognize this crime against humanity," Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, said in a statement. "We expect that the President will, during Genocide Prevention Month this April, stand by his word."

Obama also reiterated U.S. support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, a goal jeopardized by continuing Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territories and deep divisions within the Palestinian national movement.

Obama acknowledged Turkey's helpful role as mediator in Syrian-Israeli peace talks, which have yet to yield results after more than a year. He called on Turkey's leaders, who like many Muslims were angry over the scope of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip last year, to show the same support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process that at the moment appears dormant.

"We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen their own institutions," he said. "We must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel's security concerns are legitimate."

Obama arrived in Ankara on Sunday night from Prague to begin the final leg of his first overseas trip. Appearing before reporters with Gul, Obama said the two countries are key allies and called Turkey "a true partner" in the fight against al-Qaeda and the broader threat of terrorism.

"The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al-Qaeda terrorists plot further attacks," he said.

Staff writer Scott Wilson in Washington contributed to this report.

[vector7]

Barack Obama rejects Normandy trip to avoid offending Germany

Barack Obama, concerned about offending Britain and Germany, rebuffed strenuous attempts by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to persuade the new American president to make a trip to Normandy this week.

By Toby Harnden, US Editor, and Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 10:12PM BST 02 Apr 2009


White House officials travelled to France at the start of March to discuss a visit by Mr Obama to Omaha Beach, the site of the American Cemetery, established in 1944 just after D-Day and where 9,387 American personnel are buried. Among them is Theodore Roosevelt Jr the eldest son of the 26th US President.

French officials and senior American military officers walked with White House staff through the cemetery discussing how the two presidents might follow the same route. But even before their trip, the White House had decided that Mr Obama would not travel there this week.

"It wasn't going to happen," said an American official in Washington. "We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda.

"During this trip, we wanted to maintain a balance between the British, German and France". A White House spokesman in London declined to comment. Last month, White House officials briefed that a Normandy visit had been considered but it had not been logistically possible.

Mr Obama will arrive in Strasbourg on Friday for the Nato summit. He will hold a meeting with Mr Sarkozy and a brief press appearance in Strasbourg and then fly to Baden-Baden to do exactly the same with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. He will then fly to Prague on Saturday.

Mr Sarkozy is said by French officials to be piqued that Gordon Brown became the first European leader to meet Mr Obama and was then lavished with praise by him at a 50-minute joint press conference in London on Wednesday.

The French president tried unsuccessfully to meet Mr Obama before he was sworn in after the G20 summit in Washington last November, even stationing a French military plane on 24-hour standby nearby to whisk him to Chicago should the then US president-elect change his mind.

He had also hoped Mr Obama would agree to a meeting before attending the G20 summit in London on April 3. The French had suggested that Mr Obama fly from London to Normandy on Friday morning for a stop before the Nato summit. Instead, he is going directly to Strasbourg.

According to French reports, Mr Obama was to visit the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial at Colleville-sur-mer, just north of Omaha Beach. The pair were apparently to have dined at the nearby chateau de Bénouville in Caen.

The White House rejected the offer, but Mr Sarkozy's most senior aide said Mr Obama had agreed to come back in June for the 65th anniversary of the June 6th 1944, D-Day landings. A White House spokesman declined to comment on whether Mr Obama would travel to France in June.

"This will allow for a longer conversation and a more ambitious bilateral visit," said Claude Gueant, the secretary general of the Elysée Palace, last week.

He denied any strains and said the two held an hour-long videoconference, which the Elysée hyped up as a "mini-summit", on the economic crisis.

"Relations between the presidents are excellent and very productive," he said. "Mr Sarkozy is not courting Mr Obama," he said.