Wednesday, March 19, 2008

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror VIDEO

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror VIDEOPresident Bush Discusses Global War on Terror. FULL STREAMING VIDEO The Pentagon Fact Sheet: Five Years Later: New Strategy Improving Security In Iraq 10:04 A.M. EDT.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Deputy Secretary England, thanks for the introduction. One boss may not be here, but the other one is. (Laughter.) I appreciate your kind words. I'm pleased to be back here with the men and women of the Defense Department.

On this day in 2003, the United States began Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the campaign unfolded, tens and thousands of our troops poured across the Iraqi border to liberate the Iraqi people and remove a regime that threatened free nations.

Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision -- and this is a fight America can and must win.

The men and women who crossed into Iraq five years ago removed a tyrant, liberated a country, and rescued millions from unspeakable horrors. Some of those troops are with us today, and you need to know that the American people are proud of your accomplishment -- and so is the Commander in Chief. (Applause.)

I appreciate Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs who are here. Thanks for coming. Secretary Donald Winter of the Navy. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is with us. Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard is with us. Ambassador from Iraq is with us -- Mr. Ambassador, we're proud to have you here. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastmen -- Coast Guardmen [sic], thanks for coming, thanks for wearing the uniform. Men and women of the Department of State are here as well.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was a remarkable display of military effectiveness. Forces from the UK, Australia, Poland and other allies joined our troops in the initial operations. As they advanced, our troops fought their way through sand storms so intense that they blackened the daytime sky. Our troops engaged in pitched battles with the Fedayeen Saddam -- death squads acting on the orders of Saddam Hussein that obeyed neither the conventions of war nor the dictates of conscience. These death squads hid in schools and they hid in hospitals, hoping to draw fire against Iraqi civilians. They used women and children as human shields. They stopped at nothing in their efforts to prevent us from prevailing -- but they couldn't stop the coalition advance.

Aided by the most effective and precise air campaign in history, coalition forces raced across 350 miles of enemy territory -- destroying Republican Guard Divisions, pushing through the Karbala Gap, capturing Saddam International Airport, and liberating Baghdad in less than one month.

Along the way, our troops added new chapters to the story of American military heroism. During these first weeks of battle, Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith and his troops came under a surprise attack by about a hundred Republican Guard forces. Sergeant Smith rallied his men; he led a counterattack -- killing as many as 50 enemy soldiers before being fatally wounded. His actions saved the lives of more than a hundred American troops -- and earned him the Medal of Honor.

Today, in light of the challenges we have faced in Iraq, some look back and call this period the easy part of the war. Yet there was nothing easy about it. The liberation of Iraq took incredible skill and amazing courage. And the speed, precision and brilliant execution of the campaign will be studied by military historians for years to come.

What our troops found in Iraq following Saddam's removal was horrifying. They uncovered children's prisons, and torture chambers, and rape rooms where Iraqi women were violated in front of their families. They found videos showing regime thugs mutilating Iraqis deemed disloyal to Saddam. And across the Iraqi countryside they uncovered mass graves of thousands executed by the regime.

Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer. (Applause.)

When the Iraqi regime was removed, it did not lay down its arms and surrender. Instead, former regime elements took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq. And then they were joined by foreign terrorists who were seeking to stop the advance of liberty in the Middle East and seeking to establish safe havens from which to plot new attacks across the world.

The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated -- but it is a fight we must win. So our troops have engaged these enemies with courage and determination. And as they've battled the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they have helped the Iraqi people reclaim their nation, and helped a young democracy rise from the rubble of Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

Over the past five years, we have seen moments of triumph and moments of tragedy. We have watched in admiration as 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and went to the polls, and chose their leaders in free elections. We have watched in horror as al Qaeda beheaded innocent captives, and sent suicide bombers to blow up mosques and markets. These actions show the brutal nature of the enemy in Iraq. And they serve as a grim reminder: The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of America. Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely that we'll face the enemy here at home.

A little over a year ago, the fight in Iraq was faltering. Extremist elements were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. They had established safe havens in many parts of the country. They were creating divisions among the Iraqis along sectarian lines. And their strategy of using violence in Iraq to cause divisions in America was working -- as pressures built here in Washington for withdrawal before the job was done.

My administration understood that America could not retreat in the face of terror. And we knew that if we did not act, the violence that had been consuming Iraq would worsen, and spread, and could eventually reach genocidal levels. Baghdad could have disintegrated into a contagion of killing, and Iraq could have descended into full-blown sectarian warfare.

So we reviewed the strategy -- and changed course in Iraq. We sent reinforcements into the country in a dramatic policy shift that is now known as "the surge." General David Petraeus took command with a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pressure [sic] the enemy into strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country. And that is precisely what we have done.

In Anbar, Sunni tribal leaders had grown tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising, called the "Anbar Awakening." To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province. As this effort succeeded, it inspired other Iraqis to take up the fight. Soon similar uprisings began to spread across the country. Today there are more than 90,000 concerned local citizens who are protecting their communities from the terrorists and insurgents and the extremists. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward with a surge of its own -- they've added more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year. These Iraqi troops have fought bravely, and thousands have given their lives in this struggle.

Together, these Americans and Iraqi forces have driven the terrorists from many of the sanctuaries they once held. Now the terrorists have gathered in and around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul -- and Iraqi and American forces are relentlessly pursuing them. There will be tough fighting in Mosul and areas of northern Iraq in the weeks ahead. But there's no doubt in my mind, because of the courage of our troops and the bravery of the Iraqis, the al Qaeda terrorists in this region will suffer the same fate as al Qaeda suffered elsewhere in Iraq.

As we have fought al Qaeda, coalition and Iraqi forces have also taken the fight to Shia extremist groups -- many of them backed and financed and armed by Iran. A year ago these groups were on the rise. Today, they are increasingly isolated, and Iraqis of all faiths are putting their lives on the line to stop these extremists from hijacking their young democracy.

To ensure that military progress in Iraq is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life, we have doubled the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. These teams of civilian experts are serving all Iraqi -- 18 Iraqi provinces, and they're helping to strengthen responsible leaders, and build up local economies, and bring Iraqis together so that reconciliation can happen from the ground up. They're very effective. They're helping give ordinary Iraqis confidence that by rejecting the extremists and reconciling with one another, they can claim their place in a free Iraq -- and build better lives for their families.

There's still hard work to be done in Iraq. The gains we have made are fragile and reversible. But on this anniversary, the American people should know that since the surge began, the level of violence is significantly down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down, attacks on American forces are down. We have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives. Our men and women in uniform are performing with characteristic honor and valor. The surge is working. And as a return on our success in Iraq, we've begun bringing some of our troops home.

The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his murderous network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.

The terrorist movement feeds on a sense of inevitability, and claims to rise on the tide of history. The accomplishments of the surge in Iraq are exposing this myth and discrediting the extremists. When Iraqi and American forces finish the job, the effects will reverberate far beyond Iraq's borders. Osama bin Laden once said: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." By defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we will show the world that al Qaeda is the weak horse. (Applause.) We will show that men and women who love liberty can defeat the terrorists. And we will show that the future of the Middle East does not belong to terror -- the future of the Middle East belongs to freedom.

The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists' defeat. We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast -- the terrorists and extremists step in, they fill vacuums, establish safe havens, and use them to spread chaos and carnage. General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in such an unraveling -- with al Qaeda and insurgents and militia extremists regaining lost ground and increasing violence.

Men and women of the Armed Forces: Having come so far, and achieved so much, we're not going to let this to happen.

Next month, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will come to Washington to testify before Congress. I will await their recommendations before making decisions on our troop levels in Iraq. Any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders -- and they must not jeopardize the hard-fought gains our troops and civilians have made over the past year.

The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable -- yet some in Washington still call for retreat. War critics can no longer credibly argue that we're losing in Iraq -- so now they argue the war costs too much. In recent months we've heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war. No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure -- but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate -- and Iraq would descend into chaos. Al Qaeda would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones -- fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq's borders, with serious consequences for the world's economy.

Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened -- with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq's oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations. Iran would be emboldened as well -- with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the Middle East. Our enemies would see an America -- an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and a lack of resolve.

To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and make it more likely that America would suffer another attack like the one we experienced that day -- a day in which 19 armed men with box cutters killed nearly 3,000 people in our -- on our soil; a day after which in the following of that attack more than one million Americans lost work, lost their jobs. The terrorists intend even greater harm to our country. And we have no greater responsibility than to defeat our enemies across the world so that they cannot carry out such an attack.

As our coalition fights the enemy in Iraq, we've stayed on the offensive on other fronts in the war on terror. Just a few weeks before commencing Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. forces captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September the 11th terrorist attacks; we got him in Pakistan. About the same time as we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces, thousands of -- hundreds of miles away launched an assault on the terrorists in the mountains of southern Afghanistan in an operation called Operation Valiant Strike.

Throughout the war on terror, we have brought the enemy -- we have fought the enemy on every single battlefront. And so long as the terrorist danger remains, the United States of America will continue to fight the enemy wherever it makes its stand. (Applause.) We will stay on the offense.

But in the long run, defeating the terrorists requires an alternative to their murderous ideology. And there we have another advantage -- we've got a singular advantage with our military when it comes to finding the terrorists and bringing them to justice. And we have another advantage in our strong belief in the transformative power of liberty.

So we're helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. A free Iraq will fight terrorists instead of harboring them. A free Iraq will be an example for others of the power of liberty to change the societies and to displace despair with hope. By spreading the hope of liberty in the Middle East, we will help free societies take root -- and when they do, freedom will yield the peace that we all desire.

Our troops on the front lines understand what is at stake. They know that the mission in Iraq has been difficult and has been trying for our nation -- because they're the ones who've carried most of the burdens. They are all volunteers, who have stepped forward to defend America in a time of danger -- and some of them have gone out of their way to return to the fight.

One of these brave Americans is a Marine Gunnery Sergeant named William "Spanky" Gibson. In May of 2006 in Ramadi, a terrorist sniper's bullet ripped through his left knee -- doctors then amputated his leg. After months of difficult rehabilitation, Spanky was not only walking -- he was training for triathlons.

Last year, at the "Escape from Alcatraz" swim near San Francisco, he met Marine General James Mattis, who asked if there's anything he could do for him. Spanky had just one request: He asked to re-deploy to Iraq. Today he's serving in Fallujah -- the first full-leg amputee to return to the front lines. Here's what he says about his decision to return: The Iraqis are where we were 232 years ago as a nation. Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here. I wanted to tell the people of this country that I'm back to help wherever I can.

When Americans like Spanky Gibson serve on our side, the enemy in Iraq doesn't got a chance. We're grateful to all the brave men and women of our military who have served the cause of freedom. You've done the hard work, far from home and from your loved ones. We give thanks for all our military families who love you and have supported you in this mission.

We appreciate the fine civilians from many departments who serve alongside you. Many of you served in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and some have been on these fronts several times. You will never forget the people who fought at your side. You will always remember the comrades who served with you in combat [but] did not make the journey home. America remembers them as well. More than 4,400 men and women have given their lives in the war on terror. We'll pray for their families. We'll always honor their memory.

The best way we can honor them is by making sure that their sacrifice was not in vain. Five years ago tonight, I promised the American people that in the struggle ahead "we will accept no outcome but victory." Today, standing before men and women who helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment. The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory. God bless. (Applause.)

END 10:30 A.M. EDT

Tags: and or and

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

John McCain Web Ad, "Man In The Arena" VIDEO

John McCain 2008 Launches New Web Ad, "Man In The Arena"

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today launched a new web ad, entitled "Man In The Arena." The web ad highlights John McCain's vision and leadership in these historic and dangerous times.


Script for "Man In The Arena" (2:00-Web)

CHYRON: The Time Has Come

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!"

JOHN MCCAIN: "Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. ... We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."

CHYRON: For a Man in the Arena

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT: "With all my heart and soul ... I pledge you my word to do everything I can to put every particle of courage, of common sense, and of strength that I have at your disposal. ... Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one in which we are in."

CHYRON: Ready

JOHN MCCAIN: "I know who I am and what I want to do. I don't seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me."

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

CHYRON: More Than Aspiration ... Leadership

JOHN MCCAIN: "I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can't make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will. Thank you and God bless you."

CHYRON: McCain -- President 2008

AD FACTS: JOHN MCCAIN 2008, "MAN IN THE ARENA"

Sir Winston Churchill, 1940: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." (Sir Winston Churchill, House of Commons, London, June 4, 1940)

John McCain, 2004: "Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. ... We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will." (John McCain, 2004 Republican National Convention, New York, NY, August, 30, 2004)

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912: "With all my heart and soul ... I pledge you my word to do everything I can to put every particle of courage, of common sense, and of strength that I have at your disposal. ... Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one in which we are in." (President Theodore Roosevelt, "A Confession of Faith," Progressive Party National Convention, Chicago, IL, August 6, 1912)

John McCain, 2008: "I know who I am and what I want to do. I don't seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me." (John McCain, Remarks On Wisconsin Primary Victory, Columbus, OH, February 19, 2008)

Sir Winston Churchill, 1941: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." (Sir Winston Churchill, Harrow School, London, October 29, 1941)

John McCain, 2008: "I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can't make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will. Thank you and God bless you." (John McCain, Remarks On Wisconsin Primary Victory, Columbus, OH, February 19, 2008)

Tags: and

Monday, March 17, 2008

District of Columbia v. Heller LIVE VIDEO

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
On Tuesday, March 18th at @11:30 am (ET), hear the Supreme Court oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, a gun law case. The Court will decide if individual handgun ownership falls within "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
UPDATE: 03/18/08 LIVE C-SPAN VIDEO REAL MEDIA and in WINDOWS MEDIA FORMAT

U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO C-SPAN’S REQUEST FOR SAME-DAY RELEASE OF ORAL ARGUMENT IN UPCOMING FIREARMS CASE Chief Justice Roberts Approves Immediate Release of Oral Argument in PDF Format.

District of Columbia v. Heller From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a firearm ban for reasons based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the second to interpret the Second Amendment explicitly as protecting an individual right to firearms for private use. The first federal case that interpreted the Amendment as providing protection of an individual right was United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001).

In 2003, six residents of Washington D.C. (Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller) filed a federal court challenge to the District's gun ban. The resulting 2-1 decision in Parker struck down parts of the District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which is a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. The law is controversial because it limited the ability of residents to own side arms (excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975). This law restricted residents, except active and retired law enforcement officers, from owning handguns. The law also requires that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock". The District argues that there is an implicit self-defense exception to the storage provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense.

In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for a rehearing from the full court of appeals on the grounds that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict. On May 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and oral argument will take place on March 18, 2008. The case is pending under the name District of Columbia v. Heller.

Supreme Court review

Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller). The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes." As discussed below, the Supreme Court adopted neither question, but came closer to the question posed by Heller in framing the question to include review of the District's prohibitions against possession of all types of firearms, and not just handguns.

On September 4, 2007, the District of Columbia and Mayor Fenty petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a portion of the lower court's ruling. The Washington Post noted that most legal experts believed the Supreme Court would likely accept the case. Now that the Court has granted certiorari, this will likely be the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court has directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.

On September 10, 2007, five of the original plaintiffs in the case cross-petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate their legal claims against the District. The appellate court ruling held that of the original six plaintiffs, only Heller had the necessary standing to challenge the law. The five plaintiffs other than Heller now ask that the court restore their case against the district.

On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The court has rephrased the question to be decided as follows:
“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on March 18, 2008, and is expected to publish its decision in the summer of 2008. The audiotapes of the oral argument will be published on the same day as the hearing. Each side will receive 30 minutes to argue its case, and U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement will receive 15 minutes to present the federal government's views.

Summary of the D.C. Circuit's decision

The Court first addresses whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The Court concludes that Heller (who applied for a handgun permit but was denied) has standing.
“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[9] ”

The Court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
The Court concluded:
“Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”
Summary of dissent

In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote:
“To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article, District of Columbia v. Heller

Tags: and or and

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Brain-computer link systems on the brink of breakthrough, study finds

Blue-ribbon panel sees commercial uses coming soon not just in medicine but other fields

Construction of a high-density ensemble recording microdrive for mice. (A) is the base foundation for the microdrive; (B) indicates four 36-pin connector arrays positioned at the base of the microdrive in parallel (each bundle of 32 pieces—for stereotetrodes—or 16 pieces (for tetrodes) of polyimide tubing was glued to an independently movable screw nut on the microdrive base); (C) is a microdrive on the assembly stage (the free ends of electrode wires are wrapped around to adjacent connect pins); (D) is a fully assembled, adjustable 128-electrode microdrive; (E) indicates that 128 channels can be formatted with either tetrodes (right inset) or stereotetrodes (left inset) on each bundle. The tip of the two electrode bundles was shaped at a certain angle (10°–20°) to fit the contour of the dorsal CA1 cell layer. Black scale bars in red circles of E are 100 μm. White scale bars in A–D are 3 mm (Lin et al. 2006).

Systems that directly connect silicon circuits with brains are under intensive development all over the world, and are nearing commercial application in many areas, according to a study just placed online.

Neurobiologist Theodore W. Berger of the University of Southern California chaired the eight-member committee which compiled the "International Assessment of Research and Development in Brain-Computer Interfaces," published in October by the World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc., of Baltimore MD

The report is downloadable online at the WTEC website in PDF Format.

Berger, who holds the David Packard Chair at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and is Director of the USC Center for Neural Engineering contributed the introduction and two chapters of the report, which encompassed dozens of research institutes in Europe and Asia.

The other committee members (and chapter authors) included John K. Chapin (SUNY Downstate Medical Center); Greg A. Gerhardt (University of Kentucky); Dennis J. McFarland (Wadsworth Center); José C. Principe (University of Florida); Dawn M. Taylor (Case Western Reserve); and Patrick A. Tresco (University of Utah).

The report contains three overall findings on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) work worldwide:
  • BCI research is extensive and rapidly growing, as is growth in the interfaces between multiple key scientific areas, including biomedical engineering, neuroscience, computer science, electrical and computer engineering, materials science and nanotechnology, and neurology and neurosurgery.
  • BCI research is rapidly approaching first-generation medical practice—clinical trials of invasive BCI technologies and significant home use of noninvasive, electroencephalography (EEG-based) BCIs. The panel predicts that BCIs soon will markedly influence the medical device industry, and additionally BCI research will rapidly accelerate in non-medical arenas of commerce as well, particularly in the gaming, automotive, and robotics industries.
  • The focus of BCI research throughout the world was decidedly uneven, with invasive BCIs almost exclusively centered in North America, noninvasive BCI systems evolving primarily from European and Asian efforts. BCI research in Asia, and particularly China, is accelerating, with advanced algorithm development for EEG-based systems currently a hallmark of China's BCI program. Future BCI research in China is clearly developing toward invasive BCI systems, so BCI researchers in the US will soon have a strong competitor.
The chapters of the report offer detailed discussion of specific work from around the world, work on Sensor Technology, Biotic-Abiotic Interfaces, BMI/BCI Modeling and Signal Processing, Hardware Implementation, Functional Electrical Stimulation and Rehabilitation Applications of BCIs, Noninvasive Communication Systems, Cognitive and Emotional Neuroprostheses, and BCI issues arising out of research organization-funding, translation-commercialization, and education and training.

With respect to translation and commercialization, the Committee found that BCI research in Europe and Japan was much more tightly tied to industry compared to what is seen in the U.S., with multiple high-level mechanisms for jointly funding academic and industrial partnerships dedicated to BCIs, and mechanisms for translational research that increased the probability of academic prototypes reaching industrial paths for commercialization. ###

A consortium including the National Science Foundation, The United States Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the Margot Anderson Brain Restoration Foundation commissioned the report.

The World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc. specializes in conducting international technology assessments via expert review, having conducted more than 60 such studies since 1989.

Contact: Eric Mankin mankin@usc.edu 213-821-1887 University of Southern California

Tags: and or and

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Freedom Calendar 03/15/08 - 03/22/08

March 15, 1842, Birth of African-American Republican Robert De Large, elected to U.S. House from South Carolina in 1870.

March 16, 1868, Death of U.S. Senator David Wilmot (R-PA), anti-slavery champion and author of first Republican Party platform.

March 17, 1825, Birth of Benjamin Turner (R-AL), emancipated slave elected to House from Alabama in 1870; delegate to 1880 Republican National Convention.

March 18, 1877, Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appoints African-American Republican and civil rights leader Frederick Douglass as D.C. Marshal.

March 19, 2003, Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference.

March 20, 1854, Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.

March 21, 1965, Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace.

March 22, 1871, Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.

“Our destiny is largely in our own hands. If we find, we shall have to seek. If we succeed in the race of life it must be by our own energies, and by our own exertions. Others may clear the road, but we must go forward, or be left behind in the race of life."

Frederick Douglass, Republican Civil Rights Activist

Tags: and or and or and or and or and or or and or

Presidential Podcast 03/15/08

Presidential Podcast Logo
Presidential Podcast 03/15/08 en Español. Subscribe to the Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned. In Focus: Economy

Tags: and or and

Bush radio address 03/15/08 full audio, text transcript

President George W. Bush calls troops from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005. White House photo by Eric Draper.bush radio address 03/15/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address en Español In Focus: Economy
Subscribe to the Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online Click here to Subscribe to Republican National Convention Blog's PODCAST with podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Friday, I traveled to New York City to talk about the state of our economy. This is a topic that has been a source of concern for families across America. In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow, but in the short run, it is clear that growth has slowed.

Fortunately, we recognized this slowdown early, and took action to give our economy a shot in the arm. My Administration worked with Congress to pass a bipartisan economic growth package that includes tax relief for families and incentives for business investment. I signed this package into law last month -- and its provisions are just starting to kick in. My economic team, along with many outside experts, expects this stimulus package to have a positive effect on our economy in the second quarter. And they expect it to have even a stronger effect in the third quarter, when the full effects of the $152 billion in tax cuts are felt.

A root cause of the economic slowdown has been the downturn in the housing market. I believe the government can take sensible, focused action to help responsible homeowners weather this rough patch. But we must do so with clear purpose and great care, because government actions often have far-reaching and unintended consequences. If we were to pursue some of the sweeping government solutions that we hear about in Washington, we would make a complicated problem even worse -- and end up hurting far more homeowners than we help.

For example, one proposal would give bankruptcy courts the authority to reduce mortgage debts by judicial decree. This would make it harder to afford a home in the future, because banks would charge higher interest rates to cover this risk.

Some in Washington say the government should take action to artificially prop up home prices. It's important to understand that this would hurt millions of Americans. For example, many young couples trying to buy their first home have been priced out of the market because of inflated prices. The market now is in the process of correcting itself, and delaying that correction would only prolong the problem.

My Administration opposes these proposals. Instead, we are focused on helping a targeted group of homeowners -- those who have made responsible buying decisions and could avoid foreclosure with a little help. We've taken three key steps to help these homeowners.

First, we launched a new program that gives the Federal Housing Administration greater flexibility to offer refinancing for struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit histories. Second, we helped bring together the Hope Now Alliance, which is streamlining the process for refinancing and modifying many mortgages. Third, the Federal Government is taking regulatory steps to make the housing market more transparent and fair in the long run.

And now Congress must build on these efforts. Members need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

Congress also needs to take other steps to help our economy through this period of uncertainty. Members need to make the tax relief we passed permanent, reduce wasteful spending, and open new markets for American goods, services, and investment.

By taking these steps and avoiding bad policy decisions, we will see our economy strengthen as the year progresses. As we take decisive action, we will keep this in mind: When you are steering a car in a rough patch, one of the worst things you can do is overcorrect. That often results in losing control and can end up with the car in a ditch. Steering through a rough patch requires a steady hand on the wheel and your eyes up on the horizon. And that's exactly what we're going to do.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 15, 2008

Tags: and or and

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 03/15/08

Presidente George W. Bush llama a tropas de su rancho en Crawford, Tejas, día de Thanksgiving, jueves, de noviembre el 24 de 2005.  Foto blanca de la casa de Eric Draper.forre el audio de la dirección de radio 03/15/08 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST
Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Odeo Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días.

El viernes viajé a la ciudad de Nueva York para hablar sobre el estado de nuestra economía. Este es un tema que ha sido motivo de preocupación para familias a lo largo de Estados Unidos. A largo plazo, podemos confiar que nuestra economía seguirá creciendo, pero a corto plazo es evidente que el crecimiento ha disminuido.

Afortunadamente apreciamos esta pérdida de velocidad en su debido tiempo y tomamos acción para estimular a nuestra economía. Mi administración colaboró con el Congreso para aprobar un paquete bipartito de crecimiento económico que incluye alivio tributario para familias así como incentivos para inversión comercial. Sancioné este paquete el mes pasado – y sus disposiciones apenas están comenzando a surtir efecto. Mi equipo económico, junto con muchos expertos externos, esperan que el paquete de estímulos tendrá un efecto positivo sobre nuestra economía en el segundo trimestre. Y esperan que tenga un efecto aún más fuerte en el tercer trimestre cuando se sentirán los plenos efectos de los 152 mil millones de dólares en cortes tributarios.

Una causa principal de la pérdida de velocidad del crecimiento económico ha sido la baja en el mercado de la vivienda. Yo considero que el gobierno puede tomar acción sensata y enfocada para ayudar a dueños de casa responsables a superar este momento difícil. Pero debemos hacerlo con un propósito claro y con gran cuidado – ya que las acciones del gobierno suelen tener consecuencias de gran alcance e involuntarias. Si perseguimos algunas de las soluciones gubernamentales generalizadas de las que se oye hablar en Washington, podríamos aún empeorar a un problema por sí complicado – y terminar perjudicando a muchos más dueños de casa de los que ayudemos.

Por ejemplo, una propuesta sería dar a los tribunales de quiebras la autoridad para reducir deudas hipotecarias por fallo judicial. Esto haría más difícil poder financiar una casa en el futuro ya que los bancos cobrarían tasas de interés más elevadas para cubrir este riesgo.

Algunos en Washington dicen que el gobierno debería tomar acción para artificialmente aumentar los precios de la vivienda. Es importante comprender que esto perjudicaría a millones de estadounidenses. Por ejemplo, muchas parejas de jóvenes que busquen comprar su primer hogar se verían eliminados del mercado debido a precios inflados. Actualmente el mercado se está auto-corrigiendo, y demorar esa corrección sólo prolongaría el problema.

Mi Administración se opone a estas propuestas. En su lugar, estamos concentrados en ayudar a un grupo identificado de dueños de casa – aquellos que han tomado decisiones de compra responsables, y que podrían evitar la ejecución de su hipoteca con un poco de ayuda. Hemos tomado tres pasos claves para ayudar a estos dueños de casa.

Primero, lanzamos un nuevo programa que le da a la Administración Federal de la Vivienda mayor flexibilidad para ofrecer refinanciamiento a dueños de casa que actualmente estén con dificultades pero que tengan buenos historiales de crédito. Segundo, ayudamos a establecer la Hope Now Alliance, que está facilitando el proceso para refinanciar y modificar muchas hipotecas. Tercero, el gobierno federal está tomando medidas reguladoras para que el mercado de la vivienda sea más transparente y equitativo a largo plazo.

Y ahora el Congreso necesita construir sobre estos esfuerzos. Los miembros necesitan aprobar legislación para reformar a Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac… modernizar a la Administración Federal de la Vivienda... y permitir a las agencias estatales de la vivienda emitir bonos libres de impuesto para ayudar a los dueños de casa a refinanciar sus hipotecas.

El Congreso también necesita tomar otras medidas para ayudar a nuestra economía durante este período de incertidumbre. Los miembros necesitan hacer permanente el alivio tributario que aprobamos… reducir gastos poco económicos… y abrir nuevos mercados para bienes, servicios, e inversiones estadounidenses.

Tomando estos pasos, y evitando malas decisiones de política, veremos fortalecer a nuestra economía a medida que avance el año. A medida que tomemos acción decisiva, tendremos en mente lo siguiente: cuando se conduce un automóvil por un mal trecho de carretera, una de las peores cosas que se puede hacer es sobre-corregir. Eso suele resultar en pérdida de control y puede llevar al automóvil a una zanja. Conducir sobre un trecho malo exige una mano firme al timón y la vista bien puesta en el horizonte. Y eso es exactamente lo que vamos a hacer.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 15 de marzo de 2008

Etiquetas De Technorati: , y

Friday, March 14, 2008

President Bush Visits the Economic Club of New York VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Visits the Economic Club of New York VIDEO PODCASTPresident Bush Visits the Economic Club of New York. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. New York Hilton, New York, New York. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE 11:20 A.M. EDT. Fact Sheet: Taking Responsible Action to Help Homeowners and the Economy

THE PRESIDENT: Glenn, thanks for the kind introduction. Thanks for giving me a chance to speak to the Economic Club of New York.
It seems like I showed up in a interesting moment -- (laughter) -- during an interesting time. I appreciate the fact that you've assembled to give me a chance to share some ideas with you. I also appreciate the fact that as leaders of the business and financial community, you've helped make this city a great place, and you've helped make our country really, in many ways, the economic envy of the world.

First of all, in a free market, there's going to be good times and bad times. That's how markets work. There will be ups and downs. And after 52 consecutive months of job growth, which is a record, our economy obviously is going through a tough time. It's going through a tough time in the housing market, and it's going through a tough time in the financial markets.

And I want to spend a little time talking about that, but I want to remind you, this is not the first time since I've been the President that we have faced economic challenges. We inherited a recession. And then there was the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, which many of you saw firsthand, and you know full well how that affected our economy. And then we had corporate scandals. And I made the difficult decisions to confront the terrorists and extremists in two major fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq. And then we had devastating natural disasters. And the interesting thing, every time, this economy has bounced back better and stronger than before.

So I'm coming to you as an optimistic fellow. I've seen what happens when America deals with difficulty. I believe that we're a resilient economy, and I believe that the ingenuity and resolve of the American people is what helps us deal with these issues. And it's going to happen again.

Our job in Washington is to foster enterprise and ingenuity, so we can ensure our economy is flexible enough to adjust to adversity, and strong enough to attract capital. And the challenge is not to do anything foolish in the meantime. In the long run, I'm confident that our economy will continue to grow, because the foundation is solid.

Unemployment is low at 4.8 percent. Wages have risen, productivity has been strong. Exports are at an all-time high, and the federal deficit as a percentage of our total economy is well below the historic average. But as Glenn mentioned, these are tough times. Growth fell to 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. It's clearly slow. The economy shed more than 80,000 jobs in two months. Prices are up at the gas pump and in the supermarket. Housing values are down. Hardworking Americans are concerned -- they're concerned about their families, and they're concerned about making their bills.

Fortunately, we recognized the slowdown early and took action. And it was decisive action, in the form of policies that will spur growth. We worked with the Congress. I know that may sound incongruous to you, but I do congratulate the Speaker and Leader Reid, as well as Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Secretary Paulson, for anticipating a problem and passing a robust package quickly.

This package is temporary, and it has two key elements. First, the growth package provides incentives for businesses to make investments in new equipment this year. As more businesses take advantage, investment will pick up, and then job creation will follow. The purpose was to stimulate investment. And the signal is clear -- once I signed the bill, the signal to folks in businesses large and small know that there's some certainty in the tax code for the remainder of this year.

Secondly, the package will provide tax rebates to more than 130 million households. And the purpose is to boost consumer spending. The purpose is to try to offset the loss of wealth if the value of your home has gone down. The purpose is to buoy the consumer.

The rebates haven't been put in the mail yet. In other words, this aspect of the plan hasn't taken to effect. There's a lot of Americans who've heard about the plan; a lot of them are a little skeptical about this "check's in the mail" stuff that the federal government talks about. (Laughter.) But it's coming, and those checks, the Secretary assures me, will be mailed by the second week of May.

And so what are the folks, the experts, guys like Hubbard, anticipate to happen? I'm not so sure he is one now, but the people that have told me that they expect this consumer spending to have an effect in the second quarter, a greater effect in the third quarter. That's what the experts say.

The Federal Reserve has taken action to bolster the economy. I respect Ben Bernanke. I think he's doing a good job under tough circumstances. The Fed has cut interest rates several times. And this week the Fed -- and by the way, we also hold dear this notion of the Fed being independent from White House policy. They act independently from the politicians, and they should. It's good for our country to have that kind of independence.

This week the Fed also announced a major move to ease stress in the credit markets by adding liquidity. It was strong action by the Fed, and they did so because some financial institutions that borrowed money to buy securities in the housing industry must now repair their balance sheets before they can make further loans. The housing issue has dried up some of the sources of credit that businesses need in our economy to help it grow. That's why the Fed is reacting the way they are. We believe the actions by the Fed will help financial institutions continue to make more credit available.

This morning the Federal Reserve, with support of the Treasury Department, took additional actions to mitigate disruptions to our financial markets. Today's events are fast-moving, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury are on top of them, and will take the appropriate steps to promote stability in our markets.

Now, a root cause of the economic slowdown has been the downtown in the housing market, and I want to talk a little bit about that today. After years of steady increases, home values in some parts of the country have declined. At the same time, many homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages have seen their monthly payments increase faster than their ability to pay. As a result, a growing number of people are facing the prospect of foreclosure.

Foreclosure places a terrible burden on our families. Foreclosure disrupts communities. And so the question is, what do you do about it in a way that allows the market to work, and at the same times helps people? Before I get to that, though, I do want to tell you that we fully understand that the mounting concern over housing has shaken the broader market, that it's spread uncertainty to global financial markets, and that it has tightened the credit, which makes it harder for people to get mortgages in the first place.

The temptation is for people, in their attempt to limit the number of foreclosures, is to put bad law in place. And so I want to talk about some of that. First of all, the temptation of Washington is to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. I believe there ought to be action, but I'm deeply concerned about law and regulation that will make it harder for the markets to recover -- and when they recover, make it harder for this economy to be robust. And so we got to be careful and mindful that any time the government intervenes in the market, it must do so with clear purpose and great care. Government actions are -- have far-reaching and unintended consequences.

I want to talk to you about a couple of ideas that I strongly reject. First, one bill in Congress would provide $4 billion for state and local governments to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes. You know, I guess this sounds like a good idea to some, but if your goal is to help Americans keep their homes, it doesn't make any sense to spend billions of dollars buying up homes that are already empty. As a matter of fact, when you buy up empty homes you're only helping the lenders, or the speculators. The purpose of government ought to be to help the individuals, not those who, like -- who speculated in homes. This bill sends the wrong signal to the market.

Secondly, some have suggested we change the bankruptcy courts, the bankruptcy code, to give bankruptcy judges the authority to reduce mortgage debts by judicial decree. I think that sends the wrong message. It would be unfair to millions of homeowners who have made the hard spending choices necessary to pay their mortgages on time. It would further rattle credit markets. It would actually cause interest rates to go up. If banks think that judges might step in and write down the value of home loans, they're going to charge higher interest rates to cover that risk. This idea would make it harder for responsible first-time home buyers to be able to afford a home.

There are some in Washington who say we ought to artificially prop up home prices. You know, it sounds reasonable in a speech -- I guess -- but it's not going to help first-time home buyers, for example. A lot of people have been priced out of the market right now because of decisions made by others. The market is in the process of correcting itself; markets must have time to correct. Delaying that correction would only prolong the problem.

And so that's why we oppose those proposals, and I want to talk about what we're for. We're obviously for sending out over $150 billion into the marketplace in the form of checks that will be reaching the mailboxes by the second week of May. We're for that. We're also for helping a targeted group of homeowners, namely those who have made responsible buying decisions, avoid foreclosure with some help.

We've taken three key steps. First, we launched a new program at the Federal Housing Administration called FHA Secure. It's a program that's given FHA greater flexibility to offer refinancing for struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit. In other words, we're saying to people, we want to help you refinance your notes. Over the past six months this program has helped about 120,000 families stay in their homes by refinancing about $17 billion of mortgages, and by the end of the year we expect this program to have reached 300,000 families.

You know the issue like I do, though. I'm old enough to remember savings and loans, and remember who my savings and loan officer was, who loaned me my first money to buy a house. And had I got in a bind, I could have walked across the street in Midland, Texas, and say, I need a little help; can you help me readjust my note so I can stay in my house? There are no such things as that type of deal anymore. As a matter of fact, the paper -- you know, had this been a modern era, the paper that had -- you know, my paper, my mortgage, could be owned by somebody in a foreign country, which makes it hard to renegotiate the note.

So we're dealing in a difficult environment, to get the word to people, there's help for you to refinance your homes. And so Hank Paulson put together what's called the HOPE NOW Alliance to try to bring some reality to the situation, to focus our help on helping creditworthy people refinance -- rather than pass law that will make it harder for the market to adjust. This HOPE NOW Alliance is made up of industry -- is made up of investors and service managers and mortgage counselors and lenders. And they set industry-wide standards to streamline the process for refinancing and modifying certain mortgages.

Last month Hope Now created a new program. They take a look -- they took a look at the risks, and they created a program called Project Lifeline, which offers some homeowners facing imminent foreclosure a 30-day extension. The whole purpose is to help people stay in their houses. During this time they can work with their lender. And this grace period has made a difference to a lot of folks.

An interesting statistic that has just been released: Members of the Alliance report that the number of homeowners working out their mortgages is now rising faster than the number entering foreclosure. The program is beginning to work, it's beginning to help. The problem we have is a lot of folks aren't responding to over a million letters sent out to offer them assistance and mortgage counseling. And so one of the tasks we have is to continue to urge our citizens to respond to the help; to pay attention to the notices they get describing how they can find help in refinancing their homes. We got toll-free numbers and websites and mailings, and it's just really important for our citizens to understand that this help is available for them.

We've also taken some other steps that will bring some credibility and confidence to the market. Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of HUD, is proposing a rule that require lenders to provide a standard, easy-to-read summary statements explaining the key elements of mortgage agreements. These mortgage agreements can be pretty frightening to people; I mean, there's a lot of tiny print. And I don't know how many people understood they were buying resets, or not. But one thing is for certain: There needs to be complete transparency. And to the extent that these contracts are too complex, and people made decisions that they just weren't sure they were making, we need to do something about it. We need better confidence amongst those who are purchasing loans.

And secondly, yesterday Hank Paulson announced new recommendations to strengthen oversight of the mortgage industry, and improve the way the credit ratings are determined for securities, and ensure proper risk management at financial institutions. In other words, we've got an active plan to help us get through this rough period. We're always open for new ideas, but there are certain principles that we won't violate. And one of the principles is overreacting by federal law and federal regulation that will have long-term negative effects on our economy.

There are some further things we can do, by the way, on the housing market that I call upon Congress to do. By the way, Congress did pass a good bill that creates a three-year window for American families to refinance their homes without paying taxes on any debt forgiveness they receive. The tax code create disincentives for people to refinance their homes, and we took care of that for a three-year period. And they need to move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.

Congress can also take other steps to help us during a period of uncertainty -- and these are uncertain times. A major source of uncertainty is that the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 is set to expire. If Congress doesn't act, 116 million American households will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. If Congress doesn't act, capital gains and dividends are going to be taxed at a higher rate. If Congress doesn't make the tax relief permanent they will create additional uncertainty during uncertain times.

A lot of folks are waiting to see what Congress intends to do. One thing that's certain that Congress will do is waste some of your money. So I've challenged members of Congress to cut the number of, cost of earmarks in half. I issued an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress. In other words, Congress has got this habit of just sticking these deals into bills without a vote -- no transparency, no light of day, they just put them in. And by the way, this executive order extends beyond my presidency, so the next President gets to make a decision as to whether or not that executive order stays in effect.

I sent Congress a budget that meets our priorities. There is no greater priority than to make sure our troops in harm way have all they need to do their job. That has been a priority ever since I made the difficult commitment to put those troops in harm's way, and it should be a priority of any President and any Congress. And beyond that, we've held spending at below rates of inflation -- on non-security spending, discretionary spending, we've held the line. And that's why I can tell you that we've submitted a budget that's in balance by 2012 -- without raising your taxes.

If the Congress truly wants to send a message that will calm people's nerves they'll adopt the budget I submitted to them and make it clear they're not going to run up the taxes on the working people, and on small businesses, and on capital gains, and on dividends, and on the estate tax.

Now, one powerful force for economic growth that is under -- is being questioned right now in Washington is whether or not this country is confident enough to open up markets overseas, whether or not we believe in trade. I believe strongly it's in our nation's interest to open up markets for U.S. goods and services. I believe strongly that NAFTA has been positive for the United States of America, like it's been positive for our trading partners in Mexico and Canada. I believe it is dangerous for this country to become isolationist and protectionist. I believe it shows a lack of confidence in our capacity to compete. And I know it would harm our economic future if we allow the -- those who believe that walling off America from trade to have their way in Congress.

And so I made it clear that we expect for Congress to move forward on the Colombia free trade agreement. And this is an important agreement. It's important for our national security interests, and it's important for our economic interests. Most Americans don't understand that most goods and services from Colombia come into the United States duty free; most of our goods and services are taxed at about a 35-percent rate heading into Colombia. Doesn't it make sense to have our goods and services treated like those from Colombia? I think it does. I think our farmers and ranchers and small business owners must understand that with the government finding new markets for them, it will help them prosper.

But if Congress were to reject the Colombia free trade agreement, it would also send a terrible signal in our own neighborhood; it would bolster the voices of false populism. It would say to young democracies, America's word can't be trusted. It would be devastating for our national security interests if this United States Congress turns its back on Colombia and a free trade agreement with Colombia.

I intend to work the issue hard. I'm going to speak my mind on the issue because I feel strongly about it. And then once they pass the Colombia, they can pass Panama and South Korea, as well.

Let me talk about another aspect of keeping markets open. A confident nation accepts capital from overseas. We can protect our people against investments that jeopardize our national security, but it makes no sense to deny capital, including sovereign wealth funds, from access to the U.S. markets. It's our money to begin with. (Laughter.) It seems like we ought to let it back. (Applause.)

So there's some of the things that are on my mind, and I appreciate you letting me get a chance to come by to speak to you. I'm -- you know, I guess the best to describe government policy is like a person trying to drive a car on a rough patch. If you ever get stuck in a situation like that, you know full well it's important not to overcorrect -- because when you overcorrect you end up in the ditch. And so it's important to be steady and to keep your eyes on the horizon.

We're going to deal with the issues as we see them. We're not afraid to make decisions. This administration is not afraid to act. We saw a problem coming and we acted quickly, with the help of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress. We're not afraid to take on issues. But we will do so in a way that respects the ingenuity of the American people, that bolsters the entrepreneurial spirit, and that ensures when we make it through this rough patch, our driving is going to be more smooth.

Thank you, Glenn, for giving me a chance to come, and I'll answer some questions. (Applause.)

MR. HUBBARD: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

As is the Club's tradition, we do have two questioners. On my left, Gail Fosler, the President and Chief Economist of the Conference Board. On my right, literally and metaphorically, Paul Gigot -- (laughter) -- the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal.

Gail, the first question for the President is yours.

Q Thank you, very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Who picked Gigot? I mean, why does he -- (laughter.) All right. Excuse me. (Laughter.)

MS. FOSLER: I'm glad you don't know me, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, well -- (laughter.) I'd be more polite, trust me. (Laughter.) My mother might be watching. (Laughter.)

MS. FOSLER: I would like to probe your thoughts on trade. You raised trade in your speech very passionately. And the Conference Board is made up of 2,000 businesses around the world; about a third of them are outside of the United States. And they look at the move toward protectionism in the United States with great alarm, even the shift in the Republican Party toward protectionism. And you mention that a confident nation opens its borders, and there does seem to be a lack of confidence in this country. And I wonder if you would give us a diagnosis of why we find ourselves in the situation we do today?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, a lot of folks are worried about their neighbors losing work. In other words, they fear jobs moving overseas. And the best way to address that is to recognize that sometimes people lose work because of trade, and when that happens, the best way to deal with it is to provide educational opportunities so somebody can get the skills necessary to fill the higher-paying jobs here in the United States.

And I think, for example, of what happened to the textile industry in North Carolina. And stories like these really do affect how people think about trade. You know, some companies because of mismanagement, some companies because of trade couldn't survive. And it created a wholesale displacement of workers throughout North Carolina. And what the state of North Carolina did was they wisely used their community college system to be able to fit needs and skills.

In other words, a community college system -- the interesting thing about it, it's probably the most market-driven education system in the United States. Unlike some higher education institutions that are either unwilling or sometimes incapable of adjusting curriculum, the community college system is capable of doing that.

And North Carolina recognized they had a great opportunity to become a magnet for the health care industry. And a lot of their textile workers -- with government help, called trade adjustment assistance -- went to community colleges to gain new skills. And it turns out that when you analyze what happened, just the added value -- just kind of the increase in productivity and the relevancy of the job training made the wages higher for those than they were in the textile industry. There's a classic example of how to respond, rather than throwing up trade barriers.

Secondly, a lot of people don't understand this fact, that by having our markets open it's good for consumers. The more consumers get to choose, the more choice there is on the shelves, the less likely it is there will be inflation. And one of the great things about open markets is that markets respond to the collective wisdom of consumers. And so, therefore, it makes sense to have more choice, more opportunities. And yet when you read, "made from" another country on the shelves of our stores, people automatically assume that jobs are fragile. And so we've got to do a better job of educating people about the benefits of trade.

Third, it's -- sometimes, when times are tough, it's easy to -- it's much easier to find a -- somebody else to blame. And sometimes that somebody else that's easier to blame is somebody in a distant land.

And so those are the some of the fact -- and plus it's easy politics. It's easy to go around and hammer away on trade. It's -- and I guess if you're the kind of person that followed polls and focus groups, that's what your tendency to be. I'm the kind of person who doesn't give a darn about polls and focus groups, and I do what I think is right. And what is right is making sure that -- (applause.) And sometimes if you're going to lead this country, you have to stand in the face of what appears to be a political headwind.

And so those are some of the dynamics that makes it hard. And I'm troubled by isolationism and protectionism. As a matter of fact, I dedicated part of my State of the Union address a couple of years ago to this very theme. And what concerns me is, is that the United States of America will become fatigued when it comes to fighting off tyrants, or say it's too hard to spread liberty, or use the excuse that just because freedom hadn't flourished in parts of the world, therefore it's not worth trying, and that, as a result, we kind of retrench and lose confidence in our -- the values that have made us a great nation in the first place.

But these aren't American values; they're universal values. And the danger of getting tired during this world [sic] is any retreat by the America -- by America was going to be to the benefit of those who want to do us harm. Now, I understand that since September the 11th, the great tendency is to say, we're no longer in danger. Well, that's false. That's false hope. It's either disingenuous or naive, and either one of those attitudes is unrealistic.

And the biggest job we've got is to protect the American people from harm. I don't want to get in another issue, but that's why we better figure out what the enemy is saying on their telephones, if you want to protect you. (Applause.) Notice I am deftly taking a trade issue and working in all my other issues. (Laughter.)

But I'm serious about this business about America retreating. And I've got great faith in the transformative power of liberty, and that's what I believe is going to happen in the Middle East. And I understand it undermines the argument of the stability-ites -- people who say, you just got to worry about stability. And I'm saying, we better worry about the conditions that caused 19 kids to kill us in the first place.

And the best way to deal with hopelessness is to fight disease like we're doing in Africa, and fight forms of government that suppress people's rights, like we're doing around the world. And a retreat from that attitude is going to make America less secure and the world more dangerous, just like a loss of confidence in trade.

And yet the two run side by side: isolationism and protectionism. I might throw another "ism," and that's nativism. And that's what happened throughout our history. And probably the most grim reminder of what can happen to America during periods of isolationism and protectionism is what happened in the late -- in the '30s, when we had this "America first" policy, and Smoot-Hawley. And look where it got us.

And so I guess to answer your question, there needs to be political courage, in the face of what may appear to be a difficult headwind, in order to speak clearly about the effects of retreat and the benefits of trade. And so I appreciate you giving me a chance to opine. (Laughter and applause.)

MR. HUBBARD: Thank you, Mr. President. The second and final --

THE PRESIDENT: Never bashful, never short of opinions. (Laughter.) Just like my mother. (Laughter.)

MR. HUBBARD: The second and final question for the President is from Paul Gigot.

Q Welcome to New York, Mr. President. And I want to ask you about something you didn't -- an issue you didn't address, which is prices.

THE PRESIDENT: Which is what?

Q Prices. Gasoline is selling for $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, but food prices are also rising very fast -- grain prices, meat prices, health care prices. And the dollar is weak around the world, hitting a record low this week against the Euro. The price of gold is now about $1,000 an ounce. Many observers say, oh, this means that we have an inflation problem. Do you agree with them, and what can be done about it?

THE PRESIDENT: I agree that the Fed needs to be independent and make considered judgments, and balance growth versus inflation. And let me address some of those issues one by one.

We believe in a strong dollar. I recognize economies go up and down, but it's important for us to put policy in place that sends a signal that our economy is going to be strong and open for business, which will -- you know, which supports the strong dollar policy, such as not doing something foolish during this economic period that will cause -- make it harder to grow; such as rejecting -- shutting down capital from coming into this country; such as announcing that, or articulating the belief that making the tax cuts permanent takes uncertainty out of the system.

Energy: Our energy policy has not been very wise. You can't build a refinery in the United States. You can't expand a refinery in the United States. The Congress believes we shouldn't be drilling for oil and gas in a productive part of our country like ANWR because it will destroy the environment, which, in fact, it won't. Technology is such that will enable us to find more oil and gas. And so as a result of us not having, you know, been robust in exploring for oil and gas at home, we're dependent on other countries. That creates an economic issue, obviously, and it creates a national security issue.

And, look, I'm very -- I'm an alternatives fuel guy, I believe that's important. As a matter of fact, we've expanded -- mightily expanded the use of ethanol; a slight consequence if you rely upon corn to grow your hogs, but nevertheless it's a -- it is a policy that basically says that we got to diversify. But diversification does not happen overnight. You know, I firmly believe people in New York City are going to be driving automobiles on battery relatively quickly. And it's not going to be like a golf cart, it will be a regular-sized vehicle that you'll be driving in. (Laughter.) And I think it's coming. I think this technology is on its way.

But there's a transition period, and we, frankly, have got policies that make it harder for us to become less dependent on oil. You talk about the price of oil -- yeah, it's high. It's high because demand is greater than supply, is why it's high. It's high because there's new factors in demand on the international market, namely China and India. It's also high because some nations have not done a very good job of maintaining their oil reserves -- some of it because of bureaucracy, some of it because of state-owned enterprise. And it's a difficult period for our folks at the pump, and there's no quick fix.

You know, when I was overseas in the Middle East, people said, did you talk to the King of Saudi about oil prices? Of course I did. I reminded him two things: One, you better be careful about affecting markets -- reminding him that oil is fungible; even though we get most of our oil, by the way, from Canada and Mexico, oil is fungible. And secondly, the higher the price of oil, the more capital is going to come into alternative sources of energy. And so we've got a plan that calls for diversification, but it's -- our energy policy hadn't been very wise up to now.

Anyway, I'm going to dodge the rest of your question. (Laughter.) Thank you for your time. (Applause.)

END 11:59 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 14, 2008

Tags: and or

Thursday, March 13, 2008

President Bush Discusses FISA VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Discusses FISA VIDEO PODCASTPresident Bush Discusses FISA FULL STREAMING VIDEO South Lawn Fact Sheet: Protect America Alert: House Foreign Surveillance Bill Undermines Our National Security 9:20 A.M. EST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE
THE PRESIDENT: Last month House leaders declared that they needed 21 additional days to pass legislation giving our intelligence professionals the tools they need to protect America. That deadline passed last Saturday without any action from the House.

This week House leaders are finally bringing legislation to the floor. Unfortunately, instead of holding a vote on the good bipartisan bill that passed the United States Senate, they introduced a partisan bill that would undermine America's security. This bill is unwise. The House leaders know that the Senate will not pass it. And even if the Senate did pass it, they know I will veto it.

Yesterday the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence sent a leader [sic] to the Speaker explaining why the bill is dangerous to our national security. They cited a number of serious flaws in the bill, including the following:

First, the House bill could reopen dangerous intelligence gaps by putting in place a cumbersome court approval process that would make it harder to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists. This is an approach that Congress explicitly rejected last August when bipartisan majorities in both houses passed the Protect America Act. And it is an approach the Senate rejected last month when it passed a new -- new legislation to extend and strengthen the Protect America Act by an overwhelming vote of 68 to 29.

Now House leaders are proposing to undermine this consensus. Their partisan legislation would extend protections we enjoy as Americans to foreign terrorists overseas. It would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats, and it is a risk that our country cannot afford to take.

Second, the House bill fails to provide liability protection to companies believed to have assisted in protecting our nation after the 9/11 attacks. Instead, the House bill would make matters even worse by allowing litigation to continue for years. In fact, House leaders simply adopted the position that class action trial lawyers are taking in the multi-billion-dollar lawsuits they have filed. This litigation would undermine the private sector's willingness to cooperate with the intelligence community, cooperation that is absolutely essential to protecting our country from harm. This litigation would require the disclosure of state secrets that could lead to the public release of highly classified information that our enemies could use against us. And this litigation would be unfair, because any companies that assisted us after 9/11 were assured by our government that their cooperation was legal and necessary.

Companies that may have helped us save lives should be thanked for their patriotic service, not subjected to billion-dollar lawsuits that will make them less willing to help in the future. The House bill may be good for class action trial lawyers, but it would be terrible for the United States.

Third, the House bill would establish yet another commission to examine past intelligence activities. This would be a redundant and partisan exercise that would waste our intelligence officials' time and taxpayers' money.

The bipartisan House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees have already held numerous oversight hearings on the government's intelligence activities. It seems that House leaders are more interested in investigating our intelligence professionals than in giving them the tools they need to protect us. Congress should stop playing politics with the past and focus on helping us prevent terrorist attacks in the future.

Members of the House should not be deceived into thinking that voting for this unacceptable legislation would somehow move the process along. Voting for this bill does not move the process along. Instead, voting for this bill would make our country less safe because it would move us further away from passing the good bipartisan Senate bill that is needed to protect America.

The American people understand the stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror. Congress has done little in the three weeks since the last recess, and they should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk.

Thank you.

END 9:25 A.M. EDT

Tags: and or and

Condoleezza Rice International Affairs Budget VIDEO PODCAST

President's 2009 International Affairs Budget - FULL STREAMING VIDEO Secretary Condoleezza Rice Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE Washington, DC March 12, 2008 (10:10 a.m. EDT)
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. And I would like to thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and I'd like to thank the Committee. This indeed is my last appearance before you as Secretary of State to discuss the President's 2009 budget request and also to discuss in any way that you would like the foreign policy challenges that we face to which that budget request is applicable.

I want you to know that I really do appreciate the spirit with which this committee has worked with me. We have achieved a lot. We have not always agreed, but I believe that the work that we’ve done together has served the country well. And it has indeed been a quite momentous time. You have made it possible for the State Department to engage in transformational diplomacy by being willing to support new positions. And indeed, as you know, the President has made a significant request this time for nearly 1,100 new diplomats, Foreign Service officers, and 300 USAID personnel.

We believe that after all the work that we’ve done to reposition personnel to more important places -- not more important places, but places that are in need of our efforts -- that it is time to significantly expand the capabilities of our diplomatic corps and USAID. And I ask your support for this initiative because I think it will be very important and an important groundwork that we can leave to our successors.

Many of you have also been very supportive of the efforts that we are making to make the State Department more responsive to the kinds of crises that we now face through civilian response. And you mentioned, Madame Chairwoman, that it is lodged in the State Department. That’s right. But what the President has done is to give the State Department interagency responsibility, and that is because we believe that it needs to be under the general direction of American foreign policy and therefore under the Secretary of State. But I can assure you that the efforts of USAID, the Defense Department and indeed others would be coordinated through that effort.

You’ve also helped us with matters of increasing security needs, our facilities needs, to increase our efforts in public diplomacy and exchanges -- something that I first said to this committee that we wanted to be able to do, and we continue to increase our efforts there. We have -- in this period of time we have doubled foreign assistance for Latin America, we have quadrupled it for Africa, we have increased it three times worldwide. I think it is really a record that we can be proud of, and that is a record that we can be proud of together because without you it would not have happened.

We are, of course, engaged in a number of high-priority foreign policy items, and I’m sure we will have a chance to talk about those. But I would just like to ask you, in addition to looking at the 2009 budget request, to act quickly on the balance of the 2008 Global War on Terror Supplemental -- very important to our near-term operating and foreign assistance efforts in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in places that are really at the front line in the war on terror. And I ask your support for that effort.

I have a longer statement, Madame Chairwoman, but in the interest of being able to really engage, I would ask that the longer statement be placed for the record and I can now take your questions.

2008/181 Released on March 11, 2008

Tags: and or and