U.S. Suspends Hundreds Of Millions In Aid To Pakistani Military

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is suspending and, in some cases, canceling hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Pakistani military, in a move to chasten Pakistan for expelling American military trainers and to press its army to fight militants more effectively.
Coupled with a statement from the top American military officer last week linking Pakistan’s military spy agency to the recent murder of a Pakistani journalist, the halting or withdrawal of military equipment and other aid to Pakistan illustrates the depth of the debate inside the Obama administration over how to change the behavior of one of its key counterterrorism partners. 
Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual American security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected, three senior United States officials said.
This aid includes about $300 million to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border to combat terrorism, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in training assistance and military hardware, according to half a dozen Congressional, Pentagon and other administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss the politically delicate matter.
Some of the curtailed aid is equipment that the United States wants to send but Pakistan now refuses to accept, like rifles, ammunition, body armor and bomb-disposal gear that were withdrawn or held up after Pakistan ordered more than 100 Army Special Forces trainers to leave the country in recent weeks.
Some is equipment, such as radios, night-vision goggles and helicopter spare parts, which cannot be set up, certified or used for training because Pakistan has denied visas to the American personnel needed to operate the equipment, two senior Pentagon officials said.
And some is assistance like the reimbursements for troop costs, which is being reviewed in light of questions about Pakistan’s commitment to carry out counterterrorism operations. For example, the United States recently provided Pakistan with information about suspected bomb-making factories, only to have the insurgents vanish before Pakistani security forces arrived a few days later.
“When it comes to our military aid,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a Senate committee last month “we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken.”
American officials say they would probably resume equipment deliveries and aid if relations improve and Pakistan pursues terrorists more aggressively. The cutoffs do not affect any immediate deliveries of military sales to Pakistan, like F-16 fighter jets, or nonmilitary aid, the officials said.
Pakistan’s precise military budget is not known, and while the American aid cutoff would probably have a small impact on the overall military budget, it would most directly affect the counterinsurgency campaign. The Pakistani Army spends nearly one-quarter of the nation’s annual expenditures, according to K. Alan Kronstadt of the Congressional Research Service.
While some senior administration officials have concluded that Pakistan will never be the kind of partner the administration hoped for when President Obama entered office, others emphasize that the United States cannot risk a full break in relations or a complete cutoff of aid akin to what happened in the 1990s, when Pakistan was caught developing nuclear weapons.
But many of the recent aid curtailments are clearly intended to force the Pakistani military to make a difficult choice between backing the country that finances much of its operations and equipment, or continuing to provide secret support for the Taliban and other militants fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan.
“We have to continue to emphasize with the Pakistanis that in the end it’s in their interest to be able to go after these targets as well,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told reporters on Friday en route to Afghanistan.
Some American officials say Pakistan has only itself to blame, citing the Pakistani military’s decision to distance itself from American assistance in response to the humiliation suffered from the American commando raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden, as well as rising anger from midlevel Pakistani officers and the Pakistani public that senior military leaders, including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful army chief of staff, are too accommodating to the Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1

Finally!  It only took a few months but it looks like our government got wise to the nonsense the Pakistani government calls friendship.  We provide millions in aid to a country which is providing funds to; and working with the Taliban.   What did we know and when did we know it?   Isn’t it just possible that we had some clue before we took out Bin Laden that Pakistan was not all they said they were?   

Undefeated’ trailer hits the Web with premiere coming soon

Conservative filmmaker Steve Bannon released the trailer for his upcoming documentary of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Bannon previously told The Daily Caller that “The Undefeated” shows Palin is “no Caribou Barbie.”
Beginning with family photos and home videos of Palin, the trailer jumps to conservative media personality Tammy Bruce. “Like a Marine, she runs toward the danger,” Bruce says of Palin. “It wasn’t something that daddy gave her. It wasn’t something the machine prepared the way for.”
The trailer teases viewers with a taste of what’s to come with the final version: showing how Palin dealt with oil executives and corruption within her own party in Alaska during and prior to her time as governor.
Radio talker Mark Levin and publisher Andrew Breitbart appear in the trailer talking about how they could care less about the Washington GOP order.
“She represented a threat to so many establishments,” Breitbart says in the trailer. “To hell with the establishment because the establishment has put us in this position in the first place.” (Die hard organizers wait for Palin to make a move on 2012)
Levin talks about how Palin’s misrepresented in the media and by the establishment GOP. “I don’t give a damn if the phony intelligencia like it or not,” Levin says. “The liberal media don’t matter to me. The Republican establishment don’t matter to me.”
The film hits select theaters next Friday, July 15.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/%e2%80%98the-undefeated%e2%80%99-trailer-hits-the-web-with-premiere-coming-soon-video/#ixzz1RTyY8SLq

I'm confused.  Wasn't she defeated? 

New EPA rules to devastate coal industry

The coal industry is crying foul over new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations which they say will be among the most be costly rules ever imposed by the agency on coal-fueled power plants.
The result, industry insiders say: substantially higher electricity rates and massive job loss.
“The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). “America’s coal-fueled electric industry has been doing its part for the environment and the economy, but our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies to comply with new regulations. Unfortunately, EPA doesn’t seem to care.”
Thursday the EPA announced that they have finalized additional Clean Air Act provisions, collectively known as “The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” to ostensibly “reduce air pollution and attain clean air standards,” by requiring coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73 percent and 54 percent, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2014.
According to the EPA, these emissions travel across state lines and contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution.
The rule will replace a similar 2005 standard called the Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA claims that the new rule will result in a savings of $120 to $280 billion in annual health and environmental benefits as well as save 13,000 to 34,000 lives. (EPA stimulating environmental regulations abroad)
While the EPA’s alleged benefits are lofty, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton cautioned that the new rules will come with a hefty price.
“The goal for these rules should be reasonable regulation that protects public health and the environment while also preserving economic growth. Unfortunately, the unprecedented pace at which the administration is issuing major new rules that impose new costs and regulatory requirements on states, employers, and consumers fails that basic test,” said Upton. “By issuing multiple regulations for the energy and other sectors at such an accelerated rate, EPA has turned regulation from a manageable tool into an unpredictable moving target that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/new-epa-rules-to-devastate-coal-industry/#ixzz1RTvDsnG8

Oh; I suspect they'll be alright.  Coal and oil baby . . . . . .

Joint Chiefs Chairman: Pakistan 'Sanctioned' Journalist's Killing

WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. military officer says the Pakistani government "sanctioned" the killing of a journalist last month, but said he could not tie the death to the country's powerful intelligence service.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the beating death of Pakistani reporter, Saleem Shahzad, and the reported abuse of other journalists is no way for a government to move ahead. He says it is a way to spiral in the wrong direction.
Shahzad's death was widely blamed on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, but the ISI has denied involvement. His death was followed a few weeks later by the beating of another Pakistani journalist by men wearing police uniforms.
Mullen is the first top U.S. leader to publicly link the killing to Pakistan's government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/mullen-islamabad-sanctioned-journalist-killing_n_892424.html

And we call them our friends!

NOT GUILTY Of First-Degree Murder

After 33 days of testimony, 400 pieces of evidence and more than 90 witnesses, the jury in the Casey Anthony case has reached a verdict.
After just a day of deliberation, jurors informed the court at midday that they had reached a decision, and both sides in the case were ordered to assemble in the courtroom.
Anthony has been found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. She was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. But she was convicted on charges of misleading law enforcement.
The case against Anthony was mostly circumstantial, but as it unfolded she was portrayed in the trial as a promiscuous, self-centered woman who became a cold-blooded killer. The motive, prosecutors alleged, was to allow her to live a carefree life without her daughter.

The state's case theory was that a desperate Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then suffocated her with duct tape. Anthony then fabricated fantastic lies to cover up her deeds, they said.

Anthony's attorney Jose Baez told the jury his client was the victim of an abusive upbringing.

According to Baez, Casey Anthony and her father, George Anthony, were home alone on June 16, 2008, when they noticed Caylee was missing. They began a frantic search, looking under beds and in the garage. Then George Anthony took the search outside to the above-ground pool where they found a lifeless Caylee floating in the water, Baez said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-verdict_n_890173.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict

Well; what did we expect?  I think the tragedy here is that a little girl has died and the only thing we can focus on is our outrage with the jury’s decision.  Do I think Casey did it?  My opinion (from what little I know) is that she did.  Do I think the State was able to prove its case?  Yes; if you could see it through the fog the Defense used to obscure it.  The Defense team did its job!  With each bit of circumstantial evidence brought forth by the State of Florida, the Defense was able to plant a seed of doubt.  Doubt was the only thing Baez had in his toolbox and he used it like an artist uses the color fuchsia.  Fuchsia is an ugly color, but when used correctly it can bring a painting to life.  Don’t blame the jury.  Don’t you dare blame the jury!  They did their job.  They are a product of a world the Defense team and the Prosecutor created.  Their truth in this is the reality of everything they observed in the courtroom.  When all is said and done we cannot ask any more of them.  Everyone did their jobs; everyone, and yet nothing that happened in that courtroom will bring that little girl back.  We are a land of laws and whether we like it or not, today our laws worked.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t have “innocent until proven guilty” and then convict someone without proof.  This case was chalk full of evidence, but it was sorely lacking proof.  We will never know the whole story.  We will never have the confessions, the admissions or the proof we seek.  What we have left, as the jury files out and the books are finally closed on this case is our angst and frustration that a little girls death will never be vindicated.  Our only solace, our only relief comes from the knowledge that in the unlikely event that the tables were ever turned, we too might be granted the same benefits of the doubt and the same considerations, and the same opportunity for a defense team like Ms. Anthony’s. 

San Francisco Police Kill Man On Transit Platform

SAN FRANCISCO -- A man reportedly armed with a knife on a Bay Area Rapid Transit station platform in San Francisco was shot and killed by police, transit officials said Monday.
BART spokesman Linton Johnson said dispatchers received a call of a "wobbly drunk" on the platform of the Civic Center/UN Plaza station at around 9:30 p.m. Sunday. Two transit officers arrived and then reported shooting a man, who died about an hour later.
Investigators were trying to determine whether the man killed was the same person originally reported to be drunk. Investigators reported finding broken glass and knives at the scene
One BART officer suffered cuts and bruises on his arm. Both officers have been placed on administrative leave, as is standard policy.
Neither the shooting victim nor the officers involved have been identified, though BART officials said the dead man was white, as was one of the officers. The other officer was described by the agency as Asian.
BART is battling an image problem after a white officer shot and killed an unarmed black passenger on New Year's Day 2009 at a station in Oakland, a killing that sparked widespread debate and prompted racial unrest in that city.
Johannes Mehserle quit the police force shortly after the shooting and was later charged with murder for shooting Oscar Grant in the back while Grant was pinned face down on Oakland's Fruitvale station. Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after testifying he meant to use his Taser rather than his gun. He recently was released from prison after serving half of a two-year sentence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/04/bart-shooting-san-francisco-transit-
officers_n_889934.html

Just because you can, does that mean you should?  OK; I wasn’t there, but this guy was drunk and he had a knife.  I know a knife can kill a person, but the man welding it was drunk.  The BART officers carry a Taser.  Was it just easier to shoot this drunk passenger or did you really feel your life and the lives of others was in danger?  I hope you pulled the trigger for all the right reasons. 

Top San Francisco Attorney Questions Proposed Circumcision Ban

(RNS) In a potential blow to the proposed San Francisco circumcision ban, the city's top lawyer has concluded it is unconstitutional to ban the practice as a religious ritual, but allow it as a medical procedure.

The measure, now headed toward the Nov. 8 ballot, would ban nearly all infant circumcisions.

A lawsuit arguing that no California city can regulate a medical procedure that is allowed by the state will be heard on July 15. The plaintiffs are a group of Jews and Muslims, groups that practice ritual circumcision.

Should they win, a narrower ban exempting medical circumcision could apply only to circumcision as a religious practice. And that would defy the First Amendment, according to a brief recently filed by the city attorney.

"San Franciscans cannot be asked to vote on whether to prohibit religious minorities from engaging in a particular religious practice, when the same practice may be performed under nonreligious auspices," wrote Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart.

The proposed ban, sponsored by groups who are opposed to what they consider the genital mutilation of boys, has angered Jews, Muslims and others who consider circumcision to be a parent's choice.

"The city's response was completely political," said Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, an anti-circumcision group that did not sponsor the proposed ban, but supports its intent.

"It is not aimed at Jewish circumcision," Chapin said. "It's aimed at the involuntary circumcision of all minors, irrespective of religion."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/top-sf-attorney-questions_n_890687.html

Some things are better left alone.  There is a lot of baggage attached to this issue.  It is a matter of cultural and religious beliefs.  In my opinion this issue is not up to the state and it is not up for debate.  Leave it alone!