http://www.mopheadnews.com/ "Americana Spoken Here" en-us Nucleus CMS v3.32 � Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.mopheadnews.com//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://www.mopheadnews.com/ http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=60





Dr. Rice is Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor. She has the same, detached, robot-like stare as Condi Rice. Somebody hit me with a vase....am I dreaming?

Where in the hell do they keep coming up with these black women who sing the neocon electrique?

I know of no black person in my own life who is a pro-Israeli, pro-war hawk.

She sang all the pro-Israeli tunes we've heard out of the Bush camp for years now;

The Democratic and Republican parties are hopelessly pro-Israeli, which means they're pro-war all the time.

Dr. Rice is currently a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution ]]> Iran http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=60 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:59:14 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=59
As CBS 2's Dana Kozlov reports, the Ewert brothers have a rather advanced science project. But instead of a typical dry ice experiment, Chris and Andrew used batteries and a charger to make their hybrid Toyota Prius get 100 miles per gallon.

"My brother and I built this, and car companies should be able to do it, too," Chris Ewert, an electric vehicle enthusiast, said.

The car is the Wheaton brothers' way of lessening the dependence on oil and helping the environment.

It's something the DuPage County Forest Preserve has been focused on for close to a decade.

"Oh, we're making a significant difference in the environment," said the district's John Walton.

The district has hybrids and vehicles that run on four different types of alternative fuels, including natural gas.

"It burns at less than 10 percent of the pollutants of gasoline, and for the mile per gallon dollars, it's costing us about a dollar a gallon," Walton said.

If you want to forget about fuel sources altogether, you can go electric. Neighborhood electric vehicles get 40 miles per charge, costing three cents a mile, and are meant for local neighborhood use.

"With the gas prices going up and with the green movement, it's really unbelievable the number of cars we're selling today," said Dan Mack of the Electric Avenue Auto Mall.

The hitch is the tiny neighborhood electric vehicles are not legal in Illinois.

That's frustrating, considering Mack, Walton and the Ewerts are convinced gas is not the way of the future.

"There is no gas shortage today; there will be in the very near future," Walton said. "We are not going to have gasoline the way we have it."
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/efficient.car.gas.2.707134.html]]> Fuel Efficiency http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=59 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:22:16 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=57 News: Clinton claims 'tide is turning' her way
Toby Harnden: Clinton's Pennsylvania victory doesn't change much
Watch: Hillary celebrates while Barack fights on
Her supporters also like The Comeback Kid, for the title, if not the plot about a minor league baseball coach.

Back in January - which seems like aeons ago in this extraordinary Democratic race - I thought she might be the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction, who kept springing from the bath to confront Barack Obama (played by Michael Douglas) every time you thought she was dead.

Far less charitably, the blogger Andrew Sullivan has compared the former First Lady to the girl in Carrie whose hand emerges from the grave, and even the horror-movie stalwarts Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street) or Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th), who terrorise beautiful teenage Obama supporters and refuse to die.

But after the former First Lady's nine-point win in Pennsylvania, I'm convinced the "epic movie now on final reel", as yesterday's Chicago Tribune put it, without plumping for a particular title, is in fact Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Or, more precisely, the scene in which Arthur - the Obama character - confronts the Black Knight (Hillary), lops off his arm and declares: "Now stand aside, worthy adversary."

But the Black Knight, like Hillary, refuses to succumb, declaring "'tis but a scratch" and it's "just a flesh wound" as Arthur dismembers him. "I'm invincible!" the Black Knight, by this point just a torso, declares finally. "The Black Knight always triumphs… I'll bite your legs off!"
Hillary is in this race until - as her husband, Bill, likes to put it - "the last dog dies". She won in Pennsylvania, but by every yardstick she faces virtually insurmountable odds in her quest to win the Democratic nomination that the Clintons consider theirs by right.

What would have been a series of fatal blows for any other candidate was delivered by Obama back in February when he cruised to 11 wins after holding Clinton to a score draw on Super Tuesday on February 5.

Her strategy had always been to wrap up the nomination that day and she had no plan for the weeks afterwards. Capitalising on his prodigious fund-raising, legions of young supporters and far-sighted grassroots operations in remote states, Obama swept the board.

Despite the howls of indignation from the Clintons about a collective media swoon over Obama, the press - as well as the Democratic Party - gave them the benefit of the doubt.

If the roles had been reversed, the establishment pressure on Obama to drop out for the sake of party unity would have been almost unstoppable.

Use of the plural when contemplating Hillary's candidacy is not a cheap jibe. As this race has gone on, it has become clear that this is a co-campaign, just as, presumably, it would be a co-presidency if Mrs Clinton returned to the White House in 2009 or even 2013 - a more realistic goal for her.
They have a dysfunctional marriage - they see other a handful of times a month as they campaign separately in different states - but politically they are as one, if not always quite in sync.
The reasons why they fight so tenaciously might not be the same. For Bill, it is redemption and salvaging his legacy; for Hillary, it is payback for the years of humiliation and her loyal support. But they are both "in it to win it", as Clinton said - and boy, did she mean it - at the outset.
In their desperation to win, however, the Clintons might well end up destroying themselves - like the Black Knight, who refuses to step aside when mortally wounded - and fatally damaging their party's chances against John McCain, the Republican nominee, in November.

Already, they've injected a subplot worthy of The Godfather into the contest. Bill Richardson, who was given two cabinet posts by Bill Clinton, was denounced as a Judas for backing Obama.
Similarly, the Clintons are said to refuse to speak to Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, also in the Obama camp, because two years ago she remarked of Bill: "I don't want my daughter near him."
A Clinton aide said John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, was "dead to us" because he'd publicly criticised the former president.

In trying to defeat Obama by falling back on conservative white voters, the Clintons have alienated black voters by playing the race card.

Clinton has also branded the liberal activists who defended her husband during impeachment as zealots who "flooded" caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters.

In appealing to conservative voters by threatening, on the eve of Pennsylvania, a nuclear attack against Iran, she further alienated anti-war groups.

With Hillary's coffers almost empty, a Clinton victory could be achieved only by a top-down coup d'état in which super-delegates are cajoled into overturning the will of Democratic voters.
Party leaders feel this would an unthinkable - and suicidal - thing to do to their first black nominee for the White House.

The end of the movie is apparent to all but the Clintons. For the Democratic Party, this is turning into Night of the Living Dead.

By Toby Harnden in Chicago
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 24/04/2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/24/do2402.xml
]]> Hillary http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=57 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:59:55 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=55
Yitzhak Benhorin Latest Update: 04.22.08, 21:34 / Israel News

United States authorities arrested an American engineer on Tuesday on suspicion of giving military secrets involving nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defense missiles to Israel during the 1980s, the Justice Department said. Investigators believe 83-year-old Ben-Ami Kadish took home secret documents and let the Israeli government worker photograph them.
 
Court papers indicate Kadish acknowledged his spying in FBI interviews and said he acted out of a belief that he was helping Israel. Kadish was arrested in New Jersey and was scheduled to be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon at US District Court in Manhattan, authorities said.  
 
Born in Connecticut, Kadish was employed at the time at a US army facility in New Jersey and had access to a large volume of sensitive information regarding weapons systems, including the sale of F-15 fighter planes which were sold to a Middle East country other than Israel. The information provided by the agent included the various modifications that had been made to those jets.

Kadish, an army mechanical engineer, has been charged with he slipped classified documents about nuclear weapons to his Israeli handler.
 
Kadish, who had a security clearance, took 50 to 100 classified documents from the arsenal's library, working from a list provided by the handler identified in a federal complaint as "CC-1." The handler would then photograph the documents in Kadish's basement and Kadish would return them to the library, the complaint said.

 
It said one of the classified documents passed on by Kadish "contained information concerning nuclear weaponry." Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but has never acknowledged it.

'Don't say anything'
Court papers say Kadish's spying lasted roughly from 1979 to 1985, and his contact with the unidentified Israeli handler continued until March of this year - reportedly the same Israeli government handler who dealt with Jonathan Pollard. The complaint said Kadish maintained contact with his handler, met him in Israel in 2004, and spoke with him by telephone on March 20 of this year, after his first FBI interview. It said the handler told him to lie to US authorities: "Don't say anything ... What happened 25 years ago? You don't remember anything," the handler was quoted as saying.

 
The complaint said the handler worked for the Israeli government as consul for science affairs at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, from 1980 to November 1985.
 
The history appears to fit with that of Yosef Yagur, who has been publicly linked to the Pollard case. A woman who identified herself as Yagur's wife, when reached by telephone, said, "We're not speaking to journalists. Goodbye."
 
Kadish is charged with four counts: one count of conspiring to disclose documents related to the national defense of the United States to the Government of Israel; one count of conspiring to act as an agent of the Government of Israel; one count of conspiring to hinder a communication to a law enforcement officer; and one count of conspiring to make a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer.
moreUS: We will inform Israelis
"We will be informing the Israelis of this action," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said. "Twenty-plus years ago during the Pollard case we noted that this was not the kind of behavior we would expect from friends and allies and that would remain the case today."
 
The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry said they had no information regarding the affair and had learned of it from media reports.
 
A senior Israeli defense official said "I find it hard to believe that, after the Pollard affair, we would recruit an American spy."

  
Pollard affair
In 1985 a diplomatic crisis emerged between Jerusalem and Washington after Pollard, US naval officer, was convicted of spying for Israel. Pollard joined the navy in 1979 as an intelligence data analyst and five years later was transferred to a Washington research unit involved in counterterrorism intelligence.
 
That year he met an Israeli Air Force officer called Aviam Sela who was residing in the US at the time. A
short time later Pollard was recruited to a covert Israeli intelligence agency.

 
In October 1985 Pollard's supervisors became suspicious of his activities and later exposed him. Pollard and his wife were denied refuge at the Israeli embassy in Washington and the two were arrested by FBI agents waiting nearby.

 
Pollard was sentenced to life in prison.
 
The Israeli government said it was unaware of Pollard's activities and issued a formal apology. Following negotiations between the two countries, the government agreed to a US investigation of Israelis who were involved in the affair.


  
Roni Sofer and Reuters contributed to this report

http://www.roncorvus.com/israelispy.htm]]> Israel http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=55 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:49:47 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=53
National Catholic Reporter
The Independent Newsweekly NCRONLINE.ORG



BREAKING NEWS This week's stories | Home Page

Posted Thursday, August 7, 2003 at 2:45 p.m. CST

1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases
Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

Rome

A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a "smoking gun" providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.

Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.

Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the "secret of the Holy Office," today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy.

The document was itself to be kept secret. Instructions on Page One direct that it be stored in the secret archives of each diocese, and that it not be published or commented upon. Msgr. Thomas Green, canon law expert at The Catholic University of America, told NCR Aug. 4 that unlike most church legislation, Crimen Sollicitationis was never published in the official Vatican bulletin Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.

Boston attorney Carmen L. Durso sent a copy of the document July 28 to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, arguing that it may prove the Catholic church has been obstructing justice.

"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Durso said, as quoted by the July 29 Worcester Telegram and Gazette. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed 'a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Durso told the federal attorney.

Oblate Fr. Francis Morrisey of St. Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, told NCR Aug. 4 that he doubts the document had such an effect, because few bishops knew Crimen Sollicitationis even existed.

"The document was so secret that it couldn't even be mentioned," Morrisey said. "I'm inclined to believe that most bishops were unaware of its existence and contents until a situation arose, and so it never crossed their mind to take cover under this text."

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

"Of course, a bishop couldn't use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse," Morrisey said. "The document simply wasn't made for that purpose."

Green said the document was issued by the Holy Office because it had responsibility for dealing with "serious violations of the sacrament of penance."

Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.

Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread "mentality" that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities.

Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures.

That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to "cover up" sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, "lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls."

Canon lawyers also note that pontifical secrecy is hardly reserved to sexual abuse. Under a Feb. 4, 1974, instruction Secreta Continere, pontifical secrecy covers: 1) Documents for which pontifical secrecy is expressly indicated; 2) Affairs dealt with by the Secretariat of State under pontifical secrecy; 3) Doctrinal denunciations and publications of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as its investigations; 4) Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith or against morals, and crimes against the sacrament of penance, as well as the procedures leading to these denunciations; 5) Acts by Vatican representatives relative to matters covered by the pontifical secret; 6) Creation of cardinals; 7) Nomination of bishops, apostolic administrators and other ordinaries with episcopal power, and the procedures related to these appointments; 8) Nomination of superiors and other major officials of the Roman curia; 9) Codes and coded correspondence; 10) Affairs and practices of the pope, of the chief cardinal or archbishop of a dicastery and of pontifical representatives.

John L. Allen Jr. is NCR’s Vatican correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@natcath.org.

National Catholic Reporter, August 7, 2003

actual document located at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_09_06_Crimen_english.pdf]]> Pope & Church http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=53 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:54:24 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=51
Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this
debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS


MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had
a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in
the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the
purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the
public mind.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the
avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery
agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not
only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas
loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?

LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many
apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?

LINCOLN: Eight.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Proceed.

LINCOLN: In my opinion, slavery will not cease, until a crisis shall
have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot
stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave
and half free.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, did an Elijah H. Johnson attend your church?

LINCOLN: When I was a boy in Illinois forty years ago, yes. I think he
was a deacon.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you aware that he regularly called Kentucky “a land
of swine and whores”?

LINCOLN: Sounds right -- his ex-wife was from Kentucky.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did you remain in the church after hearing those
statements?

LINCOLN: I was eight.

DOUGLAS: This is an important question George -- it's an issue that
certainly will be raised in the fall.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce him?

LINCOLN: I’d like to get back to the divided house if I may.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him?

LINCOLN: If it will make you shut up, yes, I denounce and reject him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him with sugar on top?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No takesies-backsies?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whoa, so you would consider a takesie-backsie?

LINCOLN: That’s not what I meant…

DOUGLAS: When I was 11, my grandpappy and I chopped wood and shot bears.

LINCOLN: Ahem, I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not
expect the house to fall -- but I do expect slavery will cease to be
divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you love America this much (extending fingers), this
much (extending hands slightly), or thiiiiiis much (extending hands
broadly)?

LINCOLN: I think we covered this…

GIBSON: If I may interrupt…

LINCOLN: Please.

GIBSON: I noticed, Mr. Lincoln, that your American flag pin was upside down…

LINCOLN: Yes, the wind caught it. Now, as I was saying...

GIBSON: We get questions about this all the time over at Powerline and
on Hannity’s talk show. Mr. Douglas has said this is a major
vulnerability for you in the fall. So I’ll ask again – do you love America?

LINCOLN: (scowling with a forced smile). Yes.

GIBSON: If your love for America were ice cream, what flavor would it be?

LINCOLN: (pausing with disgust and turning back to camera) Either the
opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it; or its
advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all
the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

DOUGLAS: He didn’t answer the question Charlie. This fall, that question
is going to be on the minds of the American public. I’ve proudly stated
that my love for America is Very Berry Strawberry.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask it another way. If Elijah Johnson were
chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream, would you eat it? Or would you
decline to eat it?

DOUGLAS: Personally, as for me, I would decline to eat it.

LINCOLN (shaking his head): Let any one who doubts, carefully
contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of
machinery, so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the
Dred Scott decision.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ll get to Dred Scott in the second hour, time
willing, but I want to get back to the ice cream question. And that's
what we'll do, after the break.


Politics is like driving. To go backwards, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D.

http://www.roncorvus.com/lincoln-douglas-debate.htm]]> Founding Fathers http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=51 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:05:02 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=50 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Moral: Washington thought political parties and political party dominance was a very bad idea. He wanted it to be about the best candidate winning. Not about 2 parties taking over and preventing all other parties – no matter how good their candidates – from having a chance. Makes you wonder whether Washington is spinning in his grave.

With Approval Voting 2-party dominance should be lessened, consonant with the top expressed wish of George Washington.

A quote from Abraham Lincoln shortly before he was killed:
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) letter to Colonel William F. Elkins, 21 Nov 1864.
Do you think Lincoln's prophecy of moneyed/corporate-powered political corruption and control came true?
more

]]> Founding Fathers http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=50 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:54:02 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=49
Containers destined for local police forces were dropped from a helicopter into a Taliban-controlled area of Zabul province.

The coalition helicopter had intended to deliver pallets of supplies to a police checkpoint in Ghazni, a remote section of Zabul late last month.

By mistake they were dropped some distance from the checkpoint where it was taken by the Taliban, the Internal Security Affairs Commission of the Wolesi Jirga — the Afghan parliament's lower house — was told.

Hamidullah Tukhi, a local politician from Zabul, told the parliamentary commission that the consignment had been taken by a local Taliban commander.

A Nato spokesman said the pallets were carrying rocket propelled grenades, ammunition, water and food.

Afghan politicians have said they do not believe the drop was an accident.

Nato's General Carlos Branco blamed it on "human error" when the navigator confused two very similar grid references.

A spokesman at Nato headquarters in Brussels denied the suggestion the alliance had deliberately armed the Taliban. "We are aware of it but we are not fired up about it. It sounds like someone made a mistake. It was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy.

"The forces on the ground are working to get the message across that we do not deliberately supply the Taliban with arms."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/18/nato.afghanistan]]> Afghanistan http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=49 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:52:37 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=48
Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'

Back in 2005, Pope Benedict was facing a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian. So, he asked Bush to grant him immunity from lawsuits in
the U.S., which Bush did.

"We are still far from closure," said Rev. Richard McBrien, a professor of theology at Notre Dame. "Some bishops who covered up these crimes and exposed children and young people to serious risk of abuse are still in office."

The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary screened by the BBC.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time. The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.

Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962
Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

"When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."

The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.

The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."

Last night Eileen Shearer, director of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults said: "The Catholic Church in England and Wales (has) established a single set of national policies and procedures for child protection work. We are making excellent progress in protecting children and preventing abuse."

by EWAN FLETCHER The Daily Mail

]]> Pope & Church http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=48 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:30:19 -0700 http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=46
The America we have today is but a shell of our former America and certainly does not provide a single ray of hope of change, considering the hopelessly corrupt Democratic and Republican Party. I don't give a DAMN what Obama or Hillary told you, the Democratic and Republican parties are indeed hopelessly corrupt and do NOT represent the Will of the People.

Here's why I believe America sucks today:

1.) The media used to be more independent of special interest, corporate and military influence and control. Today the media is a mouthpiece and willing advocate for these groups;

2.) Americans used to be more independent-minded and capable of critical thinking; today; today, despite the internet, too many Americans still rely upon and get their news from American print, broadcast and cablecast media, who feed their viewers and readers a steady diet of misinformation, propaganda and downright lies, 24/7/365.

3.) All violence all the time; moviemakers and television producers bear some responsibility for making the most violent shows ever seen; Americans have been de-sensitized to acts of violence since the average TV viewer witnesses scores of murders each and every night on television. Is this necessary? Or is it necessary for unscrupulous producers to highlight violence in their productions to maximize profits for themselves, the studio and stockholders? The average child views God knows how many murders and various acts of violence by the time they are 18 years of age. Is this really necessary? For entertainment? For what? For cash and prizes? For who?

4.) All war all the time; war, war, war...........the "War On Terror"......the "Global War On Terror." Bush and Cheney said "Terrorism will not end in our lifetime or our children's lifetime." Our government should STOP breaking our laws and constitution in sending our military all over the world to make war, war, war. al Qaeda my ass. Fear of al Qaeda does NOT justify our government breaking our nation's laws and violating our nation's constitution. Our nation spends over TRILLION DOLLARS a year on our military and "defense." al Qaeda doesn't spend even a million dollars a year in their budget. We already have laws and processes in place to deal with individual stateless actors who commit acts of terrorism against mainland America. Our government has no lawful, constitutional right to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes and subsequent occupations. Where's the common sense, people? See, http://www.roncorvus.com/economy.htm

5.) Congress won't eliminate the federal income tax for the individual U.S. citizen. If Congress would CUT the bloated, oversized Pentagon budget, control wasteful government spending and implement true government oversight, control and discipline of huge multi-national corporations, we could afford to eliminate the federal income tax for the U.S. taxpayer. http://www.roncorvus.com/taxes.htm

6.) Congress will NEVER pass single-payer universal healthcare. The corporate duo-opoly controlling our nation's budget will NEVER pass true, universal healthcare in direct contravention of the drug lobbyists who write our nation's healthcare bills. Do you want to know the truth about implementing true universal healthcare in America? Then please read this: http://www.roncorvus.com/healthcare.htm

7.) Congress will NEVER pass universal fully-paid "no-strings attached" college tuition for all who graduate from high school. While high school graduates in India enjoy fully-paid "no-strings-attached" college tuition, Hillary, Obama and Bill Clinton are trying to con the youth of America into working for them and the U.S. government for free for an entire year of their lives, just to help pay for college tuition. Congress looks out for the tuition profiteers - the loans companies who make BILLIONS front-loading debt upon America's youth and families.

8.) Congress will NEVER STOP OVER FOUR MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS from crossing our Southern border each and every year, until America builds a true security barrier STOPPING illegal aliens from entering America. According to the U.S. media and government, there's no such thing as building a security barrier to STOP illegal immigration - BULL! Please see this: http://www.roncorvus.com/illegalimmigration.htm

9.) Candidate worship: Too many Americans are into "candidate worship." Gullible Americans believe they can improve their condition in America by electing their favorite party candidate to the White House. Wrong answer. A President can do only so much. Its our Congress Americans should be focusing on. Bush has expanded Presidential powers far beyond anything our Founding Father intended. A President cannot pass bills by himself nor can the President control Congress' purse strings. Too many Americans believe they are one President away from fiscal and civil nirvana. Disgusting. Americans need to STOP putting their faith in either of the corporate parties and their candidates and START supporting an independent voter platform, like this one I wrote: http://www.roncorvus.com/ivp.htm It shouldn't be about the candidate or party - it should be about the platform - the People's platform. Support your platform - not a Democratic or Republican candidate.

10.) Open Government: Currently, we have no open government; instead we have a government shrouded in secrecy and unbridled unaccountability. We The People MUST institute accountability, constitutionality and transparency in government; here's why and how;

http://www.roncorvus.com/ivp.htm

.r o n ron@roncorvus.com]]> MSM http://www.mopheadnews.com/index.php?itemid=46 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:26:30 -0700