Multibillion-dollar jobs plan faces stiff opposition from Republicans who are already branding it a re-election gimmick Republicans have signalled their opposition to Barack Obama’s multibillion dollar jobs plan, even before he was due to unveil it in a crucial speech to a joint session of Congress. Republican members of Congress said on Thursday morning that, based on leaks to the media, there was nothing new in the speech, which would be just a rehash of proposals Obama has put forward since his days on the campaign trail in 2008. Some Republican members even announced publicly they intend to boycott the speech, a rare snub for a sitting president. The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, dismissed Obama’s jobs plans as retreads. “What is surprising is the president’s apparent determination to apply the same government-driven policies that have already been tried and failed,” he said in a speech to the Senate. ‘”The definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein once famously put it, is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Frankly, I can’t think of a better description of anyone who thinks the solution to this problem is another stimulus. The first stimulus didn’t do it. Why would another one?” He added: “This isn’t a jobs plan. It’s a re-election plan.” Obama’s proposals, which will cost at least $300bn, include about $100bn in spending on construction of roads, bridges and other huge infrastructure projects as well as extra cash for states to prevent teachers, police and others being laid off. He is also proposing an extension of a payroll tax cut due to expire at the end of the year, an extension of unemployment benefit, and more training and subsidies for the long-term unemployed. The jobs plan is part of Obama’s attempt to reverse a rapid drop in the polls because of the 9.1% unemployment rate, up from the 7.8% when he took office in January 2009. A Gallup poll this week gave the president an approval rating of only 42%, perilously low for a president seeking re-election next year. Even though speeches by a president to a joint session of Congress are relatively rare, such is the polarisation in Washington that many Republicans said they intended to boycott it rather than participate in what they see as an election gimmick. The Republican Speaker, John Boehner, at a press conference in Congress on Thursday, urged his House colleagues not to mount a boycott, saying it would be disrespectful of the president. But Republican congressman Joe Walsh said speeches by the president at joint sessions of Congress should be saved for special occasions. It was time for action, not speeches. “You can’t lead this country by speeches,” Walsh said in an interview with CNN. The unhappiness of many Republicans is shared on the other side, with Democrats regarding Obama’s proposals as too timid and seeking a much more ambitious stimulus package. Fourteen million Americans are out of work, according to official figures . Almost all of Obama’s plans require congressional approval and he is to send the proposals to the Hill next week, setting up a third major clash with Republicans this year. A standoff between Republicans and the White House before the summer recess over the debt crisis left Washington paralysed for weeks, while earlier this year Republicans threatened to close down the federal government. House Republicans, reluctant to be cast as the villains, were in public unwilling to dismiss Obama’s plans out of hand. Boehner, at the press conference, said: “I’m hopeful that after the president gives his speech that we’ll be able to sit down, in a bipartisan way, and find common ground that will help improve our economy, and improve the job picture for the American people.” But behind the scenes, House Republicans, who voted against Obama’s first stimulus package and see little reason to vote for a second, were sceptical. A Republican congressional source said that if the president had been genuine about seeking a bipartisan approach he would have consulted them beforehand. The source said Boehner had written to the White House asking for a meeting this week but had not received a reply. If, as the White House expects, the Republicans boycott his speech, Obama is planning to go out on the road in the months ahead portraying his opponents as obstructionist. The president is to hold the first of a series of meetings on jobs in Richmond, Virginia, on Friday. Barack Obama Republicans US economy US elections 2012 United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
In a blow to Amanda Knox’s 2009 murder conviction, prosecutors in her appeals case have been denied a request for new review of DNA evidence. Knox, now 24, was an American college student from Seattle on a semester abroad in Perugia, Italy in 2007, when her roommate Meredith Kercher’s body was found in the house
Continue reading …
BASTROP, Texas — A roaring wildfire raced through rain-starved farm and ranchland in Central Texas on Monday, destroying nearly 500 homes during a rapid advance that was fanned in part by howling winds from the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee. At least 5,000 people were forced from their homes in Bastrop County about 25 miles east of Austin, and about 400 were in emergency shelters, officials said. Strong winds and drought conditions allowed the fire to travel quickly over somewhat hilly terrain, burning through pine and cedar trees and wiping out subdivisions as well as ranchland. The blaze consumed as much as 25,000 acres along a line that stretched for about 16 miles, Texas Forest Service officials said. Huge clouds of smoke soared into the sky and hung over downtown Bastrop, a town of about 6,000 people along the Colorado River. The fire was far enough away from Austin that the city was not threatened, officials said. Firefighters lined up on a state highway outside Bastrop and converged around homes as they caught fire, hoping to save them. Helicopters and planes loaded with water could be seen flying to and from the fire. When winds increased, flames would flare up and pop out over the tops of trees. The wildfire destroyed 476 homes, and about 250 firefighters were working around the clock, using bulldozers and pumper trucks against the fire, Bastrop County Judge Ronnie McDonald said. Mike Fischer, the county emergency management director, said the fire is “nowhere near controlled,” and that a separate, smaller blaze south of the city was growing larger. “I wasn’t going to evacuate, but then the smoke got blacker and blacker and it was like: `OK, time to go,’” said Gina Thurman, 47, an analyst for the Texas Workforce Commission. “Waiting is the most frustrating thing,” she said, choking back tears as she sat by herself in the shade on a curb outside Ascension Catholic Church, one of several shelter sites. “You’re sitting there and you don’t know anything but your house is probably burning.” Rick Blakely, 54, was among about 30 people who slept on cots at the church. He said he was in a state of shock and “not expecting anything to be standing” when he finally returned to his home. “I just don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said. The new outbreak led Gov. Rick Perry to return home to Texas, cutting short a visit to South Carolina where he was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. He also canceled a trip to California. Perry viewed the fire from the air and conferred with local officials. He said seeing the fire was a “surreal” experience. “I’ve seen a number of big fires in my life,” he said. “This is as mean looking as I’ve ever seen, particularly because it was so close to the city.” Since December, wildfires in Texas have claimed 3.5 million acres, an area the size of Connecticut, Perry said. The fires have destroyed more than 1,000 homes, he said. Perry said it was too early to say whether he would attend Wednesday’s GOP debate in California. “I’m not paying attention to politics right now,” he said. “There will be plenty of time for that. People’s lives and their possessions are at stake, and that’s substantially more important.” Authorities mobilized ground and air forces to fight the largest of at least 63 fires that broke out in Texas since Sunday as high winds from what was then Tropical Storm Lee swept into Texas, which has endured its worst drought since the 1950s. “It’s still putting up a lot of smoke and it’s scary,” Jan Amen, a Texas Forest Service spokeswoman said. School and school-related activities were canceled for Tuesday. There were no immediate reports of injuries, and officials said they knew of no residents trapped in their homes. On Sunday, however, about 200 miles to the northeast in Gladewater, a 20-year-old woman and her 18-month-old daughter died when a fast-moving wildfire gutted their mobile home. That fire was out Monday, although several other major blazes continued to burn in at least four other counties in Central and North Texas. At least two-thirds of the 6,000-acre Bastrop State Park had been consumed, said Mike Cox of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. All nonessential workers were ordered to leave the park. “All I see is a wall of smoke,” Cox said from the park’s front gate. The park is home to several historic rock and stone buildings built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s and 1940s. “We’re desperately trying to save them,” Cox said. “The fire is getting closer and closer to that part of the park.” It’s also home to Houston toads, a 2- to 4-inch species of toad that’s been on the endangered species list since 1970. Officials remained uncertain as to how the Bastrop blaze began, but it appeared that two fires merged to form the “monster” fire, Amen said. To the west of Austin in Travis County, at least 20 homes were lost and 30 others were damaged in another fire. More than 1,000 homes were under mandatory evacuation and 25 lost in a third fire also in the Austin area. Texas has experienced more than its share of destructive storms, including Hurricane Ike three years ago. The state, however, would have welcomed the rain that Tropical Storm Lee dumped on Gulf Coast states farther east. Instead, Texas got Lee’s winds, which combined with an advancing cold front to heighten the threat of blazes in a state where crews have responded to nearly 21,000 wildfires since the traditional fire season began early in the year. Outdoor burning, including campfires and the burning of debris, is prohibited in all but three of the 254 counties in Texas. The governor’s office said at least 40 Texas Forest Service aircraft were involved in the firefighting Monday along with a half-dozen Texas military aircraft. Since the beginning of the wildfire season, local and state firefighters have responded to more than 20,900 fires burning more than 3.6 million acres. ___ Graczyk reported from Houston. Associated Press freelance photographer Erich Chlegel contributed to this report.
Continue reading …
Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ron Paul’s use of Rick Perry’s endorsement of Al Gore back in 1988 ( Perry was the Gore’s Texas campaign chairman when he ran for President ) is contrasted with Paul’s own endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. Perry had been a Democrat, but switched to the Republican party in 1989. It’s a curious choice but probably has some resonance with Republican voters where brand loyalty is a must, and the canonization of Saint Ronnie was declared years ago. However, Ron Paul’s own invocation of the Reagan legacy –whenever it suits him, it seems– is the more curious aspect of the ad. From a factcheck by Newsweek in 2008: From Ron Paul Web site: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.” – Ronald Reagan Paul’s embrace of Reagan’s legacy represents a significant change of heart. Actually, it’s the second time that Paul has changed his mind about Reagan. After endorsing Reagan for president in 1976 and again in 1980, Paul became disenchanted, leaving the Republican party in 1987. The following year, he told the Los Angeles Times: Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration. Paul’s disaffection started early in Reagan’s presidency. “Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats,” Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. “It didn’t take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.” Sometime between 1988 (during Paul’s run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan’s legacy. The New York Times reported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas “to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements.” We were unable to document Reagan’s endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was “a little more focused on positive things.” The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either. So Ron Paul continues to use Reagan as necessary, with a quote which may or may not have occurred, or simply been a rubber-stamp endorsement presidents often make on behalf of congressmen, to keep trying to get elected by republican voters. Curious indeed. Below is a Ron Paul tv ad from 2008.
Continue reading …
Plane headed to Manchester carrying 347 passengers makes emergency landing in Turkey after email bomb warning A UK-bound plane has been forced to land in Turkey after a Pakistani airline received bomb threats by email. The plane was travelling to Manchester airport on Wednesday afternoon when officials in Islamabad received the terror warning, a Pakistani International Airlines chief said. All 347 passengers were safe as bomb disposal teams carried out searches on the grounded PK709 jet in Istanbul, he added. A total of 323 economy passengers, 24 first class passengers and 16 crew were ushered off the plane as sniffer dogs carried out searches at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, Captain Tasneem Mozaffar, head of global operations for the airline, said. A plane due to land in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, has also been forced to land while security officials carried out checks, he said. “When you have 500 people in the air you have to take the safest option,” he said. “We received information in a written email of a bomb threat on the two flights. “We asked the UK-bound flight to turn left and land in Turkey as that was the nearest available place to safely land.” Manchester airport confirmed it had been told of the incident regarding the flight, which had taken off from Lahore. A spokesman said: “I can confirm that flight PK709 travelling to Manchester from Lahore, which was due to land at 4.10pm, has been diverted to Istanbul. “We have yet to receive detailed information as to why the plane landed in Turkey and we are awaiting updates as to when the plane will take off again for Manchester.” The scare came amid a heightened state of alert for airlines in the build-up to memorials to mark 10 years since the September 11 terror attacks. Global terrorism UK security and terrorism Pakistan Air transport Turkey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Eight contenders to share platform in California, with nomination shaping up as two-horse race between Perry and Mitt Romney Eight Republican candidates line up tonight for the first in a series of debates that will help define the party’s nomination battle to take on Barack Obama next year for the White House. The main focus of the debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in the Simi Valley, near Los Angeles, will be on whether Texas governor Rick Perry, who only entered the race last month, can consolidate his frontrunner status. Tom Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, said: “It is interesting because of Rick Perry, and the fact that he has sky-rocketed to the lead in the Republican field without many people having a firm hold on him, just some impressions.” In spite of eight on the platform in the debate, the nomination is already shaping up as a two-horse race between Perry and Mitt Romney, according to the polls, with Michele Bachmann trailing in third place along with outsider Ron Paul. Mann said Perry’s record of speeches and writing leaves him vulnerable. He said: “The question is whether Romney can show some signs of life and put himself back into the thick of the race. Everything else is beside the point. There are no other plausible candidates for the nomination. The others are just window-dressing on the side.” Job creation will be one of the dominant issues in the debate, which comes the day before Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress in which he will propose a job stimulus package that that will cost $300 billion to cut taxes, help state governments and pay for the building or rebuilding of roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. To appease Republicans, Obama will propose the $300 billion in spending will be matched by $300 billion in cuts elsewhere. Perry received a pre-debate boost this morning when the Wall Street Journal, whose opinion pages remain a bastion of conservatism, offered a damning verdict on a jobs plan put forward on Tuesday by Romney, a relative moderate compared to almost all the rest of the field. The Journal, in an editorial, described Romney’s 59-point jobs plan, which proposes modest tax cuts and a reduction in federal government regulations, as “surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament”, and lambasted him for proposing a trade war with China. It added: “The biggest rap on Mr Romney as a potential president is that it’s hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise.” The Journal editorial followed criticism by Perry’s campaign of the Romney plan. Perry’s team said Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, failed to put into practice many of the reforms he now claims to support. The debate kicks off months of intensive campaigning, with the candidates making frequent trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, who are scheduled to hold the first of the nomination caucuses and primaries in February. Perry’s rapid rise would be halted if he comes across in the debate as too smug, or if his Texas accent reminds voters too much of George Bush, or if he makes a gaffe, as he did last month suggesting that the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, would be treated “pretty ugly” if he came to Texas, or even his hint in 2009 that he supported Texas seceding from the union. Political analysts such as Norm Ornstein, a non-partisan commentator who works at the right-wing think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, note that Perry is also vulnerable on policy issues, such as social security. Perry recently reassured those receiving social security that, if he were president, their benefits would be safe, but in one of his books he described social security as unconstitutional. Ornstein said that Perry’s rivals in the debate should be asking him: ‘Were you lying then or are you lying now?’ The dilemma for Perry’s opponents is whether to direct their attacks at him tonight or hold off until later. Personal attacks can backfire, as they did for the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, during the last debate when he turned on Bachmann in a desperate attempt to grab attention. Bachmann won the Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa, two days later, with Pawlenty performing badly and dropping out of the race. The victory in the Ames poll has been the high point for Bachmann, who has since seen a slump in her fortunes, mainly because of the entry of Perry, who appeals to the same right-wing vote. Others in the debate are: businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and former senator Rick Santorum, all languishing in single figures in the polls, with little chance of winning the nomination. This is the first of at least six debates this autumn, with the next on Monday, in Tampa, Florida. US elections 2012 United States Republicans Rick Perry Michele Bachmann Mitt Romney Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …There was a 90 percent top marginal tax rate under President Dwight Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan raised taxes nearly every year he was in office and still managed to quadruple the national debt. Teddy Roosevelt was an anti-business trust-buster who snatched Yosemite away from private profits. Gerald Ford ended a long pointless war in Vietnam even though pontificators like Pat Buchanan claim we could have won…eventually. George W. Bush bailed out the banks and the auto industry. I won’t even utter the names Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon (Republicans sure won’t). Historians agree the best Republican President was also the first: Abraham Lincoln. Who’s second runner up? Which President has represented Republican values best? Easy. President Barack Obama. First off – his signature legislative accomplishment was to implement a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea from 1989. Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans reads, “[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection.” The Heritage Foundation has since recanted and even filed friend-of-the-court briefs against the mandate. This is only after an alleged Democrat was for it. There’s been a pattern of this partisanship before policy since Obama was sworn in. But if you ignore the misplaced (and often misspelled) vehemence against the first African-American president as a communist/socialist/Marxist/bad “ist” du jour and instead just look at the policy – we have a stellar Republican in the Oval Office. Obama renewed the Bush Tax Cuts. Republicans love those tax cuts even more than they love being against something once Obama has signed it. In fact the President hasn’t raised taxes at all – just like Republicans say they won’t (see: “ Read my lips – no new taxes.”). The only tax he’s raised is on smokers. Obama increased the tax on cigarettes even though he’s an admitted (reformed) smoker. But even that is ideal in a Republican hypocrite kind of way (see: too many anti-gay Republicans in gay sex scandals to list). And on top of the Bush Tax Cuts – Obama cut even more taxes for 95 percent of Americans . Plus, he’s cut the size of government! Yes. Regardless of all those email forwards your kooky great-aunt sends you from her decades-old AOL account – the public work force has been reduced under an Obama presidency – therefore “shrinking the size of government.” The reason we had no net jobs in August is because the public sector (i.e., the government) lost jobs due to cuts. The private sector gained the exact amount resulting in a push. President Obama has managed to quell all anti-war protests and even start a new conflict. That is surely to be the envy of any Republican president who’s ever served. Guantanamo Bay? Still open. Osama bin Laden? Shot in the head. Talk about getting 98 percent of what they wanted. If the GOP didn’t have to change their goal post so Obama could never score in their view – Republicans could be dumping Gatorade on Rush Limbaugh by now. How about the GOP-despised EPA? You know, that “job-killing” governmental regulatory agency GOP candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Ron Paul all promise will go dark when they become president? That agency’s pinko plot for cleaner air estimated to stop tens of thousands of premature deaths? Gone. And guess who said this about it: “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)? Maybe Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)? Some tea party speaker at some quarter-full rally somewhere? Who said it? The socialist Nazi radical – current occupant of the White House – Barack Hussein Obama! He’s a wonderful Republican. The right-wing says Obama is left of Lenin – in reality he’s barely left of Goldwater. What does this mean? It means we currently have eight GOP candidates running against what’s essentially a GOP incumbent. It means we have eight mediocre Republican candidates running against the best Republican president since Lincoln. The safe bet is that a Republican will win the next election. To be clear, I’m not a Republican – but I have undeniably voted for one. In the ‘80s there were Reagan Democrats. I’ll solve this whole thing by just calling myself an Obama Democrat. Cross posted at tinadupuy.com
Continue reading …