Eeyore's News and View

Thank you, i just noticed that i have had over a thousand visits, i hope you all are enjoying it. I only started the counter about 4 months ago.

U.S. military: Iranian drone destroyed
BAGHDAD (AP) — U.S. jets shot down an Iranian unmanned surveillance aircraft last month over Iraqi territory about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Monday.
A U.S. statement said the Ababil 3 was tracked for about 70 minutes before U.S. jets shot it down "well-inside Iraqi airspace" and that the aircraft's presence over Iraq "was not an accident."
An Iraqi official said the Iranian aircraft went down near the Iraqi border town of Mandali. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
The Ababil is believed to have a maximum range of about 90 miles and can fly up to 14,000 feet. It is primarily designed for surveillance and intelligence-gathering.
U.S. officials have frequently accused the Iranians of supplying weapons, training and money to Shiite extremist groups opposed to the U.S. military presence and to the U.S.-backed Iraqi government.
Iran has denied links to militant groups inside Iraq and says the instability in this country is a result of the U.S. "occupation." The Iranians consider the presence of about 140,000 U.S. troops in a neighboring country as a threat to their national security.
In Baghdad, a U.S. soldier was fatally injured during combat operations Monday, the U.S. said in a statement. No further details were released.
It was the first combat death reported by the U.S. military in Baghdad this month and the first among U.S. forces nationwide since March 7, when a soldier was killed in the Tikrit area.
U.S. casualties have dropped sharply since Iraqi soldiers and police have taken a greater role in security. President Barack Obama has pledged to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by September 2010.
American combat troops are due to leave bases in Baghdad and other cities by June 30 under an agreement that provides for all U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press on Sunday that U.S. troops may stay in some areas that are not completely secure even after the June 30 date.
He did not identify those areas, but U.S. and Iraqi troops are still trying to secure Mosul, the country's third-largest city where al-Qaeda and other Sunni militant groups remain active.
Also Monday, a 12-year-old girl was killed when American soldiers fired at a vehicle speeding toward them and Iraqi police near Mosul, said the U.S. military. The military said the girl was standing about 100 yards (meters) behind the vehicle and was struck by a round.
But Iraqi police said the girl was shot while in a car with her father. The discrepancy could not be immediately explained.
Meanwhile, an Iranian opposition group said Monday that Iraqi troops tightened their siege of a camp north of Baghdad where about 3,500 of their members have been based for about 20 years.
The People's Mujahedeen said Iraqi troops have prevented food and fuel from reaching Camp Ashraf for the past six days — despite written guarantees by the Iraqi government that it would guarantee human rights of the residents.
But Iraqi national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie branded the allegations "totally baseless." He said People's Mujahedeen members had taken over a building belonging to the Iraqi army and were preventing soldiers from entering it.
"They have a huge propaganda machine all over the world and are known to exaggerate things," added al-Rubaie, whom the People's Mujahedeen said was behind the alleged crackdown.
Iran and the United States consider the People's Mujahedeen a terrorist group and Tehran has stepped up pressure on the Iraqis to close the camp. Iraq took over security for the camp from the U.S. on Jan. 1.
But the Iraqi government promised the U.S. that it would not force the group's members to leave against their will.
The People's Mujahedeen opposed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi during the 1979 revolution but fell out with the clerical regime that replaced him. Saddam Hussein allowed the group to set up a camp during the Iran-Iraq war for staging raids across the border inside Iran.
U.S. troops disarmed the fighters and confined them to Camp Ashraf after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam.
Also Monday, residents of the Kurdish town of Halabja marked the 21st anniversary of the March 16-17 poison gas attack by Saddam's forces against Kurdish separatists.
The 1988 attack killed thousands of people and was the biggest use of chemical weapons against a civilian populated area in history.
Local officials and victims' relatives placed wreaths on a monument to the dead.
"The anniversary has become etched in the memory of many people," said Aras Abbadi, who lost 21 relatives in the attack. "Every year, we wait for the anniversary and condemn that deplorable attack committed by a dictatorial regime against its own people."
Another participant, Mariam Saleh, 59, pointed to a photograph on display that shows a truck full of victims.
"My family was in that truck," she wept.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2009-03-16-iraniandrone_N.htm

Mexico to impose sanctions on US exports
Published: March 16 2009 20:53
A long-simmering trade dispute boiled over into sanctions on Monday after Mexico said it would raise tariffs on $2.4bn of US exports in retaliation for ending a pilot programme to allow Mexican trucks on American roads.
The announcement marks one of the first big tests for trade policy under President Barack Obama, who has sought to tread a fine line between assuaging his domestic constituencies and upholding the US’s international obligations.
Mexico said it would increase tariffs on 90 industrial and agricultural goods, likely to include politically sensitive farm products, after Congress last week killed a pilot programme allowing a limited number of Mexican trucks on American highways. Mexico obtained a judicial ruling in 2001 under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) allowing it to impose such sanctions, but has held off since the US introduced the pilot scheme.
The sanctions, which Mexican officials say are set to be imposed later this week, will be one of the largest acts of retaliation against US exports. US goods exports to Mexico totalled $151.5bn last year. On Monday, Gerardo Ruíz Mateos, Mexico’s economy minister, said: “We believe that the action taken by the US is wrong, protectionist and in clear violation of Nafta.”
The White House said on Monday it would seek to create a new programme that would address what it called the “legitimate concerns of Congress” while meeting the US’s Nafta commitments. But Mexican officials said they would not be bought off with promises.
The pilot programme has been opposed by many lawmakers and by the Teamsters Union, which says that Mexican trucks are unsafe. Because they are largely restricted to short-run hops over the border, most Mexican trucks entering the US are run by so-called “drayage” operations that use older vehicles more likely to fail inspection tests. But a study funded by the US Department of Transportation found that when comparing like with like, Mexican trucks were often safer than their US counterparts.
“The Mexicans have been extraordinarily patient on this,” said Edward Alden, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The pilot project was enough to give them glimmerings of hope for a long time.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce2431c4-126b-11de-b816-0000779fd2ac.html

Lose your property for growing food?
Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million
Posted: March 16, 2009 8:56 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Some small farms and organic food growers could be placed under direct supervision of the federal government under new legislation making its way through Congress.
Food Safety Modernization Act
House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto – the world's leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed.
DeLauro's act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations.
Michael Olson, host of the Food Chain radio show and author of "Metro Farm," told WND the government should focus on regulating food production in countries such as China and Mexico rather than burdening small and organic farmers in the U.S. with overreaching regulations.
"We need somebody to watch over us when we're eating food that comes from thousands and thousands of miles away. We need some help there," he said. "But when food comes from our neighbors or from farmers who we know, we don't need all of those rules. If your neighbor sells you something that is bad and you get sick, you are going to get your hands on that farmer, and that will be the end of it. It regulates itself. "
The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."
Federal regulators will be tasked with ensuring that food producers, processors and distributors – both large and small – prevent and minimize food safety hazards such as food-borne illnesses and contaminants such as bacteria, chemicals, natural toxins or manufactured toxicants, viruses, parasites, prions, physical hazards or other human pathogens.
Under the legislation's broad wording, slaughterhouses, seafood processing plants, establishments that process, store, hold or transport all categories of food products prior to delivery for retail sale, farms, ranches, orchards, vineyards, aquaculture facilities and confined animal-feeding operations would be subject to strict government regulation.
Government inspectors would be required to visit and examine food production facilities, including small farms, to ensure compliance. They would review food safety records and conduct surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment.
"What the government will do is bring in industry experts to tell them how to manage all this stuff," Olson said. "It's industry that's telling government how to set these things up. What it always boils down to is who can afford to have the most influence over the government. It would be those companies that have sufficient economies of scale to be able to afford the influence – which is, of course, industrial agriculture."
Farms and food producers would be forced to submit copies of all records to federal inspectors upon request to determine whether food is contaminated, to ensure they are in compliance with food safety laws and to maintain government tracking records. Refusal to register, permit inspector access or testing of food or equipment would be prohibited.
"What is going to happen is that local agriculture will end up suffering through some onerous protocols designed for international agriculture that they simply don't need," Olson said. "Thus, it will be a way for industrial agriculture to manage local agriculture."
Under the act, every food producer must have a written food safety plan describing likely hazards and preventative controls they have implemented and must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water."
"That opens a whole can of worms," Olson said. "I think that's where people are starting to freak out about losing organic agriculture. Who is going to decide what the minimum standards are for fertilization or anything else? The government is going to bring in big industry and say we are setting up these protocols, so what do you think we should do? Who is it going to bring in to ask? The government will bring in people who have economies of scale who have that kind of influence."
DeLauro's act calls for the Food Safety Administration to create a "national traceability system" to retrieve history, use and location of each food product through all stages of production, processing and distribution.
Olson believes the regulations could create unjustifiable financial hardships for small farmers and run them out of business.
"That is often the purpose of rules and regulations: to get rid of your competition," he said. "Only people who are very, very large can afford to comply. They can hire one person to do paperwork. There's a specialization of labor there, and when you are very small, you can't afford to do all of these things."
Olson said despite good intentions behind the legislation, this act could devastate small U.S. farms.
"Every time we pass a rule or a law or a regulation to make the world a better place, it seems like what we do is subsidize production offshore," he said. "We tell farmers they can no longer drive diesel tractors because they make bad smoke. Well, essentially what we're doing is giving China a subsidy to grow our crops for us, or Mexico or anyone else."
Section 304 of the Food Safety Modernization Act establishes a group of "experts and stakeholders from Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies, the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia" to make recommendations for improving food-borne illness surveillance.
According to the act, "Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act."
Each violation and each separate day the producer is in defiance of the law would be considered a separate offense and an additional penalty. The act suggests federal administrators consider the gravity of the violation, the degree of responsibility and the size and type of business when determining penalties.
Criminal sanctions may be imposed if contaminated food causes serious illness or death, and offenders may face fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years.
"It's just frightening what can happen with good intentions," Olson said. "It's probably the most radical notions on the face of this Earth, but local agriculture doesn't need government because it takes care of itself."
Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act
Another "food safety" bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
Brown's bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson. It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Some say the legislation could also put small farmers out of business.
Like HR 875, the measure establishes a nationwide "traceability system" monitored by the Food and Drug Administration for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution of food. It would cost $40 million over three years.
"We must ensure that the federal government has the ability and authority to protect the public, given the global nature of the food supply," Brown said when he introduced the bill. He suggested the FDA and USDA have power to declare mandatory recalls.
The government would track food shipped in interstate commerce through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database or registered identification. Each farmer or producer would be required to maintain records regarding the purchase, sale and identification of their products.
A 13-member advisory committee of food safety and tracking technology experts, representatives of the food industry, consumer advocates and government officials would assist in implementing the traceability system.
The bill calls for the committee to establish a national database or registry operated by the Food and Drug Administration. It also proposes a electronic records database to identify sales of food and its ingredients "establishing that the food and its ingredients were grown, prepared, handled, manufactured, processed, distributed, shipped, warehoused, imported, and conveyed under conditions that ensure the safety of the food."
It states, "The records should include an electronic statement with the date of, and the names and addresses of all parties to, each prior sale, purchase, or trade, and any other information as appropriate."
If government inspectors find that a food item is not in compliance, they may force producers to cease distribution, recall the item or confiscate it.
"If the postal service can track a package from my office in Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same for food products," Sen. Brown said in a Sept. 4, 2008, statement. "Families that are struggling with the high cost of groceries should not also have to worry about the safety of their food. This legislation gives the government the resources it needs to protect the public."
Recalls of contaminated food are usually voluntary; however, in his weekly radio address on March 15, President Obama announced he's forming a Food Safety Working Group to propose new laws and stop corruption of the nation's food.
The group will review, update and enforce food safety laws, which Obama said "have not been updated since they were written in the time of Teddy Roosevelt."
The president said outbreaks from contaminated foods, such as a recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of peanut products, have occurred more frequently in recent years due to outdated regulations, fewer inspectors, scaled back inspections and a lack of information sharing between government agencies.
"In the end, food safety is something I take seriously, not just as your president but as a parent," Obama said. "No parent should have to worry that their child is going to get sick from their lunch just as no family should have to worry that the medicines they buy will cause them harm."
The blogosphere is buzzing with comments on the legislation, including the following:
* Obama and his cronies or his puppetmasters are trying to take total control – nationalize everything, disarm the populace, control food, etc. We are seeing the formation of a total police state.
* Well ... that's not very " green " of Obama. What's his real agenda?
* This is getting way out of hand! Isn't it enough the FDA already allows poisons in our foods?
* If you're starving, no number of guns will enable you to stay free. That's the whole idea behind this legislation. He who controls the food really makes the rules.
* The government is terrified of the tax loss. Imagine all the tax dollars lost if people actually grew their own vegetables! Imagine if people actually coordinated their efforts with family, friends and neighbors. People could be in no time eating for the price of their own effort. ... Oh the horror of it all! The last thing the government wants is for us to be self-sufficient.
* They want to make you dependent upon government. I say no way! already the government is giving away taxes from my great great grandchildren and now they want to take away my food, my semi-auto rifles, my right to alternative holistic medicine? We need a revolution, sheeple! Wake up! They want fascism ... can you not see that?
* The screening processes will make it very expensive for smaller farmers, where bigger agriculture corporations can foot the bill.
* If anything it just increases accountability, which is arguably a good thing. It pretty much says they'll only confiscate your property if there are questions of contamination and you don't comply with their inspections. I think the severity of this has been blown out of proportion by a lot of conjecture.
* Don't waste your time calling the criminals in D.C. and begging them to act like humans. This will end with a bloody revolt.
* The more I examine this (on the surface) seemingly innocuous bill the more I hate it. It is a coward's ploy to push out of business small farms and farmers markets without actually making them illegal because many will choose not to operate due to the compliance issue.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92002

An Important Message From Gun Owners Of America-- Land grab bill coming back, again Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408http://www.gunowners.org Monday, March 16, 2009 Do you agree with people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who treatthe Second Amendment as if it were written only to protect your abilityto go hunting and target shooting? Or do you agree with Gun Owners of America, George Washington and ThomasJefferson, who believe that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existingfundamental right that is essential to the preservation of liberty? Well, a whole lot of people in Congress are claiming to protect yourSecond Amendment rights, but all they're really doing is protecting yourhunting season. We're talking about the Omnibus Public Lands Act. You helped to defeatthis bill last week in the House, but Congressional leaders have vowedto bring it up again soon. S. 22 is an enormous package of over 190 bills lumped together with aprice tag of $10 billion. The bill will greatly expand the amount ofland controlled by the National Park Service, thus spreading theagency's unconstitutional gun regulations to more areas. Fear of upsetting gun owners -- who helped elect many members ofCongress from both parties -- kept this bill off the floor for severalweeks. Then, in a meeting last Tuesday, not held in an open committee hearingbut behind closed doors, House leaders brokered a deal with somesupposedly pro-gun Democrats. They said they were concerned about your gun rights. They said theywere going to "fix" the bill. But they did not address the NPS anti-gun regulations that prohibitcarrying a firearm for self defense without a government issuedconcealed carry permit. What did they do? They added language to the bill to say you can stillgo hunting. That's right. Many Congressmen claimed to be protecting the SecondAmendment, when all they were really doing was thumbing their noses atself defense. Here is the entire "pro-gun" amendment that was considered in the House.Judge for yourself if this really protects your Second Amendment rights: "Nothing in this Title shall be construed as affecting the authority,jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage,control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law orregulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, andrecreational shooting. Nothing in this Title shall be construed aslimiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreationalshooting." They may as well have called it the "Elmer Fudd Protection Act." A lot of people who voted for this bill campaigned for office aschampions of gun rights. They said "Send me to Washington; I'll fightfor the Second Amendment." And this is what we get? Pathetic. But let's be clear. The issue is not just about the NPS gunrestrictions, as bad as they are. And whether or not you personally usefederal land is not the point. What is important is the disdain with which legislators hold your SecondAmendment rights. It is imperative that you speak up on this issue. The outcome of thisbattle will be a preview of what we can expect for the next two years.Will your gun rights be comprised away little by little? Or will westand together and hold legislators accountable to their campaignpromises to uphold the Second Amendment? This week there may be several votes in both the Senate and House on theOmnibus Land bill. Congressional leaders plan to act quickly in an attempt to ram this downthe throat of the American people without a fair and open process. Theydesperately want to avoid any amendment that would truly protect yourgun rights. Congress hopes to leave the gun ban in place, and enlarge the areasaffected by it. For example, the bill expands existing park land,creates new national trails that will fall under the gun restrictions,and authorizes the federal government to buy more land adjacent tonational parks and trails. House and Senate leaders plan to move on this bill rapidly, althoughthey are ambiguous about the process. But our message to Congress is simple: Stop playing around with ourSecond Amendment rights! We don't care about the process. We care about the Second Amendment.And we mean ALL of the Second Amendment, not just hunting. Tell Congress you expect them to protect your right to keep and beararms without compromising. Please take a few seconds and send thepre-written message below. When you're done, become a force multiplier. Send this alert to a fewfriends. It is important that you take this action because right now GOA is theonly gun rights organization speaking out for ALL of your SecondAmendment rights. We've all forwarded jokes or funny pictures to our friends. How aboutforwarding a message to help protect our God-ordained constitutionallyprotected right to keep and bear arms? And please do not think your voice won't be heard. Remember, this billfailed to pass the House by just two votes last week because people likeyou took action. Congressmen need to know that their votes in the coming days will impactYOUR vote next year. But if they don't hear from you and they thinkyou're not looking, many will treat your rights with contempt. We're not alone in this battle. In the Senate, pro-gun champions suchas Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are prepared to lead the fightagainst this bill. In the House, Reps. Paul Broun, Rob Bishop and Doc Hastings are amongthose fighting hard for your gun rights. In fact, there are many in Congress willing to stand up for the SecondAmendment, but they are repeatedly squashed by the anti-gun leadershipor undermined by pro-gun compromisers. Pro-gun Congressmen who want torepeal the gun ban are being told, in effect, to "Shut up and vote!" Friends, we know we've asked for a lot of action from you already thisyear. Unfortunately, that is not going to stop. But we will all draw the lineat some point. Let's work together and do it now. Thank you for working with Gun Owners of America. Our effectiveness inWashington depends on your activism. PLEASE try to get your pro-gunfriends and family involved. Now more than ever, every voice iscritical. ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center athttp://gunowners.org/activism.htm to tell your Representative andSenators to reject the lands bill (S. 22) unless your Second Amendmentrights are protected. Per usual, a pre-written letter is provided foryour convenience. ----- Pre-written message ----- The Omnibus Public Land Act of 2009 is expected to come to the floorsoon. I urge you to oppose this bill if, as expected, the leadership does notallow an amendment to repeal the anti-gun regulations of the NationalPark Service. Recent changes made by the Interior Department only allow persons with aconcealed carry permit to possess a self-defense firearm on NPS land.Non-permit holders are still prohibited from carrying a firearm fortheir protection. And please don't be fooled by a supposedly pro-gun amendment to "fix"the bill that was brought up last week during the House debate on S. 22.That language only modestly protects hunting and recreational shooting. While protecting the rights of sportsmen is important, the SecondAmendment is NOT about hunting rights. I am more concerned about myability to defend my life, and the lives of my loved ones, than I amabout plinking cans. Congressional leaders have been ambiguous about how this legislationwill come to the floor, but my message to you is clear: protect ALL ofmy Second Amendment rights.
http://frc4u.org/phpbb/index.php?topic=511.0;topicseen