Posts Tagged ‘ al-Qaeda ’

Marines Urinate on Taliban Corpses (Warning: GRAPHIC FOOTAGE)

The Marine Corps said that it is investigating the origins of a video that purports to show Marines in combat gear urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents. Remember, Obama is Commander In Chief!

Follow Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Video Of Cilivians Killed In Iraq (warning graphic video)
US Soldiers Shoot Bomber, Grenade Explodes In His
Hands (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
North Korea Nuclear Program
Liberal’s Anti-War Hypocrisy.?
NATO Airstrike Kills 12 In Marjah
Obama Ignore Soldiers Dying In Afghanistan
American Soldiers Depressed, Troop Morale Low
US Soldiers Shoot Bomber, Grenade Explodes In His Hands
Military Deaths In Afghanistan
Obama Remains Silent As Scores Die In Nigeria
Violence (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
Obama Ignore Nigeria Killings, Like Clinton
Did With Rwanda (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
Obama’s Keeps Silent About The Afghanistan War
U.S. Afghanistan Raid Gone Bad
Taliban Attack
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

2012
01/13
CATEGORY
Afghanistan
Comments Off

Obama Admitting He Is Muslim (Transcript)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING
Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
1:10 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I’m grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I’m also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there’s been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum — “Out of many, one.”

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and, yes, religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who’ve been displaced. That’s why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future — and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people — (applause) — I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. And that’s why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It’s easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know — I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it’s being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there’s a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of somebody else’s faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that’s why we’re forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That’s why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action — whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue — the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know — and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations — including America — this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities — those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century — (applause) — and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I’m emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We’ll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I’m announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There’s so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It’s easier to start wars than to end them. It’s easier to blame others than to look inward. It’s easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There’s one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
2:05 P.M. (Local)

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Obama’s Support Mosque At Ground Zero
Obama “Ass To Kick” Transcript
The Audacity Of Hope Page 261
Imam Rauf Exposed: “Muslim Blood, Niggers, Suicide Bombers”
Dr. Laura Schlesinger’s Nigger Rant
Liberals Hate Fox News
Impeach Obama
Why Liberals Hate Free Speech
Obama Eyeball E-Mail
Obama Kool Aid Drinkers
 Michelle Obama Monkey Faces
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google


Share

2010
08/23
CATEGORY
Transcripts
7 comments

Obama’s Support Mosque At Ground Zero (Transcript)

Obama’s remarks for Friday night’s dinner at the White House, marking the breaking of the daily Ramadan feast, transcribed and distributed by the administration:

Good evening, everybody. Welcome. Please, have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House. To you, to Muslim Americans across our country, and to more than one billion Muslims around the world, I extend my best wishes on this holy month. Ramadan Kareem.

I want to welcome members of the diplomatic corps; members of my administration; and members of Congress, including Rush Holt, John Conyers, and Andre Carson, who is one of two Muslim American members of Congress, along with Keith Ellison. So welcome, all of you.

Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties and seders and Diwali celebrations. And these events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.

These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act of Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose — including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious — a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.

Now, that’s not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities — particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack — from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders — they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion — and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

So that’s who we’re fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms — it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us — and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

In my inaugural address I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and every culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. And that diversity can bring difficult debates. This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be — and will be — today.

And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.

Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came to forge their future here. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories. They helped lay the railroads. They helped to build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America — still in use today — is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities — including mosques in all 50 states — also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police officers and firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.

These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend on, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected — our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability slowly but surely to perfect our union.

For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

So thank you all for being here. I wish you a blessed Ramadan. And with that, let us eat.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Obama And Baghdad Suicide Bombers
The Afghanistan War
Military Deaths In Afghanistan
Obama Afghanistan Plan?
Liberal’s Anti-War Hypocrisy.?
Iraq Car Bombing Kill 147, Wound Over 700
Six Bomb Blasts In Baghdad Kills 95 Wound 536
Peshawar Car Bomb Kills 91
Guantánamo Bay Still Open
Hillary Clinton Warned America About Obama
Obama’s Stimulus Package Has Failed To Deliver
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

2010
08/15
CATEGORY
Transcripts
2 comments

N. Korea Threatens “All-Out-War”

North Korea reacted to a South Korean anti-submarine exercise early Thursday by saying it would meet “confrontation with confrontation” and war with “all-out war.” Now that the group challenged the DPRK [North Korea] formally and blatantly, the DPRK will react to confrontation with confrontation, and to a war with an all-out war,” according the KCNA news agency. When a North Korean Submarine shot a torpedo that hit a south Korean ship and sunk 46 people. The South Korean President, Lee Myung-bak suspended all trade with North Korea for the attack. North Korea now has taken it’s own action by severing all links, escalating the standoff over accusations that the North sank a South Korean’s Ship.

South Korea fired artillery and dropped bombs in military exercises off the west coast of the divided Korean peninsula. The drills aim to help the military detect incursions by the north’s submarines, follow the findings of an international investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan on 26 March in which 46 sailors died. The navy said 10 vessels including a destroyer fired guns and launched anti-submarine bombs south of the capital, Seoul, in a one-day exercise. The exercises were conducted far from the disputed sea border with North Korea, in the Yellow Sea, the southern news agency Yonhap reported, citing military officials.

According to Choi Ju-hwal, who in 1995 defected from his post as Colonel and Chief of joint venture section of Yung-Seong Trading Company under the Ministry of People’s Army, as well as other defectors, missile production facilities include:

  • 7 Factory near Man’gyongdae-ri [Mankeyungdae]
  • 26 Factory in Kanggye of Chagangdo Province [Kangkye of Jakangdo]
  • 118 Factory in Kagamri, Kaecheon-kun in the southern province of Pyongahn
  • 125 Factory [also called the "Pyongyang Pig Factory"] in the Hyengjesan Area of Pyongyang
  • Yakjeon Machinery Factory in Man’gyongdae-ri [Mankeyungdae, also known as Man'gyongdae and Mankeidai]

According to Im Young-sun, a defector from North Korea and former leader of guard platoon in the Military Construction Bureau of the People’s Armed Forces Ministry, North Korea has deployed missiles at a number of facilities:

  • a missile base on Mayang Island, Mayang-ri, Shinpo City, South Hamgyong Province was completed in late 1980.
  • an intermediate-range missile base on Mt. Kanggamchan located on the opposite side of the Kane-po Fisheries Cooperatives in Jungsan County, South Pyongan Province was completed around 1985. A North Korean Navy surface-to-ship missile base was completed in early 1990 on the same site.
  • a long-range missile base in Paekun-ri, Kusong County, North Pyong-an Province was completed in 1986.
  • the No-dong missile base in Hwadae County, North Hamgyong Province was completed in 1988. The Taepo-Dong missile base in Hwadae County is an underground facility with surface-to-surface missiles designed to hit Japan. For security reasons, all inhabitants residing in the area within a radius of 80 Km of this base were reportedly ordered to move out.
  • a missile base in Chunggang-up [Chungganjin], Huchang County, Jagang Province was started in 1990 and completed in 1995. This base was targeted at Okinawa.
  • an underground missile base in Ok’pyong-nodongjagu [Ok-pyong Rodongja-ku], Munchon County, Kangwon Province was started in 1991, and scheduled for completion by 1997 or 1998. Missiles at the facility are targeted at Japan and US military bases in Japan.
  • a long-range surface-to-surface missile base in Doksong County [probably Toksong-gun 40�25'00"N 128�10'00"E] , South Hamgyong Province is currently under construction.

North Korea has a brigade-sized SCUD B/C surface-to-surface missile (SSM) unit about 50 kilometers north of the DMZ at Chiha-ri, which is the main technical support base for North Korea’s Scud missile brigade. In addition, several SCUD B/C facilities have also been noted in development near the DMZ. These facilities would provide North Korea with additional hardened sites that could double or triple the numbers of SSM launchers and support equipment in the forward area. There is also an intermediate range rocket basea in Sangwon-gun in Pyongyang.

Air transportation in North Korea is practically nonexistent. The North Korean air force maintains approximately seventy air fields, including jet and non-jet bases and emergency runways, and has stationed its aircraft in some twenty to thirty air bases. Primary tactical aircraft are stationed at front-line bases and at airbases in the Pyongyang area. North Korea has deployed about half of its fighters in the front area which makes a possible short-warning attack against all areas of South Korea.

North Korea has built dozens of reserve airstrips for emergency landing and takeoff for fighters along highways and ordinary roads across the country. These reserve airstrips built along highways and on stretches of national roads between Sinuiju and Uiju, between P”yongyang and Sangwon, between P”yongyang and Wonsan, P”yongyang and Kaesong, P”yongyang and Sunan, between P”yongyang, P”yongsong, and Hamhung, between Wonsan-Kosong, between Hamhung and Ch”ongjin, and between Huich”on and Solsan.

The three air combat commands are under the direct control of the Air Command at Chunghwa, and the Eighth Air Division is probably headquartered at Rang [Orang] in the northeast. Pyongyang can place almost all its military aircraft in hardened–mostly underground–shelters.

In 1990-91, North Korea activated four forward air bases near the DMZ, which increased its initial southward reach and decreased warning and reaction times for Seoul.

More than 420 fighters, bombers, transport planes, and helicopters were redeployed in October 1995, with more than 100 aircraft were moved forward to three air bases near the DMZ. More than 20 Il-28 bombers were moved to Taetan which shortened their arrival time to Seoul from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. Over 80 MiG-17s redeployed to Nuchonri and Kuupri are able to attack Seoul in 6 minutes. According to South Korean estimates, these redeployments suggested that North Korea intends to make a first strike with outdated MiG-17s and the second strike with primary fighters such as MiG-21s and Su-25s.

Air Ports – 7 total

NAME        DESIG. LATITUDE    LONGITUDE   AREA  UTM   JOG NO.  + Chongjin
AIRP  41�47’11″N  129�44’51″E  KN16  EB62  NK52-08 + Ihyon
AIRP  38�07’00″N  125�47’00″E  KN06  YN42  NJ51-08 + Kwail
AIRP  38�25’19″N  125�01’20″E  KN06  XN75  NJ51-08 + Onchon
AIRP  38�53’25″N  125�14’17″E  KN15  XP90  NJ51-08 + Pukch’ang
AIRP  39�29’40″N  125�58’44″E  KN15  YP57  NJ51-04 + Sunchon
AIRP  39�24’48″N  125�53’45″E  KN15  YP46  NJ51-04 + Unchon Up
AIRP  38�32’59″N  125�20’22″E  KN06  YN06  NJ51-08

Airfields – 60 total

NAME        DESIG. LATITUDE    LONGITUDE   AREA  UTM   JOG NO.  + Ayang Ni Highway Strip
AIRF  38�14’54″N  125�57’53″E  KN07  YN53  NJ51-08 + Changjin-up
AIRF  40�22’08″N  127�15’47″E  KN03  CX56  NK52-10 + Changyon
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�13’30″N  125�08’29″E  KN06  XN83  NJ51-08 + Chik-Tong
AIRF  38�43’24″N  126�40’52″E  KN07  BV98  NJ52-05 + Ch’o do
AIRF  38�33’02″N  124�50’04″E  KN06  XN66  NJ51-08 + Haeju
AIRF  38�00’09″N  125�46’50″E  KN06  YN40  NJ51-08 + Hoeyang Southeast
AIRF  38�39’42″N  127�38’56″E  KN09  CV87  NJ52-05 + Hwangju
AIRF  38�39’01″N  125�47’34″E  KN07  YN48  NJ51-08 + Hwangsuwon
AIRF  40�40’54″N  128�09’05″E  KN13  DA20  NK52-11 + Hyesan
AIRF  41�22’40″N  128�12’19″E  KN13  DA38  NK52-08 + Hyon-ni
AIRF  38�37’00″N  127�27’05″E  KN09  CV67  NJ52-05 + Ichon
AIRF  38�28’54″N  126�51’34″E  KN09  CV16  NJ52-05 + Ihyon
AIRF  38�07’42″N  125�51’00″E  KN07  YN42  NJ51-08 + Inchon Northeast
AIRF  38�40’19″N  126�55’34″E  KN09  CV18  NJ52-05 + Kaechon
AIRF  39�45’14″N  125�54’03″E  KN15  YQ40  NJ51-04 + Kang Da Ri
AIRF  39�05’43″N  127�24’18″E  KN09  CW62  NJ52-01 + Kangdong
AIRF  39�09’16″N  126�02’38″E  KN15  BW43  NJ52-01 + Kilchu Hwy
AIRF  40�55’00″N  129�18’49″E  KN16  EA22  NK52-11 + Kojo
AIRF  38�50’21″N  127�52’21″E  KN09  DV09  NJ52-06 + Koksan
AIRF  38�41’35″N  126�36’07″E  KN07  BV98  NJ52-05 + Koksan South Highway Strip
AIRF  38�44’07″N  126�39’40″E  KN07  BV98  NJ52-05 + Kuktong
AIRF  41�14’48″N  129�33’53″E  KN16  EA46  NK52-08 + Kuum-ni
AIRF  38�51’35″N  127�54’32″E  KN09  DW00  NJ52-06 + Kwaksan
AIRF  39�43’51″N  125�06’47″E  KN11  XP89  NJ51-04 + Kyongsong-Chuul
AIRF  41�33’39″N  129�37’44″E  KN16  EB50  NK52-08 + Maengsan
AIRF  39�39’04″N  126�40’23″E  KN15  CW09  NJ52-01 + Manpo
AIRF  41�08’20″N  126�21’19″E  KN01  BA75  NK52-07 + Mirim
AIRF  39�01’00″N  125�50’41″E  KN12  YP42  NJ51-04 + Nuchon Ni
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�13’46″N  126�16’05″E  KN06  BV63  NJ52-05 + Okpyong ni
AIRF  39�16’01″N  127�19’28″E  KN09  CW54  NJ52-01 + Ongjin
AIRF  37�55’39″N  125�25’11″E  KN06  YM19  NJ51-08 + Orang
AIRF  41�25’42″N  129�38’51″E  KN16  EA58  NK52-08 + Paegam
AIRF  41�56’41″N  128�51’35″E  KN13  DB84  NK52-08 + Panghyon
AIRF  39�55’43″N  125�12’29″E  KN11  XQ82  NJ51-04 + Panghyon South Highway Strip
AIRF  39�52’58″N  125�09’43″E  KN11  XQ81  NJ51-04 + Pyong Ni South Highway Strip
AIRF  39�19’24″N  125�53’57″E  KN15  YP55  NJ51-04 + Pyongsul Li
AIRF  38�42’46″N  126�43’29″E  KN07  CV08  NJ52-05 + Pyongyang
AIRF  38�56’14″N  125�37’47″E  KN12  YP21  NJ51-08 + Samjiyon
AIRF  41�54’20″N  128�24’31″E  KN13  DB53  NK52-08 + Sangwon
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�50’47″N  126�03’51″E  KN12  BW40  NJ52-05 + Sinhung
Highway Strip
AIRF  40�10’53″N  127�32’36″E  KN03  CX74  NK52-10 + Sinuiju
AIRF  40�05’01″N  124�24’28″E  KN11  XE23  NK51-12 + Sohung South
AIRF  38�21’36″N  126�13’14″E  KN07  BV54  NJ52-05 + Sonchon
AIRF  39�55’06″N  124�50’20″E  KN11  XQ51  NJ51-04 + Sondok
AIRF  39�44’45″N  127�28’37″E  KN03  CW69  NJ52-01 + Sunan
AIRF  39�12’05″N  125�40’21″E  KN15  YP34  NJ51-04 + Sunan-up North Highway Strip
AIRF  39�14’16″N  125�40’27″E  KN15  YP34  NJ51-04 + Sungam ni
AIRF  41�40’19″N  129�40’23″E  KN16  EB51  NK52-08 + Taebukpo Ri
AIRF  38�19’46″N  126�52’17″E  KN07  CV14  NJ52-05 + Taechon
AIRF  39�54’14″N  125�29’32″E  KN11  YQ11  NJ51-04 + Taechon Northwest
AIRF  39�59’32″N  125�21’36″E  KN11  YQ02  NJ51-04   Taetan: see T’aet’an-pihaengjang
AIRF  38�08’04″N  125�14’43″E  KN06  XN92  NJ51-08 + T’aet’an-pihaengjang
AIRF  38�08’04″N  125�14’43″E  KN06  XN92  NJ51-08 + Toha Ri North
AIRF  38�42’10″N  126�17’18″E  KN07  BV68  NJ52-05 + Toksan
AIRF  39�59’37″N  127�37’02″E  KN03  CX82  NJ52-02 + Uiju
AIRF  40�08’59″N  124�29’53″E  KN11  XE24  NK51-12 + Uthachi
AIRF  38�54’46″N  125�48’00″E  KN12  YP41  NJ51-08 + Wong Yo Ri Highway Strip
AIRF  38�35’47″N  126�31’38″E  KN07  BV87  NJ52-05 + Wonsan
AIRF  39�09’41″N  127�29’06″E  KN09  CW63  NJ52-01 + Yong Hung
AIRF  39�32’09″N  127�17’29″E  KN03  CW57  NJ52-01

Airfields – 60 total

The same list, sorted by geographical coordinates.
NAME        DESIG. LATITUDE    LONGITUDE   AREA  UTM   JOG NO.   + Ongjin
AIRF  37�55’39″N  125�25’11″E  KN06  YM19  NJ51-08 + Haeju
AIRF  38�00’09″N  125�46’50″E  KN06  YN40  NJ51-08 + Ihyon
AIRF  38�07’42″N  125�51’00″E  KN07  YN42  NJ51-08   Taetan: see T’aet’an-pihaengjang
AIRF  38�08’04″N  125�14’43″E  KN06  XN92  NJ51-08 + T’aet’an-pihaengjang
AIRF  38�08’04″N  125�14’43″E  KN06  XN92  NJ51-08 + Changyon
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�13’30″N  125�08’29″E  KN06  XN83  NJ51-08 + Nuchon Ni
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�13’46″N  126�16’05″E  KN06  BV63  NJ52-05 + Ayang Ni
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�14’54″N  125�57’53″E  KN07  YN53  NJ51-08 + Taebukpo Ri
AIRF  38�19’46″N  126�52’17″E  KN07  CV14  NJ52-05 + Sohung South
AIRF  38�21’36″N  126�13’14″E  KN07  BV54  NJ52-05 + Ichon
AIRF  38�28’54″N  126�51’34″E  KN09  CV16  NJ52-05 + Ch’o do
AIRF  38�33’02″N  124�50’04″E  KN06  XN66  NJ51-08 + Wong Yo Ri Highway Strip
AIRF  38�35’47″N  126�31’38″E  KN07  BV87  NJ52-05 + Hyon-ni
AIRF  38�37’00″N  127�27’05″E  KN09  CV67  NJ52-05 + Hwangju
AIRF  38�39’01″N  125�47’34″E  KN07  YN48  NJ51-08 + Hoeyang Southeast
AIRF  38�39’42″N  127�38’56″E  KN09  CV87  NJ52-05 + Inchon Northeast
AIRF  38�40’19″N  126�55’34″E  KN09  CV18  NJ52-05 + Koksan
AIRF  38�41’35″N  126�36’07″E  KN07  BV98  NJ52-05 + Toha Ri North
AIRF  38�42’10″N  126�17’18″E  KN07  BV68  NJ52-05 + Pyongsul Li
AIRF  38�42’46″N  126�43’29″E  KN07  CV08  NJ52-05 + Chik-Tong
AIRF  38�43’24″N  126�40’52″E  KN07  BV98  NJ52-05 + Koksan South Highway Strip
AIRF  38�44’07″N  126�39’40″E  KN07  BV98  NJ52-05 + Kojo
AIRF  38�50’21″N  127�52’21″E  KN09  DV09  NJ52-06 + Sangwon
Highway Strip
AIRF  38�50’47″N  126�03’51″E  KN12  BW40  NJ52-05 + Kuum-ni
AIRF  38�51’35″N  127�54’32″E  KN09  DW00  NJ52-06 + Uthachi
AIRF  38�54’46″N  125�48’00″E  KN12  YP41  NJ51-08 + Pyongyang
AIRF  38�56’14″N  125�37’47″E  KN12  YP21  NJ51-08 + Mirim
AIRF  39�01’00″N  125�50’41″E  KN12  YP42  NJ51-04 + Kang Da Ri
AIRF  39�05’43″N  127�24’18″E  KN09  CW62  NJ52-01 + Kangdong
AIRF  39�09’16″N  126�02’38″E  KN15  BW43  NJ52-01 + Wonsan
AIRF  39�09’41″N  127�29’06″E  KN09  CW63  NJ52-01 + Sunan
AIRF  39�12’05″N  125�40’21″E  KN15  YP34  NJ51-04 + Sunan-up North Highway Strip
AIRF  39�14’16″N  125�40’27″E  KN15  YP34  NJ51-04 + Okpyong ni
AIRF  39�16’01″N  127�19’28″E  KN09  CW54  NJ52-01 + Pyong Ni South Highway Strip
AIRF  39�19’24″N  125�53’57″E  KN15  YP55  NJ51-04 + Yong Hung
AIRF  39�32’09″N  127�17’29″E  KN03  CW57  NJ52-01 + Maengsan
AIRF  39�39’04″N  126�40’23″E  KN15  CW09  NJ52-01 + Kwaksan
AIRF  39�43’51″N  125�06’47″E  KN11  XP89  NJ51-04 + Sondok
AIRF  39�44’45″N  127�28’37″E  KN03  CW69  NJ52-01 + Kaechon
AIRF  39�45’14″N  125�54’03″E  KN15  YQ40  NJ51-04 + Panghyon South Highway Strip
AIRF  39�52’58″N  125�09’43″E  KN11  XQ81  NJ51-04 + Taechon
AIRF  39�54’14″N  125�29’32″E  KN11  YQ11  NJ51-04 + Sonchon
AIRF  39�55’06″N  124�50’20″E  KN11  XQ51  NJ51-04 + Panghyon
AIRF  39�55’43″N  125�12’29″E  KN11  XQ82  NJ51-04 + Taechon Northwest
AIRF  39�59’32″N  125�21’36″E  KN11  YQ02  NJ51-04 + Toksan
AIRF  39�59’37″N  127�37’02″E  KN03  CX82  NJ52-02 + Sinuiju
AIRF  40�05’01″N  124�24’28″E  KN11  XE23  NK51-12 + Uiju
AIRF  40�08’59″N  124�29’53″E  KN11  XE24  NK51-12 + Sinhung
Highway Strip
AIRF  40�10’53″N  127�32’36″E  KN03  CX74  NK52-10 + Changjin-up
AIRF  40�22’08″N  127�15’47″E  KN03  CX56  NK52-10 + Hwangsuwon
AIRF  40�40’54″N  128�09’05″E  KN13  DA20  NK52-11 + Kilchu Hwy
AIRF  40�55’00″N  129�18’49″E  KN16  EA22  NK52-11 + Manpo
AIRF  41�08’20″N  126�21’19″E  KN01  BA75  NK52-07 + Kuktong
AIRF  41�14’48″N  129�33’53″E  KN16  EA46  NK52-08 + Hyesan
AIRF  41�22’40″N  128�12’19″E  KN13  DA38  NK52-08 + Orang
AIRF  41�25’42″N  129�38’51″E  KN16  EA58  NK52-08 + Kyongsong-Chuul
AIRF  41�33’39″N  129�37’44″E  KN16  EB50  NK52-08 + Sungam ni
AIRF  41�40’19″N  129�40’23″E  KN16  EB51  NK52-08 + Samjiyon
AIRF  41�54’20″N  128�24’31″E  KN13  DB53  NK52-08 + Paegam
AIRF  41�56’41″N  128�51’35″E  KN13  DB84  NK52-08

North Korea has at least eight industrial facilities that can produce chemical agents, and probably nearly twice this many; however, the production rate and types of munitions are uncertain. Presumably, sarin, tabun, phosgene, adamsite, prussic acid and a family of mustard gases, comprising the basis of KPA chemical weapons, are produced here. North Korea has the capability to produce nerve gas, blood agents, and the mustard-gas family of chemical weapons.

There are at least five sources for the locations and characteristics of North Korean chemical weapons facilities:

  • LOC – Chemical Weapons North Korea Country Study Library of Congress, 1993 ” … by the late 1980s as many as eight industrial facilities capable of producing chemical agents had been identified; they were located at Anju, Aoji, Ch’ngjin, Hamhng, Manp’o, Sinhung, Siniju, and Sunch’n. There were three research institutes; they were located at Kanggye, Siniju, and near Hamhng”
  • UMA – Chemical, Biological Weapon Capabilities on Korean Peninsula : JPRS-UMA-94-045 : 2 November 1994 ” … there are at least eight industrial enterprises at which chemical agent production is possible. Mentioned among them are installations near the cities of Chongjin, Hamhung, Yonan, Hungnam, Kusong, Pyongyang, Sunchon and Nampo…”
  • TND “Weekly Assesses DPRK Nuclear War Preparations,” JPRS-TND-94-015 : 30 June 1994 “North Korea’s chemical weapons-related organizations include the Humhung branch of the Academy of Defense Science; Kim Il-song University; the Chemical Department of Pyongsong College of Science; the Chemical Research Institute under the Second Academy of Natural Science; the Central Analysis Center at Pyongsong Academy of Science; the 398th Research Center and the 279th plant under the Nuclear-Chemical Defense Bureau; the chemical plants in Kanggye, Sakchu, Hyesan, Wonsan, and Hamhung; the 8 February Vinalon Plant; Sunchon Vinalon Plant; and Sariwon Potash Fertilizer Plant.”
  • CJH North Korean Mass Destruction Weapons Choi Ju-hwal, OCTOBER 21 1997 “The Hamhung Branch and three other institutes under the Second Natural Science Academy are responsible for research … factories include the Kangye Chemical Factory in Jangang Province, the Sakju Chemical Factory in North Pyongan Province, the “February 8” Vinalon Factory in Hamhung, North Hamgyong Province, the Ilyong Branch of the Sunchon Vinalon Factory in South Pyongan Province, the Factory No. 297 in Pyongwon, South Pyongan Province. There are other chemical factories in Bongung, Hamhung City, South Hamgyong Province, Hyesan City Yanggang Province, and Kangye City, Jagang Province.”
  • ROK 96 – North Korean Military Posture ROK Defense White Paper 1996 ~ 1997
  • ROK 97 – North Korean Military Posture ROK Defense White Paper 1997 ~ 1998

North Korea’s military command, control, and communications system consists of extensive hardened wartime command facilities, supported by redundant communication systems, which are believed to be largely separate from systems supporting other sectors. A modernized telecommunications infrastructure will greatly increase the regime’s ability to perform both peacetime and wartime management tasks, and as in any country, could provide critical backup for military communication systems if necessary.

There are over 30 villas for Kim Jong-Il scattered at mountains and beaches of superb scenic beauty, known as “palaces.” It was Kim Il-sung who began building villas at places of scenic beauty. Those built in the ’50s and ’60s were exclusively for Kim Il-sung. In the ’70s, when Kim Jong-il began emerging as his successor, villas started being built exclusively for Kim Jong-il. Since the death of Kim Il-sung in ’94, both Kim Il-sung villas and Kim Jong-il villas have been used exclusively as Kim Jong-il “palaces.”

Facilities are impressive and include banquet halls, fishing sites, horse-riding grounds and hunting sites, on areas as large as many Western estates. Thousands of resident personnel are charged with their management and upkeep. It is estimated that more than US$2.5 billion was spent for the construction of the aforementioned facilities. “Kangdong Palace” and “Dukchun Palace” were built in the suburbs of Pyongyang after the death of Kim Il-sung, at a cost of over US$150 million. Kim Jong-Il spends about 10 days or more at the palaces in an average month. He uses them for rest with his family and enjoying luxurious parties with his close officials, and sometimes uses them as his office when conducting inspections of military units or industrial sites.

North Korea currently is modernizing its aged telecommunications infrastructure to improve the speed and quality and expand the capacity of both domestic and international communications. A fiber-optic cable linking Pyongyang and Hamhung was complete by early 1995, with construction from Pyongyang to Kangwon, North Hamgyong, and South Pyongan Provinces almost complete by midyear. In 1995, North Korea acquired digital Chinese switching equipment for Chongjin, Najin, and Hamhung. Large quantities of new and used telephones from a number of countries increased the number of telephones to 3.7 per 100 persons by 1993.

The current emphasis in the modernization program is on upgrading communications supporting the Najin-Sonbong Free Trade Zone in northeast North Korea. A large communications center at Najin will be the focal point; it will be equipped with digital switching and other modern equipment and will offer modern communication services to businesses operating in the zone. Vastly improved communications between the Free Trade Zone and other countries will include fiber-optic cable and a digital microwave relay link between Pyongyang, Najin, and Vladivostok, with a shorter link between Najin and Hunchun, China. Additional plans for the Free Trade Zone include construction of a satellite earth station, as well as communication center branches, in the zone.

The response comes amid high tensions on the Korean peninsula, after Seoul blamed Pyongyang for the sinking in March of a South Korean warship. An official South Korean report has accused the communist North of firing a torpedo at the ship, killing the 46 sailors. North Koreans news agency also reported that North Korea would expel all South Koreans from a joint-industrial zone in Kaesong, near the border.

Meanwhile, Obama will meet with the NCAA men’s basketball champion Duke Blue Devils at the White House to honor their 2009-2010 championship season in the Rose Garden. The vice president will take a photo with the U.S. World Cup soccer team and former President Bill Clinton, who is chairing the 2018 World Cup bid, on the North Portico. Afterward, Obama will a private have lunch with President Clinton in the Private Dining Room. In the afternoon, the President will deliver remarks on the BP oil spill, “Plug The DAME Hole!” Obama will then receive a briefing in the Situation Room on the 2010 hurricane season forecast and an overview of the federal government’s national hurricane preparedness. Later in the afternoon, the President, the Vice President and First Lady Michelle Obama will host a reception in honor of Jewish American Heritage Month in the East Room. Then, the First Family will travel to Chicago, Illinois for a four-day Memorial Day weekend vacation.

Follow Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
N. Korea Warns Of War
North Korea Nuclear Program
North Korea Threatens US
Obama Gun Control
49 Of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Under Obama
Putin Rejects Clinton On Iran Sanctions
US Talks With Iran In Vienna
Times Square Bomber: Faisal Shahzad
Full Body Scanner FAILS To Detect Bomb Parts
Obama Announces $6B Arms Sale To Taiwan
Russia Stealth Fighter Jet
Secret Service Weapons
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Summary Of 2010 Budget Plan Mandatory Terminations And Reductions
Second Amendment Activists Swarms DC
Obama ‘Buckwheat’
Somalia Use Portraits Of Obama For Target Practice

2010
05/27
CATEGORY
Military
Leave a comment

N. Korea Warns Of War

The U.S. government echoed Seoul’s assertion that an international investigation had yielded proof that a North Korean submarine fired the torpedo that hit the South Korean ship in March, killing 46 sailors. Obama spoke by phone to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak two days ago, the statement said, and “made clear that the United States fully supports the Republic of Korea, both in the effort to secure justice for the 46 service members killed in this attack and in its defense against further acts of aggression.” North Korea has denied it was responsible for the ship sinking, accusing the South’s conservative government of using the incident for political gain and to worsen already chilly ties between the two Koreas.

Follow Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
North Korea Nuclear Program
North Korea Threatens US
Obama Gun Control
49 Of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Under Obama
Putin Rejects Clinton On Iran Sanctions
US Talks With Iran In Vienna
Times Square Bomber: Faisal Shahzad
Full Body Scanner FAILS To Detect Bomb Parts
Obama Announces $6B Arms Sale To Taiwan
Russia Stealth Fighter Jet
Secret Service Weapons
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Summary Of 2010 Budget Plan Mandatory Terminations And Reductions
Second Amendment Activists Swarms DC
Obama ‘Buckwheat’
Somalia Use Portraits Of Obama For Target Practice

2010
05/20
CATEGORY
Military
Leave a comment

Obama Business Ties With Muslims

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Iran Test Medium Range Missle
Karzai Threatening To Join The Taliban
History Of Iran And USA
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Predator Drones On U.S. Mexican Border
Arizona’s New Immigration Law
Arizona Immigration Bill Is Not Misguided
I Won’t Vote For Obama Again
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Second Amendment Activists Swarms DC
Top 20 US Conservatives/Liberals
Impeach Obama
September 11, 2001 Timeline Of Events
Somalia Use Portraits Of Obama For Target Practice
Obama And Baghdad Suicide Bombers
The Afghanistan War
Hakimullah Mehud: Pakistan’s New Taliban Leader
Taliban Attack
Iraq Car Bombing Kill 147, Wound Over 700
Six Bomb Blasts In Baghdad Kills 95 Wound 536
Peshawar Car Bomb Kills 91
U.S. Afghanistan Raid Gone Bad
Obama Early Troop Removal
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
Child Dies In House Fire, Aunt
Concerned About Her Food Stamps
Michelle Obama’s Chimp Faces
Obama ‘Buckwheat’

2010
04/29
CATEGORY
National Issues
2 comments

Iran Fires Missiles In Persian Gulf

Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards fired five missiles on Sunday as part of ongoing war games in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The shore-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles struck at a single target simultaneously. Two of those tested were the Noor (Light) and Nasr (Victory) missiles. It said a third, having a range of over 300 kilometres was also fired.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
Transcript: Barack Obama And Dmitry Medvedev Nuclear Treaty
Barack Obama And Dmitry Medvedev Sign Nuclear Treaty
Iran Test Medium Range Missle
Karzai Threatening To Join The Taliban
History Of Iran And USA
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
The House Negro And The Field Negro
About Emptysuit
NATO Airstrike Kills 12 In Marjah
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
The Afghanistan War
Iran Second Uranium Plant
Taliban Attack
Summary Of The Defense Appropriation Bill
2011 Budget Summary
2011 Budget Terminations, Reductions And Savings
Iran Marks 31st Anniversary Of Islamic Revolution

2010
04/25
CATEGORY
Military
Leave a comment

Goldman Sachs Lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMPLAINT COMMISSION, [Securities Fraud]
Plaintiff, 10-CV-___________ ( ) v. ECF CASE GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. and Jury Trial Demanded FABRICE TOURRE, Defendants.

Plaintiff, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), alleges as follows against the defendants named above:

OVERVIEW

1. The Commission brings this securities fraud action against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS&Co”) and a GS&Co employee, Fabrice Tourre (“Tourre”), for making materially misleading statements and omissions in connection with a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) GS&Co structured and marketed to investors. This synthetic CDO, ABACUS 2007AC1, was tied to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and was structured and marketed by GS&Co in early 2007 when the United States housing market and related securities were beginning to show signs of distress. Synthetic CDOs like ABACUS 2007-AC1 contributed to the recent financial crisis by magnifying losses associated with the downturn in the United States housing market.

2. GS&Co marketing materials for ABACUS 2007-AC1 – including the term sheet, flip book and offering memorandum for the CDO – all represented that the reference portfolio of RMBS underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (“ACA”), a third-party with experience analyzing credit risk in RMBS. Undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, a large hedge fund, Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”), with economic interests directly adverse to investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO, played a significant role in the portfolio selection process. After participating in the selection of the reference portfolio, Paulson effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (“CDS”) with GS&Co to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 capital structure. Given its financial short interest, Paulson had an economic incentive to choose RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. GS&Co did not disclose Paulson’s adverse economic interests or its role in the portfolio selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum or other marketing materials provided to investors.

3. In sum, GS&Co arranged a transaction at Paulson’s request in which Paulson heavily influenced the selection of the portfolio to suit its economic interests, but failed to disclose to investors, as part of the description of the portfolio selection process contained in the marketing materials used to promote the transaction, Paulson’s role in the portfolio selection process or its adverse economic interests.

4. Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre devised the transaction, prepared the marketing materials and communicated directly with investors. Tourre knew of Paulson’s undisclosed short interest and its role in the collateral selection process. Tourre also misled ACA into believing that Paulson invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS 2007-AC1 (a long position) and, accordingly, that Paulson’s interests in the collateral section process were aligned with ACA’s when in reality Paulson’s interests were sharply conflicting.

5. The deal closed on April 26, 2007. Paulson paid GS&Co approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS 2007-AC1. By October 24, 2007, 83% of the RMBS in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 portfolio had been downgraded and 17% were on negative watch. By January 29, 2008, 99% of the portfolio had been downgraded. As a result, investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO lost over $1 billion. Paulson’s opposite CDS positions yielded a profit of approximately $1 billion for Paulson.

6. By engaging in the misconduct described herein, GS&Co and Tourre directly or indirectly engaged in transactions, acts, practices and a course of business that violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §77q(a) (“the Securities Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) (“the Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and other appropriate and necessary equitable relief from both defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa]. Each defendant, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instruments of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein. Certain of the acts, practices, and courses of conduct constituting the violations of law alleged herein occurred within this judicial district.

DEFENDANTS

8. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is the principal United States broker-dealer of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm headquartered in New York City. GS&Co structured and marketed ABACUS 2007-AC1.

9. Fabrice Tourre, age 31, is a registered representative with GS&Co. Tourre was the GS&Co employee principally responsible for the structuring and marketing of ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre worked as a Vice President on the structured product correlation trading desk at GS&Co headquarters in New York City during the relevant period. Tourre presently works in London as an Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International.

FACTS

A. GS&CO’S CORRELATION TRADING DESK

10. GS&Co’s structured product correlation trading desk was created in and around late 2004/early 2005. Among the services it provided was the structuring and marketing of a series of synthetic CDOs called “ABACUS” whose performance was tied to RMBS. GS&Co sought to protect and expand this profitable franchise in a competitive market throughout the relevant period. According to an internal GS&Co memorandum to the Goldman Sachs Mortgage Capital Committee (“MCC”) dated March 12, 2007, the “ability to structure and execute complicated transactions to meet multiple client’s needs and objectives is key for our franchise,” and “[e]xecuting this transaction [ABACUS 2007-AC1] and others like it helps position Goldman to compete more aggressively in the growing market for synthetics written on structured products.”

B. PAULSON’S INVESTMENT STRATEGY

11. Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”) is a hedge fund founded in 1994. Beginning in 2006, Paulson created two funds, known as the Paulson Credit Opportunity Funds, which took a bearish view on subprime mortgage loans by buying protection through CDS on various debt securities. A CDS is an over-the-counter derivative contract under which a protection buyer makes periodic premium payments and the protection seller makes a contingent payment if a reference obligation experiences a credit event.

12. RMBS are securities backed by residential mortgages. Investors receive payments out of the interest and principal on the underlying mortgages. Paulson developed an investment strategy based upon the belief that, for a variety of reasons, certain mid-andsubprime RMBS rated “Triple B,” meaning bonds rated “BBB” by S&P or “Baa2” by Moody’s, would experience credit events. The Triple B tranche is the lowest investment grade RMBS and, after equity, the first part of the capital structure to experience losses associated with a deterioration of the underlying mortgage loan portfolio.

13. CDOs are debt securities collateralized by debt obligations including RMBS. These securities are packaged and generally held by a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”) that issues notes entitling their holders to payments derived from the underlying assets. In a synthetic CDO, the SPV does not actually own a portfolio of fixed income assets, but rather enters into CDSs that reference the performance of a portfolio (the SPV does hold some collateral securities separate from the reference portfolio that it uses to make payment obligations).

14. Paulson came to believe that synthetic CDOs whose reference assets consisted of certain Triple B-rated mid-and-subprime RMBS would experience significant losses and, under certain circumstances, even the more senior AAA-rated tranches of these so-called “mezzanine” CDOs would become worthless.

C. GS&CO AND PAULSON DISCUSS A PROPOSED TRANSACTION

15. Paulson performed an analysis of recent-vintage Triple B-rated RMBS and identified various bonds it expected to experience credit events. Paulson then asked GS&Co to help it buy protection, through the use of CDS, on the RMBS it had adversely selected, meaning chosen in the belief that the bonds would experience credit events.

16. Paulson discussed with GS&Co possible transactions in which counterparties to its short positions might be found. Among the transactions considered were synthetic CDOs whose performance was tied to Triple B-rated RMBS. Paulson discussed with GS&Co the creation of a CDO that would allow Paulson to participate in selecting a portfolio of reference obligations and then effectively short the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into CDS with GS&Co to buy protection on specific layers of the synthetic CDO’s capital structure.

17. A Paulson employee explained the investment opportunity as of January 2007 as follows:

“It is true that the market is not pricing the subprime RMBS wipeout scenario. In my opinion this situation is due to the fact that rating agencies, CDO managers and underwriters have all the incentives to keep the game going, while ‘real money’ investors have neither the analytical tools nor the institutional framework to take action before the losses that one could anticipate based [on] the ‘news’ available everywhere are actually realized.”

18. At the same time, GS&Co recognized that market conditions were presenting challenges to the successful marketing of CDO transactions backed by mortgage-related securities. For example, portions of an email in French and English sent by Tourre to a friend on January 23, 2007 stated, in English translation where applicable: “More and more leverage in the system, The whole building is about to collapse anytime now…Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre]…standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities!!!” Similarly, an email on February 11, 2007 to Tourre from the head of the GS&Co structured product correlation trading desk stated in part, “the cdo biz is dead we don’t have a lot of time left.”

D. INTRODUCTION OF ACA TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION

19. GS&Co and Tourre knew that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to place the liabilities of a synthetic CDO if they disclosed to investors that a short investor, such as Paulson, played a significant role in the collateral selection process. By contrast, they knew that the identification of an experienced and independent third-party collateral manager as having selected the portfolio would facilitate the placement of the CDO liabilities in a market that was beginning to show signs of distress.

20. GS&Co also knew that at least one significant potential investor, IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG (“IKB”), was unlikely to invest in the liabilities of a CDO that did not utilize a collateral manager to analyze and select the reference portfolio.

21. GS&Co therefore sought a collateral manager to play a role in the transaction proposed by Paulson. Contemporaneous internal correspondence reflects that GS&Co recognized that not every collateral manager would “agree to the type of names [of RMBS] Paulson want[s] to use” and put its “name at risk…on a weak quality portfolio.”

22. In or about January 2007, GS&Co approached ACA and proposed that it serve as the “Portfolio Selection Agent” for a CDO transaction sponsored by Paulson. ACA previously had constructed and managed numerous CDOs for a fee. As of December 31, 2006, ACA had closed on 22 CDO transactions with underlying portfolios consisting of $15.7 billion of assets.

23. Internal GS&Co communications emphasized the advantages from a marketing perspective of having ACA associated with the transaction. For example, an internal email from Tourre dated February 7, 2007, stated:

“One thing that we need to make sure ACA understands is that we want their name on this transaction. This is a transaction for which they are acting as portfolio selection agent, this will be important that we can use ACA’s branding to help distribute the bonds.”

24. Likewise, an internal GS&Co memorandum to the Goldman Sachs MCC dated March 12, 2007 described the marketing advantages of ACA’s “brand-name” and “credibility”:

“We expect the strong brand-name of ACA as well as our market-leading position in synthetic CDOs of structured products to result in a successful offering.”

“We expect that the role of ACA as Portfolio Selection Agent will broaden the investor base for this and future ABACUS offerings.”

“We intend to target suitable structured product investors who have previously participated in ACA-managed cashflow CDO transactions or who have previously participated in prior ABACUS transactions.”

“We expect to leverage ACA’s credibility and franchise to help distribute this Transaction.”

E. PAULSON’S PARTICIPATION IN THE COLLATERAL SELECTION PROCESS

25. In late 2006 and early 2007, Paulson performed an analysis of recent-vintage Triple B RMBS and identified over 100 bonds it expected to experience credit events in the near future. Paulson’s selection criteria favored RMBS that included a high percentage of adjustable rate mortgages, relatively low borrower FICO scores, and a high concentration of mortgages in states like Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada that had recently experienced high rates of home price appreciation. Paulson informed GS&Co that it wanted the reference portfolio for the contemplated transaction to include the RMBS it identified or bonds with similar characteristics.

26. On January 8, 2007, Tourre attended a meeting with representatives from Paulson and ACA at Paulson’s offices in New York City to discuss the proposed transaction.

27. On January 9, 2007, GS&Co sent an email to ACA with the subject line, “Paulson Portfolio.” Attached to the email was a list of 123 2006 RMBS rated Baa2. On January 9, 2007, ACA performed an “overlap analysis” and determined that it previously had purchased 62 of the 123 RMBS on Paulson’s list at the same or lower ratings.

28. On January 9, 2007, GS&Co informed ACA that Tourre was “very excited by the initial portfolio feedback.”

29. On January 10, 2007, Tourre sent an email to ACA with the subject line, “Transaction Summary.” The text of Tourre’s email began, “we wanted to summarize ACA’s proposed role as ‘Portfolio Selection Agent’ for the transaction that would be sponsored by Paulson (the ‘Transaction Sponsor’).” The email continued in relevant part, “[s]tarting portfolio would be ideally what the Transaction Sponsor shared, but there is flexibility around the names.”

30. On January 22, 2007, ACA sent an email to Tourre and others at GS&Co with the subject line, “Paulson Portfolio 1-22-10.xls.” The text of the email began, “Attached please find a worksheet with 86 sub-prime mortgage positions that we would recommend taking exposure to synthetically. Of the 123 names that were originally submitted to us for review, we have included only 55.”

31. On January 27, 2007, ACA met with a Paulson representative in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and they discussed the proposed transaction and reference portfolio. The next day, on January 28, 2007, ACA summarized the meeting in an email to Tourre. Tourre responded via email later that day, “this is confirming my initial impression that [Paulson] wanted to proceed with you subject to agreement on portfolio and compensation structure.”

32. On February 2, 2007, Paulson, Tourre and ACA met at ACA’s offices in New York City to discuss the reference portfolio. Unbeknownst to ACA at the time, Paulson intended to effectively short the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into CDS with GS&Co to buy protection on specific layers of the synthetic CDO’s capital structure. Tourre and GS&Co, of course, were fully aware that Paulson’s economic interests with respect to the quality of the reference portfolio were directly adverse to CDO investors. During the meeting, Tourre sent an email to another GS&Co employee stating, “I am at this aca paulson meeting, this is surreal.” Later the same day, ACA emailed Paulson, Tourre, and others at GS&Co a list of 82 RMBS on which Paulson and ACA concurred, plus a list of 21 “replacement” RMBS. ACA sought Paulson’s approval of the revised list, asking, “Let me know if these work for you at the Baa2 level.”

33. On February 5, 2007, Paulson sent an email to ACA, with a copy to Tourre, deleting eight RMBS recommended by ACA, leaving the rest, and stating that Tourre agreed that 92 bonds were a sufficient portfolio.

34. On February 5, 2007, an internal ACA email asked, “Attached is the revised portfolio that Paulson would like us to commit to – all names are at the Baa2 level. The final portfolio will have between 80 and these 92 names. Are ‘we’ ok to say yes on this portfolio?” The response was, “Looks good to me. Did [Paulson] give a reason why they kicked out all the Wells [Fargo] deals?” Wells Fargo was generally perceived as one of the higher-quality subprime loan originators.

35. On or about February 26, 2007, after further discussion, Paulson and ACA came to an agreement on a reference portfolio of 90 RMBS for ABACUS 2007-AC1.

F. GS&CO MISLED INVESTORS BY REPRESENTING THAT ACA SELECTED THE PORTFOLIO WITHOUT DISCLOSING PAULSON’S SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN DETERMINING THE PORTFOLIO AND ITS ADVERSE ECONOMIC INTERESTS

36. GS&Co’s marketing materials for ABACUS 2007-AC1 were false and misleading because they represented that ACA selected the reference portfolio while omitting any mention that Paulson, a party with economic interests adverse to CDO investors, played a significant role in the selection of the reference portfolio.

37. For example, a 9-page term sheet for ABACUS 2007-AC1 finalized by GS&Co on or about February 26, 2007, described ACA as the “Portfolio Selection Agent” and stated in bold print at the top of the first page that the reference portfolio of RMBS had been “selected by ACA.” This document contained no mention of Paulson, its economic interests in the transaction, or its role in selecting the reference portfolio.

38. Similarly, a 65-page flip book for ABACUS 2007-AC1 finalized by GS&Co on or about February 26, 2007 represented on its cover page that the reference portfolio of RMBS had been “Selected by ACA Management, LLC.” The flip book included a 28-page overview of ACA describing its business strategy, senior management team, investment philosophy, expertise, track record and credit selection process, together with a 7-page section of biographical information on ACA officers and employees. Investors were assured that the party selecting the portfolio had an “alignment of economic interest” with investors. This document contained no mention of Paulson, its economic interests in the transaction, or its role in selecting the reference portfolio.

39. Tourre had primary responsibility for preparing the term sheet and flip book.

40. The Goldman Sachs MCC, which included senior-level management of GS&Co, approved the ABACUS 2007-AC1 on or about March 12, 2007. GS&Co expected to earn between $15-and-$20 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS 2007-AC1.

41. On or about April 26, 2007, GS&Co finalized a 178-page offering memorandum for ABACUS 2007-AC1. The cover page of the offering memorandum included a description of ACA as “Portfolio Selection Agent.” The Transaction Overview, Summary and Portfolio Selection Agent sections of the memorandum all represented that the reference portfolio of RMBS had been selected by ACA. This document contained no mention of Paulson, its economic interests in the transaction, or its role in selecting the reference portfolio.

42. Tourre reviewed at least the Summary section of the offering memorandum before it was sent to potential investors.

43. Although the marketing materials for ABACUS 2007-AC1 made no mention of Paulson or its role in the transaction, internal GS&Co communications clearly identified Paulson, its economic interests, and its role in the transaction. For example, the March 12, 2007 MCC memorandum describing the transaction stated, “Goldman is effectively working an order for Paulson to buy protection on specific layers of the [ABACUS 2007-]AC1 capital structure.”

G. GS&CO MISLED ACA INTO BELIEVING PAULSON WAS LONG EQUITY

44. GS&Co also misled ACA into believing that Paulson was investing in the equity of ABACUS 2007-AC1 and therefore shared a long interest with CDO investors. The equity tranche is at the bottom of the capital structure and the first to experience losses associated with deterioration in the performance of the underlying RMBS. Equity investors therefore have an economic interest in the successful performance of a reference RMBS portfolio. As of early 2007, ACA had participated in a number of CDO transactions involving hedge funds that invested in the equity tranche.

45. Had ACA been aware that Paulson was taking a short position against the CDO, ACA would have been reluctant to allow Paulson to occupy an influential role in the selection of the reference portfolio because it would present serious reputational risk to ACA, which was in effect endorsing the reference portfolio. In fact, it is unlikely that ACA would have served as portfolio selection agent had it known that Paulson was taking a significant short position instead of a long equity stake in ABACUS 2007-AC1. Tourre and GS&Co were responsible for ACA’s misimpression that Paulson had a long position, rather than a short position, with respect to the CDO.

46. On January 8, 2007, Tourre attended a meeting with representatives from Paulson and ACA at Paulson’s offices in New York City to discuss the proposed transaction. Paulson’s economic interest was unclear to ACA, which sought further clarification from GS&Co. Later that day, ACA sent a GS&Co sales representative an email with the subject line “Paulson meeting” that read:

“I have no idea how it went – I wouldn’t say it went poorly, not at all, but I think it didn’t help that we didn’t know exactly how they [Paulson] want to participate in the space. Can you get us some feedback?”

47. On January 10, 2007, Tourre emailed ACA a “Transaction Summary” that included a description of Paulson as the “Transaction Sponsor” and referenced a “Contemplated Capital Structure” with a “[0]% – [9]%: pre-committed first loss” as part of the Paulson deal structure. The description of this [0]% – [9]% tranche at the bottom of the capital structure was consistent with the description of an equity tranche and ACA reasonably believed it to be a reference to the equity tranche. In fact, GS&Co never intended to market to anyone a “[0]% – [9]%” first loss equity tranche in this transaction.

48. On January 12, 2007, Tourre spoke by telephone with ACA about the proposed transaction. Following that conversation, on January 14, 2007, ACA sent an email to the GS&Co sales representative raising questions about the proposed transaction and referring to Paulson’s equity interest. The email, which had the subject line “Call with Fabrice [Tourre] on Friday,” read in pertinent part:

“I certainly hope I didn’t come across too antagonistic on the call with Fabrice [Tourre] last week but the structure looks difficult from a debt investor perspective. I can understand Paulson’s equity perspective but for us to put our name on something, we have to be sure it enhances our reputation.”

49. On January 16, 2007, the GS&Co sales representative forwarded that email to Tourre. As of that date, Tourre knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that ACA had been misled into believing Paulson intended to invest in the equity of ABACUS 2007-AC1.

50. Based upon the January 10, 2007, “Transaction Summary” sent by Tourre, the January 12, 2007 telephone call with Tourre and continuing communications with Tourre and others at GS&Co, ACA continued to believe through the course of the transaction that Paulson would be an equity investor in ABACUS 2007-AC1.

51. On February 12, 2007, ACA’s Commitments Committee approved the firm’s participation in ABACUS as portfolio selection agent. The written approval memorandum described Paulson’s role as follows: “the hedge fund equity investor wanted to invest in the 09% tranche of a static mezzanine ABS CDO backed 100% by subprime residential mortgage securities.” Handwritten notes from the meeting reflect discussion of “portfolio selection work with the equity investor.”

H. ABACUS 2007-AC1 INVESTORS

1. IKB

52. IKB is a commercial bank headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany. Historically, IKB specialized in lending to small and medium-sized companies. Beginning in and around 2002, IKB, for itself and as an advisor, was involved in the purchase of securitized assets referencing, or consisting of, consumer credit risk including RMBS CDOs backed by U.S. mid-and-subprime mortgages. IKB’s former subsidiary, IKB Credit Asset Management GmbH, provided investment advisory services to various purchasing entities participating in a commercial paper conduit known as the “Rhineland programme conduit.”

53. The identity and experience of those involved in the selection of CDO portfolios was an important investment factor for IKB. In late 2006 IKB informed a GS&Co sales representative and Tourre that it was no longer comfortable investing in the liabilities of CDOs that did not utilize a collateral manager, meaning an independent third-party with knowledge of the U.S. housing market and expertise in analyzing RMBS. Tourre and GS&Co knew that ACA was a collateral manager likely to be acceptable to IKB.

54. In February, March and April 2007, GS&Co sent IKB copies of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 term sheet, flip book and offering memorandum, all of which represented that the RMBS portfolio had been selected by ACA and omitted any reference to Paulson, its role in selecting the reference portfolio and its adverse economic interests. Those representations and omissions were materially false and misleading because,unbeknownst to IKB, Paulson played a significant role in the collateral selection process and had financial interests in the transaction directly adverse to IKB. Neither GS&Co nor Tourre informed IKB of Paulson’s participation in the collateral selection process and its adverse economic interests.

55. The first written marketing materials for ABACUS 2007-AC1 were distributed on February 15, 2007, when GS&Co emailed a preliminary term sheet and reference portfolio to the GS&Co sales representative covering IKB. Tourre was aware these materials would be delivered to IKB.

56. On February 19, 2007, the GS&Co sales representative forwarded the marketing materials to IKB, explaining via email: “Attached are details of the ACA trade we spoke about with Fabrice [Tourre] in which you thought the AAAs would be interesting.”

57. Tourre maintained direct and indirect contact with IKB in an effort to close the deal. This included a March 6, 2007 email to the GS&Co sales representative for IKB representing that, “This is a portfolio selected by ACA . . .” Tourre subsequently described the portfolio in an internal GS&Co email as having been “selected by ACA/Paulson.”

58. ABACUS 2007-AC1 closed on or about April 26, 2007. IKB bought $50 million worth of Class A-1 notes at face value. The Class A-1 Notes paid a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 85 basis points and were rated Aaa by Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. (“Moody’s”) and AAA by Standard & Poor’s Ratings & Services (“S&P”). IKB bought $100 million worth of Class A-2 Notes at face value. The Class A-2 Notes paid a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 110 basis points and were rated Aaa by Moody’s and AAA by S&P.

59. The fact that the portfolio had been selected by an independent third-party with experience and economic interests aligned with CDO investors was important to IKB. IKB would not have invested in the transaction had it known that Paulson played a significant role in the collateral selection process while intending to take a short position in ABACUS 2007AC1. Among other things, knowledge of Paulson’s role would have seriously undermined IKB’s confidence in the portfolio selection process and led senior IKB personnel to oppose the transaction.

60. Within months of closing, ABACUS 2007-AC1’s Class A-1 and A-2 Notes were nearly worthless. IKB lost almost all of its $150 million investment. Most of this money was ultimately paid to Paulson in a series of transactions between GS&Co and Paulson.

2. ACA/ABN AMRO

61. ACA’s parent company, ACA Capital Holdings, Inc. (“ACA Capital”), provided financial guaranty insurance on a variety of structured finance products including RMBS CDOs, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation. On or about May 31, 2007, ACA Capital sold protection or “wrapped” the $909 million super senior tranche of ABACUS 2007-AC1, meaning that it assumed the credit risk associated with that portion of the capital structure via a CDS in exchange for premium payments of approximately 50 basis points per year.

62. ACA Capital was unaware of Paulson’s short position in the transaction. It is unlikely that ACA Capital would have written protection on the super senior tranche if it had known that Paulson, which played an influential role in selecting the reference portfolio, had taken a significant short position instead of a long equity stake in ABACUS 2007-AC1.

63. The super senior transaction with ACA Capital was intermediated by ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (“ABN”), which was one of the largest banks in Europe during the relevant period. This meant that, through a series of CDS between ABN and Goldman and between ABN and ACA that netted ABN premium payments of approximately 17 basis points per year, ABN assumed the credit risk associated with the super senior portion of ABACUS 2007AC1’s capital structure in the event ACA Capital was unable to pay.

64. GS&Co sent ABN copies of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 term sheet, flip book and offering memorandum, all of which represented that the RMBS portfolio had been selected by ACA and omitted any reference to Paulson’s role in the collateral selection process and its adverse economic interest. Tourre also told ABN in emails that ACA had selected the portfolio. These representations and omissions were materially false and misleading because, unbeknownst to ABN, Paulson played a significant role in the collateral selection process and had a financial interest in the transaction that was adverse to ACA Capital and ABN.

65. At the end of 2007, ACA Capital was experiencing severe financial difficulties. In early 2008, ACA Capital entered into a global settlement agreement with its counterparties to effectively unwind approximately $69 billion worth of CDSs, approximately $26 billion of which were related to 2005-06 vintage subprime RMBS. ACA Capital is currently operating as a run-off financial guaranty insurance company.

66. In late 2007, ABN was acquired by a consortium of banks that included the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”). On or about August 7, 2008, RBS unwound ABN’s super senior position in ABACUS 2007-AC1 by paying GS&Co $840,909,090. Most of this money was subsequently paid by GS&Co to Paulson.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

67. Paragraphs 1-66 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

68. GS&Co and Tourre each violated Section 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), (2) & (3)].

69. As set forth above, Goldman and Tourre, in the offer or sale of securities or securities-based swap agreements, by the use of means or instruments of interstate commerce or by the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities.

70. GS&Co and Tourre knowingly, recklessly or negligently misrepresented in the term sheet, flip book and offering memorandum for ABACUS 2007-AC1 that the reference portfolio was selected by ACA without disclosing the significant role in the portfolio selection process played by Paulson, a hedge fund with financial interests in the transaction directly adverse to IKB, ACA Capital and ABN. GS&Co and Tourre also knowingly, recklessly or negligently misled ACA into believing that Paulson invested in the equity of ABACUS 2007AC1 and, accordingly, that Paulson’s interests in the collateral section process were closely aligned with ACA’s when in reality their interests were sharply conflicting.

SECOND CLAIM
Section 10(b) and Rule 10-b(5) of the Exchange Act

71. Paragraphs 1-70 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

72. GS&Co and Tourre each violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

73. As set forth above, GS&Co and Tourre, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or securities-based swap agreements, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon persons.

74. GS&Co and Tourre knowingly or recklessly misrepresented in the term sheet, flip book and offering memorandum for ABACUS 2007-AC1 that the reference portfolio was selected by ACA without disclosing the significant role in the portfolio selection process played by Paulson, a hedge fund with financial interests in the transaction adverse to IKB, ACA Capital and ABN. GS&Co and Tourre also knowingly or recklessly misled ACA into believing that Paulson invested in the equity of ABACUS 2007-AC1 and, accordingly, that Paulson’s interests in the collateral section process were closely aligned with ACA’s when in reality their interests were sharply conflicting.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment:

A. Finding that GS&Co and Tourre each violated the federal securities laws and the Commission rule alleged in this Complaint;

B. Permanently restraining and enjoining GS&Co and Tourre from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];

C. Ordering GS&Co and Tourre to disgorge all illegal profits that they obtained as a result of their fraudulent misconduct, acts or courses of conduct described in this Complaint, and to pay prejudgment interest thereon;

D. Imposing civil monetary penalties on GS&Co and Tourre pursuant to Section 20(d)(2) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t (d)(2)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; and

E. Granting such equitable relief as may be appropriate or necessary for the benefit of investors pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)] .

Dated: Washington, D.C.

April 16, 2010
Respectfully submitted,

_________________________

Richard E. Simpson (RS 5859)
Reid A. Muoio (RM 2274)
Kenneth Lench
Cheryl J. Scarboro
James A. Kidney
Jeffrey Tao
Jason Anthony
Nicole C. Kelly
Jeff Leasure
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F St., NE
Washington, D.C. 20549-4010
(202) 551-4492 (Simpson)
simpsonr@sec.gov

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Obama Bank Overhaul
Dollar Losing Value Under Obama
Obama’s 9 Trillion Dollar Deficit
Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An ‘F’
ObamaPromised 3.5 Million Jobs
Hillary Clinton Warned America About Obama
Health Care Insurance And Health Care Benefits
Michelle Obama’s Chimp Faces
Second Amendment Activists Swarms DC
Obama Doll Found Hanging From Building
Obama’s Air Force One flight to Chicago cost $236,000
Obama Job Loss
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Obama Gun Control
49 Of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Under Obama
I Won’t Vote For Obama Again
Obama Skips Polish President Lech Kaczynski Funeral To Play Golf
Obama Bowing To Japan’s Emperor Akihito
Obama Bowing To Saudi King
‘Death to Obama’ Sign Holder Detained
The House Negro And The Field Negro
White America Hate Barack Obama
The Race Card
The Other 95%
Michelle Obama On Hawaii Beach For Christmas
Impeach Obama
Michelle Obama Called Ghetto Girl
Obama Kill The Fly
Obama Eyeball E-Mail
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

2010
04/20
CATEGORY
Documents
4 comments

Second Amendment Activists Swarms DC

Dozens of Second Amendment rights activists holstered their handguns and slung unloaded rifles over their shoulders Monday at a gun rights rally in northern Virginia, while hundreds of like-minded but unarmed counterparts converged in the nation’s capital.

Second Amendment: guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms. The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The American Bar Association has noted that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to “weapon(s)” for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, “arms” refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to “bear arms” meant to wage war.

The phrase “right to keep and bear arms” was first used in the text of Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

For almost a century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times. The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. The notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside, but Justice Story “misidentified” it as the “5th Amendment.”

U.S. Supreme Court

The primary U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), United States v. Miller (1939) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). A key legal question is whether the Second Amendment is held to apply to state and local governments by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cruikshank and Presser predate the modern criteria by which it is determined whether a particular part of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. Because Heller did not make such a determination, it remains an open question. McDonald v. Chicago, currently before the Court, addresses this question.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

In the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), the Supreme Court’s decision denying citizenship to former slaves and their descendants included the following relevant wording:

[I]n no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights….More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding states regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another state. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it …. would give to persons of the Negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.[131]

The Court was referring to the Privileges and Immunities Clause, located in Article IV of the Constitution. This is to be distinguished from the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was adopted as part of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

United States v. Cruikshank

The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). In Cruikshank, the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty blacks known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, “[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.”

The Court stated that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…”. Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:

The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.

Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.

Regarding the Second Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, said in 2008:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Regarding the assertion in Heller that Cruikshank said the First Amendment did not apply to the states, Professor David Rabban wrote that the Cruikshank Court “never specified whether the First Amendment contains ‘fundamental rights’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state action….”[136]

Presser v. Illinois

Main article: Presser v. Illinois

In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as violation of Illinois law which prohibits the public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the Governor.

At his trial, Presser argued that the state of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. In rejecting his case the Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, holding that the Second Amendment restricts only the authority of the Congress to maintain the public security. This decision upheld the states authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.

Miller v. Texas

In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death using an unlicensed handgun, in violation of Texas law. Mr. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be incorporated to state law. The Supreme Court ruled in line with Presser and Cruikshank that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law for which Mr. Miller has been convicted.

Robertson v. Baldwin

In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated:

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;…”

United States v. Miller

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court heard arguments from only the Solicitor General and rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:

Jack Miller and Frank Layton “did unlawfully…transport in interstate commerce from…Claremore…Oklahoma to…Siloam Springs…Arkansas a certain firearm…a double barrel…shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length…at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce…not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, …and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order…as provided by Section 1132C…”

A demurrer had been filed, which alleged:

The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A. – ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A federal district court, ruled Section 11 of the National Firearms Act of 1934 to be in violation of the Second Amendment’s restriction forbidding such infringement and so it quashed the indictment.

In a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision stating that:

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U. S. 506, 300 U. S. 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act — United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U. S. 394, United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U. S. 86, 249 U. S. 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U. S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 289; Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U. S. 332 — the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

The Court further explained:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Miller is cited by gun-rights advocates, because they claim that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment.” It has also been cited by gun control advocates because they claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon’s suitability for the “common defense.” Law professor Andrew McClurg states, “The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact.”

District of Columbia v. Heller

The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) ruled that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” and “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the Court said:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Court held that the amendment’s prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, stated that:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

This dissent called the Opinion of the Court “strained and unpersuasive” and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation.

Justice Scalia, in the Opinion of the Court, called Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” incoherent and grotesque.

Justice Breyer, in his own dissent and speaking only for himself, stated:

I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

Regarding the term “well regulated”, the U.S. Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller:

[T]he adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

Justice Scalia, writing for the court, quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.

The majority opinion in Heller also stated that:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

The dissenting justices were unpersuaded by this argument.

McDonald v. Chicago

Main article: McDonald v. Chicago

On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in, and so decided to review, McDonald v. Chicago. This case closely parallels NRA v. Chicago. A central issue before the Court will be whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Oral argument took place on March 2, 2010. A ruling is expected this June.

In the first couple decades following the adoption of the Second Amendment public opposition to a standing army persisted, a widely held opinion among the minority Anti-Federalists and to a lesser extent among the majority Federalists. This opinion also extended to opposition to a professional armed police force, with the responsibility to carry out local ordinances falling to sheriffs in counties and constables and night watchmen in cities and towns. These officials were sometimes compensated, but more often served as a civic duty without payment. In these early decades with rare exceptions these full time law enforcement officers were not armed with firearms, but rather were armed only with clubs. In large emergencies a call up was issued for the posse comitatus, militia companies, or vigilantes to assume law enforcement duties and these groups were much more likely to be armed with firearms. The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 obliged every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to be included in the national militia. It also required these men to provide their own arms and ammunition. In practice individual acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets to be held ready for militia duty proved problematic, with compliance estimates ranging between 10 and 65 percent of militiamen bringing their private arms to the militia musters. Additionally, compliance with the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 gradually fell into disfavor and disrepute. The State legislatures granted increasing numbers of exemptions to universal militia obligation, with exemptions granted to clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, jurors, mariners and ferrymen. While in practice, the remainder of able bodied white men remained obligated for service, an increasing number of people simply did not or could not show up for militia duty. The penalty for failing to show up for duty was enforced only sporadically and selectively.

The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power. Initial attempts of the four nearby states to raise a militia to be nationalized to suppress this insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced resistance to a draft. The rank and file that resulted from this effort to raise a militia consisted mainly of draftees or paid substitutes and the poor of society who enlisted not out of duty but instead for the enlistment bonus payments. The officers who responded to the militia call up were of a higher quality and had responded out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, but were generally critical of the rank and file. Most of the 13,000 rank and file lacked their own weapons and the war department had to provide nearly two-thirds of them with guns. In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The aftermath of this experience using a militia for national defense led to criticism of the self-armed citizen concept to provide for arming of a universal militia system. Secretary of War Henry Knox and President John Adams in the following years lobbied the Congress to establish federal armories to hold weapons which were mostly imported and to encourage the domestic gunsmiths to increase local production. This degradation of the militia persisted, and within twenty years, the poor performance of the militia during the War of 1812 resulted in several wartime setbacks including being cited as the cause of the sacking of Washington, D.C. and the burning of the White House in 1814.

Barak On Gun Control:

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun us in home invasion

Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar’s case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich’s veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor’s veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 Aug 1, 2008

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

April 2008: “Bittergate” labeled Obama elitist

April 11th produced “Bittergate.” The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. “It’s not surprising they get bitter,” he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Clinton said the remarks were “not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.” McCain said Obama showed “breathtaking” elitism. Obama challenged the accusations, and noted in response to the charge of elitism that he had been raised by a single mother who relied on food stamps, but conceded he could have been more diplomatic.

Source: Obama for Beginners, by Bob Neer, p. 61 Apr 1, 2008

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“

It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

    Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

  • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

  • Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
  • Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
  • Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
  • Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
  • Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Link:
Mexico’s Drug Violence (warning graphic video)
Predator Drones On U.S. Mexico Border
Health Care Insurance And Health Care Benefits
Michelle Obama’s Chimp Faces
H.R. 3962 Summary
Obama Doll Found Hanging From Building
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama and Jews
Barack And Michelle Obama Radical Cartoon
Rush Limbaugh Interview About Obama
Obamas Attacks Rush Limbaugh
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Obama Gun Control
49 Of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Under Obama
I Won’t Vote For Obama Again
Kroft to Obama: Are you punch-drunk?
Obama Bowing To Japan’s Emperor Akihito
Obama Bowing To Saudi King
‘Death to Obama’ Sign Holder Detained
The House Negro And The Field Negro
White America Hate Barack Obama
The Race Card
Barack Obama Said He Was Black Before The Election
Michelle Obama On Hawaii Beach For Christmas
Impeach Obama
Michelle Obama Called Ghetto Girl
Obama Kill The Fly
Obama Eyeball E-Mail
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion



2010
04/19
CATEGORY
Uncategorized
5 comments

Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ridiculed Obama’s new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats. Ahmadinejad said in a speech, “Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended.” Ahmadinejad added, “American materialist politicians, whenever they are beaten by logic, immediately resort to their weapons like cowboys.” Ahmadinejad said Obama “is under the pressure of capitalists and the Zionists” and vowed Iran would not be pushed around. “(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.” The United States has been trying to win Iranian acceptance of a U.N.-backed proposal to swap enriched uranium in hopes of getting enough of the material out of Iran’s hands that it would be unable to produce a warhead.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links
Video Of Cilivians Killed In Iraq (warning graphic video)
US Soldiers Shoot Bomber, Grenade Explodes In His
Hands (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
History Of Iran And USA
Obama Nuclear Doctrine
Karzai Threatening To Join The Taliban
Impeach Obama
Liberal’s Anti-War Hypocrisy.?
NATO Airstrike Kills 12 In Marjah
US Soldiers Shoot Bomber, Grenade Explodes In His
Hands (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
Military Deaths In Afghanistan
Obama Remains Silent As Scores Die In Nigeria
Violence (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
Obama Ignore Nigeria Killings, Like Clinton
Did With Rwanda (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
The House Negro And The Field Negro

Share

2010
04/07
CATEGORY
International Events
Leave a comment

Video Of Cilivians Killed In Iraq (warning graphic video)

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links
US Soldiers Shoot Bomber, Grenade Explodes In His
Hands (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
History Of Iran And USA
Guantánamo Bay Still Open
Obama Illegal Afghanistan War
Impeach Obama
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
Obama Afghanistan Plan?
Liberal’s Anti-War Hypocrisy.?
Obama’s Keeps Silent About The Afghanistan War
NATO Airstrike Kills 12 In Marjah
US Soldiers Shoot Bomber, Grenade Explodes In His
Hands (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
Military Deaths In Afghanistan
U.S. Military Death Toll In Afghanistan Past 1,000
Karzai Threatening To Join The Taliban
Obama Remains Silent As Scores Die In Nigeria
Violence (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
Obama Ignore Nigeria Killings, Like Clinton
Did With Rwanda (WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO)
The House Negro And The Field Negro

Share

2010
04/07
CATEGORY
Military
Videos
Leave a comment

Karzai Threatening To Join The Taliban

March 12

Afghan President Hamid Karzai welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 10, 2010. Ahmadinejad said Iran does not consider the presence of foreign troops a solution for peace in Afghanistan. At the same time, U. S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates was touring the country for a review of the U. S. and NATO troop surge. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in the Afghan capital giving a strong message against U.S. interference in the region. Karzai then flew in Islamabad and had extensive consultation with the Pakistan leadership on some crucial security issues, including training of Afghan forces and repatriation of important Taliban commanders. Karzai met with Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani after signing a Memorandum of Understanding and addressed a joint press conference in Islamabad, he said Afghanistan and Pakistan are twin brothers, adding that ” without cooperation from Pakistan, there could be no stability”. Karzai was received warmly in Pakistan with presentation of 21 gun salutes. Soon after his arrival he went to Aiwan-e-Sadr and met Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Then Obama made a “surprise visit” to Afghanistan, March 29

April 3: Afghan President Hamid Karzai is threatening to join the Taliban if the West doesn’t stop meddling in the country’s affairs and pressuring him for reform. Karzai reportedly told a member of the Afghan parliament on April 3,  “If you (Obama) and the international community pressure me more, I swear that I am going to join the Taliban.” Karzai’s comment came a week after Obama and his arrogant unannounced trip to Kabul. Karzai publicly accused Obama and his allies of election fraud last summer. Karzai’s remarks appear to be an attempt to cast himself as a leader willing to stand up to Western occupiers, rather than a U.S.-backed figurehead brought into power at the hands of said occupiers.

What does Obama and his Obamamedia do? They are calling Hamid Karzani, “off-balance” and “emotional.” They now questioned the “mental stability” of Hamid Karzai. MSM is doing their famous personal attack, they say, “He’s prone to tirades. He can be very emotional, act impulsively. Going as far as saying Karzai has a substance abuse problem (like Obama), in an apparent reference to opium or heroin. Obama had written in his first book, “Dreams From My Father” (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine (“maybe a little blow”). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him. All you Obama Kool-Aid Drinkers, this is from his book! Your president is a DRUG USER, face it! This will explain why all of a sudden Karzai has changed his views of Obama and all these inexperienced elected official running the country. Karzai realize that Crack Head can’t run the country and has decided to follow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and consider joining the Taliban. Face it, Obama F#$%^ UP! (I threw that in like Joe Biden)

Click On Links
History Of Iran And USA
Pakistans Taliban
The Afghanistan Problem
U.S. Afghanistan Raid Gone Bad
Hillary Clinton Warned America About Obama
Iran Test Medium Range Missle
Obama Bowing To Saudi King
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Iran Marks 31st Anniversary Of Islamic Revolution
Liberal’s Anti-War Hypocrisy.?
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
The Afghanistan War
Iran Second Uranium Plant
Iran Test Medium Range Missle
Taliban Attack

Share

2010
04/06
CATEGORY
International Events
2 comments

Iran Showing Military Strenght

The Iranian navy successfully test- fired a Nour missile from its first indigenously built Jamaran destroyer. The Nour missile successfully hit its target at a distance of 100 km. Iran’s navy launched the guided-missile destroyer Jamaran in February. The Jamarin is around 1,420 tons and equipped with modern radars and electronic warfare capabilities. While all the Nour missile fanfare was being broadcasted, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid a visit to his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, in Afghanistan for talks on developing a relations between the two. This is the main reason Afghanistan is important to the U.S. It will be a central operating base if; Ahmadinejad decides to engage military action in the area.

Iran unveiled the Nasr-1 this month. This missile is able to destroy 3,000-tonne targets such as warships and capable of evading radar. It’s launched from the ground but will eventually be modified to fire from helicopters and submarines. The Jamaran destroyer was launched in February. It has a displacement of around 14,000 tons and is equipped with modern radars and electronic warfare capabilities and it’s armed with a variety of anti-ship, surface-to-surface, surface-to-air missiles and capable of firing different kinds of marine torpedoes to fight against under-water targets. It’s capable of accomplishing six simultaneous missions. In December it tested the Sejil 2 missile, describing it as a faster version of a medium-range missile that could allow it to strike Israel.

While Iran was announcing that it has produced a new type of cruise missile, a London-based intelligence service, reported that Iran is building a new rocket launch site with the assistance of North Korea. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons but has regularly boasted of having missiles that can target the only nuclear power in the Middle East – Israel. The new launch site could be used to project a long-range missile, or even an icbm. The launch site could accommodate Iran’s new Simorgh, or Phoenix, rocket, unveiled February 3. Simorgh is a space-launch vehicle that could be converted into an icbm.

Iran is also capable of manufacturing S-300 defense missiles. Russia signed a contract in 2007 to sell the S-300 missile system to Iran, but it has not delivered the missiles. The S-300 system can track targets and fire at aircraft 120 kilometers (75 miles) away and is able to simultaneously engage up to 100 targets. The truck-mounted S-300PMU1, known in the West as the SA-20, can shoot down cruise missiles and aircraft. It can fire at targets up to 150 km (90 miles) away and travel at more than two km per second.

On February 14, in the presence of IAEA inspectors, Iran moved nearly all its stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above ground plant that Tehran declared will be used to re-enrich the fuel to 20 percent purity. This was a baiting for Israel to strike, being that 4,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium sat vulnerable to destruction from an air attack or even a fire. Four years ago, Iran began enriching uranium on an industrial scale with centrifuges, machines that spin extraordinarily fast to separate uranium 235 from the more common form of the element, uranium 238. Reactor-grade fuel is usually defined as uranium 235 of about 4 or 5 percent, and bomb-grade as 90 percent or higher. Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, raised the level of uranium 235 to roughly 4 percent from its natural concentration of 0.7 percent.

Feb. 7, Iran announced it would begin enriching its stockpiled uranium to 20 percent. This move to 20 percent from 4 percent was too easy. Three days later, France, Russia and the United States criticized Iran’s move as an “escalation.” In a new report, the International Atomic Energy Agency also confirmed that Iran has increased the enrichment level of some of its uranium, moving the Islamic republic a step closer to being able to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel. This action has Obama and his administration totally lost.

Earlier this week U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was in Afghanistan. Gates had expressed concern about Ahmadinejad’s visit. Gates accused Iran of playing a “double game” in Afghanistan by professing support for the Kabul government while undermining U.S.-led military efforts to stabilize the country. Do the Obama New Media cover this, NO? Their job is to keep American attention on things like, Obama and Rahm, Michelle Obama and obesity in children, Oscars and 3D movies. They keep us entertained while Ahmadinejad build up his military, make a deal with Karzai, work on nuclear enrichments and test fire his weapons.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links
History Of Iran And USA
Iran Second Uranium Plant
Iran Test Medium Range Missle
Obama Bowing To Saudi King
The House Negro And The Field Negro
Putin Rejects Clinton On Iran Sanctions
US Talks With Iran In Vienna
Iran Marks 31st Anniversary Of Islamic Revolution
Liberal’s Anti-War Hypocrisy.?
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
The Anti-Christ

Share

2010
03/10
CATEGORY
Military
Leave a comment

Feedjit

The Pocket

Locations of visitors to this page Site Meter Page Rank Conceal Carry Politics TopOfBlogs
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.