War on Terror & Democracy

War on Terror & Democracy: When the Fools Come Calling

Have you ever given thought to the fact that what ridiculously ugly and suicidal life form we mortals have become? Here is our earth, a tiny particle of dust in the cosmic ocean of mass, and what we - the tiny crawling little germs of existence - are doing on this droplet of sand? We mark our territories on it and then waste time bickering about how to colonise its this part or that or for that matter how to dominate the entire drop. In this self-assumed world of importance, have we ever thought what our cosmic vulnerability brings to us one day when we are squabbling about mere morsels of resources?

On another note, I recall that in the year 2001 after the Agra Summit and before 9/11, I had written a column titled ‘Urgent considerations’. In that rather glum piece I had pointed out that it was unwise to let a lot of powers to be concentrated in the hands of an autocrat because if history was any judge’ such a sorry scheme of things always had brought countries to their destruction. Just to make my point I had given the example of Indonesia where the artificial boom of 30 years under Suharto had quite effectually papered over the deepening cracks in the national cohesion. Although it was not understood then, it is quite visible already now even in Pakistan. While the autocrat and his toadies here kept celebrating the so-called ‘economic boom’, the economic backbone of the country was actually being blown smithereens by only delaying the evidence of the imminent disaster. Another creeping example was of the growing foreign clout and interference in our domestic matters. So grand is this interference and some of our best brains annexed to such an extent that they have to write the word ‘interference’ in quote marks. Yet during these eight years we have not bowed not in one alter alone but wherever an idol existed and suited one man’s agenda. We only remembered the terms ‘national pride’ and ‘sovereignty’ whenever there was threat to the oligarchy and not to the nation as per se.
The damage done is now quite visible. When Musharraf imposed the emergency, Negroponte took ages to come and the US State Department kept ensuring that it was watching the situation closely. Then only democracy was under threat. Now it is Musharraf in trouble and guess what? The butcher of Honduras accompanied by Boucher is in town already. Does it tell you anything about the US interest in dictatorships? Okay, maybe not, but we know that at least the neo-cons are madly in love with dictators. And why should they not be? During Musharraf regime he even showed keenness to talk to Christina Rocca on telephone in person despite being the head of a state. Perhaps it is in the nature of dictators to buckle under foreign pressure and yet show eyes to their own countrymen. Would you believe it, we were even barred from writing General (retired) with his name until fairly recently.
Unlike many colleagues I desisted from posting hurried comments on the arrival of Negroponte and his demon. But I must not make any bones about the fact that as a citizen and as an analyst I am deeply flustered. Why? Not because I think that Pakistan should now forget about the war on terror. Far from it. The Pakistani blood that has been spilled thus far is enough to convince us that it is our war too. I then neither have any problem with the war on terror nor or the US desire to engage new political players for the sake of it. My issue is that this trigger-happy trip misconstrues the US-Pak relationship quite badly. Not only do our Western peers forget that the new government is really working hard in selling the alliance to a polarised and marginalised people. In a situation like this, such a mad rush only magnifies the impression that in this war Pakistan is not a willing partner but mere vessel. Again when it comes to the political issues our friends in Washington have shown the intelligence of a teaspoon. A day before the imposition of emergency, Condi said that she was confident that President Musharraf would do no such thing. But pretty soon he proved her quite wrong. Then Washington was found lacking in putting decisive pressure on him to take an immediate U-turn. It is true that Shaukat Aziz and the Chaudhries wanted the elections to be postponed for a year along with the settlement of the uniform issue, which did not happen. But whether that was because of US pressure or the fact that Musharraf had already nominated his military successor remains a debatable issue still now. Many still believe that since the ill-fated Musharraf-Benazir deal was actually brokered by the US, it is impossible that the establishment here could assassinate her without a tacit nod from the establishment in Washington. And even after the elections they have not shown any maturity. They have tried their level best to keep the PPP away from the PML-N.

The US should understand that due to some of its eccentricities it has damaged its image everywhere and especially here. We have to fight extremism and terrorism but to think that the use of force is the only option is totally wrong. There are indications that even the extremists in the tribal areas are not oblivious to the power and clout of a democratic government and democratic transition. They not only declared a moratorium in the days of the elections but also lived up to it. Again they were quite quick at distancing themselves from the allegations of involvement in Benazir’s assassination. It proves that they are human beings, not mindless freaks. The problem with talks held in the past was that President Musharraf’s image problem had made the process impossible to trust. The new government can certainly make headways owing to its freedom from the president’s deficits.

ShareThis

Filed under: Important• Main Posted by Farrukh

---

sultanraja Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 10:37 pm

USA is a lot of things but not stupid. PML-N is bad news for everyone icluding the WEST.

---

Norm Says:
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 am

Re:”…I had pointed out that it was unwise to let a lot of powers to be concentrated in the hands of an autocrat because if history was any judge’ such a sorry scheme of things always had brought countries to their destruction.”

If you are watching what is happening in the US your comment places America in the eyes of the story teller (history’s judge)except that the ‘autocrat’ is commingled Democrats with spattering of Republicans which make up the politic elite…all of whom are followers of Saul Alinsky, Norman Cousins, and other “One-Worlders”.

Cross posted from http://pitafi.com/2008/03/27/war-on-terror-democracy-when-the-fools-come-calling/#comment-569

Rep. Kanjorski, "We lied." ...and you stupid Americans believed us...ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, he, he, ha, ha...

Paul E. Kanjorski (D - PA).

Like the majority of Democrats in Congress I have no compelling reason to tell you the truth...the name of the game is WIN...whatever it takes, lie, cheat, decieve...that's what we do best! Isn't it great! Don't it just make ya proud to be a Democrat!

MESSAGE FROM THE HEARTLAND

An Inspired Utterance Of A Sage

Post Turtle

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'."? Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.? The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there!."

Sounds like a plan...

This is just one part (of many) of the plan to do away with the U. S. of A. !!!

WAKE UP AMERICA !

Whether you are Democrat or Republican the only way you're going to stop the Tri-Lateral Commission and other

NGO's (Non-Governmental-Organization) from destroying your country is to remove the politic elite from office.

This includes Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Reid, Bush, Feinstein, Kerry, Schumer, and many others...

It also includes the traitors behind the scenes such as Kissinger, the New York, Times, members of the CFR

and others.

FDA Home Page Search FDA Site FDA A-Z Index Contact FDA

Trilateral Cooperation Charter

Between

The Health Products and Food Branch,
Health Canada
Canada,

The Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services
The United States of America,

and

The Federal Commission for the Protection from
Sanitary Risks,
Secretaria de Salud
Mexico

---

Table of Contents

Trilateral Cooperation Charter

PURPOSE

MISSION

MEMBERSHIP (Participants to the Trilateral Cooperation)

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

PRINCIPLES

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

1. Heads of Delegation
   
2. Steering Committee
   
3. Working Groups
   
4. Country Coordinators (Secretariat)

SCOPE OF WORK

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

MEETINGS

Agenda Development and Dissemination

SUMMARY OF OPERATING PROCEDURES

Meeting Process
Decision Making
Responsibilities of Members
Sub-committees
Amendments

APPENDIX A: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

APPENDIX B: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE WORKING GROUPS

APPENDIX C: KEY PRIORITIES FOR 2004

---

PURPOSE

To increase communication, collaboration, and the exchange of information among the three countries in the areas of drugs, biologics, medical devices, food safety and nutrition to protect and promote human health.

MISSION

To protect and promote public health through a trilateral forum that shares information and works collaboratively on issues of mutual interest.

MEMBERSHIP (Participants to the Trilateral Cooperation)

United States:	Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)* and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Canada1 :	Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB)*, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and the Commissioner of Competition (Competition Bureau).
Mexico:	Federal Commission for the Protection from Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS),* Federal Office of the Judge Advocate General of Consumers (PROFECO).

*Signatories

This Charter recognizes that others may be invited to participate (based on the issues before the Trilateral Cooperation). It also recognizes that non-signatory organizations have mandates in the areas of drugs, medical devices, food safety, and nutrition (to protect and promote human health) as well as in the areas of general marketplace competition and consumer benefit.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

In pursuit of this mission, members intend to actively engage in achieving the following strategic objectives:

• Identifying and solving problems;
  
• Sharing information and best practices, and establishing harmonized positions on issues of mutual interest;
  
• Identifying emerging issues of common interest;
  
• Promoting capacity building;
  
• Developing confidence/capacity and trust among members of the trilateral;
  
• Increasing public confidence;
  
• Developing partnerships; and
  
• Developing mechanisms for cooperation and working collaboratively to implement solutions for issues of mutual interest.

PRINCIPLES

To achieve these objectives, the Parties to the Trilateral Cooperation should be guided by the following principles:

• A focus on health and safety issues;
  
• Equal participation for all stakeholders;
  
• Serving the interests of all three countries;
  
• The use of joint problem-solving techniques and consensual decision-making processes; and
  
• The advancement of public health.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

A. Heads of Delegation

The Trilateral Heads of Delegation Team is the decision-making body of the Trilateral Cooperation. It comprises the leaders of HPFB (Assistant Deputy Minister), the FDA (Commissioner of Food and Drugs), and COFEPRIS (Federal Commissioner). The role of the Trilateral Heads of Delegation is to provide overall leadership for and direction to the Trilateral Cooperation.

B. Steering Committee

Reporting to the Heads of Delegation, the Steering Committee sets the agenda for each meeting in line with the principles and strategic objectives, focusing on priorities that benefit all countries.

The Steering Committee consists of an equal number of members from each country, with the selection being the responsibility of the individual countries. The Committee provides leadership to the Working Groups and recommends high-level policy issues to the Heads of Delegation. As well, it identifies and discusses new and emerging issues confronting the three countries. The Steering Committee is led by country Co-chairs who serve as liaisons to the Working Groups.

Specifically, the Steering Committee

• draws upon the expertise of its members and others to provide advice and recommendations on high-level issues to the Heads of Delegation;
  
• garners support and promotes the Trilateral Cooperation by communicating objectives and accomplishments to senior management in its respective organizations;
  
• establishes ad hoc sub-committees and/or task forces to undertake specific work;
  
• invites experts to submit information to the Committee, when and as required;
  
• is the forum for joint proactive Trilateral Cooperation planning; and
  
• refers unresolved issues to the Heads of Delegation, as required.

C. Working Groups

The Trilateral Cooperation undertakes its work through Working Groups. Three Co-chairs representing each country head each Working Group. The Co-chairs are responsible for identifying issues for discussion and for seeking the Steering Committee's support. Current Working Groups include the following:

1. Canada-US-Mexico Compliance Information Group (CUMCIG): Its purpose is to increase the exchange of emergency preparedness and response, compliance and enforcement information between the three countries. The Group coordinates related enforcement activities with counterpart agencies in appropriate cases. Lead Country: United States of America.
   
2. Mexico-US-Canada Health Fraud Group (MUCH): Its purpose is to maintain a formal framework for cooperation in combating health fraud and to identify appropriate lines of communication to ensure a continual exchange of information on compliance and enforcement activities among the three countries. Lead Country: Mexico.
   
3. Laboratory Cooperation Working Group: Its purpose is to establish and maintain cooperation in the area of regulatory laboratory operations. Through continual discussions, this group is expected to share information with a view to building confidence in our respective analytical results. Lead Country: Canada.
   
4. Canada-US-Mexico Training Working Group: Its purpose is to share existing training information, establish a communication strategy between the Training Working Group and the other Working Groups, and to assist in identifying training needs of staff who will be engaged in Trilateral work. Lead Country: United States of America.

D. Country Coordinators (Secretariat)

Management and support services are provided by each of the countries to the Trilateral Cooperation. Country Coordinators coordinate input and develop agendas for the Trilateral meetings. They are also responsible for selecting a facilitator, creating a record of decisions at each Committee meeting, establishing schedules for Steering Committee conference calls and meetings, and developing and tracking action items from each meeting.

SCOPE OF WORK

The Trilateral Cooperation serves the mutual interests of all three countries and provides a forum for participants to discuss effective means for achieving its mission. Joint problem-solving techniques and consensual decision-making processes are used in reaching resolution of issues in a way that advances public health and gives consideration to the economic impact of health fraud. To avoid duplication and overlap, the Trilateral Cooperation should not deal with issues that are being discussed in other fora unless requested to do so as a means of solving a specific problem affecting the three countries or unless directed to do so by the Heads of Delegation. The Committee recognizes that the work under the Trilateral Cooperation is not a substitute for bilateral cooperation, nor does it impose obligations on its counterparts. Countries should use existing and new fora to discuss bilateral issues.

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

To prioritize its discussions, the Steering Committee uses the following criteria in selecting issues for discussion. Each issue must

• be a public health concern;
  
• be of common concern to all three countries;
  
• be solvable with realizable outcomes and within a reasonable time frame; and
  
• not detract from discussions or processes in other fora.

MEETINGS

The Steering Committee and the Working Groups should meet in the spring and fall of each year, with any additional meetings (teleconferences or videoconferences) called by the Steering Committee as required. Meetings should be hosted by each country on a rotating basis (Canada-Mexico-US). The host country is responsible for all scheduling, logistics, and management of the meetings.

The spring meeting will be devoted to reviewing progress, resolving any impediments to progress, and evaluating accomplishments.

The fall meeting, which includes a meeting of the Heads of Delegation, will be devoted to a year-end review, the assessment of outcomes, the identification of new issues, and the setting of priorities for the following year.

A tracking system (Action Plan) is to be developed by each Working Group to track major projects including action items, performance measurements, progress and accomplishments. The system should be updated regularly with summaries provided to the Steering Committee and the other Working Groups ahead of the spring and fall meetings. The Steering Committee expects to use these meetings to determine whether to renew its procedures and/or to make changes in any aspect of the partnership.

Agenda Development and Dissemination

Meeting agendas (subject to the Steering Committee's final approval) are developed by the host country in collaboration with the other two countries. All potential agenda items should be submitted to the country Coordinators who will forward them to the host country. The host country develops a mutually agreeable agenda for the spring and fall meetings. The final agenda should be distributed to all participants at least 10 working days prior to the meeting. For issues that require the Steering Committee to make a decision, all related information must be distributed to participants no later than 10 calendar days prior to the meeting.

SUMMARY OF OPERATING PROCEDURES

Meeting Process

1. Country Coordinators are responsible for coordinating input for the development of agendas, and for selecting facilitators and scribes for the meetings.
   
2. New business agenda items may be proposed by any member of the Steering Committee or Working Groups and should be submitted for consideration to the Coordinators for inclusion on the agenda 14 days before the meeting.
   
3. Meetings are to be held as required, but at least twice each year (spring and fall).
   
4. The Steering Committee may allot time for presentations by non-members regarding agenda items.
   
5. Meeting records should clearly indicate any members responsible for leading any action arising along with report back dates.

Decision Making

6. All decisions are to be made by consensus. Consensus is defined as an understanding by all members of the group, arrived at through discussion and compromise. Although it may not be each member's preferred result, it is a result that all members can "live with" and support.

Responsibilities of Members

7. Each member has a responsibility to participate actively in discussions and decision-making.
   
8. Each member of the Steering Committee and the Working Groups share responsibility for the effectiveness of the group's collaborative problem-solving and decision-making processes.
   
9. All members of the Steering Committee, regardless of whether they are present at meetings, are expected to support the Committee's decisions and assist in their implementation.

Sub-committees

10. The Steering Committee may establish sub-committees as necessary to undertake specific work.

Amendments

11. The Steering Committee, through mutual written consent and approval by the Heads of Delegation, may alter, amend, or revoke the Trilateral Cooperation Charter or any of its operating procedures at any time and may adopt additional procedures as it deems necessary.

Signed on this twenty-seventh day of February 2004, in the English, French and Spanish languages, each version being equally valid.

For The Health Products and Food Branch
HEALTH CANADA
CANADA:



________________________________
Diane C. Gorman
Assistant Deputy Minister
Head of Delegation (Canada)

For The Food and Drug Administration
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:



________________________________
Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs
Head of Delegation (United States of America)

For The Federal Commission for the Protection from Sanitary Risks
SECRETARIA DE SALUD
MEXICO:



________________________________
Ernesto Enríquez Rubio
Federal Commissioner
Head of Delegation (Mexico)

---

APPENDIX A: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

---

APPENDIX B: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE WORKING GROUPS

MUCH - TERMS OF REFERENCE

Purpose

To consolidate and maintain a formal framework for trilateral cooperation in combating health fraud, so as to protect and promulgate the health and economic well being of citizens of all three nations and to identify appropriate lines of communication to ensure a continual exchange of information on compliance and enforcement activities among the three countries.

Health Fraud Definition

For the purposes of this Working Group, health fraud may include the following:

The false, deceptive, or misleading promotion, advertisement, distribution, sale, possession for sale, or offering for sale of products or provision of services, intended for human use, that are represented as being safe and/or effective to diagnose, prevent, cure, treat, or mitigate disease (or other conditions), to rehabilitate patients or to provide a beneficial effect on health.

Objectives

To the extent compatible with their laws, enforcement policies, and other important interests, each member country shall

• develop and implement comprehensive collaborative approaches and mechanisms to deal with health fraud;
  
• share information describing current trends in health fraud and strategies for addressing emerging problems;
  
• cooperate in the detection of cross-border health fraud;
  
• inform counterpart agencies as soon as practicable of significant investigations and proceedings involving health fraud occurring or originating in the jurisdiction of each member country;
  
• consider counterpart agency requests to investigate domestic activities having harmful cross-border effects;
  
• consider coordinating related enforcement activities with counterpart agencies in appropriate cases;
  
• coordinate import surveillance activities and share information that would maximize surveillance efforts;
  
• develop and disseminate joint consumer and business education messages about health fraud;
  
• seek to promote cooperation among federal, state, provincial and local law enforcement agencies of all three member countries, and as appropriate, seek to include such agencies in cooperative efforts to combat health fraud; and
  
• develop further strategies to achieve coordinated compliance and enforcement; joint consumer and business education; trilateral communication and information exchanges; and the building of partnerships to combat health fraud.

Membership

The Working Group shall consist of the following:

• Representatives of the regulatory agencies relevant to the control of health fraud from the three signatory countries;
  
• Representatives of the regulatory and law enforcement agencies with authority or jurisdiction over health fraud issues; and
  
• Representatives from other government agencies as agreed to by the Co-chairs.

The Working Group shall be chaired by one representative from each country. These three Co-chairs shall be individuals with responsibility for implementing or recommending policy changes within their organizations.

Structure

The Co-chairs shall chair Working Group meetings and conference calls on a rotational basis.

Ad hoc committees shall be created or disbanded according to Working Group needs.

Ad hoc committee members are to be drawn from the Working Group membership, although non-members may be asked to contribute on the basis of specific expertise.

Each ad hoc committee shall develop Terms of Reference and structures as required. As a general rule, ad hoc committees shall report directly to the full Work Group membership unless urgency dictates a more immediate response. In such cases, the Working Group Chair shall determine the appropriate reporting process.

Secretariat Services

Secretariat services shall be provided through the offices of the Head of Delegation of the member country hosting the event. These services comprise the following:

• Agenda: Members shall be canvassed in advance of regularly scheduled meetings and an agenda made available a minimum of five working days in advance of each meeting.
  
• Logistics: The Secretariat shall assume responsibility for meeting rooms and other immediate requirements pertaining to the meeting itself. Members shall be responsible for their own travel and accommodation arrangements.
  
• Meeting Summary: A record of the meetings shall be kept and held to the appropriate level of detail required to summarize effectively the proceedings and to reflect decisions taken. Each member country is responsible for translating record of decision into the language of choice and for maintaining its own committee files.
  
• Disclosure: Members of the Working Group subscribe to the principles of accountability and disclosure. However, in view of the confidential information discussed and exchanged at the Working Group meetings that relate to ongoing investigations by law enforcement and regulatory agencies, the meeting summaries shall be kept confidential.

Decisional Process

Decisions shall be based upon consensus rather than majority vote.

Meetings Schedule

The Much Working Group shall meet twice a year. The first meeting shall be held immediately prior to the Trilateral Heads of Delegation meeting, in order to provide a report at the latter on achievements and progress over the previous year and seek their guidance and direction on specific issues as required. The second meeting shall be held six months after the Trilateral Heads of Delegation meeting and will have to follow up on the commitments previously established.

Language

The meetings shall take place in the three official languages pertaining to the ensemble of the Working Group Membership: English, French, and Spanish. The host country shall be responsible for ensuring simultaneous translation as may be necessary.
With respect to press releases, communiqués, and other such materials, each member country shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate translation for dissemination within their own national boundaries obtaining necessary approvals within mutually agreeable time frames.
These terms of reference have been adopted simultaneously in versions prepared in the three official languages and are intended to have the same meaning in each version.

October 2003

CUMCIG — TERMS OF REFERENCE

Purpose

The purpose of CUMCIG is to increase the exchange of compliance and enforcement information and to increase cooperation between the United States, Canada, and Mexico in the areas of drugs, biologics, medical devices, food safety, and nutrition.

Objectives

To the extent compatible with their respective statutory and regulatory authorities, policies, and other important priorities, each member country shall

• develop cooperation mechanisms for the solution and follow-up of the proposed issues in this Working Group;
  
• identify appropriate lines of communication to ensure a continual exchange of information on compliance and enforcement activities among the three countries;
  
• identify issues of common concern and develop approaches for dealing with them in a coordinated manner; and
  
• explore and develop areas where joint positions could be of mutual benefit.

Membership

The CUMCIG Working Group shall consist of the following:

• Representatives of the regulatory agencies relevant to compliance and enforcement activities from the three signatory countries; and
  
• Representatives from other bodies, as deemed appropriate by each member country.

The Working Group shall be chaired by one official government representative of the regulatory agencies from each country. The three Co-chairs shall be individuals with relevant expertise.

Structure

The Co-chairs shall chair the CUMCIG meetings and conference calls on a rotational basis. Issues requiring follow-up will be delegated by the Chair to Working Groups that are created on ad hoc basis.

The CUMCIG Co-chair reports to the Trilateral Steering Committee.

Individual participants brief their respective organizations on the discussions and action items resulting from the CUMCIG meeting.

Secretariat Services

Secretariat services shall be provided through the offices of the Head of Delegation of the member country hosting the event. These services comprise the following:

• Agenda: Members shall be canvassed in advance of regularly scheduled meetings and an agenda made available a minimum of five working days in advance of each meeting.
  
• Logistics: The Secretariat shall assume responsibility for meeting rooms and other immediate requirements pertaining to the meeting itself. Members shall be responsible for their own travel and accommodation arrangements.
  
• Meeting Summary: A record of the meetings shall be kept and held to the appropriate level of detail required to summarize effectively the proceedings and to reflect decisions taken. Each member country is responsible for translating record of decision into the language of choice and for maintaining its own Working Group files.
  
• Disclosure: Members of the Working Group subscribe to the principles of accountability and disclosure. However, in view of the confidential information discussed and exchanged at the Working Group meetings that relate to ongoing investigations by law enforcement and regulatory agencies, the meeting summaries shall be kept confidential.

Decisional Process

Decisions shall be based upon consensus rather than majority vote.

Meetings Schedule

The CUMCIG Working Group shall meet twice a year. The first meeting shall be held immediately prior to the Trilateral Heads of Delegation meeting in order to provide a report at the latter on achievements and progress over the previous year and to seek guidance and direction on specific issues as required. The second meeting shall be held six months after the Trilateral Heads of Delegation meeting and will have to follow up on the commitments previously established.

Operating Principles

The CUMCIG Working Group’s activity will be based on the following principles:

An appropriate agenda will be developed jointly. However, the host country will be responsible for developing, distributing, and maintaining the Action Items. The agenda will be made available a minimum of five working days in advance of each meeting.

The Working Group will not duplicate work being carried out by other Working Groups or committees.

The agency raising an issue shall lead the discussion.

The Working Group should focus on the exchange of information on compliance and enforcement activities. This exchange may be of a general nature, health protection policy issues, safety and quality issues or specific issues (e.g., canned mushrooms).

• The Working Group should limit the number of issues discussed at a meeting and should establish priorities jointly.
  
• The Working Group should identify each issue to be resolved, with defined objectives, an outline of the working arrangements, and a time frame for resolution of a given issue.
  
• Any structure (e.g., sub-committee, task force, etc.) established to handle a particular issue should be flexible and responsive.

Language

The meetings shall take place in the three official languages pertaining to the ensemble of the Working Group membership: English, Spanish, and French. The host country shall be responsible for ensuring simultaneous translation as may be necessary.

With respect to press releases, communiqués, and other such materials, each member country shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate translation for dissemination within their own national boundaries-obtaining necessary approvals and/or clearances within mutually agreeable time frames.

The Terms of Reference have been adopted simultaneously in versions prepared in the three official languages and are intended to have the same meaning in each version.

October 2003

LABORATORY COOPERATION WORKING GROUP — TERMS OF REFERENCE

Purpose

The purpose of the Laboratory Cooperation Working Group (LCG) is to identify and share analytical methods with the long-term goal of building a trustworthy analytical network. The LCG is also to work closely with and provide support to CUMCIG and MUCH, in their investigations of fraudulent products, counterfeit or unsafe drugs, and shortages of legitimate drugs.

Objectives

To the extent compatible with their respective statutory and regulatory authorities, policies and priorities, each member country shall
· identify and establish lines of communication to ensure a continual exchange of information on laboratory and regulatory science issues among the three countries;

• identify issues of common concern, and develop and implement approaches for dealing with them in a coordinated manner;
  
• explore and develop areas where joint or complementary positions and operations could be of mutual benefit; and
  
• support the work of the other Working Groups by providing laboratory support.

Membership

The LCG shall consist of one lead representative of each of the Heads of Delegation and representatives from other bodies as deemed appropriate by all member countries.

Structure

From the membership, a representative of one of the three Heads of Delegation shall chair the LCG on a rotational basis such that the period shall end with the conclusion of the meeting in the Chairperson’s country.

The last item of business of each meeting shall be to elect the next Chairperson who will be the member in whose country the next LCG meeting is to be held.

Issues requiring follow-up may be delegated by the Chair to ad hoc groups.

The Chairperson of the LCG reports to the Trilateral Heads of Delegation.

Secretariat Services

Secretariat services shall be provided through the offices of the Head of Delegation of the member country hosting the event. These services comprise:

• Agenda: Members shall be canvassed in advance of regularly scheduled meeting and an agenda made available a minimum of five working days in advance of each meeting.
  
• Logistics: The Secretariat shall assume responsibility for meeting rooms and other immediate requirements pertaining to the meeting itself. Members shall be responsible for their own travel and accommodation arrangements.
  
• Meeting Summary: A record of the meetings shall be kept and held to the appropriate level of detail required to summarize effectively the proceedings and to reflect decision into the language of choice and for maintaining its own committee files.
  
• Disclosure: Members subscribe to the principle of disclosure. However, in view of the confidential information discussed and exchanged at the task force meetings that relate to ongoing investigations by law enforcement and regulatory agencies, the meeting summaries shall be kept confidential.

Decision Process

Decisions shall be based upon consensus of lead representatives rather than majority vote.

Meetings Schedule

The Working Group shall conduct its business on a continual basis and shall meet as required, either face-to-face or by telephone and then face-to-face immediately prior to the Trilateral Heads of Delegation meeting to report on its achievements and progress over the previous year and to seek guidance and direction on specific issues, as required.

Operating Principles

The Working Group’s activity will be based on the following principles:

• When a lead representative wishes to propose that a representative of another body attend one meeting or become a member of the LCG, such a proposal shall be made well in advance of the meeting.
  
• The agenda will be developed jointly by member countries.
  
• When used by the LCG, the word “accreditation” means accreditation to the ISO 17025 standard.
  
• The Chairperson will be responsible for ensuring that the action items are recorded, the lead person and time frame identified, and the action items distributed.
  
• The agency raising an issue shall lead the discussion.
  
• The group should establish priorities jointly.
  
• For significant issues, the committee should identify each issue to be resolved, with defined objectives, an outline of the working arrangements, and a time frame for resolution of a given issue.
  
• Any structure (e.g., sub-committee, task force, etc.) established to handle a particular issue should be flexible and responsive.
  
• Individual participants will brief their respective organizations on the discussions and action items resulting from any meeting.

Language

The meetings shall be conducted in the three official languages pertaining to the ensemble of the Working Group Membership: English, French, and Spanish. The host country shall be responsible for ensuring simultaneous translation as may be necessary.

With respect to press releases, communiqués, and other such materials, each member country shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate translation for dissemination within their own national boundaries obtaining necessary approvals within mutually agreeable time frames.

These terms of reference have been adopted simultaneously in versions prepared in the three official languages and are intended to have the same meaning in each version.

November 2003

TRAINING WORKING GROUP — TERMS OF REFERENCE

Purpose

To share existing and future information, to establish a communication strategy between the Training Working Group and the other Working Groups and to assist the Trilateral leadership in identifying training needs of common interest for the three countries of staff who will be engaged in activities related to initiatives of the Trilateral Cooperation.

Objective

1. To develop or assist in the development and delivery of training intended to further the purpose of the Trilateral Cooperation, in line with its strategic objectives, which are to

• identify and solve problems;
  
• share information;
  
• identify emerging issues;
  
• share best practices;
  
• promote capacity building;
  
• develop partnership; and
  
• establish harmonized positions on issues.

2. To organize a pre-trilateral seminar prior to each annual meeting. The pre-trilateral seminar will be managed by the host country.

Membership

One person from each country will serve on the Working Group.

Structure

A chairperson will be elected for a term of two years.

Secretariat Services

The Chairperson will provide secretariat services to include the following:

• Meeting Summaries: The chairperson will issue meeting notes via e-mail.
  
• Information Sharing: All members will be responsible for sharing current and future information with fellow Working Group members on an as-needed basis.
  
• Reports and Recommendations: Reports and recommendations to the Trilateral and Working Group leadership will be developed by the chairperson, with input of members on an as-needed and as-requested basis.
  
• Logistics: The secretariat shall assume responsibility for meeting rooms and other immediate requirements to a meeting and shall advise other members of appropriate details in advanced of the meeting; he/she will seek the support of the other members of the Working Group as appropriate in obtaining needed facilities, equipment and materials.
  
• Agenda: Members will be canvassed in advance of any meeting (teleconference or face-to-face) and the chairperson shall share an agenda in advance of any meeting.

Decisional Process

Decisions shall be based upon consensus rather than majority vote.

Meetings Schedule

The Working Group will meet, if possible, two times per year in person at the two trilateral meetings, and via e-mail and conference call as often as necessary to meet the objective of the Working Group.

Operating Procedures

• The Training Working Group will be responsible for developing a communication strategy to communicate training needs issues between the Trilateral Working Groups and the Steering Committee.
  
• The Training Working Group will be responsible for developing and sharing with the Steering Committee and each Trilateral Working Group, the training needs request template and process. Evaluation criteria will be developed to assess training needs requests.
  
• The Steering Committee will be responsible for assessing, prioritizing, and vetting the submitted training requests. The training should be of common interest to the three countries in order for the Trilateral Cooperation to carry out its purpose and objective.
  
• Where there are numerous training needs identified, the Steering Committee will take into consideration the priority/ranking and develop a list of topics and share that plan with the Training Working Group. This plan will include budgetary considerations.
  
• A Training Working Group representative will be assigned to a specific Working Group and will participate in conference calls/meetings of that particular group in order to support the Working Group with their training needs identification, if deemed necessary. The representation will be as follows:
  a) MUCH (representative from Mexico)
  b) CUMCIG (representative from the United States)
  c) Lab Cooperation (representative from Canada)
  
• If within a Trilateral Working Group, a training need is identified, the lead Co-chair of the Trilateral Working Group will complete and submit the Trilateral Training Request to the Steering Committee. The Leader of the Trilateral Workgroup will also advise its Training Working Group representative.
  
• The Leadership/Trilateral Working Group will identify an individual or individuals who should be contacted to serve as the technical expert or experts on the training subject.
  
• Once receiving specific training from the Steering Committee, a representative or representatives of the Training Working Group will contact/meet with the technical expert or experts to develop a course plan. This course plan will be shared and discussed with the other Training Working Group members to ensure that it meets the needs of the three countries. This plan will include the following:
  a) Topic.
  b) Rationale (why needed).
  c) What is to be accomplished as a result of the course/event (learning objectives).
  d) Who
  i. Course advisory group (CAG) to plan, develop, and eventually deliver the training;
  ii. Intended audience; and
  iii. Others needed to deliver training (e.g., studio staff; on-site facilitators).
  e) When (development and delivery time lines)
  f) How (media to be used to deliver training (e.g., satellite, class room), agenda, learning materials, speakers; publicity and other elements, with the goal of ensuring and maximizing access to the learning).
  g) Where (e.g., site and types of uplink, sites of downlinks, class room locations).
  
• Once a plan is developed the Training Working Group will gain concurrence from the Trilateral and Working Group leadership.
  
• The Training Working Group will assist other members of CAG in developing and delivering a specific training event.
  
• The Training Working Group will develop instruments to evaluate all sessions and courses. Evaluation results and other feedback will be given to CAG members, and to Trilateral and Working Group leadership.

Language

The meetings shall take place in the three official languages pertaining to the ensemble of the Working Group Membership: English, French, and Spanish. The host country shall be responsible for ensuring simultaneous translation as may be necessary.
With respect to press releases, communiqués, and other such materials, each member country shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate translation for dissemination within their own national boundaries obtaining necessary approvals within mutually agreeable time frames.
These terms of reference have been adopted simultaneously in versions prepared in the three official languages, and are intended to have the same meaning in each version.

January 2004

---

APPENDIX C: KEY PRIORITIES
FOR 2004

Steering Committee

Complete Charter and Information Sharing Agreement for signature by Heads of Delegation

MUCH

• Enforcement Action on Fraudulent weight loss products
  
• Explore a web-based site to gather information from fraud cases on one site
  
• Develop criteria for selecting health fraud cases

CUMCIG

Emergency Response and Preparedness:

• Activities based on preventing and managing risk for public health protection
  
• Emergency preparedness and response activities are aligned with countries’ priorities of public health protection
  
• Share response plans among the three countries
  
• Conduct another more detailed exercise (Canada will host)
  
• Update emergency contacts electronically (FDA to coordinate)
  
• Share organizational structures, including laboratories
  
• Extend exercise to broader membership
  
• Consider contingency plans for alternative communication mechanisms
  
• Explore the potential for sharing classified information

Laboratory Cooperation

• Enter data in eLEXNET and create respective reports
  
• “Play with the system” to become acquainted
  
• Further explore an exercise with the salmonella test
  
• Revisit priorities and purpose of this group: develop concrete priorities and an action plan for consideration by Heads of Delegation within six months

Training Working Group

• Organize and deliver a pre-trilateral seminar for 2004
  
• Develop a process for vetting training requests
  
• Establish as an activity of the training Working Group, a mechanism to exchange a list of the courses that each country offers, related to the topics of Trilateral Cooperation by December 2003

Heads of Delegation

" A" LIST (High-Priority Areas):

• GMPs
  
• Health claims
  
• Cross border safety issues (e.g., internet fraud, counterfeits, and unsafe medical products/practices, including wholesale drugs)
  
• Harmonization of new laboratory methods and validation of new agents

"B" LIST:

• Harmonized inspection systems
  
• Import/export risk management
  
• Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
  
• Emerging science issues

---

¹Health Canada and the CFIA share unique and complementary roles and responsibilities. Health Canada is responsible for food safety and nutrition policies, standards and regulations, including related labeling issues, while the CFIA is responsible for food inspection and compliance activities, as well as the development of regulations and policies related to other food labeling and compositional standards.

International Programs Home Page
FDA Home Page Search FDA Site FDA A-Z Index Contact FDA Privacy Accessibility

FDA Website Management Staff

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You don't see many farms in Boston...

Yet Boston "farmers" received $643,464 in farm subsidies between 2003 and 2005.

...because it's run by Democrats

ps: there are NO farms in Boston...been there done that! (Unless you want to count the Charles River as some sort of exotic fish farm for polluted politicians.)

March 20, 2008

Old McDonald Had a Scam

by Brian M. Riedl

Should Taxpayers continue subsidizing millionaires? That's the question Congress is mulling over as it considers reauthorizing farm subsidies doled out by the Department of Agriculture.

The agriculture budget totals $25 billion - more than we spend on the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Farm subsidies are typically portrayed as a vital lifeboat for small, struggling family farmers. It's a feel-good, Norman Rockwell image. Yet farms have come a long way since subsidies were introduced as a temporary solution to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. Today, the average farm household earns $81,420 annually and has a net worth of $838,875 - both well above the national average. Farm incomes are setting records, and farms have one of the lowest failure rates of any industry.

Although most farmers generally are thriving, it's the wealthiest who benefit most from subsidies. And why not? Federal farm policy deliberately targets them for assistance. Payments are based on acreage, so the largest agribusinesses automatically get the largest subsidies. Consequently, commercial farmers, who report an average income of $200,000 and net worth of nearly $2 million, now collect the majority of farm subsidies, while small farmers are largely excluded. This has earned farm subsidies the title of America's largest corporate welfare program.

President Bush has proposed limiting farm subsidies to those earning less than $200,000 annually. Yet many in Congress are strongly resisting. The House-passed farm bill would allow subsidies for full-time farmers earning up to $1 million annually. Even that's too restrictive for the upper chamber. The Senate-passed bill refuses any income test for full-time farmers.

The status quo has benefited the rich and well-connected. The Environmental Working Group's farm subsidy database reveals that, from 1995 to 2005, farm subsidies have been distributed to Fortune 500 companies such as John Hancock Life Insurance ($2,849,799) and Westvaco ($534,210); as well as celebrity "hobby farmers" such as David Rockefeller ($553,782), Ted Turner ($206,948), and former NBA star Scottie Pippen ($210,520). Subsidies even flow to members of Congress who vote on farm legislation, such as Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa ($225,041), and Representative John Salazar, Democrat of Colorado ($161,084).

You don't see many farms in Boston, nowadays. Yet Boston "farmers" received $643,464 in farm subsidies between 2003 and 2005.

Although no income-eligibility test exists for full-time farmers, limits do exist on how much subsidies a farmer may receive annually. However, an industry of lawyers exploits loopholes, rendering these limits meaningless. Farmers can simply divide their farms into numerous separate entities and then collect subsidies for each farm.

For example, The Washington Post reports that Tyler Farms in Arkansas has collected $37 million in farm subsidies since 1996 by dividing itself into 66 legally separate corporations. Other farmers evade payment limits by signing up family members, such as the Georgia farmer who reportedly collected thousands in additional subsidies by listing his 2-year-old daughter as a co-farmer.

Instead of closing these loopholes, the House- and Senate-passed farm bills go in the opposite direction: They simply repeal the limits on the total farm subsidies a farmer may receive. This would tilt the system even further toward large agribusinesses.

It gets sillier. Most subsidies are based on land's historical use, even if no longer used for farming. So when 75 acres of Texas farmland was recently converted into a housing development, the homeowners on these $300,000 properties became eligible for annual farm subsidies for their lawns. Residents never asked for these subsidies and have stated that as nonfarmers they do not want the government mailing them checks.

Small farmers are harmed the most by farm subsidies. Excluded from most subsidies, they must endure the lower crop prices, higher farmland costs and industry consolidation that result from subsidies to agribusiness.

Congress gets one opportunity every five years to modernize farm policies. Instead of continuing to subsidize millionaires and agribusinesses, lawmakers should target the truly needy by limiting subsidies to low-income farmers, and by enforcing real caps on the amount of subsidies a farmer may receive.

Alas, such proposals face strong opposition from the House and Senate agricultural committees, the same lawmakers who are trotting out the Norman Rockwell, family farmer imagery.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

First appeared the Boston Globe

This article cross-posted from The Heritage Foundation

Pitafi’s View...another perspective

Musharraf’s game plan: Is Pakistan preparing war with India?

Pakistanis might be weary of Pervez Musharraf, yet many a foreigners are not. Yesterday, a Turk general, what knowledge does a Turk general have I ask you, claimed that Pakistan would Talibanize if Musharraf goes. I have long started believing that our foreign Muslim friends are nothing but a liability for us. Not only do they not seize to drag us into international moral dilemmas where we have to take a clearly partisan approach, damaging our own diplomacy in return, but also actively their own politics inside Pakistan. The sectarian wars of 1990s were brought to us courtesy the proxy struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Tell me why should we pay any heed to the Muslim causes when almost all Muslim countries brandish the credentials of a butcher (emphasis mine, Norm) when it comes to Pakistan. Folks, just shut up and lay off. We do not need any foreign advice supporting dictators in Pakistan. Let me here point that even Turkey is a destabilizing force in Iraq and not quite stable enough for integration into Europe. Any further integration of the country into European Union and NATO would only jeopardize the security and stability of these two unions. The only way to integrate it seems through invasion. Sirs, this is not a hollow threat. Insult the intelligence of the Pakistani people again and you will have an eternal enemy. At least that bit is a promise. I am already weary of the Iranian intellectuals who while supporting the pipeline talks with Pakistan, keep arguing that Pakistan is an unnatural state and should be brought to an end. Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the so-called Muslim countries, if you believe in any God, for its sake stop punishing us for being a Muslim.
And now let me focus on some serious issues? Immediately after 9/11 when the west feared that resistance may arise in Pakistan Army against Musharraf, India brought its forces on our borders to indirectly pressure the generals to ensure their support for Musharraf. That pretty well worked. It now seems that the neo-cons may again seek Indian help to bring the new army chief on his knees and to ensure that the retired general stays in power till the November elections in the US. Consider this.
A few weeks ago the caretaker interior minister claimed that a perception was growing that the US and Afghanistan were sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. Interestingly Islamabad already repeatedly had claimed that the Indian intelligence bases in Afghanistan were behind the instability in our country. During the last week, Islamabad all of a sudden decided to release Kashmir Singh, who returned with a hero’s protocol quashing the possibilities of his being an Indian spy. However upon reaching India he claimed that he was a spy and had managed what he had gone to do. As if that was not enough, India curiously decided to send back alone the dead body of a Pakistani prisoner. The state owned channel magnified this crude diplomatic act. Anti Indian rhetoric is systematically being whipped up in Pakistan through the state institutions and thanks to the Indian government’s crude attitude the civil society here is failing to counter the new spate of jingoisim. I felt it the very instant when Hanif Khalid a journalist, who is often used by the government to plant stories or raise the questions that it wants to answer, today asked whether there was any foreign hand involved in today’s terror attacks during the interior ministry press meet. While this time the spokesman refused to comment, it is my hunch that by the evening some government functionary would blame India.
Now what can happen is a possible terror attack in India and some counter allegations from the Indian side would start. If that happens both sides like in the past may bring the forces back to the border. In that fire and fury Musharraf would effectually hijack the popular mandate with the help of Amin Faheem, the election commission and his cronies in the agencies and continue to rule the country ensuring a neo-con return to Washington come November. If Pakistan goes to war Musharraf will become new Saddam and will leave only after the colonization of this country. Indian and Pakistani media, civil societies and even armies need to be conscious of such conspiracies that would only weaken the countries and the democratic processes there. Musharraf’s departure in the current scenario will only weaken the Taliban and the terrorists not strengthen them. Pakistan meanwhile also needs to shakeup its intelligence chiefs immediately.

Quote of the day...

British troops in southern Afghanistan have “worn down” the Taliban and forced them to abandon many of their key strongholds in Helmand province, a senior commander said yesterday.

Brigadier Andrew Mackay, commander of 52 Brigade, said: “The Taliban are now suffering from a lack of manpower and that is why they are having to rely on foreign fighters. They are also now operating outside their normal areas because they lack support from the local populations.”

"Suffering from a lack of manpower” means they’re all dead."

You are the criminal...for exhaling all that carbon dioxide! Daa, say that again??

Planting the seeds of a demographic winter

Robert Knight - Guest Columnist - 5/14/2008 2:10:00 PM

Did you know that planting a tree won't save the earth? You've got to plant 483 trees just to offset your household's carbon footprint. And that's just for two people.

We know this because the Washington Post Home section on May 8 featured a cover story encouraging folks to plant trees while sternly warning them that this won't help much because people are a cancer on the planet.

Okay, they didn't quite put it that way, but it would be hard to miss the message. A graphic with 483 little green trees illustrates this stat from the EPA: "A two-person household is responsible for releasing 41,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To offset that, each household would have to plant 483 trees and let them grow for 10 years."

If a two-person household is that bad, what does that make families with children? Environmental criminals, at the least, and maybe earth wreckers.

Before giving us tips on tree planting, Post writer Adrian Higgins exudes the fumes of global warming hysteria: "Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased by a third since the start of the industrial revolution, due mostly to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, and that buildup has been linked to global warming."

Think about this for a minute. The industrial revolution revved up around 1850 or so, and with all the population growth and industrial production over the last 158 years, carbon dioxide has increased by only a third? He does not mention that this constitutes only a microscopic percentage of the entire atmosphere encircling the earth.

Could this mean that people are not really a threat to the planet after all? That we can get on with planting trees because ... they're pretty?

We ought to be focusing on a much scarier, and likelier, picture of the near future than the specter of too many people breathing, eating burgers and committing other random, senseless environmental atrocities. The really frightening future is a human race that is quickly depopulating.

A new documentary, Demographic Winter, provides the grim facts behind the worldwide trend away from having children.

- 70 countries, including virtually all of Europe, are now below replacement birth-rate levels.
- Russia's current population of 140 million will decline to 70 million by 2045 if current trends continue. The economic and political consequences would be staggering.
- The money boom triggered by the Baby Boom is about to run its course in the United States, as the Boomers make less, spend less and retire, drawing on the taxed earnings of a shrinking population of economic producers.
- In Germany, in 2006, in one province alone, 220 schools were padlocked for lack of pupils.
- Japan's population reduction is so severe that the country is virtually shutting itself down, with labor shortages and plants closing.

Now, if you buy into the global warming theory, this may seem all to the good, since each human is a detriment. As the Manhattan Institute's Kay Hymowitz notes in Demographic Winter:

A lot of people I've talked to about this say, "Isn't it great if the birthrate is going down, because, after all, that's fewer carbon footprints and less stress on Mother Earth." They're not thinking about how much their own care is going to cost when they get older.

And it will be costly. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are speeding toward a crash against a fiscal roadblock: the number of workers to pay for it is shrinking. Not only are we creating fewer kids, but more of the ones we do create are being born out of wedlock, which increases the likelihood that they will themselves be less self-sufficient.

The scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists and other experts featured in Demographic Winter, which include Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker, Rutgers marriage expert David Popenoe, Harvard's Nicholas Eberstadt, New America Foundation's Phil Longman, Family Research Council's Patrick Fagan, Norval Glenn of the University of Texas, and many others, provide data that show the decline of the two-parent family is at the heart of human decline — globally. And it won't necessarily help the environment.

Dr. Jianguo Liu, director of sustainability at Michigan State University, notes that "global households are increasing more than the number of people" and thus using more resources. Because of divorce and the rise in single-person households, in 2005 alone in the United States, people used an extra 600 billion gallons of water and 73 billion kilowatts of electricity.

It turns out that the nuclear family is the most environmentally friendly way to house people. Yet the family is under assault by a constant media drumbeat about alternative lifestyles, the illusory "benefits" of the sexual revolution, and the costs of having children. A wire story the other day crowed about a study that says people are happiest in marriage when there are no kids around (it lets the adults be the kids instead).

On top of all that are the scare stories fueled by environmental groups. Stop reproducing! Heck, stop marrying! (Unless you're gay!) Fewer marriages mean fewer children using fewer resources. We get not only a greener earth, but the end of any pesky sexual "norm."

It's hard to escape the propaganda. Even when you turn to a paper's Home section for gardening tips, you find a screed against the impact of people (read: children) on the planet.

You might be happier if you skip the media altogether and go out and plant a tree, preferably with your kids, your dog and any other carbon-exuding criminals you can throw in.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

Another WAKE UP AMERICA CALL...C'mon people! Do something about it!

Cross posted from Politcal Pistachio News : http://politicalpistachionews.blogspot.com/2008/05/hr-5515-amnesty-bin-laden-israels-60th.html

THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE YOU WILL READ TODAY (HR 5515)

Passage of this bill will hasten America's death...What are you doing to stop it?

Buried deep in the text of the bill, is a preemption that would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. READ MORE BELOW

Saturday, May 17, 2008

HR 5515, Amnesty, bin Laden, Israel's 60th Anniversary, Taliban in the U.S., Climate Change Aid, Gay Marriage Challenged in California, Ted Kennedy

H.R. 5515, The New Employee Verification Act of 2008 - - - Buried deep in the text of the bill, is a preemption that would kill all the laws recently enacted by long-suffering states and localities in response to the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own federal laws on immigration. Michelle Malkin says we need to be reminded to keep the heat on for any illegal alien amnesty provision.

Sample of a reader's comment: This is a clear encroachment and violation of the 10th amendmentto the constitutionfor those interested see link: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t065.htmfor the hacks in congress to think they can jam this down the states throats without being challenged on constitutional grounds is disturbing - it is reflective of how degraded our society has become when they would be so bold as to attempt such a circumvention of our founding principles of federalism and state's rights in broad day lightthis will be a fight that goes to the supreme court if enactednow the importance of judges who interpret law as opposed to legislating from the bench becomes self evident to all law abiding logically thinking people

Bin Laden focuses of Israel - - - Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden will address the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding in a Web message expected to underscore a growing focus on the Jewish state, U.S.-based Internet monitors.

Some 2,000 people protest Israel's 60th anniversary - - - The protesters in Amman on Friday were carrying Palestinian flags and portraits of Arab leaders.

Taliban man convicted in U.S. for "narco-terrorism" - - - An Afghan Taliban cell member was convicted by a federal jury under a narco-terrorism provision of the Patriot Act.

Poor nations must repay climate 'aid' - - - POOR countries will have to pay back aid given to them by Britain in an international aid project that was supposed to help them adapt to climate change.

California measure will test public opinion on gay marriage - - - The California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be the last word. California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the U.S., the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on gay couples waiting to tie the knot. The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters reject gay marriage, their decision will supersede the high court's. There are signs the contest's outcome will be close.

Senator Teddy Kennedy hospitalized after seizure - - - U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, a leading Democrat and patriarch of a prominent American political dynasty, suffered a seizure on Saturday but hours later was talking with family at his side in a Boston hospital.

Al-Fath...because you asked.

You shall be called to fight a mighty people.
You will fight them until they surrender.
Now who do you suppose the mighty people are?