The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is offering all of it 2100 courses online for free. If you want to obtain a certificate that verifies that you have mastered the courses you have taken you will have to pay a modest fee. MIT has been offering access to its courses online for 10 years, but the ability to receive a certificate verifying that you have obtained mastery is brand new and breaks the existing paradigm of exclusivity in higher education.

Article Source

MIT’s Online Threat to the Higher Educational Cartel

Just before Christmas the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced a small improvement to its 2,100 free online courses: The free online service will now grant, for a modest affordable fee, credentials for those online students who gain mastery of the subject. Instead of calling it MIT 2.0, they named it MITx, and it is likely to challenge and change the higher education paradigm and the cartel that runs it.

Tamar Lewin, writing in the New York Times, said that MIT will allow “anyone anywhere to take MIT courses online free of charge — and for the first time earn official certificates for demonstrating mastery of the subjects taught.” This augments MIT’s decision 10 years ago to offer all of its 2,100 courses online for free, courses that have been accessed by more than 100 million students worldwide since then. The upgrade will now allow those students to participate in online laboratories, self-assessments, and interaction not only with students taking the same class on campus at Cambridge, Massachusetts, but those enrolled online as well.

There is no charge to take the courses online, but to obtain a credential that proves mastery will cost something. Harvard provost Rafael Reif said:

I think for someone to feel they’re earning something, they ought to pay something, but the point is to make it extremely affordable. The most important thing is that it’ll be a certificate that will clearly state that a body sanctioned by M.I.T. says you have gained mastery.

The impact of that credential from MIT will be huge. Richard DeMillo at Georgia Institute of Technology, said this is “a very big deal because the traditional higher education reaction to online programs [in the past] was, yeah, but it’s not a credential. So I think MIT’s offering a credential [is] quite a splash. If I were still in industry and someone came in with an MITx credential, I’d take it.”

The Times noted that MIT would open its MITx software platform to any other university around the world to offer their own courses online for free. And that is going to change the entire paradigm of higher education. Writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey saw immediately the threat the MITx program presents to its peers:

Most world-famous universities got that way through a process of exclusion. Their degrees are coveted and valuable precisely because they’re expensive and hard to acquire. If an Ivy League university starts giving degrees away for free, why would anyone clamor to be admitted to any Ivy League university?

The biggest threat is the virtual challenge by MIT to other colleges and universities to use its “open learning platform.” To stay with the traditional classroom and lecture hall model of imparting information is to invite irrelevance and bankruptcy. Anant Agarwal, a leader of MIT’s upgrade, said that “human productivity has gone up dramatically in the past several decades due to the Internet and computing technologies, but amazingly enough the way we do education is not very different from the way we did it a thousand years ago.”

And that is the threat: Can colleges and universities mired in the old educational paradigm change fast enough to remain viable? Carey was doubtful:

This sensible and profound instinct sets a new standard for behavior among wealthy, famous universities. Elite colleges all allege to be global institutions, and many are known around the world. But it is simply untenable to claim global leadership in educating a planet of seven billion people when you hoard your educational offerings for a few thousand fortunates living together on a small patch of land.

Professor Gary North was quick to note the challenge MITx presents to the university’s peers. In his members-only newsletter he wrote: “All over the world, bright students will be able to get the best education on earth for the price of an internet connection. They will be able to get certified by MIT for less than the price of a degree at a backwater third world college. This degree will open doors in their nations. It will represent a real education.”

With the MITx upgrade, the higher education paradigm of exclusivity purchased at a price (on-campus students at Harvard pay $60,000 plus a year for the privilege) will disappear. Says North:

The higher education cartel will be in trouble. Any school that does not imitate MIT will be perceived as anti-poor people, anti-third world. The horror! But as schools imitate MIT price competition will take over. Some schools will offer a low-tuition regular degree. That will smash the pricing structure of the cartel.

Any school that holds out and refuses to go online with its entire program will be suspected of having a third-rate program, which probably is the case. Going online will reveal just how poor their programs are. This will lead to greater competition.

The university is the last bastion of liberalism. This will force open the barriers to entry in education. It will bankrupt hundreds of schools.

The president of Harvard, Susan Hockfield, said that the improvement will “create learning opportunities that [will] break barriers to education everywhere.” This is what Michael Hart, an early pioneer of the Internet and founder of the Gutenberg Project, predicted back in 1971 when he discovered the potential power of the internet “to overturn all established power structures.” Higher education’s paradigm of providing expensive pieces of paper only to the elite who can afford them is happily evaporating. What’s ironic is that the overturning is being driven by one of their own.

Thanks for your attention.

With President Obama vowing to continue to support green energy in his state of the union address, this article I found gives background on new developments in wind turbine design. Maybe the administrations energy “czar” will check into this, maybe not.

Article Source

Wind Energy Breakthrough: Japan Designs New Wind Turbine With Triple the Output of Traditional Models

In light of recent events, Japan has been urged to pay more attention to renewable energy sources. Coincidently, in the same month as one of the world’s worst nuclear crises devastated Fukushima, an incredibly innovative wind turbine system revealed itself on Kyushu University’s campus for field testing. With a promise to generate two to three times the power of traditional models, the new turbine designs exemplify the potential for a cleaner energy future in Japan and around the world, removed from the dangers of nuclear power plants.

While energy from wind turbines currently accounts for less than one percent of total power generated in Japan, the new breakthrough in design provides ample reason to ramp up production. Called the ‘Windlens,’ Yuji Ohya, a professor of renewable energy dynamics and applied mechanics, and his team at Kyushu University have created a series of turbines that could make the cost of wind power less than coal and nuclear energy.

The two major concerning issues with traditional turbines have been their general inefficiency and intolerable noise. However, Kyushu’s researchers found that attaching an inward curving ring around the perimeter of a turbine’s blades increases the focus of airflow faster through the blade zones at two to three times the speed as before. An improvement in safety from covering the outer edges of the blades and a reduction of the dreaded noise pollution of older models is just a bonus.

To take advantage of Japan’s coastal wind power potential, the Kyushu team has also designed a hexagonal-shaped base for the turbines that would be low in cost, but still strong enough to endure marine conditions. In addition to overall structural improvement of the traditional turbines, the bases would also make it easier to link other turbines at sea together and enlarge platforms.

“I believe that offshore ‘wind lens’ turbines will become a reliable source of energy if safety is ensured and the cost is cut to float them stably on vast sea surfaces,” said Prof. Yusaku Kyozuka on the research team at Kyushu University.

Can others in the industry easily adopt a similar design to make older turbines more efficient?

Although the ‘wind lens’ appears simple, it consists of complex technological planning and extensive field testing. Poorly engineered models that have failed in the past have left a bad impression on many users and policy makers, hurting the image of the entire industry, according to Chris Takashi Matsuuar, a collaborator working in the UK to promote the Windlens globally.

“Therefore, we will develop a whole turbine system of our own, including not only the lens shroud, but also the blades, generator, controller, etc.,” he said. “The best way [to move forward] is to replace old turbines as a whole with our new smart Windlens system.”

What is the current stage of testing?

Several types of turbines have been designed with different power ratings and many are still undergoing testing. As of March this year, two units of turbines with a capacity of 70 to 100 KW (blade diameter of 12.8) have been installed on campus at Kyushu University for field testing.

The more widely used, smaller units with a capacity of 3 to 5 KW (blade diameter of 2.5 meters) have been picked up by some industrial users and installed in many locations, including the Gansu Province of China for a desert irrigation project and several coastal areas in Fukuoka City, Japan. The floating Windlens systems have been tested in a water tank at an in-house laboratory at the University, but actual field test installations for the first marine turbines are almost ready and should take place sometime this month, Matsuuar hopes.

However, field tests take time and it could be several months to two years before the Windlens makes a significant impact on Japan’s energy system. The good news is the “Windlens has already attracted great expectations globally and will make a huge, real impact for the power generation in not only Japan, but also in the U.K., E.U., U.S., Canada and other parts of the world, as soon as the field test gives good results on the designed performance and safety,” said Matsuuar.

Thanks for your attention.

Why is it that the TSA goons can find your toothpaste, nail polish, mouthwash, hand lotion and any other liquid or gel you may use to maintain your personal hygiene while traveling, but they can’t seem to find dangerous weapons?

Article Source

Plane Left Gate With Gun on Board, DFW Airport Says

A plane left the gate at DFW Airport with a gun on board before transportation officials alerted the pilot about the problem, FOX 4 has learned.

Airport spokesman David Magana said a 65-year-old woman from Little Elm, Texas had a gun in her carry-on bag that got through the security checkpoint .

By the time the woman took her bag and walked away, a TSA agent scanning the D-30 checkpoint noticed the .38-caliber handgun.

Magana said the TSA shut down only the security checkpoint, not the entire terminal, and began searching the D concourse and other terminals for the woman.

At least 90 minutes elapsed before she was in custody, Magana said.

The plane, American Airlines flight 2385 to Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport, returned to the gate before it got on the runway.

It’s not clear if the gun in the luggage was loaded.

The woman, identified as Judith P. Kenny, told police she had forgotten the gun was in her bag. She was arrested on weapons charges and released a few hours later.

TSA spokesman Luis Casanova told FOX 4 that no review of procedures was needed and that standard operating procedures were followed. No harm came to anyone, he said.

But airport passengers were clearly concerned and puzzled.

“It is amazing for the liquids they remove and the scrutiny they put you through. For something as blatant as a pistol to get through is unacceptable,” one passenger said.

“You got toothpaste or anything they will stop you real quick, but a gun? They got to figure something out,” another passenger said.

The security breach comes on the same day that the Homeland Security Department acknowledged that some TSA agents went too far by strip-searching two elderly women in New York.

Thanks for your attention.

Found this interesting article about the relationship between President Obama and the masses of Black folk who have supported him.

Article Source

Next week will mark the third anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration, and the unveiling of his fourth budget. Already White House spokespeople admit that it will be bad news for black and poor Americans. In three years this president has investigated and prosecuted not a single Wall Street banker or institution, not held up the wave of foreclosures a single week, not addressed the issues of black unemployment or black mass incarceration. But black America has silenced itself to protect the career of the First Black President.

Three years ago this week, more than 2 million souls, at least half of them African American, converged upon the nation’s capital. They came, in what my colleague Glen Ford called the Great Black Hajj of 2008, to witness and celebrate the swearing in of the nation’s first African American president. They wept and danced and sang and prophesied. They marveled at how far they had come. It was, their leaders assured them, the beginning of a new day.

Three years later, it’s clear that this is indeed a new day, a new era. But for most of black America, it’s not the one they hoped for. Nobody expected urban poverty would begin to vanish overnight, or that millions of acres of lost black farmland would be restored. But promises were made, and expectations were justifiably high, not because Barack Obama had promised to investigate Wall Street, prosecute banksters, or stop the imperial wars and illegal foreclosures, but because humans do have the right to expect justice at home and peace abroad, whether their leaders deliver these things or not.

The highly questionable political strategy of withholding back black demands for economic or social justice and peace, so as not to embarrass, pressure or visibly tie the black presidential candidate, and later the black president to his base was so widely accepted that by mid 2007 it was a staple of black stand-up comedy routines. Three years into the Obama era, the silencing of black demands lest they embarrass the president is no longer a tactic. It’s a religion, rigorously enforced by the black misleadership class and its wannabees, who fall over each other in their eagerness to mock and scorn heretics like Tavis Smiley and Cornel West for daring to highlight the fact that black poverty and joblessness are at levels not seen in seventy years.

So it is that black people, black demands, and black communities are impotent, voiceless and paralyzed. The creeping privatization of our schools, the continuing gentrification of our urban and suburban communities, and the mass incarceration of our youth all, and the diversion of resources from health care and good jobs to the war economy and corporate welfare all continue apace in the era of Obama, but without visible black protest. Black protest, and black America used to be where the left lived. Black America used to be the visible, beating heart of the American left, in permanent opposition to wars of imperial conquest, to despoiling the environment, to gutting social security and Medicaid. Those days are over.

The priority of the black political class is to damp down protests unless they can be directed exclusively against Republicans, to protect their careers, contacts and contracts, to stifle any criticism of the president, and to pretend that Republicans are to blame for whatever the Obama administration should have done and didn’t. It’s time to circle the wagons and invoke the false god of “black unity” for the 2012 elections. But what is it we are supposed to unify around?

We can’t really say Barack Obama has stood up for poor and working people. Obama specifically promised to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour, to walk a picket line himself and to pass the Employee Free Choice Act during his first two years in office, while he still had an enormous Democratic majority in Congress. None of that happened.

The current economic depression — and that’s what it is, a depression —- came to a head just as Obama assumed office. In September of 2008, just before the election, George Bush was unable to get his $3 trillion bankster bailout bill through a Democratic dominated Congress. Bush summoned president-in-waiting Obama to DC, where Barack worked the phones for a week, convincing enough Democrats to change their votes and support the Bush bailoiut so banksters would indeed get paid for crashing the economy. After assuming office, Obama gave the Wall Street casinos an extra $15 trillion, quintupling down on the Bush bailout, the most massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history. The Obama administration hasn’t found a single big bankster or mortgage fraudster to prosecute in three years.

The BP Gulf disaster occurred while Obama still had a big majority in the House, but not one measure was introduced to hold oil companies to account. Obama’s own “jobs council,” the Hill reports, is about to recommend the Republican energy strategy of “drill, baby drill” with minimal or no regard to the environment or attempt to wean ourselves from dirty and destructive fossil fuels. This president can’t say the word “coal” without putting “clean” in front of it, or refer to “nuclear power” without declaring it “safe.”

Next week President Obama will unveil his new budget, with what his spokespeople admit will not be good news for black and poor Americans. But if our leaders have anything to say, we’ll keep a lid on any protest, any sign of dissatisfaction or disaffection.

If the black misleadership class has its way, the only political role for black America is to be the solid black wall around the president, the wall that does not insulate him from Wall Street or the energy companies or the warmongers. They’re inside the wall. Our job once again will be to protect Barack Obama from any semblance of accountability to his supposed base. To us.

Afraid of weakening him before the Republicans, we weaken ourselves instead. Rather than rish shortening his career, or dimming his halo, we shorten and impoverish black lives and livelihoods. We have a new pharaoh. And we won’t let him go.

Thanks For your attention.

In my opinion, the World is at a huge fork in the “road”. Financialy, things are crumbling and the numerous “bailouts” have not worked. With today being Dr. Martin Luther King Day here in the United States, it looks (to my eyes) like things have actually gotten worse since Dr. King died. Personally, I feel that Dr. King’s dream is still alive (just barely), but even with a “so-called” black man as president, people of color are STILL catching HELL here in the U.S.A. What say you?

Video:

Thanks for your attention.

The TSA is continually having to fire folks for activities outlined in the article below. My only question is why are government officials constantly telling the public that the TSA makes us safer when they can’t keep miscreants, like those described in the article, off the payroll in the first place?

Article Source

TSA officers jailed for stealing $40,000 in cash from a passenger’s bag

Two former Transportation Security Administration officers based at John F. Kennedy Airport are going to jail after admitting to stealing $40,000 in cash from a checked bag.

The Queens District Attorney’s Office says 44-year-old Coumar Persad, of Queens, and 31-year-old Davon Webb, of the Bronx, were sentenced on Tuesday to six months jail and five years’ probation.

Both had pleaded guilty to grand larceny, obstructing governmental administration and official misconduct, the Associated Press reports.

The money was all reportedly stolen from one passenger’s baggage.

Prosecutors said Persad X-rayed a piece of baggage on January 30 last year and noticed money inside. He then phoned Webb, who was in a baggage belt area, to tell him about the discovery.

Authorities said Webb showed up and marked the bag with tape. Persad then intercepted it in another handling area, and removed cash from the bag.

The pair later met in the bathroom to divide the money and hide it in their clothing.

Police say $39,980 was recovered from the suspects’ homes in connection with the investigation.

Persad’s attorney has said his client understands he made a mistake and wishes to move on with his life.
Thanks for your attention.

The gun laws in the City of New York are so restrictive that law abiding citizens, who visit from other states and have legal concealed carry permits, are subject to arrest if they happen to reveal that they are carrying their firearm within the city limits.

Article Source

Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.

That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.

The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.

Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell.

The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate, however, and his late September arrest initiated what may become a protracted criminal saga. He hasn’t yet been indicted by a grand jury, but there may be little legal wiggle-room if he is.

“If he does get indicted, and they want to give him something less, then the legal minimum would be two years,” noted Mark Bederow, Jerome’s attorney. “They couldn’t even offer less if they wanted to.”

Jerome isn’t the first out-of-state visitor to volunteer that they had a gun, only to be put through the wringer. In December, Tennessee nurse Meredith Graves noticed a “no guns” sign at the World Trade Center site and asked where she could leave her weapon, only to face similar charges.

Also in December, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler was arrested after attempting to check a pistol — for which he has a California concealed carry permit — at a New York airport.

The law in New York has the potential to wreak havoc on the lives of unwitting and otherwise law-abiding visitors, Bederow explained to The Daily Caller.

“The law itself is clear,” he said, “if you knowingly possess a loaded firearm in New York, then you are technically guilty of a serious crime. The fact that somebody in another state has a valid concealed carry permit is, legally speaking, irrelevant in New York.”

But the recent spate of tourist arrests wasn’t what was intended when the law was passed, said Bederow. “Subjecting the toughest gun laws in the country — here in New York — to subject these people to them is just not a good use of discretion.”

“The law is not equipped to deal with these situations, and they happen all the time,” he added. “Here are people trying to be responsible.”

There is a significant degree of uncertainty regarding how the case will proceed. Right now, Bederow said he’s hoping that the district attorney will use discretion and recognize that his client “is not a criminal.”

“I’ve been a law-abiding citizen my entire life, and for something like this to come down, it rips me apart,” Jerome told the New York Post. “It’s like taking a good dog and scolding him for something he didn’t do.”

Thanks for your attention.

President Obama has just signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. This Act authorizes the Federal Government to indefinitely detain American citizens for any reason without trial or access to legal representation. The president, in his infinite wisdom, basically says that although he has the power to detain American, he won’t use that power. Thanks, Mr. President, but what happens when you leave office?

Article Source

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA

Video Commentary:

Thanks for your attention.

I posted something similar to this in the past, just thought the theme of this message needs to be re-posted here at the top of the blog. Found it in one of my many junk e-mail subscriptions. Really good advice in these days of Facebook and Twitter. You never know who is monitoring your online presence.

You are entitled to your opinion, but…

The day after Osama Bin Laden was killed by operators of SEAL Team
VI, Rashard Mendenhall, running back from the Pittsburgh Steelers
went to his twitter account and posted a message.

The message essentially said that he thought it was bad to
celebrate the death of anyone, then rambled as much as anyone can
ramble in 140 characters.

The backlash among fans was not good, so he followed it up the next
day with a rambling apology. The backlash continued.

Some said Mendenhall was only expressing his opinion, and they are
right. He was expressing his opinion and he has every right to do so.

However, what most people don’t understand is, when you express
your opinion, it is not done in a vacuum… there are consequences
for it, consequences from other people.

Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences, it simply
means speech free of restrictions by the government (commercial
speech is not free, unless it’s political or religious in nature).

Mendenhall, to his surprise, was not only greeted with a backlash
from his fans, he was also dumped as a spokesman for Champion
sporting goods who decided he was no longer an appropriate
representative for the brand.

That was probably a good business decision on their part, and a
justifiable consequence–if Mendenhall was expressing an unpopular
opinion (one that could harm their business), they had to let him go.

He is free, of course, to express his opinion in other venues, but
again, that opinion is not free of consequence.

I’ve noticed that very successful people are usually very careful
when expressing an opinion, and usually do not do it to the public
at large. They may do it to a smaller inner circle, but certainly
not to those who are unqualified to comment on their opinions.

So, be very careful when expressing your opinions. You are free to
do so as much as you like, but you are not free from the consequences.

Thinking before you speak or write is never a bad idea, and in this
day and age it’s more important than ever.

Sadly, few people do it.

Thanks for your attention.

Found this excellent video on You Tube explaining the collapses of Leahman Brothers, MF Global and Bernie Madoff.  There are way to many loopholes in the financial rules and regulations all over the world. These loopholes are bringing the economies of many countries down and causing unnecessary pain and suffering.

Happy New Year!