After six people were shot in the city’s Homewood neighborhood in less than 24 hours, Pittsburgh police rolled in with a 20-ton armored truck with a blast-resistant body, armored rotating roof hatch and gunports. No guns or drugs were seized and no arrests made during the sweep in the $250,000 armored vehicle, paid for with
Iran accepts compromise
Iran on Tuesday accepted a compromise for the agenda of a global meeting on how to fix the troubled nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, averting a collapse of the session after a week of deadlock.
Tehran had blocked consensus for the programme over a phrase "reaffirming the need for full compliance" with the NPT, calling this a blank cheque for Western powers to bully it over its nuclear activity to the exclusion of other treaty issues.
Iran on Tuesday accepted a compromise for the agenda of a global meeting on how to fix the troubled nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, averting a collapse of the session after a week of deadlock.
Tehran had blocked consensus for the programme over a phrase "reaffirming the need for full compliance" with the NPT, calling this a blank cheque for Western powers to bully it over its nuclear activity to the exclusion of other treaty issues.
Force ‘cannot solve Afghanistan’
Nato head Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said he believes there is no military solution to the Afghan situation.
Mr Scheffer was speaking during talks in Pakistan on ways of containing the Taleban insurgency on the Pakistan-Afghan border.
Violence in Afghanistan has returned to levels not seen since the Taleban were ousted in 2001.
More than 4,000 people were killed last year in fighting between militants and international-led forces.
"It is my strong opinion that the final answer in Afghanistan will not be a military one and cannot be a military one," the Nato secretary general told a joint news conference after talks with President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad.
"The final answer in Afghanistan is called reconstruction, development and nation-building."
Nato head Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said he believes there is no military solution to the Afghan situation.
Mr Scheffer was speaking during talks in Pakistan on ways of containing the Taleban insurgency on the Pakistan-Afghan border.
Violence in Afghanistan has returned to levels not seen since the Taleban were ousted in 2001.
More than 4,000 people were killed last year in fighting between militants and international-led forces.
"It is my strong opinion that the final answer in Afghanistan will not be a military one and cannot be a military one," the Nato secretary general told a joint news conference after talks with President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad.
"The final answer in Afghanistan is called reconstruction, development and nation-building."
Boerehaat en die DA
MEDIAVERKLARING DEUR PRAAG (PRO-AFRRIKAANSE AKSIEGROEP) OP 7 MEI 2007
Die sms wat deur ‘n Kaapse metroraadslid van die DA, mnr. Pat Hill, rondgestuur is waarin hy stemme vir mev. Helen Zille gewerf het en dit as ‘n “spyker in die Afrikanerdoodskis” beskryf het, val vreemd op. Dit beklemtoon die geweldige etniese spanninge wat daar agter die fasade van liberale wellewendheid in die DA heers.
MEDIAVERKLARING DEUR PRAAG (PRO-AFRRIKAANSE AKSIEGROEP) OP 7 MEI 2007
Die sms wat deur ‘n Kaapse metroraadslid van die DA, mnr. Pat Hill, rondgestuur is waarin hy stemme vir mev. Helen Zille gewerf het en dit as ‘n “spyker in die Afrikanerdoodskis” beskryf het, val vreemd op. Dit beklemtoon die geweldige etniese spanninge wat daar agter die fasade van liberale wellewendheid in die DA heers.
DA: Te?stand is goed vir Afrikaner
Die Afrikaner hoort allermins in ‘n doodskis. Inteendeel, ons behoort te jubbel en te juig en dankbaar te wees oor al die teëstand wat ons tans ervaar. Ons was in ‘n gemaksone en moes geskok word om daaruit te kom, om agter te kom hoe sterk ons werklik is.
Die Afrikaner hoort allermins in ‘n doodskis. Inteendeel, ons behoort te jubbel en te juig en dankbaar te wees oor al die teëstand wat ons tans ervaar. Ons was in ‘n gemaksone en moes geskok word om daaruit te kom, om agter te kom hoe sterk ons werklik is.
Die Menseregtekommissie se vreemde uitsprake
Sedert sy instelling het die Menseregtekommissie of van sy lede verskeie kere met uitsprake en opmerkings gekom wat wenkbroue hoog laat lig het. Ernstige bedenkinge is geopper oor die organisasie se basiese benadering tot hierdie kwessie.
Sedert sy instelling het die Menseregtekommissie of van sy lede verskeie kere met uitsprake en opmerkings gekom wat wenkbroue hoog laat lig het. Ernstige bedenkinge is geopper oor die organisasie se basiese benadering tot hierdie kwessie.
DA: Wanneer het definisie van vryheid verander?
Wanneer het die definisie van "vry" verander?
Iemand het iewers, dalk hier op Praag, genoem dat dit soms voorkom asof buitelandse Afrikaners meer patrioties is as die in SA, en hierdie skrywe van die "wonderlike" vryheid wat die Afrikaner, komende van ‘n Afrikaner in SA, die afgelope 13 jaar "geniet" laat my dink dis heel moontlik.
Wanneer het die definisie van "vry" verander?
Iemand het iewers, dalk hier op Praag, genoem dat dit soms voorkom asof buitelandse Afrikaners meer patrioties is as die in SA, en hierdie skrywe van die "wonderlike" vryheid wat die Afrikaner, komende van ‘n Afrikaner in SA, die afgelope 13 jaar "geniet" laat my dink dis heel moontlik.
Lees verder: DA: Wanneer het definisie van vryheid verander?
DA: Afrikaner is ‘n neebroer-, javreemdelingvolk
Hoeveel keer het die DA dit nie al uitgespel dat hulle ‘n liberale politieke party is nie?
Langenhoven was reg toe hy gesê het dat die Afrikaner ‘n neebroer-, javreemdelingvolk is ongeag vir watter waardes die vreemdeling staan.
Hoeveel keer het die DA dit nie al uitgespel dat hulle ‘n liberale politieke party is nie?
Langenhoven was reg toe hy gesê het dat die Afrikaner ‘n neebroer-, javreemdelingvolk is ongeag vir watter waardes die vreemdeling staan.
Lees verder: DA: Afrikaner is ‘n neebroer-, javreemdelingvolk
Galileo ‘in deep crisis’
Hope is receding that a private consortium asked to run the system can end its infighting and meet a 10 May deadline to move the project forward. This is likely to mean European taxpayers stepping in to cover costs.
Hope is receding that a private consortium asked to run the system can end its infighting and meet a 10 May deadline to move the project forward. This is likely to mean European taxpayers stepping in to cover costs.
Does Blair Deserve a Medal?
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of reasons. First, forcing the American people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold.
Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons – as evidenced by the overwhelming bi-partisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.
I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as Margaret Thatcher attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for America’s attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously?
I find it particularly unfortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress would nominate Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty – as the 20th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis for a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain’s constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly "assemblies" in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britain’s voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should never spend tax money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a “No” vote on this unfortunate bill.
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of reasons. First, forcing the American people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold.
Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons – as evidenced by the overwhelming bi-partisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.
I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as Margaret Thatcher attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for America’s attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously?
I find it particularly unfortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress would nominate Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty – as the 20th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis for a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain’s constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly "assemblies" in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britain’s voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should never spend tax money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a “No” vote on this unfortunate bill.