MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

The current administration in Washington has been proposing for some time that a Missile Defense System be set up in Poland. The purpose was stated as to protect NATO countries from potential missile attack from North Korea, Iran, and/or China. The Russians have long protested such a system as they felt it was "aimed" at them. Condoleezza Rice has dismissed Russia's concerns as "ludicrous".

A group of top U.S. physicists from institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have just announced that the Russian concerns were justified. Theodore Postol a physicist at MIT has said "It is hard to understand how the they ( The Missile Defense Agency) could get something so basic, wrong." The scientists agree that the proposed US system would be overwhelmed in an all-out attack from Russia, but would be effective against smaller strategic offensives from our former cold-war adversary.

A complete article on the subject can be found at ..............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2007/0927/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_missle_defense_3;ylt=Ah

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

I'd like to congratulate Al Gore for winning the Oscar for his documentary on Global Warming - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Mr. Gore has been talking and writing on this subject for a couple decades now, and it looks like the rest of the world is finally catching up with him. (And Al, I really think you won the election .... I really do!).

However, as a few people have pointed out recently ... Al Gore's increase in girth looks like he hasn't been trying to save the planet ... it looks like he has been trying to eat the planet!

Many conservatives have been saying they don't believe in Global Warming and therefore we shouldn't do anything about it. But some people suspect that because of the results of recent elections, the conservatives would just as soon have New York and Los Angeles under water.

SUPREME COURT ISSUE

The February 28th edition of the Christian Science Monitor contains an article worth examining. It indicates that oral arguments were to be brought before the Supreme Court that day relating to the separation of church and state which has long been part of the foundation of the US government. At question is whether private citizens can bring action to protest financial support of "faith-based initiatives" being funded by the executive branch.

The current administration will be claiming that taxpayers can protest expenditure authorizations made by Congress, but can not legally contest expenditure authorizations made by the executive branch. They feel they can spend the dollars for anything they want, including "faith-based initiatives".

A lower court suggested that under the administration's view "the secretary of Homeland Security could use general executive funds to build a mosque and hire an imam in the belief that such visible support for Islam would reduce the rise of Islamist terrorist attacks against America." The taxpayers are saying that "the core purpose of the establishment clause is to ensure that no taxpayer is forced to contribute to government support of religion." Although this case is being brought to the court on the religion issue, the big picture is whether or not the executive branch of our government has a complete blank check-book to spend money on anything they want with no oversight or legal recourse by anybody!

It's a case that probably only a lawyer can truly appreciate, but I'd suggest you still read the article written by a member of the Stanford Law School at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0228/p09s01-coop.html?s=hns