30,000 in NJ protest state budget cuts

Public employees, nonprofit groups face cuts

	Thousands of people fill the street near the New Jersey Statehouse on Saturday in Trenton, N.J., to protest Gov. Chris Christie's proposed budget cuts. View related photos
Mel Evans / AP

TRENTON, N.J. - A crowd estimated at 30,000 to 35,000 people gathered Saturday near New Jersey's Statehouse to protest Gov. Chris Christie's proposed budget cuts.

State police, who gave the crowd estimate, said no problems were reported.

The crowd is believed to be one of the largest ever to protest in state history. It was mostly comprised of public employee union members and several community and nonprofit groups that would lose some or all their funding if Christie's plans are adopted.

Christie has called for workers to accept wage freezes, and he's pushed for them to contribute toward their health benefits. The governor was not in the Statehouse on Saturday and was not at the rally.

He has said that protesters have a right to speak their minds.

MIT Team Unveils Airplane that Uses 70 Percent Less Fuel Read more: MIT Team Unveils Airplane that Uses 70 Percent Less Fuel

Today a team of researchers at MIT unveiled their latest feat of engineering — an airplane that uses 70% less fuel than conventional aircraft. The MIT team was one of six groups — and the only university led team — across the US chosen by NASA to help redesign current aircraft to increase fuel efficiency, lower emissions and allow planes to take off on shorter runways. The team accomplished all of NASA’s set goals with their innovative D-series plane, lovingly referred to as the “double bubble”.

MIT also unveiled its “hybrid wing body” H-series, which is intended to replace 777 class aircraft

NASA is calling this government-funded initiative the “N+3″, signifying that the planes are meant to revolutionize the aircraft industry in three generations. MIT, Boeing, GE Aviation and Northrop Grumman were given the task of rethinking the subsonic commercial aircraft market while teams from Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were entrusted with creating supersonic commercial aircraft — passenger planes traveling faster than the speed of sound! NASA’s goals were to reduce fuel consumption while taking into account that in 3 decades air traffic is set to double. Now that the designs have been revealed the teams are awaiting news in the next few months of which designs will receive funding to go on to the second phase of the program.

MIT designed their D-series as a 180 passenger aircraft meant to replace the domestic 737 market. Conventional airplanes utilize a single fuselage design, while the D-series uses two partial tubular shapes placed beside each other — which accounts for the bubble nickname. The plane utilizes a host of technological advances to decrease its fuel consumption. It has thinner longer wings and a smaller tail and engine placement at the rear of the plane instead of on the wings. All of these features account for part of the reduction in fuel usage. The MIT team also unveiled their H-series — a “hybrid wing body” plane that seats 350 passengers and could replace the 777 overseas market. NASA expects designs from this program to take flight in 2035.

+ MIT

The Toronto G20 Police State Crackdown

It appears as if the G20 summit in Toronto is shaping up to be a showdown between anarchists and police. Caught in the middle of the security circus are local residents. If there is violence and property damage, peaceful protesters will also be demonized. The recent bombing of a bank, perpetrated by a so-called anarchist group, has given an excuse to enact more police state measures during the summit. The curious timing of the attack emphasizes the threat of terrorism and further justifies the huge security apparatus being assembled.

A group calling itself FFFC-Ottawa has claimed responsibility for the recent firebombing of a Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) branch. It was targeted because of the RBC’s sponsorship of the Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, as well as its role in financing Alberta’s tar sands projects. The group has threatened to make an appearance at the meetings. “On June 25-27 2010, the G8/G20 ‘leaders’ and bankers are meeting in Huntsville and Toronto to make decisions that will further their policies of exploitation of people and the environment. We will be there.” Some have labelled the bombing as an act of domestic terrorism and have compared the radical anarchist community to terrorist groups. There are fears that the incident might inspire copycat attacks. With Toronto set to play host to the G20, it has become a national security issue. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service recently warned of homegrown terror in Canada. It is also interesting to note that in an effort to revive post-9/11 powers in late April, the Conservative government introduced the Combating Terrorism Act.

The G20 Integrated Security Unit continues to monitor any potential threats. Police are now asking truck drivers and carriers to act as lookouts before and during the G8/G20 summits. This includes reporting on suspicious behaviour or irregular activity in regards to terrorism, extremists, anarchists, public order (protests), along with any other threats. There are already various programs training citizens to fight terrorism and crime which are part of ongoing efforts to create a domestic spying system. It is unclear if the recent bombing was an isolated incident or part of a trend that could lead to more domestic political violence in Canada. Many likeminded individuals and groups have tried to distance themselves from FFFC-Ottawa while others have defended their actions. There is speculation that the attack might have been a false flag operation carried out by agent provocateurs to blame anarchists and give police a reason to further ramp up security. Some anarchists are still vowing to disrupt the meetings with threats of confronting the police state and the corporate culture.

Queen’s Park North is now the location of the designated demonstration area during the G20 summit. It was changed after residents opposed a plan to use Trinity-Bellwoods Park. Some activists reject the notion of an official protest site, but if they choose to gather elsewhere it could lead to arrests. Ultimately, police tactics and behaviour will play a big part in determining the outcome of any protests. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated, “Freedom of expression is protected throughout Canada: our country, and all of Toronto is a ‘free speech zone.’ Protesters cannot be prevented from demonstrating outside of the‘designated demonstration area,’ particularly when the area set aside is situated in a place that is so remote from the meetings that protesters cannot be directly seen or heard by the leaders. All protesters voices need to be heard, but they must remain peaceful as any violence will taint their message and provoke a police response.

In support of preparations for the G8/G20 summits, there has been more security drills In early May, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted Exercise Amalgam Virgo which involved military aircraft flying at low altitudes over the south-central Ontario region. With the meetings fast approaching, additional security measures are being implemented across Toronto. Over 70 new CCTV cameras are being installed throughout the city’s downtown core. Due to security concerns, the CN Tower will be closed to the public during the summit. The Toronto Blue Jays series has also been moved to Philadelphia for security reasons. Police are expected to release more details about the size of the planned security zone within the next week. It was already announced that there will be an outer and inner security perimeter. As a result of the bank bombing, there are calls for an extra 500 police for the event. This is on top of the over 5000 officers who will be deployed, along with thousands of private security personnel and an unspecified number of Canadian soldiers. A Toronto Police Accountability Bulletin proclaimed, “In the name of security, the police are being given a very free hand with the city.”

The G20 summit will undoubtedly promote globalization and advance the goals of world government. This will benefit bankers and multinational corporations at the expense of the poor and middle class. The fact that it is being held in Toronto signifies that Canada is further falling under the control of the new world order system. The event will provide a perfect opportunity to push the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement currently being negotiated. Canada has fared better then most countries during the current financial crisis, but deeper economic ties with Europe could prove disastrous. In many ways, the whole security operations for the G8/G20 summits are a sideshow designed to serve as a distraction. Any violence and mayhem before or during the meetings plays right into the globalists hands and will be used to justify a police state crackdown.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Advancing the Transatlantic Agenda
Police State Canada 2010 and the Olympic Crackdown
The War on Terrorism and the Countdown to the 2010 Olympics
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics

Other related articles
Ottawa Bank Torched: Direct Action of False Flag?
Police State Toronto: Terror Drill Caught On Tape
Press For Truth Arrested While Reporting On The G20 Summit
Downtown Toronto To Be Transformed Into Locked-Down Police State This Summer

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com.

Image by CasaZaza

Police State 4: The Rise Of FEMA

Yemeni Tribesmen Kidnap U.S. Couple Near Sanaa

SANAA (Reuters) - Armed Yemeni tribesmen kidnapped two U.S. tourists, a husband and wife, near the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Monday and were demanding the release of a jailed relative, Yemeni security officials said.

The couple's Yemeni driver and translator were also taken hostage, the officials said. The kidnappers were demanding the release of a family member in jail over a land dispute that was before the courts, a tribal source said.

"Armed tribesmen ambushed a car carrying tourists and their Yemeni driver and took them to their area," one of the security officials said. Another official said that the kidnapping was not thought to have broader political motives.

Yemen, bordering the world's top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, surged to the forefront of Western security concerns after the Yemen-based regional arm of al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a failed attempt to bomb a U.S.-bound plane in December.

Kidnappings of foreigners and Yemenis are common in the impoverished Arabian peninsula country, where hostages are often used by disgruntled tribesmen to press demands on authorities.

Most hostages taken in Yemen have been freed unharmed, but in 2000 a Norwegian diplomat was killed in crossfire and in 1998 four Westerners were killed during an army attempt to free them.

The fresh kidnapping came just under a week after two young German girls held hostage for nearly a year in Yemen were rescued near the Saudi Arabian border.

The girls were members of a family of five who have been held by kidnappers who the Yemeni government believes have links to al Qaeda. Three other foreigners kidnapped alongside the family were found dead last year.

The United States and Saudi Arabia want Yemen to focus its efforts on fighting al Qaeda, fearing the global militant group will take advantage of Yemen's instability to spread its operations to the neighboring kingdom and beyond.

(Reporting by Mohammed Ghobari and Mohamed Sudam; Writing by Cynthia Johnston; editing by David Stamp)

Copyright 2010 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Nouriel Roubini -Double Dip Recession 5 20 2010 CNBC

Click this link ..... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=12000

Where’s the Land of Opportunity These Days?

Recent decades have witnessed an amazing shrinkage of the American manufacturing sector, from #1 in the world to virtual non-existence. Companies, taking advantage of cheaper labor costs abroad, have either outsourced some portion of the workforce or relocated their entire operations offshore. Remember the “great sucking sound” that Ross Perot claimed he could hear?

Well, today, if you listen, there’s a different, almost opposite sound in the air. Instead of American jobs going to lower-paid foreign workers, foreign workers are leaving America for better jobs. It’s happening, increasingly, among professionals who expatriated to the U.S. in search of the good life and have begun seeing better prospects back in their countries of origin.

In a worldwide survey by HSBC Bank International, conducted among 3,100 expats in the first quarter of 2009, more than 1 in 5 (22%) working and living in the U.S. said they were considering pulling up stakes and returning home. That’s 50% higher than the overall average of expats everywhere.

This may seem strange to residents of the traditional land of opportunity. We’re much more accustomed to foreign graduates of American colleges doing whatever it takes to get that green card. But it’s in keeping with numbers noted by other observers.

And it’s all about the career prospects.

Those studying the trend say that foreign professionals are becoming frustrated with their lack of advancement in the U.S., citing widespread salary and promotion freezes, not to mention layoffs. As our unemployment rate has ballooned to an “official” 10% and everyone is downsizing, people with advanced degrees have not been spared. Competition for the best jobs is more intense than ever, and switching employers no longer results in an automatic step up the ladder.

In addition, employees holding H-1B skilled worker visas often get the short end of the stick from employers. No one with a hard-to-obtain H-1B is going to complain about unfair treatment – or so the thinking goes – because termination most often results in a quick plane ride back home.

But that may not be much of a sword to hold over someone’s head as home begins to look more and more attractive. People who came here from India and China, even as recently as a decade ago, are well aware of the explosion in opportunity that’s transpired way back east. As a consequence of all this, Harvard researcher Vivek Wadhwa predicts, more than 100,000 expats will repatriate to India in the next five years. He cites reports from human-resource directors in India and China, showing a recent tenfold increase in the number of résumés from the U.S.

And why shouldn’t they be thinking of packing it in? Among the 26 countries included in the HSBC study, America ranked a dismal 17th overall, based on four criteria: annual income, disposable income, ability to save, and ownership of luxury items.

Heading the list of negatives here is that wages have not kept pace with the domestic cost of living (a discrepancy American citizens also are painfully aware of). Just 39% of expats report being able to save more money since moving to the U.S.

That’s despite concerted cost-cutting, too. When asked if the credit crunch had changed their attitude toward spending, 74% of those living here answered yes. Two-thirds say they have both cut down on luxuries and been trying to save on day-to-day costs.

Okay, but what if the shoe is on the other foot? What if you’re a displaced professional worker, should you consider looking for a job out of country? Maybe. Though it will certainly be more difficult for an American to land a position abroad than for a repatriated citizen, it isn’t impossible.

The HSBC study wasn’t just about the U.S. Expatriates were working in all 26 countries surveyed, and many, of whatever nationality, are doing much better than those here.

Consider this: The highest proportion of expats earning more than the equivalent of US$250,000 per year (30%) is to be found in Russia. Of all places. Hard to imagine but true. Russia is followed in this category by some locales you might expect to see on the list, Hong Kong (27%), Japan (26%), and Switzerland (25%). But tied for fourth is another surprise, India.

Highest percentages of those who say they’re saving more than they could at home were working in Saudi Arabia (90%), Russia (97%), and Qatar (98%).

Given those salary and savings-rate data, it’s no surprise that the number one overall ranking for expats went to Russia. All the rest of the top eleven were located in the Middle and Far East. In order: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, the UAE, Singapore, Japan, Bahrain, India, Malaysia, and China.

Where do you not want to go? Mostly, just avoid the EU. The bottom five: Belgium, Germany, Austria, Spain, and France.

Look at the top ten and bottom five again. This topsy-turvy world is not the one we’re used to, not the one most Americans still think it is. Opportunity is where you find it, and world citizens willing to cross borders for work are, with good reason, setting sail for nations other than the U.S.

If you, like an increasing number of Americans, feel that these days life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be easier to come by outside of the U.S., the American Expatriation Guide – written from personal experience – is a must-read. Completely FREE of charge, this 29-page in-depth manual for expats tells you everything you need to know when considering to move abroad. Click here to download it now.

The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen

I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.

History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.

The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.

Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.

As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.

However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;

The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.

The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”

The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”

And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”

Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.

The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.

A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.

Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”

Only the people can decide…

But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.

If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.

If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.

Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?