beautifulnightmare
THE UN PROGRAMME OF FELLOWSHIP ON DISARMAMENT

Launched by the General Assembly in 1978 at its first special session devoted to disarmament, the Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament aims to train and build the capacity of officials from Member States to enable them to participate more effectively in international disarmament deliberating and negotiating fora.

The Fellowship Programme Itinerary

Submitted by cbaus on January 20, 2014 - 8:00am. National Politics Gun Grabbers
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) has announced that the Omnibus appropriations bill prevents the implementation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by prohibiting any funding of the treaty unless it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, which opposes the treaty. In October 2013, Sen. Moran led a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators in reiterating to President Obama that the Senate overwhelmingly opposes ratification and will not be bound by its obligations.

"Last fall, the Obama Administration's signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty in a direct dismissal of the American people and the bipartisan Senate majority that rejects this treaty," Sen. Moran said. "Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own 'red line' negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty's dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text. With the passage of the Omnibus bill, it will be made unequivocally clear that Congress is committed to upholding the fundamental individual rights of Americans and rejects the ATT. We will not be bound by the treaty and we will not fund its implementation."
The Omnibus appropriations bill includes specific language in Section 7075 stating, "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to implement the Arms Trade Treaty until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification for the Treaty."

BackgroundIn the letter to President Obama in October 2013, Sen. Moran and his colleagues outline six reasons why they will not give advice and consent to the treaty and are therefore not bound to uphold the treaty's object and purpose.

"We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations," the 50 Senators wrote to President Obama.

The six reasons for opposing ratification of the ATT include:

http://beautifulnightmare-killumbus.blogspot.com/2...
beautifulnightmare
The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, pushing the cost on to taxpayers.

In addition, the bill would result in slower response time in the case of a disaster, requiring increased consultation with states before the federal government calls for cleanup of Superfund sites - where hazardous waste could affect people and the environment.

The bill amends both the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act - often referred to as Superfund, which was created in 1980 to hold polluter industries accountable for funding the cleanup of hazardous-waste sites.

There are over 1,300 priority Superfund sites in the US.

The legislation was passed by a vote of 225 to 188, mostly along party lines, with all but four Republicans supporting the bill and all but five Democrats opposing it. One of those Democrats crossing party lines to support the changes to environmental law was Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO), touted the “common-sense” changes as needed economic relief.

"We are five years into this failed experiment of increased government spending, taxation, and regulation," Gardner said in a statement. "The results are clear: The power to grow our economy and put Americans back to work lies in the private sector. With more than 80,000 pages of new federal regulations published in 2013 alone, common-sense revisions of existing rules and regulations are a vital part of ensuring businesses that power our state and local economies are given the capability to grow."

Critics point out that the bill severely weakens environmental protections. Earthjustice and 128 public interest groups said the legislation would “threaten human health and the environment while protecting polluters from liability for the costs of toxic cleanups.”

The legislation also "substantially increases the potential for harm in communities across the United States. As one in four Americans live within three miles of a hazardous-waste site, safe management and prompt cleanup of toxic waste sites are essential to our nation's health and economy,” the group added.



H.R. 2279, Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 19, 2013H.R. 2279 would amend laws concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) oversight of hazardous substances. The bill would authorize EPA to review regulations related to solid waste disposal only when necessary instead of every three years as required under current law. The legislation also would remove a long-expired deadline, which EPA has already met, regarding regulations for the owners and operators of certain types of facilities that produce, transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous substances. In addition, the bill would direct that any financial requirements established by EPA for such owners and operators do not preempt state or other federal agency requirements.
The bill also would require EPA to report to the Congress any financial responsibility requirements it intends to establish under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Finally, H.R. 2279 would require certain facilities holding flammable or explosive materials to report on those holdings to state and local officials.

Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that removing the current requirement to review certain regulations every three years would reduce administrative costs. However, some of those savings in administrative expenses would be offset by spending on the new requirement to report to the Congress any financial responsibility requirements. CBO estimates that, on balance, implementing this legislation would not have a significant net impact on spending that is subject to appropriation over the 2014-2018 period. Enacting H.R. 2279 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.


Administration’s Regulatory Record Rests on Dubious Assumptions

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, during his press briefing on Wednesday, gave the Obama administration a pat on the back for writing federal rules. Here’s the context:

Q: Hi. Different subject altogether. This morning, at the U.S. Chamber, Tom Donohue was talking about the state of business. And he said one of business's biggest concerns right now is overregulation. He accused this administration of regulatory overreach. Is the president satisfied with the level of regulation on businesses?

Behold my display of the 2013 Federal Register. It contains over 80,000 pages of new rules, regulations, and notices all written and passed by unelected bureaucrats. The small stack of papers on top of the display are the laws passed by elected members of Congress and signed into law by the president.

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say a couple of things about that. The president does not believe that we have to choose between protecting the health, welfare and safety of Americans and promoting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness and innovation.

We can do both and we are doing both. The net benefits of rules finalized through the fourth fiscal year of this administration were $159 billion. That's the net benefits. This is almost four times the net benefits through the fourth fiscal year of the previous administration.
http://beautifulnightmare-killumbus.blogspot.com/2...
beautifulnightmare


Obamacare has heated this nation into an inferno. Debates, complaints, lawsuits challenging its unconstitutionality, and igniting a fury over many citizens loosing their vital lifesaving healthcare coverage. Many people, whether they be individuals, businesses, or doctors, are feeling overwhelmed and trapped by this detrimental monstrosity. People from all walks of life are being harmed by loss of insurance, life saving healthcare, loss of jobs, loss of hours on their jobs forcing them into part-time work, companies are being broken, and doctors are leaving the healthcare field in mass numbers due to this outrageous “law” enacted by political pundits in Washington that either can’t or refuse to read.

While the federal government would love nothing more to make people believe they are “all powerful” or “what they say goes” or “what they say trumps the power of the states,” it simply is not true. The federal government (Washington) derives all its power from the people. The federal government would have you believe the power structure is as follows: Federal, State, Cities, Towns, and then the people. When in fact as a republic the real structure of our country since its inception has always been: We the people, Towns, Cities, States, and then the Federal Government. The federal government has NO power to enforce their “rules, regulation, laws” on the states unless the states and people allow it. Thus, the reason your state constitution trumps “federal law.”

I now turn your attention to the state of Ohio. According to the Ohio State Constitution no one can be forced or fined to sign up for healthcare. This includes, but is not limited to individuals, businesses, doctors, no one! Nor can they be fined, taxed, penalized, or forced to pay by wage withholding. Whether intentional or not, the state of Ohio has given every person, business, hospital, doctor in that state the legal basis for not having to engage, nor be involved with the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

http://beautifulnightmare-killumbus.blogspot.com/2...
beautifulnightmare
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) revealed on Thursday that he had become a congressman because he was outraged that single women were having as many as 15 babies and getting welfare checks.
“If it weren’t for the policies in this War on Poverty declared 50 years ago, it may well be that I would not have ever run for Congress,” Gohmert said during a Wednesday night speech on the House floor. “Because what got me thinking about it first as a state district judge back in Texas was seeing more and more young women, single women coming before me — single moms — charged with welfare fraud.”
The Texas Republican said that women discovered that “the government will send you a check for every baby you have out of wedlock.”



The War on Poverty: Not Just a Liberal Campaign

Two things are particularly notable. First, the War on Poverty went far beyond means-tested assistance to low-income people. In fact, it focused mostly on health, education and employment, but also included seemingly unrelated measures like tax cuts. Second, while Johnson proposed and implemented the War on Poverty, it wasn't just a liberal, Democratic initiative. President Richard Nixon largely built on and institutionalized the War on Poverty, and most of the major initiatives of the War passed with solid bipartisan support.

And, although few liberals or conservatives mention it today, Johnson also viewed tax cuts as part of the War on Poverty. Ashe put it, tax cuts were needed "above all ... to create new jobs and new markets in every area of this land." Just over a month after Johnson declared war on poverty, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1964, which cut individual tax rates across the board. The top marginal rate, for example, was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent, a major cut at the time, but still a far cry from today's top marginal rate of 39.6 percent.On that first point, in a new book from the Russell Sage Foundation, Martha Bailey and Sheldon Danziger remind us that the full legislative agenda associated with the War on Poverty included the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the expansion of minimum wage coverage, an unprecedented effort to increase access to post-secondary education, increased federal support for elementary and secondary education, and many other initiatives to boost skills and employment.

On the second point -- bipartisan support, before Ronald Reagan rhetorically established himself in opposition to the War on Poverty, Richard Nixon and other congressional conservatives largely embraced it as a practical matter. For example, in 1969, Nixon called for adding an automatic cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to Social Security as well as an across-the-board benefit increase. He signed both into law in 1972.


Medicare paid millions to dead patients, illegal immigrants, probe finds

Here we go with another headline that insults my intelligence and it should everyone else's that knew WTF was going on and has been going on forever, just no one wanted to look or was so caught up in trivial mainstream BS. Payments to illegal immigrants, refugees, dead people, or dead people voting has been going on for a long long time.

http://beautifulnightmare-killumbus.blogspot.com/2...
beautifulnightmare
Penn State study shows gene mutation 10,000 years ago is the reason for Europeans' light skin

Have you ever wondered where the Irish get their light skin color from? Well, it appears we may now have the answer.

A major new US study at Penn State University has found that Europeans' light skin stems from a gene mutation from a single person who lived 10,000 years ago.

Scientists made the discovery after identifying a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans and the Irish fall into this category.

The Mail Online reports that, in earlier research, Keith Cheng from Penn State College of Medicine reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. This is undoubtedly where the Irish get their light skin from.

Review:
Richard A. Sturm
Molecular genetics of human pigmentation diversity
Hum. Mol. Genet. (2009) 18 (R1): R9-R17 doi:10.1093/hmg/ddp003
Abstract Full Text (HTML) Full Text (P
DF)

‘The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,’ he said.

They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.
A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.

All individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code. According to the researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/The-light-skin-of...
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook
Displaying 6 to 10 of 14