In February 1997, CIA Director George Tenet had little trouble telling Congress that Syria was among those countries that "have or are actively developing chemical and biological weapons." Syria is considered to have one of the most advanced chemical weapon programs in the Arab world. Mated with its fleet of 'Scud' ballistic missiles, Syria's chemical weapons have become a significant threat to Israel.

According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Syria began developing an offensive chemical warfare program in the early 1970s "as a result of a perceived Israeli threat." Syria reportedly received its first chemical weapons from Egypt before the 1973 October War. Then, according to the CIA, Syria mounted its own chemical warfare program in the mid-1980s. Syria's efforts have been located at the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Scientifiques (CERS) in Damascus.

In 1990, the DIA reported that Syria had developed the nerve agent Sarin for use in 500kg aerial bombs and Scud B missile warheads. And in 1993, the DIA reported that Syria had developed aerial bombs and missile warheads for chemical agents and that there were two known chemical weapon depots: The Khan Abu Shamat Depot and the Furqlus Depot. In its most recent annual report to Congress, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency stated that "it is highly probable that Syria is developing an offensive biological warfare capability."

Syria's chemical arms have set off alarms in Israel, which has accused Syria recently of producing lethal VX nerve gas. In November 1996, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai told the press: "We know Syria [has] increased its production capacity, particularly that of VX...." Mordechai repeated the charge in May 1997, when he confirmed newspaper reports that he had discussed the matter with U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen.

Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and has signed but not ratified the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

Foreign assistance

Syria's chemical weapon effort has relied heavily on foreign help. Former CIA Director William Webster testified in 1989 that "West European firms were instrumental in supplying the required precursor chemicals and equipment. Without the provision of these key elements, Damascus would not have been able to produce chemical weapons." In the mid 1980s, the German firm Schott Glasswerke sold corrosion-resistant glass laboratory equipment to a Damascus research institute/production plant. While Schott officials insisted they did not know the purpose of the equipment, U.S. officials believe that it was destined to be used in the production of sarin nerve gas.

In 1993, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined that the Soviet Union had played an instrumental role in developing Syria's chemical weapon defensive capability but had provided no direct assistance to Syria's offensive program. However, in 1996, Lieutenant General Patrick M. Hughes, Director of the DIA, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that a high Russian official, Anatoli Kuntsevich, "was implicated in a program to sell chemical weapons-related chemicals to Syria." Kuntsevich was formerly in charge of the destruction of the Soviet chemical weapon production complex, but was sacked by Russian President Boris Yeltsin in April 1994 for "numerous and gross violations." Hughes also noted that "it is unclear whether [Kuntsevich was removed].....due to his proliferation activities."

In November 1995, the U.S. Department of State determined that Kuntsevich had "engaged in chemical weapons proliferation activities" and imposed sanctions, prohibiting him from conducting business with the United States for at least one year. Kuntsevich has reportedly admitted that "shipments of small amounts" to Syria did occur, but he stressed that they were approved by the Russian government. The Russian foreign ministry has denied involvement in the sale of chemical weapons to Syria.

In late 1996, Defense News reported that Israeli officials at the December 1996 meeting of the U.S.-Israeli joint Political Military Group claimed that Russian scientists were helping Syria with the production of chemical and biological weapons, including sarin and VX nerve gases and anthrax. The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel has received intelligence reports for over two years that Syria had obtained the Russian version of VX.

In its 1993 report on Syria's chemical weapon program, the DIA concluded that Syria would continue to produce chemical weapons, and that it would continue to require outside sources for equipment and precursor chemicals. Recent events and statements by Syrian officials indicate that this trend is continuing with no sign of abating.

"""Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party: Political party and movement influential among Arab communities in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq."""

The Iranian Revolution
Fast forward to New Years Eve, 1977: President Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him "an island of stability" in the troubled Middle East. What the president also knew, but chose to ignore, was that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to his government mounted, he had allowed his secret police, SAVAK, to crack down on dissenters, fueling still more resentment. Within weeks of Carter's visit, a series of protests broke out in the religious city of Qom, denouncing the Shah's regime as "anti-Islamic." The popular movement against the Shah grew until January 16, 1979, when he fled to Egypt. Two weeks later, thousands of Muslims cheered Khomeini's return to Iran after fourteen years in exile.

"President Carter inherited an impossible situation -- and he and his advisers made the worst of it." Carter seemed to have a hard time deciding whether to heed the advice of his aggressive national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted to encourage the Shah to brutally suppress the revolution, or that of his more cautious State Department, which suggested Carter reach out to opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. In the end he did neither.

From the "Peoples Broadcasting System"

Joint Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial German Government and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America; Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial German Government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

CHAMP CLARK
Speaker of the House of Representatives
THOS. R. MARSHALL
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate

Approved, April 6, 1917
WOODROW WILSON

Imperial Germany never attacked the mainland USA, but Wilson sent us to war to protect US assets and allies, and rightly so.

It has been the policy of the US Government for almost a hundred years to respond to aggression with military action.

Why do liberals contend that President Bush conjured up this notion of pre-emption? 

TITLE XIV--DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

(7) The President (Clinton) has identified North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Libya as hostile states which already possess some weapons of mass destruction and are developing others.

(8) The acquisition or the development and use of weapons of mass destruction is well within the capability of many extremist and terrorist movements, acting independently or as proxies for foreign states.

(9) Foreign states can transfer weapons to or otherwise aid extremist and terrorist movements indirectly and with plausible deniability.

(10) Terrorist groups have already conducted chemical attacks against civilian targets in the United States and Japan, and a radiological attack in Russia.

(11) The potential for the national security of the United States to be threatened by nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological terrorism must be taken seriously.

(12) There is a significant and growing threat of attack by weapons of mass destruction on targets that are not military targets in the usual sense of the term.

(13) Concomitantly, the threat posed to the citizens of the United States by nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons delivered by unconventional means is significant and growing.

(14) Mass terror may result from terrorist incidents involving nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical materials.


It was determined by US Public Law that Iraq had WMD as far back as 1996, but Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Pelosi,Waxman, etc... were tricked by President Bush in 2002 into believing that Iraq had WMD?

Kenneth R. Timmerman
NewsMax.com

WASHINGTON -- Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn has released a pair of bombshell reports on U.S. government broadcasting to Iran, writing to President George W. Bush that the broadcasts "undermine U.S. policy on Iran, often even supporting the propaganda of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Last year, the administration asked Congress for an additional $50 million to fund Persian-language broadcasts by the Voice of America television and Radio Farda (Tomorrow), which is jointly managed by VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

But the government's interagency Iran Steering Group found in a report released by Coburn that neither network has been effective at representing the views of the U.S. government, a mission defined in VOA's charter, let alone at promoting democracy.

"Neither station is a primary source of news for Iranians," the Steering Group report found.

The report found that Radio Farda, whose mission is to be a "surrogate radio" similar to the Radio Free Europe broadcasts to Poland during the Solidarity movement, "rarely takes a stance that could risk antagonizing the Islamic Republic."

The radio's "normal coverage of views inside Iran seems to vary between sympathetic and neutral with respect to the regime," the report added. Before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over as Iran's president in August 2005, Radio Farda was known derisively inside Iran as "Radio Khatami," after Ahmadinejad's predecessor, the much-touted "moderate" Mohammad Khatami.

Rather than present original reporting from sources inside Iran, "the majority of the news read on Radio Farda is actually from the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), the official news agency of the Iranian regime," the report states. "Residents of Iran do not need to turn to Radio Farda to receive IRNA news. This is probably one reason why Iranians do not turn to Radio Farda as a source of fresh news."

The situation at the Voice of America, which is seeking to expand into a 24/7 television network, is arguably worse.

VOA's Persian service rarely invites U.S. government officials to debate or even explain U.S. policy. But it has given ample air-time to top Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, and to anti-American advocates, the report found.

Oversight of the Persian language broadcasts paid for by U.S. taxpayers has been complicated "because there are no English transcripts of our international broadcasting," Coburn wrote.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors commissioned a translation of VOA's presentation of the President's 2007 State of the Union address at Coburn's request. The results showed that VOA "failed to provide Iranians a clear and effective presentation of our foreign policy but provided another platform for its critics," Coburn said.

One of the two guests invited by VOA to comment on the speech was Dr. Mansour Farhang, a former Islamic Republic of Iran ambassador. Farhang dismissed the speech as "a baseless statement" and opined that U.S. policy in Iraq had "no connection to reality."

Apparently agreeing with these views, the VOA moderator, Setareh Derakhshesh, added that most Americans opposed the president's policies, including the proposed troop surge. "There is no poll cited or any other basis for the statement, but it is presented as fact," Coburn noted.

Dr. Farhang claimed that Bush had rejected the "wise diplomatic solution" to Iraq, which involved direct negotiations with Iran, and was expanding the war in order to "not lose international clout." Farhang also claimed the U.S. was to blame for the increased violence and instability in Iraq. "The only other guest, Hormuz Hekmat, who we are told was supposed to be the balance to Dr. Farhang, when asked, said he agreed with Farhang," Coburn added.

The Iran Steering Group report found that while VOA Persian TV "often invites guests who defend the Islamic Republic's version of issues, it consistently fails to maintain a balance by inviting informed guests who represent another perspective on the same issue."

In one April 18, 2006, program devoted to Iran's nuclear program, for example, VOA News invited two nuclear "experts." One of them was a Mr. Nakhai.

"VOA News did not describe his academic and/or professional affiliations. As it turns out, Mr. Nakhai was an adviser to the Iranian regime and a defender of its nuclear policy," the report found.

Another show, broadcast on April 14, 2006, was devoted to U.S. policy toward Iran, inviting guests who were almost uniformly critical of the administration.

Perhaps the most stunning comments were made by Hoover Institution scholar Abbas Milani, who recently has been called to testify in Congress as an "expert" on the pro-democracy movement in Iran by Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In a segment devoted to Iranian human rights abuses, Milani was asked how can a country that violates human rights be a defender of international human rights?

"I think that what you are saying is 100% correct, that is why the U.S. is in a problematic position because of this," Milani replied. "An America that has the Guantanamo Bay jail in it, an America in which minorities, blacks, have suffered from legal deprivations, without a doubt has international issues with regards to this. . . ."

The VOA host thanked Milani for his answer. "Of course, the country I was referring to as the violator of human rights which cannot be a defender of international human rights was the Islamic Republic of Iran," he added.

Much of the anti-American rhetoric at both networks stem result from personnel decisions made by station managers in Washington, D.C. and Prague, the Iran Steering Group report found.

In Washington, the Voice of America West and South Asia division that overseas the Persian service is managed by Sheila Ganji, an Iranian-American who is widely criticized by VOA employees for her management style and decisions.

To her credit, the report found that she had hired professional young producers from MSNBC who had given VOA's flagship "News & Views" program a new look, but found that none of them spoke Farsi or had an understanding of Iranian culture.

But Ms. Ganji was also faulted for having shut down VOA's highly-regarded shortwave radio program, replacing it with simulcast broadcasts of television programs.

"People have phoned me to ask why we shut down the radio," said a well-known VOA radio host, who spoke to NewsMax on condition we protect his identity. "We were allowing Iranians to express themselves freely on air, something they don't have inside Iran. Now that has been shut down."

After 27 years on air, the VOA's Persian radio broadcasts went off the air on July 23, 2006.

The problem with focusing everything on TV is that few Iranians have satellite dishes that allow them to watch foreign networks, because they are "expensive, risky, and cannot be easily hidden," the VOA radio host said.

The regime regularly cracks down on satellite owners, sending teams of intelligence operatives and police house to house in Tehran and other major cities to confiscate the dishes and fine their owners. Similar problems don't exist with radio.

VOA broadcasters have faulted former Broadcasting Board of Governors member Norman Pattiz, a major Clinton donor and the owner of Westwood One media in Los Angeles, for transforming Radio Farda from a news station into a music station.

In 2002, Pattiz told the New Yorker that "it was MTV that brought down the Berlin Wall," and argued that Britney Spears could bring down the mullahs in Tehran.

Later that year, "Ken Tomlinson, then the board's new chairman, approvingly quoted his son as saying Spears's music ‘represents the sounds of freedom.' It seems that the board transformed the ‘war of ideas' into the battle of the bands," former VOA chairman, Robert Reilly, wrote in the Washington Post last week.

The director of Radio Farda programming in Prague, Joyce Davis, came in for strong criticism in the Iran Steering Group report for her "sympathetic view of Islamic fundamentalists."

The report noted that she asked Radio Farda staff "to broadcast times of fast-breaking during Ramadan, which is hardly necessary for anyone living in Iran."

It also revealed that Davis hired broadcasters "whose most recent journalistic experience was in IRNA or the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, IRIB."

Iranian exiles familiar with how the radios and the Iranian intelligence ministry works, expressed the fear that many of these former Iranian government journalists were "plants" sent by the regime.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors did not return repeated phone calls requesting comment for this story.

Cannot access Bill Summaries or Texts of Legislation. !!!!!

That information belongs to the American people and ME!!

Coup de etat?????

(b) Conservation of Resources Fees-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by regulation shall establish-

(A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and

(B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

(2) PRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS- The fee under paragraph (1)(A)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered leases that are producing leases;

(B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas occurring--

(i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars; and

(ii) on or after October 1, 2006.

From HR 6, 110th Congress, 1st Session

Demotards in italics, RINOS in Plain.

---- YEAS    264 ---

Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Bartlett (MD) Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boswell Boucher Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Butterfield Capito Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson Castle Castor Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Lincoln DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dent Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doyle Edwards Ehlers Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Emerson Engel Eshoo Etheridge Everett Farr Fattah Ferguson Filner Fortenberry Frank (MA) Gerlach Giffords Gilchrest Gillibrand Gonzalez Gordon

Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Hayes Herseth Higgins Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inglis (SC) Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Kirk Klein (FL) Knollenberg Kucinich Kuhl (NY) LaHood Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McHugh McIntyre McNerney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha

Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Petri Platts Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reichert Reyes Rodriguez Rogers (AL) Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shuler Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Space Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tanner Tauscher Taylor Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walsh (NY) Walz (MN) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Wilson (OH) Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

`(C) $1,195,500,000 shall be for carrying out part B of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.; relating to Ryan White CARE Grants);

from H.J.Res.20. 110th Congress.

Two billion dollars seems like a great deal of money to spend on a disease that is easily preventable.

January 14, 2007 -- A church in a Kosovo village of Gornja Brnjica near Pristina was robbed and looted by unidentified men who broke into the church on the eve of Christian Orthodox Christmas and stole church money, icons and then damaged the church.

"Two nights ago a side window was broken on the church through which criminals then entered. They stole the donations collected in the church on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, as well as taking a number of icons from the church," said village representative Dragi Djordjevic.

This is the second time the church has been broken into in the past two months. Last time the looters stole a part of the church bell.

"Since the end of the war this is the fourth time the church was been desecrated," said Djordjevic.

The church of the St Peter and Paul is built on an ancient foundation near the tombstones of legendary Serbian defenders of Christendom, brothers Jugovic, who were murdered by the Muslim army set to invade Europe in the 14th century through Kosovo.

Serbs in Gornja Brnjica, who are Christian, are surrounded by hostile Muslim Albanians that are openly harassing and threatening Kosovo Christians with violence and organized pogroms.

Coordinating Center for Kosovo vice-president Nenad Kostic said that the damage to the church is one in a series of many acts of vandalism that have befallen the Serbian people recently.

"We can only place our hope in god that better times await us, that after this incident similar ones will not reoccur," said Kojic.

Kosovo police spokesman Veton Elsani said that unknown persons broke a window on the church through which they entered the church and stole some money. According to Elsani, a police investigative unit and forensic experts went to the scene the same morning and have no suspects.

Kosovo Police Service which is dominated by Muslim Albanians sees no religious motives in the church break-in and insist that the reason for vandalism is theft of money.

Bishop Artemije of Raska and Prizren condemned the desecration of the church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul saying that this most recent attack on the property of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo also occurred at the time of the greatest Christian feast of Christmas.

"The message appears to be that they are supporting criminals and terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija. If the international community is fighting against terrorism everywhere in the world, why is it tolerating it Kosovo and Metohija? What is happening here is the most brutal form of terror that can be imaged," said Bishop Artemije.

Since 1999, over 200,000 Christians have been expelled by the dominant Albanian Muslims who seek to create an ethnically and religiously pure state out of the Kosovo province currently administered by the UN.