Tom

ARMY STRONG!! This We’ll Defend.

Board Member – Eagles Up www.eaglesup.us

Member – Vets For Freedom

Related posts:

1. Harry Reid’s Tea Party Challenger Owes More Than $200,000 in Back Taxes
2. Harry Reid
3. Top Ten Accomplishments of Harry Reid as Majority Leader

http//www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer/the_intelligencer_news_details/article/27/2010/march/07/a-call-for-spending-limits-1.html%3futm_source=twitterfeed%26utm_medium=twitter%26cHash=89bd125e066d91e24f0f91ae00ff03bf

in case that link don’t work, i will copy/paste teh story in it’s entirety…

A call for spending limits

TEXT SIZE By: CHRIS ENGLISH The Intelligencer

Steve Santarsiero and four other state representatives chose an appropriate place for proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would place limits on campaign contributions and spending.

Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have hurt the cause of reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending, said state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-31.

He and four of his colleagues would like to reclaim that lost ground, and during a news conference Friday at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, they called for a federal convention to incorporate contribution and spending limits into the U.S. Constitution.

Having those provisions actually in the constitution would prevent the Supreme Court from chipping away at them, Santarsiero said. He was joined Friday by fellow state representatives Matthew Bradford, D-70 (parts of Montgomery County); Josh Shapiro, D-153 (parts of Montgomery County); Babette Josephs, D-182 (South Philadelphia) and Brendan Boyle, D-170 (parts of Northeast Philadelphia and Montgomery County).

The five lawmakers said they will introduce a resolution for a convention and try to get it passed by the state House and Senate sometime in the spring. Then, they will push to have two-thirds of all state legislatures in the country pass the resolution so it can be put before the U.S. Congress and a convention can be held to change the constitution.

According to Santarsiero, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision giving corporations the same right to free speech as individuals has effectively nullified important sections of federal campaign finance laws. That may cause challenges to the progressive limits on contributions and expenses already imposed on the federal, state and local levels of government.

“In January, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Citizens United case,” Santarsiero said at Friday’s event. “In one stroke the court struck down key limitations in federal campaign finance law, opening the flood gates to a potential, or likely, deluge of corporate and union money and influence in the American political process.”

He continued: “We are not here today to debate the Supreme Court’s analysis of the law or the question of whether the term ‘person’ should be defined so broadly so as to include corporations and unions. Instead, we are here to propose a new amendment to the United States Constitution and, in doing so, to ask our colleagues in the House and Senate and in every state legislature across the country, as well as the United States Congress, to take up this cause and make this proposal a reality.”

Advertisement

A constitutional amendment is the surest way to lasting campaign finance reform, Santarsiero said.

“The amendment we seek would give Congress and the states the power to limit not only campaign contributions, but spending as well,” he said. “In so doing, it would allow them to enact needed reforms in the way our political system is financed without the fear that they would be invalidated later as violating the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

Santarsiero and the other four lawmakers favor incorporating Federal Election Commission campaign contribution limits into all levels of government. Those regulations limit individual contributions to $2,400 per person in each election and special interest political action committees to $5,000 per election. That’s the same position taken by Republican Newtown Township Supervisor Rob Ciervo, the likely opponent for Santarsiero in the November election.

Ciervo laid out his own views on campaign finance reform during a press conference in Harrisburg Thursday.

The five state representatives at Friday’s event in Philadelphia also want limits on how much each candidate can spend on an election, though specific numbers would have to be worked out, they said. Millionaire and billionaire political candidates should not be able to buy their way into office, they said.

“It’s a dangerous precedent the Supreme Court has set, and we must reverse it,” Shapiro said. “If we allow corporate America to buy our elections, we will not be better off as a commonwealth or a nation. We have to get this done. Campaign finance is the critical reform of the decade.”

The newspaper was unsuccessful in its attempts Friday to reach Ciervo for comment.

Santarsiero represents Lower Makefield, Yardley, Newtown, Newtown Township and a small part of Upper Makefield.

Chris English can be reached at 215-949-4193 or cenglish@phillyBurbs.com.

March 07, 2010 03:16 AM

Share Bookmark Print Email *Email this article to a friend*

Friend’s Email Address Your Email Message Submit Cancel Rating By Robert Mwanje (email the author )

Posted Wednesday, March 10 2010 at 00:00

*Kampala*

Former Democratic Party president Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere has asked the new party leader Norbert Mao to unite the party. Daily Monitor has learnt that party officials met the elder in Kampala last weekend where he appreciated the new wave of excitement created by the new leadership.

“We had a meeting with several party elders including Dr Ssemogerere last Friday. We briefed him about our party programmes and willingness to reconcile with warring individuals,” a source, who preferred anonymity because he is not the party spokesperson, told Daily Monitor yesterday.

Good news When contacted, Dr Ssemogerere confirmed the meeting but did not give any details. “It’s too early to reveal details of the meeting, you should wait for the good news,” Dr Ssemogerere said on phone.

Related posts:

1. FW: UNITE AND AVOID GENOCIDE
2. UNITE AND AVOID GENOCIDE
3. SPECIFY WHEN YOU ASKED FOR SOURCES……

Army told to account for guns in Teso

Tuesday, 9th March, 2010

E-mail article

Print article

By Simon Naulele

THE army should account for the guns they gave to the Arrow Boys during the Lord’s Resistance Army war in Teso, the Amuria district LC5 chairperson, Julius Ochen, has said.

He said the guns were being used by the former Arrow militias to settle land and sex disputes.

“We are asking for the accountability of the guns given to the Arrow Boys, because during the 2006 elections, they were used to terrorise civilians,” Ochen said.

He said many guns had not been returned by the people who helped to flush Kony out of Teso.

Over 300 guns have been recovered from the region since the army launched a disarmament operation code-named, ‘Restore Hope in Teso’. Ochen said the illegal guns might be used against other people in the coming elections.

He said if they are not removed, the killings which have been taking place in the villages will be blamed on the Government.

Ochen made the remarks on Saturday during the UPDF recruitment mobilisation meeting at Soroti Lukiko Hall.

The meeting, chaired by the UPDF 3rd Division commander, Brig. Patrick Kankiriho, was aimed at briefing the district civil and political leaders on the intended exercise so that they can mobilise their people.

“The Government should build the trust of the public by ensuring that those who were given guns return them,” he said. Kankiriho said whoever has illegal guns in Teso is a criminal. “We no longer have Arrow Boys,” he said.

He said the people allowed to carry guns are the UPDF, Prisons, Police and the Uganda Wildlife Authority as well as other licensed companies like security firms.

Kankiriho asked the leadership in Teso to put aside their differences and unite on matters of security

Related posts:

1. Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan’s Contacts with al Qaeda
2. Indoctrinate or Inspire? Reagan Told Students to Embrace Guns & Tax Cuts…..
3. Apologies for inconvenience owing to hotmail account E-mail account)

Man I have been following that thread for this is a PC MP and I was wondering what Harper would say about it when he is trying to run government hard on crime. But it never crossed my mind that actually Jaffer is the Ugandan Indian MP !!!! Now I know why they state that he lost the election. Oh Boy.

Okay thanks for the reminder let me follow it up closer.

EM Toronto

Thé Mulindwas Communication Group “With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy” Groupe de communication Mulindwas “avec Yoweri Museveni, l’Ouganda est dans l’anarchie”

Related posts:

1. Update: Ugandan on Immigration mess
2. just the kind of employee you want out there making the big bucks and making stupid decisions that cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars
3. Museveni to blame for Buganda mess

As a journalist working for Uganda’s leading newspaper, I am sure that you base your statements on Facts.

I would, therefore, be grateful for some clarification on the following:

1. You state that “Nvanungi was set off with all the blessings from the Katikkiro of Buganda.” Can you provide proof that the Katikkiro actually recognizes her as a Princess of Buganda? I am not interested in just an article by “Our Reporter”, the contents of which could have originated from anywhere and without the Katikkiro’s knowledge.

2. You also state that “I all along thought that she was a real Princess.” Can you tell us who her father is/was? At one time, she claimed to be a daughter of the late Prince. George Juuko. She then went on to say that she is 31 yrs old. However, Prince Juuko died long before she was born and could not possibly be her father.

I honestly hope that you can provide the above information. If you cannot, it will make us doubt the level and intensity of research that goes into the articles in New Vision and sister papers. In other words, you will have dealt a big blow to the credibility of your newspapers.

Princess Elizabeth Mpologoma.

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Kassimu kiberu wrote:

Related posts:

1. Fwd: UNDERCOVER PRINCESSES IN BUGANDA???
2. Fwd: UNDERCOVER PRINCESSES IN BUGANDA???
3. UNDERCOVER PRINCESSES IN BUGANDA???

March 10, 2010 at 2:06 am (2009 -2011 elections, MEDIA , Rwanda, World history and politics, legal issues ) · Edit

Rate This

[image: Quantcast]

Dear Ugandans at heart,

I would like to correct some of the propaganda written by Andrew Mwenda in the independent in the article tittled ‘Here is what Rwanda needs ‘ http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/the-last-word/the-last-word/3-the-last-word/2577-here-is-what-rwanda-needs

1) MWENDA ARGUES THAT:” *So now come to Rwanda: in 1994, the Tutsi confronted the possibility of their mass extermination. Although the genocide was organised through the state, it was executed by masses of ordinary citizens. Stressed by battles, bullets and mortars, Tutsi soldiers advanced, many losing their colleagues. Every village they captured, they found their mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, wives, sons and daughters – everyone – killed*.”

THE TRUTH IS: With all dues respect, Mwenda is displaying absolute lack of knowledge of what happened in 1994 in Rwanda. For Mwenda’s information, by the time Habyarimana accepted to come to Arusha round table for ‘Peace Talks”, RPF had already captured almost 40% of Rwandan territory and Kigali risked falling to the then rebels, RPA. That the Tutsi were almost exterminated in the territory that was under Habayarimana government control is indisputable. But again, that RPA was also doing the same thing against the Hutu who were in the territory under their control is well documented. The Hutu in Byumba, Mutala, Kibungu were systematically killed en mass under Kagame’s direct orders. That is how we came to call the process “Mfanyiye”. This was Kagame’s Kiswahili word “fagiya” he used to order us to clear every thing that was Hutu!!!

For your information, if you revisit your TV images of the dead bodies of those Rwandans who were floating on L. Victoria, you will notice two things: firstly, most of them were tied the “Kandoya” style. This style of killing was only being used by RPA. It was borrowed from the NRA war in Luweero. No Habyarimana soldier or interahamwe knew this style of killing!! Secondly, most of those dead bodies did not look Tutsi at all. Anybody who is used to the physical look of an ordinary Tutsi would conclude that most of them dead bodies that floated on L. Victoria were actually of Hutu.

Mr. Mwenda, remember that save for the then Prime Minister of Rwanda Kambanda Jean, whose guilty plea consisted acceptance that he actually organized the genocide, the International Criminal Court for Rwanda ICTR has not convicted anybody of organizing the genocide. Yet they have tried almost all the former Hutu Military and political leaders. It would do you well to recall that after sentencing this Prime Minister (after his guilt plea), the Prime minister brought it to Court’s attention that ICTR prosecutor secured this plea fraudulently with promises to the former Prime Ministers which were not respected by prosecution. The Prime Minister informed Court that WASHINGTON and the ICTR prosecutors had promised to take his family to USA, to deposit specific amount of money into his account every month and, above all, to they had promised a lesser sentence for the former Prime Minister. Mr. Mwenda, it is well documented that the UN special investigation team on the cause of the 1994 genocide concluded that the sudden death of Habyarimana in a plane clash was the trigger of the genocide. The Rwandan Hutu feared that the Tutsi who had killed their leader were going to exterminate them as the Burundian Tutsi had exterminated the Hutu after the Hutu president had been killed under similar circumstances. RPA and its high Command was sighted as the people that had killed Habyarimana. The ICTR then Prosecutor prepared arrest warrants for RPA officials. Bush 9 the then President of USA told this ICTR prosecutor that arresting and trying these RPA officials was a direct threat to USA strategic interests in the region. De Ponte insisted and Bush ordered her out of office. De Ponte has written a book about this and, today, she is in Washington telling Obama to investigate Bush’s behavior and role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Mr. Mwenda, are you well informed of these facts? The 1994 Rwandan genocide is still a mystery both legally and politically. That is why most of the people who did the lobbying for the UN to accept it as genocide have ever since changed their position. One of them was the late Madam Des Forges who admitted that she made a fundamental mistake. He was cheated by RPA systematic lies. PRUNNIER is another one. He wrote a book last year in which he demonstrated that RPF too committed genocide and so they should be tried. France and Spanish Courts too, each acting independently, have issued arrest warrants for many RPA officials for similar crimes. WHAT IS MWENDA SAYING THEN?

(2) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: *“It is one of the biggest miracles of the 20th century that there was no counter genocide in Rwanda in 1994. It is a statement of extraordinary organisational discipline, coherence and leadership that RPF contained the rage of its own members. On many occasions, the RPF military court martial had to order the public execution of Tutsi soldiers in front of Tutsi soldiers for killing innocent Hutu civilians*”

THE TRUTH IS: Mwenda’s assertion at this level is contrary to the contemporary research findings by independent, credible and competent bodies and individuals as I have demonstrated it in “argument 1” above . It is also contrary to a number of outstanding ICTR case law. It is true that some RPA executed some Tutsi solders but the reasons were far from what they tell you. Most of those people that were executed were from Burundi. Most of these Tutsi guys from Burundi had joined us after their High school or University. Most of our bosses in RPA had not been to school. They viewed these young men a possible threat to “take power from us”!!! Others who were being executed were those from Uganda who had come from “cities” as opposed to ‘the Bakonyine” – Those Tutsi who had been in refugee camps in Western Uganda especially Nakivale where Kagame and his core Tutsi extremists grew and came from. For your information, these killings within RPA started as early as November 1990 – shortly after RPA attacked Rwanda. We used to call it “agafuni”!!! It was malicious elimination of all those “independent thinkers” who were challenging the Tutsi extremists – the Kagame group!!! (3) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: *”I do recognize that individual RPF soldiers could have committed human rights violations and were not punished. But decisions at the level of a president have to be weighed against many other considerations. To ignore the extraordinary levels of restraint RPF exhibited is to undermine one of the most important things that can help Rwanda’s reconstruction and democratization. It is naïve to expect that such a war could have been fought faultlessly; war is not a tea party”*

THE TRUTH IS:

It is funny that Mr. Mwenda ignores not only the facts that implicate Kagame as a person but also the well established legal principles that hold the top command of any army accountable for what the field commanders do during war. Mwenda goes so far to “White Wash” his boss Kagame. Has Mwenda ever heard about principles like The Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) and the defense called Superior order?

Has Mr. Mwenda ever come into contact with The Geneva Convention especially the Common Article (3)? Does he think that protecting civilians during war is mere favor, choice or a luxury?

(4) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: *”Today, the most dominant influence in control of Rwanda is Tutsi. Put yourself in their shoes: what would be their major fears and temptations? Many would think that control of power is the only insurance against genocide. Therefore, any opposition politician who is Hutu needs to recognize this fear and craft a message that seeks to reassure them that loss of power will not lead to mass extermination”*

THE TRUTH IS:

Mr. Mwenda clearly advocates for Tutsi domination and control simply because “they” fear!!! God, does Mwenda know the role of our Tutsi great grant fathers’ history? Does he know the well documented inhumane conduct of the pre Independence Tutsi leaders against the Hutu? Does Mwenda know the politics of exclusion and systematic dehumanization the Hutu endured under the Tutsi monarchy? Does Mwenda know that the Tutsi who now dominate and “control” the Hutu and Twa in Rwanda are hardly 15% of the entire population yet: a) 96% of the Ministers are Tutsi? b) 99.05% of the Senior officers in the army are Tutsi? c) 98% of Permanent Secretaries and Senior officers in the Public Service are Tutsi? c) 95% of the lower house of Parliament and the Senate are Tutsi? d) 96% of Rwandan Ambassadors are Tutsi? e) All presidents of Constitutional commissions are Tutsi? The entire leadership of the National Police and Prisons services is Tutsi?

Does Mwenda know that getting married to a Hutu in Kagame’s government is an offence that leads a Tutsi to loss of a job? Shame on you Mwenda!! How do you justify sh*t?

Mr. Mwenda, for your information, the opposition is not made of Hutu only. Anybody who disagrees with Kagame is a State enemy!!! I am Tutsi but I live in exile after working so hard to bring about sanity in Rwanda after the genocide!!! Is the King of Rwanda Kigeli a Hutu? Is he allowed to come to Rwanda? Is Mushayidi Deo who was kidnapped from Burundi just the other day and whose where about is unknown up to now a Hutu? Is Kayumba Nyamwasa, a general, who is not accused of grenades in Kigali a Hutu? Is Rudasingwa a Hutu?? Let me tell you one thing, most Tutsi in Rwanda and we in exile agree with Ingambire Vicotories’ analysis of the Rwandan problem. She believes there was what she calls ‘double genocide’ and so all the perpetrators should be brought to book. I agree with her 100%. She believes most Gacaca courts have been used to settle political differences than bringing about justice. I agree with her 100%. She believes Kagame has misused state resources for his family’s egoistic interests, I agree 100%. She does not believe Rwanda should have such diplomacy of aggression and revenge. I agree. Man, Mwenda, what are you talking about?

To ignore such a fear is absurd. If I were a Tutsi, I would interpret Ingabire’s statements as a veiled appeal to the Hutu for genocide. This would tempt me to cling to power at all costs; it is better for me and my kin to be exterminated defending ourselves than hand ourselves over for mass murder in the name of democracy.

(5) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: *“Ingabire’s claims are even more ridiculous because there are hundreds of thousands of Hutu who actively participated in the genocide and have not been punished for it. They live happily in Rwanda; some sit in cabinet, others in parliament, government agencies – everywhere. The RPF realised long, long ago that punishment through criminal prosecution cannot solve Rwanda’s problems. Political reconciliation will; and that is what it has been doing.”*

* *THE TRUTH IS:

Mwenda must be undergoing some kind of temporary insanity if not permanent insanity!! Jesus!!! When Kagame releases a significant number of Hutu peasants from prison after 16 years without any trial on condition that they testify against the Hutu elite in Arusha and Rwanda cases for the sole purpose of eliminating the Hutu elite who would lead these poor peasants into a revolution against Kagame then you praise the Kagame? What is the purpose of releasing about 30,000 Hutu peasants from prisons and you imprison over 100,000 elite Hutu?

I personally investigated the role played by those few Hutu guys in Kagame’s government. I spoke to Kagame about it. Kagame told me that “a Hutu is good only when he serves the Tutsi cause!!! These guys are still good for us. They have international connections, they are in contact with their fellow Hutus who are fighting us, they can convince their fellow Hutu to accept us and above all, when we have a few Hutus in our government, and we have an argument for the international community that ours is not a Tutsi Junta”. For example, the infamous interahamwe leader Mr. Rucyagu, who killed the Tutsi in numbers, is now the one in charge of training Kagame’s militia called “Intore”!!!

(6) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: *“Are there problems and weaknesses with this process including Gacaca courts? You bet! If they were not there, that would not be a human process. However, Rwanda needs to begin a conversation about the future, not a quarrel over the past. There are one million claims and counter claims Rwandans on either side of the political/ethnic divide make against each other: some true, some false; some legitimate, others out of context*”

THE TRUTH IS:

This one is an African young “intellectual” who claims to be independent yet Kagame’s dollars can blind fold him this far!! A system that allows for no basic freedoms of speech, association, etc and basically has no respect for people’s fundamental rights, Mwenda calls it “an ordinary human process”!!! Unfortunately, he is always on Museveni’s neck for the same. In Mwenda’s primitive logic, it is good if it is done by Kagame who pays him and it is bad if it is done by Museveni who did not give him ‘a fat office and pay”. God!!! How can Mwenda justify a court system that can throw some one in prison for life – in total exclusion from the outside world – and yet the accussed is not allowed any legal representation, no formal charge sheet against which one can present his/her defense? God, is Mwenda serious? Can he explain the fact that Gacaca courts, manned by people who have never attended a law class and in most case who have never been to school and most of the time the “judges” also being witnesses in the same case, have powers even to review cases that were decided by courts in which the accused was set free or given ‘lesser sentence? Mr. Mwenda, did you know that some Gacaca courts have “convicted’ Hutus for the 1994 genocide who died much earlier before 1994 simply because those courts want to find a pretext to confiscate these Hutus’ land? All that is “normal human process”?

UAH, Mwenda has his personal interests to defend Kagame and make sure Kagame lives another day in office. What I know is that Mwenda will be forced to bring our money back to Kigali after Kagame has gone. Of course, we shall have to bring back all our money Kagame has siphoned to USA, UK, South Africa, China and Finland. We know where he has put deposited and/or invested our money. Mwenda too will pay.

*Lusoke Willy*

*former RPF soldier in USA*

*UAH forumist* source: http://ugandansatheart.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/mwendas-article-in-the-independent-is-mere-propaganda-and-shameful-for-a-man-of-his-status/

My alarm went off at 5 a.m. today. As I sat up and unzipped my sleeping bag, a gust of Oklahoma wind bitterly ushered me into a new day. Drops of rain splashed my face, extinguishing the last few embers of my sleepiness. In the early-morning stillness at the corner of Main and Broadway, the only signs of movement were swaying tree branches and rustling leaves, bullied by the strong morning wind. Just a few feet away, 70 slumbering bodies wrapped tightly in colorful sleeping bags line the outer edge of Oklahoma City’s tallest skyscraper, home to Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) local office. Many have been here with me for the entire 11 days.

We will soon proceed to stand along the roadside, holding signs that read “Dr. Coburn: Please Say Yes.” And inevitably, we will be asked by a few rush-hour commuters on their way to work “So, what is this all about?”

We are a gathering of strangers, unified by a shared resolve to see peace in central Africa. We come from different states and stages of life but all of us, at one point or another, learned about a war that has been devastating communities across central Africa for 24 years. For many of us, that is longer than we have been alive.

This war has been perpetrated primarily by Joseph Kony, a sociopathic warlord who started his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebellion in the mid 1980s with ambitions of toppling Uganda’s government. However, Kony’s tactics betray no broad political strategy, and his rebel army carries no legitimacy with Ugandans. Instead, Kony’s forces abduct, torture, and conscript children to sustain themselves and maintain power through terror. Young children abducted from their homes are often forced to kill their own parents and other children with machetes, torture and mutilate innocent civilians, and even rape other children.

These horrors are a continuing reality for the people of central Africa, but there is a bill in Congress that aims to see them ended. If passed, the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act will mandate the U.S. government to work with LRA-affected countries to address the unspeakable violence perpetuated by Joseph Kony and to protect civilians in threatened areas. The bill also authorizes $40 million for emergency relief aid to recently attacked areas. With 64 bipartisan Senate cosponsors and 162 in the House, it is the most widely supported Africa-focused legislation in more than three decades.

But because of the authorizations for funding, Senator Coburn doesn’t support the bill and is single-handedly blocking its passage. That’s why I’m here in Oklahoma. In an effort to convey the urgency of this crisis, we have committed to “holding out” at Senator Coburn’s Oklahoma City office until he finds a workable compromise. Practically speaking, that has meant sleeping on the concrete in 30-degree weather the past 10 nights, standing along streets for hours each day, foregoing showers and heat and shelter, missing classes, and even — for some — losing jobs. Being here has meant tears and sickness and discomfort.

We are not here to vilify Senator Coburn or make assumptions about his motives. We have converged here in Oklahoma City to plead with the Senator to personally engage in finding a viable compromise that allows this bill to pass. Failure is not an option for us because the price would be too high.

For those of us privileged enough to be here, this campaign has given us the chance to come alive and unite behind a purpose we believe in. It has grown into something far bigger than one bill, one senator, or any one of us. And people here can see it.

The responses from Oklahomans and supporters across the country have been overwhelmingly positive. Locals who see us on the news bring us food and supplies. A group of committed faith leaders has even launched a total hunger strike until a compromise is reached, and dozens have signed up to join them .

And soon, we are confident that this effort will serve as proof that justice can prevail when we are resolved to make sacrifices for peace and pursue it together, with boldness and humility. Stepping back and observing it all, I see the promises of God unfolding in the strangest of settings, which is how God tends to do things, it seems.

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.” Isaiah 58:9-10

For more information and live video coverage of the Dr. Coburn Please Say Yes campaign, visit www.coburnsayyes.com. For more information on the proposed legislation, visit www.resolveuganda.org/legislation

*Lisa Dougan *is the Director of Communications for Resolve Uganda . Categories: Activism , Global Issues , Human Rights , War & Peace Tags: Africa , bipartisan , Campaign , Children , compromise , Congress , crisis ,emergency relief , food , government , Hunger , hunger strike , illness , innocent civilians ,isaiah , joseph kony , justice , legislation , lord’s resistance army , lra , Mercy , Movement ,oppressed , oppression , recovery act , resistance , sacrifice , senator tom coburn ,streets , Terror , Torture , Uganda , warlord

The Amin family celebrates their Canadian citizenship at a ceremony at the legislature in Halifax on Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008.

The Amin family celebrates their Canadian citizenship at a ceremony at the legislature in Halifax on Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008. Andrew Vaughan/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Statistics Canada reports that two out of every three Torontonians will be non-white in 20 years

Jill Mahoney

Globe and Mail Update Published on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 8:59AM EST Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 3:33PM EST

The number of visible minorities in Canada is expected to nearly double in the next two decades, according to new projections that highlight the country’s growing diversity.

One in every three Canadians will be non-white by 2031, Statistics Canadahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10×10.gif said Tuesday. In Toronto, the country’s most diverse city, nearly two in three faces will be non-white.

“A larger share of the visible minority population will be born in Canada, so they will be children of immigrants or grandchildren of immigrants,” said Laurent Martel, a Statscan analyst. “So it is the face of the Canadian-born population that is likely to change over the next two decades.”

Overall, between 29 and 32 per cent of the Canadian population could belong to a visible minority group in 2031, double the proportion recorded in the 2006 census, Statscan said in a release .

As well, at least a quarter of the population could be born outside the country in 20 years, with more than half of those from Asiahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10×10.gif. This would be the highest proportion ever of foreign-born Canadians, surpassing the 22 per cent level seen between 1911 and 1931.

Canada has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the world; only Australia and New Zealand have higher proportions, Mr. Martel said.

The foreign-born population is expected to increase about four times faster than the rest of the population, driving much of the country’s growth.

In addition, diversity will also increase among the Canadian-born population due to visible minorities’ younger age structure and slightly higher fertility rates.

The country could have between 11.4 million and 14.4 million visible minorities by 2031, depending on the growth projections used. In 2006, the country had 5.3 million non-whites. By contrast, the rest of the population will grow by less than 12 per cent.

Visible minorities are defined as “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.”

Almost all visible minorities will live in large cities, with 71 per cent calling Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal home. By 2031, 63 per cent of Torontonians would be non-white if current demographic trends continue. Vancouver would be 59 per cent non-white while Montreal would be 31 per cent.

The national statistics agency developed the projections using several growth scenarios based on different immigration, fertility and mortality assumptions.

Newcomers settle in urban areas because the sheer size of the cities means more job opportunities, which then leads to the creation of ethnic communities, said University of Toronto professor Jeffrey Reitz.

“(They) become kind of magnets in themselves for people of similar backgrounds,” said the ethnic and immigration studies professor. “The existence of the communities in the cities sort of tends to become a self-perpetuating process.”

As is the case now, South Asians would still be the largest group, representing 28 per cent of the visible minority population. The community would more than double from 1.3 million people in 2006 to between 3.2 million and 4.1 million in the next two decades. The Chinese population is expected to grow from 1.3 million to between 2.4 million and 3 million. Overall, however, the share of Chinese would drop to 21 per cent from 24 per cent.

Statscan said the black and Filipino populations could double in size. The fastest growth is among Arabs and West Asians, groups that could more than triple in 20 years.

By 2031, Statscan said 47 per cent of second-generation Canadians would be non-white, nearly double the proportion of 24 per cent in 2006. Second generation means people who are born in Canada to at least one foreign-born parent.

The country’s increasing diversity will also mean changes in Canadians’ religious affiliations. By 2031, the number of people who are non-Christian would almost double from 8 per cent in 2006 to 14 per cent. Of those, about half would be Muslim, up from one-third in 2006. Conversely, the number of Christians would decline to 65 per cent from 75 per cent.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Thé Mulindwas Communication Group “With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy” Groupe de communication Mulindwas “avec Yoweri Museveni, l’Ouganda est dans l’anarchie”

In%20their%20l atest%20push%20to%20confirm%20Dawn%20Johnsen%20to%20lead%20the%20Office%20of %20Legal%20Counsel,%20Democrats%20are%20charging%20Republicans%20with%20hypo crisy,%20saying%20the%20GOP%20is%20simultaneously%20stressing%20the%20import ance%20of%20the%20position%20while%20refusing%20to%20allow%20it%20to%20be%20 filled.

) Roll Call Staff March 8, 2010, 12 a.m. In their latest push to confirm Dawn Johnsen to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, Democrats are charging Republicans with hypocrisy, saying the GOP is simultaneously stressing the importance of the position while refusing to allow it to be filled. Republicans seeking to quash the nomination have cited a Justice Department report released last month that underscores how crucial the OLC position is to the war on terror. “Those issues indicate the importance of the OLC position and the need to have someone of innate experience in that position,” Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said. Added Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): “In this day and age, someone is always going to say you’re a hypocrite, but [Johnsen’s] positions are off the wall.”

But the argument is a tricky one for Republicans, who in making their case against Johnsen open themselves up to criticism for actions taken during the Bush years. The same report they cite in support of their effort to block Johnsen, one of President Barack Obama’s most controversial nominees, was critical of the office during the Bush administration. “It’s a remarkable exercise in backwards logic,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “Their argument states that because our party went and wrecked the place, we don’t want your party going in there.” Specifically, the Office of Professional Responsibility report found that Justice Department officials serving under President George W. Bush slanted their legal writings to approve controversial interrogation methods, including waterboarding. However, the report did not suggest any formal punishments for the officials singled out for criticism, including Steven Bradbury, John Yoo and former OLC head Jay Bybee. “Those who defend John Yoo and proclaim that the nation should be grateful to him for what he did, ought not to be questioning the seriousness and qualifications of this woman of principle,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said during last week’s markup. “I believe that Professor Johnsen has demonstrated her resolve in national security matters, her seriousness and her commitment to the rule of law. She should be confirmed.” But Hatch praised Bush officials and asserted that Johnsen is unfit for the office. “There is a difference between someone who is bright and who has wacko opinions, and in some ways, she does,” Hatch said. “I don’t mind that in other positions, but I do in this position.” Sessions noted that Bybee was confirmed just after Sept. 11, 2001, and that his work from 2001 to 2003, when he left his OLC position to become a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, shows he took seriously the war on terror. But Johnsen, Sessions said, “is a leading critic of the war on terror and questions whether we’re at war.” “That’s a problem” he said. The Judiciary Committee approved Johnsen’s nomination, 12-7, along partisan lines March 4, marking the second time the committee considered the selection. Johnsen’s nomination was the subject of numerous holds last year, and in accordance with Senate rules her nomination was returned to the White House at the end of the first session of the 111th Congress. Obama renominated her in a move hailed by liberal advocates and despised by conservatives. Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who served in a deputy role at the OLC under President Bill Clinton, has been widely criticized by Republicans for her views on abortion and the war on terror. Sessions promised that Johnsen’s nomination “will be one of the few that I think will be contested with the Senate’s full procedural rules,” a practice that has drawn the ire of Leahy. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’“Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s attempts to repair this office and ensure that its lawyers are providing the government with principled advice have been hamstrung by Senate Republicans who continue to delay appointment of the president’s nominee to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will likely have to file for cloture to steer Johnsen’s nomination, requiring him to pick off a handful of Republicans to reach the 60 votes needed. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) supports Johnsen’s nomination, although Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has repeatedly said he would not vote for cloture. With the midterm election season heating up, it is unclear whether Reid would want to pick a floor fight over such a controversial figure.