France to Sell Amphibious Assault Mistral Class Helicopter Carriers to Russia

THE SHIP



Why is France selling amphibious assault ships to Russia?

Feb 8th 2010, 23:14 by Charlemagne Economist

HERE is a story that may get bigger, as the full implications sink in. After much shilly-shallying and contradictory briefing, France has decided to sell Russia at least one, and possibly four, amphibious assault ships. In an unhappy piece of timing, the news broke as Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, was en route to France for an official visit.

The ship involved, the Mistral, is not just any hunk of steel. It is a 200m long warship, whose job is to land soldiers, helicopters and armoured vehicles on foreign shores. It can carry 15 helicopters, 13 tanks or several hundred troops (different reports talk of 750 soldiers, or a 1,000). After one of these hefty ships paid a port visit to St Petersburg, in November 2009, Vladimir Putin said on a visit to Paris: "I can assure you that if we purchase this armament, we will use it wherever deemed necessary."

French reports of the port visit make clear that authorities in Paris were all too aware of the sensitivities of their commercial project. It was, for example, deemed "provocative" when a senior Russian admiral approvingly declared that if such ships had been in the fleet in 2008, Russian forces would have overrun Georgia "within 40 minutes", rather than in 26 hours. After that sally went down badly, the Figaro reported, the Russians were careful to talk about using such ships for peacekeeping operations, and other kindly activities.

Several news outlets have named the French prime minister, François Fillon, as the driving force behind the deal. The Figaro, house journal of the Sarkozy administration, has talked of "doubts" among officials working for the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, which were finally overcome by the "necessity" of finding work for the French naval shipyards of Saint-Nazaire. Various clever-clogs in the French civil service also came up with a nice line repeated by several government members, that "one cannot say we need to build a partnership with Russia and then refuse to sell it arms." French officials have also briefed that the ship would be sold "bare", without advanced weapons systems. Yet last year, Le Monde talked of opposition to the sale from the French foreign ministry.

Hmm. I wonder if all those doubts have been quelled. It is early days, but it is interesting to note that the first French press reports of Mr Gates's visit played down the Mistral sale. Reflecting French official briefing, I would assume, the French reports focus on subjects like Franco-American co-operation in Afghanistan and the Iranian nuclear dossier, which also came up when the defence secretary met Mr Sarkozy and French ministers.

American press reports, in contrast, led off with the Mistral, and made Mr Gates's dismay at the sale announcement plain. Here is how the New York Times opens its first report online:

PARIS — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told French officials Monday that he was concerned about their plans to sell Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Russia, although there is little if anything the United States could do to block the deal, officials said.

Members of congress in America, including Senator John McCain, have already expressed their concerns about the deal. I have a hunch this is not the last we will hear of the Mistral

.

For alll links go to Economist

A Sober Assessment of Iranian Nuclear Intentions

Endgame for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran?

The Iranian president has promised a 'telling blow' against world leaders. But, says Con Coughlin, his recent nuclear posturing is an attempt to shore up his increasingly perilous position at home.

By Con Coughlin Telegraph
Published: 6:11AM GMT 09 Feb 2010

First came the announcement that Iran had successfully launched a space probe carrying two turtles, a hamster and a worm. Then its nuclear scientists announced that they would maintain their defiance of the West by ratcheting up the country's controversial uranium enrichment programme. Finally this was followed by yesterday's announcement from the Iranian Defence Ministry that it will shortly begin production of "advanced" unmanned drones that are capable of carrying out "assaults with high precision" against neighbouring states.

Every year since 1979, millions of Iranians have celebrated Dahe-ye Fajr, the 10 days of dawn, by proclaiming their loyalty to the Islamic revolution. The festival marks the period between the triumphant return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolution's founding father, from exile in Paris on February 1, 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic republic 10 days later. The festivities range from commemorative services held at Khomeini's mausoleum in Tehran's southern suburbs to political rallies proclaiming the revolution's achievements.

But this year the government of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the festivities as a platform to issue a succession of headline-grabbing pronouncements. And just to make sure no one misunderstands Mr Ahmadinejad's intentions, the Iranian president has publicly warned that he will mark the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution this Thursday by delivering a "telling blow" to the world's leading powers, a message that hardly serves to reassure Western concerns about Iran's future intentions.

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, yesterday responded by warning that the West should punish Tehran's latest act of defiance on its nuclear programme by toughening up the international sanctions regime, while in London the Foreign Office described Tehran's decision to start enriching uranium to 20 per cent, as opposed to the current level of 3.5 per cent, as a "matter of serious concern".

Iran's current level of enrichment only produces uranium that can be used in nuclear power stations. But by enriching uranium to 20 per cent Iran will be taking a significant step towards producing the highly enriched uranium that is used to make atom bombs. In addition, Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna that it intends to build another 10 uranium enrichment plants.

But before Western governments become too alarmed by Tehran's provocative stance, the regime's recent announcements need to be examined within the context of the country's deepening political turmoil, which many of Mr Ahmadinejad's political opponents confidently predict will surface again during Thursday's climax to this year's anniversary celebrations.

Ever since Mr Ahmadinejad was proclaimed the victor in last summer's hotly disputed presidential election contest, his regime has been besieged by angry protesters who claim his victory was rigged, and that his hardline conservative supporters are denying the Iranian people their proper democratic rights.

In the past the regime has been able to suppress anti-government protests through the highly effective expedient of relying on the brute force of the Revolutionary Guards, the guardians of the Islamic revolution. In both 1999 and 2003, the last time that the regime was seriously challenged by pro-democracy protesters, the demonstrations quickly subsided after the guards broke into student dormitories at Tehran University and hurled protesters to their deaths through the windows.

Similar tactics have been used to crush Iran's pro-reform Green movement, which materialised in the immediate aftermath of last June's elections after Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Iranian prime minister who championed the interests of the reform movement, claimed he had been denied victory by widespread ballot-rigging. Iranian human rights activists claim that up to 500 people have been killed since the elections, a number that is set to rise after the regime last month announced it had begun executing political prisoners accused of participating in last year's protests.

But despite being the victims of the most repressive measures experienced in Iran since the heady days of the 1979 revolution, the Green movement shows no sign of dying down, much to the consternation of Mr Ahmadinejad and his supporters.

Part of the explanation for this is the fact that today's opposition movement has a far broader base than its predecessors. Previous anti-government protests drew heavily on student campuses for their support, whereas today's Green movement has the backing of Iran's prosperous middle classes – the bazaaris – who are as much outraged by Mr Ahmadinejad's woeful mismanagement of the Iranian economy as they are critical of his uncompromising political agenda.

As a consequence, it is no understatement to say that Iran is currently experiencing its most turbulent spell of political instability since Khomeini's triumphant return from exile in Paris. And, just as happened in 1979, the governing regime is deeply concerned about the outcome.

Certainly the regime is rattled by the Green movement's resilience, and the mounting confidence demonstrated by the protest movement in its attacks on government targets. Last weekend, Iranian dissidents briefly managed to post footage of a Revolutionary Guards' truck that was blown up in Marand, close to the border with Azerbaijan, as it was transporting tear gas, riot batons and shock grenades for use at Thursday's anticipated anti-government demonstrations. (Iran's ever-vigilant internet police have since blocked the link.)

There are also suggestions that the regime is resorting to increasingly desperate tactics to silence its critics, including staging the assassinations of prominent figures in an attempt to incriminate the West on charges of foul play. The murder last month of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist, who was killed by a car bomb as he left his house for work, was originally seized on by the government as evidence of Western attempts to destabilise the country. Iran's foreign ministry claimed it had uncovered "signs of evil by the Zionist regime, America and their mercenaries".

But four weeks later a very different picture is starting to emerge, with opposition activists claiming that the government was responsible for the death of Dr Ali-Mohammadi, who was a prominent supporter of the reform movement and may have been about to defect to the West and reveal embarrassing details about Iran's clandestine nuclear project.

Nothing is more guaranteed to rally support for Iran's beleaguered government than the suggestion that foreign powers are trying to deny the country the right to develop nuclear technology, and by blaming the West for the scientist's murder the regime would have hoped to arouse the country's deep-rooted nationalist instincts, while at the same time disposing of a high profile opponent.

Mr Ahmadinejad is certainly not reticent about playing the nuclear card to counter opposition complaints about his government. On various occasions since he first became president in 2005 he has made threatening noises about Iran's nuclear ambitions to bring his domestic critics into line, and the regime's most recent announcements regarding uranium enrichment should be seen in this context.

The fact that Iran has neither the technical expertise nor the financial resources to expand its enrichment programme to the level outlined by its scientists at the weekend is of little concern to Mr Ahmadinejad. By making the issue the centrepiece of his agenda to celebrate the Islamic revolution's anniversary, the Iranian president is calculating that national support for the country's nuclear programme will outstrip that for the protest movement.
All of which makes Iran's recent nuclear posturing something of a challenge for Western policymakers. If Iran is serious about raising its uranium enrichment capability to a higher level, that will be further evidence that it has no intention of negotiating a peaceful resolution of its nuclear programme with the West. But if the West overplays its hand by implementing crippling sanctions against Iran in response, then it might rally support in the country behind Mr Ahmadinejad's regime, thereby denying the pro-reform movement the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the hardline conservatives.

For the moment, the best policy the West could adopt would be to refrain from any decisive course of action until the outcome of the current political turmoil becomes clearer. For all Mr Ahmadinejad's bluster, Iran today is facing the most critical moment since the 1979 revolution, and it will be the Iranian people, not the West, who will ultimately decide the country's fate.

'Khomeini's Ghost' by Con Coughlin is available from Telegraph Books for £8.99 plus 99p postage and packing. The first 100 copies ordered will be signed by the author. Please call 0844 871 1514 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk

First Viet Nam Veteran to serve in Congress, John Murtha dies at 77

Murtha walked the walk, unlike some of the blowhards who will be taking him down.

Murtha left the Marines in 1955. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.





Haditha, Iraq killings

The Haditha incident occurred on November 19, 2005, and since then there have been differing accounts of exactly what took place.

In November 2005 Murtha announced that a military investigation into the Haditha killings concluded U.S. Marines had intentionally killed innocent civilians. Referring to the first report about Haditha that appeared in Time magazine, Murtha said:
"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

The Marine Corps responded to Murtha's announcement by stating that "there is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process." Murtha was criticized by conservatives for presenting a version of events as simple fact before an official investigation had been concluded.

In August 2006, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Murtha for character defamation during an ongoing investigation into the Haditha incident. In April 2009 this suit was dismissed by a federal appeals court, while ruled that Murtha could not be sued because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the statements.

On December 21, 2006, the US military charged Wuterich with 12 counts of unpremeditated murder against individuals and one count of the murder of six people "while engaged in an act inherently dangerous to others". Charges were subsequently dropped against seven of the eight Marines involved: Capt. Lucas McConnell, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani,[ Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, Capt. Randy Stone and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson. Only Sergeant Frank Wuterich is still facing trial on 9 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

WIKIPEDIA

If Obama's real father was his grandfather, who was his mother?

This is a strange tale. It is complicated to follow, but another theory on the origins of a president of the United States. Is is true? I doubt it. It seems too complicated but I do think we will hear more about it.


____________________




Obama with Stanley Dunham, a remarkable resemblance





A slip of the tounge?

February 07, 2010
Another Look at Obama's Origins

By Jack Cashill American Thinker

The murky circumstances of Obama's birth invite attempts to make the known facts fit together. This article was prompted by two e-mails. The first asked me why I had never weighed in on the birth certificate controversy surrounding President Barack Obama.

I responded that although I was troubled by the lack of documentation regarding all phases of Obama's history -- I'd be content with his SAT scores -- I could not understand why any pregnant American woman would go anywhere near Kenya.

The second e-mail was more interesting. It came from a Michigan entrepreneur named Don Wilkie, with whom I had not previously communicated. Knowing my interest in the authorship questions surrounding Obama's writing, he presumed that I was intrigued as he was by a cryptic poem the nineteen-year old Obama wrote called "Pop," the best thing that Obama himself has actually written. He was right.

"Pop" relates an encounter between Obama and a man most reviewers presume to be Obama's maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Dunham would have been in his early sixties at the time. In the poem, Obama has "Pop" wondering drunkenly about the boy, "What to do with me, a green young man."

The Obama of the poem is cynical, even a little bitter. He makes several allusions to the fact that he and the old man look and even smell alike, a fact that strikes Obama as more ironic than reassuring. The poem ends, however, with reconciliation when Pop stands and asks for a hug. Writes Obama:

I see my face, framed within


Pop's black-framed glasses


And know he's laughing too.

Wilkie offers a novel interpretation of "Pop." Says Wilkie, "I think the poem zeros in on that poignant moment when Obama was told that his grandfather was in reality his father."

Wilkie concedes his theory is "off-the-wall," but he also offers photographic evidence to show that Obama much more closely resembles Dunham -- especially by the telltale ears -- than he does Barack Obama, Sr.

Intriguing as the theory is, I thought it would be easy to disprove. I was wrong. For starters, in his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father, Obama refers to his grandfather not as "Pop," but as "Gramps." If he were writing about his grandfather in this poem, the title "Pop" may very well be suggestive of a more direct kinship.

For another, there is little known about the marriage between Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's presumed mother, and Barack Obama, Sr. According to most accounts, Dunham and Barack Sr. were married on the Hawaiian island of Maui -- in some reports on February 2, 1961, and in others, on February 21.

Obama knows little about the wedding. He writes in Dreams, "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride."

In his fair-minded biography, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, Christopher Andersen concedes, "There were certainly no witnesses -- no family members were present; and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling they were even engaged."

Another conflicting bit of evidence is that at the time of his alleged marriage to Ann Dunham, Barack Sr. had a pregnant wife and a son back in Kenya. There is more. In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack's mother that she was "very young and very single when she had him." This could well have been a slip of the tongue, but it may not have been.

Obama was reportedly born roughly six months after the February wedding date on August 4, 1961. Andersen reports that Barack Sr. drove Ann to Honolulu's Kapiloani Hospital for Women and Children to have the baby.

Andersen's account, however, suffers from chronology problems. He relates that Ann told the Dunhams of her pregnancy in "late October." Even if she had she been impregnated in early October -- it probably would have been earlier -- Obama's official birth date came ten months later.

In any scenario, Obama had at least one black parent, and if it is not Obama Sr., who then is it? Obama offers a possible clue in Dreams:

I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes. The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn't fully understand. The same thing I felt whenever Gramps took me downtown to one of his favorite bars, in Honolulu's red-light district.

The "Frank" in question is Frank Marshall Davis, a black communist, pornographer, and poet who had abandoned Chicago for Hawaii. In "Pop," it should be noted, the Pop character "recites an old poem" just before the reconciliation and reeks of whiskey. Davis would have been in his mid-seventies at the time. Some have theorized that Davis, in fact, is Obama's father and the "Pop" of the poem. This theory, though tenuous, cannot be ruled out. A grandson can look more like his maternal grandfather than his father. That happens. And then, too, there is Davis's Chicago connection.

The "Frank" passage and the ones that follow, however, tell us something suggestive about Stanley Dunham, namely that he frequented otherwise all-black bars in an area rife with prostitution. That a black woman -- perhaps a friend of Davis's -- gave birth to a child of Dunham's may explain "the complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men." If this were the case, it would have caused far less societal stress for Ann Dunham to assume maternity of her little brother than for Stanley Dunham to assume paternity of his son.

We also know that Stanley Dunham so desperately wanted a boy that he named his only child "Stanley Ann." That he chose to raise the young Barack would not have been out of character.

Is it possible that Barack Sr. obliged the Dunhams and went along with the charade? If so, as Andrew Young attests in The Politician, he would not have been the last good friend to claim false paternity for a larger cause.

As a Kenyan, Barack Sr. would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an "African," a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than "Negro." Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after an American father -- say "Darnell Johnson" -- he may never have been elected president.

This hypothetical extended charade would help explain why Barack Sr. blithely blew off his new family when he headed for Harvard a year later, rejecting a reported opportunity to take both wife and child to New York, and began dating as soon as he arrived at Harvard. It would explain too why Ann Dunham felt free to leave young Barack with her parents for years at a time when her career beckoned.

Barack Sr.'s cooperation would also put Stanley Dunham's fondness for him in perspective. In Dreams, Gramps speaks so respectfully of his prodigal son-in-law that the whole opening sequence rings false to anyone who knows the larger story. A man, and a black man at that, has knocked up Dunham's daughter. Ann and Barack Sr. marry despite reported opposition from both families. The man then abandons wife and child, and the grandfather can only sing his praises to the man's son. This makes no sense at all and would have made even less sense in the racially charged 1960s.

Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily has found additional evidence that argues against Obama's birth to Ann Dunham in August 1961. As the records clearly show, "Stanley Ann Dunham" enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle on August 19, 1961, fifteen days after Obama's presumed birth. It defies all logic -- and logistics as well -- that Dunham would have flown her newborn across the Pacific, found an apartment and a job, and enrolled at school all within two weeks of the birth.

Most accounts put young Barack with Dunham in Seattle when she was attending college, but the sourcing on these accounts is suspect. One person cited often is Dunham's good childhood friend, Maxine Box. In February 2008, Box told the Seattle Times that the last time she saw Dunham was "in 1961," when, says Times reporter Nicole Brodeur, "[Dunham] visited Seattle on her way from Honolulu to Massachusetts, where her then-husband was attending Harvard."

"She seemed very happy and very proud," Box tells the Times of Dunham. "She had this beautiful, healthy baby. I can see them right now."

There are any number of problems with this account, beginning with the fact that Barack Sr. did not attend Harvard until the fall of 1962. Box also gives no sense that Dunham lived in Seattle or attended classes there through the winter and spring sessions of 1962, as records show she did. Whether Dunham was actually heading for Harvard, we have no real way of knowing.

A seeming hole in Andersen's account is that he missed the Washington adventure and has Ann remaining in Hawaii through Obama's first few years. He makes no mention of any trip to Harvard by Ann.

One other scenario makes sense out of a falsely assumed paternity by Barack Sr. This begins with the abrupt departure of the Dunham family from the Seattle area in the late summer of 1960. In Dreams, Obama tells how pleased the senior Dunhams were with the success of Ann in high school, but Stanley forbade her to go to the University of Chicago, "deciding that she was still too young to be living on her own."

Soon thereafter, however, the family decamped for Hawaii.

"Something must have still been gnawing at my grandfather's heart," writes Obama. He attributes the move to his wanderlust and the "limitless" prospects offered by a new furniture store in Honolulu. Adds Obama, "He would rush home that same day and talk my grandmother into selling their house and packing up yet again."

What Obama does not mention is that even at this time, his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, likely earned more than her furniture salesman husband. To move, she had to give up her job as a bank officer in Seattle. Arriving in Honolulu, she worked as a by-the-hour bank teller. This job would, however, have given her the opportunity to tend to the young Barack.

It seems altogether possible that the progressive and adventurous seventeen-year-old Dunham was impregnated by a black man while the family was still living in the Seattle area. If so, this pregnancy could have prompted the family to uproot to Hawaii, where no one knew them and where mixed-race babies were more accepted. According to the Andersen account, whose source was Maxine Box, "There were loud arguments between father and daughter -- fights that sometimes turned violent." Ann did not want to go.

Both the "Dunham as father" and the "anonymous black father" scenarios would make the Obama camp wary of sharing Obama's actual birth certificate, either because Dunham was not Obama's mother, or, if she were, because Obama was born much earlier than August 4, 1961.

If Obama were born, say, in February or March 1961, it would clarify why, as documented, Dunham attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the fall semester of 1960, but not in the spring semester of 1961. This timetable would have also allowed Dunham enough time to recover and prepare for a return to college in Seattle in August with or without the baby. Dunham would not return to the University of Hawaii until 1963. She filed for divorce in 1964, and little was heard from Barack Sr. ever again.

Scientists use the phrase "inference to the best explanation" to illuminate an unproven phenomenon. Given the available evidence, including the fact that some evidence has been strategically withheld, one can infer that Obama likely was born in Hawaii but that Ann Dunham did not give birth to Barack Obama, Sr.'s child on August 4, 1961.

So much depends on Obama's fabled "story," however, that the mainstream media have chosen not to investigate. When Christopher Andersen tried, he found himself immersed in a swamp of conflicting and concocted stories that tested the savvy of even a veteran biographer.

And so Obama's birth remains a mystery a year after his inauguration. The mainstream media, meanwhile, have paid more attention to the origins of Trig Palin than to those of the president, and they have spent their excess energy mocking those who do the reporting they once did.

If my humble efforts to clarify matters make me a "birther," then so be it.

Colchester, England, once capitol of Roman Britain, looking for money to save 2000 year old chariot track

Race is on to save site of Roman chariot track
Campaigners hope to raise funds to preserve last remaining site of its kind in Britain

By Tom Peck Independent

There was considerable excitement among archaeologists when, in 2005, a firm of housing developers unearthed the only Roman chariot-racing track in Britain, on a site in Colchester, Essex.

Five years later, residents have less than a month to save the site. The racetrack is still hidden beneath local roads, gardens and old army buildings, but campaigners are hoping to buy a large Victorian garden which covers the key part of the circuit.

Buried beneath are eight stone enclosures, originally having been fitted with wooden double doors, like giant greyhound racing traps. The land is the garden of a listed but derelict sergeants' mess, which will become an exhibition if the campaign succeeds. If it fails, however, the building will become apartments, and the garden will be the apartment block's private land again.

For almost 2,000 years, the 350-metre outline of the track has remained intact. The site lay undiscovered until the Colchester Archaeological Trust (CAT) began excavating after the Ministry of Defence sold the barracks for housing in 2005. Archaeological digs suggest the racetrack was built in the early 2nd century, and lasted about 150 years before falling out of use, perhaps because a day at the races became prohibitively expensive for the local gentry – crowds received free admission and also expected to receive gifts.

CAT has since traced long stretches of the perimeter, complete with banked seating for up to 15,000 people. The bases of start and finish posts have also been discovered, as well as elaborate fountains that served as lap markers.

Wendy Bailey, chairwoman of Destination Colchester, said a campaign had received a boost with a £30,000 council contribution. "This has really caught the imagination of ordinary local people," she told The Guardian. "We're doing a fundraiser at the local football ground, where one man said: 'This was like their football to the people of those days.' We are extraordinarily grateful to the council, but I still don't think the authorities charged with protecting it really get how important this heritage is to local people."

Tony Robinson, the actor and presenter of Channel 4's Time Team, has supported the campaign, as have the politician Tony Benn and the historian Dan Cruickshank. Mr Robinson said the circus was an incredible find. "I hope local people, politicians and businesses will all play their part in ensuring as much of it as possible, including the starting stalls, is made secure and accessible for future generations."

If the campaigners are to buy the land and have the site taken off the market, they will need to find £200,000 by the end of February. The sergeants' mess hall building, which they hope will be bought by the archaeology trust and a consortium of community groups and businesses, will cost a further £550,000

More than £120,000 has so far been raised in just a few weeks, almost entirely in small donations from the public. Colchester United flashed up the campaign poster on their screens during a recent match.

Chariot racing was very popular with the Romans, as immortalised by Charlton Heston in the movie adaptation Ben-Hur, but only four tracks have been found in the former north-western provinces of the old Empire. Colchester was once the capital of Roman Britain, and now claims to be Britain's oldest town. The Roman garrison in the town would have provided an enthusiastic audience.

Super Bowl XLIV & Banned Super Bowl Ads. Place your predictions.

WHEN THE SAINTS HAVE THE BALL

For 14 weeks, the Saints’ offense was a multi-dimensional monster. Undersized whiz Drew Brees orchestrated the show, with receivers Marques Colston, Devery Henderson and Robert Meachem attacking the seams. Jeremy Shockey resurfaced as a tight end threat. Pierre Thomas powered the running game, with former Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush lurking like unused dynamite.

Then the Dallas Cowboys’ pass rush showed up at the Superdome in Week 15, beat up the Saints, ended their undefeated streak and provided a blueprint for stopping Sean Payton’s team. The truth is this: Since then, the veneer has faded somewhat for this offense — the Minnesota front four tormented the Saints during the NFC Championship Game.

If the Colts can pressure Brees, they can prevent the fireworks. Much of this relies on the health of DE Dwight Freeney — which has been discussed ad nauseam — as he and Robert Mathis attack from the edges. But it also depends on the play of Saints offensive tackles Jermon Bushrod and Jonathan Stinchcomb. If they can handle the outside, the Saints won’t need to keep a tight end in for extra protection. Still, the Indy defense is extremely fast — especially in the red zone, when space is at a premium. And to beat this Colts team, you need to score touchdowns.

WHEN THE COLTS HAVE THE BALL

The quarterback is named Peyton. He’ll be the fellow gesticulating wildly before each play and draining the play clock down. The television announcers will probably talk about him a lot. Anyway, he’s the best in the game. Without a hearty running game — Joseph Addai and Donald Brown might not factor much into the outcome today — Manning drove this offense to 16 victories this year. In fact, the Colts won every game in which the starters played throughout. The offensive line protects Manning well and he has extraordinary pocket sense. So how will Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams attack him? He pledged to blitz earlier during the pregame hoopla. But with Manning, it’s usually boom or bust.

If the Saints blitz Manning, as the Jets did in the AFC Championship Game, they can get burned. If you settle into coverage and just rush four, as the Ravens often did in the divisional round, Manning can pick you apart and gobble chunks of yards. New Orleans’ lead cornerback, Jabari Greer, will probably track Reggie Wayne for most of the game. So expect Manning, as he did against the Jets, to look to wideouts Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie.

SPECIAL TEAMS

The big stage used to be Bush’s place. Back at USC, he excelled when the camera lights burned. Sunday night, Saints fans hope he displays the form he had there — or in the NFC Divisional round against Arizona, when his 83-yard punt return TD closed the proceedings. The Colts can’t counter with a similar game-breaker. Indy’s Chad Simpson is serviceable, but nothing special. Interestingly enough, both teams switched their kickers during midseason. New Orleans dumped longtime vet John Carney for Garrett Hartley (who kicked New Orleans into the Super Bowl) and Indianapolis scooped up 42-year-old Matt Stover after Adam Vinatieri underwent midseason knee surgery.

ONE MORE THING

The Colts and Saints both played in Miami this season against the Dolphins. Both teams won, although it wasn’t easy. In Week 2, the Dolphins held the ball for more than 45 minutes against the Colts. But they kept accumulating field goals, and Manning’s 48-yard scoring strike to Garcon gave Indianapolis a 27-23 victory. In late October, New Orleans roared back from a 24-3 first-half deficit to win a 46-34 shootout. Brees threw a TD, ran for two more and the defense returned two picks for scores.

By Andy McCullough/The Star-Ledger
February 07, 2010, 9:00AM

"They know we're at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern." - Sarah Palin

PART TWO



PART THREE



PART FOUR



PART FIVE



I confess to being a Sarah Palin sceptic, but Palin does strike a chord as the un-Obama. I was less impressed with the beginning of the Tea Party.

Now I am not sure that they should not be taken seriously. The Democrats surely have.

How can we tell? The race card of course.

The Left and Democrats have reflexively played the race card, saying the Tea Party is a white movement and of course suspicious, which is laughable and ironic at the beginning of the dutiful annual homage to "black history month."

I am amused that almost all black callers on c-apan complain that the Tea Party movement is a white movement, and of course, racist.

Look at the Left-wing blocks. Listen to MSNBC, the tingly pink Chris Matthews. They are the real race card officiandos. Check out field negro's blog

Blacks voted 97% for Obama and somehow I doubt that was a coincidence. Complacency has been a large feature of white middle class and working class Americans, and they do not vote on strictly racial lines.

We shall see in November.

_______________________________________


Sarah Palin lashes Obama at first Tea Party convention
BBC

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has spoken at the first US Tea Party convention, urging a return to conservate principles.

Speaking in Nashville, Mrs Palin called President Obama's 2011 budget "immoral" and said it would raise the US debt.

The year-old Tea Party movement includes many people who oppose Barack Obama's plans for healthcare reform and the president's stimulus package.

Mrs Palin said future generations would pay the cost if spending was not cut.

"It's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving," she told the convention.

'Drowning in debt'

When she warned that the US was "drowning in national debt, and many of us have had enough," the former governor of Alaska was rewarded with a standing ovation.

She also berated the Obama administration for focusing on adversaries of the US rather than its allies.

"We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies, and recognises the true nature of the threats that we face," Mrs Palin said.

She praised the leaderless, bottom-up approach of the Tea Party movement, saying its success had Washington politicians running scared.

"I am a big supporter of this movement," she said, and added - in a nod to the Tea Party's name, a reference to a famous protest against British colonial rule: "America is ready for another revolution and you are part of this".
Congress goal
Barely a year old, the Tea Party gained influence during the acrimonious US healthcare reform debate.

Members, gathered from state-level Tea Parties, complain that big spending to stimulate the economy is being wasted in Washington and on Wall Street while small-town America has to tighten its belt.

And the coalition of disaffected conservatives is undoubtedly growing in influence - its endorsement of Republican Scott Brown helped his election last month as Massachusetts senator, says the BBC's Madeleine Morris, attending the Nashville event.

Our correspondent says that movement's organisers have announced the formation of a political action committee, with funds of $10m, whose goal will be to get up to 20 conservative candidates into Congress in November's mid-term congressional elections.

There has been controversy over the use of paid lobbyists and PR companies at the conference and Mrs Palin's appearance fee: reported to be as much as $100,000.

Some activists have also complained about the $500 (£317) registration fee for the Nashville conference.
But in an opinion piece published on USA Today website ahead of the conference Mrs Palin said she would not benefit financially from speaking at the event.

Instead she said she was motivated only by her "goal [...] to support the grassroots activists who are fighting for responsible, limited government - and our constitution".