• "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Ask How You Can Illegally Contribute To My Campaign"Go read, there are many more, like;
• "Your long national nightmare is not over"
• "It's Mourning Again in America"
• "Isn't It Time You Were Disappointed Again?"
• "Read My Lips: No New Tax Cuts"
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.They are lying to us and we are (mostly) still asleep. Our freedoms (to buy what we want with our own money, for instance) are being taken away from us and most of the country is completely unaware.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
h/t to the great Michelle Malkin
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.
"Bailout" is now both a noun and a verb, and FedEx characterizes what Congress might do for UPS as the "Brown Bailout." But properly used, "bailout" denotes a rescue of an economic entity from financial distress. Although UPS is suffering from the recession, so is FedEx. Furthermore, UPS, whose revenue is 36 percent larger than FedEx's, began advocating this injury to FedEx long before this recession.As always, read the whole thing for two reasons (or more);
What UPS is doing is called rent-seeking -- bending public power for private advantage by hindering a competitor. This practice, which expands exponentially as government expands arithmetically, is banal but can have entertaining ricochets:
If Congress makes FedEx's operations more precarious by changing the law to make it easier for local disputes to cripple its operations, Smith says a multibillion-dollar order for 15 Boeing 777s will be automatically canceled. One of the unions lobbying on behalf of UPS and the Teamsters is the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, whose members make 777s.
It was 1962. Richard Nixon had had enough. Enough of being called "Tricky Dick, the man no one would buy a used car from." Enough of the elitist derision that had come his way since the Hiss case. He had had enough of the liberal media who consistently held him to a higher standard than his Democratic opponents and poked fun at his lack of sophistication - he being the son of a grocer. So Nixon blew. He announced the end of his career in seeking elective office; "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." Six years later he was inaugurated as President of the United States.Read it all and do not believe the Democrat Party and Liberal™ smear merchants. She was and is a more worthy candidate for President than either John McCain or Barack Obama.
This moment came last week for Sarah Palin and her husband Todd. Sick of the derision of the media for her unsophisticated country ways, her plain speaking and consistently being held to a higher standard than her critics, Palin had had enough. Palin resigned as Governor and, like Nixon, did not reveal her future plans. A follow-up FACEBOOK posting for her legions of admirers was clearly written in her own hand as it is plain-spoken and blunt.
Watching the Washington chattering class pan the Palin moves shows the moronic level of political analysis in the media today. Switch-hitter Dave Gergen, Ed Rollins who bolted his Party to go destroy the candidacy of Ross Perot and then trashed Perot, and Upper West Side reform Democrat Dick Morris who toiled for Ohio lefty, Howard Metzenbaum and Clinton but is today a born again Christian and right-winger, all panned the Palin move. Fools.
In fact, resignation as Governor was necessary to preserve any prospect that Palin could be nominated and elected in 2012 or beyond.
Back when the news still took the trouble to cover the bloodbath in Iran, the world saw young Iranians holding signs in English. Urgent pleas were coming through computers worldwide begging the leader of the free world to help the Iranian people. Many Americans would be amazed to learn how many Iranians were educated via petrodollars in the United Kingdom or the United States. Some Iranian young people speak far better English than your local high school kids.As always, read the whole thing. There is a lot more.
The late shah’s son reached out to Obama for support:
“I would like to take this opportunity and tell the President this is a crucial moment - on behalf of my compatriots and millions who have been turning to the outside world, particularly to this President - to say: don’t let us down.”
While Barack Obama was eating ice cream, Neda’s parents were forced from their home by government agents. Public displays of mourning were shut down. Nineteen year old Kaveh Alipour was gunned down by government barbarians. After frantically searching for news about his missing son at hospitals and eventually the morgue, Alipour’s father was told he would be required to pay a $3000 “bullet fee” to reimburse the government for the ammo expended in executing his child.
Barack Obama did eventually deliver the obligatory “we are outraged” statement. He held off as long as he could, until public opinion became too clamorous to overlook. While he gabbled, the violence in Iran escalated. Iranian citizens were being massacred in the streets with axes and machetes. Students were being routed from their beds in their dorm rooms.
Ronald Reagan responded to a similar cry for help from the people of Poland who were then enslaved by the Soviet Union. Reagan minced no words in decrying the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire”. He never expelled gibberish about how the United States shouldn’t “meddle” as innocent citizens suffer.
Then, as today, pantywaist liberals were caterwauling about toning down the rhetoric so as not to pique oppressive dictators. Thankfully, Reagan ignored such nattering. The Poles were doing what the Iranians are today: insisting on the most basic of human liberties. Ronald Reagan had no intention of sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how this thing played out:
“In a stiff note to Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev; Reagan said that if the Russians kept up their thuggish response to Poland they ‘could forget any new nuclear arms agreement.’ Gone too would be better trade relations, and in their place would be the ‘harshest possible economic sanctions’ if they even thought of invading Poland as they had done with Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956.”
Obama's imagined world of "universal" rights would exist if only the expressed principles of the United Nations applied. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which insists (among other things) that everyone has the right to express opinions without interference, the right to take part in government through freely chosen representatives and the right to freedom of religion (including the freedom to change religion). And yes, if you can read all the way to Article 20 without collapsing in tears, you'll find that, as Obama says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."Read the whole thing - I haven't even said what Obama's lies are - so you'll have to read the article.
But of course the Declaration of Human Rights has never been anything more than an exercise in wishful thinking, a set of empty gestures based on pious hopes. Why did the authors (who were led by Eleanor Roosevelt) claim that their wishes for human freedom were in fact the "rights" of all humans? They knew, as much as anyone, that only a fortunate minority possessed such rights. There were no such rights, for example, in the vast empire then being assembled by the Soviet Union.
Republicans accused the Democrats of ramming the bill through the House. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), managing the debate for his party, asked repeatedly if there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber. Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher – sitting in the speaker’s chair although she’s already been confirmed as Obama’s undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security — repeatedly dodged the question.As a Republican, I crossed party lines and voted for Norm Dicks for our local Representative because he once helped my wife in an issue involving the Government and because he has been good for my beloved Shipyard.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill’s sponsors, finally rose to say that a single copy of the current version of the bill was available at the speaker’s desk – and on the Internet, which members would have to leave the floor to access
During WWII the allies air dropped cheap pistols and burp guns all over France to help the resistance fight Nazis. We ought be doing that now, at the least.Yes.
If you want to score a meeting with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), know this: His scheduler/office manager, Elizabeth Becton, is to be addressed by her full name — not Liz or any other variant.Read the whole thing. It is very frustrating to have to deal with the arrogance of the small-minded. It is very amusing to see the arrogance of the small-minded so exposed in this way.
An executive assistant at McBee Strategic recently learned this the hard way. A few weeks ago, the assistant e-mailed Becton seeking a meeting with McDermott and a client, JPMorgan Chase. Days later, the assistant checked back in and unfortunately began the e-mail with “Hi Liz.”
Becton curtly replied, “Who is Liz?”
When the assistant wrote back with an apology, Becton turned up the heat. “I do not go by Liz. Where did you get your information?” she asked.
The back-and-forth went on for 19 e-mails, with the assistant apologizing six times if she had “offended” Becton, while Becton lectured about name-calling.
Here’s a redacted version of the exchange:She is being ridiculed everywhere for this, and rightfully so (h/t Orbusmax);
From: XXX
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:38 AM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: JPMC Meeting Request
Elizabeth,
Attached is a meeting request for JP Morgan Chase who will be in DC June 3rd-4th and would like to request a brief meeting with the Congressman.
Let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you!
Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:05 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Liz,
just checking in on whether the Congressman is available next week. [REDACTED] can confirm a meeting time for you - she is available at [REDACTED].
Thank you!
Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High
Who is Liz?
Elizabeth Becton
Executive Assistant/Office Manager
Office of Congressman Jim McDermott
XXXX Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
XXX phone
XXX fax
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Elizabeth, I thought you went by Liz - apologies if that is incorrect. Best, XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:08 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
I do not go by Liz. Where did you get your information?
________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry if I offended you! I thought you had gone by Liz at Potlatch, this was my mistake. Best, XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:11 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
NEVER. I hate that name.
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:13 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry if I offended you! I must have mis-heard. My mistake! Best, XX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:20 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High
XXX:
If I wanted you to call me by any other name, I would have offered that to you. I think it's rude when people don't even ask permission and take all sorts of liberties with your name. This is a real sore spot with me. My name has a lot of "nicknames" which I don't use. I use either my first name or my last name because I row with a lot of other women who share the same first name. Now, please do not ever call me by a nickname again.
As for your meeting request, who is the point of contact for this meeting? If it's not you, then I need to know who because it's very time-consuming to deal with a lot of people for one meeting.
Thanks,
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:23 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry I offended you! My mistake!
XXX can confirm a meeting time for you - she is available at XXX XXXX.
Thank you!
Best, XXX
________________________________
[UNRELATED EMAILS REDACTED]
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:33 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Of course! Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I must have mis-heard and it was in no way my intention to make you upset. I always enjoy working with you and seeing you at the WSS events J
Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:37 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Sounds like you got played by someone who KNOWS I hate that name and that it's a fast way to TICK me off. Who told you that I go by that name? They are not your friend...
________________________________
From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:38 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Elizabeth,
Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I don't want to cause trouble as I clearly must have mis-heard the person at Potlatch. It was in no way my intention to make you upset.
Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:41 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High
I REALLY want to know who told you to call me that.
________________________________
From:XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:44 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Hi Elizabeth,
Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I don't recall who I overheard. It was in no way my intention to make you upset.
Best,
XXX
________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:04 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Let me put it this way, they don't know me and perhaps they were PRETENDING to know me better than they do and pretended that I go by Liz. They did YOU a disservice.
In the future, you should be VERY careful about such things. People like to brag about their connections in DC. It's a past time for some. It's also dangerous to eaves drop, as you have just found out.
Quit apologizing and never call me anything but Elizabeth again. Also, make sure you correct anyone who attempts to call me by any other name but Elizabeth. Are we clear on this? Like I said, it's a hot button for me.
And please don't call the office and not leave a message. My colleague told me you called while I was away at the Ladies' room. I do sometimes leave my desk.
You can clearly see Seoul in South Korea and Pyongyang in North Korea.General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, recently stated quite frankly that it would take ninety days to move forward an adequate force to block an attacking North Korean army. Using this official military assessment as their guide, there is no reason to believe the NK military leadership would hesitate to assure their Dear Leader of an effectively full occupation of the Korean Peninsula within that time period.Read it all. He goes on to explain in detail how North Korea cannot prevail in a war against South Korea and the United States.
I've been a military analyst for more than thirty years. I have studied the North Korean army in detail--its tactics, equipment and capabilities--and I have to say, this projection is one of the more ludicrous I have seen. I understand that in a resource-constrained environment, service leaders and theater commanders have to propound the worst case scenario to ensure their fair share of the pie, but even a cursory look at the North Korean People's Army leaves one wondering "huh?
The arms and equipment of the North Korean military are, overwhelmingly, Soviet-derived systems of 1960s and 70s vintage, lacking the kind of electronics, communications, fire controls and survivability features necessary on the modern battlefield.
To understand what this means, look at the disparity in combat effectiveness between Saddam Hussein's army and our own in Operation Desert Storm. Now consider that, as compared to North Korea's, Saddam's army was extraordinarily well trained and competent.
Kim's army hasn't been to war since 1953. Sure, it can beat up on unarmed truce inspection teams and kidnap Japanese civilians from remote beaches, but what has it really done lately? Worse still, it hasn't been able to stage realistic, large-scale exercises due to a chronic shortage of both fuel and cash. An army that doesn't know how to move formations larger than a battalion or regiment will degenerate into chaos when it tries to move divisions and armies. Finally, promotion in Kim's army, like promotion in Saddam's, is awarded for political loyalty, not military competence. Loyalty in such regimes is usually defined as telling the psychotic dictator what he wants to hear. Yet the first key to success in modern war is a free and open exchange of information between leaders and subordinates. The problem of political reliability is paramount for Kim--if he lets his army loose on the South, will it actually fight, or will it disintegrate on contact (or worse, turn on the regime)He goes into issues of weapons, terrain, movement of troops and equipment in a manner more thorough than you normally get to read. So, go and read.
A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that his faithful dog had been dead for many years. He wondered where the road was leading them. After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. As he reached the wall, he saw a magnificent gate in the arch, and the street that led to the gate made from pure gold. He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.I travel a great deal and (except for Japan) he always went with me. I am too emotional now to write much, but he was loyal and protective. Demanding as well.
When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, where are we?"
"This is heaven, sir," the man answered.
"Wow! Would you happen to have some water? We have traveled far," the man said.
"Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up."
The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
"Can my friend," gesturing toward his dog, "come in, too?" the traveler asked.
"I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets."
The man thought a moment, remembering all the years this dog remained loyal to him and then turned back toward the road and continued the way he had been going. After another long walk he came to a plain dirt road, which led through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence. As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book.
"Excuse me!" he called to the reader. "Do you have any water? We have traveled far."
"Yes, sure, there's a faucet over there." The man pointed to a place that couldn't be seen from outside the gate. "Come on in and help yourself."
"How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to his dog.
"There should be a bowl by the faucet; he is welcome to share."
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned faucet with a bowl beside it. The traveler filled the bowl and took a long drink himself, then he gave some to the dog. When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree waiting for them.
"What do you call this place?" the traveler asked.
"This is heaven," was the answer.
"Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was heaven, too."
"Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That's hell."
"Doesn't it make you mad for them to use your name like that?"
"No. We're just happy that they screen out the folks who'd leave their best friends behind in exchange for material things."
Author Unknown
Washington State is front and center on ridding the U.S. of the Electoral College and pushing for electing the president by National Popular Vote (NPV). Olympia legislators passed Senate Bill 5599 which made Washington the 9th state in the U.S. ready to kill the Electoral College. Ironically the NPV law only needs 270 out of the 538 electoral votes to be enacted into law. The vote is currently at 60 or 23%.Would the end of the Electoral College mean a better democracy. If you are not already convinced by the preceding that the answer to that question is no, then note;
Why we have an electoral college
The Founding Fathers decided against NPV because it would not represent the smaller states. Candidates could ignore rural areas, and focus on densely populated regions where they could get more votes. The Electoral College (EC) is meant for candidates to work harder to get their votes. Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on the states population, determined by the U.S. Census. Washington State has eleven votes, less populated states, like Alaska and Delaware only have three while California has the most electoral votes at 55.
Is a NPV really more representative?Of course none of this means anything to the idiots that run our government and the poorly informed electorate that continually rëelects them.
A National Popular Vote doesnt just mean a 51/49 split. It means whoever gets the majority wins. A candiadte (sic) could very well win with a mere 20% approval. It is more complex than people understand. It might kill the two-party system that has carried elections throughout history. Currently, each party has to agree on a candidate who can appeal to the greatest number of citizens to gain a majority of votes of the Electoral College.
Paul Greenberg argues that this shift in electoral reform makes us more like the French. There were thirteen candidates in 2003, and barely any of them could carry a majority. The result was to have a second round of voting that put a right wing radical against an unpopular conservative. Ridding the U.S. of the EC would water down the quality of candidates and open the door for right and left wing radicals to be legitimate presidential contenders. It would segregate states, regions, and people.
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.Yes, the translation is a little rough, but it is worth a read.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
Steps in the ProcessGo read, there is much more.
The first phase in achieving "cultural hegemony" over a nation is the undermining of all elements of traditional culture. Churches are thus transformed into ideology-driven political clubs, with the stress on "social justice" and egalitarianism, with worship reduced to trivialized entertainment, and with age-old doctrinal and moral teachings "modernized" or diminished to the point of irrelevancy. Genuine education is replaced by "dumbed down" and "politically correct" curricula, and standards are reduced dramatically. The mass media are fashioned into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesmen. Morality, decency, and old virtues are ridiculed without respite. Tradition-minded clergymen are portrayed as hypocrites and virtuous men and women as prudish, stuffy, and unenlightened.
Culture is no longer a buttress supporting the integrity of the national heritage and a vehicle for imparting that heritage to future generations, but becomes a means for "destroying ideals and ... presenting the young not with heroic examples but with deliberately and aggressively degenerate ones," as theologian Harold O.J. Brown writes. We see this in contemporary American life, in which the great historical symbols of our nation's past, including great presidents, soldiers, explorers, and thinkers, are shown to have been unforgivably flawed with "racism" and "sexism" and therefore basically evil. Their place has been taken by pro-Marxist charlatans, pseudo-intellectuals, rock stars, leftist movie celebrities, and the like. At another level, traditional Christian culture is condemned as repressive, "Eurocentric," and "racist" and, thus, unworthy of our continued devotion. In its place, unalloyed primitivism in the guise of "multiculturalism" is held as the new model.
Marriage and family, the very building blocks of our society, are perpetually attacked and subverted. Marriage is portrayed as a plot by men to perpetuate an evil system of domination over women and children. The family is depicted as a dangerous institution epitomized by violence and exploitation. Patriarchally oriented families are, according to the Gramscians, the precursors of fascism, Nazism, and every organized form of racial persecution.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday.Not to put too fine a point on it, but;
Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency, made the announcement five days after Iran said it test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), putting Israel and U.S. bases in the area within reach.
On May 20, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had tested a missile that defence analysts say could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a move likely to fuel concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies, but President Barack Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist"
The KNCA news agency, the regime's official mouthpiece, said: "We have successfully conducted another nuclear test on 25 May as part of the republic's measures to strengthen its nuclear deterrent."This is about a forceful as the US response will get.
Officials in South Korea said they had detected a tremor consistent with those caused by an underground nuclear explosion. The country's Yonhap news agency reported that the North had test-fired three short-range missiles from a base on the east coast immediately after the nuclear test.
The underground atomic explosion, at 9.54am local time (0154 BST), created an earthquake measuring magnitude 4.5 in Kilju county in the country's north-east, reports said.
President Barack Obama called the test a matter of grave concern to all countries. "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community," he said in a statement. "North Korea's behaviour increases tensions and undermines stability in north-east Asia."
He added that North Korea's behaviour would serve only to deepen the country's isolation.
"It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery," he said.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said he was "deeply worried" by the development.Which is what the UN Secretary General is good for.
In Tokyo, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Takeo Kawamura, said the test was "a clear violation of the UN security council resolution and cannot be tolerated".Kim will not want to trash South Korea with radioactive contamination since he plans to take ownership of it one day. I think that Japan and the US are at the top of Kim's target list.
North Korea's nuclear weapons has ignited a debate in Japan about allowing nuclear weapons by amending its pacifist Constitution as a deterrent to an attack from nuclear-armed North Korea
Shoichi Nakagawa, former finance minister, said Japan should examine the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons to defending itself from potential attacks by North Korea and its growing arsenal of ballistic missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads.
"North Korea has taken a step toward a system whereby it can shoot without prior notice. We have to discuss countermeasures," Kyodo News quoted him as saying.
"It is common sense worldwide that in a purely military sense it is nuclear that can counteract nuclear," said Nakagawa, who has long called for debate on whether Japan should go nuclear.
March 19, 2009: Fatah, the "moderate" Palestinian political movement, has admitted that it does not recognize the existence of Israel. Fatah points out that the Palestinian Authority, an organization set up in the 1990s after peace negotiations with Israel allowed the Palestinians to assume control of their own affairs, does not speak for Fatah. The Palestinian Authority recognized Israel, but Fatah points out that this was done to meet the demands of Western nations that were going to provide the Palestinians with billions of dollars in economic aid. What the Western donors ignored was the fact that Palestinians regularly used maps of the area that showed Israel as Palestinian territory. To Palestinians, Israel did not exist. Children were taught that Israel was an illegal entity, and the Israelis (at least the Jewish ones) foreign invaders who must be expelled or killed. All this was in Arabic. English pronouncements tended to be rather more opaque on the "kill the Jews" stuff.And so we allow ourselves to be fooled.
