Nicolas Sarkozy calls for calm as French pension protests gather pace - The Guardian

Drivers queue for petrol on the ring road in Nantes. Photograph: Frank Perry/AFP/Getty Images

Strikes gathering pace against Nicolas Sarkozy's pension reforms appeared to be pushing France closer to crisis today as fuel shortages were felt across the country and violence erupted on the sidelines of protests by children.

On a sixth day of the national demonstrations, Sarkozy was forced to appeal for calm and "responsibility" after cars were burned, shop windows smashed and at least two photojournalists assaulted in Nanterre, west of Paris, and Lyon. Authorities said they believed those responsible for the incidents were not genuine protesters but "thugs" who had come to disrupt the proceedings.

While the violence was kept on a limited scale, the president could do little to stop the oil refinery strike from biting hard in large parts of the country. Jean-Louis Borloo, the ecology minister, said today that just under 4,000 petrol stations, of a total of 12,500, were "awaiting supplies" – without saying all these were suffering actual shortages.

On the outskirts of Paris and in parts of Normandy and the north-west, long queues formed as motorists waited for deliveries. The manager of one petrol station in the centre of the capital, who did not want to be named, said there had been no diesel delivered since Monday morning. "If this carries on we'll see things kick off," he said.

Nicolas Paulissen, deputy head of the FNTR haulage union, said tomorrow would see fuel supplies for freight vehicles become a big problem. "Without trucks it's impossible to supply factories and shops and the economy becomes paralysed," he told Reuters.

Of all the sectors that have been disrupted by the unions' strategy of "soft" rolling strikes, it is the action in the fuel sector that has most rattled the government. Despite repeatedly assuring France that chronic shortages are out of the question, ministers have formed a crisis centre to deal with the situation.

Speaking from an international summit in Deauville, Sarkozy said an emergency meeting would be held to "unblock a certain number of situations". Shortages, he added, "cannot exist in a democracy".

"There are people who want to work, the immense majority, and they cannot be deprived of gasoline," he said.

Sarkozy insists he has no intention of rowing back on his pension reforms, which include raising the symbolic and much-fought-for basic age of retirement from 60 to 62.

He is facing what is arguably his toughest week in power as he waits for a vote in the senate which, although not quite the end of the reform's passage into law, will close the main chapter of parliamentary debate.

But those marching in Paris today refused to let the prospect of a vote, already postponed once last week and now due to take place at the end of this week, get them down. For them, the reform is unjust, hitting hardest women, workers in hazardous jobs and those who start work at a young age – and worth fighting against tooth and nail.

"The vote is of no importance," said Didier Caron, a 51-year-old Renault employee. "It's the street. If the street works well, it could still win."

As the familiar chants rang out and students and children rubbed shoulders with pensioners and postmen, the manifestation drew 3.5 million people on to the streets, according to the unions, and 1.1 million, according to the interior ministry. Some shouted their calls for an intensified grève générale (general strike). Others took a quieter approach. One man's sticker read: "rêve générale" – general dream.

"I am here to show my discontentment with this government's politics in general," said one hospital worker, Armelle, who like many protesters was expressing her rage with the Sarkozy agenda as a whole, rather than just the pension reform. "This is my fifth time. I am mobilising for myself and for all French people. I feel as though our public services, which are so important to us in France, are disappearing."

For most, however, the issue of the day was the now infamous réforme des retraites, the law which the embattled rightwing president is said to regard as his single most important piece of legislation in the latter half of his presidency. A reform which the government and many economists say is long overdue, it aims to cancel a deepening pensions shortfall and, in political terms, display Sarkozy's reformist credentials to an electorate weary of his failure to deliver on lofty promises.

Reiterating his commitment to the law, which would also raise the age of full pension entitlement from 65 to 67, the president said that carrying out the controversial changes to secure future generations' pensions was his duty.

But it is those future generations of pensioners that Sarkozy is having the most trouble convincing. Today, days after they entered the fray for the first time, children ramped up their action even further, leaving 379 secondary schools blocked or disrupted to varying degrees – a record since the beginning of the protests.

Véro Du Cheyron, 51, social worker with the mentally disabled: "I am protesting today because this reform is a symbol of a society which always favours the rich and hurts the little people. When the banks go under, the government saves them. But it's not saving us. So I'm fighting for me and my children. They say that people are living longer so they have to work longer, but they don't say anything about the health problems that come by doing that. Also, as a woman, the reform will hurt me as we're usually the ones who have to stop work at certain times. I had always planned on retiring at 60, but it looks like that won't be possible any more."

Laura Tanniou, 22, student: "We may be only students now but we still want to make the most of our retirement! The government is talking about demographics but a lot of what they're saying is not true. The reality is that we're getting older but also getting to an age where you shouldn't be working. At 67 you're more likely to be unemployed than in work. You do hear people saying the French should just face up to it, but they don't understand: we are fighting to hold on to the benefits our grandparents won for us. I suppose that if there has to be reform, the better-off should contribute more than the less well-off."

Nicolas Sene, 27, restaurant manager: "I think the French should get up and, instead of whining, just work a bit harder. I started at 19 and have never stopped. Yesterday, I worked a 13-hour day. I think that as time goes on, we are finding new ways to enable the body to resist old age, and we're therefore capable of working a bit longer. There are certain industries, mind you, which are tough – mining, or even the restaurant business. But for people who just sit in offices all day I think they could be made to do a little bit more time. As for me, I'd like to think that as a manager I could carry on as long as I have the lucidity and the strength."

Benjamin Debry, 28, florist: "It'd be difficult for me to join the strike today, but I do support those who have. As for the protests, we French are the specialists in this. We are the country of justice and freedom and so we, the people, have a right to shout out when something's not right. It's important. We all care about our pensions and obviously we'd like to not be totally worn out by the time they arrive. I agree that some people are going to have to work longer. But it should be done on a case-by-case basis. Some people are in very hard jobs. I don't think it would hurt others to do an extra two years."

Frédéric Delouche, 40, postman: "My work is very hard on a physical level. I've been doing it for 10 years now and after a while various parts of your body begin to hurt – your back, your wrists, your joints. For people like me in arduous jobs, what this reform is suggesting is just not doable. I certainly can't see myself still coping with it at the age of 67, and to me it is completely unfair that I should be made to do so. What I want is to be able to retire at 60 – or, OK, at 62 – but on a full pension. And to get rid of [Nicolas] Sarkozy. He shouldn't be president. He just doesn't know how to negotiate."

View the original article here

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for 9/11 investigation - Telegraph.co.uk

Speaking at a late night rally, he said: “I announce that the formation of an independent and neutral team to examine the facts and discover the truth of the September 11 events is the demand of all the peoples of the region and the world.”

Earlier in the day, thousands held up flowers and Iranian flags as Mr Ahmedinejad waved through the open roof of an armoured car that carried him through the Shia Muslim strongholds of south Beirut, the Lebanese capital.

Hizbollah, Iran's local ally, mobilised its followers to throw rice and slaughter camels as the motorcade passed by.

It was, however, a welcome that ran just one street deep and normal life – bereft of Iranian flags – continued yards away from the old airport road used by the Iranian leader to reach a summit with his Lebanese counterpart, Michel Sleiman.

Maura Connelly, the US ambassador, expressed misgivings about the impact of the Iranian leader's visit and newspapers reported that America had unveiled a $22 million (£13.8 million) package of military aid to strengthen the Lebanese security forces.

"There is a concern we share with the countries in the region that Iran is not playing a helpful role in the region in terms of stability", she said.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, cautioned Mr Ahmadinejad to avoid statements that would inflame tensions in Lebanon.

Mr Ahmadinejad's trip comes amid tension over an international tribunal for those implicated in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Hizbollah has demanded the government withdraw from the tribunal, believing it will seek to prosecute its members.

The Iranian leader took the opportunity during his trip to lash out at Israel following talks with Mr Sleiman.

"We fully support the resistance of the Lebanese people against the Zionist regime," he said. "Lebanon is not only a source of pride for the Lebanese but for the region because Lebanon has changed the balance of power in favour of the people of the region."

More friction is expected today (Thurs) when Mr Ahmedinejad travels to Lebanese border towns targeted in the 2006 war that killed more than 1,000 people. Hizbollah has used hundred of millions of dollars donated by Iran for reconstruction of the south and residents expressed gratitude to the Iranian leader. Mahmoud Darwish, a 50-year old local who turned out for Mr Ahmadinejad said: "He helped us rebuild Lebanon. If he hadn't, our houses would still be destroyed and we would still be living in tents."

View the original article here

NEW: Obama calls for a $50 billion plan to start upgrading infrastructure - CNN

President Obama pushes roads planNEW: Obama calls for a $50 billion plan to start upgrading infrastructureNEW: Transportation secretary calls claims that stimulus bill failed "nonsense"Some Republicans attend a meeting with the president on the matter The $50 billion could be paid for by closing tax code loopholes, some officials say

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama called Monday for Congress to approve a $50 billion plan to begin upgrading the nation's crumbling infrastructure, saying such an investment is vital to creating much-needed construction jobs and keeping the nation competitive in the global economy.

In a Rose Garden statement at the White House, Obama called for bipartisan support when Congress returns after the November 2 mid-term elections so that the first phase of a proposed six-year infrastructure development plan can begin.

"We've always had the best infrastructure," Obama said, noting that one in five construction workers are unemployed right now. "This is work that needs to be done. There are workers ready to do it. All we need is political will."

The president first announced the plan on Labor Day, and present and former Cabinet members as well as some governors and mayors around the nation joined him to support the initiative.

Despite their call, it remains uncertain if the issue can overcome the deep partisan divide in Congress, especially after an election expected to erode Democratic majorities in both chambers or even return Republicans to control.

The main Republican campaign theme for the upcoming election has been excessive government spending under Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress that has failed to lower the unemployment rate below 9 percent. In particular, Republicans say the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed last year has failed to bring promised jobs and other economic benefits.

Obama and Democrats say the stimulus bill prevented the recession that began in the previous administration from worsening into a full economic depression.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood responded sharply on that topic when questioned by reporters Monday about whether new infrastructure spending would provide better results than the stimulus bill.

Noting that the $48 billion in stimulus money for the transportation sector funded 14,000 projects that employed thousands of people, LaHood said that Americans know the bill worked "because they see their friends and neighbors working on roads and bridges and transit systems."

"The idea that our stimulus didn't work is nonsense," he said.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat and strong Obama supporter, called stimulus spending on infrastructure "the single best job creator we can do in this country."

"It created well-paying jobs that can't be outsourced," Rendell said. "It's just what the economy needs."

A study by the Department of Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers shows a majority of infrastructure-related jobs would come in the construction field, followed by manufacturing and retail.

LaHood added that Congress has traditionally passed transportation bills containing infrastructure investment with strong bipartisan support.

"There are no Democratic or Republicans bridges or roads," he said, adding that Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told him there is Republican support for new infrastructure investment.

Obama and LaHood said the cost of new investment would be paid for, rather than adding to the debt. However, LaHood stopped short of offering specific ways to do so, saying only that a number of options were being considered.

Senior administration officials say private funds also would be used for the infrastructure overhaul. They suggested the $50 billion from Congress could be paid for by closing loopholes in the tax code related to oil and gas production or through other cost-cutting measures.

CNN's Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this story.

View the original article here

US Senate leader calls for Nevada foreclosure halt - Reuters

* Reid letter sent to largest mortgage servicers

* Call comes as Obama sends back foreclosure-friendly bill

* Reid in tough race for re-election, Nevada hard-hit (Adds comments from Reid, background on foreclosure problems)

By Corbett B. Daly

WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called for the largest mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosures in hard-hit Nevada.

"I write to request that your mortgage-servicing division suspend foreclosures on Nevada homeowners until systems are in place to ensure Nevadans are not being improperly directed into foreclosure proceedings," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, wrote in a letter to the companies, which he did not specifically name.

So far, Ally Financial Inc's GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase & Co JPM.N and Bank of America (BAC.N) have announced that they are suspending some of their foreclosures to review whether they have been conducting them properly.

Reid released his letter on Thursday, shortly after President Barack Obama announced his opposition to a bill passed by Congress that could have made it more difficult for homeowners to challenge unjustified foreclosure actions. Obama said he would send the measure back to the House of Representatives in a procedure called a "pocket veto."

The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously, would have required courts to accept all out-of-state notarizations, including those stamped en masse by computers in a practice that critics say has been improperly used to expedite foreclosure orders.

False notarizations figured in disclosures that Ally Financial, JPMorgan and other big mortgage processors filed false affidavits in thousands of cases, part of the the wave of foreclosures that followed the financial crisis.

Reid is in tough race for re-election in Nevada, which holds the nation's record in jobless and foreclosure rates.

Reid noted that some servicers have halted foreclosure in the 23 states that have judicial foreclosure proceedings.

"While Nevada is not among those states, suspending foreclosures on Nevadans is also justified because the reports of shoddy and defective affidavit preparation suggest that servicers might not be reviewing a home owner's loan documents with the requisite care," Reid said in his statement. (Reporting by Corbett Daly; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Presently Senator Reid is posturing, to suddenly represent the enigma of bank fraud and foreclosures. We must however look to the immediate future and the damage Reid and his cohorts can do to our fragile economy.In the new session of Congress–Lame Duck or not–Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) will focus the Senate to enacting Sen. Robert Menendez,( D-NJ).law; a crippling blow to the 15 million out of work Americans by passing immigration Reform Package. If he has adequate votes this Liberal Senator clothed as a Democrat, will crack his whip and bring to the table another Amnesty by any other name. Stealthily hidden in the bill will not–ONLY–contain the Dream Act, but Agjobs attachment law for more Guest Workers for farms, by giving some structure of mass Amnesty. Since the 1986 Amnesty at least 3-4 million low income workers got their legal immigration papers and then determined that they could bring in immediate family members under Family Unification laws. As legal residents they could sponsor family members as long as the affidavit of financial support was signed. In many cases this became a game of fraud, as soon after this obligation was dropped and family members ended up in the welfare line.

Chain Migration refers to the unceasing and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are permitted to immigrate because the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their absolute, non-nuclear family members. According to FAIRS quote “In 2001, the United States admitted 1,064,318 immigrants–enough people to create a major city the size of Chicago” In 1986 between 1.34 and 2.66 million illegal immigrants in the country who could qualify for immediate legality. Philip Martin, a professor at the University of California at Davis and one of the leading experts on the IRCA program, described the 1986 bill as “rife with fraud.”5 In total, nearly 1.1 million illegal’s received amnesty under SAW, even though there were only an estimated 400,000 eligible. This implies 700,000 fraudulent legalizations. Somewhere between 4 and 5 million people gained entry under this bill.

If we believe the numbers of foreign nationals domiciled in the US by government mouthpieces–there are 11 million and shrinking? In a previous count the Census Bureau has also developed estimates of its own. There assessment at the time of the 2000 Census suggests that the illegal immigration population was about 8 million. We are now Ten years ahead-so how can the administration estimate only 12 million? Create some kind of estimate yourself and give a conservative figure of family members brought here through family unification? Do we really want to be overpopulated? Our highways cannot handle the traffic now. Water shortages, energy disruption and loss of environment open land. Farmland disappearing. Even now water is in short supply in California and other border states. How will we keep up with supplying food to this sized population?

In Nov. 6, 1986 Because of their low education levels, illegal immigrants have a poverty rate that is roughly twice that of native-born Americans and therefore the majority will become public charges. The Immigration Reform and Control Act were passed by Congress in order to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, seen as a threat to the economy. Many members of Congress felt immigration was “out of control” because legal and illegal immigration had come to account for approximately thirty to fifty percent of U.S. population growth. The 1986 bill criminalizes the act of knowingly hiring an undocumented worker (in an unsuccessful attempt to reduce illegal immigration) as Businesses ignored the law and the government’s failure to enforce the laws so the numbers have grown all out of proportion..

Many foreigners are competing with Citizens and legal residents as cheap labor exploited by farms, businesses, the construction industry, factories, services and entertainment commerce. Millions have now materialized in the blue and white collar jobs that should be in the hands of the jobless Americans. Thousands of contractors have sewed their own demise by using cheap labor, dropping wages and the quality of work. Isn’t it time we decide who will push the overall public agenda for a decent future for our families and grandchildren, and not seek to gain votes in future elections by pandering to the major minority population as the Liberals are? One problem being legal households also gives refuge to an illegal alien family member and there are thousands of fraudulent cases of a legal brother loaning his Social Security number to an uncle or Aunt. Even a child given instant citizenship under the 14th Amendment Social Security number is not sacred, as the card is utilized by another in the family circle.

The Democratic leadership including Sen. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Speaker Pelosi do not seem to understand the relative difference in an individual who came to America legally and followed the processing as real immigrants do, if they wish to settle in this great country of ours? The new Tea Party candidates for Congress believe in the “Rule of Law” and understand you cannot cut corners to reside here in the US, and that changing the laws is pandering to millions of illegal aliens who ignored the laws and thought nothing in sliding past the border guards or lying about their true intentions when hoping on a plane. Only the Liberal extremists and the majority of Democrats see this as not a contravention of our laws and are willing to overlook, what to them is a minor civil infraction. Why have Democrats and a few in the GOP gutted the real border fence? Why has ICE director John Holder not arresting every illegal alien to be deported or imprisoned?

Why is California’s Sen. Boxer voted–YES–to supplying funds to Sanctuary Cities or not limiting welfare to illegal aliens? Both politicians are responsible for pressing –ONE-for ENGLISH. Why did Sen. Harry Reid try to table E-Verify, giving fewer accesses of jobs to legitimate US workers and only make the law to extract illegal workers voluntary? Choose who you vote for very cautiously, because returning Sen. Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Napolitano to Washington. ALL INCUMBENTS MUST GO. ANTICIPATE IN STATES WITH A CLOSE RACE, DEMOCRAT ORIENTED LIBERAL modus operandi:have been known to overlook illegal aliens voting for their Pride and Joy? ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN. Any new Lib-Dem will certainly bring down another giant amnesty that is like a tree, with very costly hidden roots; that will be digging into your payroll check for extra taxes.Billions of dollars could easily turn into a trillion in public welfare? The Tea Party is extremely conscious that neither party can be trusted in most instances to serve the American people. Democrats are looking for potential future votes and Republicans are looking out for a continuous pipeline of discount labor.

Tea Party activists have their own agenda, to suppress the plans in Washington of both parties. To shrink government and return dignity to the middle class and good paying jobs to all Americans. Tea party candidates are not beholden to Sen. Reid or Minority speaker John Boehner and any associates and will not bend to the will of Washington elites. Both parties must be held accountable and those who ignore the new course for the people will be removed from office as many incumbents will be this November. Give Tea Party candidates a chance to prove their worth and not listen to the same old, tired rhetoric of the usual, entrenched politicians. Even new Tea Party candidates must abide by the rules of the American people, as they are not immune from losing their seat.

Brittanicus Report As Abusive

*We welcome comments that advance the story directly or with relevant tangential information. We try to block comments that use offensive language or appear to be spam and review comments frequently to ensure they meet our standards. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters.

View the original article here