Federal Auditor: Umm only 129 Miles of 1,954 Mile Border is secure

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
 Federal
Auditor: Umm only 129 Miles of 1,954 Mile Border is
secure
*Scotty Starnes
*| March 31,
2011 at 6:43 PM | Tags: Border
Patrol , border
security , Department
of Homeland 
Security,
GAO , Government Accountability
Office,
Janet Napolitano ,
Richard M. Stana  |
Categories: Political Issues
| URL:
http://wp.me/pvnFC-4V2

I bet Janet "the border is as safe as it ever was" Napolitano is shocked to
learn her claim is false.

*(CNSNews.com)* - Richard M. Stana, director of homeland security and
justice issues at the Government Accountability Office (which is responsible
for “auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being
spent efficiently and effectively”), told the Senate Homeland Security
Committee yesterday that *the federal government can actually prevent or
stop illegal entries into the United States along only 129 miles of the
1,954-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border*.

*That leaves 1,825 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border where the Border Patrol
cannot prevent or stop an illegal entry*.

Nonetheless, Stana told the committee, the Border Patrol itself says it has
established “an acceptable level of control” along 873 miles of the
1,954-mile-long southwest border. This is because of the way the Border
Patrol defines “an acceptable level of control” of the border.

Continue 
reading>>>

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
by Email  feature.

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Libyan (al-Qaeda?) rebels showing off for Mullah Obama

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
  Libyan
(al-Qaeda?) rebels showing off for Mullah
Obama
*barenakedislam 
* | April 1, 2011 at 12:42 AM | Categories:
EnemyWithin-foreign|
URL:
http://wp.me/peHnV-rP1

Rebels proudly display the bodies of Muammar Gaddafi's forces in eastern
Libya on Thursday, both encouraged by and wary of news of covert U.S.
support. Despite almost two weeks of Western air strikes, Gaddafi's troops
have used superior arms and tactics to push back rebels trying to edge
westward along the coast from their eastern [...]

Read more of this
post

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Express
yourself. Start a blog. 

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

23 BEHEADINGS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE! (WARNING: Graphic Images)

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
I love a bargain.


 23
BEHEADINGS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE! (WARNING: Graphic
Images)
*barenakedislam 
* | April 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM | Categories: Beheadings
(GRAPHIC)| URL:
http://wp.me/peHnV-rOz

Greatest hits from The Religion of 'Peace,' complete with catchy music and a
lot of "Allahu Akbaring." You'll notice that several of the victims are
Westerners. Some of the early beheadings are a little dark and grainy but
there are full color close-ups in the second half of the video, along with
pleading, choking, and [...]

Read more of this post 

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
by Email  feature.

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

This is for those Hillary followers: Clinton tells Congress that Obama regime will ignore their war resolutions

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
 This is for
those Hillary followers: Clinton tells Congress that Obama regime will
ignore their war
resolutions
*Scotty Starnes
*| March 31,
2011 at 11:00 PM | Tags: Hillary
Clinton ,
Libya,
no-fly zone , President
Obama , Rep. Brad
Sherman (D-CA),
War Powers Act  |
Categories: Political Issues
| URL:
http://wp.me/pvnFC-4Vs

To those on the left who think Hillary Clinton would be a fine pick to
replace Obama: THINK AGAIN. She just told Congress that the Obama regime
will ignore the powers of Congress to carry on their kinetic military
operation.

Remember, Bush turning to Congress to get approval was considered acting
like a cowboy. Obama turned to the U.N. and failed to ask Congress, yet we
barely hear a peep from lefties. Clinton would be just as bad, if not worse,
as POTUS.

TPMreports:

*Update*: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers
Act during a classified briefing, said Clinton and the administration are
sidestepping the measure's provisions giving Congress the ability to put a
60-day time limit on any military action.

"They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers
Act," he told TPM in a phone interview. *"She said they are certainly
willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they'll
send that to us too."*

**
*The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if
Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday
afternoon*.

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the
administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war
powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

*The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the
administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle
President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime
decisions*. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have
ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional
encroachment on executive power.

Continue 
reading>>>

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Reach
out to your own subscribers with
WordPress.com.

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why in the world would the NYT print this story - why not just point a finger at the CIA agents and tell the Libyans there they are

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 

What does that have to do with the MSM and its lying ways.

He did not start a war; he was finishing one that was left over 
unfinished 12 years earlier.  The MSM did all it could to undercut the 
military action.


On 04/01/2011 12:51 AM, Jonathan Ashley wrote:

How does starting a war fit in with your idea of morals and ethics?

On 03/31/2011 08:54 PM, dick thompson wrote:
What I find with the MSM is that they have no morals or ethics at all. 


--


  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
  freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more. 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why in the world would the NYT print this story - why not just point a finger at the CIA agents and tell the Libyans there they are

2011-03-31 Thread Jonathan Ashley 

How does starting a war fit in with your idea of morals and ethics?

On 03/31/2011 08:54 PM, dick thompson wrote:
What I find with the MSM is that they have no morals or ethics at all. 


--


 The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
 freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why in the world would the NYT print this story - why not just point a finger at the CIA agents and tell the Libyans there they are

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 
Note that the president has issued a secret finding - authorize the 
CIA - clandestine effort.  What part of that tells us that the president 
wants this broadcast to the world.  Note the word secret, CIA, 
clandestine.  Which of those words do you not understand.  Sounds like 
the WaPo also does not give a damn about our men in harms way and our 
agents who are trying to operate clandestinely.  If so, then why would 
the WaPo publish this just as why would the NYT publish this.


What I find with the MSM is that they have no morals or ethics at all.  
We were able to find out about the money transfers that permitted Al 
Qaeda to buy weapons and ammunition and transfer funds to those they 
were buying off because we could listen in on their cell phones.  What 
does the MSM do?  It tells Al Qaeda that we are listening in on their 
cell phones and that they should buy one time use and then get a new phone.


Then we are able to track the transfer of funds because we could, with 
the approval of the owners of the SWIFT Messaging System, find out how 
the money is being transferred and to whom.  What does the MSM do?  They 
tell Al Qaeda that we are tracing what money they are moving using SWIFT 
so Al Qaeda then starts using other means.


And now we are involved in another war (or semblance of war) and we are 
trying to find out about the rebels and also transmitting directions to 
those flying the planes over Libya and we have out super-secret CIA 
involved in clandestine operations.  What does the MSM do yet again?  
You got it.  They report on the front page in headlines that we have CIA 
agents operating in Libya and treating with the rebels.  As I said 
elsewhere why not just print the photos, appropriately enlarged, with 
arrows pointing at the CIA agents and identifying them and where they 
are located.  Only thing they did not do.


I find this totally disgusting.  At one time I was involved with the 
briefings and intelligence and operational planning based on what we 
were able to find out using our agents and friends.  Printing what was 
going on then would have resulted in the deaths of many people.  I don't 
think that part of the issue has changed at all.  These stories can 
result in the deaths of many people.  In fact I would wager that many of 
the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of the stories that 
the MSM printed.


On 03/31/2011 11:31 PM, Jonathan Ashley wrote:
The White House has not been trying to hide this. "...officials said 
Wednesday that President Obama 
 has issued a secret 
finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort 
to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html

On 03/31/2011 08:22 PM, dick thompson wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2 





--


  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
  freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more. 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why in the world would the NYT print this story - why not just point a finger at the CIA agents and tell the Libyans there they are

2011-03-31 Thread Jonathan Ashley 
The White House has not been trying to hide this. "...officials said 
Wednesday that President Obama 
 has issued a secret 
finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort 
to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html

On 03/31/2011 08:22 PM, dick thompson wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2 





--


 The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
 freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Why in the world would the NYT print this story - why not just point a finger at the CIA agents and tell the Libyans there they are

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

But Who Will Save Us From Nixon’s Environmental Policies?

2011-03-31 Thread MJ 


But Who Will Save Us From Nixon’s
Environmental Policies? 
Posted by
Laurence Vance on March 31, 2011
07:34 PM 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) hopes Republicans will regain control of the
Senate in 2012 because he needs to “save” his children and grandchildren
from the Obama administration’s environmental policies. But who will save
us from Nixon’s environmental policies? After all, it was Nixon the
Republican who gave us the EPA. Why didn’t the Republicans do anything
about the EPA when they controlled the presidency and the Congress? I
suspect it is because Republican congressman like Inhofe really have no
problem with the EPA in the first place.





-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: TRUMP ON BOO

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
I'd vote for Trump over any Demoshit on the planet for any office.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:

>
>
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/30/donald_trump_obama_possibly_a_muslim.html
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at 
> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Op-ed from today's Boston Globe

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/03/31/business_plan_1_take_money_2_run/


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

What the Patriot Act Does For You

2011-03-31 Thread MJ 



What the Patriot Act Does For
You
by
Philip Giraldi,
March 31, 2011
Incessant warmaking overseas will someday end when the United States runs
out of money or soldiers or both.  But less well understood is the
collateral damage here at home where the consequences of the global war
on terror will linger on in the form of a shattered constitution. 
The

Patriot Act is generally promoted as the principal legislative tool
being used to fight international terrorism.  It is, in reality, a
devastating and poorly conceived bit of legislation originally approved
just after 9/11.  It will soon be up for an extension in the US
Senate.  President Barack Obama, who criticized it while he was a
candidate but apparently has had a change of heart since that time,
favors its renewal.  Most members of Congress, few of whom have ever
read the entire act, want it renewed.  The mainstream media likes it
because who can resist patriotism?
That is the bad news.  But there is also some good news.
Libertarians, traditional conservatives, progressives, and even some tea
partiers are for the first time uniting to stop the extension. 
Senator Rand Paul led the charge in the Senate back in February,
resulting in a temporary 90 day continuation of key provisions of the act
that will expire in May.  Before that happens, the Patriot Act will
again be up for Senatorial approval but this time there will be an open
debate in front of the full Senate and under the scrutiny of the
media.  It will be the first time that has happened since
2001.  There will also be a roll call vote with each Senator having
to come down for or against.  It is an opportunity not to be missed
to roll back the tide of government intrusion in the life of every
citizen. 
Americans should know what the Patriot Act has done to each and every one
of us. Broadly speaking, the Patriot Act was designed to make it easier
for law enforcement to investigate US citizens and permanent residents by
easing legal restraints on records and activities that were hitherto
considered private or required a judge’s order to access.  The Act
has enjoyed bipartisan support since 2001.
Title 2 of the Patriot Act, entitled “Enhanced Surveillance Procedures,”
contains many of its most controversial aspects of the new law. 
Previously, obtaining information on foreigners residing in the United
States was carefully regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) court and the information generally had to be sought as part
of an actual criminal investigation.  Under the new law, it became
possible to investigate any foreign suspect as part of a law enforcement
effort to obtain foreign intelligence information even if there was no
evidence that a crime had been committed.  The difference is
critical as the former procedure required actual evidence of a crime
while the new procedure permitted investigation of just about anyone who
could plausibly be linked to a foreign suspect to obtain information,
allowing law enforcement to conduct wide ranging fishing
expeditions.  The new rules also lifted the requirement that law
enforcement demonstrate that the target of a FISA approved investigation
was a foreign national and a possible agent of a foreign government.
Anyone linked to the inquiry, even a US citizen, could become a person of
interest.
Title 2 also permitted any district court in the United States to issue
surveillance orders and search warrants in connection with proposed
terrorist investigations and the Act specifically included electronic
communications and voicemail records as subject to the warrants. 
Using the warrants, the FBI is able to access from the internet service
provider all records on a user, to include name, address, telephone
billing records, session details, and payment information to include bank
and credit card records.
Roving wiretaps are also authorized by the Patriot Act, permitting law
enforcement to obtain warrants that allow them to switch from one
communications medium to another if they believe that the target is
changing his method of communication to make monitoring him more
difficult.  This means that the FBI is empowered to tap multiple
phones or computer lines simultaneously based on one blanket
warrant.  Previously law enforcement had to show cause for the tap
and it was limited to the telephone or computer line specified in the
request.  Under Title 2 the FBI was also permitted to obtain
whatever tangible public records are available to assist in an
investigation.  This was the so-called library clause, where library
borrowing records could be accessed by the police. 
Title 4 and Title 8 of the Patriot Act deal with defining
terrorism.  The definition was broadened to include many criminal
acts hitherto regarded as non-terrorism, to include mass destruction,
assassination, kidnapping, intimidation, coercion, and
racketeering.  It also includes activities “dangerous to human
life.”  The definition of terrorist support activity was also made

Fwd: I love the Solutions of the Socialists to an Issue

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 



 Original Message 
Subject:I love the Solutions of the Socialists to an Issue
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:29:25 -0400
From:   Kerwin, Michael Contractor 
To: 	'jane pantel' , 'dick thompson' 





_http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14933985,00.html_

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: See You at Reason Tonight!

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
Thanks for registering for The STOSSEL Show viewing party tonight at
Reason.  Please feel free to bring guests!

   - *When:* Thursday, March 31st 8:30-11pm  (Show airs at 10pm)
   - *Where:* Reason HQ - 1747 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington D.C.
   20009

Just to whet your appetite, here is the promo for the
show.
Also, check out what Stossel had to
sayabout
his experience at the International Conference and what
Reason saw at the 2011 ISFLC .

All of us at SFL sincerely appreciate your support for the student movement
for liberty.  I hope that after tonight you will share the sentiment Stossel
expressed in his Townhall.com article:

*"After spending time with those students [at SFL], I feel better about the
future of America."*

If that is the case, consider joining SFL's OWL (Old Wise Libertarians)
Society
!

Sincerely & For Liberty,

Blayne Bennett
Communications Manager
Students For Liberty

www.studentsforliberty.org
"A Free Academy, A Free Society"

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: TRUMP ON BOO

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/30/donald_trump_obama_possibly_a_muslim.html

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: See You at Reason Tonight!

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
Thanks for registering for The STOSSEL Show viewing party tonight at
Reason.  Please feel free to bring guests!

   - *When:* Thursday, March 31st 8:30-11pm  (Show airs at 10pm)
   - *Where:* Reason HQ - 1747 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington D.C.
   20009

Just to whet your appetite, here is the promo for the
show.
Also, check out what Stossel had to
sayabout
his experience at the International Conference and what
Reason saw at the 2011 ISFLC .

All of us at SFL sincerely appreciate your support for the student movement
for liberty.  I hope that after tonight you will share the sentiment Stossel
expressed in his Townhall.com article:

*"After spending time with those students [at SFL], I feel better about the
future of America."*

If that is the case, consider joining SFL's OWL (Old Wise Libertarians)
Society
!

Sincerely & For Liberty,

Blayne Bennett
Communications Manager
Students For Liberty

www.studentsforliberty.org
"A Free Academy, A Free Society"

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: FYI

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/31/pentagon-art-60-gurgling-toad-sculpture

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

You Lie, Mr. President

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
Has Obarfo ever done anything else?


 You Lie, Mr.
President
*Harold * | March 31, 2011 at
7:55 am | Categories: Corruption
, Criminal
Activity ,
Debt,
Executive ,
Financial,
Libya ,
Pentagon,
Progressives ,
Propaganda,
Socialism/Communism , U.S.
Constitution  | URL:
http://wp.me/pmtmV-5H8

Justin Raimondo 3/30/2011 About Libya, and much else I couldn’t bear to
watch the President’s why-we’re-in-Libya speech as it was broadcast: it’s
Spring, after all, and my garden needs planting. Priorities, priorities,
priorities: so important, in politics and in life. We all have our
priorities: I have mine, and the President of the United States [...]

Read more of this post 

Add a comment to this
post
 







  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Express
yourself. Start a blog. 

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Libyan Rebel General Is From Fairfax, Virginia

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
I bet he gets his orders from Pres. Bendover Assinair.


 Libyan Rebel
General Is From Fairfax,
Virginia
*creeping * | March
31, 2011 at 11:45 AM | Tags: Creeping
Sharia,
islam ,
Jihad,
Legal ,
Life,
Media ,
Military,
Muslim ,
News,
Politics ,
Random,
Sharia ,
terrorism,
travel  | Categories:
Alerts , Creeping
Sharia,
FBI ,
Legal,
Media ,
Military,
News ,
Politics,
Religion ,
Sharia,
Stealth Jihad ,
Virginia| URL:
http://wp.me/pbU4v-8dI

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. via Libyan Rebel General Is From Fairfax, Virginia -
ABC News. Gen. Khalifa Haftr, the self-proclaimed commander of the Free
Libyan Army, does not dress for battle. On a recent day after his forces had
reclaimed much of the territory they had lost, the commander was wearing a
pinstripe suit and a [...]

Read more of this
post

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Express
yourself. Start a blog. 

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

NJ Gov. Chris Christie's Islamist 'problem' makes him a darling of the left wing media

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
 NJ Gov.
Chris Christie's Islamist 'problem' makes him a darling of the left wing
media
*barenakedislam 
* | March 31, 2011 at 1:02 PM | Categories:
EnemyWithin-American|
URL:
http://wp.me/peHnV-rNT

And another reason to make sure Chris Christie NEVER gets to Washington.
Christie defends his Muslim terrorist-supporting Judicial Appointee, "I am
proud to have nominated him." Liberal rag, THINK PROGRESS reports that this
week, considerable attention has been paid to presidential hopeful Herman
Cain’s statements – first reported by ThinkProgress — that he would not
[...]

Read more of this
post

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
by Email  feature.

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama administration doesn't care what Congress thinks about their handling of the Libyan "Kinetic Military Action"

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
Obarfo admin doesn't think.  At least not with a brain.


 Obama
administration doesn't care what Congress thinks about their handling of the
Libyan "Kinetic Military
Action"
*Scotty Starnes
*| March 31,
2011 at 4:15 PM | Tags:
Congress , Director of
National Intelligence James
Clapper,
Hillary Clinton
, James
Clapper , Joint
Chiefs Chairman Michael
Mullen,
President Obama
, Secretary
of Defense 
Gates,
Secretary of State
Clinton,
U.S. Constitution
|
Categories: Political
Issues  | URL:
http://wp.me/pvnFC-4UM

What else would you expect from a group who hates, and has circumvented, the
U.S. Constitution?

Politico  reports:

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy “A” team — led by Cabinet
secretaries Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates — failed to quiet criticism of
U.S. military action in Libya Wednesday during a pair of classified
briefings on Capitol Hill.

More than anything, the meetings served to underscore how little influence
Congress has in shaping the war.

Probably because our 'constitutional scholar' POTUS didn't go through
Congress, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Obama tends to contradict
himself a lot.

watch?v=3-5HWNpbQvQ

Lawmakers said they weren’t told much by Secretary of State Clinton,
Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen or Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper that they couldn’t read in the
newspaper or see on television.

*They said one dynamic was very clear: The administration doesn’t much care
what Congress thinks about the actions it’s taken so far.*

 Challenged on whether Obama overstepped his constitutional authority in
attacking Libya without congressional approval, *Clinton told lawmakers that
White House lawyers were OK with it and that Obama has no plans to seek an
endorsement from Congress*, attendees told POLITICO.

And, as if to add insult to injury, news broke during the House briefing
that *Obama had already signed an order authorizing covert action in support
of the rebels*. When asked about it after the first briefing, *House members
were unaware the president had taken that action*.

What is that word we call someone who believes they are above the rule of
law and doesn't have to answer to the people? DICTATOR!

Continue reading>>> 

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Express
yourself. Start a blog. 

*Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
http://subscribe.wordpress.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [AOSAnnouncements] DULUTH!

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jenn C


I just found out that Atlas Shrugged Part 1 will be coming to a theater in
Duluth!

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters#Georgia

HOORAY!

~Jenn

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the AOS
Announcements group. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
aosannouncements+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
and back to manning, you are TOO trusting

Obama's regime keeps him under lock and key for months and you trust them.

why?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:08 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:

> Keith,
>
> As to Assange Just what right does the USA have to tell a foreign
> national that is not within its territorial boundaries
> ANYTHING ?? Have you never given thought to the word "Sovereign"? It
> has actual physical boundary limitations that curtail its rights as a
> nation.
>
> Assange was neither in the boundaries nor subject to ANY US law. He
> was free to act so long as he broke no law where he was at the time or
> in his home country.
>
> As to his extradition trial... the facts of the act, in order to
> extraditable, must be illegal in BOTH countries, the one he is in and
> the one trying to get him back. Screwing without a condom is NOT
> illegal anywhere that I know of outside of Sweden.
>
>
> On Mar 31, 8:05 am, Keith In Köln  wrote:
> > I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I
> heard,
> > he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first
> of
> > May, 2011.
> >
> > Have you heard something to the contrary?
> >
> > With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial,
> extradition,
> > and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
> >
> > Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
> > revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,,
> and
> > probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles,
> (over
> > the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
> > purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months
> or
> > years previously.
> >
> > That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos
> > chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he was
> > told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive
> > nature and being classified.
> >
> > If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
> > referencing, then he should hang.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors  >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and
> apparently
> > > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the
> Constitution, we
> > > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
> >
> > > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
> > > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how
> to
> > > arrest or censor him.
> >
> > > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
> > > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom
> fighters
> > > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that
> be
> > > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around
> naked,
> > > and smearing their reputations.
> >
> > > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is
> no
> > > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out
> in
> > > front of him.
> >
> > > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people
> given
> > > access to alleged secrets?
> >
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Put Down the Potassium Iodide, Now!

2011-03-31 Thread Jonathan Ashley 

*Put Down the Potassium Iodide, Now!*
Mar 31, 2011 by James Hyde

People across the country are buying up potassium iodide (KI) any way 
they can. If you're one of 'em and you're about to pop or drink it to 
protect yourself from Japan's Fukushima's accident, stop! Put it down 
and listen up.


There is no need to take potassium iodide at this point in time. If you 
do, you could make yourself good and sick. In fact, poison control 
centers and hospitals here in the U.S. have been receiving increasing 
numbers of phone calls and ER visits from people suffering the side 
effects, which aren't pleasant.


The misconceptions about the on-going crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi 
nuclear plant are legion and are causing people here to panic and dose 
themselves with KI thinking they're protecting their entire bodies from 
radiation. They then wonder why they start throwing up.


While doom sayers claim that the Fukushima accident will be as bad as or 
worse than Chernobyl, they are comparing apples to elephants, and any 
need to be concerned, much less panicked, is vapor-based---at least at 
this point; no one knows what the final outcome will be.


That aside, the differences between the two incidents are radical. The 
Chernobyl reactor exploded, sending radiation spewing into the 
atmosphere. The problems at Fukushima involve meltdowns, two entirely 
different disaster scenarios. Meltdowns do not send massive amounts of 
radiation into the Jet Stream and spread high concentrations of fallout 
around the globe, according to physicists with whom I've checked.


Meltdowns tend to affect the areas in and around the plant's location 
and then move outward, but not globally. They can leak various types of 
radiation into the ground, air and water, but the fallout remains 
localized, as it is now. I say "tends to" because it's not impossible 
that radiation could reach a broader area if a full meltdown of one or 
more reactors occurs. But even then, the likelihood that any of it could 
hit us in appreciable concentrations just isn't likely.


In fact, what's arrived in California so far is one-billionth the amount 
of normal background radiation to which we are exposed daily. So to take 
KI prophylactically in the complete absence of radioactive iodine is 
analogous to taking full spectrum antibiotics when you hear that someone 
in the next town has pneumonia.


First, taking it now is wasting it. Second, there are some very 
unpleasant side effects. Third, if you take it now it'll dissipate by 
the time you may really need it. Fourth, it's as scarce as hens' teeth 
due to panic buying, and demand is climbing because people are 
misinformed. In fact, you're far more likely to need it for a dirty bomb 
than for anything coming from Japan.


Checking with the experts, I came across a statement issued by the 
executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health, Dr. 
Chris Urbina. He says, "There is no need for people to seek [note 
"seek,"  much less "take"] potassium iodide. Using potassium iodide when 
it is unnecessary could cause intestinal upset (vomiting, nausea and 
diarrhea), rashes, allergic reactions, soreness of teeth and gums, and 
inflammation of the salivary glands. Pregnant women and the developing 
fetus are particularly sensitive to the health risks of taking potassium 
iodide."


His statement was prompted by the discovery of trace amounts of 
radiation in Colorado rainwater (not ground water). A trace amount means 
that an element is detectable, but in amounts so small they can't be 
easily quantified (measured accurately).


Dr. Urbina's view is fully backed up by the EPA. According to that 
agency, "In a typical day, Americans receive doses of radiation from 
natural sources like rocks, bricks and the sun that are about 100,000 
times higher than what we have detected coming from Japan. For example, 
the levels we're seeing coming from Japan are 100,000 times lower than 
what you get from taking a roundtrip international flight."


It's critical that you understand that potassium iodide is not a 
chemical that will protect your whole body, nor will it protect you from 
all kinds of radiation. It is effective in protecting your thyroid and 
then only before you are exposed to radioactive iodine, which you 
haven't been and aren't likely to be.


The thyroid is your body's iodine magnet. If you know you're about to be 
exposed to radioactive iodine, taking KI forces the thyroid to "take it 
up," filling the gland so the radioactive stuff can't be absorbed.


So far, radioactive iodine has been found only in seawater near the 
Fukushima plant (not in the air), and while the concentrations are high, 
they are subsiding, and what is being measured has not spread very far 
into Pacific waters.


Currently, there is no chance that that radioactive iodine will arrive 
here via Pacific currents. The prevailing current heads toward Japan. 
When it reaches the archipelago, it splits. The stronger o

Re: Anne Applebaum on the New Alliance and the Libyan Situation

2011-03-31 Thread plainolamerican 
For the first time since Suez, America is taking a back seat to
Britain
and France
---
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7003-16.cfm

On Mar 31, 11:05 am, dick thompson  wrote:
> e
> The Spectator 
>
>   The new alliance
>
> Anne Applebaum
> 
> Saturday, 26th March 2011
>
> For the first time since Suez, America is taking a back seat to Britain
> and France in a military operation
>
> 'Freedom fries,' served instead of French fries back in 2003, are no
> longer on the menu in Washington DC. French wine, out of fashion after
> Jacques Chirac refused to join our 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq,
> is no longer shunned. Au contraire. In one Washington restaurant last
> Saturday night, someone at my table raised a toast to the new leaders of
> the free world: 'Vive la France!' What else could we do? Our president
> was on his way to Brazil. Over in Old Europe, the President of France
> and his new best friend, the British Prime Minister, had just put
> themselves in charge of a new 'coalition of the willing' in Libya.
>
> As I write, the ultimate goals and even the composition of this
> brand-new, ad hoc international grouping are still unclear. But the
> circumstances it reflects are perfectly clear. The United States of
> America is still prepared to join the rest of what we used to call 'the
> West' in policing the world, especially where the aims are entirely
> 'humanitarian' and no one will be sending ground troops. We'll even lend
> you our logistics, communications and satellite data which are, quite
> frankly, a lot better than yours. But we aren't in charge, at least in
> public. And we aren't going to stick around very long either, and I hope
> you know it.
>
> Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, this ambivalence does not
> simply reflect the nature of our current president. For all I know,
> Barack Obama may very well be indecisive, pathologically pacifist and
> uncomfortable with American power. He might even subconsciously harbour
> anti-imperialist and anti-British sentiments, inherited from the Kenyan
> father he scarcely knew, as some bloggers (who obviously know him better
> than the rest of us) have declared. But if that is the case, then maybe
> a lot of Americans have Kenyan fathers they scarcely knew as well.
>
> There are plenty of people in Washington who do want the Obama
> administration to stop Gaddafi. From the liberal interventionists ---
> Bill Clinton, John Kerry --- to the familiar voices on the right ---
> John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich --- a small flock of writers
> and politicians did indeed urge him to intervene. But since the bombing
> campaign began, we haven't heard a unified chorus of support for 'our
> troops', as we did following air strikes in Serbia, Afghanistan, and
> even Iraq. There have been no bipartisan cheers for the Commander in
> Chief either.
>
> In fact, both political parties are deeply divided, and not in any
> predictable or obvious way. Some Democrats who supported the war in Iraq
> are now against the bombing of Libya and vice versa. The Republicans are
> all over the map. Richard Lugar, the top-ranking Republican on the
> Senate foreign relations committee --- and the living embodiment of the
> words 'moderate' and 'centrist' --- is openly sceptical. The Tea
> Partiers are loudly critical. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, is
> sitting on the fence, torn between America's 'moral obligation' to help
> the oppressed and what he's called the president's failure to 'define
> for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in
> Libya is'.
>
> Perhaps because they suspect this ambivalence is shared by both the
> public and the military, the administration isn't sounding much more
> enthusiastic. The president himself has been AWOL all week in South
> America, which is probably just as well: if he doesn't say anything,
> everyone's expectations will remain low. The Secretary of State has let
> it be known that she favoured intervention, but has nevertheless stated
> that the US 'will not lead'. The defence secretary, who publicly
> complained about the hazards of no-fly zones just last week, has
> reassuringly declared that the United States will be handing military
> control of the mission over to Nato 'in a matter of days'.
>
> Which brings us to the heart of the problem: this isn't a Nato mission
> --- and if it becomes one, it will be over the angry protests of
> Germany, Turkey and a clutch of others. But although some have called
> this Libyan campaign a return to the Clinton era --- a time when
> Americans enthusiastically led idealistic excursions into Bosnia and
> Somalia --- this isn't the 1990s either.
>
> In fact, there is an earlier precedent here, one which might be more
> relevant. Think about it: America is in a grumpy, isolationist mood.
> France and Britain are waving their sabres. The Euro

Tennis Sheds Clothing Layer To Boost Viewership

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
[image: CAP News]
   Jennifer Love Hewitt sports the latest in women's tennis apparel
Tennis Sheds Clothing Layer To Boost Viewership

ST PETERSBURG, Fla. (CAP) - In an effort to bolster involvement and increase
brand awareness, the women's tennis governing body has decided to remove a
layer of clothing from standard female competitive attire. The proposed new
rules are being implemented with the hope of reaching out to a new
generation of tennis viewer who might not otherwise have expressed any
interest in the sport.

"At this point, we've determined it's time to ditch the short
skirty-things," said Women's Tennis Association CEO Stacey Allaster.
"They've been getting ridiculously shorter as it is and we all know what's
under there, so who are we fooling, really?

"It's 2011. Let's show 'em what women's tennis is all about," added
Allaster.
  SHARE

[image: 
Facebook]
[image:
Reddit]
[image:
Google 
Buzz]
[image:
NetVibes]
[image:
Mixx]
[image:
Twitter]
[image:
StumbleUpon]
[image:
Digg]
[image:
FriendFeed]
[image:
Yahoo 
Buzz]
[image:
Linked 
In]
[image:
Technorati]

sports NEWS

NFL Owners Cave To Crying Players Union
Reps

Cavaliers Anxious To Start Next Losing
Streak

Patriots Heading To Super Bowl "Just In
Case"

Panthers Lauded For Fielding Special Needs
Players

Hall Of Fame Honors First Annoying Cell Phone
Guy

The WTA is taking its queue from beach volleyball, which has long been the
standard for skimpy women's uniforms and in fact recently announced plans to
replace bikini tops with pasties beginning this summer. While the WTA is
unlikely to endorse a move that bold, a $750 million marketing study
commissioned by the United States Tennis Association found a number of
smaller changes the sport could implement to garner interest.

"The current fleet of women in tennis is fantastic - young, supple, sexy.
But they need bigger breasts," said Garnet Group Research spokesperson Gil
Harvey. "Don't get me wrong, athlete breasts are great, but the sport needs
more bouncing. More bouncing means more viewers and more viewers means more
money."

The Garnet Group study also recommended foregoing the typical tank top with
"red lacy things" that would provide the same level of support and
protection as current outfits but be more titillating to the viewer.
Additionally, with regard to the strict clothing traditions observed at
Wimbledon, the study noted that "they said it had to be white, but they
didn't say it couldn't be wet."

"Our goal is to have teenage boys locking themselves in their bedrooms with
the U.S. Open," said USTA President Mary Carillo. "Granted America hasn't
really had a hottie there since Ashley Harkleroad, but if you're alone in
your bedroom with Jelena Dokic, do you really care what country she's from?"

Reaction from the tennis community has been overwhelmingly supportive, with
many of the sport's sexier stars disappointed they aren't scrapping clothing
entirely. Europeans have long hel

Highly Contagious AIDS-Like Disease Spreading in China

2011-03-31 Thread Travis 
Just FYI.





http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/highly-contagious-aids-like-disease-spreading-in-china-53864.html

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Jonathan Ashley 

Keith,

I am making this challenge precisely because you are a lawyer. Can you 
factually prove that the United States of America actually exists?


You cannot hear it, see it, smell it, touch it, or taste it. Its alleged 
boundaries are not visible from any un-doctored image from space I have 
ever seen.


Sure the statists who pretend they represent the interests of the United 
States of America (members of Congress, the President, and the far too 
many bozos appointed to government positions by the bozo-in-chief) can 
be heard incessantly, seen far too often, smelled (if you should venture 
too close to them), touched (not sure why anyone would desire to do so), 
and (for those with no discernment and who are so inclined) tasted. The 
United States of America fails every sensory test.


So how can you prove anything "belonged to the United States"?

Even if one were to assume anything published by Wikileaks originally 
belonged to the United States government, you - being a lawyer - should 
know that U.S. federal government works are not eligible for copyright 
protection (17 USC 105). So, how can anyone be found guilty of 
publishing that which upon its creation is in the public domain?


"Might Makes Right": "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer 
what they must."


On 03/31/2011 10:08 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:

Hey Mark!
Assange had no right to disseminate ANYTHING that belonged to the 
United States,  (/e.g.;/ you and I)  and I don't give a crap where he 
was propped up at.
In this case, "MIght Makes Right"; and Assange was warned a number of 
times NOT to publish information that didn't belong to him, but 
rather, belonged to us.



On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE 
mailto:markmka...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Keith,

As to Assange Just what right does the USA have to tell a foreign
national that is not within its territorial boundaries
ANYTHING ?? Have you never given thought to the word "Sovereign"? It
has actual physical boundary limitations that curtail its rights as a
nation.

Assange was neither in the boundaries nor subject to ANY US law. He
was free to act so long as he broke no law where he was at the time or
in his home country.

As to his extradition trial... the facts of the act, in order to
extraditable, must be illegal in BOTH countries, the one he is in and
the one trying to get him back. Screwing without a condom is NOT
illegal anywhere that I know of outside of Sweden.


On Mar 31, 8:05 am, Keith In Köln mailto:keithinta...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The
last I heard,
> he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or
the first of
> May, 2011.
>
> Have you heard something to the contrary?
>
> With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial,
extradition,
> and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
>
> Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
> revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks
site,, and
> probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various
articles, (over
> the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
> purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in
PoliticalForum months or
> years previously.
>
> That's not the point.  It was classified information that these
two bozos
> chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long
after he was
> told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its
sensitive
> nature and being classified.
>
> If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
> referencing, then he should hang.
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors
mailto:majors.br...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and
apparently
> > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the
Constitution, we
> > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
>
> > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex
without a
> > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure
out how to
> > arrest or censor him.
>
> > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or
theft, or
> > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world
freedom fighters
> > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why
can't that be
> > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade
around naked,
> > and smearing their reputations.
>
> > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says
there is no
> > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone
laid it out in
> > front of him.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

2011-03-31 Thread Jonathan Ashley 

John,

I find it enlightening that you won't define what you think a "Patriot" 
is. I also find it disturbing that you do not deny being "an agent 
provocateur for the CIA."


On 03/31/2011 10:20 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  Your seeking answers to items of common knowledge shows you
to be motivated to destroy, not save, the USA.  The entire tone of my
New Constitution—over 50% of which has been posted—is pro power to the
individual citizens, and con power to those biased groups that so
regularly bypass the democratic ideal of one-person-one-vote, fairly
counted.  You are spinning your wheels.  I won't be answering any
questions from those with a clearly negative bent.  — J. A. A. —
On Mar 31, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley
wrote:

John,

Once again you have failed to answer even a single question posed to you.

That you won't provide a definition for what you think a "Patriot" is
says volumes. I am beginning to think your are an agent provocateur for
the CIA.

On 03/30/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:








Jonathan:  From the tone of your first reply, weeks ago, I knew you
were a negative person in talking about THE most positive for-the-
people document ever written.  There isn't a single person in the USA
with enough status as a patriot to have me explain even one sentence
of my New Constitution.  I've written such to be understandable by
ordinary Americans.  Too many important areas of "the law" were hidden
in codes of laws, out-of-sight of the man on the street needing to
know what laws say.  My New Constitution, alone, could run the country
without any other law being required to be written.  When the majority
of the man-on-the-street know my document, no policeman nor judge will
violate their rights with impunity.  Knowledge is POWER!  That's what
my New Constitution gives to the People!  �  J. A. Armistead �
Patriot
On Mar 29, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Ashley
wrote:

John,
1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
that word.
2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.
3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
convoluted than your vain attempt.
I would start with a Preamble such as this:
  With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
  another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
  Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
  herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
  of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
  within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
  infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.
I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
population equates "bad" with "good."
4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."
On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend
the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution.  My bet is that
you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
my already-in-place New Constitution.  �  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley
wrote:

John,
I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
It is both wordy and convoluted.
Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
   * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
 interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for
 influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
 accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26  
words.

   * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
 prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
 Judicial system.
In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
   * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
 Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
 Years and/or deported.

"'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
saying except in a desperate case. It

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

2011-03-31 Thread NoEinstein 
Jonathan:  Your seeking answers to items of common knowledge shows you
to be motivated to destroy, not save, the USA.  The entire tone of my
New Constitution—over 50% of which has been posted—is pro power to the
individual citizens, and con power to those biased groups that so
regularly bypass the democratic ideal of one-person-one-vote, fairly
counted.  You are spinning your wheels.  I won't be answering any
questions from those with a clearly negative bent.  — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 31, 11:55 am, Jonathan Ashley 
wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again you have failed to answer even a single question posed to you.
>
> That you won't provide a definition for what you think a "Patriot" is
> says volumes. I am beginning to think your are an agent provocateur for
> the CIA.
>
> On 03/30/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  From the tone of your first reply, weeks ago, I knew you
> > were a negative person in talking about THE most positive for-the-
> > people document ever written.  There isn't a single person in the USA
> > with enough status as a patriot to have me explain even one sentence
> > of my New Constitution.  I've written such to be understandable by
> > ordinary Americans.  Too many important areas of "the law" were hidden
> > in codes of laws, out-of-sight of the man on the street needing to
> > know what laws say.  My New Constitution, alone, could run the country
> > without any other law being required to be written.  When the majority
> > of the man-on-the-street know my document, no policeman nor judge will
> > violate their rights with impunity.  Knowledge is POWER!  That's what
> > my New Constitution gives to the People!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �
> > Patriot
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Ashley
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> 1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
> >> that word.
>
> >> 2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
> >> merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
> >> quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.
>
> >> 3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
> >> since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
> >> existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
> >> take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
> >> convoluted than your vain attempt.
>
> >> I would start with a Preamble such as this:
>
> >>      With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
> >>      another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
> >>      Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
> >>      herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
> >>      of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
> >>      within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
> >>      infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.
>
> >> I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
> >> because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
> >> remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
> >> population equates "bad" with "good."
>
> >> 4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."
>
> >> On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend
> >>> the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
> >>> Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution.  My bet is that
> >>> you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
> >>> my already-in-place New Constitution.  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>> On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley
> >>> wrote:
>  John,
>  I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
>  It is both wordy and convoluted.
>  Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
>        * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
>          interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or 
>  justices for
>          influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
>          accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
>  It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26  
>  words.
>        * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
>          prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
>          Judicial system.
>  In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
>  remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
>        * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
>          Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
>          Years and/or deported.
>

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Mark 
Again I ask. what right does the US have outside its borders without UN
permission ??[?]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:

> Hey Mark!
>
> Assange had no right to disseminate ANYTHING that belonged to the United
> States,  (*e.g.;* you and I)  and I don't give a crap where he was propped
> up at.
>
> In this case, "MIght Makes Right"; and Assange was warned a number of times
> NOT to publish information that didn't belong to him, but rather, belonged
> to us.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE 
> wrote:
>
>> Keith,
>>
>> As to Assange Just what right does the USA have to tell a foreign
>> national that is not within its territorial boundaries
>> ANYTHING ?? Have you never given thought to the word "Sovereign"? It
>> has actual physical boundary limitations that curtail its rights as a
>> nation.
>>
>> Assange was neither in the boundaries nor subject to ANY US law. He
>> was free to act so long as he broke no law where he was at the time or
>> in his home country.
>>
>> As to his extradition trial... the facts of the act, in order to
>> extraditable, must be illegal in BOTH countries, the one he is in and
>> the one trying to get him back. Screwing without a condom is NOT
>> illegal anywhere that I know of outside of Sweden.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 31, 8:05 am, Keith In Köln  wrote:
>> > I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I
>> heard,
>> > he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first
>> of
>> > May, 2011.
>> >
>> > Have you heard something to the contrary?
>> >
>> > With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial,
>> extradition,
>> > and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
>> >
>> > Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
>> > revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,,
>> and
>> > probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles,
>> (over
>> > the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
>> > purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum
>> months or
>> > years previously.
>> >
>> > That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two
>> bozos
>> > chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he
>> was
>> > told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its
>> sensitive
>> > nature and being classified.
>> >
>> > If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
>> > referencing, then he should hang.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors > >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and
>> apparently
>> > > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the
>> Constitution, we
>> > > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
>> >
>> > > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
>> > > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how
>> to
>> > > arrest or censor him.
>> >
>> > > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft,
>> or
>> > > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom
>> fighters
>> > > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't
>> that be
>> > > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around
>> naked,
>> > > and smearing their reputations.
>> >
>> > > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is
>> no
>> > > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out
>> in
>> > > front of him.
>> >
>> > > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people
>> given
>> > > access to alleged secrets?
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>> >
>> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>
>  --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.




-- 
*Mark M. Kahle H.*
*
*
*Presidente, Piroliticos del Sur*
*440 Mtrs Este del Cementerio*
*Uvita de Osa, Puntarenas *
*2743-8142, 8607-7648*
*markmka...@gmail.com*

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

Orders From On High Obeyed by Military!

2011-03-31 Thread MJ 



Orders From On High Obeyed by
Military!
by Gary D. Barnett
Like all the members of the military profession, I never
had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties
remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
This is typical with everyone in the military service. -- Smedley
Butler, Major General USMC
Is there any order given to U.S. military personnel that is not obeyed?
Is there anyone that the U.S. military won’t kill (murder) when given an
order? Is there any order that any in the U.S. military thinks is
unconstitutional, considering that all in the military have taken an oath
to uphold that set of rules? Will there ever be an order that U.S. troops
will disobey? As far as I can tell, the answer to all these questions is
no!
There has been a lot of talk lately about the war against Libya being
unconstitutional, but one has to wonder why these questions are coming
now? It certainly isn’t due to any sudden moral awakening by the
politicians or most of their constituents, because every single war since
WWII has been unconstitutional. And in my opinion, every single war since
the Revolution has been completely unjust and unnecessary. If I am
correct in my opinion, that means that every order to kill, maim, occupy,
and destroy those in other lands obeyed by American forces has been not
only unconstitutional but also immoral. 
This blind following of orders by all U.S. military forces scares the
living daylights out of me. Am I alone in this thinking, or do others in
this country understand the implications of this policy? What if there is
civil unrest here at home? What if due to the destruction of our economy
by our own government, American citizens take to the streets as is
happening now in Africa and the Middle East? Does anyone honestly believe
that U.S. troops given orders to shoot to kill their own countrymen won’t
do so? Believing that it would be different if it happened on our own
soil would be a fool’s game. 
Given the buildup and militarization of police, the expanded powers of
the Department of Homeland Security, and the domestic deployment of
federal troops via the Army service component of NORTHCOM, plans are
already in the works for military control of U.S. citizens. In my
opinion, any orders given by military leaders to fire on Americans would
be followed just as all other orders are followed. There would probably
be more dissent than is now present, but there would be plenty willing to
do the bidding of their masters. Considering that they are now willing,
and have been in the past,
(remember Vietnam)
to murder, rape, and mutilate women and children, why would any think
they aren’t capable of gunning down American dissenters? 
The United States is currently in three unconstitutional and unholy wars
in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. U.S. troops are also causing havoc and
killing innocents in several other countries as well, and threatening
even more. But are any orders being ignored or disobeyed? Of course not!
Not only are these gruesome orders to war against those who have never
harmed us being followed, but they are being followed with gusto. Just
consider recent

reports of cold-blooded murder and mutilations of innocent Afghans by
U.S. troops who are called "kill squads." These aren’t the only
atrocities being committed by U.S. soldiers, just the latest in a brutal
string of events that are seemingly never-ending.
Acts of terrorism perpetrated against other countries by the U.S.
military and its willing and parasitic order takers in uniform are being
spread like wildfire, and the orders keep coming and the killing
continues. Just today this story titled

"Lejeune Marines prepare to deploy off Libyan coast"
appeared out of North Carolina. Camp Lejeune Marines were given orders to
go to Libya, and they accepted those orders with pride, and offered no
questions as to the justness of the cause. 
The wife of Sergeant Lewis Cochran, a Marine being deployed to Libya,
said she "is confident her Marine is prepared for the mission."
Sgt. Cochran said, "Whatever the president decides, he’s ready. My
Marines, all the Marines the whole PLT is ready to go." This kind of
statement and sentiment of course is common, and is telling of the
mindset of those willing to do anything they are told to do regardless of
the moral implications. This willing behavior is pathetic in nature, and
serves no purpose other than to help those in power advance their
wickedness. This literally sickens me! I believe exactly as did Herbert
Spencer when he said:

"When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order,
asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are
shot themselves." 
The bottom line is depressing. We now live in a country where wars
of aggression, occupation, torture, and murder against those who never
attacked or harmed us is common. These wars are now started on the say so
of one man, and those under his command follow his order

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread MJ 


 
Assange had no right to
disseminate ANYTHING that belonged to the United States, 
(e.g.; you and I)  and I don't give a crap where he was
propped up at.  
 
In this case, "MIght
Makes Right"; and Assange was warned a number of times NOT to
publish information that didn't belong to him, but rather, belonged to
us.
What made this 'US Property'?
Regard$,
--MJ
... where corruption and public crimes are not
carefully opposed, and severely punished, neither liberty nor security
can possibly subsist. -- Cato's Letters (1721)





-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Keith In Köln 
Hey Mark!

Assange had no right to disseminate ANYTHING that belonged to the United
States,  (*e.g.;* you and I)  and I don't give a crap where he was propped
up at.

In this case, "MIght Makes Right"; and Assange was warned a number of times
NOT to publish information that didn't belong to him, but rather, belonged
to us.



On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:

> Keith,
>
> As to Assange Just what right does the USA have to tell a foreign
> national that is not within its territorial boundaries
> ANYTHING ?? Have you never given thought to the word "Sovereign"? It
> has actual physical boundary limitations that curtail its rights as a
> nation.
>
> Assange was neither in the boundaries nor subject to ANY US law. He
> was free to act so long as he broke no law where he was at the time or
> in his home country.
>
> As to his extradition trial... the facts of the act, in order to
> extraditable, must be illegal in BOTH countries, the one he is in and
> the one trying to get him back. Screwing without a condom is NOT
> illegal anywhere that I know of outside of Sweden.
>
>
> On Mar 31, 8:05 am, Keith In Köln  wrote:
> > I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I
> heard,
> > he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first
> of
> > May, 2011.
> >
> > Have you heard something to the contrary?
> >
> > With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial,
> extradition,
> > and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
> >
> > Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
> > revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,,
> and
> > probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles,
> (over
> > the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
> > purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months
> or
> > years previously.
> >
> > That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos
> > chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he was
> > told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive
> > nature and being classified.
> >
> > If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
> > referencing, then he should hang.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors  >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and
> apparently
> > > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the
> Constitution, we
> > > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
> >
> > > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
> > > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how
> to
> > > arrest or censor him.
> >
> > > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
> > > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom
> fighters
> > > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that
> be
> > > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around
> naked,
> > > and smearing their reputations.
> >
> > > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is
> no
> > > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out
> in
> > > front of him.
> >
> > > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people
> given
> > > access to alleged secrets?
> >
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread THE ANNOINTED ONE 
Keith,

As to Assange Just what right does the USA have to tell a foreign
national that is not within its territorial boundaries
ANYTHING ?? Have you never given thought to the word "Sovereign"? It
has actual physical boundary limitations that curtail its rights as a
nation.

Assange was neither in the boundaries nor subject to ANY US law. He
was free to act so long as he broke no law where he was at the time or
in his home country.

As to his extradition trial... the facts of the act, in order to
extraditable, must be illegal in BOTH countries, the one he is in and
the one trying to get him back. Screwing without a condom is NOT
illegal anywhere that I know of outside of Sweden.


On Mar 31, 8:05 am, Keith In Köln  wrote:
> I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I heard,
> he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first of
> May, 2011.
>
> Have you heard something to the contrary?
>
> With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial, extradition,
> and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
>
> Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
> revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,, and
> probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles, (over
> the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
> purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months or
> years previously.
>
> That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos
> chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he was
> told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive
> nature and being classified.
>
> If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
> referencing, then he should hang.
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and apparently
> > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the Constitution, we
> > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
>
> > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
> > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how to
> > arrest or censor him.
>
> > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
> > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom fighters
> > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that be
> > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around naked,
> > and smearing their reputations.
>
> > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is no
> > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out in
> > front of him.
>
> > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people given
> > access to alleged secrets?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Bambi and the energy policy

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 
The Alaskan commenters have a better hold on the energy policy than 
the president or the Congressmen from Alaska.  They see this speech for 
what it is, an attempt to fool the people yet again and do nothing.  
What part of letting Brazil (and Soros and his investments) drill in the 
US area of the Gulf of Mexico and not permitting US companies to drill 
in our many oil fields do the Obama supporters not get.  The longer this 
creep remains president (and let us hope that the fools who fell for his 
krep in 2008 - and they truly were fools) the worse for the country.  We 
cannot afford to have this imbecile re-elected to cause yet more damage 
to the nation.



http://www.adn.com/2011/03/30/1783412/dc-delegation-calls-for-action.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Anne Applebaum on the New Alliance and the Libyan Situation

2011-03-31 Thread dick thompson 

e
The Spectator 


 The new alliance

Anne Applebaum 


Saturday, 26th March 2011

For the first time since Suez, America is taking a back seat to Britain 
and France in a military operation


'Freedom fries,' served instead of French fries back in 2003, are no 
longer on the menu in Washington DC. French wine, out of fashion after 
Jacques Chirac refused to join our 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq, 
is no longer shunned. Au contraire. In one Washington restaurant last 
Saturday night, someone at my table raised a toast to the new leaders of 
the free world: 'Vive la France!' What else could we do? Our president 
was on his way to Brazil. Over in Old Europe, the President of France 
and his new best friend, the British Prime Minister, had just put 
themselves in charge of a new 'coalition of the willing' in Libya.


As I write, the ultimate goals and even the composition of this 
brand-new, ad hoc international grouping are still unclear. But the 
circumstances it reflects are perfectly clear. The United States of 
America is still prepared to join the rest of what we used to call 'the 
West' in policing the world, especially where the aims are entirely 
'humanitarian' and no one will be sending ground troops. We'll even lend 
you our logistics, communications and satellite data which are, quite 
frankly, a lot better than yours. But we aren't in charge, at least in 
public. And we aren't going to stick around very long either, and I hope 
you know it.


Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, this ambivalence does not 
simply reflect the nature of our current president. For all I know, 
Barack Obama may very well be indecisive, pathologically pacifist and 
uncomfortable with American power. He might even subconsciously harbour 
anti-imperialist and anti-British sentiments, inherited from the Kenyan 
father he scarcely knew, as some bloggers (who obviously know him better 
than the rest of us) have declared. But if that is the case, then maybe 
a lot of Americans have Kenyan fathers they scarcely knew as well.


There are plenty of people in Washington who do want the Obama 
administration to stop Gaddafi. From the liberal interventionists --- 
Bill Clinton, John Kerry --- to the familiar voices on the right --- 
John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich --- a small flock of writers 
and politicians did indeed urge him to intervene. But since the bombing 
campaign began, we haven't heard a unified chorus of support for 'our 
troops', as we did following air strikes in Serbia, Afghanistan, and 
even Iraq. There have been no bipartisan cheers for the Commander in 
Chief either.


In fact, both political parties are deeply divided, and not in any 
predictable or obvious way. Some Democrats who supported the war in Iraq 
are now against the bombing of Libya and vice versa. The Republicans are 
all over the map. Richard Lugar, the top-ranking Republican on the 
Senate foreign relations committee --- and the living embodiment of the 
words 'moderate' and 'centrist' --- is openly sceptical. The Tea 
Partiers are loudly critical. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, is 
sitting on the fence, torn between America's 'moral obligation' to help 
the oppressed and what he's called the president's failure to 'define 
for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in 
Libya is'.


Perhaps because they suspect this ambivalence is shared by both the 
public and the military, the administration isn't sounding much more 
enthusiastic. The president himself has been AWOL all week in South 
America, which is probably just as well: if he doesn't say anything, 
everyone's expectations will remain low. The Secretary of State has let 
it be known that she favoured intervention, but has nevertheless stated 
that the US 'will not lead'. The defence secretary, who publicly 
complained about the hazards of no-fly zones just last week, has 
reassuringly declared that the United States will be handing military 
control of the mission over to Nato 'in a matter of days'.


Which brings us to the heart of the problem: this isn't a Nato mission 
--- and if it becomes one, it will be over the angry protests of 
Germany, Turkey and a clutch of others. But although some have called 
this Libyan campaign a return to the Clinton era --- a time when 
Americans enthusiastically led idealistic excursions into Bosnia and 
Somalia --- this isn't the 1990s either.


In fact, there is an earlier precedent here, one which might be more 
relevant. Think about it: America is in a grumpy, isolationist mood. 
France and Britain are waving their sabres. The European Union and Nato 
are, so far, nowhere to be seen --- it's as if they didn't exist. In its 
essence, this is an Anglo-French mission, with a few others trailing 
along behind and some fluctuating but unreliable international support. 
The only precedent I can thi

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

2011-03-31 Thread Jonathan Ashley 

John,

Once again you have failed to answer even a single question posed to you.

That you won't provide a definition for what you think a "Patriot" is 
says volumes. I am beginning to think your are an agent provocateur for 
the CIA.


On 03/30/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  From the tone of your first reply, weeks ago, I knew you
were a negative person in talking about THE most positive for-the-
people document ever written.  There isn't a single person in the USA
with enough status as a patriot to have me explain even one sentence
of my New Constitution.  I've written such to be understandable by
ordinary Americans.  Too many important areas of "the law" were hidden
in codes of laws, out-of-sight of the man on the street needing to
know what laws say.  My New Constitution, alone, could run the country
without any other law being required to be written.  When the majority
of the man-on-the-street know my document, no policeman nor judge will
violate their rights with impunity.  Knowledge is POWER!  That's what
my New Constitution gives to the People!  —  J. A. Armistead —
Patriot

On Mar 29, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Ashley
wrote:

John,

1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
that word.

2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.

3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
convoluted than your vain attempt.

I would start with a Preamble such as this:

 With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
 another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
 Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
 herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
 of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
 within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
 infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.

I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
population equates "bad" with "good."

4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."

On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:








Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend
the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution.  My bet is that
you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
my already-in-place New Constitution.  �  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley
wrote:

John,
I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
It is both wordy and convoluted.
Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
  * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for
influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26  
words.

  * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
Judicial system.
In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
  * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
Years and/or deported.

"'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk
or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton

On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he
utters.  There are no moderators on this group.  So, he, MJ and Mark
hang-out here because my readership is high.  Those who love America
are invited to attack these socialist-communists.  I have better
things to be doing.  Thanks!  � J. A. A. �
On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley
wrote:

John,
If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding
the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling
forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might

Re: The Most World's Important Unanswered Historical Question: "What Changed in 1800?"

2011-03-31 Thread THE ANNOINTED ONE 
Just not true a revolution started in 1795 !!!  Building costs and
time were cut by half, the base product for barter was done away
with..economic bases changed trade to the "WEST" boomed.

There was started a resale market for used houses and buildings in
rural areas.. (the standard prior to this miracle was that buildings
were burned down to retrieve this item). Thomas Jefferson made a
fortune from this new invention. People actually started reading in
the evenings rather than spending all their time making this valuable
item by the fireplace both for themselves and for trade.















The automatic nail cutter was  born... until now all were hand made.






On Mar 31, 9:14 am, MJ  wrote:
> The Most World's Important Unanswered Historical Question: "What Changed in 
> 1800?"Gary North
> March 30, 2011
> The economic historian Gregory Clark summarizes a remarkable fact.. . . there 
> is no sign of any improvement in material conditions for settled agrarian 
> societies as we approach 1800. There was no gain between 1800 BC and AD 1800 
> -- a period of 3,600 years. Indeed the wages for east and south Asia and 
> southern Europe for 1800 stand out by their low level compared to those for 
> ancient Babylonia, ancient Greece, or Roman Egypt.Then, around 1800, this all 
> changed. Economic growth began: about 2% per annum, compounded. That brought 
> our world into existence.
> We are the great beneficiaries of a process that few people understand. No 
> one has explained cogently how it came into existence. A rate of growth so 
> slow that no one could perceive it at the time has created a world that would 
> have been inconceivable in 1800.
> This change has taken a mere three generations. This is simply inconceivable.
> My daughter gave me a great Christmas present in 2010. She scheduled an 
> appointment for me to interview a man in her church. His name is Lyon Tyler. 
> My daughter grew up in a city named after his grandfather: Tyler, Texas. His 
> grandfather was John Tyler, the tenth President of the United States. He 
> signed the law that admitted Texas into the Union in 1845.
> John Tyler was born in 1790, the first full year of Washington's Presidency.
> Lyon Tyler's younger brother, also alive, uses the ultimate one-upsmanship 
> one-liner I have ever heard. After chatting for a while with a stranger, he 
> springs it on him."As my grandfather once said to Thomas Jefferson. . . ."You 
> can try to top that one. You won't succeed.
> In 1889, the first volume of Henry Adams' history of the administrations of 
> Jefferson and Madison appeared. Adams was the grandson of President John 
> Quincy Adams. He began his book with this paragraph.According to the census 
> of 1800, the United States of America contained 5,308,483 persons. In the 
> same year the British Islands contained upwards of fifteen millions; the 
> French Republic, more than twenty-seven millions. Nearly one fifth of the 
> American people were negro slaves; the true political population consisted of 
> four and a half million free white or less than one million able-bodied 
> males, on whose shoulders fell the burden of a continent. Even after two 
> centuries of struggle the land was still untamed; forest covered every 
> portion, except here and there a strip of cultivated soil; the minerals lay 
> undisturbed in their rocky beds, and more than two thirds of the people clung 
> to the seaboard within fifty miles of tide-water, where alone the wants of 
> civilized life could be supplied. The centre of population rested within 
> eighteen miles of Baltimore, north and east of Washington. Except in 
> political arrangement, the interior was little more civilized than in 1750, 
> and was not much easier to penetrate than when La Salle and Hennepin found 
> their way to the Mississippi more than a century before.The world of 1800 
> would have been recognizable to Socrates, except for the printed book. In 
> contrast, the world of 1889 would not have been recognizable to the young 
> John Tyler.
> By 1889, these post-1800 inventions had arrived: gas lighting, electric 
> lighting (arc light), the steam powered ship, the tin can, the macadamized 
> road, photography, the railroad, portland cement, the reaper, anesthesia, the 
> typewriter, the sewing machine, the Colt revolver, the telegraph, the wrench, 
> the safety pin, mass-produced newspapers, pasteurization, vulcanized rubber, 
> barbed wire, petroleum-based industry, dynamite, the telephone, Carnegie's 
> steel mills, the skyscraper, the internal combustion engine, the automobile, 
> and commercial electricity.
> So, as I move toward the day when I am a footnote rather than a participant, 
> I propose a thesis. One unanswered question above all others constitutes the 
> most important historical question in recorded history. Here it is:What 
> happened around the year 1800 in Great Britain that led to approximately 2% 
> per annum economic growth for the next two

The Most World's Important Unanswered Historical Question: "What Changed in 1800?"

2011-03-31 Thread MJ 



The Most World's Important
Unanswered Historical Question: "What Changed in 1800?"
Gary North
March 30, 2011
The economic historian Gregory Clark summarizes a remarkable fact.

. . . there is no sign of any improvement in material conditions for
settled agrarian societies as we approach 1800. There was no gain between
1800 BC and AD 1800 -- a period of 3,600 years. Indeed the wages for east
and south Asia and southern Europe for 1800 stand out by their low level
compared to those for ancient Babylonia, ancient Greece, or Roman Egypt.
Then, around 1800, this all changed. Economic growth began: about 2%
per annum, compounded. That brought our world into existence. 
We are the great beneficiaries of a process that few people understand.
No one has explained cogently how it came into existence. A rate of
growth so slow that no one could perceive it at the time has created a
world that would have been inconceivable in 1800.
This change has taken a mere three generations. This is simply
inconceivable.
My daughter gave me a great Christmas present in 2010. She scheduled an
appointment for me to interview a man in her church. His name is Lyon
Tyler. My daughter grew up in a city named after his grandfather: Tyler,
Texas. His grandfather was John Tyler, the tenth President of the United
States. He signed the law that admitted Texas into the Union in
1845.
John Tyler was born in 1790, the first full year of Washington's
Presidency.
Lyon Tyler's younger brother, also alive, uses the ultimate
one-upsmanship one-liner I have ever heard. After chatting for a while
with a stranger, he springs it on him.

"As my grandfather once said to Thomas Jefferson. . . ." 
You can try to top that one. You won't succeed.
In 1889, the first volume of Henry Adams' history of the administrations
of Jefferson and Madison appeared. Adams was the grandson of President
John Quincy Adams. He began his book with this paragraph.

According to the census of 1800, the United States of America
contained 5,308,483 persons. In the same year the British Islands
contained upwards of fifteen millions; the French Republic, more than
twenty-­seven millions. Nearly one fifth of the American people were
negro slaves; the true political population consisted of four and a half
million free white or less than one million able-bodied males, on whose
shoulders fell the burden of a continent. Even after two centuries of
struggle the land was still untamed; forest covered every portion, except
here and there a strip of cultivated soil; the minerals lay undis­turbed
in their rocky beds, and more than two thirds of the people clung to the
seaboard within fifty miles of tide-water, where alone the wants of
civilized life could be supplied. The centre of population rested within
eighteen miles of Baltimore, north and east of Washington. Except in
political arrangement, the interior was little more civilized than in
1750, and was not much easier to penetrate than when La Salle and
Hennepin found their way to the Missis­sippi more than a century before. 
The world of 1800 would have been recognizable to Socrates, except
for the printed book. In contrast, the world of 1889 would not have been
recognizable to the young John Tyler.
By 1889, these post-1800 inventions had arrived: gas lighting, electric
lighting (arc light), the steam powered ship, the tin can, the
macadamized road, photography, the railroad, portland cement, the reaper,
anesthesia, the typewriter, the sewing machine, the Colt revolver, the
telegraph, the wrench, the safety pin, mass-produced newspapers,
pasteurization, vulcanized rubber, barbed wire, petroleum-based industry,
dynamite, the telephone, Carnegie's steel mills, the skyscraper, the
internal combustion engine, the automobile, and commercial electricity.

So, as I move toward the day when I am a footnote rather than a
participant, I propose a thesis. One unanswered question above all others
constitutes the most important historical question in recorded history.
Here it is:

What happened around the year 1800 in Great Britain that led to
approximately 2% per annum economic growth for the next two centuries?
Some economic historians think this began around 1780. Others, most
notably Angus Maddison, believe it began in 1820. The year 1800 is a good
middle-ground position.

THEN AND NOW
Our world is not even remotely like the world of 1800. In
contrast, 1800 was recognizably similar A.D. 1. Clark points out that in
the Roman Empire in A.D. 1, information traveled at about one mile per
hour. In 1800, this had increased to about 1.4 miles per hour. Compare
that with the speed of light: 186,000 miles per second. That was what the
telegraph did. 
The world of 1876 was not remotely like 1800. Yet compare 1876 with
today. A child in 1876 who read a newspaper account of Custer's Last
Stand lived long enough to see Neil Armstrong walk on the moon in
1969.
In 1967, I took a graduate seminar in economic history from Hugh Aitken.
I had studied this subject

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
so he will be tried

how many months after being incarcerated?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM, GregfromBoston wrote:

> I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.
> -
>
> Probably because its bullshit, but why let that get in the way of a
> good tale?
>
> This poor, dumb fool won't be threatening anyone for as long as he can
> still see his dick.
>
> Wonder what he'll think of his "hero" status when he turns 70 in
> Leavenworth?
>
> On Mar 31, 10:05 am, Keith In Köln  wrote:
> > I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I
> heard,
> > he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first
> of
> > May, 2011.
> >
> > Have you heard something to the contrary?
> >
> > With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial,
> extradition,
> > and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
> >
> > Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
> > revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,,
> and
> > probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles,
> (over
> > the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
> > purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months
> or
> > years previously.
> >
> > That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos
> > chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he was
> > told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive
> > nature and being classified.
> >
> > If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
> > referencing, then he should hang.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors  >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and
> apparently
> > > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the
> Constitution, we
> > > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
> >
> > > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
> > > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how
> to
> > > arrest or censor him.
> >
> > > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
> > > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom
> fighters
> > > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that
> be
> > > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around
> naked,
> > > and smearing their reputations.
> >
> > > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is
> no
> > > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out
> in
> > > front of him.
> >
> > > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people
> given
> > > access to alleged secrets?
> >
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread GregfromBoston 
If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
referencing, then he should hang.

--

Oh, there is no doubt he did.  Thats easier to track than an Elephant
in a snow field.

He had the authority to do so (I looked up his MOS).  Downloading is a
small problem.  Sharing it is a BIG problem.

Screw the doc's.  He included drone camera footage!

Buh bye, kid.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread GregfromBoston 
I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.
-

Probably because its bullshit, but why let that get in the way of a
good tale?

This poor, dumb fool won't be threatening anyone for as long as he can
still see his dick.

Wonder what he'll think of his "hero" status when he turns 70 in
Leavenworth?

On Mar 31, 10:05 am, Keith In Köln  wrote:
> I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I heard,
> he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first of
> May, 2011.
>
> Have you heard something to the contrary?
>
> With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial, extradition,
> and facing his accusers, not the other way around.
>
> Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
> revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,, and
> probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles, (over
> the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
> purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months or
> years previously.
>
> That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos
> chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he was
> told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive
> nature and being classified.
>
> If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
> referencing, then he should hang.
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:
>
>
>
> > Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and apparently
> > being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the Constitution, we
> > are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
>
> > Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
> > condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how to
> > arrest or censor him.
>
> > Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
> > espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom fighters
> > whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that be
> > proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around naked,
> > and smearing their reputations.
>
> > A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is no
> > way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out in
> > front of him.
>
> > And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people given
> > access to alleged secrets?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Keith In Köln 
I haven't heard that Bradley Manning would not be tried.  The last I heard,
he was going to face trial sometime toward the end of April or the first of
May, 2011.

Have you heard something to the contrary?

With regard to Assange,  it is Assange who is fighting trial, extradition,
and facing his accusers, not the other way around.

Finally,   I never saw any information that I thought was all that
revealing, novel, or even destructive.   I perused the WikiLeaks site,, and
probably spent a good eight or ten hours looking at various articles, (over
the course of a month or so).   Most everything that I saw which was
purportedly a "National Secret"  had been posted in PoliticalForum months or
years previously.

That's not the point.  It was classified information that these two bozos
chose to publish and make public.In Assange's case, long after he was
told to stand down, and not publish the information, due to its sensitive
nature and being classified.

If Manning did in fact download the classified media that we are
referencing, then he should hang.






On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:

> Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and apparently
> being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the Constitution, we
> are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom
>
> Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a
> condom, labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how to
> arrest or censor him.
>
> Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
> espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom fighters
> whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that be
> proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around naked,
> and smearing their reputations.
>
> A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is no
> way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out in
> front of him.
>
> And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people given
> access to alleged secrets?
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
Very convenient that now that Bradley Manning is locked up and apparently
being held indefinitely without trial, in violation of the Constitution, we
are fed stories about his fighting with his step mom

Just as we are fed stories about Julian Assange having sex without a condom,
labelled rape in Scandanavia, AFTER they can't figure out how to arrest or
censor him.

Why can't they try these people in open court for treason, or theft, or
espionage, or contributing to the murder of third world freedom fighters
whose identities were revealed?  If they committed crime why can't that be
proven, as opposed to locking them up and making them parade around naked,
and smearing their reputations.

A neighbor of mind who worked for an intelligence agency says there is no
way Bradley Manning had access to this info unless someone laid it out in
front of him.

And if he was supposed to have access then why are a million people given
access to alleged secrets?

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fw: Talmud Study now Mandatory in South Korea

2011-03-31 Thread Bruce Majors 
*
---
*

 Sunday, March 27, 2011

Talmud Study now Mandatory in South
Korea

Posted by Jameel @ The Muqata at 3/27/2011 08:00:00
AM

The
following fascinating article was translated by *The Muqata* from
YNET
.


Close to 50 million people live in South Korea, and almost everyone is
taught the Talmud at home by their parents. "We tried to understand why the
Jews are geniuses, and we came to the conclusion that we think it is because
they study Talmud," said the Korean ambassador to Israel, Mr. Young Sam Ma.
And this is how "Rav Papa" became a more well known scholar in Korea than in
Israel.

It is doubtful if the Amoraic scholars, Abbaye and Rava imagined their
discussions of Jewish law in the Beit Midrash in Babylon would be taught
hundreds of years later in East Asia. Yet it turns out that the laws of an
"egg born on a holiday" ("ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב") is actually very
interesting to the South Koreans who encourage Talmud learning at home.


Almost every home in South Korea now contains a Korean-translated Talmud.
But unlike in Israel, the Korean mothers teach the Talmud to their children.
In a country of close to 49 million people who believe in Buddhism and
Christianity, there are more people who read the Talmud - or at least own
their own copy at home - more than in the Jewish state. Much more.
"So we too will become geniuses"

"We were very curious about the high academic achievements of the Jewish
people”, explains Korean Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Young Sam Ma, who was
hosted on the channel 1 TV programme “Culture Today”."

"Jews have a high percentage of Nobel laureates in all fields: literature,
science and economics. This is a remarkable achievement. We tried to
understand what is the secret of the Jewish people? How they - more than
other people - are able to reach those impressive accomplishments? Why are
Jews so intelligent? In our opinion, one of your secrets is that you study
the Talmud”.

"Jews study the Talmud at a young age, and it helps them, in our opinion, to
develop mental capabilities. This understanding led us to teach our children
as well. We believe that if we teach our children Talmud, they will also
become geniuses. This is the rational to make Talmud a part of home
education in Korea.

Ambassador Ma says the he himself studied the Talmud at a very young age:
"It is considered very significant study," he emphasized. The result is that
more Koreans have Talmud sets in their homes than Jews in Israel.

“I, for example, have two editions of Talmud: one my wife bought and the
other I got from my mother in law”. [Jameel adds: Almost like the Jewish
tradition of the parents of the bride buying a set of Talmud for their
future son-in-law...]

Koreans don't only like the Talmud because they see it as promoting genius,
but because they found values that are close to their hearts.

"In the Jewish tradition, family values are important," explains the South
Korean Ambassador.

"You see it even today, your practice of the Friday evening family meal. In
my country we also focus on family values. The respect for adults, respect
and appreciation for the elderly parallels the high esteem in my country for
the elderly."

Another very significant issue is the respect for education. In the Jewish
tradition parents have a duty to teach their children, and they devote to it
lots of attention. For Korean parents, their children's education is a top
priority. (YNET )


*The photo above of a Talmud translated into Korean,*
*is courtesy of the South Korean Embassy to Israel.*

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.<>

News English

2011-03-31 Thread positive news 
[image: header eng.jpg]
  Fazl escapes unhurt, 13 killed in Charsadda blast



Peshawar: Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman escaped a life
attempt when a suicide bomber blew himself up while his convoy was passing
through the road in Charsadda area of Peshawar, killing at least 13 people
and injuring another 29 on Thursday. Sources said that Police Inspector
Jamrood...  No 
Comment
  [image: Fazl escapes unhurt, 13 killed in Charsadda blast]

Pakistan  WC
semi-finals:petition seeking inquiry into Pakistan’s defeat filed in LHC

 [image: WC semi-finals:petition seeking inquiry into Pakistan’s defeat
filed in LHC]

Lahore: A petition has been filed in the Lahore High Court praying the court
to order an inquiry into Pakistan’s defeat against India in Thursday world
cup semi-final match. The petitioner...
More »

   - Three killed in Balochistan landmine blast
   

   - Forces kill nine militants in Kurram Agency
   

 World  Ouattara fighters
‘capture Ivory Coast’s Yamoussoukro town’

 [image: Ouattara fighters ‘capture Ivory Coast’s Yamoussoukro town’]

Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast:  Security forces loyal to one of Ivory Coast’s
rival presidents, Alassane Ouattara, have occupied Yamoussoukro, residents
say.  Read More
→
More »

   - UK’s MoD ‘still missing’ Afghanistan equipment targets
   

   - UK tells Libyan figures to quit like Koussa
   


 Business  Diamonds worth
$ millions stolen in Switzerland

 
 [image: Diamonds worth $ millions stolen in Switzerland]

Basel: Four diamonds worth several million dollars have been stolen from a
trader’s stall at the world’s biggest watch and jewellery fair in Basel,
Switzerland on Wednesday, prosecutors...
More »

   - Maximum limit of depreciation enhanced for import of used cars
   

   - Japan quake compelling S Korea carmaker to cut output
   


 Style  Dabangg Khan out to
spoil Kat’s career?

 
  [image: Dabangg Khan out to spoil Kat’s career?]

Presence of Ranbir Kapoor in Katrina’s life is adding to frustration of
Salman Khan while Khan has been reportedly leaving no stone unturned to
hinder Kat’s career graph. Mumbai Mirror reported...
More »

   - Priyanka tries to be ‘friendly’ with co-stars
   

   - King Khan enters Salman Khan’s territory
   


  S-Asia  Thackeray objects
to Pak players’ `namaaz’ at Mohali

Saeed Abbasi  // Mar
31st, 2011
 [image: Thackeray objects to Pak players’ namaaz’ at Mohali]

Mumbai: Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray,