• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=5170

Darfur, anyone!!

--
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.

He is in cahoots with anything and anybody that hates America.


Does Obama's meddling in the Middle East uprisings mean he is in cahoots with Iran?

barenakedislam | March 29, 2011 at 8:16 PM | Categories: EnemyWithin-foreign | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-rJf

New evidence has emerged that the Iranian government sees the current turmoil and upheavals in the Middle East as a signal that the Mahdi--or Islamic messiah--is about to appear. CBN NEWS - has obtained a never-before-seen video produced by the Iranian regime that says all the signs are moving into place -- and that Iran will [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


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.
"I" as in the letter that follows "SH" and comes before "T" in describing what he actually is.


Barack Hussein Obama is the iPresident

Scotty Starnes | March 29, 2011 at 8:31 PM | Tags: iPresident, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4TW

The iPresident...a broke model of an inept community organizer.

I guess Obama never learned there is no "I" in TEAM. The iPresident used his favorite pronoun, "I," 25 times during his speech on Libya.

Americans are still waiting for the day Obama says "I am responsible for making things worse" followed by "I resign." This will never happen because Obama is a narcissist.

America will have to suffer for another 2-years with the iPresident. In 2012, we can exchange the current iPresident for a newer, more sleek version with lots of apps and experience.

Add a comment to this post


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.
    Good one - also very true

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:02:49 +0000
From: Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir <gabeposey@gmail.com>
To: rhomp2002@earthlink.net


Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir

Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir



03/29/2011

Posted: 28 Mar 2011 11:10 PM PDT

Revelation:DaybyDayCartoon

Revelation.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/drunkblogging-obamas-libya-speech/

--
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.

0
            Simple solution to the problem in Libya;
 
They want a new Muslim leader---give them ours.
 
Solves two problems!!!
0
   In Abu Ghraib the military was handling the situation long before the story got into the MSM and all involved had bene removed from duty and their charges were being drawn up.  Then that reporter (Seymour Hersch) blew the whole story out of proportion and disregarded what the military had already done months before and we ended up with a disaster of a story.  Now it looks like the MSM is trying to do the same thing all over again.  It would be good if the story as Michael Yon tells it here were the one that gets out into the media rather than the one that the MSM is already trying to put over.


    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/calling-bullshit-on-rolling-stone.htm

On 03/29/2011 07:18 PM, MJ wrote:

Why They Hate Us
By Anthony Gregory
Tuesday March 29, 2011 at 2:29:51 PM PDT

Because the population stands by its government and war machine, despite years of continuing murder, torture and unspeakable spectacles of inhumanity like this. If you don't have the stomach to see the photos, here's a bit of prose from the Rolling Stone feature to digest:

[A] review of internal Army records and investigative files obtained by Rolling Stone, including dozens of interviews with members of Bravo Company compiled by military investigators, indicates that the dozen infantrymen being portrayed as members of a secretive "kill team" were operating out in the open, in plain view of the rest of the company. Far from being clandestine, as the Pentagon has implied, the murders of civilians were common knowledge among the unit and understood to be illegal by "pretty much the whole platoon," according to one soldier who complained about them. Staged killings were an open topic of conversation, and at least one soldier from another battalion in the 3,800-man Stryker Brigade participated in attacks on unarmed civilians. "The platoon has a reputation," a whistle-blower named Pfc. Justin Stoner told the Army Criminal Investigation Command. "They have had a lot of practice staging killings and getting away with it."

Despite the provocative title of this blog, "they" don't really hate "us." Much of the Muslim world still looks fondly upon American culture. As Ivan Eland noted in 2003:

If the U.S. government really wanted to find out what the people in Islamic countries really thought about America, rather than commissioning a study, it would have been much cheaper to have asked John Zogby, a prominent pollster and study group member, and other prominent independent pollsters for the results of their numerous polls in those nations. Those polls show that people in those countries like American culture and political and economic freedoms, but despise U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world.

Somehow many in the Muslim world have been generally able to separate the American people from our government, even more charitably than many Americans seem to distinguish foreigners from their rulers. It is so easy for the common victims of U.S. wars to become dehumanized, whether by rogue soldiers or an indifferent political culture. While the premeditated slaughter described in the Rolling Stone story is widely seen as immoral, most of the inevitable deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands in America's elective wars are dismissed as "collateral damage."

Foreigners should be forgiven if they resented "the American people" far more than they actually do. Most of us seem to care nothing of the atrocities committed in our name. Even worse, many of us actively support the politicians and military who bring these horrors to other people. We implicitly celebrate these acts of slaughter in parades for veterans. We "support our troops." We name streets and buildings after presidents who ended the lives of literally millions of innocent people. In the name of humanitarianism abroad, we enlist the help of a state that jails without trial, claims the right to do anything to anyone on earth, and has tortured hundreds or thousands of detainees to death.

By "we" I am referring, of course, to the American people as a group, which is problematic. Even worse is considering the government an extension of the popular will. American voters fight over which sociopath should run the war machine, condemning other nations for nuclear ambitions and human rights abuses while sitting comfortably amidst the largest prison population on earth and an unsurpassed arsenal of inherently aggressive weapons, including tens of thousands of nukes.

We argue seriously about what "we" should do to stop Iran from one day obtaining nuclear weapons, almost all in agreement that this is the U.S. government's business, even as we do not stand up and demand our government, the only one ever to intentionally murder civilians with atomic bombs, disarm unilaterally and unconditionally. We debate endlessly about the most minor details of domestic politics as a bipartisan empire financed with our tax dollars and central bank lays waste to countries, destroys the most priceless archives of cultural records, deliberately poisons foreigners by the thousands, prevents people from getting food and medicine, and drops terroristic death from the sky, perhaps more than all other governments in history combined.

Then there are those troops on the ground, chopping off body parts, shooting helpless kids for sport, gleefully playing with the remains of some of the millions of casualties of America's post-9/11 killing spree. The military apologizes for the photos, but not for the war that makes these atrocities inevitable. This is the rot at the soul of the American empire. When its leaders claim that their last round of bombing in intended to and will effectively secure human rights, why on earth would anyone in his right mind believe them?

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=10014 --
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.
0

The Clover Test
by Eric Peters

Could you be a Clover?

Maybe you don't even know what a Clover is?

Here's how to know:

Do you use your rearview mirror?

Clovers tend to be oblivious to their surroundings – and in particular, of their fellow motorists. They don't notice that their rear bumper has grown a tail six other cars long. The true dyed-in-the-wool Clover does notice – but doesn't care. Either he's "doing the speed limit" – or the other drivers are "speeders."

Those other cars stacking up behind him can wait. What's their rush, anyhow?

Back into parking spaces?

A behavior peculiar to Clovers is the reflexive need to back into parking spaces – after multiple attempts and always at an angle that makes the adjacent spot useless or (if another car is already parked there) forces its owner to enter his vehicle Dukes of Hazzard style, through the window – because there's not enough space to open the door anymore.

Need two lanes to pass a bicycle?

Clovers have much worse than average depth perception and sense of spatial relationships, so when they roll up behind a bicycle, they will slow to the bike's 10 mph crawl and Hold until they have at least another car width's worth of room to attempt to pass by. This may not become possible for many excruciating miles. . .

Apply the brakes at random?

Just like the blipping bioluminescence of a firefly, the Clover will signal his presence in the area by tapping his brakes for no reason, at random – even on open stretches of road.

Related: See-saw slowing and speeding up. The Clover never quite masters the High Skill of maintaining a given speed without the assistance of cruise control.

Slow for School Zones even when school's obviously out?

The Clover is born with a hinge at the base of his spine, near the pelvis – to facilitate reflexive genuflecting before any and all laws – even when the law at issue isn't even operative. Thus, to a Clover, one must always slow to a Moped-like crawl when within a 5 mile radius of any school, open or not.

Wait for the green light even when right on red is legal?

Clovers by definition lack initiative. Thus, they will park at traffic lights and wait – even if right on red is allowed and even if it's infuriatingly clear to other drivers trying to get where they're going that there's no oncoming traffic. The Clover will wait…. and wait. And then wait some more. And thus, so will you.

When the light finally does go green, the Clover will invariably not notice for several seconds, long enough to make sure that at least two or three cars behind him that might otherwise have made the light won't.

The stop-merge

This is a Cloverish specialty de la maison. When entering a busy highway, stop on the on-ramp; then creep directly in front of traffic running 70 mph at no more than 15 or 20 MPH. It's up to the other cars to make room for you. If another driver almost wrecks or spills his coffee all over his lap trying to avoid you, well – he shouldn't have been "speeding." So there.

Refuse to move right

Perhaps the signature characteristic of Clovers the world over is their adamant refusal to yield to faster-moving traffic. Ever. This act is what distinguishes the Clover from the merely slow/cautious driver. It is understandable that some drivers – the elderly, for instance – are not comfortable driving faster than the speed limit, or even at the speed limit. We may all end up like this someday. But the problem here isn't the slow driving. It's the obnoxious, passive-aggressive determination to force everyone else to drive slowly, too. The non-Clover will notice that others are trying to get by and will pull over, or move right to let them do so. We wave our hands in appreciative thanks. The Clover, however, will cling to his position like a leg-humping Lab. Flashing your lights will only egg him on; he'll drive even more slowly. Some particularly vengeful Clovers will even use their Clovermobiles (typically, older Buicks or late-model SmooVees plastered with those little stick figure fambly icons) to physically try to prevent you from passing if you dare to try.

The true Clover, you see, is not merely a bad driver. He is a bad driver on a tear; angry at the world and in particular, anyone who who doesn't view the world in through Clover-colored glasses. That would be anyone who doesn't automatically worship The Law (any law; every law) or who isn't consumed by a desire to make sure everyone else obeys The Law.

Hopefully, this isn't you. And if it is you, why not just move over? It's not very hard -- and you'll feel better in the morning.

http://epautos.com/?p=2575
I packed up and resigned from the Methodists when I was 23.  Never looked back.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
I recall when the Feminazi's attempted to get the Methodist Church to adopt the term: 
 
"The Mother-Father God"...
 
They were successful.
(Thankfully,  I was of the "First Christian" Denomination.....Closer to Baptists, but just a little crispier fried chicken on Sundays, and our basketball team slapped the piss out of the Methodists and the Catholics, but I digress) 

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:14 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

On Mar 29, 4:32 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bacon is bacon is bacon.
>
> http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/peta-demands-al.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.

--
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.
0

Why They Hate Us
By Anthony Gregory
Tuesday March 29, 2011 at 2:29:51 PM PDT

Because the population stands by its government and war machine, despite years of continuing murder, torture and unspeakable spectacles of inhumanity like this. If you don't have the stomach to see the photos, here's a bit of prose from the Rolling Stone feature to digest:

[A] review of internal Army records and investigative files obtained by Rolling Stone, including dozens of interviews with members of Bravo Company compiled by military investigators, indicates that the dozen infantrymen being portrayed as members of a secretive "kill team" were operating out in the open, in plain view of the rest of the company. Far from being clandestine, as the Pentagon has implied, the murders of civilians were common knowledge among the unit and understood to be illegal by "pretty much the whole platoon," according to one soldier who complained about them. Staged killings were an open topic of conversation, and at least one soldier from another battalion in the 3,800-man Stryker Brigade participated in attacks on unarmed civilians. "The platoon has a reputation," a whistle-blower named Pfc. Justin Stoner told the Army Criminal Investigation Command. "They have had a lot of practice staging killings and getting away with it."

Despite the provocative title of this blog, "they" don't really hate "us." Much of the Muslim world still looks fondly upon American culture. As Ivan Eland noted in 2003:

If the U.S. government really wanted to find out what the people in Islamic countries really thought about America, rather than commissioning a study, it would have been much cheaper to have asked John Zogby, a prominent pollster and study group member, and other prominent independent pollsters for the results of their numerous polls in those nations. Those polls show that people in those countries like American culture and political and economic freedoms, but despise U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world.

Somehow many in the Muslim world have been generally able to separate the American people from our government, even more charitably than many Americans seem to distinguish foreigners from their rulers. It is so easy for the common victims of U.S. wars to become dehumanized, whether by rogue soldiers or an indifferent political culture. While the premeditated slaughter described in the Rolling Stone story is widely seen as immoral, most of the inevitable deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands in America's elective wars are dismissed as "collateral damage."

Foreigners should be forgiven if they resented "the American people" far more than they actually do. Most of us seem to care nothing of the atrocities committed in our name. Even worse, many of us actively support the politicians and military who bring these horrors to other people. We implicitly celebrate these acts of slaughter in parades for veterans. We "support our troops." We name streets and buildings after presidents who ended the lives of literally millions of innocent people. In the name of humanitarianism abroad, we enlist the help of a state that jails without trial, claims the right to do anything to anyone on earth, and has tortured hundreds or thousands of detainees to death.

By "we" I am referring, of course, to the American people as a group, which is problematic. Even worse is considering the government an extension of the popular will. American voters fight over which sociopath should run the war machine, condemning other nations for nuclear ambitions and human rights abuses while sitting comfortably amidst the largest prison population on earth and an unsurpassed arsenal of inherently aggressive weapons, including tens of thousands of nukes.

We argue seriously about what "we" should do to stop Iran from one day obtaining nuclear weapons, almost all in agreement that this is the U.S. government's business, even as we do not stand up and demand our government, the only one ever to intentionally murder civilians with atomic bombs, disarm unilaterally and unconditionally. We debate endlessly about the most minor details of domestic politics as a bipartisan empire financed with our tax dollars and central bank lays waste to countries, destroys the most priceless archives of cultural records, deliberately poisons foreigners by the thousands, prevents people from getting food and medicine, and drops terroristic death from the sky, perhaps more than all other governments in history combined.

Then there are those troops on the ground, chopping off body parts, shooting helpless kids for sport, gleefully playing with the remains of some of the millions of casualties of America's post-9/11 killing spree. The military apologizes for the photos, but not for the war that makes these atrocities inevitable. This is the rot at the soul of the American empire. When its leaders claim that their last round of bombing in intended to and will effectively secure human rights, why on earth would anyone in his right mind believe them?

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=10014
0
Approximately 25% of the population of Israel is non-Jewish. Costa
Rica is a Catholic Nation yet over 40% are not Catholic... the same in
MANY nations where the minorities co-exist peacefully.

On Mar 29, 4:09 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not about "occupation" or territory; it is about meaningful
> coexistence.
> ---
> Israel is a jewish nation ... that's coexistence?
>
> On Mar 29, 4:24 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Israel and the Occupation Myth
>
> > The hatred and violence that killed five members of the Fogel family existed
> > before the Jewish state did.
>
> > By DANNY AYALON
>
> > The recent murder of a family of five in Itamar shocked Israelis to their
> > core. A terrorist broke into the Fogels' home before stabbing and garroting
> > to death the two parents, Udi and Ruth, and their children Yoav, 11 years
> > old, Elad, 4, and almost decapitating Hadas, who was only three months old.
>
> > There has since been very little outcry from the international community.
> > Many nations who are so used to condemning the building of apartment units
> > beyond the Green Line remained silent on this sadistic murder. Meanwhile,
> > the few international correspondents to have covered the massacre have
> > placed it in the context of ongoing settlement-building and Israel's
> > so-called "occupation."
>
> > However, regardless of one's views on which people have greater title to
> > Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, it is a historically inaccurate
> > distortion to claim that the occupation that breeds this type of violence.
> > If this mantra were true, then it must be the case that before the
> > occupation there was no violence. This defies the historical record.
>
> > In 1929, the Jewish community of Hebron—which stretches back millennia, long
> > before the creation of Islam and the Arab conquest and subsequent occupation
> > of the area—was brutally attacked. The Jews who had been living peacefully
> > with their Muslim neighbors were set upon in a bloody rampage, inspired by
> > Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later became notorious as
> > Hitler's genocidal acolyte during the Holocaust. In two days, 67 Jews were
> > hacked or bludgeoned to death. Jewish infants were beheaded and Jewish women
> > were disemboweled. Limbs were hacked off the dead as well as those who
> > managed to survive.
>
> > On visiting the scene shortly after the massacre, Britain's High
> > Commissioner for Palestine John Chancellor wrote to his son "I do not think
> > that history records many worse horrors in the last few hundred years."
>
> > This and other similar pogroms happened, not only before the "occupation" of
> > Judea and Samaria, but even two decades before the state of Israel was
> > reestablished. From 1948 to 1967, Judea and Samaria were illegally occupied
> > by Jordan, which renamed the area the West Bank, in reference to the East
> > Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan that fell beyond the Jordan River. Not one
> > Israeli was allowed into this area, yet nor did Israel know one day of peace
> > in that time, during which it saw brutal attacks launched from the West Bank
> > against Israeli civilians.
>
> > Further evidence against the mantra that the occupation breeds violence can
> > be culled from Palestinian sources. Take Hamas's founding charter, for
> > instance, which does not mention occupation or settlements. What is does
> > contain are calls for the complete destruction of Israel, down to its last
> > inch, such as: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam
> > will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The charter
> > goes even further, aspiring to a point in time when there will be no Jews
> > left anywhere in the world.
>
> > Meanwhile, the Palestine Liberation Organization, currently headed by
> > President Mahmoud Abbas, notes in its founding charter that "this
> > organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank,"
> > while still calling for a "liberation of its homeland." This was written in
> > 1964, fully three years before Israel conquered the West Bank during the Six
> > Day War.
>
> > It's safe to say that the violence and terror visited upon Israelis has
> > little connection to "occupation" or settlements. This myth has no
> > historical foundation, but is easy to proclaim for those who have little
> > understanding of the conflict.
>
> > Yet these fatuous canards only make our conflict harder to solve. The recent
> > massacre in Itamar highlighted the Palestinian Authority's ongoing
> > incitement to violence through its media, mosques and educational system. At
> > this point, the basic parameters of the peace process need an overhaul. If
> > our aim is to reach a peaceful resolution, then merely ending the
> > "occupation" would far from guarantee that, as history has shown.
>
> > Israel was assured in the past by the international community that if it
> > just retreated from Gaza and Lebanon, peace would flourish and violence
> > would come to an end. In both cases, this hope proved deadly wrong, and
> > millions of Israelis have been subjected to incessant attacks from these
> > territories since the retreat.
>
> > This is not about "occupation" or territory; it is about meaningful
> > coexistence. Only when the root ideological causes of our conflict are
> > solved can Israelis and Palestinians make the painful concessions necessary
> > for peace.
>
> > Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel.
>
> >  __._,_.___
> >   Reply to sender<lel...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20Israel%20and%20the%20Occupation%20Myth%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20>|
> > Reply
> > to group<Friendsandnewfrie...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Israel%20and%20the%20Occupation%20Myth%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20>|
> > Reply
> > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJy...>|
> > Start
> > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJm...>
> > Messages in this
> > topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends/message/10942;_ylc...>(
> > 1)
> >  Recent Activity:
>
> >  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODQxZ...>
> >  [image: Yahoo!
> > Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlajU0NDhoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl...>
> > Switch to: Text-Only<Friendsandnewfriends-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> > Daily Digest<Friendsandnewfriends-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> > Unsubscribe<Friendsandnewfriends-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>•
> > Terms
> > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >    .
>
> > __,_._,___

--
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.

I recall when the Feminazi's attempted to get the Methodist Church to adopt the term: 
 
"The Mother-Father God"...
 
They were successful.
(Thankfully,  I was of the "First Christian" Denomination.....Closer to Baptists, but just a little crispier fried chicken on Sundays, and our basketball team slapped the piss out of the Methodists and the Catholics, but I digress) 

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:14 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

On Mar 29, 4:32 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bacon is bacon is bacon.
>
> http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/peta-demands-al.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.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brawny <brawny@t>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:39 PM
Subject: [Ohio_for_Kerry] London to ban all cars! Shucks!
To: NewJersey_for_Kerry@yahoogroups.com, knoxdemocrats@yahoogroups.com, TDemocraticParty@yahoogroups.com, mark <DPMSUSA@yahoogroups.com>, Democrats_2012@yahoogroups.com, DemocratsBattlegroundStates-HQ@yahoogroups.com, hoosiermaster@yahoogroups.com, ohio <ohio_for_kerry@yahoogroups.com>, "sacramentofordemocracy@" <SACRAMENTOFORDEMOCRACY@yahoogroups.com>


 

The USA needs to do the same in all large cities with over 100,000 population, within the next 20 years,We need leaders who are not working for oil and energy corps. and looking out for what is best for all Americans,plus making jobs laying tracks,and repair plus hauling 100's of people on less fuel then a single auto used now to transport maybe two person.
 
From: M
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:11 PM
To:  London to ban all cars! Shucks!
 


You can see how rail is being pushed around the globe...welcome to the early 1900 --- and that's the truth, really. Take a spin on a scooter this weekend.
 
 

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050
Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of 'zero' for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities Photo: ALAMY
Bruno Waterfield
By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels 4:16PM BST 28 Mar 2011

1468 Comments

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.
 
The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.
 
Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.
 
Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.
 
"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
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.
0

I dunnno why I thought this was such a great e-mail.....But I did.  The pictures are embedded, and if they don't come through, I will repost.

 

KeithInKöln

 

============

 

Longevity

 


 
THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL LESSON IN LIFE AND LONGEVITY 

Be nice to others because . . Time WILL make a difference!



One day you will no longer be the big dog...
Just the old dog...
And my friend, WE are now the old dogs
HOWEVER, OLD DOG IS BETTER THAN DOG-GONE

 

 

 

 


--
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.
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

On Mar 29, 4:32 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bacon is bacon is bacon.
>
> http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/peta-demands-al.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.

0
This is not about "occupation" or territory; it is about meaningful
coexistence.
---
Israel is a jewish nation ... that's coexistence?

On Mar 29, 4:24 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Israel and the Occupation Myth
>
> The hatred and violence that killed five members of the Fogel family existed
> before the Jewish state did.
>
> By DANNY AYALON
>
> The recent murder of a family of five in Itamar shocked Israelis to their
> core. A terrorist broke into the Fogels' home before stabbing and garroting
> to death the two parents, Udi and Ruth, and their children Yoav, 11 years
> old, Elad, 4, and almost decapitating Hadas, who was only three months old.
>
> There has since been very little outcry from the international community.
> Many nations who are so used to condemning the building of apartment units
> beyond the Green Line remained silent on this sadistic murder. Meanwhile,
> the few international correspondents to have covered the massacre have
> placed it in the context of ongoing settlement-building and Israel's
> so-called "occupation."
>
> However, regardless of one's views on which people have greater title to
> Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, it is a historically inaccurate
> distortion to claim that the occupation that breeds this type of violence.
> If this mantra were true, then it must be the case that before the
> occupation there was no violence. This defies the historical record.
>
> In 1929, the Jewish community of Hebron—which stretches back millennia, long
> before the creation of Islam and the Arab conquest and subsequent occupation
> of the area—was brutally attacked. The Jews who had been living peacefully
> with their Muslim neighbors were set upon in a bloody rampage, inspired by
> Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later became notorious as
> Hitler's genocidal acolyte during the Holocaust. In two days, 67 Jews were
> hacked or bludgeoned to death. Jewish infants were beheaded and Jewish women
> were disemboweled. Limbs were hacked off the dead as well as those who
> managed to survive.
>
> On visiting the scene shortly after the massacre, Britain's High
> Commissioner for Palestine John Chancellor wrote to his son "I do not think
> that history records many worse horrors in the last few hundred years."
>
> This and other similar pogroms happened, not only before the "occupation" of
> Judea and Samaria, but even two decades before the state of Israel was
> reestablished. From 1948 to 1967, Judea and Samaria were illegally occupied
> by Jordan, which renamed the area the West Bank, in reference to the East
> Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan that fell beyond the Jordan River. Not one
> Israeli was allowed into this area, yet nor did Israel know one day of peace
> in that time, during which it saw brutal attacks launched from the West Bank
> against Israeli civilians.
>
> Further evidence against the mantra that the occupation breeds violence can
> be culled from Palestinian sources. Take Hamas's founding charter, for
> instance, which does not mention occupation or settlements. What is does
> contain are calls for the complete destruction of Israel, down to its last
> inch, such as: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam
> will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The charter
> goes even further, aspiring to a point in time when there will be no Jews
> left anywhere in the world.
>
> Meanwhile, the Palestine Liberation Organization, currently headed by
> President Mahmoud Abbas, notes in its founding charter that "this
> organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank,"
> while still calling for a "liberation of its homeland." This was written in
> 1964, fully three years before Israel conquered the West Bank during the Six
> Day War.
>
> It's safe to say that the violence and terror visited upon Israelis has
> little connection to "occupation" or settlements. This myth has no
> historical foundation, but is easy to proclaim for those who have little
> understanding of the conflict.
>
> Yet these fatuous canards only make our conflict harder to solve. The recent
> massacre in Itamar highlighted the Palestinian Authority's ongoing
> incitement to violence through its media, mosques and educational system. At
> this point, the basic parameters of the peace process need an overhaul. If
> our aim is to reach a peaceful resolution, then merely ending the
> "occupation" would far from guarantee that, as history has shown.
>
> Israel was assured in the past by the international community that if it
> just retreated from Gaza and Lebanon, peace would flourish and violence
> would come to an end. In both cases, this hope proved deadly wrong, and
> millions of Israelis have been subjected to incessant attacks from these
> territories since the retreat.
>
> This is not about "occupation" or territory; it is about meaningful
> coexistence. Only when the root ideological causes of our conflict are
> solved can Israelis and Palestinians make the painful concessions necessary
> for peace.
>
> Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel.
>
>  __._,_.___
>   Reply to sender<lel...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20Israel%20and%20the%20Occupation%20Myth%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20>|
> Reply
> to group<Friendsandnewfrie...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Israel%20and%20the%20Occupation%20Myth%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20>|
> Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJy...>|
> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJm...>
> Messages in this
> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends/message/10942;_ylc...>(
> 1)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Friendsandnewfriends;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODQxZ...>
>  [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlajU0NDhoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl...>
> Switch to: Text-Only<Friendsandnewfriends-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<Friendsandnewfriends-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe<Friendsandnewfriends-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>•
> Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>
> __,_._,___

--
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzMLEWtMVGY

On Mar 29, 12:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Daily Caller runs astoryon crybaby Mark Levin, advocate of endless war, the police state, and presidential dictatorship. Unmentioned is the dreaded name ofTom Woods. Like Levin himself, the DC links to none of Tom's takedowns. Instead, we are told that bigoted Ron Paulians -- "the biggest a-holes of them all" in Levin lingo --are mean to him, and so all their dissenting responses to his Facebook attack on Tom Woods had to be erased. In fact, the civil comments showed up Levin by quoting Woods, who actually knows American history.  -- LHR Jr.Levin takes on Ron Paul supporters: 'I promise you his followers are the biggest a-holes of them all'ByJeff Poor- The Daily Caller | Published: 11:31 AM 03/29/2011 | Updated: 12:59 PM 03/29/2011
> There's no doubt that 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has some dedicated followers, and they're especially ambitious in using theInternetto spread their message.
> But that isn't necessarily appealing according to conservative talk host Mark Levin. On his Monday program, Levin said his staff has had some run-inson his Facebook pageandother social networking sites.
> "Truth be told, I'm not the administrator of my social sites, but I back the administrator," Levin said. "See, what happens folks is sometimes we get into these little discussions and the word goes out – flood theFacebooksite or whatever – through bloggers, through people who think by this kind of mob mentality, they're going to persuade people. They don't persuade anybody of anything. They annoy people and so the administrator has to clean out a bunch of them, particularly when they get into their hate modes. They keep linking back to other sites, which are intending to increase the hits on those other sites."
> Those engaging in this "obnoxious" behavior tend to be the followers of Paul, according to Levin.
> "And so we get into these debates on constitutional issues, on economics, on history," he continued. "And that's a good thing. Butthe Ron Paul people are the biggest a-holes of them all. Now some of you may be thinking about Ron Paul – I promise you his followers are the biggest a-holes of them all. Not necessarily because of what they believe, but the way they express themselves. They're obnoxious. They're like Marxists, really. The mob mentality, the language, true believers, and yet there is a lot that is sensible, particularly on the Rand Paul side of the family when it comes to the Constitution, and economics and so forth."Listen:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeR8K5Y0tUg&feature=player_embeddedLevin said it wasn't all of his followers, but the ones that tend to be aggressive with theirwebbehavior also dabble in other conspiratorial beliefs.
> "When it comes to actually defending this nation, the effort to twist the Constitution so the Congress is some kind of parliamentary body and to pull a quote from this founder, that one -- try and make your case, it's almost childish, goofy," he continued. "And then you get into the weeds and you got to pull back, look at the big picture. These are outliers. A lot of the people who follow him are truthers, conspiracy theorists behind 9/11. A lot of them are Israel and Jew haters, not all of them obviously. I'm not saying that, but you should see the stuff we had to pull off our sites, so I'm told. Again, I don't want to accuse everyone of that. That would be ridiculous."http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/levin-takes-on-ron-paul-supporters-i-promise-you-his-followers-are-the-biggest-a-holes-of-them-all/#ixzz1I0m1tRP9

--
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.

0

The Libya Folly
March 28, 2011
Charles V. Peña

Having declared that "the actions of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, his government, and close associates, including extreme measures against the people of Libya, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," President Obama has unleashed the U.S. military to conduct air strikes against targets in Libya.

Following in the footsteps of several of his predecessors, President Obama's actions ignore the Constitution, which clearly states that it is the power of Congress, not the executive branch, "to declare war." Indeed, the president is ignoring his own December 2007 words as a senator: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Constitutionality and selective memory aside, the president was wrong to order the attacks on Libya for three reasons.

First, it's not clear who's in charge of Operation Odyssey Dawn, as the anti-Qadhafi assault is being called. The president has said that U.S. forces will only play a supporting role in the military action against Libya. Yet it's clear that the opening volley of more than 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles, aimed at Libya's radar detectors and surface-to-air missile sites, was largely a U.S. operation.

But it's still unclear who's in charge. According to the Pentagon, the U.S. military is in the lead. The French, however, appear to be doing their own thing. Some want NATO calling the shots. Others call for a different command structure. Such questions need to be resolved before U.S. troops are committed to action, not along the way.

Second, what's the objective? A missile strike on day two of Operation Odyssey Dawn destroyed a building in Tripoli that was reportedly one of Qadhafi's command centers. But U.S. and British officials were quick to claim that Qadhafi was not the intended target­the air strikes were aimed at his troops and air defense systems.

President Obama says U.S. military objectives are limited: setting up and enforcing a no-fly zone. Yet, at the same time, the president insists that Qadhafi "must leave."

But you can't have it both ways. Certainly, we're not launching missiles and enforcing a no-fly zone with the intention of leaving Qadhafi in power­or are we? That, after all, was exactly the result of more than a decade of no-fly zones over Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.

Third -- and most importantly -- even if the previous two questions are properly addressed, they would be trumped by the fact that U.S. national security is not at stake in Libya.

To be sure, Muammar Qadhafi is hardly a model citizen and it's hard to argue that Libya wouldn't be better off without him. But he doesn't pose a threat to the United States­which should be the one and only criterion for using U.S. military force.

We need to learn from our experience in Iraq, not repeat the same mistake. If getting rid of tyrants and dictators who oppress their people becomes the criterion for using U.S. military force, who do we target next: China? The so-called Democratic Republic of Congo? Eritrea? Iran? Kyrgyzstan? Venezuela? Zimbabwe?

America would be wise to remember the so-called Pottery Barn rule that former Secretary of State (and before that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Colin Powell warned about prior to invading Iraq: "You break it, you own it."

With Iraq and Afghanistan already having cost America more than $1 trillion and thousands of lives, the United States can hardly afford to take ownership of Libya.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3018

UN 'authorization' is the Emperor's new fig leaf
By: Gene Healy 03/28/11 8:05 PM
Examiner Columnist Follow Him @genehealy

Last night, nine days after we began bombing Libya, President Obama went on television to explain what we're up to and what the plan is. It's always nice to be kept in the loop.

But the real outrage here isn't that Obama -- for once -- has been reluctant to make a speech.It's that our Nobel Peace Prize-winning, former constitutional law professor president has launched yet another war in the Middle East without any constitutional authority for doing so.

Equally offensive is the emerging legal pretext for the war, in which UN authorization supposedly eliminates the need for a congressional vote."Why not go to Congress?" ABC's Jake Tapper asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday."We would welcome congressional support," Clinton replied, but this is an "internationally authorized intervention."

Why go to Capitol Hill when you've already got permission from Turtle Bay?

In a speech last weekend, State Department legal adviser Harold Hongju Koh fleshed out the argument: there's "ample international legal authority" for the Libyan adventure, he said, citing the UN Charter and the Security Council Resolution authorizing a no-fly zone."In sum, the United States' military actions in Libya are lawful."

Well, no, they're not.After all, the Constitution requires the president to "consult with Congress and receive its affirmative authorization -- not merely present it with faits accomplis -- before engaging in war."

That's according to one Harold Hongju Koh, in a November 1990 legal brief challenging the first president Bush's contention that he could fight the Gulf War on his own authority (Bush later sought and received a use-of-force resolution from Congress).

In a past life, you see, Koh was a vocal critic of Republican presidents' unauthorized wars. In his berth at the State Department, though, he's grown in office, becoming a full-fledged apologist for Tomahawk humanitarianism.(It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ... but for Foggy Bottom?)

But Security Council approval was no substitute for congressional authorization in the Gulf War, and it's no substitute here.Bully for President Obama that he got sign-offs from rotating members of the UNSC like Colombia, Gabon, and Lebanon -- and the approval of permanent members like France and Britain.He's got the support of the New Republic editorial board too.None of that constitutes actual legal authority, in the form of a vote by the American people's representatives in Congress.

As congressional scholar Louis Fisher points out in his book "Presidential War Power," nothing in the text or history of the UN Charter and the UN Participation Act purports to cede Congress's constitutional powers over war and peace to the so-called "international community." "Congress did not -- it could not -- do that," Fisher writes. President Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations had gone down to defeat on precisely this point, and in acceding to the UN, Congress sought to protect its constitutional prerogatives.

Obama's argument that UN "authorization" allows him to bypass Congress isn't unprecedented.Harry Truman made it in Korea, as did Bill Clinton in Haiti.But, as before, this argument "violates the U.S. Constitution," misinterprets UN authority and "represents an effort through the treaty process to strip from the House of Representatives its constitutional role in matters of war."

"How long," Fisher asks, "do we drift in these currents before discovering the waters are hazardous for constitutional government?"

Covering the outrage brewing in some quarters on the Hill, Politico quotes an irate Democratic congressman: "They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress."

That's what we've come to.Will Congress put up with it?

Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of "The Cult of the Presidency."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/03/un-authorization-emperors-new-fig-leaf#ixzz1I1kntyvW

0












toonpool.com Enjoy the World of Cartoons
Hello,
This is the brand-new Daily Toon.


Buttbook by Gorpur

You can find many cartoons from all over the world or
upload your own cartoon now at toonpool.com!

Best regards,
the toonpool.com staff

To unsubscribe from the Daily Toon Newsletter, click here.

Copyright © 2007-2011 toonpool.com GmbH




--
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.

Costliest government 'program' of all? Undeclared wars
Congress's habit of ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has arguably cost taxpayers trillions. And now it seems to be happening again, with Obama's military action in Libya.
By Walter Rodgers / March 28, 2011

In their zeal to cut government spending, Republicans in Congress have been quoting the Constitution and hacking away at funds for National Public Radio, which saved $5 million.

But if those same Republicans had seriously honored the Constitution 10 years ago, they might have saved $4-to-6 trillion.

That's the total estimated cost of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- wars that Congress putatively authorized but never formally declared. Article I, Section 8, is explicit: "The Congress shall have Power to ... declare War." But to its discredit, Congress has failed the American people for more than half a century on this score.

And now it's happening again, as the US began bombing Libya without a congressional declaration -- or even a single hearing or debate.

It's all well and good for tea party sloganeers and their Republican allies to gripe about budget deficits. But it smacks of political cowardice when they neglect to tell the American people that our habit of fighting undeclared wars may be our costliest government "program" of all.


The cost of wrongheaded wars

There is no more eloquent testimony that Iraq and Afghanistan were wrongheaded wars than Defense Secretary Robert Gates's speech in February to the cadets at West Point. "In my opinion," he said, "any future Defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it."

Secretary Gates echoed the earlier lament of the late Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who left the Pentagon in 1968, midway through the Vietnam War, and who later admitted it was the mother of all foolhardiness.

In Vietnam, and later Iraq, our presidents misled us while the stampede to go to war might have been averted with a serious congressional debate before any resolution for a declaration of war.

President Johnson told Americans that unless they drew a line in Indochina, all of Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes under the sway of a Vietnamese-Chinese axis.


Senate debate on Vietnam might have exposed flaws

A deliberate Senate debate might have exposed the flaws in that theory. There were no dominoes, and four years after American troops left Saigon, the Chinese and the Vietnamese were at war with each other.

Sadly, the Senate debated the Vietnam war only three years into that conflict. By that time it was too late. The US Senate prides itself on being the "world's greatest deliberative body," but its last really great debate was about civil rights in the 1960s.

I recently read Karl Marlantes's poignant novel "Matterhorn," which seems a thinly disguised first-person account of a Marine rifle platoon getting mauled in Vietnam as a result of bad orders from unthinking senior officers intent on their own promotions up the ranks.


The novel breaks your heart, because it calls to mind a question asked of President Gerald Ford at a White House news conference a week after Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. Aldo Beckman of the Chicago Tribune stood up and essentially asked President Ford what he would like to tell the parents of the 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam. It was unfair to target Ford when the question should have been asked of Presidents Johnson and Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.


Iraq war: gap between perception, reality

More recently, the casus belli for the Iraq war was hyped up by the fearmongers of the Bush-Cheney White House. Had US senators considered the rationale for war in Iraq more seriously than they did, they might have found laughable some of Vice President Cheney's alarmist remarks.

Writing in 2004, former senior CIA analyst Michael Scheuer suggested that the gap between our perception and the reality of modern US military engagements makes for an embarrassing audit. "[A]cross thirteen years of frequent military action, we not once definitively and finally defeated the force -- military, paramilitary or armed rabble -- we defined as a foe.... We have seen no huge body counts, no stacking of arms, no formal surrenders, no masses of prisoners of war and no tangible evidence of victory save the combination of our leaders' claims thereof and highly staged, melodramatic homecomings...."


Congress must live up to its duties

If timid members of Congress still don't get it, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests the public does. Nearly two thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan hasn't been worth fighting.

At the very least, if Congress won't own up to its duties under Article I, Section 8, the incumbent president at the end of hostilities should be required to publicly address the nation and tell American parents what their children in the armed forces died for.

The tea party and its Republican allies were vociferous in opposing President Obama's $800 billion economic stimulus package that put Americans back to work and began rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads.

I'm waiting to hear their shouts about the reckless cost to our national debt and national security of continuing to ignore Article I, Section 8.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2011/0328/Costliest-government-program-of-all-Undeclared-wars