Pruden has this exactly right - and he definitely takes no prisoners

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/05/06/pruden-in-his-prime-pommels-preeing-prez-also-10-things/

--
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.

'Splain the logic of doing this to me

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/05/06/shared-values-uh-not-exactly/

--
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.

Finally Sen McCain speaks up on border security (from Jim Miller on Politics)

   

John McCain Attacks Janet Napolitano Over Lax Border Security:  Specifically, "spotters" on the Arizona border

Arizona Sen. John McCain has never been a bashful critic of the Obama administration's border security policy. But today he unleashed an unusually spirited attack on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whom he accused of deliberately failing to root out dozens of mountaintop "spotters" that help Mexican smugglers sneak into his state.

"There's between 100 and 200 spotters sitting on mountains in southern Arizona, inside the borders of the Untied States of America, spotting for drug cartels who then get the drugs up to Phoenix," said an agitated McCain during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing today.  "We're supposed to believe that the administration is serious about securing our borders?  Well, I don't think so."

Napolitano strongly disputed McCain's declaration as not factual.

Which Arizona politician is right on the spotters?  If I had to bet, I would bet on McCain.

But I am not certain that either actually knows, for sure.

McCain says he getting his information from "law enforcement people", presumably law enforcement people who disagree with current policies — but they would have reason to exaggerate.   Napolitano says she is getting her information from the Border Patrol — but like all bureaucrats, they would have reason to cover up their failures.

(If you have seen more facts on this issue, please share them with me.)

- 8:42 AM, 5 May 2011   [link]

This is a bit of a surprise but not a loss (from Jim Miller on Politics)

   

Welcome, Congressman Kucinich:  You have probably heard that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is thinking of moving west.

Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich may be considering a move.  The eight-term Cleveland congressman is rumored to be interested in moving out of Ohio to seek re-election to Congress from Washington State's new 10th district.

According to Kucinich's communications director Nathan White, "After people found out that Congressman Kucinich's district could be eliminated or substantially altered in congressional redistricting by the Ohio Legislature's Republican majority, Congressman Kucinich received requests from people in twenty states, including Washington State, encouraging him to move and run in their area."

You might not expect this from a cross-country-skiing Washington state conservative, but I would welcome this move.  (Even though he doesn't appear to be a cross country skier.)

I believe that a Kucinich campaign here would be entertaining.  And instructive.

Entertaining for many reasons.  His term as Cleveland mayor was such a success that he narrowly escaped recall, and was defeated by Republican George Voinovich in 1979.   (The election was officially non-partisan but most voters must have known which party each man belonged to.)  In 1982, he declared an income of $38.  He chose Shirley MacLaine, a close friend, to be a godmother for his child.  He has been a shoe shine boy, a professional politician, a talk show host, and has spent time in New Mexico on a "quest for meaning".  (No word on whether he found it.)  He and his lovely English wife, Elizabeth, have a slightheight mismatch.  (Apparently, his third marriage is successful, unlike his first two.  And I suppose I should add that I admire the two for making a success of a relationship that many outsiders thought was a joke.)

Best of all, Congressman Kucinich has claimed that he received directions from a flying saucer.  (Fortunately, he wasn't driving at the time.)

Instructive for several reasons.

Congressman Kucinich has made one of the biggest flip-flops in American history, moving all the way from being completely pro-life (and even vegan) to being pro-choice.  Oddly enough, he made that little trip shortly before he ran for the presidency.  Would Democratic voters in this area forgive his earlier views, or would they distrust his well-timed conversion?

On other issues, Congressman Kucinich has been more consistent; he was in favor of impeaching President Bush, and he's in favor of impeaching President Obama.   Would Democratic voters in this area admire his consistency on that issue, or would they think that he is carrying that consistency just a little too far?

Finally, that Kucinich would consider moving here tells us something about the strength of the Democratic bench here in Washington state.  The party has dominated the state for decades but currently has, with a few exceptions*, unimpressive leaders, something even Kucinich has noticed, apparently, all the way from Ohio.  That Kucinich would consider moving here is an implicit criticism of the Washington state Democratic party.  Do Democratic voters in this area agree with that criticism?

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

(*The exceptions?  Washington state auditor Brian Sonntag, of course, perhaps 9th district congressman Adam Smith, and probably some others in lower offices.)

- 10:30 AM, 5 May 2011   [link]

What is it with the Germans!! (from Jim Miller on Politics)

   

Good Grief!  I wasn't expecting the Germans to be unanimous in approving the death of bin Laden; in fact I was pretty sure that they would be less happy about it than most Americans are.  (Most, but not all.  Michael Moore — no surprise — is one of the exceptions, and there are others you may have heard of.)

But I wasn't expecting this:

A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces.  Meanwhile a new poll reveals that a majority of Germans do not see the terrorist's death as a reason to celebrate.

Now I suppose that Germany has a few nutty judges, just as we do, but this is still pretty amazing.

- 12:44 PM, 6 May 2011   [link]

Go Ahead, Throw Your Vote Away!

"Chief among them is Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, the MP-elect for a French-speaking district outside Montreal. Brosseau doesn't speak French. She doesn't even live in Québec. Nor did she make any effort to actually campaign in support of her own election. Apparently, she never even set foot in the district or made a single public statement during the six-week election campaign. Nevertheless, she defeated the incumbent Bloc MP by more than 10 percentage points."

Go Ahead, Throw Your Vote Away!
May 6, 2011 by S.M. Oliva

The biggest news from Canada's federal election this past Monday wasn't who came in first ­ voters returned the governing Conservatives to power, this time with a majority of seats in the House of Commons ­ but the second-place finish of the socialist New Democratic Party. The NDP benefitted from the slow collapse of Canada's former ruling party, the Liberals, and the more sudden collapse of the secessionist Bloc Québécois. Indeed, the NDP's rise from a third-place party with 36 seats to the official opposition with 102 seats was due almost exclusively to gaining 57 seats in the Province of Québec, all at the expense of the Bloc, which lost all but four of its 47 seats from the previous Parliament.

In the post-election haze, the storyline of the NDP's Québec victory has turned to the strange collection of new Members of Parliament swept into office. Chief among them is Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, the MP-elect for a French-speaking district outside Montreal. Brosseau doesn't speak French. She doesn't even live in Québec. Nor did she make any effort to actually campaign in support of her own election. Apparently, she never even set foot in the district or made a single public statement during the six-week election campaign. Nevertheless, she defeated the incumbent Bloc MP by more than 10 percentage points.

Miss Brosseau hasn't appeared in public or spoken since her victory. The only confirmation of her existence comes from her father ­ who spoke to a reporter before he was quietly hushed by NDP officials ­ and her boss at the Ottawa college bar where she works as an assistant manager. The boss said he didn't even know she was a candidate in the election.

This is the certainly the most comical indictment of democracy I've seen in quite some time. Voters openly backed a candidate they'd never seen or heard, and conversely expressed no interest in being seen or heard. News reports said Miss Brosseau spent a good part of the campaign on a pre-scheduled vacation in Las Vegas.

It doesn't take a political strategist to figure out what happened here. Like many political parties, the NDP wanted to field as many candidates as they could throughout Canada. They didn't expect to win many seats in Québec given the Bloc's previous popularity (and the lack of any prior support for the NDP). So they asked Ms. Brosseau, no doubt a party loyalist who had a friend somewhere in the campaign's high command, to allow her name to stand on the ballot. And then Québec voters went nuts and staged a mass defection from the Bloc to the NDP ­ the one federalist party that hadn't pissed them off in the past.

That the NDP indiscriminately fielded candidates without vetting them ­ or having them run even a barebones campaign ­ is also a consequence of the Canadian election system's perverse economic incentives. Political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy from the federal treasury based on the results of the previous election. So even if the NDP fields a token candidate who gets 1,000 votes in a safe Conservative district, that's $2,000 more for the party treasury next time around. As always, when the government subsidizes something, you get quantity over quality.

National Post columnist Lorne Gunter, a Liberal who nonetheless sympahtizes with Miss Brosseau, sums up the entire affair thusly:

It's not Ruth Ellen Brosseau's fault she won election to the House of Commons in Monday's election. Heaven knows she didn't want to win or expect to win, or even try to win.

The story here isn't Miss Brosseau, but the people who voted for her. And I'm not suggesting they made a mistake or turned the election into a farce. In reality, it didn't matter if they voted for her, the Bloc candidate, or an inanimate carbon rod. In a parliamentary democracy, if you don't vote for the party that controls the government ­ and Québec hasn't done that since the Bloc's rise in the early 1990s ­ then your vote is simply irrelevant. Unlike the market, democracy disregards any act that doesn't directly advance the individuals who claim a rightful monopoly on power (or as Prime Minister Stephen Harper called it, a "mandate.")

And it's not as if some Biblical calamity will befall the poor souls who voted for Miss Brosseau. The election was a momentary protest of years of perceived neglect by the Bloc and the other federalist parties. They may well change their minds in a few years and return some other completely unknown bartender to the House. The sun will continue to rise every day.

So Miss Brosseau's election is, I think, a positive sign. Anything that reinforces the notion that elections aren't the most important events in the world ­ and throwing your vote away in protest is nothing to be ashamed of ­ only encourages individuals to seek alternatives to politics as a mean of social organization. Miss Brosseau's successful non-campaign is perhaps a model for future anarchist protest ­ quite literally defeating something with nothing. Perhaps instead of concocting new ways to convince voters to support libertarian-minded candidates, the better strategy is to run completely unknown individuals and then make no real effort to elect them, instead relying on apathy towards the existing parties to force the voters into an impulsive act of protest.

As for Miss Brosseau, she's basically won the Québec lottery. She'll receive a nice salary for the next four years ­ roughly $157,000 per annum ­ from the very taxpayers who were silly enough to vote for her in the first place. No doubt she'll continue to endure some short-term scorn from the media and political elites in Ottawa, at least until she finally makes some public appearance. But in the end she'll be just another minority backbencher with no real power ­ just another MP hearing complaints from pig farmers who accidentally accepted a six-hour prank collect call from the United States. Or something like that.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Moderator Mark: Some of the arguments on other groups have been
going on for years. Not a week goes by that the same explanations are
made over and over. Precisely worded material, like my New
Constitution, cannot be paraphrased. Anyone reading the same thing
ten times can find something new and important with each reading.
Only a socialist-communist like you, would be offended reading a
document that will outlaw your kind in the USA. So, stay a Tico. The
cost of living down there is low enough you should be able to survive
on a moderator's stipend. — J. A. A. —

>
On May 6, 8:40 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noeinstein,
>
> Of course I am safe from prosecution...I have not come close to breaking any
> law. It has NOTHING to do with my location. I can also NOT be fired.
> Periodically copying identical material from identical sources with near or
> identical comments is the very definition of *SPAM. *
> ***
> *Your supposed "reason" for spamming is not relevant and is obviously more
> important to you than anyone else.
>
> I could care less if its your "new constitution" or a treatise on scratching
> your ass... spam is spam is spam.
>
> As to people taking umbrage with what YOU and you ALONE alone call an
> attack... they have pills and psychiatrists for that... this is not the
> place..maybe a little inpatient care for a while....seek help.
>
> As to the rules governing this Forum.... repeated use of it and TROLLING
> just to keep the thread alive so it drives search engines to your personal
> blog through keywords is SPAMMING....
>
> Keep it up and the thread you have been so careful to groom will disappear.
>
> As to your unabashed advertising of your "Book".... that too, has been
> stopped. there is an area supplied on our "pages" section for such tripe.
>
> Play by the rules.... no lobbyists allowed.... no unsolicited ads for
> personal gain...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Dear Mark:  You may be "safe" from prosecution, but not safe from
> > being fired.  Most of the readers I'm attracting are conservatives in
> > the USA.  Few of those take kindly to your attacking me for
> > periodically copying parts of my precisely-worded New Constitution.
> > That document isn't something that can be paraphrased, repeatedly.
> > I'm sure you would enjoy discussing each little point.  But like I've
> > told J. Ashley, not one word of my document is in flux.  —  J. A. A. —
>
> > On May 4, 5:11 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Einstein,
>
> > > I fully comply with "Google, Costa Rica" and WTO rules and in no way am I
> > > subject to ANY part of your governments rules, regulations, or
> > Constitution.
> > > Just how ignorant are you that you would think so >??
>
> > > I could care less that Google is a US Corporation... It is also a Costa
> > > Rican S.A. and those are the rules that cover me and those ONLY. Please
> > read
> > > OUR constitution.
>
> > > All political points of view are accepted here.... we just do not accept
> > > SPAM regardless of how it is cloaked.
>
> > > Your civil rights are exactly what MY constitution says they are at MY
> > ISP
> > > address. Welcome to the world!!!!!!
>
> > > If "wringing the neck" continues to be a source of ad nausea SPAM the
> > thread
> > > will be shut down and removed.
>
> > > In short, you are on a WORLD forum.... NOT a USA forum..... get used to
> > it.
>
> > > The posters here are not stupid nor are they ignorant.
> > > Constant repetition is a standard tool of the communist/socialist left
> > and
> > > you, more than anyone else seem to be perfectly comfortable using it....
> > I
> > > wonder why.
>
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > Dear Mark:  It's one thing to enjoy reading different points of view.
> > > > It's another one, entirely, to use your unlimited response time to
> > > > attack, often by TONE, the ideas of others.  Though you are in Costa
> > > > Rica, you aren't above having to conform to the Free Speech
> > > > requirements of the US Constitution.  Google is, first and foremost, a
> > > > US corporation.  When you violate MY civil rights, Google becomes
> > > > responsible.  Political Forum bragged that all political points of
> > > > view are accepted.  When you cited me for rightfully demanding that
> > > > Barack Obama be made to account (hang by the neck until dead) for his
> > > > anti-America actions, you sided with the LEFT, socialist-communists.
> > > > You show yourself to have been using your... "moderator" job to
> > > > promote your personal political objectives.  I don't think... "that"
> > > > was part of your job description.  I highly recommend that you just
> > > > fade into the woodwork, like Keith has tended to do.  The readership
> > > > of "Wringing-the-neck... " isn't going up because you keep popping
> > > > in.  — J. A. Armistead —
>
> > > > On May 3, 10:58 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Einstein... here is your latest post.... it did not post when
> > > > > moderated. I have checked and there are indeed large portions of your
> > > > > former posts missing... our local moderators did NOT do that. If you
> > > > > check though you will find that each section of your constitution
> > that
> > > > > was posted is still there at least ONCE. Gee, I warned you against
> > > > > spam... Talk to your buddies at Google...ONLY they can do that, and
> > it
> > > > > is an auto response accomplished within the servers to save space.
>
> > > > > As to my "lowly" "job" here... I enjoy reading different points of
> > > > > view and am not so stupid that I need things CONSTANTLY repeated to
> > > > > me; neither are the other posters.
>
> > > > > Folks: One of the supposed "moderators" of Political Forum, 'The
> > > > > Annointed (sic) One', must be feeling the need to feel powerful.
> > > > > (Meaning that he isn't powerful.) He's from Costa Rica; has monkeys
> > > > > in his back yard; claims to be an attorney and an international peace
> > > > > negotiator; but for some reason he's stuck in the lowly job of trying
> > > > > to keep "spam" off of this group. I can virtually guarantee you that
> > > > > none of the 'other' readers consider my copying apt excerpts from my
> > > > > New Constitution—so that more and more people can understand what I
> > > > > have done on their behalf—to be "spam". If the only thing that
> > > > > 'powerful attorney' has to do is to read word-for-word what everyone
> > > > > on this groups writes, then it is understandable that he would tire
> > > > > of
> > > > > reading the same thing. However, I know that everyday there are
> > > > > first-
> > > > > time visitors who haven't seen even a small part of my New
> > > > > Constitution. When I reply to a particular point, I copy the adjunct
> > > > > block of text so people can sense how my document reads. There are
> > > > > many interesting things in those blocks, put there to make the lives
> > > > > of average Americans better.
>
> > > > > It seems to me that 'Mark', The Annointed (sic) One, has had a fall-
> > > > > from-grace in his profession. Moderating a Google news group isn't
> > > > > part of the career path of... "normal" attorneys. I am sympathetic to
> > > > > the computer storage problems associated with active posts. Several
> > > > > months ago, out-of-the-blue, MJ, Mark, Jonathan and Keith popped-in
> > > > > sounding negative to my efforts, as though in concert to defend...
> > > > > socialism and communism. The VOLUME of my writing went up, because
> > > > > those guys were skimming rather than reading-for-understanding what I
> > > > > was explaining. One of the best ways to reduce repetition would be
> > > > > for Mark, MJ and Jonathan to simply go away. However, they hang
> > > > > around because I have readers, and they like the exposure. Copied
> > > > > below is the email that 'Mark" sent to me directly. The "off" tone
> > > > > and exaggeration near the end hint of a troubled mind. *** As a
> > > > > Google stockholder, I will complain to the proper people in CA, if
> > > > > Mark interferes again, with THE most important post in the history of
> > > > > Political Forum.
>
> > > > > On May 1, 6:50 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear J. Ashley:  Since as little as one to four sentences are
> > needed
> > > > > > to address the crucial issues, there are NO paragraphs in my New
> > > > > > Constitution!  If there were, the entire document would require
> > fifty
> > > > > > plus pages, rather than just ten ledger-size pages to print.  In
> > many
> > > > > > cases I have "highlighted" the answer to a specific comment by
> > putting
> > > > > > *** ...  in front of the main point in the reply.  The reason I
> > show
> > > > > > the entire BLOCK of text (but not a paragraph) is so that people
> > can
> > > > > > read larger sections and get a feel for how things are organized.
> >  The
> > > > > > 160 words you counted probably addressed 10 or more separate
> > issues.
> > > > > > In some cases, my adding a single word modifier to an existing
> > > > > > sentence allows going in an entire new direction.  For example: In
> > the
> > > > > > 1st Amendment, I added the word "peaceable" to "freedom of *
> > > > > > religion."  That is a protection against any religion that
> > advocates
> > > > > > or condones violence as a means of fostering its objectives.  — J.
> > A.
> > > > > > Armistead —
>
> > > > > > On Apr 25, 1:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > John,
>
> > > > > > > I accomplished the same outcome with 43 words of clarity that you
> > did
> > > > > > > with your convoluted paragraph of more than 160 words.
>
> > > > > > > On 04/24/2011 05:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > J. Ashley:  How quickly YOU forget!  The following is from my
> > New
> > > > > > > > Constitution:
>
> > > > > > > > "Section 9&  10:  Other than the President or his agents, no
> > > > person,
> > > > > > > > news medium, organization, group, their envoys, or any lobby,
> > > > within
> > > > > > > > government or without, shall be allowed to contact
> > representatives
> > > > > > > > while such are in Washington.  However, invited persons or
> > groups
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > make scheduled depositions provided they don�t communicate
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > representatives otherwise.  A representative�s constituents
> > shall
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > allowed to contact them for the purpose of influencing their
> > votes
> > > > > > > > only while they are in their home states or districts.
> > > > > > > > Representatives shall regularly contact their district offices
> > or
> > > > > > > > return to their districts to be informed of the wishes of their
>
> ...
>
> read 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.

Obama vs. Osama: A Very Convenient Death

Obama vs. Osama: A Very Convenient Death
By Victor Thorn

The compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan (75 miles north of Islamabad), where Osama bin Laden supposedly met his demise on May 1 at the hands of a highly sensitive U.S. ground operation was eight times larger than any other building in the area. Built in 2005, these headquarters, described as “a highly unusual structure,” were well guarded and extremely secure

Didn’t anyone in our military or intelligence community—for six long years—question the purpose of this fortress or the identity of its occupants? A $25 million reward lingered over bin Laden’s head, yet not a single person revealed the whereabouts of the world’s most famous terrorist?

With the NSA’s technological capabilities, not to mention the precision of Google Earth, was no one in our multi-billion-dollar spook industry capable of locating a Muslim who stands six feet four inches and drags around a dialysis machine?

Only moments after Barack Obama announced the death of this Orwellian perpetual enemy, former national security advisor Stephen Hadley proclaimed, “Osama bin Laden was hiding in clear view.”

Was Hadley’s statement accurate, or is it a bit inconvenient to mention that the Egyptian newspaper alWafd ran a funeral announcement for bin Laden on Dec. 26, 2001? Multiple other reports from a wide variety of sources—ranging back years—flatly stated, in one version or another, that bin Laden has long been dead.

AFP has diligently chronicled such reports that largely seem to have been missed or otherwise suppressed by the elite media in the United States.

Even more incredibly, White House officials described how (according to their version of events) the first intelligence threads pointing to bin Laden’s Pakistani locale arrived in August 2010. Still, he purportedly wasn’t killed for another eight months. How many people can go that long without paying parking tickets, let alone when you are the most wanted man in the world?

Bin Laden’s supposed homicide arrived at a time when Obama’s popularity had plummeted to a dangerously low point. Tycoon Donald Trump hammered him for a month straight with allegations concerning his birth certificate while also calling Obama “the worst president ever.”

Amid this onslaught, Obama teetered, appearing weak as gas prices skyrocketed, the economy sputtered and the war against Libya faced ruin.

NATO’s April 30 assassination attempt on Muammar Qadaffi had backfired, with the Libyan president’s son and three grandchildren killed as “collateral damage.” Global reaction was mounting to the point of outrage as it became clear that the U.S.—under the guise of NATO —violated international law by trying to murder a foreign leader. Obama, like his predecessors George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, was soon to be labeled a war criminal.

But then, just one day later, bin Laden was reported dead and Obama was hailed as a heroic “dragon slayer.” Is it of any symbolic significance that this announcement came on May 1, the communist International Workers Day?

At any rate, celebrations soon ensued outside the White House as the jubilant and gullible sang God Bless America and The Star Spangled Banner. While addressing the nation, Obama took credit for the operation, boasting, “I directed Leon Panetta, CIA director, to make the capture of Osama bin Laden our No. 1 priority. . . . I authorized the operation to get bin Laden . . . it came at my direction.”

Obama’s popularity numbers will rise, and GOP criticism of him will be more difficult for a while.

However, th e question arises: Why didn’t Republican George W. Bush and his cronies pull off a similar ploy and stake their claim by killing bin Laden?

Those who believe that the world and American political affairs are actually far more stagemanaged than meets the eye—that much of the partisan conflict we see is actually political theater—provide this answer:

If Bush had made good on his threat of getting bin Laden “dead or alive,” he’d have emerged victorious in his war on terror and Obama’s selection as president would have been more difficult. The powers-that-be needed Bush’s tenure to end on a disastrous note so that the doors could be opened for Obama’s “hope and change.”

So, with Obama’s favorability ratings tanking and a power struggle in Washington threatening to reveal many scandalous aspects of his past, the president’s handlers countered by pulling the ultimate tru mp card—the head of bin Laden.

Of course, the neo-conservatives who manage U.S. foreign policy couldn’t blow the whistle on this ruse because, after all, they were the first ones to use bin Laden as a patsy after their falseflag attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

In all, the rewards for Obama are obvious. Often criticized as being unAmerican and tepid on foreign affairs, he now boasted about "the greatness of our country" during his latenight address to the nation.

On a larger scale, even the military machine—mired in a disastrous Afghan war for nearly a decade—may emerge on a positive note.

Despite squandering over $400 billion battling Afghan tribes, Gen. David Petraeus is being hailed as a hero for commandeering the drone attacks on Pakistan. Moreover, the Department of Defense’s message will clearly be: Our efforts weren’t in vain, because we got bin Laden.

In t he second line of Obama’s May 1 address, the president reiterated that al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible for 911 and only through “the tireless and heroic work of our military” was the U.S. able to combat global terrorism.

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

Eight Questions from Leftists for Obama

[[  Are there any loonie-lefties that can even read this?]]

 

May 6 -8, 2011
If Eichmann Could Be Put on Trial Why Not Bin Laden?
Eight Questions for President Obama
By MITCHEL COHEN
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen05062011.html

A number of significant questions arise with the announced killing of Osama bin-Laden. Here are some that members of the Green Party are asking:

1) Why would the U.S. government order the summary execution of an unarmed and frail individual – even an alleged terrorist, criminal, and former CIA "asset" like bin-Laden?

2) Why would they dump the body – and thus the proof of his identity and wounds -- into the ocean, preventing an autopsy? Is there something they are trying to hide?

3) Why would the rulers of the most powerful country on the face of the earth be afraid to capture and arrest Osama bin-Laden and put him on trial, as was done with the World War 2 Nazi Adolf Eichmann?

4) Why was bin-Laden not captured and at least questioned about further terrorist plans if he was the mastermind, as charged?

5) Why did the President not re-visit former President G.W. Bush's rejection of the offer of the Taliban to turn bin-Laden over to the U.S. for prosecution following the 9/11 attacks?

6) Who was responsible for initial reports released to the media and the public that bin-Laden was armed and that he was using his wife as a human shield, when neither of those were true?

7) When will President Obama allow the questions by the 9/11 families to finally be heard, recorded, and answered? When will he order a criminal investigation of the events of 9/11?

8) When will the President order home the troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and provide them with the medical support they need, but which has been to a large extent cut out of the budget?

Mitchel Cohen is an organizer with the Brooklyn Greens / Green Party, and is currently Chair of the WBAI radio (99.5 FM) Local Station Board*. (*For ID purposes only)

--
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.

USA Releases Photo of Bin Laden's Funeral

US Releases Photo of Bin Laden's Funeral

 

 

--
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.

Dry As A Bone

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=74271&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Iowntheworldcom+%28IOwntheWorld.com%29

 

 

--
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: who are you

Me be Libertarian.  True.  Also Conservative.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/

--
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.

still don't trust him - the stories are so conflicting that I find it hard to believe anything he says without more corroboration

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REIMAGINING_OBAMA_ANALYSIS?SITE=OHMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REIMAGINING_OBAMA_ANALYSIS?SITE=OHMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

--
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.

who are you

http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/

--
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: Bush Attorney Gen. Slams Obama Terror Policies, He's Crippled CIA

    Former AG Michael Mukasey makes a whole lot of sense to me.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Bush Attorney Gen. Slams Obama Terror Policies, He's Crippled CIA
Date:	Fri, 06 May 2011 22:31:37 GMT
From:	Newsmax.com <newsmax@reply.newsmax.com>
Reply-To:	newsmax@reply.newsmax.com
To:	rhomp2002@earthlink.net <rhomp2002@earthlink.net>

Breaking News from Newsmax.com Bush Attorney General Slams Obama Terror Policies Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey says that President Obama has systematically undermined the very interrogation procedures that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Mukasey warns Obama's actions helped share classified techniques with our enemies and have crippled the CIA, making the country vulnerable to more terror attacks. Read the Full Story — Go Here Now Get the US Navy SEALs Cap, Just Pay Shipping! Herman Cain Steals the First GOP Debate Romney Backs Obama on bin Laden Death Photo Decision More Links: Donald Trump Special Online Event: His Coming $100 Million Announcement Note: Before he died one of America's most noted economists revealed a chilling, prophetic warning of Obama's inflation plan and how it could destroy America. Find out why his book has become a runaway best-seller — Go Here Now This e-mail is never sent unsolicited. You have received this Newsmax e-mail because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below. TO ADVERTISE For information on advertising, please contact Newsmax Advertising Sales via e-mail. TO SUBSCRIBE If this e-mail has been forwarded to you and you would like to sign up, please click here. Remove your e-mail address from our list or modify your profile. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This e-mail was sent by: Newsmax.com 4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA 1153030 C39D-1

The Queen of England: WOW

 There is something to be said for tenure.

 

 

 

A bit of history.   The Queen Of England I  was a little shocked by the  pictures when  it penetrated my brain how long she's been around. She  gives new meaning to the  phrase "Long  Live the Queen". How old does this one make  you feel? Keep scrolling...                                        I  don't know about you, but  I went OMG somewhere between  Eisenhower and  Truman. ( P.S. After  looking at this I  am shocked at how long I've been around, too...)   IF YOU REMEMBER ALL OR MOST OF THESE PRESIDENTS, YOU'RE NO SPRING CHICKEN EITHER!

 

--
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.

Radical Math

http://www.radicalmath.org/main.php?id=SocialJusticeMath

 

 

--
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.

Bin Laden Killing

I love this phrase posted over on lucianne.com.

 

"Obama killed Osama and we got 72 versions."

 

 

 

--
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 Was 9/11 Not Mentioned on Osama Wanted Poster?

Why Was 9/11 Not Mentioned on Osama Wanted Poster?
Written by Jack Kenny   
Friday, 06 May 2011 14:40



The theories abound. Osama bin laden is not really dead. Or he has been dead for years, in which case the headlines should read, "Osama Still Dead!" At least one blog proclaims the al-Qaeda leader and alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was actually dead before 9/11. In other words, our government for all these ensuing years has been chasing the wrong terrorist ­ and the wrong corpse, even.

But one item that has resurfaced on the Internet in recent days is intriguing. The FBI wanted poster, listing the crimes for which he was wanted, made no mention of the 9/11 attacks.

The poster, as it still appears on the FBI website, says "Usama Bin Laden" is (now was) "wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombing of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is suspect in other terrorist attacks through the world." The agency wanted us to be on the lookout for limping Arab southpaws: "Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane," it said. The poster offered a reward of $25 million from the U.S. State Department for information "leading directly to his capture or conviction." An additional $2 million was offered by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transportation Association.

Bin Laden has been, at least since 9/11, America's number one villain and was clearly the most infamous fugitive on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list. The poster on the agency website was dated June 1999 and revised in November 2011 ­ about two months after the 9/11 attacks and a month after U.S. forces began military action against Afghanistan in the effort to destroy al Qaeda forces there, overthrow the Taliban government, and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. So why was 9/11 not mentioned on the FBI wanted poster?

In  2006, an online publication called " Muckraker Report," contacted the FBI, according to a report on the Muckraker website by Ed Haas. Haas reported in the June 18, 2006 article that Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, explained that 9/11 was not mentioned because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

"First and foremost," wrote Haas, "if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to 'smoke him out of his cave'? The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to 'root out' Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Haas also referred to a video released by the U.S. government in December 2001 showing bin Laden and some of his cohorts rejoicing over the success of the 9/11 attacks. Often referred to as the "confession video," it was cited by administration officials and then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York as proof positive that Osama was the culprit ­ or proof redundant, according to Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense. "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered," Rumsfeld said in a Department of Defense press release. The tape "removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified," Giuliani declared upon its release. In other words, it was, to borrow an ill-fated phrase, "a slam-dunk" that Osama was the mastermind behind the 9-11 atrocities.

So why would the FBI say, five years later and with Osama still at large, it had no "hard evidence" connecting Public Enemy Number One to 9/11. Perhaps the answer lies, at least in part, in the agency's role within the Department of Justice. The Muckraker article quoted the FBI's Tomb as follows:

The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence (that) connected Bin Laden to 9/11.

Perhaps the FBI did not have any evidence on Osama for 9/11 because it was not seeking any. And it may not have been seeking any for two possible reasons: The Bush administration had already determined Osama was the perpetrator. And the administration and its Justice Department had no intention after 9/11 of ever bringing bin Laden to trial. "We're going to get him," President Bush declared. "Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me." But it did matter. America wanted Osama ­ dead. From what we have been told, it appears likely he could have been taken alive by the Navy SEALs who confronted the unarmed terrorist in his penthouse apartment. Instead, he was shot to death and his body quickly disposed of.

There are plausible explanations for this, among them that he had weapons nearby, perhaps within reach, when he met his doom. And there had been reports that he might have been wearing explosive devices in order to take out his captors as well as himself and go out in a blaze of bloody glory. But is also seems likely that neither the Bush nor the Obama administration had any desire to capture Osama alive. If the Middle East is a tinderbox now, imagine what it would be like if Osama were on trial in New York or, more likely, at Guantanamo. Even the hasty disposal of his corpse in a "burial at sea" was done to assure there would not be a burial place that would serve as shrine and rallying point for extremists to gather and pay tribute to their holy martyr and vow to carry on his jihad.

Still, one might wonder. Judging by official reactions at the time, our government appeared clueless on 9/11 that an attack was coming. Yet it was able to tell us, nearly at once, exactly who did it. But of course, our government had not been clueless.  Later we learned of the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2011 that warned, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and included an unconfirmed report that "bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft." The report was confirmed conclusively on September 11.

"On 9/11, it was obvious the intelligence community missed something big," George W. Bush recalled in his memoir, Decision Points :  "I was alarmed by the lapse, and I expected an explanation." That was on page 135. The book ends 336 pages later without telling us if, in the remaining seven years and four months of his presidency, Bush ever got that explanation.

Now, nearly 10 years after the attacks, millions of Americans still wonder if we have been given the full explanation of what happened, and why, on that fateful day, September 11, 2001.

Related articles:

Afghanistan: Will War, U.S. Occupation Continue in Perpetuity?

Bin Laden & al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations

Pakistan: Treacherous "Ally" Exposed ­ Again

Why Did It Take 10 Years to Get Bin Laden

Pakistan, Aid Scrutinized After Bin Laden Killing


http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/7386-why-was-911-not-mentioned-on-osama-wanted-poster

Ron Paul can win in 2012

Ron Paul can win in 2012
By Walter E. Block

If Ron Paul can somehow win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, he will have an excellent chance of beating Barack Obama in November 2012.  He will of course face great obstacles in the Republican primaries, but, if he can overcome them, it ought to be downhill after that.

Why will the congressman from Texas have a good shot at beating a sitting President during (non-declared) war time?

Paul can out-left Obama on foreign policy and personal liberties, and thus make gigantic inroads on the latter's base, while at the same time maintain his right wing credentials on economics.

Not only has Obama not withdrawn the U.S. from Iraq, as promised, he has involved us in yet another undeclared war in Libya.  He has expanded the hostilities from Afghanistan to Pakistan, utilizing drone strikes. He has presided over the murder of dozens of Yemenese, none of whom posed any threat to our shores. He has allowed torture for the wiki-leaker, and on U.S. territory. Obama is responsible for the biggest military spending in the history of the world, has bailed out fat cats from Wall Street to Detroit, and still has not closed down our torture chamber in Cuba, again as promised. Ron Paul, in contrast, opposes corporate welfare, and would not only exit, and forthwith, from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, but would do so for hundreds (yes, hundreds) of other nations ranging from Germany to Japan to vast parts of South America, Asia and Africa. What on earth are we still doing in all these faraway places, the left wing of the Democratic Party might well ask?

A Paul Administration would hack away heavily at the previously sacrosanct military budget, radically tackling our financial crisis without any need to raise our debt ceiling once again.  In contrast, it will be the same old, same old, from Obama. The deficits will continue to be monetized by the Fed, creating inflation, and thus exacerbating poverty (isn't the left supposed to be against poverty?) and further decreasing the value of the sinking dollar.

Another area in which Obama's base will actually prefer Paulian policy is drug legalization. Disproportionate numbers of young black men are now in jail for engaging in this victimless crime, and all too many others of them have perished from violence due to prohibition (aren't "progressives" supposed to favor the black community?). Have we learned nothing from our dire experience with the prohibition of alcohol? The country to the south of us is unraveling at a ferocious pace due to these self same drug laws, and we ourselves cannot much longer remain immune from this whirlwind this legislation has created.

Of course, Paul's policies on eliminating U.S. imperialism abroad, and saving us from the scourge of drug prohibition at home, will not resonate too well with the conservative Republicans who are pretty rabid, in the wrong direction on both issues. And, while Representative Paul has made great strides in denigrating the central planning Fed and promoting the 100% gold backed dollar as a method of quelling the business cycle with its heightened unemployment and bankruptcies, it cannot be said that this is at all acceptable to the party faithful on either side of the aisle. (Do both the left and the right favor our current depression?)

Dr. Paul is particularly vulnerable on the question of Israel, in the view of some people.  He wants to end so called "foreign aid" (more accurately and less pejoratively translated into "government to government transfers of funds," which does not at all imply program benefits). But this would mean that the only functioning democracy in the Middle East would have its financial support taken away from it. However, U.S. transfers of funds to Israel's enemies in the Arab world vastly outweigh that given to this country alone. This home of the Jewish people would have less money (private donations would of course be unaffected) from the U.S. government absolutely, but relative to its enemies it would actually gain. As well, these funds render the Israeli economy less efficient than would otherwise be the case. These points have recently been appreciated by the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. For more on why Ron Paul should be greatly appreciated by the Jewish community, see here, here and here.

Social security, too, is a sacred cow amongst the Republicans. So much for their adherence to the philosophy of free enterprise. But this is actually a vast left wing conspiracy (FDR inaugurated it). Bernie Madoff  just went to prison for something very much along these Ponzi scheme lines. The idea behind this "third rail" of American politics is that people are too stupid to save for their old ages and the state must force them to do so, for their own good. But if the electorate is that deranged, how can we allow them to vote at all, let alone to expect them to mark their ballot boxes wisely. And, how is it that they are so wise so as to elect politicians who will then correct these errors of theirs? No, this policy rend asunder family ties between the younger and older generations and is not needed. Just because some few will act in a silly manner is no reason to forcibly victimize all of us with the Ponzi scheme. Ron will end this sacred cow, but the Republicans, to say nothing of the Democrats, will not like it one bit.

But at least this statesman from Texas is not a socialist like Romney with his medical plan for Massachusetts which anticipated Obama's compulsory support for the health insurance industry. Dr. Paul would rely, instead, on a truly free market in medicine to drive prices down to reasonable levels, as this system has done in all other industries that have been left relatively free. Capitalism works for everything else, why not health care? Nor is Congressman Paul a theocratic imperialist as is Mike Huckabee, nor is he a lightweight of the order of Sarah Palin, nor is he a flake like Donald Trump, whose main accomplishment in politics is to force Obama to release his birth certificate. So, will Ron win the Republican nomination, and then go on to victory in the next election?

All we can say for sure is that the next political cycle is likely to be fought over ideas and philosophies, not personalities as in the past, if Paul gets the nod from the Republicans.

(A truncated version of this article appeared in the Loyola University Student Newspaper, The Maroon, on 5/6/11)