Rahm Emanuel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAkePgf8hkA
Rahm Emanuel qualifications were he studied ballet in college.
Rahm Emanuel was called the "bag man" for the Clinton administration.
From there he got two jobs. One was he got on the board of Freddy Mac where he got paid $250,000/year. And he got a job with Wasserman Perella where he makes 16 million in less than two years and that is on top of his Freddy pay. This is the time when they (Freddy) were "cooking the books" and caused the financial meltdown. He made the 16 Mil basically on one large deal advising SBC.
The 'guy*' that helped make this deal; company, took a loss. They (SBC) had to sell because they were buying another phone company called Americ Tec they had to sell a Security company company called Security Link(?). A billion to bil & ½ dollar investment. They sold it to an investment group run by Emanuel for about 500 mil. 6 mo. He/they later sold it for a billion dollars. Whiteacre was the chairman of SBC at the time.
Edward Whiteacre was later appointed (This is under the Obama administration)chairman of GM later announced he knew nothing about making cars.
The person 'pulling the strings in the Obama campaign is a person named Bill Daley* One of his closest friends/enemies had been Jim Johnson who was the chairman of Fannie Mae and his qualifications for being chairman of the largest mortgage company in the world was he had been Walter Mondale's campaign manager.
SBC (formerly Southern Bell Co.) which grew into the "new" AT&T
[*Edward Whiteacre became chairman of the board and chief executive officer. In 1995, Southwestern Bell Corporation changed its name to SBC. Whitacre led SBC through a series of mergers and acquisitions in building the largest provider of both local long distance telephone services and wireless service (through its Cingular division) in the United States. These acquisitions included Pacific Telesis (1997), SNET (1998), Comcast Cellular (1999), Ameritech (1999) and AT&T (2005), from which the post-merger company took its name, as well as the 2006 acquisition of Bell South.]
*Bill Daley, brother of Richard Daily, Mayor of Chicago
Rahm Emanuel Wants to be Mayor of Chicago http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rahm-emanuel-leading-exodus-of-obama-aides-from-white-house-2089118.html
Jim Johnson key role in the Obama campaign.
--
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.
There was an error in this gadget
0
J. Ashley: From the very start you've made it quite clear that my New
Constitution isn't harsh enough on government. Except for my
outlawing political parties; shutting down the US Senate (It's
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!); and excluding all career politicians from the
House, most of government (minus "social" anything!) will be
unchanged. The US Military isn't touched, nor is the "proper"
workings of the Executive Branch (Obama being an improper example.)
If anarchy is the only thing that will make you happy, you should live
through... WW III. Then, there will be... every (alive) man for
himself. Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
>
On May 13, 7:02 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> For the last time. I want to abolish government. Without government,
> there can be no social engineering - such as YOUR New Constitution is
> intent upon doing.
>
> On 05/13/2011 02:13 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > J. Ashley: Somehow, in your miniscule mind, you suppose that nothing
> > can function without someone in government pulling the strings. Then,
> > tell me, guy: How did the USA become an industrial giant before there
> > were any income taxes, and before any "liberals" started telling
> > others how everything needs to be done? If a business is run,
> > corruptly, don't work there or purchase there. For someone who
> > advocates ANARCHY (no government) you sure do have a lot of
> > "government dependent� ideas, non of which are part of the SPIRIT of
> > my New Constitution. � J. A. A. �
> > On May 12, 2:04 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Your entire New Constitution is unenforcible "social engineering."
> >> Neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to mandate "fair play." If
> >> it were possible, everyone would obey speed limits. No one would cut
> >> someone else off in traffic. I could go on, but even your simple brain
> >> should be able to grasp the concept.
>
> >> Socialism has been equated with democracy for at least 100 years. "The
> >> tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with
> >> the most advanced democracy." [Encyclopedia Britannica, circa 1913]
>
> >> On 05/12/2011 08:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear J. Ashley: Either you can't read (likely) or you have no earthly
> >>> idea what socialism and communism are. When I mandate in my New
> >>> Constitution that "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the
> >>> USA", both socialism and communism are forever outlawed from
> >>> consideration by government! Somehow, you got it in your very small
> >>> head that 'fairness' can only mean that everyone gets identical pieces
> >>> of the pie. *** But THAT would involve STEALING from the rich to give
> >>> to the lazy, good-for-nothing, opportunistic "poor". Thus, your
> >>> notion of "fairness" isn't fair, nor is it a democracy�because the
> >>> power is put into the hands of the "winning" majority, rather than
> >>> being allocated to all the people (on demand) on EACH and EVERY
> >>> issue! My document requires 60% of "the people" to agree before any
> >>> direct vote of the people can have the force of law. And every
> >>> previous law that passed by fewer that 55% (probationary) is struck
> >>> down. That means that Obama Care doesn't meet the vote requirement
> >>> and would be struck down. But Obama Care would have already been
> >>> barred from consideration for being "Social Engineering" and an
> >>> attempt to change the USA into a socialist-communist nation. Nancy
> >>> Pelosi, Harry Reid, and about 75% of the leftist Democrats who
> >>> proposed such things would already have been HANGED for treason!
> >>> Jonathan, trust me that NO GROUP will have the power to sway the House
> >>> (There will be no more unconstitutional "Senate".) on anything. Power
> >>> is vested in the individuals! Group lobbying for anything becomes a
> >>> felony. I realize that this is tough-love for the government. But
> >>> its the only way to FORCE decisions to be for the good of the country,
> >>> rather than� what most increases the chances career politicians can
> >>> keep getting elected. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On May 11, 10:37 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>> How can you not see that what you are proscribing is socialism/communism?
> >>>> On 05/11/2011 05:18 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan: No! Only "schemes" that have the strings being pulled
> >>>>> by government would be socialist. My New Constitution includes these
> >>>>> and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> >>>>> businesses:
> >>>>> "Businesses and professions shall be fair to their employees and to
> >>>>> their customers. The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> >>>>> charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> >>>>> discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> >>>>> shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> >>>>> perform no actual work on an ongoing basis. Fair and honest business
> >>>>> practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> >>>>> customers without coercion."
> >>>>> And... "Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that are in the
> >>>>> best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> >>>>> enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> >>>>> to prosper." Note: It is definitely in the best interest of the
> >>>>> people to be treated fairly by employers. If an employee isn't
> >>>>> treated fairly, he or she can sue for damages in civil court. A
> >>>>> business, such as a tobacco company, which sells unfiltered cigarettes
> >>>>> in foreign countries isn't acting in the best interest of the people
> >>>>> (of the world), and thus can be fined until the bad practices stop.
> >>>>> No business can mistreat people badly, anywhere, and have the USA just
> >>>>> look the other way! � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> On May 11, 1:47 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> By "fair" I assume you mean "equality of terms; equity; as the fairness
> >>>>>> of a contract."
> >>>>>> How do you propose to accomplish such fairness? Any scheme of equalizing
> >>>>>> the social conditions of life is socialism/communism - the very thing
> >>>>>> you "claim" to abhor.
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> On 05/10/2011 10:22 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.
> >>>>>>> Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> >>>>>>> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> >>>>>>> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Wal-Mart
> >>>>>>> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> >>>>>>> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> >>>>>>> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> >>>>>>> plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> >>>>>>> company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
> >>>>>>> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.
> >>>>>>> I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> >>>>>>> building quality real estate properties�as he knows so well how to do�
> >>>>>>> the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
> >>>>>>> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> >>>>>>> the bottom or at the top. � John A. Armistead � Patriot.
> >>>>>>> On May 10, 11:59 am, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> Repeat after me: Donald Trump is a socialist. From a 2009 interview
> >>>>>>>> about whether there should be executive pay limits:
> >>>>>>>> Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with
> >>>>>>>> salary caps?
> >>>>>>>> Donald Trump: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars
> >>>>>>>> is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using
> >>>>>>>> taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.
> >>>>>>>> That's socialism Einstein.
> >>>>>>>> On 05/09/2011 11:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Republican presidential contenders are gearing-up to fight-it-out for
> >>>>>>>>> the right to run against� �Obama� in 2012. Every one of those should
> >>>>>>>>> be required to answer this question: �Is it FAIR to have hugely
> >>>>>>>>> expensive primaries spread over months, with the most �power� going to
> >>>>>>>>> the voters in the corn state of� Iowa? Answer: Hell NO! Nor is it
> >>>>>>>>> FAIR to allow political parties to have any say-so, whatsoever,
> >>>>>>>>> regarding who the contenders can be, and how the country will be run
> >>>>>>>>> once the �winning party� has been decided.
> >>>>>>>>> Rep. Ron Paul, that sunken-cheek retread from the 2008 election, has
> >>>>>>>>> already raised a million dollars�probably earmarked for brown-nosing
> >>>>>>>>> the farmers of Iowa for a chance to become President. Paul�s early
> >>>>>>>>> polling lead among the announced candidates has him positioned much as
> >>>>>>>>> he was four years ago. The same anti-war, less-government crowd who
> >>>>>>>>> filled his coffers with hard cash, must still be impressed by his
> >>>>>>>>> unwavering positions on most issues. When Paul withdrew in 2008, he
> >>>>>>>>> said, �Elections are over quickly. Winning a revolution will take a
> >>>>>>>>> bit longer.� But instead of leading a revolution, Paul settled back
> >>>>>>>>> into business as usual in our broken and corrupt, party-dominated
> >>>>>>>>> government. Anyone so corrupted could never lead this country in the
> >>>>>>>>> new direction needed.
> >>>>>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano, filling in for a flagging Glenn Beck, asked a
> >>>>>>>>> guest this question: �Who among the possible Republican presidential
> >>>>>>>>> candidates do you think Barack Obama would LEAST like to run
> >>>>>>>>> against?� The answer to that question isn�t as important as the fact
> >>>>>>>>> Napolitano is so matter-of-fact that Barack Obama will still be in
> >>>>>>>>> office, let alone be a candidate for President in 2012. My above
> >>>>>>>>> average computer graphics experience leads me to conclude that both of
> >>>>>>>>> Obama�s purported birth certificates are bogus. *** In a very public
> >>>>>>>>> and straightforward way, the US Secret Service should conduct a
> >>>>>>>>> definitive investigation of all �birther� issues, lest they continue
> >>>>>>>>> to �protect� a scoundrel who isn�t a bona fide President of the USA.
> >>>>>>>>> Napolitano shows his naivet� by recommending we vote for candidates
> >>>>>>>>> desiring smaller, lower cost Government who will support� the
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution. Over the decades, the Constitution has been ritually
> >>>>>>>>> praised. But that document was so WEAK that our government evolved
> >>>>>>>>> away from being the Representative Republic the Founding Fathers
> >>>>>>>>> surely wanted to mandate. My New Constitution is strength (control
> >>>>>>>>> over what goes on in Washington) made manifest!
> >>>>>>>>> Donald Trump is being �tagged� a �birther� and a �racist� by Mort
> >>>>>>>>> Zuckerman�s NY news paper. Liberals call it a conspiracy that anyone
> >>>>>>>>> would wish to apply the same level of technical facility to analyzing
> >>>>>>>>> two questionable birth certificates, as was used to assess the Shroud
> >>>>>>>>> of Turin, or the remains of King Tut. The long form birth
> >>>>>>>>> certificate, which Obama released to the press, was a *.PDF file, not
> >>>>>>>>> a photocopy of an original. That file was clearly LAYERS of PDF files
> >>>>>>>>> placed one over the other to form a
> >> ...
>
> >> read more �
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
Constitution isn't harsh enough on government. Except for my
outlawing political parties; shutting down the US Senate (It's
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!); and excluding all career politicians from the
House, most of government (minus "social" anything!) will be
unchanged. The US Military isn't touched, nor is the "proper"
workings of the Executive Branch (Obama being an improper example.)
If anarchy is the only thing that will make you happy, you should live
through... WW III. Then, there will be... every (alive) man for
himself. Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
>
On May 13, 7:02 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> For the last time. I want to abolish government. Without government,
> there can be no social engineering - such as YOUR New Constitution is
> intent upon doing.
>
> On 05/13/2011 02:13 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > J. Ashley: Somehow, in your miniscule mind, you suppose that nothing
> > can function without someone in government pulling the strings. Then,
> > tell me, guy: How did the USA become an industrial giant before there
> > were any income taxes, and before any "liberals" started telling
> > others how everything needs to be done? If a business is run,
> > corruptly, don't work there or purchase there. For someone who
> > advocates ANARCHY (no government) you sure do have a lot of
> > "government dependent� ideas, non of which are part of the SPIRIT of
> > my New Constitution. � J. A. A. �
> > On May 12, 2:04 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Your entire New Constitution is unenforcible "social engineering."
> >> Neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to mandate "fair play." If
> >> it were possible, everyone would obey speed limits. No one would cut
> >> someone else off in traffic. I could go on, but even your simple brain
> >> should be able to grasp the concept.
>
> >> Socialism has been equated with democracy for at least 100 years. "The
> >> tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with
> >> the most advanced democracy." [Encyclopedia Britannica, circa 1913]
>
> >> On 05/12/2011 08:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear J. Ashley: Either you can't read (likely) or you have no earthly
> >>> idea what socialism and communism are. When I mandate in my New
> >>> Constitution that "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the
> >>> USA", both socialism and communism are forever outlawed from
> >>> consideration by government! Somehow, you got it in your very small
> >>> head that 'fairness' can only mean that everyone gets identical pieces
> >>> of the pie. *** But THAT would involve STEALING from the rich to give
> >>> to the lazy, good-for-nothing, opportunistic "poor". Thus, your
> >>> notion of "fairness" isn't fair, nor is it a democracy�because the
> >>> power is put into the hands of the "winning" majority, rather than
> >>> being allocated to all the people (on demand) on EACH and EVERY
> >>> issue! My document requires 60% of "the people" to agree before any
> >>> direct vote of the people can have the force of law. And every
> >>> previous law that passed by fewer that 55% (probationary) is struck
> >>> down. That means that Obama Care doesn't meet the vote requirement
> >>> and would be struck down. But Obama Care would have already been
> >>> barred from consideration for being "Social Engineering" and an
> >>> attempt to change the USA into a socialist-communist nation. Nancy
> >>> Pelosi, Harry Reid, and about 75% of the leftist Democrats who
> >>> proposed such things would already have been HANGED for treason!
> >>> Jonathan, trust me that NO GROUP will have the power to sway the House
> >>> (There will be no more unconstitutional "Senate".) on anything. Power
> >>> is vested in the individuals! Group lobbying for anything becomes a
> >>> felony. I realize that this is tough-love for the government. But
> >>> its the only way to FORCE decisions to be for the good of the country,
> >>> rather than� what most increases the chances career politicians can
> >>> keep getting elected. � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On May 11, 10:37 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>> How can you not see that what you are proscribing is socialism/communism?
> >>>> On 05/11/2011 05:18 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan: No! Only "schemes" that have the strings being pulled
> >>>>> by government would be socialist. My New Constitution includes these
> >>>>> and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> >>>>> businesses:
> >>>>> "Businesses and professions shall be fair to their employees and to
> >>>>> their customers. The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> >>>>> charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> >>>>> discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> >>>>> shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> >>>>> perform no actual work on an ongoing basis. Fair and honest business
> >>>>> practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> >>>>> customers without coercion."
> >>>>> And... "Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that are in the
> >>>>> best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> >>>>> enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> >>>>> to prosper." Note: It is definitely in the best interest of the
> >>>>> people to be treated fairly by employers. If an employee isn't
> >>>>> treated fairly, he or she can sue for damages in civil court. A
> >>>>> business, such as a tobacco company, which sells unfiltered cigarettes
> >>>>> in foreign countries isn't acting in the best interest of the people
> >>>>> (of the world), and thus can be fined until the bad practices stop.
> >>>>> No business can mistreat people badly, anywhere, and have the USA just
> >>>>> look the other way! � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> On May 11, 1:47 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> By "fair" I assume you mean "equality of terms; equity; as the fairness
> >>>>>> of a contract."
> >>>>>> How do you propose to accomplish such fairness? Any scheme of equalizing
> >>>>>> the social conditions of life is socialism/communism - the very thing
> >>>>>> you "claim" to abhor.
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> On 05/10/2011 10:22 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.
> >>>>>>> Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> >>>>>>> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> >>>>>>> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Wal-Mart
> >>>>>>> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> >>>>>>> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> >>>>>>> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> >>>>>>> plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> >>>>>>> company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
> >>>>>>> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.
> >>>>>>> I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> >>>>>>> building quality real estate properties�as he knows so well how to do�
> >>>>>>> the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
> >>>>>>> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> >>>>>>> the bottom or at the top. � John A. Armistead � Patriot.
> >>>>>>> On May 10, 11:59 am, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> Repeat after me: Donald Trump is a socialist. From a 2009 interview
> >>>>>>>> about whether there should be executive pay limits:
> >>>>>>>> Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with
> >>>>>>>> salary caps?
> >>>>>>>> Donald Trump: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars
> >>>>>>>> is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using
> >>>>>>>> taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.
> >>>>>>>> That's socialism Einstein.
> >>>>>>>> On 05/09/2011 11:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Republican presidential contenders are gearing-up to fight-it-out for
> >>>>>>>>> the right to run against� �Obama� in 2012. Every one of those should
> >>>>>>>>> be required to answer this question: �Is it FAIR to have hugely
> >>>>>>>>> expensive primaries spread over months, with the most �power� going to
> >>>>>>>>> the voters in the corn state of� Iowa? Answer: Hell NO! Nor is it
> >>>>>>>>> FAIR to allow political parties to have any say-so, whatsoever,
> >>>>>>>>> regarding who the contenders can be, and how the country will be run
> >>>>>>>>> once the �winning party� has been decided.
> >>>>>>>>> Rep. Ron Paul, that sunken-cheek retread from the 2008 election, has
> >>>>>>>>> already raised a million dollars�probably earmarked for brown-nosing
> >>>>>>>>> the farmers of Iowa for a chance to become President. Paul�s early
> >>>>>>>>> polling lead among the announced candidates has him positioned much as
> >>>>>>>>> he was four years ago. The same anti-war, less-government crowd who
> >>>>>>>>> filled his coffers with hard cash, must still be impressed by his
> >>>>>>>>> unwavering positions on most issues. When Paul withdrew in 2008, he
> >>>>>>>>> said, �Elections are over quickly. Winning a revolution will take a
> >>>>>>>>> bit longer.� But instead of leading a revolution, Paul settled back
> >>>>>>>>> into business as usual in our broken and corrupt, party-dominated
> >>>>>>>>> government. Anyone so corrupted could never lead this country in the
> >>>>>>>>> new direction needed.
> >>>>>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano, filling in for a flagging Glenn Beck, asked a
> >>>>>>>>> guest this question: �Who among the possible Republican presidential
> >>>>>>>>> candidates do you think Barack Obama would LEAST like to run
> >>>>>>>>> against?� The answer to that question isn�t as important as the fact
> >>>>>>>>> Napolitano is so matter-of-fact that Barack Obama will still be in
> >>>>>>>>> office, let alone be a candidate for President in 2012. My above
> >>>>>>>>> average computer graphics experience leads me to conclude that both of
> >>>>>>>>> Obama�s purported birth certificates are bogus. *** In a very public
> >>>>>>>>> and straightforward way, the US Secret Service should conduct a
> >>>>>>>>> definitive investigation of all �birther� issues, lest they continue
> >>>>>>>>> to �protect� a scoundrel who isn�t a bona fide President of the USA.
> >>>>>>>>> Napolitano shows his naivet� by recommending we vote for candidates
> >>>>>>>>> desiring smaller, lower cost Government who will support� the
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution. Over the decades, the Constitution has been ritually
> >>>>>>>>> praised. But that document was so WEAK that our government evolved
> >>>>>>>>> away from being the Representative Republic the Founding Fathers
> >>>>>>>>> surely wanted to mandate. My New Constitution is strength (control
> >>>>>>>>> over what goes on in Washington) made manifest!
> >>>>>>>>> Donald Trump is being �tagged� a �birther� and a �racist� by Mort
> >>>>>>>>> Zuckerman�s NY news paper. Liberals call it a conspiracy that anyone
> >>>>>>>>> would wish to apply the same level of technical facility to analyzing
> >>>>>>>>> two questionable birth certificates, as was used to assess the Shroud
> >>>>>>>>> of Turin, or the remains of King Tut. The long form birth
> >>>>>>>>> certificate, which Obama released to the press, was a *.PDF file, not
> >>>>>>>>> a photocopy of an original. That file was clearly LAYERS of PDF files
> >>>>>>>>> placed one over the other to form a
> >> ...
>
> >> read more �
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
--
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.
Newsmax
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
Sunday, May 15, 2011 07:18 PM
By: Newsmax Wires
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.
Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:
"I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance."
Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance.
Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare.
"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."
Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010.
The position staked out by Gingrich appears to be at odds with leading conservative critics of Obamacare, who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional.
The Obama administration is currently facing three lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states.
The issue is on track for a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2012, which would make it a likely hot-button topic heading into the elections.
Conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can't require people to engage in a particular "economic activity" just because they live in the U.S.
Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right.
Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States."
Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law.
"In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system," Gingrich told NBC's David Gregory. "I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …"
Romney has not come under fire for not disowning his health care plan, which has caused private health care insurance rates to skyrocket as patient services have declined in Massachusetts.
Gingrich's position quickly came under fire from several conservative blogs on Sunday.
"He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success," the American Federalist Journal wrote on Sunday.
"Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in Congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start."
The Wall Street Journal called Gingrich's description of an ideal healthcare plan with mandates a "pretty good description of what the Democratic Congress passed into law last year."
The Journal continued: "Beginning in 2014, most Americans who don't have insurance will be required to pay a fee, with many, depending on income, getting subsidies to help buy coverage through state-based exchanges."
The conservative website Red State said Gingrich "won't exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP."
"So, when those British colonists signed the Declaration of Independence, they were standing up against their own government. Their government considered them to be traitors. I consider them to be patriots for having the courage to oppose wrongdoing by their own government, even to the point of risking their lives in the process."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Government Is Not the Country
by Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the bromides we hear every Memorial Day is how countless American soldiers have died for their country. That's nothing but sheer nonsense. Many of them died not for their country but rather for their government. There's a difference.
Unfortunately, many Americans conflate the government and the country. In their minds, they are one and the same thing. Thus, for them when soldiers die for their government, they also die for their country.
By the same token, such people often question the patriotism of citizens who oppose a particular war in which their government is engaged. Since such people consider government and the country to be one and the same thing, they conclude that the protestors hate their country.
Actually, however, the government and the country are two separate and distinct entities. This phenomenon is confirmed, by the way, in the Bill of Rights, a document that expressly protects the country from the government. In fact, the reason that the Constitution limited the powers of the government was to ensure that it would not run roughshod over the country.
During World War II, there was a group of antiwar protestors who called themselves the White Rose. They not only opposed the war, they also refused to support the troops. They drew a distinction between their government and their country. They believed that their government was in the wrong in waging the war and decided to take a stand against it. In their minds, they were standing up for their country by opposing their government.
Those within the government, however, disagreed. Not surprisingly, they conflated government and country and considered the members of the White Rose to be traitors who hated their country. After quick kangaroo trials before tribunals known as the People's Court, the members of the White Rose were convicted and executed. While many of their fellow Germans considered them unpatriotic, I believe that they were the true patriots for having the courage to stand up against a wrongful war being waged by their government.
A similar issue involving patriotism and treason arose in 1776. A common mistake many Americans make is with respect to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Oftentimes, people think that the signers were Americans. They weren't. They were as British as you and I are Americans. They were British citizens living in British overseas colonies.
So, when those British colonists signed the Declaration of Independence, they were standing up against their own government. Their government considered them to be traitors. I consider them to be patriots for having the courage to oppose wrongdoing by their own government, even to the point of risking their lives in the process.
When one reviews many of the various wars that the U.S. government has waged, Americans should ask themselves an important question: Did American soldiers die for their government or for their country in each of those wars?
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-06-01.asp
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Government Is Not the Country
by Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the bromides we hear every Memorial Day is how countless American soldiers have died for their country. That's nothing but sheer nonsense. Many of them died not for their country but rather for their government. There's a difference.
Unfortunately, many Americans conflate the government and the country. In their minds, they are one and the same thing. Thus, for them when soldiers die for their government, they also die for their country.
By the same token, such people often question the patriotism of citizens who oppose a particular war in which their government is engaged. Since such people consider government and the country to be one and the same thing, they conclude that the protestors hate their country.
Actually, however, the government and the country are two separate and distinct entities. This phenomenon is confirmed, by the way, in the Bill of Rights, a document that expressly protects the country from the government. In fact, the reason that the Constitution limited the powers of the government was to ensure that it would not run roughshod over the country.
During World War II, there was a group of antiwar protestors who called themselves the White Rose. They not only opposed the war, they also refused to support the troops. They drew a distinction between their government and their country. They believed that their government was in the wrong in waging the war and decided to take a stand against it. In their minds, they were standing up for their country by opposing their government.
Those within the government, however, disagreed. Not surprisingly, they conflated government and country and considered the members of the White Rose to be traitors who hated their country. After quick kangaroo trials before tribunals known as the People's Court, the members of the White Rose were convicted and executed. While many of their fellow Germans considered them unpatriotic, I believe that they were the true patriots for having the courage to stand up against a wrongful war being waged by their government.
A similar issue involving patriotism and treason arose in 1776. A common mistake many Americans make is with respect to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Oftentimes, people think that the signers were Americans. They weren't. They were as British as you and I are Americans. They were British citizens living in British overseas colonies.
So, when those British colonists signed the Declaration of Independence, they were standing up against their own government. Their government considered them to be traitors. I consider them to be patriots for having the courage to oppose wrongdoing by their own government, even to the point of risking their lives in the process.
When one reviews many of the various wars that the U.S. government has waged, Americans should ask themselves an important question: Did American soldiers die for their government or for their country in each of those wars?
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-06-01.asp
They start with the premise that wateboarding is by definition torture. Guess how the arguments fall out. FWIW I think they are nuts and go out of their way to diss the USA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15pubed.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15pubed.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212&pagewanted=all
'They' Hate 'Us' for Our 'Freedoms'
Posted by Lew Rockwell on May 15, 2011 05:41 PM
Actually, as Glenn Greenwald points out, it is our state, and our state's clients, that are hated.
Sunday, May 15, 2011 06:16 ET
They hate us for our freedoms
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below - Update II)
The New York Times reports today:
- For the second time in three days, a night raid in eastern Afghanistan by NATO forces resulted in the death of a child, setting off protests on Saturday that turned violent and ended in the death of a second boy. . . .
- "American forces did an operation and mistakenly killed a fourth-grade student; he had gone to sleep in his field and had a shotgun next to him," [the district's governor, Abdul Khalid]. said. "People keep shotguns with them for hunting, not for any other purposes," Mr. Khalid said.
- The boy, [15], was the son of an Afghan National Army soldier . . . When morning came, an angry crowd gathered in Narra, the boy's village, and more than 200 people marched with his body to the district center. Some of the men were armed and confronted the police, shouting anti-American slogans . . .
- The police opened fire in an effort to push back the crowd to stop its advance to the district center. A 14-year-old boy was killed, and at least one other person was wounded, Mr. Khalid said. . . .
- On Thursday, a night raid by international forces in Nangahar Province resulted in the death of a 12-year-old girl and her uncle, who was a member of the Afghan National Police.
There's nothing much new to say here, but every now and then, it's worth highlighting not only what we're doing, but what the results are. Just imagine the accumulated hatred from having things like this happen day after day, week after week, year after year, for a full decade now, with no end in sight -- broadcast all over the region. It's literally impossible to convey in words the level of bloodthirsty fury and demands for vengeance that would arise if a foreign army were inside the U.S. killing innocent American children even a handful of times, let alone continuously for a full decade.
It's the perfect self-perpetuating cycle: (1) They hate us and want to attack us because we're over there; therefore, (2) we have to stay and proliferate ourselves because they hate us and want to attack us; (3) our staying and proliferating ourselves makes them hate us and want to attack us more; therefore, (4) we can never leave, because of how much they hate us and want to attack us. The beauty of this War on Terror -- and, as the last two weeks have demonstrated, War is the bipartisan consensus for what we are and should be doing to address Terrorism -- is that it forever sustains its own ostensible cause.
UPDATE: When President Obama explained to the nation (after the fact) why he committed the armed forces to Libya, he declared that the U.S. must not "stand idly by" in the face of violent assaults on unarmed civilians. Today:
- Violence erupted on Israel's borders with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on Sunday, leaving at least eight dead and dozens wounded . . . Israeli troops shot at protesters in three separate locations to prevent crowds from crossing Israeli frontier lines in the deadliest such confrontation in years.
In other words, Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed protesters on three separate borders today (and other reports now suggest higher numbers of people shot). The protesters were reportedly attempting to infiltrate Israeli territory in commemoration of the annual Palestinian protest of Israel, but by all accounts were unarmed, and some were shot at on their side of their border. Will the U.S. stand "idly by" while this happens, or . . . issue a statement in ringing support of Israeli actions? Sadly, there is no plausible third alternative, and that, too, may shed some light on "why they hate us."
UPDATE II: For a succinct exhibit of the actual meaning of Freedom when exploited to justify wars, see here.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/15/afghanistan/index.html
Gasoline at 20 Cents a Gallon
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 15, 2011 06:02 PM
![[]](http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/gas-20-cents.jpg)
Sign at Ashland, Oregon station. (Thanks to Katcha Sanderson for the photo.)
Two Roosevelt dimes contain 0.14468 oz of silver. If gas costs $4 in FRNs, then the implicit price of silver that makes $4 equivalent to 0.14468 oz of silver is $27.65 per ounce. So, this price seems roughly in the ballpark. But, if we take $35, which is nearer today's silver's price, then the implied price of gasoline is $5.06, which is steep. At any price less than $5.06, I'd hold on to the dimes and use FRNs. One has to be careful about these things. One also needs a conversion table. This could be sold as an application on a handheld device. I'm giving away a profitable idea here. The device could read in the spot price of silver from a web site. The user punches in the FRN price. Then the equivalent amount of silver coin is the output.
http://www.adn.com/2011/05/13/1862140/obama-to-ease-way-for-drilling.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.
The Amish Hate Our Freedom
Posted by Karen De Coster on May 15, 2011 05:26 PM
I did some modern hunter-gatherer stuff yesterday when I swung by Detroit Eastern Market, which is a great place to transact freely with individuals of all stripes to buy the food products that I value and opt to purchase. I bought pasteured pork (pork steaks, bacon, pork chops, and fat back [gasp!] for cooking) from a local farmer who drives 50+ miles to offer his splendid products at the market; raw milk cheese from the Amish; homemade smokehouse jerky (soy & gluten free); baby leeks (for grilling) from another local farmer; and … sunflower shoots & mixed gourmet lettuce grown in Detroit city's agrarian community. On days when I hunt, gather, transact, and barter for all of this natural foodstuff, while making new acquaintances, I actually feel unchained and unencumbered -- momentarily -- by the heavy hand of the US food overlords and their congressional food fuzz.
Yesterday I learned the crucial difference between leaf lard and fat back; a unique way to use ham hocks to dress up my sauteed greens dishes; and then I discovered the joy of grilling baby leeks and dusting them with my garden herbs and balsamic vinaigrette. I know I am kidding myself about my moments of food freedom, because surely the Feds are somewhere nearby, lurking and looking to crack down on unapproved products, "unsafe foods," and food freedom in general. The United States of Big Agriculture won't stand for its minuscule competitors who dodge the religious canon of Corn Nation in order to bring real food to real people. Surely, my herb garden will be flagged as a national health threat, or worse, I will be forced to get a license to grow potentially lethal herbs on my own property.
In light of all of the federal tyranny being imposed upon the Amish for serving their customers food products that exist outside of the industrial food machine, I love this priceless quote that came to me from LRC writer Myles Kantor: "Do you know why the Amish sell raw dairy? Because they hate our freedom."
The Defense Authorization Bill Is Awful
Posted by Benjamin H. Friedman
If you like bloated nuclear arsenals, executive discretion to wage endless war, large checks to countries that aid our enemies, and institutionalizing hostility toward gays in the military, you will love the defense authorization bill passed yesterday by the House Armed Services Committee. Below are the lowlights. For slightly better news from the Appropriations Committee on homeland security spending, skip to the end.
- The bill contains a provision replacing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and their hosts. The Committee evidently found that legislation, which the last two administrations have used to justify all manner of power grabs, insufficiently open-ended. They add groups "affiliated" with al Qaeda and the Taliban to the list of certified enemies. Though disinterested in authorizing the war in Libya, the Congress may now give the President new authority to start new ones. Somewhere John Yoo is ruefully imagining all the creative ways he could have affiliated bombing targets with al Qaeda and Taliban. Certainly Pakistan would qualify, given its barely hidden support for elements of the Taliban and the suspicion that some of its intelligence agents have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders.
- Nonetheless, the bill authorizes all $1.1 billion in military aid requested for Pakistan. An amendment intended to trim it failed.
- Speaking of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Committee's Republicans are determined to prevent its repeal from letting homosexuals feel comfortable in uniform. The bill outlaws gay marriage on military facilities. It also defines "marriage" in military regulations as the union of a man and a woman. The aim is to deny marriage benefits to gay couples. The bill also includes a provision sponsored by San Diego Republican Duncan Hunter that would keep Don't Ask Don't Tell in place until all four service chiefs agree that it will not impair combat effectiveness. That last provision will not become law, but it sends unfortunate messages. Beyond its implication that gays undermine military effectiveness, it reflects a tendency to defer to the wishes of the force on issues of its composition and use, at least rhetorically. That tendency erodes the traditional U.S. view of civil-military relations, driving a wedge between the military and the society it serves.
- The bill contains several measures that will prevent future cost savings. It would block the executive branch from reducing nuclear weapons force levels in various ways unless the secretaries of defense and energy certify that the White House makes good on its offer of increased nuclear weapons modernization funding. Incidentally, the administration promised those funds in exchange for New START treaty votes that Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) did not deliver, including his own. The bill would buy the Army more Abrams tanks than it wants, to keep the production line open. It requires the government to remain prepared to build the Joint Strike Fighter's second engine and would reopen competition between the two engines should the administration request more funds for the first (Pratt & Whitney) engine, which seems likely.
- The Committee made a modest effort to control government health care costs by mildly increasing annual premiums for retired military of working age. That's progress. Premiums have not increased in 15 years. They are low enough that many retirees keep Tricare, the Military Health System coverage, rather than getting private health care via their new employer, thus shifting costs onto the taxpayer. But the Committee rejected the administration's effort to peg future premium increases to medical costs rather than general inflation.
The full House or Senate will likely eliminate most of the damage. The taxpayer will get no relief from the House Appropriations Committee, however, which just released its planned spending levels for FY2012. Defense will grow by about $17 billion from FY 2011, not including the wars, Department of Energy nuclear weapons spending, and military construction. No surprise there.
House appropriators deserve credit, however, for keeping the bloated Department of Homeland Security budget on the cutting board. The National Journal reports that appropriators would give the department $40.6 billion$1.1 billion less than last year and $2.7 less than it requested. The bulk of the cuts come by providing less than half ($1.7 billion) of the requested spending for local security grants. The grants would now be distributed at the department's discretion rather than requiring them to go to certain subcategories (e.g., ports) and using a formula to insure that every state get a taste.
Hopefully this is a step toward eliminating federal homeland security grants, which have grown into a seemingly permanent subsidy even for regions where the terrorism threat is wildly remote. If states think it worth sacrificing something to buy local counterterrorism capabilities, they ought to pay for it with their own budgets. Federalization of the spending takes those decisions from those in the best position to weigh local priorities and encourages states and cities to chase federal dollars by exaggerating their peril.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-defense-authorization-bill-is-awful/
"Killing Bin Laden" Premiers Tonight On Discovery Channel
"Two weeks after his death - on Sunday, May 15th at 10PM ET/PT - Discovery Channel will premiere "Killing Bin Laden,", a one-hour special that provides the most comprehensive overview of the bin Laden operation yet – from the time the crucial intelligence was gathered in 2010, through the burial at sea."
"Two weeks after his death - on Sunday, May 15th at 10PM ET/PT - Discovery Channel will premiere "Killing Bin Laden,", a one-hour special that provides the most comprehensive overview of the bin Laden operation yet – from the time the crucial intelligence was gathered in 2010, through the burial at sea."
--
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. "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
thanks for the heads up.
--
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.
Don't really watch 60 minutes much any more. just the human interest stuff. Their political interviews are mostly just softball questions with no fallow up.
Thanks again
Bear
On 15 May 2011 15:10, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
CBS 60 Minutes Tonight: Sovereign Citizens--
"Anti-government U.S. extremists who don't pay taxes and ignore requirements like Social Security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports, May 15, 7 p.m. ET/PT."
--
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."Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
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.
CBS 60 Minutes Tonight: Sovereign Citizens
"Anti-government U.S. extremists who don't pay taxes and ignore requirements like Social Security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports, May 15, 7 p.m. ET/PT."
"Anti-government U.S. extremists who don't pay taxes and ignore requirements like Social Security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports, May 15, 7 p.m. ET/PT."
--
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. "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
6 Years In Prison For Video Recording A Police Officer?
http://tinyurl.com/3zgkgfe
"CopBlock Liberty activist John Kurtz stands trial, facing a maximum sentence of 6 years in Prison on the allegations of battery on a LEO, Obstruction of a Police officer, and resisting arrest without violence, Kurtz adamantly proclaims his innocence and that he is a political target because of his involvement with Orlando Copwatch and other activism."
http://tinyurl.com/3zgkgfe
"CopBlock Liberty activist John Kurtz stands trial, facing a maximum sentence of 6 years in Prison on the allegations of battery on a LEO, Obstruction of a Police officer, and resisting arrest without violence, Kurtz adamantly proclaims his innocence and that he is a political target because of his involvement with Orlando Copwatch and other activism."
--
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. "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
sounds damned sensible to me.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
But, being in Britain he runs the risk of being interrogated or arrested for saying it.
Bear
On 15 May 2011 09:29, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781
--
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.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781
--
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.
Hey Studio,
Just out of curiosity Studio, why is it that you are opposed to welfare recipients being required of a drug test, (which is a search of their person); in order to receive a benefit from the United States government? I think that I am closer to center on this issue; in that I have a problem with the search aspect of it, but one can refuse the search, it's not mandatory, you just don't get the benefit. Moreover, the whole "Welfare" aspect needs to be really overhauled. I don't have statistics, but I recall up in Michigan, Wisconsin and other States that rolled back welfare benefits, and other locales that enforced a drug policy for recipients, the programs improved, and a lot of folks were dismissed from the program.
In other words, anyone who is really in need of welfare benefits won't hesitate one moment to take a drug test.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:43 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thats what Romney said, and it worked here.
UBER dem Mass is taking this to a whole new level, buts its only bad
if republicans do it.
The Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
> > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOppppppppppppppssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -
On May 14, 11:19 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has always been my understanding that WELFARE money was to keep
> people clothed, fed, and housed.... ONLY. To allow them a basic life
> while they were to supposedly work their way out of a hole. It was
> never meant to be a way of life.
>
> On May 14, 8:40 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Really now.
>
> > Find a government job where you don't have to take drug screens.
>
> > Oh, and my Lordy goodness. Massachusetts is about to pass,
> > OVERWHELMINGLY, drug screens for those applying for welfare, and
> > throughout, their receivership.
>
> > Did I say Massachusetts?
>
> > Dem Governor and an 88% dem legislature?
>
> > GASP!
>
> > Seems its DEMOCRATS running Auschwitz, like a summer campt here! And
> > just in time for Summer.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
