Any Islamic state in a non-Islamic backyard is going to be a rogue and hostile.period.
I am not talking about the citizen people - but who would Govern them (like Hamas).
I am giving you an example which is similar to this issue.
Pakistan was carved out of India in 1947.
Various Indian states were persuaded by then Indian Home minister to formally join Indian Union. Then King of Kashmir, who was a Hindu was about sign the agreement/ or even signed.
Pakistan made a surprise attack on Kashmir and occupied 2/3rd of it, which was never part of mutually agreed Pakistan.
Now, the Muslims of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir are not telling Pakistan to declare at least that 2/3 rd of Kashmir as a new country Kashmir; because their so called oppressor is a Muslim country with Shariah Law.
Where as the people (Muslims) of Indian's Kashmir are protesting against Indian Oppression in spite of diverting billions of federal money to their state because of a poor economy. We can't buy land in Kashmir because they fear demographic change.
Pakistan thrice attacked India - each time got defeated. Now, it went nuclear - it is now a global threat and blackmailing all civilized countries.
So, Here our Gentleman President Obama is somehow convinced that - the day Israel goes back to the 1967 line and new Palestinian state is created - Israel will live in peace.
The fact of the matter is - that is going to be the beginning of the trouble because Israel will have 4 hostile neighbor in stead of 3. So, status quo is the best solution and very much sustainable. US is lucky because Mexico is not a Muslim Nation. So he has to look guidance from Indian PM and Homeland Security Minister; not from Farid Zakaria GPS, whose GPS is mis-aligned.
Muslims must tell Pakistan to return Kashmir to India if they want Israel to go back to 1967 status. We won't tolerate the hypocrisy - where occupying Muslim land is issue while occupying non-Muslim land by Muslims are okay..
-MP
--
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
Only 35??? Must have been a short speech.
 | Obama "thanks" CIA by referring to himself 35 timesScotty Starnes | May 21, 2011 at 8:30 AM | Tags: CIA, I, Me, My, narcissist, Osama Bin Laden, Presidenet Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5ip |
It's all about ME!
That's our narcissist-in-chief.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you very much, everybody. Well, thank you, Leon, and thank you, Jim.
When I chose Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA, I said he was going to be a strong advocate for this agency and would strengthen your capabilities to meet the threats of our time. And when I chose Jim Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, I charged him with making sure that our intelligence community works as one integrated team. That's exactly what these two leaders have done, along with all of you.
So, Jim and Leon, thank you for your remarkable leadership, not just in recent weeks, but during the entirety of your tenure. You have done a great job. (Applause.)
This is my third visit here to Langley as President, and each of these visits has marked another milestone in our mission to protect the American people and keep our country safe.
On my first visit, just months after taking office, I stood here and I said that this agency and our entire intelligence community is fundamental to America's national security. I said that I believed that your best days were still to come and I pledged that you would have my full support to carry out your critical work.
Soon after that visit, I called Leon into the Oval Office and I directed him to make the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden the top priority in our war to defeat al Qaeda. And he came back here, and you guys, who had already been working so hard on this issue, redoubled your efforts. And that was true all across the intelligence community.
My second visit, a year later, came under more somber circumstances. We gathered to pay tribute to seven American patriots who gave their lives in this fight at a remote post in Afghanistan. As has already been mentioned, their stars now grace this memorial wall. And through our grief and our tears, we resolved that their sacrifice would be our summons to carry on their work, to complete this mission, to win this war.
Today I've returned just to say thank you, on behalf of all Americans and people around the world, because you carried on. You stayed focused on your mission. You honored the memory of your fallen colleagues. And in helping to locate and take down Osama bin Laden, you made it possible for us to achieve the most significant victory yet in our war to defeat al Qaeda.
I just met with some of the outstanding leaders and teams from across the community who worked so long and so hard to make that raid a success. And I'm pleased today that we're joined by representatives from all of our intelligence agencies, and that folks are watching this live back at all of those agencies, because this truly was a team effort. That's not always the case in Washington. (Laughter.) But all of you work together every single day.
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Impeach the traitor.
 | Obama Stealing Your Money and Giving it to Imprisoned Terrorists |
Hey, isn't our government broke or something? I mean, Geithner just the other day was screaming about the sky falling if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. So, why is the Obama administration continuing to shell out our money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes around?:
Peace In Our Weekend
CFP - Daniel Greenfield
Haven't you always wanted to send your money directly to imprisoned terrorists? Well now you can thanks to cooperation between the Obama Administration and the Palestinian Authoritywhich will now be paying salaries to imprisoned terrorists. The PA doesn't have much of a tax base, except the Americans, Israelis and Europeans who serve as their tax base.
A law published in the official Palestinian Authority Registry last month grants all Palestinians and Israeli Arabs imprisoned in Israel for terror crimes a monthly salary from the PA.
The latest US contribution to the PA budget\Adopt a Terrorist is a quarter of a billion.
Is all that money worth it? Well let's do the math. Obama is trying to win over the Muslim world. His approval rating is down across the Muslim world. But in the Palestinian Authority, he's actually up by 3 points. What's some 250 million to pay the salaries of terrorists in order to get a three point approval hike from… terrorists.
Obama shouldn't pop the Halal champagne just yet. Al Qaeda is still 10 points ahead of him. But with enough money, he could get to within 5 points of Osama bin Laden.
In other good news, Osama Obama helped take down Egypt's somewhat moderate government and only ended up with a three point approval hike in Egypt. What does the man have to do to get some Muslim respect? Put on a turban and make videos denouncing America?
How about 1 out of 2.
SPEECH, SPEECH
Obama hit up the Latinos and then will head off to hit up the Jews at AIPAC. But Latinos weren't too thrilled despite Obama's endorsement of the DREAM Act. They read it for what it is, a politically motivated campaign stop.
And the Israel section of the speech was just an elaboration of the musical version of it recorded a while back.
His Arab Spring section was equally hollow. A collection of platitudes aspiring to historicity. Swollen with the cliches of the Arab Spring. The Israel section has gotten the most attention, which is not what Obama and his speechwriters intended. This was supposed to boost his foreign policy credentials and reach out to Muslims. Again.
But the speech was more revealing in what it didn't say.
The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.
That last bit endorsed democracy in Syria, Yemen and Iran. But avoided mentioning Bahrain, where a Sunni minority allied to Saudi Arabia rules. Instead Obama called for the Bahraini government to work together with the opposition and stop arresting and suppressing protests. It's a basic difference that shows a double standard.
His new justification for continuing the Libyan war, without congressional authorization, was even more hollow
Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people as it takes
Thousands? Seriously. Hypothetical thousands. That would have been a slow day in the park for Saddam. And yet Obama opposed a war to remove Saddam from power.
Obama did give a shout out to the Copts
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
But clearly he doesn't understand what the word Must means. Not when he's giving Egypt a blank check on aid and backing up his call for Coptic freedom with nothing except some hollow chatter about bridge building.
Taken together the speech reminds me of a New York Times article on the region. Full of glowing sentiment, humanitarian impulses and nothing on tap but talk of pumping money into a dry well.
The signals on Israel were more mixed and often subtle. Obama defined Israel as a core interest and then went on to say that America had to move beyond core interests and commitments to friends and partners, and engage the broader aspirations of Muslims.
He once again blamed the conflict for larger problems in the Middle East, though he did it in more understated terms, but the same slander that the last year's turmoil has disproved was still there.
The phrasing also dispensed blame in a particular pattern. "Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks." The implication being that the former caused the latter. There is no mention of continuing terrorism.
Obama goes on to push for more progress, despite events in the region. Plays the "Tough Love" card by saying, "But precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."
The 'too' is a farcical touch, as it implies that he has laid out something bold that the other side must do. When all he's done is mention that they should stop the violence and recognize Israel. Existing obligations that they never met.
Of course the status quo is unsustainable. But the status quo is the peace process and the splinter terrorist state stabbed into Israel's heart. And all Obama is doing is calling for a perpetuation of it.
The next section ramped up the hostility
The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
The 'international community', the royal diplomatic we, is tired. And it's Israel fault. Of course. The dream has actually been fulfilled already. But not according to Obama, which tells us more about his view of Israel, than he meant us to know.
Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them—not by the United States; not by anybody else…
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
The contradiction isn't too hard to spot. We won't impose it, but we believe this is what has to be done.
Of course it's not possible for both Israel and Terroristine to be contiguous states at the same time.
Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.
Ah a question. There's no statement that the Palestinian Authority cannot maintain such an agreement with Hamas, rather their representatives need to have a credible answer for why they should be able to maintain such an agreement.
This is the closest to a pointed demand that gets made of Terroristine. Most of the responsibility gets placed on Israel. Again.
The speech could have been worse, but it's generally on par with what Obama has been saying all along. Which is, "We're ignoring the Bush era oral agreement. We demand that Israel solve the situation with more concessions. Israel is to blame for 70 percent of the problem, but maybe the other side gets 30 percent of the blame."
The only saving grace is that O didn't explicitly call for dividing Jerusalem, and that was only because it's an election season. But since his policies compel it anyway, it's less of a saving grace and more of a calculated dishonesty.
Caroline Glick gets to the heart of the matter
Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security.
Obama pays lip service to US interests, but then quickly dismisses them by saying that winning over Muslims has to be the larger goal.
So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.
By equating US long term interests, with Muslim short term interests, our interests are now those of Islam.
From Mark Steyn
If you have the Western faculty lounge attitude, which is the sewer that Obama has been marinated in, in his entire adult life, then 1967 matters far more than 1973 or 1948, or 1922, because 1967 is, as the faculty lounge left see it, the moment when the Israeli occupation began. Why, by the way, did it begin? It began because Israel's neighbors launched another disastrous war on them. The enemy, Israel's enemies are incompetent at fighting conventional war. And they discovered that actually instead of sending your troops into battle and keep losing their wars, why not instead play Western public opinion like a fiddle,
They're incompetent at fighting us too, but they freed more terrorists using the ACLU and Hollywood, than they did with bombs.
I would say the history of modern Western, liberal Jews is that they vote against their own, not only Israel's best interests, but their own best interests. So you see that with the increasing number of self-loathing Jews in Britain, for example, who write to the Guardian on Israel's birthday every year saying how they now regard the foundation of the state of Israel as a grotesque error.
This however is where a common mistake gets made. They are not voting against their interests, no more than any other group of liberals are. Their identity is liberal, not Jewish. They loathe Israel as good progressives are supposed to do. With an extra dose of loathing because they happened to be born into a culture and DNA set despised by good progressives. Which means they have to work harder to prove their bona fides to the Party.
Andrew Bostom cites Alan West and further analysis from Tevi Troy at National Review Online
Second is that Obama did not demand an end to Palestinian misbehavior so much as predict, in a removed way, that such behavior will not serve them well:
Obama is big on the passive voice.
From Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post
No mention made of the liberation of 40 million Iraqis or that the Freedom Agenda began under his predecessor. As always, the world begins anew with Obama, and specifically with his Cairo speech.
As for the Arab Spring, Obama'sspinners engaged in some false advertising. In a conference call yesterday, they suggested aid would be linked to reform and pro-Western behavior… But the cash will flow immediately:
Reforms… we don't need no stinking reforms.
Obama stated it was U.S. policy that the final agreement would be 1967 borders with land swaps. In the past the parties were already negotiating and Israel had offered this. Now it is a precondition to further talks.
This is a key point. Obama sets preconditions on Israel which force a new set of concessions beyond those preconditions. By recognizing the 67 borders, Obama again violates the Bush era oral agreement and makes any Israel presence beyond 67 contingent on yet more concessions and Terroristine agreement.
The president rewards bad behavior by serving up a border plan just after the Hamas-Fatah unity government and in the same week that Mahmoud Abbas essentially declared perpetual war against Israel. On the positive side he did talk about a demilitarized Palestinian state.
Of course we've been talking about that forever. And the state has only gotten more militarized. US governments provide weapons and training to over a 100,000 terrorists and then talk about demilitarization.
Obama issued a fine rebuke to unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. Absent, however, was what he is going to do about it.
Same thing he's going to do if Copts are persecuted. Send the Muslims more money.
Finally Pamela Geller cuts to the chase
Obama called for the tiny Jewish state to cut itself up into tiny pieces and retreat to indefensible 1967 borders. Since the re-establishment of the state of Israel, she has fought off Muslim invasions and war. Never at any time did the Muslim world of over 56 countries recognize Israel's right to exist.
Obama called for "contiguous" borders between Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights—cutting Israel in half again to give the Jew-hating Muslims one large and connected chunk of Israel ...
What other nation has ever had to give land away? What other nation has had its "legitimacy" questioned by the world? What other nation has done more with less? What other nation has to justify its existence? Basta!
The '67 borders are indefensible.
These days even the post Camp David borders don't look all that defensible. Not without a preemptive strike.
There's a more extensive roundup of articles at Ruthfully Yours
But good news. Obama is sending Penny Pritzker, that nice lady whose hotel hosted Ahmadinejad, to talk to Jews. Talk about not getting it. Maybe he should send her to raise money from Ahmadinejad. Since his advisers may be wizards, maybe they can magic up some gold for him.
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Start referriing to the WH as the OINK HOUSE.
 | How do you keep Muslim traitors out of the White House when its main occupant is one?barenakedislam | May 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-uh8 |
The most wanted terrorist in the world (now on the CIA 'kill' list) was once a guest of the Pentagon in its efforts to reach out to the Muslim community after 9/11. How many more Muslim terrorists are now welcome guests of the Obama Regime? A year-long investigation by the Fox News' specials unit has [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Nor sing, caterwall and bellow.
| | CODE PINKO PIGS sing in support of Islamic terrorists in Union Station, Washington DCbarenakedislam | May 21, 2011 at 4:00 PM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-uhU |
Where is the HAZMAT team when when you need them? Is it a requirement that you have be butt ugly to belong to Code Pink? TELL OBAMA TO GET OUT OF BED WITH AIPAC (Oh, that's rich!) It seems that no matter how abusive the Israeli government gets, as it was last weekend when it killed [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
|
--
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.
J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the
receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the
same communiqué differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a
"you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was
hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great
lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in
a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point?
Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
>
On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable
> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of
> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no
> intention of entering the race.
>
> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. �
> > On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >> *John, INLINE:*
>
> >> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan:
>
> >>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for
> >>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the
> >>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played
> >>> out.
> >> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump
> >> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe?
> >> The media? Or, Donald Trump?*
>
> >>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below:
> >>> "Preface:
> >>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. The
> >>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that
> >>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the
> >>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that
> >>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such shall
> >>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of
> >>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal
> >>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet
> >>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and
> >>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from
> >>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be
> >>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor
> >>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall
> >>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens
> >>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and
> >>> our posterity."
> >> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New
> >> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not
> >> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not
> >> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian
> >>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to
> >>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. This
> >>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy:
> >>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly
> >>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a
> >>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in
> >>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes allowing
> >>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power'
> >>> than the members have.
> >> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> (4.) The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier
> >>> years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for
> >>> President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years
> >>> old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath
> >>> to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly
> >>> overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all
> >>> socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are
> >>> responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and
> >>> comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the
> >>> Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating
> >>> that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and
> >>> causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest
> >>> order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste!
> >> *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
> >> Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
> >> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
> >> shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained
> >> to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
> >> within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution
> >> offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or how
> >> such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not
> >> created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be evidence
> >> enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility
> >> of the POTUS. *
>
> >>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt
> >>>> avoid answering, as usual):
> >>>> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race."
> >>>> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> >>>> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As such,
> >>>> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most people
> >>>> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a local
> >>>> PTA "Madam President."
> >>>> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret
> >>>> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The mission
> >>>> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's
> >>>> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity
> >>>> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state
> >>>> and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
> >>>> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that the
> >>>>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our
> >>>>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls to
> >>>>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington.
> >>>>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to
> >>>>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles in�
> >>>>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a enough
> >>>>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many states
> >>>>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be
> >>>>> President.
> >>>>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The rock
> >>>>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise
> >>>>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. If,
> >>>>> as I�ve proposed, presidential candidates spend no more than five
> >>>>> million dollars on their campaigns, *** there can be, literally,
> >>>>> billions of dollars that can remain in the pockets of the voters,
> >>>>> rather than going to our close-to-universally-corrupt media. A huge
> >>>>> plus will be the suspension of the unconstitutional, spaced-out
> >>>>> primaries that give the most power to the voters of Iowa and etc.
> >>>>> When the primaries are suspended, there will be no more
> >>>>> unconstitutional party conventions such as gave us our Manchurian
> >>>>> Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya. Once and for all there will
> >>>>> be an end to the unconstitutional political parties which have �split
> >>>>> the USA down the aisle� for far too long.
> >>>>> Voters should have no trouble choosing good choices for President
> >>>>> based simply on televised debates and fairly-formatted candidate
> >>>>> interviews. The entire election process should span no more than six
> >>>>> months, and the candidates can stay rested, rather than being frazzled
> >>>>> by the stupidity of jetting back and forth on the pretext of being
> >>>>> better able to� �serve� the people of the particular state they happen
> >>>>> to be in better than he or she can serve the citizens of a dozen other
> >>>>> states where the same dull speech was recited before.
> >>>>> With �give-�em-hell� Donald Trump out of the race, I�m not sure there
> >>>>> is a single presidential hopeful wise enough and practical enough to
> >>>>> Kick the Ass of the Entire Primary System! It only takes ONE brave
> >>>>> candidate to do that. Simply say: �The primaries give inequitable
> >>>>> power to the voters in the early primaries. That makes the spaced-out
> >>>>> primaries unconstitutional, as it does the party conventions that
> >>>>> follow. Nothing in the Constitution allows quasi-governmental bodies,
> >>>>> like our political parties, to have ANY say-so whatsoever in how
> >>>>> governmental processes are run. In a Republic, like the USA is so
> >>>>> clearly mandated to be, there can be no LEADERS in Congress! Every
> >>>>> representative, regardless of how recently he or she was elected,
> >>>>> shall have identical voting power. To call Newt Gingrich �Mr.
> >>>>> Speaker� is to create ROYALTY in Congress that was so detested by the
> >>>>> founding fathers. George Washington rejected the idea that he should
> >>>>> be king! And George Washington would reject the notion that Czars
> >>>>> under the control of the President can bypass the powers granted to
> >>>>> Congress alone.
> >>>>> Thus far, the �Ritual� of the Secret Service protecting the (gag)
> >>>>> President is preventing them from asking this simple question: Is the
> >>>>> �long form� birth certificate of Obama�which was posted on the
> >>>>> Internet in digital form�a LAYERED *. pdf file? If there are LAYERS,
> >>>>> then, that document is a definite forgery. I repeat: Is the �long
> >>>>> form� birth certificate of Obama�which was posted on the Internet in
> >>>>> digital form�a LAYERED *. pdf file? If the answer is confirmed to be
>
> ...
>
> read more »
receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the
same communiqué differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a
"you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was
hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great
lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in
a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point?
Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
>
On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable
> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of
> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no
> intention of entering the race.
>
> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. �
> > On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >> *John, INLINE:*
>
> >> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan:
>
> >>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for
> >>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the
> >>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played
> >>> out.
> >> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump
> >> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe?
> >> The media? Or, Donald Trump?*
>
> >>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below:
> >>> "Preface:
> >>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. The
> >>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that
> >>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the
> >>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that
> >>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such shall
> >>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of
> >>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal
> >>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet
> >>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and
> >>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from
> >>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be
> >>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor
> >>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall
> >>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens
> >>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and
> >>> our posterity."
> >> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New
> >> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not
> >> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not
> >> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian
> >>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to
> >>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. This
> >>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy:
> >>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly
> >>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a
> >>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in
> >>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes allowing
> >>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power'
> >>> than the members have.
> >> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> (4.) The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier
> >>> years. It is required in the Constitution that candidates for
> >>> President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years
> >>> old. All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath
> >>> to uphold the Constitution. If such deliberately and flagrantly
> >>> overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USA�the way all
> >>> socialist-communist policies are�then members of the S. S. who are
> >>> responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and
> >>> comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)! Since the
> >>> Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating
> >>> that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and
> >>> causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest
> >>> order! Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste!
> >> *The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
> >> Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
> >> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither
> >> shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained
> >> to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
> >> within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution
> >> offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or how
> >> such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not
> >> created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be evidence
> >> enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility
> >> of the POTUS. *
>
> >>> � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>> On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt
> >>>> avoid answering, as usual):
> >>>> 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race."
> >>>> 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> >>>> 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As such,
> >>>> the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most people
> >>>> to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a local
> >>>> PTA "Madam President."
> >>>> 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret
> >>>> Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The mission
> >>>> of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's
> >>>> financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity
> >>>> of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state
> >>>> and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
> >>>> On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> A huge number of the na�ve among us are probably supposing that the
> >>>>> USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our
> >>>>> Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls to
> >>>>> the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington.
> >>>>> The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to
> >>>>> raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles in�
> >>>>> the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a enough
> >>>>> practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many states
> >>>>> as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be
> >>>>> President.
> >>>>> As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The rock
> >>>>> hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise
> >>>>> over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. If,
> >>>>> as I�ve proposed, presidential candidates spend no more than five
> >>>>> million dollars on their campaigns, *** there can be, literally,
> >>>>> billions of dollars that can remain in the pockets of the voters,
> >>>>> rather than going to our close-to-universally-corrupt media. A huge
> >>>>> plus will be the suspension of the unconstitutional, spaced-out
> >>>>> primaries that give the most power to the voters of Iowa and etc.
> >>>>> When the primaries are suspended, there will be no more
> >>>>> unconstitutional party conventions such as gave us our Manchurian
> >>>>> Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya. Once and for all there will
> >>>>> be an end to the unconstitutional political parties which have �split
> >>>>> the USA down the aisle� for far too long.
> >>>>> Voters should have no trouble choosing good choices for President
> >>>>> based simply on televised debates and fairly-formatted candidate
> >>>>> interviews. The entire election process should span no more than six
> >>>>> months, and the candidates can stay rested, rather than being frazzled
> >>>>> by the stupidity of jetting back and forth on the pretext of being
> >>>>> better able to� �serve� the people of the particular state they happen
> >>>>> to be in better than he or she can serve the citizens of a dozen other
> >>>>> states where the same dull speech was recited before.
> >>>>> With �give-�em-hell� Donald Trump out of the race, I�m not sure there
> >>>>> is a single presidential hopeful wise enough and practical enough to
> >>>>> Kick the Ass of the Entire Primary System! It only takes ONE brave
> >>>>> candidate to do that. Simply say: �The primaries give inequitable
> >>>>> power to the voters in the early primaries. That makes the spaced-out
> >>>>> primaries unconstitutional, as it does the party conventions that
> >>>>> follow. Nothing in the Constitution allows quasi-governmental bodies,
> >>>>> like our political parties, to have ANY say-so whatsoever in how
> >>>>> governmental processes are run. In a Republic, like the USA is so
> >>>>> clearly mandated to be, there can be no LEADERS in Congress! Every
> >>>>> representative, regardless of how recently he or she was elected,
> >>>>> shall have identical voting power. To call Newt Gingrich �Mr.
> >>>>> Speaker� is to create ROYALTY in Congress that was so detested by the
> >>>>> founding fathers. George Washington rejected the idea that he should
> >>>>> be king! And George Washington would reject the notion that Czars
> >>>>> under the control of the President can bypass the powers granted to
> >>>>> Congress alone.
> >>>>> Thus far, the �Ritual� of the Secret Service protecting the (gag)
> >>>>> President is preventing them from asking this simple question: Is the
> >>>>> �long form� birth certificate of Obama�which was posted on the
> >>>>> Internet in digital form�a LAYERED *. pdf file? If there are LAYERS,
> >>>>> then, that document is a definite forgery. I repeat: Is the �long
> >>>>> form� birth certificate of Obama�which was posted on the Internet in
> >>>>> digital form�a LAYERED *. pdf file? If the answer is confirmed to be
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Selling Yellowstone
Written by Becky Akers
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 12:33
"The United States may have run up a huge debt, but it is not a poor country…," the Washington Post announced on Monday as Our Rulers hit their credit-limit. "The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land, close to a third of the nation's total land mass. Plus a million buildings. Plus electrical utilities like the Tennessee Valley Authority. And an interstate highway system."
Ergo, "economists of a conservative or libertarian bent" advocate liquidating some of those assets. "Why … should the federal government be in the electricity business?" the Post asks even as it chuckles that of course, "no one advocates selling Yellowstone"; goodness, even libertarians aren't that crazy!
Actually, plenty of libertarians and anarchists are indeed that principled. Selling Yellowstone and everything else government "owns" (does a thief truly own what he buys with his victims' plunder?) makes sense on all levels, practically, constitutionally, morally.
Statism relies on many preposterous presumptions. Chief among these is citizens' imbecility. We are too stupid and wicked to breathe: but for government's benevolently restraining hand, we'd kill one another or ourselves. And thanks to our blind greed for profits, we amplify our evil foolishness when we band together to produce goods or services.
Here and there, enlightened folks save themselves by ascending to governmental office. Whether elected or appointed doesn't matter; when Mr. Former Citizen seeks salvation from the State, he automatically becomes Einstein to our Forrest Gump. Governing imbues him with such superiority that he can ruin sorry, run our lives for us.
It follows that only politicians and bureaucrats boast the smarts to manage such treasures as Mammoth Cave or the Everglades. Indeed, statists often incredulously demand, "If we didn't have government, who would run the national parks? You can't turn those over to private parties they'd build a mall in the Grand Canyon or condos overlooking Niagara Falls!"
Right. And millionaires never grab a hammer when they notice a nail working itself loose on the yacht: they just pound it back in place with their diamond ring.
Silly, isn't it? And yet statists believe this is how the world operates, that only politicians and bureaucrats recognize the best use for a resource. We mere mortals squander it on a lesser utility.
Of course, that means we forgo some of the profits - just as our millionaire may drive a nail home with his jewel, though with a heck of a lot more time and frustration than if he'd relied on a hammer. Statists steeped in Marxism or Keynes' nonsense ignore this inherent contradiction: the entrepreneurs they accuse of overwhelming avarice will preserve rather than develop the Grand Canyon precisely because the former makes more money.
Five million people visit the Canyon every year; "most" pay $25 per vehicle or "$12.00 per person" if "entering by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, or non-commercial group." Obviously, these prices are nothing more than a bureaucrat's whim; they don't reflect reality in part because taxes subsidize the national parks - $3.3 billion in FY2012, according to the National Park Service's (NPS) "budget request."
The NPS doesn't define "most"; let's say half of the Grand Canyon's sightseers came by car at $25 and the other half forked over $12. Even this conservative estimate amounts to a whopping $92.5 million annually.
Would a mall in the Canyon earn even half that? Given the rugged, remote terrain, probably not. A few shoppers might deem the location worth the drive; more would probably balk at the high prices. The challenges of building in such an unusual area, supplying electricity and water, and shipping inventory would send the costs of goods soaring. The mall might survive on its novelty for a few years; venture capitalists likely wouldn't bet on it for longer.
We can also contrast the Canyon's existing revenues with those for a corporation that counts shopping malls among its assets. You've probably patronized some of the Simon Property Group's tenants: the company "owns or has an interest in 392 properties comprising 263 million square feet of gross leasable area in North America, Europe and Asia, … employ[ing] more than 5,000 people worldwide." Yet all those properties yielded a mere $3.783 billion in 2008 just 40 times as much as our lowball appraisal on the Grand Canyon though it comprises 392 times as many investments.
Yes, the comparison is flawed. The government's "prices" at the Grand Canyon and everywhere else aren't true ones. An entrepreneur operating the Canyon would almost certainly charge more or less; he would probably introduce off-season discounts, coupons, refunds for poor weather. Even so, there's enough of a margin here to assert that the Grand Canyon's highest value, the use that will return the most profit, lies in its unique landscape.
Nor need we fret that billboards and fast-food joints will litter the Canyon since they will destroy the vistas luring patrons. And those who would damn an entrepreneur for constructing hotels should blast Leviathan, too: the beast not only "authorize[s]" Xanterra Parks & Resorts, Inc. to administer "six distinctive lodges … within walking distance of the South Rim," it also allows the company to "provide many [other] visitor services within the park," such as "the legendary 'Phantom Ranch' on the floor of the canyon" and, horror of horrors, "retail shops in ... historic buildings." [Emphases added.]
It seems, then, that if we want pristine natural beauty, government is the very last manager to which we should entrust such prizes. Perhaps that's why the Constitution never empowers the Feds to establish a chain of nationalized parks.
Nor does morality. Though the Fifth Amendment requires the central government to pay owners "just compensation" when it swipes private property "for public use" (with Art. I, Sec. 8 implying such "use" extends only to "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"), the Feds are notorious for offering mere pennies on the dollar – when the property is for sale. Often it isn't: owners may refuse to sell an heirloom handed down in their family, in which case Our thieving Rulers hold eminent domain's gun to their heads.
Then, too, some nationalized parks are battlefields – New York State's Saratoga, Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. Before they hosted armies, these areas were farms and homes.
Alas, the NPS doesn't restrict its thievery to commemorating eighteenth- and nineteenth-century wars. It is currently robbing seven Americans of their property for a "Flight 93 National Memorial"; among the prey is " a Lutheran pastor who owns two parcels, including one that has a cottage where he and his wife planned to retire…"
None of us can predict what may happen near our homes or businesses. Allowing government to steal other people's property jeopardizes ours, too.
"Experience your America," the NPS urges. Thanks, but it's not mine in any way.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/becky-akers/7523-selling-yellowstone
Today I Found Out |
| Posted: 20 May 2011 07:48 AM PDT
German was driving his taxi at a blistering 12 miles per hour down Lexington Street in Manhattan. At that time, the speed limit was 8 miles per hour on straight-a-ways and 4 miles per hour when turning. A police officer on a bicycle observed the 26 year old Mr. German speeding and promptly arrested him and imprisoned him in the East 22nd Street station house. There is some contention on whether he actually received a paper ticket or not, which would have also made him the first person in the U.S. to receive an actual physical ticket, as opposed to just being the first to be cited for committing a speeding infraction. The general consensus seems to be that he did not receive an actual ticket and, rather, the first known paper speeding ticket issued to a driver in the United States was to one Harry Myers in Dayton Ohio in 1904. Mr. Myers was also traveling 12 miles per hour when the police observed him speeding. In his case though, he wasn't arrested, but was just issued a ticket. Outside of the United States, the first known speeding infraction is thought to have been committed in Great Britain on January 28, 1896, around three years before Jacob German was arrested for speeding. This infraction was committed by Walter Arnold of East Peckham, Kent. Mr. Arnold was traveling in a 2 mph zone (yes, 2 mph) and was going a breakneck 8 mph. The fine he received was for 1 shilling. Bonus Factoids:
Sources:
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Today I Found Out To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
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.
Bacon Babble |
| Posted: 20 May 2011 07:33 PM PDT
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Bacon Babble To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
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)
