The Queen Snubs Obama's Toast at State Dinner

Videos: The Queen Snubs Obama's Toast at State Dinner

http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/05/24/videos-the-queen-snubs-obamas-toast-at-state-dinner/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=22f3de5e49-EO_05_24_20115_24_2011&utm_medium=email

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

 

If Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush had so flubbed royal protocol that the Queen of England politely ignored them, every major network would have played the clip on continuous loop and the late night comedians would belittle the rustic rubes for days.

Did you know Barack Obama did this very thing during his state dinner with Queen Elizabeth II, sovereign of Great Britain — that The One screwed up his toast to QE2? Thought not.

Obama weakly read a toast from notes sitting on his table. (Perhaps his TelePrompter could not clear customs?) As he wound up, he raised his glass — as the band began to play the royal anthem, "God Save the Queen." (Older Americans and homeschoolers will know the tune as "My Country 'Tis of Thee.") No one is to toast during that time but instead to stand in respect. Obama does not do this for our national anthem, so he raised his glass — as the entire hall stood with their hands at their sides, waiting for the song to end. Then the Queen politely toasted back.

Queen humilitates President Obama at Buckingham Palace by refusing toast - May 24 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ZCsfyaOGdw

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

Obama's signature: an Islamic magical sigil

 

http://www.darkskiesblog.com/2009/03/02/hidden/

 

--
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://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/654/366/Obama:_The_Man_Who_Never_Was.html

 

Obama: The Man Who Never Was!!!

Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:01

The Intel Hub
Servando Gonzalez
© 2011. All Rights Reserved.
May 22, 2011

In 1943, the British intelligence implemented Operation Mincemeat, a plan conceived to deceive the Germans and their allies into thinking that the Allied invasion of Sicily, would take place elsewhere. After an extensive search, they found the cadaver of a man and dressed it in a Navy uniform.

Attached to the corpse's left hand was a briefcase containing fake documentation, identifying him as Major William Martin, R.M. The briefcase also contained memos, letters and related documents falsely stating that the Allied invasion force would land in Sardinia and Greece rather than Sicily, the actual point of invasion.

The corpse was secretly dropped in the sea at night from a British submarine not far from Gibraltar, so that the currents would bring "Major Martin" to Spanish shores. As expected, some Spanish fishermen found the body and when the authorities opened the briefcase, they immediately notified their Nazi allies.

The Spanish Intelligence Service passed copies of the papers to the German Intelligence Service who passed them on to their High Command. After looking at the documents — which were real, even though the information they carried was false — they swallowed its content hook, line and sinker. The ruse was so successful that, weeks after the landings in Sicily had begun, the Germans still believed that Sardinia and Greece were the intended objectives and that the guys in Sicily were part of a diversion operation.

Join The Intel Hub News Alerts Mailing list

Eventually, the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates who had brought Hitler to power in Germany — most of them members of the Council on Foreign Relations — won WWII. Contrary to common lore, however, its main objective was not rescuing the Jews or liberating Europe, but saving their Nazi friends from justice. The second objective was allowing the Soviet troops to occupy most of Eastern Europe, thus creating the new enemy they needed to substitute Nazi Germany: Soviet communism.

Sixty years later, the same Wall Street bankers and oil magnates who supported Hitler and eventually needed to get rid of the Frankenstein monster they had created, faced a similar problem. Now the CFR conspirators were pushing hard to impose the New World Order upon the American people, and for this final, decisive phase of their plan, they need in the White House a psychopath — a Hitler, a Stalin, a Castro — who cannot sway or hesitate when the time comes for him to take the drastic decisions that this moment will require.

Hillary had already been selected for the job, and was told that she would be the next President of the U.S. during one of the secret meetings where American presidents are tapped on the shoulder: the World Economic Forum she attended in early 1998 in Davos, Switzerland, where she was cheered by the globalist conspirators as a world leader. However, for reasons we can only guess, eventually they changed their minds and decided that she was not the right person for the job and selected Obama.

Probably one of the reasons that tipped the balance in Obama's favor was that he was not born in America, and he profoundly hated everything American, particularly its Constitution and culture. Actually, this was not the first time the globalist conspirators made decisions based on that consideration. Adolf Hitler, who eventually destroyed Germany, was not born in Germany, but in Austria. Fidel Castro, another of their creations, was born in the eastern province of Oriente, and it was known that he hated Havana.

One of the main jobs of every senior CFR member is to recruit agents. As people in the field of intelligence know very well, the best agent is the one who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) that he has been recruited. CFR members are experts in recruiting ambitious people and pushing them to positions of power. Colonel Edward Mandell House recruited Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt recruited Dwight Eisenhower, and Zbigniew Brzezinski recruited Jimmy Carter. Everything indicates that the CFR conspirators used again their trusted agent Brzezinski to recruit young Barack Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama was perfect for the job. In the first place, he was a pot-smoking nonentity lacking in principles and ethics, not very clever and with an immense ego and ambition. As an added bonus, he exhibited the traits of the psychopathic behavior, a requisite for that type of job. Consequently, the CFR conspirators contacted the CIA, an organization they control, and ordered their secret agents in the Agency to create for their new recruit what in intelligence and espionage is called a "legend."[1]

Therefore, like the British intelligence in WWII, CFR agents at the CIA proceeded to create a man that never was in order to sell it to the self-righteous, naive and gullible American public. To this effect, they falsified Barry Soetoro's documents, including his birth certificate, social security card, school and university records, and places of residence. Of course, things like high school and college records are very difficult to falsify, because eventually somebody is going to check them against the original documents. Consequently, they froze Obama's records to keep them out of the hands of researchers.

However, they cannot modify student yearbooks, because there are hundreds of copies in libraries and private hands. Barack Hussein Obama does not appear in any of the yearbooks of the learning institutions of which he claims to have graduated, nor do any former classmate seems to remember him.

 

 

--
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 PRESIDENT WHO DREAMS OF BEING KING

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael150.htm

 

THE PRESIDENT WHO DREAMS OF BEING KING

 

By Michael LeMieux
May 24, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

One of the great powers of being a king is the ability to award staunch supporters and friends positions of power and wealth within the king's domain. Once a subject is raised to one of these lofty positions he is allowed to remain there at the pleasure of the king, and as long as he does the kings bidding the endowed subject is allowed to remain in his position of power.

Currently in the Senate is bill S.679 entitled "Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011." This bill, introduced by Senator Schumer and a whole list of communist want-to-bees, including Harry Reid, desires to give the President the power to appoint many high level executive office positions from "advice and consent of the Senate" to positions that are appointed by the President and are retained in those positions "at his pleasure."

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution states that the executive shall: "He shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate… shall appoint … all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The rationale behind having such checks and balances was to ensure that people being placed in positions of power within government would be above all qualified for such positions and second that they were not being placed there as a puppet for an agenda driven executive.

Let's take a short detour and discuss another item of governmental control – the executive order. The president, as the chief executive officer over the federal government, historically has used executive orders, rightfully I might add, to direct the operations of the departments under his authority. For instance, the President may order a department head to ensure that he prepare a report on his departments fiscal health on a quarterly basis. The law may state only that the departments must provide fiscal data to the executive on a regular basis and the President is informing that department of what, in this case, regular is to mean.

But the executive order cannot, legally, create law – Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states that All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…" The only legal way for a law to be valid is through congressional authority.

Upon this basis then we look at some of the statements of the current administration:

• In a New York Times article from February 12, 2010 it states that "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environment, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities." In the article Rahm Emanuel, then White House chief of staff, stated "We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across affront of issues."

• As recent as today, May 11, 2011 the Washington Examiner headlines, in its politics section, "Obama ready to deploy executive powers against GOP hill." "In response, Obama is expected to make more frequent use of executive orders, vetoes, signing statements and policy initiatives that originate within the federal agencies to maneuver around congressional Republicans who are threatening to derail initiatives he has already put in place, including health care reforms, and to launch serial investigations into his administration's spending. 'There is going to be an effort on the president's part to use [executive powers] to satisfy his base and institutionalize what he can,' said John Kenneth White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. This week, the Environmental Protection Agency begins regulating greenhouse gas emissions at some energy plants and factories -- a move Obama pushed for after his cap-and-trade environmental legislation stalled in Congress.

So throughout his term in office he has been determined to get his agenda in place either with the assistance of Congress or in defiance of them. He is acting as a king with a puppet parliament that no longer wants to be manipulated and he will get his way the nation be damned.

The one thing that will ensure this victory is to be able to put people into key high level officer that he will have the ability to hold accountable only to him. But how can that be done because the Congress must consent to most positions of presidential nominations – enter Senate Bill 679.

Though the title includes the words streamlining and efficiency; the only thing it streamlines and makes more efficient is the president's ability to place key people in strategic positions and to have the power to do so without ANY oversight.

So what positions does this bill call for removing from congressional approval?

1. Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service Administrator, and Commodity Credit Corporation leadership
2. The Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
3. Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
4. Under the Department of Defense he wants direct appointment power over
a. Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Legislative Affairs
b. Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Public Affairs
c. Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Networks and Information Integration
d. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management.
e. Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management.
f. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management.
5. Members of the National Security Education Board. This board consists of only some of the most influential individuals in Federal Government: Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Education, Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Directory of Central Intelligence, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities and six persons appointed by the President. With the ability to appoint half the board with his personal choice, without congressional consent, he will be able to gain further control in the policy enforcement and direction.
6. Under the Department of Education
a. Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs
b. Assistant Secretary for Management
c. Commissioner Rehabilitation Services Administration,
d. Commissioner Education Statistics
7. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
8. Department of Health and Human Services
a. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
b. Assistant Secretary for Legislation
c. Commissioner, Administration for Children, youth and Families
d. Commissioner administration for Native Americans
9. Under the Department of Homeland Security (we wouldn't want Congress to get in the way of National Security)
a. Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness
b. Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Grant Programs
c. Administrator of the United States Fire Administration
d. Director of the office of Counter Narcotics Enforcement
e. Chief Medical Officer
10. In the Department of Housing and Urban Development the President will appoint three positions that are outside congressional approval, and the control over who works there, what they want from Congress, and what they want the public to know they are:
a. Chief Human Capital Officer
b. Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
c. Assistant Secretary for Public Relations
11. Under the Department of Justice he will appoint:
a. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs
b. Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics
c. Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
d. Director, National Institute of Justice
e. Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
f. Director, Office for Victims of Crime
12. Under the Department of Labor:
a. Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
b. Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs
c. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
d. Director of the Women's Bureau
13. Department of State:
a. Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
b. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
c. Assistant Secretary for Administration
14. Department of Transportation –
a. Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs
b. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning
c. Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer
15. Treasury Department -
a. Treasurer of the United States
b. Director of the Mint - which also included language that would allow the removal of the Director without notifying the Senate as to the reasons for removal.
16. Department of Veterans Affairs -
a. Assistant Secretary for Management
b. Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration
c. Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
d. Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs
e. Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology
17. Appalachian Regional Commission; alternate Federal Co-Chairman
18. Council of Economic Advisers, Members – only one of the members will be appointed with consent of Congress the remaining will be appointed by the President alone.
19. Corporation for National and Community Service; Managing Director will no longer be appointed by consent of Congress.
20. National Council of Disability; Members – All members, including the chairperson, will be at the whim of the President.
21. All presidential appointments for National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities; National Museum and Library Services Board; Members – without consent of Congress.
22. National Science Foundation; Board Members – All of them.
23. Office of Management and Budget; Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management
24. Office of National Drug Control Policy; Deputy Directors – All of them.
25. Office of Navajo And Hopi Relocation; Commissioner – Ditto
26. Office of Science And Technology Policy; Associate Directors – all Ditto
27. Office of Science and Technology Policy; Associate Directors – Again, Ditto.
28. United States Agency For International Development -
a. Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs
b. Assistant Administrator for Management
29. Administrator for the Community Development Financial Institution Fund
30. Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
31. Commissioner, Mississippi River Commission
32. Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Bank
33. Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank
34. Governors and Alternate Governors of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
35. Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund
36. National Board for Education Sciences; Members – All members
37. National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board; Members – All members
38. Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development; Members as well as Board of Trustees
39. Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
40. Public Health Service Commissioned Officer Corps – all officer commissions and promotions will be at the pleasure of the President.
41. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps - all officer commissions and promotions will be a the pleasure of the President.
42. Chief Financial Officer Positions

If passed this bill will amount to the greatest power grab in the history of American governance. This would, in effect, allow the President to directly appoint key officers into every vital area of our national government with the power to coerce and demand compliance with his wishes or be removed and replaced with someone who will do what they are told to do.

The reason the Constitution mandated the consent clause was to ensure a President could not do what this President is trying to do – grab power unconstitutionally. He, and his cronies, have already admitted they have been frustrated by the lack of movement in their agenda and have threatened to "go around the wall" by whatever means they can. Executive orders are the means by which the President directs his staff and if abused can cause the departments to act under the color of law as we have already seen with the EPA and its desire to regulate CO2 without congressional legislation. This would create a true fiat government – a government relegated presidential decree via the Executive Order.

We cannot allow this travesty to come to fruition – please contact your Congressmen and demand that they vote against Senate Bill 679 (Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011).

 

 

 

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

Re: New York 26th district crumbling to Democrats

Republican'ts enjoy losing the next following elections;
2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032,
2034, 2036, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2044, 2046, 2048, 2050... you might have
a small chance in 2052 ... if your lucky.

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

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

You can't be "the guy" who builds this...

You can't be the town that builds this.
You can't be the State that builds this.
You have to be a country that builds this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0gNga6v9EY

Not every idea of what's good for the country is a profit making idea
for some company somewhere.
It's never going to be a profit making idea for some company to build
something like this in the middle of no-where.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjcNjTRg7wc&NR=1

Republitards and Libertarians would have you believe "some guy" is
building nuclear reactors that power entire cities in his garage.
Amongst many other things, no one guy, or even an entire company no
matter how big, could build on it's own.
Yet that is precisely what they want you to believe.

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

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

Re: Social Security vs Pensions

On May 24, 10:17 pm, dick <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>  If she had worked and paid in then she would have qualified
> and not have to worry about losing her SS.  Since she is worried about
> losing her SS, according to you at least, then obviously ipso facto she
> has never worked.  

Once again your not making any sense and writing incoherently.

When it comes to Republitards wanting to abolish SS, she, and even
others who might be in her position in the future, should worry about
losing her SS.

> God, you are so easy to make look stupid.  You do it
> to yourself all the time.

Anyone who isn't a Republitard like you, is by default definition
smarter than you can ever be.

--
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.

Benifits of Drinking

 

 

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

Re: Social Security vs Pensions

You really are an idiot. I wondered for a while but you keep proving it
is true. If she had worked and paid in then she would have qualified
and not have to worry about losing her SS. Since she is worried about
losing her SS, according to you at least, then obviously ipso facto she
has never worked. God, you are so easy to make look stupid. You do it
to yourself all the time.

On 05/24/2011 09:44 PM, studio wrote:
> On May 24, 12:34 am, dick thompson<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Are you just stupid naturally or do you have to work at it. He is
>> saying that your comment about not collecting social security if you
>> have never worked or paid in is false and you claim that he is trying to
>> take her social security away from her. No, you are doing that by what
>> you said earlier. You claimed that to get SS you have to have worked
>> and paid in. Her getting SS proves that you lied.
>>
> No what it proves is Republitards are retarded...
>
> Only Republitards would equate being a widow with someone who has
> never worked.
>
>

--
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.

New York 26th district crumbling to Democrats

This is a heads-up to all Republitards with their heads up their
ass...

the 26th district will fall into Democratic control for the first time
since 1857.

A district that Republitards shouldn't have to spend a dime on getting
elected, instead poured million$ to hold on to... but failed.

Just a taste of what's to come Republican'ts.

--
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.

President Obama signs wrong date in Westminister Abbey Book...off by 3 years

President Obama signs wrong date in Westminister Abbey Book...off by 3 years Scotty Starnes | May 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM | Tags: President Obama, Westminister Abbey | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5jo

Could you imagine the uproar had this been a Republican making this mistake? It would be the lead story on every mainstream media network. But since it's the cherished one, no big deal. He's a certifiable genius.

I bet he keeps his golf score card up to date. I know most Americans wish they could jump back to May of 2008. Most wouldn't have voted for this idiot knowing what they know now.

H/T to the Associated Press

Add a comment to this post

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

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

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

Re: Republicans and Democrats Agree…

On May 24, 10:13 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Republicans and Democrats Agree…Posted byChristopher Manionon May 24, 2011 07:28 AM
> TheConstitutionisunconstitutional.

Basically true.
No matter how you try to make it so, it's not the last word on
anything.

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

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

Re: Illegal War? Congress Doesn't Care

Very few members of congress care about anything except getting their sorry assses re-elected.  Elect them to 1 6-year term and take them out and shoot them at the end of that.

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:08 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Illegal War? Congress Doesn't Care
by Gene Healy
This article appeared in The Washington Examiner on May 24, 2011.

Remember when President Obama assured us his Libyan adventure would be over in "days, not weeks"? To employ a Clinton-era euphemism, "That statement is no longer operative." (Translation: I lied.)

On Friday the 60-day clock ran out, leaving Obama in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution ... [and] insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities."

Instead of withdrawing U.S. forces, the president sent a letter to congressional leaders insisting ­ bizarrely ­ that drone attacks and "suppression and destruction of air defenses" don't qualify as "hostilities" under the resolution.

"The U.S. role is one of support," an Obama adviser told ABC News, "and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates couldn't even keep a straight face while trying to sell the "kinetic military action" line to Katie Couric on 60 Minutes recently, when she asked him, "Are we at war with Libya?"

Six Republican senators, led by Kentucky's Rand Paul, sent the president a letter Friday, challenging him to comply with the War Powers Resolution. But they won't get much help from their colleagues. There's no Senate action scheduled on the WPR, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., says it's because "we're deferring to NATO." Who elected them?

With Congress AWOL, it's not clear what recourse is left to those who oppose unconstitutional wars. Perhaps what remains of the "peace" movement can update the old John Lennon anthem: "All we are saying is give static military activity a chance ..."

Meanwhile, as the Senate dithered, the House moved toward granting the president sweeping new war powers.

The defense spending bill that recently cleared the House Armed Services Committee contains a new, post-bin Laden Authorization for Use of Military Force. This authorization is even broader than its post-Sept. 11 predecessor, whose language was stretched by the Bush administration to justify warrantless surveillance and holding U.S. citizens without charges. Even so, the proposed replacement got only a few minutes of post-midnight debate.

The first authorization at least contained a link to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. The new authorization empowers the president to go to war with any nation he determines is aiding al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces." How far can that language be stretched? Maybe far enough for Congress to finally get this war powers hassle off its plate permanently.

One thing is clear, you can't blame our burgeoning "imperial presidency" solely on aggressive, power-hungry presidents. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explained in his book of that name, the presidency's transformation from limited, constitutional office to Supreme Warlord of the Earth has been "as much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation."

In fact, the last time I can remember Congress roused to righteous indignation about threats to the separation of powers was in May 2006, when the FBI searched then-Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office in a bribery investigation. (They'd previously found $90,000 in cash in Jefferson's freezer at home.)

The raid on Jefferson's office was the rare event that got then-Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., singing from the same hymnbook about "constitutional principles ... designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power."

It would be nice to see similar bipartisan outrage from Congress today about "abuses of power" like, say ... illegal wars.

But it seems that sort of thing doesn't hit as close to home.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13132

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

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

Re: The false hope of Herman Cain

On May 23, 9:16 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Republican ticket will be West and Cain.  Can't wait for the libtards and
> demoshits call that racist.

Doesn't matter who it is, Republitards have no hope.
The only pick you have is in who will lose.

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

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

Re: Social Security vs Pensions

On May 24, 9:08 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you should seek a physician about your memory loss
> you said insurance companies don't pay off - you're fucking wrong and
> an asshole

Insurance companies don't pay false claims.

> so go fuck yourself harder than the last time

ha-ha, I'm not paying out that claim either.
So emotional, so illogical, so retarded.

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

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

Re: Social Security vs Pensions

On May 24, 12:34 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Are you just stupid naturally or do you have to work at it.  He is
> saying that your comment about not collecting social security if you
> have never worked or paid in is false and you claim that he is trying to
> take her social security away from her.  No, you are doing that by what
> you said earlier.  You claimed that to get SS you have to have worked
> and paid in.  Her getting SS proves that you lied.

No what it proves is Republitards are retarded...

Only Republitards would equate being a widow with someone who has
never worked.

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

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

Re: You might be a Republitard if you're...

On May 24, 9:42 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last I looked, Social Security was not abolished, and Obama really did
> expand warrantless searches and the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
>
> You might wanna check again

I'm still waiting for you to check the other 17 items I listed.

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

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

Re: Preacher: Rapture Really Coming in October

I wouldn't trust this guy to tell me the time of day much less any
other kind of time.

--
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.

Common Sense Versus Nonsense

Common Sense Versus Nonsense
Walter E. Williams

William J. McGee, the consumer advocate on the Department of Transportation's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee wrote "Forcing the F.A.A. to Fly Blind" in The New York Times (April 9, 2011), where he laments Congress' cut in the FAA budget, saying, "A $4 billion cut will necessarily reduce the work force further. And it's hard to imagine this will not diminish safety." Mr. McGee suggests there will be shortcuts in aircraft maintenance.

Here are a few facts and then a question. Each Boeing 747 costs $317 million, its 777 goes for $284 million and its 737 sells for $80 million. Airbus' giant 555-plus passenger A380 sells for $375 million. Here's a true or false statement: If it weren't for the FAA, airline company CEOs would not take the necessary measures to ensure that their aircraft took off and landed safely.

I'd say the statement is false. Even if CEOs didn't give a hoot about passengers, I'm betting that they do care, without FAA edicts, whether billions of dollars worth of aircraft landed and took off safely, and they will spend enough on maintenance to ensure that.

Mr. McGee might say that without the FAA mandates, airlines would spend less on safety . Whether we acknowledge it or not, there is such a thing as being too safe, as well as being not safe enough. Typically, it's only the effects of not being safe enough that are visible. There are the crashes, injuries and fatalities.

The effects of being over-safe are less visible. They are revealed when we recognize that too many safety measures such as unnecessary maintenance, early parts replacements and inspections costs money. If airline companies are to remain profitable and in business, passenger fares must reflect such costs. Because of higher fares, some families will opt to drive to their destination. Highway travel is not nearly as safe as air travel. Therefore, some highway fatalities might be because higher fares have forced people to drive instead of fly.

Witnessing a highway fatality, few would attribute it to FAA edicts. By the way, FAA officials have an incentive to err on the side of being over-safe because the victims of their policy are invisible and the agency suffers no public embarrassment and blame.

Speaking of safety, too many of us buy into the notions like "You can never be too safe" and "If it will save one life, it's worth it." Let's put this in perspective. There's a non-zero probability that our automobile hydraulic brake line system has a just-about-ready-to-fracture crack that could cause a serious accident that could be easily prevented by a routine daily inspection. Yet how many of us bother to inspect our car's hydraulic brake lines before we start the engine and head off to work? Doing so would be safer than simply assuming that the lines were intact. After all, NASA doesn't act so "irresponsibly." Prior to launch, they make no safety assumptions. They go through a detailed inspection of all systems, taking nothing for granted. As far as our cars are concerned, we decide that such a level of safety is not worth it.

How about the frequently heard claim "If it will save just one life, it's worth it"? As a generality, it, too, is nonsense. According to 2009 data from the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 33,808 people died in car crashes. I'm guessing that if Congress would mandate and enforce a 5 or 10 mph speed limit, at least 30,000 American lives would be saved.

How many people would support such a mandate? "Williams," you say, "that's a ridiculous and impractical proposal!" I'd agree but put it more truthfully, though politically incorrect. People wouldn't support such a congressional mandate because those 30,000 lives that would be saved just aren't worth all the inconvenience and costs we have to bear by having to drive at 5 or 10 mph.


http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams.html

Illegal War? Congress Doesn't Care

Illegal War? Congress Doesn't Care
by Gene Healy
This article appeared in The Washington Examiner on May 24, 2011.

Remember when President Obama assured us his Libyan adventure would be over in "days, not weeks"? To employ a Clinton-era euphemism, "That statement is no longer operative." (Translation: I lied.)

On Friday the 60-day clock ran out, leaving Obama in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution ... [and] insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities."

Instead of withdrawing U.S. forces, the president sent a letter to congressional leaders insisting ­ bizarrely ­ that drone attacks and "suppression and destruction of air defenses" don't qualify as "hostilities" under the resolution.

"The U.S. role is one of support," an Obama adviser told ABC News, "and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates couldn't even keep a straight face while trying to sell the "kinetic military action" line to Katie Couric on 60 Minutes recently, when she asked him, "Are we at war with Libya?"

Six Republican senators, led by Kentucky's Rand Paul, sent the president a letter Friday, challenging him to comply with the War Powers Resolution. But they won't get much help from their colleagues. There's no Senate action scheduled on the WPR, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., says it's because "we're deferring to NATO." Who elected them?

With Congress AWOL, it's not clear what recourse is left to those who oppose unconstitutional wars. Perhaps what remains of the "peace" movement can update the old John Lennon anthem: "All we are saying is give static military activity a chance ..."

Meanwhile, as the Senate dithered, the House moved toward granting the president sweeping new war powers.

The defense spending bill that recently cleared the House Armed Services Committee contains a new, post-bin Laden Authorization for Use of Military Force. This authorization is even broader than its post-Sept. 11 predecessor, whose language was stretched by the Bush administration to justify warrantless surveillance and holding U.S. citizens without charges. Even so, the proposed replacement got only a few minutes of post-midnight debate.

The first authorization at least contained a link to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. The new authorization empowers the president to go to war with any nation he determines is aiding al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces." How far can that language be stretched? Maybe far enough for Congress to finally get this war powers hassle off its plate permanently.

One thing is clear, you can't blame our burgeoning "imperial presidency" solely on aggressive, power-hungry presidents. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explained in his book of that name, the presidency's transformation from limited, constitutional office to Supreme Warlord of the Earth has been "as much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation."

In fact, the last time I can remember Congress roused to righteous indignation about threats to the separation of powers was in May 2006, when the FBI searched then-Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office in a bribery investigation. (They'd previously found $90,000 in cash in Jefferson's freezer at home.)

The raid on Jefferson's office was the rare event that got then-Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., singing from the same hymnbook about "constitutional principles ... designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power."

It would be nice to see similar bipartisan outrage from Congress today about "abuses of power" like, say ... illegal wars.

But it seems that sort of thing doesn't hit as close to home.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13132

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Dear J. Ashley: Here is where I answered that question before:

"(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!"

— John A. Armistead —
>
On May 24, 1:52 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You avoid any and all
> questions posed to you.
>
> Earlier in this thread, based on an assertion you made, I asked you
> directly: Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties?
> You have yet to answer (because you can't). Yet you have once again made
> that assertion.
>
> Also based on an assertion you made, I asked you: Does any part of the
> Constitution or any Law require the Secret Service to look into the
> qualifications of the President? You have yet to answer.
>
> Instead you change subjects by opening your post with, "The 'myth' is
> that with the right President the country will be OK." That is, of
> course, completely off topic. Who ever made the claim that "with the
> right President the country will be OK"?
>
> On 05/23/2011 08:43 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear J. Ashley:  The "myth" is that with the right President the
> > country will be OK.  Well, the USA isn't OK after a lot of
> > presidents!  The only requirement for a candidate with our corrupt and
> > failing government should be the repudiation of political parties.
> > Those were never constitutional, but are effectively running things.
> > Kick all political rituals in the ass!  The easiest way to do that
> > would be for the candidates to start eschewing campaigning (live) in
> > any of the states.  TV debates are an excellent enough way to select
> > our candidates.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
>
> > On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker"
> >> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show
> >> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate.
>
> >> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick
> >> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says
> >> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof).
>
> >> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> J. Ashley:  Any communication involves two, the sayer and the
> >>> receiver.  You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the
> >>> same communiqu� 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!  ï¿½ 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?  ï¿½ 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,
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

J. Ashley: Firing bad people from their jobs is preferable to throwing
them in prison, don't you think? One of the reason's the USA is going
busted is because those employed were being given... "benefits" in
excess of the private sector. And those same government employees are
allowed to vote and to have enough control over government that they
can't be fired. For starters, ban all unconstitutional labor unions
of those working for government! If teachers strike for higher pay,
fire the entire batch! No one working for government should be
allowed to vote on the processes of government. Employees are the
laborers, NOT the management! — J. A. Armistead —
>
On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker"
> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show
> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate.
>
> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick
> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says
> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof).
>
> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Ashley:  Any communication involves two, the sayer and the
> > receiver.  You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the
> > same communiqu� 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!  ï¿½ 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?  ï¿½ 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.
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Re: Empty Ritual is stymieing America's hopes

J. Ashley: The unconstitutional rules dreamed up by Congresses-past
allowed there the be... leaders. In a working REPUBLIC, every elected
representative has the same voting power. Newt Gingrich and Nancy
Pelosi couldn't comprehend not being in charge. When the President
asks to speak to the leaders of Congress, nearly 500 people will show
up! — J. A. A. —

On May 20, 8:45 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> Once again, who is going to prevent "those therein" from becoming a
> "ruling class"?
>
> On 05/20/2011 05:33 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Ashley:  In the Preface of my New Constitution it says: "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."  Governments may
> > indeed fail, but the USA will go on!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > On May 19, 6:58 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> Governments are like life itself. Eventually they all die.
>
> >> On 05/19/2011 02:30 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> FACT:  Cavemen anarchists aren't content with any government but a
> >>> FAILED government.  Ha, ha, HA!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �
> >>> On May 18, 9:51 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>    wrote:
> >>>> John is constantly redefining what socialism is in order to convolute
> >>>> the debate. He can�t refute the facts we present because the facts don't
> >>>> support his beliefs.
> >>>> On 05/16/2011 02:49 PM, MJ wrote:
> >>>>> So now socialism is no longer socialism? Is THAT how you resolve your
> >>>>> own socialistic embrace? Simply REDEFINE terms?
> >>>>> As noted, socialism interferes with the free use of one's own private
> >>>>> property.
> >>>>> I remain curious why 10% of the GNP is *magically* optimum.
> >>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>> --MJ
> >>>>> Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product, should have the
> >>>>> option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it
> >>>>> to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the
> >>>>> object of his desires. To deprive him of this option . . . solely to
> >>>>> satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of
> >>>>> plunder and to violate the law of justice. -- Fr�d�ric Bastiat
> >>>>> At 04:38 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
> >>>>>> MJ:  You prove nothing by arguing that another way of characterizing
> >>>>>> socialism is to claim such interferes with the free use of one's
> >>>>>> property.  I say the same thing: Socialism STEALS from those who
> >>>>>> actually WORK for a living to give to the good-for-nothings who are
> >>>>>> unwilling to lift a finger, other than to vote in the most leftist
> >>>>>> Democrats around.  You will never best me at anything, MJ, because you
> >>>>>> simply don't measure up.  ï¿½ NE �
> >>>>>> On May 16, 2:05 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>    wrote:
> >>>>>>> At 07:36 PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ:  When the cost of running
> >>>>>> our government(s) starts
> >>>>>>> approaching the optimum 10% of the GNP, there will be such a huge
> >>>>>>> What makes 10% GNP 'optimum'?amount of cash available to purchase
> >>>>>> desired goods and services, the
> >>>>>>> many more people should be willing to be charitable.  Socialism is
> >>>>>>> FORCED charity that robs from the rich to give to the lazy and good-
> >>>>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>>>>> Socialism is INTERFERING in the free use of one's private property.
> >>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>> --MJAll States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of
> >>>>>> the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative
> >>>>>> burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and
> >>>>>> parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of Court
> >>>>>> Intellectuals, whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting
> >>>>>> and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court
> >>>>>> Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their
> >>>>>> continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court
> >>>>>> Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power,
> >>>>>> prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded
> >>>>>> public. -- Murray Rothbard
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>>>>> For options&    help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >>>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >>>>>> <http://www.politicalforum.com/%A0>
> >>>>>> * 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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> >>>>> Catch weekly reviews of the hottest games on such video games consoles
> >>>>> as the
> >>>>> Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, PSP, PS2, PC and DS. Only on Mevio!
> >>>>>http://click.lavabit.com/3qbc8g5stdhi9w4z5hayq3caejc76ni6pb1hwshtpnwy...
> >>>> --
> >>>>         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.
> >>>> "The great object is that every man be armed; everyone who is able may
> >>>> have a gun."
> >>>> - Patrick Henry
> >> --
>
> >>        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.
>
> >> "The great object is that every man be armed; everyone who is able may
> >> have a gun."
> >> - Patrick Henry
>
> --
>
>       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.
>
> "The great object is that every man be armed; everyone who is able may
> have a gun."
> - Patrick Henry

--
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.