There was an error in this gadget
1
 | Killing Osama: Truth or Fiction?Eowyn | August 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Chinook helicopter crash, CIA, George Soros, Leon Panetta, Navy SEALs Team 6, New America Foundation, Nicholas Schmidle, Pakistan, Taliban | Categories: Islam, Media, Military, Terrorism, United States, US Presidents | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8JH |
Photoillustration by John Ritter (The New Yorker)
The New Yorker magazine of August 8, 2011, has a long, supposedly true account of the elite Navy SEALs Team 6's assassination of Osama bin Laden. The article, "Getting Bin Laden," was written by Nicholas Schmidle who, in the words of New Yorker, "has worked the past two months securing dozens of separate source reports to weave the below narrative."
The article begins as follows:
Shortly after eleven o'clock on the night of May 1st, two MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters lifted off from Jalalabad Air Field, in eastern Afghanistan, and embarked on a covert mission into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Inside the aircraft were twenty-three Navy SEALs from Team Six, which is officially known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU. A Pakistani-American translator, whom I will call Ahmed, and a dog named Cairo—a Belgian Malinois—were also aboard. It was a moonless evening, and the helicopters' pilots, wearing night-vision goggles, flew without lights over mountains that straddle the border with Pakistan. Radio communications were kept to a minimum, and an eerie calm settled inside the aircraft.
[...] The SEALs' destination was a house in the small city of Abbottabad, which is about a hundred and twenty miles across the Pakistan border. Situated north of Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, Abbottabad is in the foothills of the Pir Panjal Range, and is popular in the summertime with families seeking relief from the blistering heat farther south. Founded in 1853 by a British major named James Abbott, the city became the home of a prestigious military academy after the creation of Pakistan, in 1947. According to information gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency, bin Laden was holed up on the third floor of a house in a one-acre compound just off Kakul Road in Bilal Town, a middle-class neighborhood less than a mile from the entrance to the academy. If all went according to plan, the SEALs would drop from the helicopters into the compound, overpower bin Laden's guards, shoot and kill him at close range, and then take the corpse back to Afghanistan.
The article then goes on to describe how the CIA under Leon Panetta tracked down bin Laden and how Obama was involved each step of the way, blah, blah, blah, culminating in this account:
Nine years, seven months, and twenty days after September 11th, an American was a trigger pull from ending bin Laden's life. The first round, a 5.56-mm. bullet, struck bin Laden in the chest. As he fell backward, the SEAL fired a second round into his head, just above his left eye. On his radio, he reported, "For God and country—Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo." After a pause, he added, "Geronimo E.K.I.A."—"enemy killed in action."
Hearing this at the White House, Obama pursed his lips, and said solemnly, to no one in particular, "We got him." [...] In the Situation Room, Obama said, "I'm not going to be happy until those guys get out safe."
That was the moment when Nicholas Schmidle lost all credibility for me. Yeah, right, Obama wasn't "going to be happy until those guys get out safe." Sure....
To read the very very very long article for yourself, go HERE.
The article is already getting flak. Schmidle said in an e-mail to the Huffington Post, August 11, that "at no point did we mislead the reader into thinking that I had, in fact, interviewed SEALs directly."
Hmmm. Then who are those "dozens of separate source reports" which Schmidle used "to weave together" his narrative that contains all kinds of precise details about SEALs Team 6 -- some or all of whom are now dead when their Chinook helicopter was shot down by the Talibans in Afghanistan? How convenient that dead men tell no tales....
Nicholas Schmidle currently is the Bernard L. Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. According to Cliff Kincaid, editor of the AIM (Accuracy In Media) Report, the New America Foundation's Middle East Initiative is run by Daniel Levy, a founder of the George Soros-funded J Street group.
~Eowyn
 | 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.
 | When it comes to killing Jews, Muslims don't care how many Muslims they killbarenakedislam | August 16, 2011 at 4:18 AM | Categories: Islam and the Jews | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-yj5 |
Israel stopped what would have been a spectacular border terrorist attack that would have devastated both the Jewish state and the population of Gaza. Klein Online -The Egyptian officials said there is information the attack was aimed at the sole fuel pipeline that supplies Gaza with gas. The pipeline, located at the Israeli town of Nahal [...]
| | 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.
Which Republican Candidate Is More Conservative?
by Laurence M. Vance, August 16, 2011
Although the next presidential election is more than a year away, campaigning has already begun. With a liberal Democratic incumbent in the White House, Republican candidates are loudly touting their conservative credentials. The battles over which candidate is more conservative are heating up.
"I have fought against irresponsible spending while Governor [Tim] Pawlenty was leaving a multi-billion-dollar budget mess in Minnesota," said GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann, a member of the U.S. House from Minnesota. Although the Pawlenty campaign claimed there was "very little difference" between the two candidates' positions, Bachmann's press secretary countered that there was "very little difference between Governor Pawlenty's past positions and Barack Obama's positions on several critical issues facing Americans." At the recent GOP debate in Iowa, Pawlenty and Bachmann went after each other with even more vigor. (Pawlenty seems to have gotten the worst of it and has since withdrawn from the race.)
But whether it is Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, or other announced candidates, such as Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney, the conservative rhetoric is still the same.
Because Republican candidates must appeal to the conservatism of Tea Party members, social conservatives, Christian conservatives, Reagan conservatives, et cetera, they will sometimes tailor their message to target a specific group. But their emphasis is always on how "conservative" they are.
The importance to Republicans give to being "more conservative" or "the most conservative," overall or on some particular issue, is just the opposite of what Democrats do: they generally shun the "liberal" label. I don't recall Democratic candidates in the last election disputing over who was "more liberal" or "the most liberal."
But is being "more conservative" on some issue a good thing?
Conservatives support the welfare state. The largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's presidency was undertaken not by liberals, but by conservatives. The Republican version of health-care reform, known as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, was introduced by the Republican House speaker, supported by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, passed with overwhelming Republican support, and signed into law by a Republican president. Those were the same Republicans who campaigned in the 2010 election on how conservative they were.
And then there is the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a partnership between federal and state governments that was created in 1997 thanks again to a Republican majority in Congress. It provides federally funded health insurance to children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid. When the program was up for reauthorization in 2007, it passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and in the House over the objections of only three Republicans. It was only when Obama the Democrat became president that some Republicans in Congress suddenly became more conservative and opposed the program.
In their pre-election "Pledge to America" in 2010, Republicans -- who campaigned up to election day on how conservative they were -- proposed to "support Medicare for seniors," and "protect our entitlement programs for today's seniors and future generations." The Republicans even criticized Obamacare for cutting Medicare and forcing millions of seniors "off their current Medicare coverage."
Conservatives also support that relic from the New Deal Social Security. They may talk about raising the retirement age, changing the cost-of-living adjustments, and reducing benefits, but they accept in principle that the government should have a Social Security program.
Conservatives support the regulatory state. It was a Republican president who gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. When was the last time a conservative called for abolishing those, or any other, regulatory agencies? Or even for slashing their budgets? The federal government regulates every conceivable facet of business and society. The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that "all faucet fixtures manufactured in the United States restrict maximum water flow at or below 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) of water pressure or 2.2 gpm at 60 psi." The same act regulates the amount of water that toilets can flush. Conservatives sometimes complain about too much federal regulation, but as with their calls to eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse," they are long on rhetoric and short on action. They may talk about reducing government regulations, but they accept in principle that the government should be a regulator.
Conservatives support the nanny state. It was a Republican president who signed into law the ultimate in nanny-state legislation -- the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates the phase out of incandescent light bulbs, beginning with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and ending with the 40-watt bulb in 2014.
The worst part of the nanny state that conservatives support is the war on drugs. You know, the war that has failed to prevent drug abuse or reduce the demand for drugs while at the same time eroding civil liberties and unnecessarily swelling prison populations. Conservatives are the main proponents of federal drug laws, that is, of locking people up in cages for buying, selling, growing, processing, using, or possessing a plant.
Conservatives support the police state. We have Bush and the Republicans to thank for the tremendous expansion of the police state since 9/11. The USA PATRIOT Act is widely supported by conservatives. Earlier this year, 31 out of 40 Tea Party-supported candidates voted in the House of Representatives in favor of extending the PATRIOT Act. And where is the conservative opposition to the groping and fondling of the TSA? In the name of "national security," conservatives will generally support any expansion of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the police state in general.
Conservatives support the warfare state. Perhaps the most troubling thing about conservatives is their support for war and militarism. Indeed, the very heart and soul of conservatism is war. Patriotism, Americanism, and being a real conservative are now equated with support for war, torture, empire, imperialism, and militarism. Earlier this year, conservatives gave one of the chief war criminals, Donald Rumsfeld, the "Defender of the Constitution Award" at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference. The presenter? None other than the notorious Dick Cheney. The major Republican candidates (except, of course, for Ron Paul) are all the same on one key issue the warfare state. They all support war, killing more Muslims, the U.S. empire, the CIA, an interventionist foreign policy, and bloated military budgets.
Lamenting recently on his radio show that Republicans control only the House, the conservative Sean Hannity posits a solution to the country's fiscal woes in a conservative Senate and a conservative president.
Let's hope not.
The problem with American conservatism, as Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has explained,
- is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.
Which Republican candidate is more conservative? When it comes to the key issues of liberty, property, and peace, they are all statist and interventionist to the core.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1108m.asp
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: COTO Report <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Subject: [New post] Former Black Panther in England: 'I don't call it rioting, I call it an insurrection'
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com
From: COTO Report <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Subject: [New post] Former Black Panther in England: 'I don't call it rioting, I call it an insurrection'
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com
 | Former Black Panther in England: 'I don't call it rioting, I call it an insurrection' coto2admin | August 9, 2011 at 11:19 pm | Tags: bbc, darcus howe, london riots, Mark Duggan, police brutality, police thugs | Categories: Economy Economics, MSM Shills, Resistance | URL: http://wp.me/pAnVO-4Cr |
The pre-planned assassination of a gang member by London's thug cops on August 4th set off a fresh wave of riots in the Tottenham area. When this BBC anchor didn't like what 68-year-old journalist and former Black Panther Darcus Howe, had to say about it -- the interview became hostile.
| | 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Mk87f0Xgw&feature=player_embedded#at=267
Ron's new ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY&feature=player_embedded
__._,_.___
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may
cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
John Quincy Adams
cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
John Quincy Adams
.
__,_._,___
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.
Voters Still Express More Confidence in Tea Party Than in Congress
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
More voters still think the average Tea Party member has a better handle on America's problems than the average member of Congress does, but there's a sharp difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of all Likely U.S. Voters believe the average member of the Tea Party has a better understanding of the problems America faces today, while 34% think the average member of Congress is more clued in. Twenty-four percent (24%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Still, that marks a 10-point drop in confidence in the Tea Party from March of last year when 52% felt the average member of the grass roots smaller government group had a better understanding of America's problems. But the new findings aren't a big boost of confidence in Congress since there's been only a slight increase from the 30% in March 2010 who thought the average congressman had a better feel for the nation's problems.
Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats, however, have more confidence in the average member of Congress. But 68% of Republicans - and a plurality (46%) of voters not affiliated with either major party – think the average Tea Party member has a better understanding of today's problems.
Just 36% of all voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party which has come under fire from President Obama and congressional Democrats for pressuring Republicans into rejecting any tax increases as part of the recent deal to raise the federal debt ceiling. Forty-four percent (44%) view the Tea Party unfavorably, while 20% are not sure what they think of the group.
But again there's a noticeable partisan divide. While 63% of GOP voters hold a favorable opinion of the Tea Party, 75% of Democrats regard the group unfavorably. Unaffiliated voters share that unfavorable opinion by a slim 42% to 38% margin.
(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 5-6, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
While several prominent Democrats and their media friends have charged the Tea Party with being economic terrorists during the congressional budget debates, just 29% of voters nationwide agree.
Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters now consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Seventy percent (70%) do not, but another eight percent (8%) are not sure.
Among non-members, just 17% have a favorable opinion of the group, while only 25% think the average Tea Party member has a better understanding of the nation's problems.
Forty-one percent(41%) of Republicans say they are members of the Tea Party, compared to 19% of unaffiliated voters and just four percent (4%) of Democrats.
Men are more likely than women to consider themselves Tea Party members. Voters over 40 are more likely to be members than those who are younger. Twenty-five percent (25%) of whites are members of the group versus only two percent (2%) of blacks.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of those in the Mainstream view the group favorably as opposed to only four percent (4%) of the Political Class. But then 80% of the Political Class believes the average member of Congress has a better understanding of America's problems. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Mainstream voters express more confidence in the understanding of the average Tea Party member.
Voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low. Just six percent (6%) of voters now rate Congress' performance as good or excellent.
Voters feel more strongly than ever that decreasing government spending is good for the economy and think tax increases of any kind are a bad economic move. Sixty-seven percent (67%) think that thoughtful spending cuts should be considered in every program of the federal government as the nation searches for solutions to the budget crisis.
The debt ceiling debate, however, has highlighted the political difficulty of coming to grips with the federal government's massive debt. Voters now are almost evenly divided over whether they prefer a congressman who would reduce that debt with spending cuts only or opt for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public.
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)
