INDONESIA: A young man died suspiciously in custody

Dear Mr. Ifdhal Kasim,

Name of victims: Yusli (male, 23-year old)
Names of alleged perpetrators: Four Cisauk sub-district police officers and Mr. Kemidjo, the chief of Cisauk sub-district police station
Date of incident: 26 December 2011
Place of incident: The research centre for science and technology (Puspiptek) area, Tangerang

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the death of Yusli, a 23-year old man, while in police custody on 26 December 2011. According to the information from the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta), several injuries were found on Yusli's dead body. His family reported that his head looked like it was bleeding and claw marks were found on his right chest. A shot wound was also found on his left chest. Moreover, the family found lacerations on his face as well as several bruises on his forehead, chin, hands and body.

I was informed that, on 26 December 2011, Yusli was at his house when three men carrying long rifles came and took him away in a car driven by another man. Having no idea where Yusli was taken, his family visited several police stations in order to find him. Yet these attempts turned out to be pointless.

The family was later told by Mr. Jurjani, the community head of Mekarsari sub-district, that Yusli had died and his body was at the Kramat Jati hospital. Mr. Jurjani gave no further explanation regarding Yusli's death, but he did give the family Rp 2.000.000,00 (about USD 222) 'to show his sympathy'. He also asked the family to sign a blank letter which allegedly would be used for a statement saying that the family would not take any actions regarding this matter. The family refused to sign however. Later, at Yusli's funeral, the family was also offered Rp 3.000.000,00 (approximately USD 333) from a man who said the money was to show sympathy from Kemidjo, the chief of Cisauk sub-district police station. The same man also asked the family if they have received some money from Mr. Jurjani.

When the family was visiting Kramat Jati hospital where Yusli's body was kept, they met a man who claimed to be a police officer of the Cisauk sub-district police station. The man told the family that it was his friends and the chief of the Cisauk sub-district police, Kemidjo, who arrested Yusli. He also informed them that Yusli was trying to escape so the police had to shoot him. The family did not believe this story and reported the case to the police’s Division of Profession and Security (Propam) which later informed them that the case is being investigated.

However, I would like to question the investigation process as it was reported by Yusli's family as 'unusual'. I received the information that the investigators for this case are from the economy division, who usually deal with business crime. I believe it is essential to ensure that the police officers appointed in this case are qualified and well trained so that the investigation process can run effectively. I was also told that the police did not take any further action to Yusli's father-in-law saying that he could identify one of the kidnappers as a member of the Cisauk sub-district police. As of today, the family is still ignorant to the reasons for Yusli's arrest, as they never received any copy of the arrest warrant. They only heard in the media that Yusli was charged due to motorcycle theft. Yet according to the family, Yusli had been previously convicted for such crime and served his sentence. He was released on 18 August 2011.

I request you to ensure that Yusli's family gets a proper explanation regarding Yusli's arrest. I believe you are aware that according to article 18 paragraph (3) of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, the family of an arrested person should be provided a copy of the arrest warrant. It is shameful that even after his death Yusli's family still does not know why he was arrested.

I further would like to remind you that Indonesia has the responsibility over the physical integrity as well as the welfare of any persons held in police custody. Should anything happen to them, it is the obligation of the government to prove that it has taken all necessary measures to protect the life of arrested and detained persons. Without this, it amounts to the violation of the right to life as enshrined in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a state party. Furthermore, article 6 obliges the government to ensure that any unusual death in custody should be investigated independently, effectively and promptly.

The information that the police shot Yusli as he was trying to escape from police custody is questionable. Even if this were true, I am aware that the police are not supposed to use firearms to prevent his escape. The Head of Indonesian Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 regarding The Use of Force classifies an attempt to escape from the police as an 'active conduct' which should be responded only with empty-handed force and not with shooting live ammunition.

In this regard, I would like to ask you as the relevant authorities in Indonesia to ensure that a criminal investigation into Yusli's death is conducted independently, effectively and promptly. Should the persons allegedly responsible for his death be convicted, they must be punished adequately in accordance with the law. The investigation should be focused not only on Yusli's death, but also on corruption regarding the reports saying the police had given money to the family. I would also like to call for Yusli's family to be given adequate compensation and, equally important, the truth regarding what actually happened to Yusli.

Yours sincerely,
William Nicholas Gomes
William's Desk

www.williamgomes.org

http://www.williamgomes.org/?p=484

https://www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes

--
William Nicholas Gomes
Journalist & Human Rights Activist
80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
E-mail:William [at] williamgomes.org,editorbd[at]gmail.com
Skype: William.gomes9
Face book: www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
Twitter: twitter.com/williamgomes
Web site :www.williamgomes.org

--
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.

Head of World Bank?

 

 

Hillary Clinton Seeks Head of World Bank Job?

February 15, 2012

Reuters is reporting three sources have confirmed that Hillary Clinton has been in talks with the White House to leave the Department of State to take the job as head of the World Bank, replacing Robert Zoellick. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says the reports are "totally wrong," and a Clinton spokesperson denies that she is interested in the job or has had contact with the White House.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick informed the 187-nation lending organization's board Wednesday that he will leave office June 30, the end of his five-year term.

This raises a question: who will replace him?

"I'm honored to have led such a world class institution with so many talented and exceptional people," Zoellick said in a statement announcing his plans.

The board now begins a selection process to find a new leader, a process that is expected to be more open than in the past. Under an informal agreement dating to the bank's founding nearly 68 years ago, its president has been an American.

"Speculation has been rife in recent months over who might take the job when Zoellick departs,"  Reuters reports. "Possible U.S. candidates include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former White House economic adviser Larry Summers."

"Hillary Clinton wants the job," a source told Reuters.

If Clinton were to leave State, Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is at the top of the list of those who would replace her.

And although Press Secretary Jay Carney denies that Clinton will get the nod from President Obama, the rumors persist.

It has also been rumored that Zoellick, a President George W. Bush appointee, may be a potential candidate for a senior position if a Republican candidate takes the White House in November.

Zoellick said he will stay focused on being bank president until June 30 and will continue to drive policies and programs at a heightened tempo. For example, later this month the bank said he will unveil a groundbreaking study on the future structure of China's economic growth model, the Associated Press reports.

Under Zoellick's leadership, the bank provided more than $247 billion to help developing countries boost growth and overcome poverty.

Zoellick said he was "pleased that when the world needed the bank to step up, our shareholders responded with expanded resources and support for key reforms that made us quicker, more effective and more open."

He said the bank was now in a strong position and ready for new challenges "so it is a natural time for me to move on and support new leadership."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/world-bank-head-exits-hillary-could-replace/

 

--
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.

Conservative... another definition

Conservative used to mean to conserve;
conservative:
adjective;
1. conforming to the standards and conventions of the middleclass
2. resistant to change
3. unimaginatively conventional
4. avoiding excess
noun;
1. a person who is reluctant to accept changes
2. a member of the conservative party

Of which, since neo-conservatism has come into existence, the only
thing most people can say how they define conservatism is that they
belong to that political party... the rest has become meaningless.

They are not beholden to the middleclass in any way shape or form...
instead they defend the rich, and the rich alone.

Unimaginative?
For the most part, not changing policies, but rather the names of
those policies.

Avoiding excess?
Only if you're poor or middleclass, otherwise you enjoy 12 houses like
Sen. McCain does.

When Theodore Roosevelt was President, he set aside public lands to
"conserve" for future generations to enjoy.
Neo-cons instead want to drill and strip mine those very lands.
Yes, a change in policy... for the worse!

If you hold the belief that conservatives are indeed resistant to
change...
that could be why so many conservatives are still infantile.
And are really no different than our Islamic terrorist enemies who
strive to hold on to Islamic laws formulated 800 years ago.

--
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.

Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'
He insists that opining on the subject is the kind of thing a presidential candidate should do.
By Conor Friedersdorf
Feb 15 2012, 8:00 AM ET

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KN7WfIZh690

What separates issues that are in the proper purview of politics from matters best left to individuals? I'd hate to draw that line for everyone, but watching Rick Santorum in the much-discussed interview above, I'm confident in declaring that he's put himself on the wrong side of it.

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative.

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it--and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong--but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher.

I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

Ponder the implicit claim he is making: that it is desirable for the President of the United States to opine on and shape public policy according to his notion of what is "special." As he surely knows, what is "special," what ought to be kept "special," and what is required to keep sex "special" are all deeply contested matters. They inevitably turn on judgments shaped by faith, moral reasoning, and intuition. The American people, having wrestled with these questions, have concluded in overwhelming numbers either that contraception doesn't make sex less special - or that if it does make sex less special, the tradeoff (less special sex in return for fewer unwanted pregnancies or abortions or STDs or more pleasure or human connection) is worthwhile.

Any politician who regards the adult use of contraceptives as a matter under his purview cannot lay claim to the limited government label, nor can he credibly invoke a tradition rooted in the pursuit of happiness. And it's baffling that a presidential candidate would survey a world of poets, clergy, cognitive neuro-scientists, novelists, happily married elderly people, and a polity with sexual tastes as diverse of ours, and regard politicians as a useful authority on what kind of sex is special.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/rick-santorum-wants-your-sex-life-to-be-special/253104/

What Anonymous is and What Anonymous is not

What Anonymous is and What Anonymous is not
Guest Post by Natter
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/211071.php
anonymous_internet.jpg

This is not a time line, biography, or history lesson, nor is it in any way
complete. There are numerous articles and opinion pieces of varying accuracy
and bias available on the web that already attempt to do those things.

We'll begin with what Anonymous is not.

Anonymous is not legion (digital bots don't count), omnipotent, monolithic,
or all that particularly skilled at what it does (there are some individuals
who are very skilled in differing fields to be mentioned later in this
primer). Anonymous is not anonymous, nobody ever is on the Internet.
Anonymous does forget, they forgot all about attacking the Zeta's drug gang
very quickly. The Zeta's do not expect them.

Anonymous is not just some pimple-faced kid sitting in his parents basement
smoking weed, eating Cheetos, and gulping down energy drinks, (though that
does pretty thoroughly account for the bulk of the Johnnie-Come-Lately
teenage fanboy's after the summers of 2009-2011). Anonymous is not just some
fat comic book store employee on a trailer court Dell with a hard drive
stuffed with furry tentacle sex Anime and kiddie porn, (though it does seem
to have way more then the normal percentage of such individuals). Anonymous
is not just the Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Troofer crowd, (though more then a few
of those types do infest the lower ranks). Those individuals are the cannon
fodder.


Anonymous is not what it was in 2008, although many of the most influential
members and faction leaders remain.

Anonymous is not a freedom or democracy advocacy group, nor is Anonymous the
slightest bit interested in promoting free speech, that doesn't agree with
its own nebulous, ill-stated, and often contradictory goals and talking
point propaganda. Quite the opposite, Anonymous seeks to silence dissent
both within and without the group and has demonstrated no qualms about
openly using the digital online equivalent of terrorist tactics and lynch
mobs to achieve this silence.

Anonymous is not leaderless. In fact, like almost all such organizations,
its ridiculously easy to identify those leaders and the related
organizational rank structure. By way of example; The pimple-faced weed
smoking teen from the basement is not giving orders to AnonymouSabu, (only
known unindicted survivor and unquestioned leader of the LulzSec faction),
without receiving the verbal-digital equivalent of a Puerto Rican beat down.
Nor is fat comic book store guy with the overstuffed Dell giving orders to
dedicated long term Leftist and Anarchist professional organizers and
agitators such as Gabriella Coleman, Barry Friedman or Neil Rauhauser. The
wolf is rarely perturbed by fleas.

No, Barrett Brown is not a leader, or a spokesman for Anonymous. He's the
Fredo of the Anonfather movie. (After all, he called Rusty a fascist, when
we all know Rusty's an Imperial stooge.)

Anonymous is not at all responsible for starting the Arab Spring (nor was
Wikileaks). It can demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt and in any
number of ways that the Muslim Brotherhood had more to do with creating,
influencing, and profiting from the Arab Spring uprisings then all other
causes, except one. Hunger.

In fairness it can be pointed out that certain factions of Anonymous did
help to facilitate and maintain free Internet contact with various Arab
Spring nations as their former governments knee-jerked into full repression
mode during those various uprisings. It remains to be seen just how
beneficial that Internet access was to those nations or their people, who
are still faced with famine condition food shortages and repressive
governments now under new management, long after Anonymous collectively has
forgotten about them.

Anonymous is not all that particularly original either. The fake
"leaderless" method of organization is rather old as guerrilla groups and
movements go, and was last most prominently used by the North American
neo-Nazi and militia movements of the 1980's. The individual cells concept
is also quite old as a guerrilla strategy, even older then the very concept
of organized warfare itself in fact, and it remains a standard operating
procedure for Communist and Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.
Modern online gamers also tend to group into individual cells, clans, and
communities and more then a few Anonymous members are or have been on line
gamers.

Which brings us back to Anonymous and what Anonymous once was and has since
become.

Anonymous is currently, at best 10,000 to 20,000 vocally supporting
individuals online world wide at any one time and depending largely on what
time it is in the Western worlds school year. The vast majority of that
membership is located within the US/Canada and Europe, with some large South
American contingents. That vast majority is also little more then virtual
cannon fodder in an online guerrilla war with very real consequences (long
prison sentences and heavy fines in Western nations, torture and death for
dissidents elsewhere).

Anonymous is also some 100 to 250 individuals of differing status, faction
leadership, and skill level, many of whose faction members share membership
among some or several faction leaders at any one time. Those upper level
leaders are almost exclusively Western or Western based. While many of those
leaders have openly denied membership in Anonymous, others have openly
admitted to at least verbal support.

The part about Anonymous being born on the 4Chan website sub board /b/ in
2003 is true, but only to a certain extent, as many of the current upper
level members can also be found in comments and posts/diaries on Daily Kos
and other like politically like minded blogs going back to the same era. The
part about confronting Scientology is also true, although most, but not all,
of the Chanology era members have long since drifted away, disenchanted with
the cult like atmosphere that has infested present day Anonymous.

There are also a handful of skilled professional "black-hat hackers" within
that upper level of Anonymous. Some are coders and vulnerability/exploit
hunters, defacement artists, credit-card account thieves, and/or stolen
information dump specialists. Some of whom are very good at what they do and
some whom are known to be employed by some of the largest ISP's and
information security companies in the world (think Comcast and McAfee size).
At least one worked as the network admin of a frighteningly popular porn
website, where he had access to the real names, passwords, and credit card
account details of every single paying customer, including law enforcement
and military customers.

The remainder of Anonymous leadership are the propaganda specialists, drawn
from various educational and journalistic fields. Some of whom already have
book deals and some of whom work for very large mainstream media outlets
(think Guardian, CBS, RussiaToday, Wired sized).

Yes, Anonymous is connected to Wikileaks, at the hip, shoulders, and ankles.
While Julian Assange has not been proven to direct or give orders to
Anonymous, he clearly seems to use the power of suggestion to influence
Wikileaks staffers (there aren't many of those) who are also upper or
leadership level Anonymous members (there are even fewer of those).

Yes, Anonymous is connected to Occupy Wall Street. By an umbilical cord. OWS
began under the Anonymous name OpESR (Operation Empire State
Revenge/Revolution). Canadian anarchist publisher Adbusters joined shortly
thereafter. Anonymous and Adbusters were in the park weeks before the Day of
Rage protests (which were also the single largest one day turn out for the
Occupy Movement). The unions and other professional Left groups joined OWS
during and after Day of Rage, bringing money, organization, numbers,
political connections, a quickly disenchanted and abused Nancy Pelosi with
the DNC, and as per usual, a take over by purge attempt. The Red Block
always attempts to eat the Black Block after they mate. It is not always
successful in this attempt.

Yes, Anonymous does have connections to certain Middle Eastern Islamist
hacking groups, most of those Middle Eastern and Islamist groups are
individual factions in and among themselves, forming temporary and uncertain
alliances of convenience with Anonymous against mutual targets. At least
some of those Islamist hacking groups are sponsored or run by their
respective governments. Certain leadership members of Anonymous have also
demonstrated direct and open communication with the social media accounts of
known terrorist groups.

Yes, US law enforcement does know who the vast majority of those Anonymous
leadership members are, and where they are located. In some cases, some of
those Anonymous leaders may already be working as informants for various
agencies (statistically most hackers do cooperate once caught), in others,
particularly among the larger propaganda class, there is no evidence shown
thus far that those individuals violated any laws. Yet...

As an aside, of the fourteen people indicted by Grand Jury for the first
Paypal attacks, only two can be called leadership or upper level, the
remainder are cannon fodder types, told to download a certain tool and fire
it at Paypal. Given that the technical data log evidence appears to be open,
shut, and airtight, their lawyers likely have made a terrible tactical error
in pleading "not guilty."

The San Jose Paypal 14 Grand Jury is rumored to be only the first of several
Grand Juries and at least one RICO investigation impending for Anonymous.
Some of which is very likely (or already has), to spill over into the
various Wikileaks investigations, and some of which very likely involves
certain paid DNC contractors. There strongly appears to be at least one,
possibly several child porn indictments pending as well both in Europe and
in the US.

Considering the current state of Justice department leadership, it's
probably for the best if both law enforcement and judgment moves very slowly
and (a lot more) carefully on all of these related cases and investigations.

==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

--
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 Obama Bundler Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Loans Poster

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog The Obama Bundler Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Loans Poster by Scotty Starnes Obama has paid back his campaign bundlers with billions in taxpayer-backed guaranteed loans. Steve Westly and Stephen Spinner are just two of the bundlers who have been rewarded. This chart shows the Obama-Obama Bundler connection and the amount of taxpayer cash each received. H/T to Doug Ross Scotty Starnes | February 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM | Tags: David Danelson, David Prend, David Sandalow, Green energy loans, President Obama, Sanjay Wagle, solar power, Steve Westly, Steven J. Spinner | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-6DF Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-obama-bundler-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-loans-poster/ Thanks for flying with 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.

Terror-linked CAIR spitting blood over Rutherford, TN sheriff’s hiring of anti-Islam former FBI agent to train deputees

New post on Bare Naked Islam Terror-linked CAIR spitting blood over Rutherford, TN sheriff's hiring of anti-Islam former FBI agent to train deputees by barenakedislam A former FBI agent who claims Nashville's mosques have no legal right to exist is training the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office about Islam and the threats of terrorism. Tennessean  John Guandolo, vice president of the Arlington, Va.-based Strategic Engagement Group, is leading training being held at World Outreach Church in Murfreesboro. He spoke at an anti-Shariah law event at Cornerstone Church in Madison on Nov. 11, calling local mosques front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood with no right to exist. "They do not have a First Amendment right to do anything," Guandolo said then. Rutherford Sheriff Robert Arnold said his department simply wants to learn about Muslim culture."There are not many classes out there for anything when it comes to Muslims … but this training isn't just about that, it has many other components to it," he said. "My stance is and my office's stance is, we are not here to pick sides. I am here to protect the people of this county, and I am never going to waiver from that." Arnold has said the department has no plans to initiate an investigation of any local Muslims. Guandolo's role in training law enforcement officials left Murfreesboro Muslims dumbfounded. Saleh Sbenaty, a member of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, said the sheriff's office never asked local Muslims to participate in the training. He said the department is supposed to protect the rights of citizens no matter what their faith. Using a trainer who thinks Muslims have no civil rights doesn't make sense, he said. "This training is hate training," Sbenaty said. "It is not training to keep our whole community safe." A national Muslim civil rights pressure group Terror-linked CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) raised questions about the training for deputies. In a letter, the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Director Brian Grisham to investigate the appropriateness of training being led by Strategic Engagement Group. barenakedislam | February 16, 2012 at 2:27 am | Categories: CAIR Nazis | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-FDf Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/16/terror-linked-cair-spitting-blood-over-rutherford-tn-sheriffs-hiring-of-anti-islam-former-fbi-agent-to-train-deputees/

--
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 List OF 75 US Senators Who Voted To Let 30,000 Drones Shoot Americans In The Streets

New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude" The List OF 75 US Senators Who Voted To Let 30,000 Drones Shoot Americans In The Streets by Harold Video Rebel's Blog 2/12/2012 The House and Senate voted for the passage of the FAA bill that funds 30,000 drones to surveil Americans knowing that the majority are to be armed initially with shotgun tasers. Two Americans a week die from tasers so these are lethal weapons. But these drones can easily be equipped with [...] Read more of this post Harold | February 16, 2012 at 6:54 am | Categories: Corruption, Criminal Activity, DHS, FBI, Government, Legislative, Local Law Enforcement, Military, NeoConservatives, Pentagon, Police State, Privacy Rights, Progressives, Propaganda, Sovereignty, States Rights, U.S. Constitution | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-7s9 Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/04-878/ Thanks for flying with 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.

Ron Paul’s Last Hurrah

Ron Paul's Last Hurrah
by Justin Raimondo • February 13, 2012 •

At this point it is clear that Rep. Ron Paul is not going to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.  Yet it seems likely that he will outlast all his rivals but for Romney, and that he will have a substantial bloc of delegates at the convention.  Paul has the money, and the grassroots support, to make it all the way to Tampa­and beyond.

It's when we get to the "beyond," however, that things get interesting.

What, exactly, is Paul's endgame?  What does he want?  This is the question the pundits are asking, and the answer is maddeningly elusive.

On the one hand, Republican primary voters are increasingly open to his message of real free markets (as opposed to the crony capitalism championed by most Republicans), the defense of civil liberties (against largely Republican antagonists), and a noninterventionist foreign policy (an idea opposed by the leadership of both parties).  He is regularly getting around 20 percent of the vote in GOP primaries, and his supporters are mostly (albeit not exclusively) young, independents inclined to vote Republican, and not that well off (under $50,000 per year).

His support grew by the day, in spite of a media blackout­and when simply refusing to report on his campaign didn't put a dent in his support, the mainstream media turned to smear tactics.  That hasn't worked, either.

On the other hand, Paul's support within the GOP has a definite ceiling: I'd be surprised if his poll numbers exceeded 25 percent in any state's primary.  This is a commentary not on Paul, but on the evolution of the Republicans, whose brand has been sullied by eight years of George W. Bush's big-government conservatism.  Since many Republican presidential primaries are closed, Paul's political fortunes are left in the hands of those who are registered members of a party committed to eternal war, corporate subsidies, and the cult of the presidency.  The political independents and disaffected Democrats who make up half his base are prevented from voting for him in closed GOP primaries, which is why we see polls showing him in a dead heat with Barack Obama in the general election juxtaposed against other polls showing him in the upper teens in the GOP primary pack.

GOP leaders are living in fear of a Paul third-party candidacy in the general election: Polls show Paul would garner 18 percent of the vote as an independent, and as the election draws nearer and scrutiny of Romney gets more intense, I fully expect that number to rise.

Provocatively, Paul hasn't ruled out a third-party run, but he says he isn't planning on it, and doesn't want to do it.  Of course he doesn't want to do it: Who would?  After all, even getting on the ballot is a Herculean task; and besides, he's having too much fun right now running in the major leagues to be sent down prematurely to play third-party "gadfly," which he did in 1988 with negligible success.  So he's likely to keep them guessing until the very last moment.

If the GOP bigwigs are hoping Paul will eventually endorse the nominee, and bring his supporters into the Romney camp, they don't know anything about the Texas congressman, who has spent his whole political career fighting the very forces represented by Romney and his backers.  Take it from me: It isn't going to happen.  And even if it did­if Ron Paul were suddenly possessed by an evil spirit­he wouldn't bring very many of his supporters with him.  His followers are just like him: principled, cantankerous, and uninterested in merging with the "mainstream."

The GOP hierarchy thinks it has Paul over a barrel.  By holding his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), hostage, the wags inform us that Paul is unlikely to launch a third-party campaign, because it would supposedly end Rand's career.

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  This isn't just a political campaign­it's a cause.  The many followers who have been recruited to his banner are expecting something more than a fizzle-out in Tampa.  They have put their hearts and souls­and, more significantly (for libertarians), their cash­into this effort, and they aren't going to be happy with some anticlimactic end to the Ron Paul story.  They want closure.  They want to know they at least did everything they could to avoid the apocalypse Paul has spent the last 30 years or so warning us about: an economic downturn that will make the crash of '08 look like child's play, and the end of liberty in America.

In my view, a third-party campaign by Paul is the logical outcome of his entire career: After being rejected by a GOP mutated beyond recognition, he and his brigades of fervent followers will not be content until they've stormed the gates of the federal Leviathan and made a good-faith attempt at bringing the monster down.  It will be Paul's last hurrah­and, perhaps, the last hurrah of our Old Republic.

This article first appeared in the March 2012 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.  Click here to subscribe, so you won't miss one of Justin Raimondo's exclusive columns!

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/02/13/ron-pauls-last-hurrah/

Left-Right Paradigm is a Hoax

"The way many "conservatives" have embraced the candidacy of Rick Santorum is a prime example of how skewed their understanding of historic, constitutional principles really is. Santorum goes around talking about "pro-life" and "pro-family" issues, while his voting record in the US Senate demonstrates that he is just another conservative-talking, big-spending politician. He has voted for so many Big-Government bills and endorsed so many Big-Government toadies that it is incredible that anyone could refrain from laughing out loud when he calls himself a "conservative."
"By the same token, it is absolutely incredible that "conservatives," especially Christian "conservatives," could so quickly and firmly reject the candidacy of the man who most likely is going to go down in history as the greatest congressman to ever sit in the US House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Patrick Henry was probably the greatest governor that the United States has ever seen; and Daniel Webster was probably the greatest senator that the country has ever seen; and I am personally convinced that history will regard Congressman Ron Paul as our greatest US House member. For his entire political career, Congressman Paul has stood like a rock for the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutionalism, and, yet, many "conservatives" reject his Presidential candidacy. They would rather support Big-Government toadies like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Egad!"

Left-Right Paradigm is a Hoax
Both, Liberals and Conservatives are Selling Out America
By Chuck Baldwin
February 16, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

There may have been a time when the words "conservative" and "liberal" meant something, but that time is no more. Today, "conservatives" in government are doing as much to promote Big Government, as are "liberals." In fact, if one were to honestly evaluate the twelve years of the George Herbert Walker Bush and G.W. Bush administrations, one could say that "conservatives" even eclipse "liberals" in promoting Big Government. Under the two Bushes, the federal government expanded (and even exploded) to levels that for-real liberal Democrats could only dream about.

Let's get realistic. Just because a politico says he or she is "pro-life," or "pro-family," or "pro-marriage," etc., does not mean that they are going to do anything to help save the country. Come on, folks; think! "Conservative" Republican administration appointments have dominated the US Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that effectively legalized abortion-on-demand. And we are no closer to overturning Roe and Doe after almost forty years of electing "pro-life conservatives" than we were the year after the Roe and Doe decisions were rendered. And for the first six years of the 21st Century, "conservative" Republicans dominated the entire federal government, and still the Roe and Doe decisions stand.

And when it comes to marriage and family, there is not a darn thing that Washington, D.C., can do to "save" it. Washington can no more "save" the family than it can "create" jobs! Washington is not God--the attitudes of most Washington politicians and national newscasters notwithstanding.

Herein lies the real problem: both "conservatives" and "liberals" expect Washington, D.C., to be the panacea for all the nation's ills. Oh, the left and right come to Washington expecting different solutions, but they both come to Washington, D.C., for the solution. Both "conservatives" and "liberals" expect the federal government to "fix" America. But, in this regard, Ronald Reagan spoke with great profundity when he said, "Government [especially the federal government] is not the solution to our problem; government [especially the federal government] IS the problem!"

Hear President Reagan's quote.

Both "conservatives" and "liberals" look to the federal government to establish and enforce their parochial agendas. "Liberals" look to Washington for the establishment of "social justice," while "conservatives" look to Washington for the establishment of "military justice." The net result is the federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger regardless of who controls the White House, Congress, or Supreme Court.

"Conservatives," whether Christian or not, are just as culpable in the expansion of Big Government as are "liberals." In fact, when it comes to the expansion of military adventurism, "conservatives" are the most culpable. And when it comes to the ever-burgeoning police state that is currently taking shape in the United States, "liberals" and "conservatives" are equally to blame. Let's face it: both "conservatives" and "liberals" are in the midst of an intense and illicit love affair with Washington, D.C.

The way many "conservatives" have embraced the candidacy of Rick Santorum is a prime example of how skewed their understanding of historic, constitutional principles really is. Santorum goes around talking about "pro-life" and "pro-family" issues, while his voting record in the US Senate demonstrates that he is just another conservative-talking, big-spending politician. He has voted for so many Big-Government bills and endorsed so many Big-Government toadies that it is incredible that anyone could refrain from laughing out loud when he calls himself a "conservative."

Check the factual record of Senator Rick Santorum.

By the same token, it is absolutely incredible that "conservatives," especially Christian "conservatives," could so quickly and firmly reject the candidacy of the man who most likely is going to go down in history as the greatest congressman to ever sit in the US House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Patrick Henry was probably the greatest governor that the United States has ever seen; and Daniel Webster was probably the greatest senator that the country has ever seen; and I am personally convinced that history will regard Congressman Ron Paul as our greatest US House member. For his entire political career, Congressman Paul has stood like a rock for the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutionalism, and, yet, many "conservatives" reject his Presidential candidacy. They would rather support Big-Government toadies like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Egad!

Have people not wondered why the direction of the country has not changed one iota regardless if "conservatives" or "liberals" are running things? One would think that at some point people would wake up to the fact that until we start electing civil magistrates who take their oaths to the Constitution seriously, and who truly understand the nature of our federalist form of government, and who are truly committed to the preservation of the Bill of Rights, and who truly understand and appreciate the jurisdiction and authority of the states, nothing is going to change in this country. Nothing! And in 2012, there is only one man in the Presidential field who has an intellectual grasp and moral commitment to all of the above: Ron Paul.

I will say it yet again: it will not matter to a tinker's dam if anyone other than Ron Paul is elected President in 2012.

Furthermore, if Americans do not wake up to the importance of electing State governors, attorney generals, senators, legislators, and county sheriffs who understand that their primary responsibility as a State office holder is to safeguard the rights and liberties of the citizens of their respective states FROM THE USURPATION AND OVERREACH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, our liberties are lost--no matter how many "conservatives" we elect!

Ladies and gentlemen, face it: the left-right paradigm is a hoax! It creates false conflicts and masks true problems. It caters to the increase of socialism on the one hand and fascism and corporatism on the other hand. It saps our strengths and augments our weaknesses. It blinds our eyes to the warning clouds above us and deafens our ears to the sounds of the sirens around us. It turns friends into adversaries and adversaries into friends. It dulls our senses and sharpens our illusions. It removes true courage and gives false hope. It sullies our character and shines our betrayal, and it puts shackles around our feet and greases the skids of oppression.

Instead of worrying about whether one professes to be a "conservative" or a "liberal," we should be concerned about whether the people we vote for understand the fundamental principles of liberty and constitutional government and have the moral character to defend such principles at all costs. Furthermore, we should be concerned that both "conservatives" and "liberals" look to government for the solutions to our problems instead of looking to the Natural Law principles of our Creator. Yes, Martha, the Golden Rule really does matter -- even in Washington, D.C.


P.S. Readers should know that I have withdrawn my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana. Here is my press release in this regard:

"Yesterday (Sunday, February 12), I called gubernatorial candidate, Bob Fanning, and told him that I was withdrawing my name as a candidate for Montana's Lieutenant Governor. When Bob and I announced my candidacy for Lieutenant Governor here in Kalispell, I said, 'We are in this race to win.' I realized then that, in order to be competitive, there were certain criteria that had to be met. I knew our campaign had to raise a sizeable sum of money; and knew that we had to put together a quality campaign organization. Since making our announcement back in November, this campaign has accomplished neither task. Therefore, it is more than obvious to me that this campaign has no chance of being successful in the primary elections. And I have too much respect for the people of Montana than to ask them to support a candidacy that cannot at least be competitive. People who believe in a political campaign enough to invest their time and hard-earned money in it have a right to expect that the candidates they support can deliver a successful campaign.

"I believe that my departure from the Governor/Lieutenant Governor race will allow me to continue to pursue whatever opportunities the people of Montana would believe were best suited for those abilities and attributes that I may have in our mutual pursuance of liberty and constitutional government. And, no, I will not endorse a gubernatorial candidate at this time.


"I wish Bob Fanning much success in his future endeavors and am honored that he would ask me to be his Lieutenant Governor running mate."

I want to thank readers for their support and prayers for me and my family as we continue to fight for the principles of liberty and constitutional government in our country, and especially in the great State of Montana.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2012 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved


http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin688.htm

Mitt Romney's Superficial View of Terrorism

Mitt Romney's Superficial View of Terrorism
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on February 15, 2012 07:37 PM

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both have the same view. The U.S. is fighting "radical Islam" or "radical Islamists" or "radical jihad" or "violent, radical, Islamic, fundamentalism." See here, here, here, here, and here. Many other Americans also believe this and buy the line that they hate our freedoms.

There is no doubt that the terrorists we are talking about here (which are only a portion of all terrorists on earth) are violent, radical Islamic fundamentalists. But does that explain much? It does not explain why they have sprouted in the late 20th century as enemies. Why not earlier? They have had centuries to blossom. Why now? Their old enemies were in Europe. Why have they now chosen America as an enemy?

If radical Islam is their controlling motivation and if American freedom is their prime target, then why do they make statements like the following? I quote Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center mastermind as cited in a Wikipedia source:

"Ramzi Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after bombing the WTC which spelled out the motive: 'We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.' He later stated that he had hoped to kill 250,000 Americans to show them the exact pain they had caused to the Japanese in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Does that statement sound like radical Islam is the enemy? Notice that he specifically says that the action "was done in response." Notice that he mentions that Israel is a "state of terrorism." The Israeli treatment of Palestinians seems to have been on his mind. He does not say that he is anti-Jewish or pro-Islam or anti-freedom. But he is  against American support of Israel and of other countries (like Saudi Arabia) receiving U.S. support. These he calls "dictator countries." He conceives his enemies as being the terrorists:

"Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites."

Now, it is true that Yousef was a very busy terrorist and that he bombed a Shiite shrine in Iran and planned to kill other notables. His motivations were multiple. It is also true that we are not going to understand terrorist motivations by examining one single case. But do we not have enough grist for our mill even here to see that the U.S. has itself supplied reasons for terrorists to arise in reaction to U.S. policies?

Look, for another example, at the major terror incidents that are laid at the door of Iran. The first case is the hostage crisis in 1979. Why was the American embassy a target? The triggering cause was that the U.S. admitted the Shah for medical treatment. More deeply, the embassy taking was "widely seen as a blow against the U.S, and its influence in Iran, its perceived attempts to undermine the Iranian Revolution, and its long-standing support of the Shah of Iran, recently overthrown by the revolution. The Shah had been restored to power in a 1953 coup organized by the CIA at the American Embassy against a democratically-elected nationalist Iranian government,..."

It was tit for tat. The Americans operated out of the embassy, including CIA operatives with cover posts. Ergo, the embassy was fair game, since it had compromised its diplomatic neutrality. The mob may not have thought this out in this way, but its choice of targets does make sense.

Turning to another attack on a U.S. Embassy, there is the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 63 people, including 8 CIA operatives. and many innocent passers-by. The Wiki article indicates that this attack was another response. It says:

"The attack came in the wake of the intervention of a multinational force, made up of Western countries, including the US, in the Lebanese Civil War, to try to restore order and central government authority. It also followed the Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees by Lebanese Christian militiamen."

Again we seem to have tit for tat in a long running low-grade war of sorts. The West calls all these responses "terrorist." Reagan called it a "vicious terrorist bombing," which it was, without question.

But such statements do not at all help Americans to understand why they are happening, where they are happening, and when they are happening. This is not terrorism out of the blue. And it is not terrorism for the sake of fundamentalist Islam.

Not all terrorist attacks can be traced back to specific prior events. Not all can be interpreted as responses to specific triggers. The terrorists have their own timetables. But the targets are revealing, such as the attacks in Argentina on Israeli and Jewish facilities.

A study of Palestinian suicide bombers finds that "religious motivation is not the decisive factor."

The anti-American orientation of many terrorists is not going to go away because the U.S. exterminates violent, radical Islamic jihadists all over the planet. The more places the U.S. goes to, the more reason there is for new terrorists to arise. The U.S. fertilizes terrorist recruitment, not to mention that the U.S. and CIA intentionally sometimes ally with these very same elements on an opportunistic basis! These problems are not going to be mitigated or even partially resolved until the Israeli-Palestinian issue is resolved and until the U.S. relations with a number of foreign governments are clarified and altered. The U.S. has to back away from numerous entanglements, cease its interventions in the domestic politics of client countries, cease its selective support of favored satellites and parties, and stop being the world's self-appointed policeman. The CIA should be terminated. Outfits like Blackwater should stop getting contracts.

The stiff-necked, rigid, and superficial views of Romney and Santorum, if carried into foreign policy, promise more of the same, and that means that Americans will continue to fear terrorism indefinitely and indefinitely be subject to ever-stricter controls by the Homeland Security apparatus. That apparatus can easily morph into a full-blown police state.