Do you believe this? Check out the commentary

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-from-dehydration-is-usually.html

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

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

Good for Lech Walesa - I wouldn't meet with Obama after he sold out Poland earlier in his administration

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110527/pl_afp/usobamadiplomacypolandwalesa

--
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.

This is an Independence Day Quiz but just see how you do with it

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/008616.html

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

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

FW: [1storegonrecon] Fw: Fwd: Fw: THE COLONEL HAS IT RIGHT

sign me
daniel karl seigler, born in Fort Benning, Cussetta County, Georgia, son of
Clarance Roland O'Neil Seigler, born in Ozark, Dale County, Alabama, son of
Thomas Malcolm Seigler, born somewhere in Alabama

---

Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:25:18 +0000
From:

------------ Forwarded message ------------
From:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From:
Ironic isn't it

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: >
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:54 PM
Subject: Fw: THE COLONEL HAS IT RIGHT
To:

 

 Subject: THE COLONEL HAS IT RIGHT

Hits the mark.         This message is from a retired Marine Colonel.... "Saepius  Exertus, Semper Fidelis, Frater Infinitas" "Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever" United States Marines   -   Let's be clear "Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did. In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court marshal 3 Navy Seals from Seal Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they captured, complained they had punched him during the take down and bloodied his nose. His administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling them Nazis and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden the very brave men they vilified, are now heroes when they make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found the b...... and our sailors took him out.  This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!  Forward this on IF YOU AGREE!!"

War on Terror Is a Fraud

War on Terror Is a Fraud
By Andrew J. Bacevich
May 24, 2011

The killing of Osama bin Laden settles nothing, decides nothing, and repairs nothing. Yet the passing of the al-Qaeda leader just might serve an important purpose. We confront a moment of revelation: Coming across bin Laden comfortably ensconced in a purpose-built compound in the middle of a Pakistani city down the street from the nation's premier military academy should demolish once and for all any illusions that Americans retain about their so-called Global War on Terror. The needle, it turns out, was not in the haystack but tucked safely away in our neighbor's purse­the very same neighbor who professed to be searching high and low to locate that needle. Think we've been had?

Bin Laden was an indubitably evil figure. Yet the historical drama in which he played a role is not a morality play. Its central theme is not good vs. evil. It is instead the pursuit of power and advantage by whatever means necessary. In short, the theme is politics­dirty, cutthroat, no holds barred.

In the wake of 9/11, President George W. Bush and more than a few other Americans insisted otherwise. The issue, they asserted, was freedom vs. oppression; civilization vs. barbarism; tolerance vs. bigotry; the law-abiding vs. the law-defiling; peacemakers vs. those who engaged in wanton slaughter; those committed to serving God's purposes vs. those who twisted God's words to serve their own malevolent ends.

As in the early days of the Cold War, Washington divided the world into two neatly defined opposing camps. "You are either with us," Bush declared ten days after 9/11, "or you are with the terrorists." There was no third alternative, no in-between, and no opting out.

The government of Pakistan, hesitating briefly, chose to be "with us." Overnight, it became a valued partner. Pakistani interests and U.S. interests now aligned, bonded by the paramount importance of eliminating the threat of al-Qaeda. America's enemies were now Pakistan's enemies and vice versa­this at least was the prevailing assumption.

From the outset, that assumption was utterly false.

During the decades prior to 9/11, Washington's relations with Islamabad had suffered through many ups and downs, the United States embracing Pakistan as an ally when it was convenient to do so and otherwise giving Pakistan the back of its hand. Neither the Pakistani elite nor the man in the street had any reason to trust Washington.

So despite constant cajoling and complaint, with generous U.S. military and economic subsidies thrown in, Pakistani efforts to snuff out Islamic radicalism have been, at best, half-hearted. Indeed, Pakistan is itself a state supporter of terrorism (directed against its archenemy, India) and in all likelihood would like to see the Taliban restored to power in Afghanistan (again as a curb against Indian influence).

Dissatisfied with Pakistani efforts to clean out Taliban sanctuaries inside its borders, the United States has taken matters into its own hands, expanding the use of missile-firing drones within Pakistan itself. Unwilling to acknowledge that they allow U.S. forces routinely to disregard their country's sovereignty, senior Pakistani officials profess shock and dismay, thereby encouraging Pakistani anti-Americanism. Based on all- but-irrefutable evidence, it turns out that they have for years been harboring America's public enemy number one.

Already in crisis, the relationship between the United States and Pakistan now stands on the brink of collapse. Diplomats will attempt to paper over the differences, with one side offering lies that the other side may pretend to believe. Their efforts may succeed in creating some semblance of normality. Yet it will be no more than a semblance.

More important is this: restoring even the appearance of purposefulness to the enterprise once known as the Global War on Terror has now become impossible. That war is a fraud. It exists only as a figment of American imagination. At great cost to itself and others, the United States has been playing the wrong game, falling prey to the tricks of its erstwhile friends, unable to recognize who its enemies actually are.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/war-on-terror-is-a-fraud/

An Intoxicating Hypocrisy

An Intoxicating Hypocrisy
by Rich Schwartzman, May 27, 2011

Today's socially conservative Republicans are reminiscent of the proverbial Puritan who had trouble sleeping because he knew that, somewhere, people were enjoying themselves.

These are the same Republicans who say they're for small government, unless, of course, they think you're doing something of which they don't approve. Then they need to create laws against those things.

Not all the members of the "I know better" crowd are well-known members on the national level of politics.

Stephen Barrar, a Republican state representative serving a suburban Philadelphia district, was proud of the two cases of wine he had in the trunk of his car.

"Pennsylvania wine," he crowed.

Yet within two minutes after showing off his wine, as he was walking into an elementary school to present state flags to some new Eagle Scouts, he said he'd never vote for anyone who advocates the legalization of marijuana.

In 2009, Pennsylvania closed Brandywine Battlefield Park and several other state parks because of a poor economy. During a town hall meeting across the street from the park, it was suggested to Barrar that marijuana should be legalized and taxed to help improve state finances.

His reaction: "Nobody really believes that, do they?"

He was taken aback when six of the 24 people attending raised their hands to say they favored legalization. He quickly changed the subject.

Two years later he blanched when told the pastor of a local Baptist church said legalizing pot would take away the forbidden-fruit appeal and make it less attractive to kids, causing use to go down.

If a religious leader's thoughts wouldn't move a Republican, surely those from law enforcement would. Right? No.

The rep wouldn't accept the figures from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and former police officers, drug agents, judges, and prosecutors who advocate for an end to prohibition. According to LEAP, 1.4 percent of the population was addicted to drugs prior to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act ­ the first national law prohibiting drugs ­ and that figure has remained steady even now.

Barrar said the figure was likely higher. Yet, if a larger percentage of people were using something when it's illegal rather than when it was legal, wouldn't that just prove the pastor has the right idea and that the drug war is a failure?

He then trotted out the gateway drug theory, but again went blank when reminded that an estimated 22 million Americans use marijuana on a regular basis without snorting cocaine or shooting heroin.

His bottom line rationale for the emotional and intellectual disconnect is that he drinks wine because he likes the taste while pot users only want to get high.

This is the same state rep who opposed lowering the legal blood alcohol limit from .10 percent to .08 percent in 2003. His argument then was that there are a lot of people who can have a blood alcohol level of more than .08 percent and not be impaired.

That may be accurate. If so, shouldn't impairment be the test, not some arbitrary number? And if that's the case, shouldn't impairment be the test for all intoxicants?

But it doesn't matter if a person uses marijuana just to get high. Joe Six Pack is allowed to get drunk. So are the multiple-martini-for-lunch business executives and anyone else of legal age for that matter. How many people are tipsy when leaving a tasting at the local winery? Some people believe getting drunk is okay but getting high should be illegal. That's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

There are myriad reasons for ending prohibition on all drugs. There are the practical and financial reasons. It would save money on enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration. Mere possession and voluntary use of a substance should not be criminal.

It's prohibition that causes criminal activity. The prohibition of alcohol led to the rise of Al Capone and his ilk, making them more powerful than any two-bit thug should be. It led to drive-by shootings and the corruption of law enforcement. The same thing is happening today because of the current era of prohibition.

Even decriminalization would be a step in the right direction. Portugal has seen a drop in all drug use since it decriminalized possession and use of all drugs in 2001. Users with problems there now get therapy instead of jail time.

But the real reason to end prohibition is for the sake of liberty. Liberty demands that adults be free to make their own choices, good or bad, as long as they neither harm nor interfere with the rights of other people. People can ingest or inhale what they please, be it booze, pot or raw milk, or a slice of pizza, a soft pretzel, a Happy Mea, tofu, or crack.

Where there is liberty it's just as legal to get stoned and watch South Park or The Simpsons as it is to get drunk and watch a ballgame. Just keep it private and don't bother anyone else. And politicians shouldn't be bothering free people either.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1105v.asp

Another blow to freedom of contract.

Supreme Court Affirms Anti-Immigrant Hiring Law
Posted May 27, 2011

"The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." ( New York Times)

Another blow to freedom of contract.

The Freedom to Move
Oscar W. Cooley and Paul L. Poirot
January 1986 • Volume: 36 • Issue: 1 •

This article is excerpted from a pamphlet originally published by FEE in 1951.

Can we hope to explain the blessings of freedom to foreign people while we deny them the freedom to cross our boundaries?

Freedom of movement underlies the concept of private property rights. A person has the right to exclusive possession and use of that which he has assembled and improved without trespass against others­the right to the product of his own labor. Any move of a man might be deemed proper and beneficial when he acts to assemble, transport, or otherwise convert the free gifts of Nature so that they may satisfy human needs more readily. This involves no infringement on the equal right of others. It would seem to be the kind of movement that should not be discouraged by man or by government.

On the other hand, freedom of movement may lead to trespass. A person may move or act in such a way as to threaten the life, or to seize or damage the property, of someone else. His apparent personal gain would be at the direct expense of another person. Surely, government should lend no encouragement to such harmful actions or threats of harm by individuals.

The problem of society, then, is to permit and encourage individuals to move and act in a productive and beneficial manner, and to avoid harmful intervention or trespass. The founding fathers wisely depended upon voluntary exchange­freedom of trade in the competitive market place­as the automatic, non-governmental guide to productivity and progress among men. They delegated to government the power to restrict only those actions of individuals designed to circumvent the free market through fraud, deceit, or coercion. The penalty for violation was restitution for damages, or imprisonment, or some other restraint upon that person's freedom to act or move.

The freedom of the individual to move toward greener pastures, wherever they may seem to be, has been a vital part of the freedom of commerce­the freedom of choice that has constituted the truly distinctive characteristic of "the American way."

In view of our long experience of near-perfect freedom to move about as each might choose, some of us may not realize the limitations that confront people in many other parts of the world who might like to move toward something better. Many who might choose to enter the United States, peacefully observing our laws and paying their own way, are denied entry. Our community slogans now seem to read: "Welcome to all peaceful and productive newcomers­except foreigners." And a foreigner here is an individual who has crossed a special political line, supposedly which bounds "the land of the free"!

If it is sound to erect a barrier along our national boundary lines, against those who see greater opportunities here than in their native lands, why should we not erect similar barriers between states and localities within our nation? Why should a low-paid worker­"obviously ignorant, and probably a Socialist"­be allowed to migrate from a failing buggy shop in Massachusetts to the expanding automobile shops of Detroit? According to the common attitude toward immigrants, he would compete with native Detroiters for food and clothing and housing. He might be willing to work for less than the prevailing wage rate in Detroit, "upsetting the labor market" there. His wife and children might "contaminate" the local sewing circles and playgrounds with foreign ways and ideas. Anyhow, he was a native of Massachusetts, and therefore that state should bear the full "responsibility for his welfare."

Those are matters we might ponder, but our honest answer to all of them is reflected in our actions­we'd rather ride in automobiles than in buggies. It would be foolish to try to buy an automobile or anything else in the free market, and at the same time deny any individual an opportunity to help produce those things we want.

Our domestic relationships would be harmed seriously by restraints upon man's freedom to migrate. But why shouldn't the same reasoning hold for our foreign relationships?

Fear No. 1: The "melting pot" might fail to assimilate newcomers. This notion has as little merit as the idea that a third-generation Yankee's digestive tract isn't capable of assimilating a bunch of carrots grown by a foreign-born Japanese or Italian vegetable gardener. The assimilation of a foreign-born person is accomplished when the immigrant willingly comes to America, paying his own way not only to get here but also after he arrives, and peacefully submitting to the laws and customs of his newly adopted country. Freedom to exchange goods and services voluntarily in the market place is the economic catalyst of the American "melting pot." Christian-like morality is the social catalyst­and if it has come to be in short supply among native Americans, the blame for that shortage should not be laid upon our immigrants.

Fear No. 2: The "wrong kind" of people might come to America. The danger that "a poorer class" might come from Asia or Africa or Southern and Eastern Europe and contaminate our society, undoubtedly seems real to any person who thinks of himself as a member of a superior class or race. Such a person, like any good disciple of Marx, is assuming the existence of classes and is convinced that he is qualified to judge others and to sort them into these classes.

Perhaps what is feared is the importation of a new idea of the relationship between the individual and his government. If that has been our fear, it very well might have been justified. For America has been rapidly substituting a socialistic State control for the traditional system of private enterprise. But let us not mistake persons for ideas; the ideas are the root of the problem. Migration of persons is not a reliable measure of the flow of ideas.

Fear No. 3: Immigrants might deprive our own workers of jobs and depress the wage scale. The fear that immigrants might take the jobs of American workers is based on the fantasy that the number of jobs to be filled within our economy is strictly limited. Individuals still do­and undoubtedly always will­entertain unsatisfied desires for more and more goods and services, which industrious and ingenious individuals constantly are producing in response to opportunities. If there is freedom to think, to trade, and to move, then opportunities for new, creative jobs are not limited to the wilderness or a spot of idle land.

The fear that heavy immigration of workers would depress the wages of native workers is an outgrowth of socialist doctrine. Socialism is so concerned with consumption and "equitable distribution" that it neglects the source of production. It fails to recognize that there can be more and more to consume only if capital and tools are first produced to give leverage to the productive power of man.

Can we hope to explain the blessings of freedom to foreign people while we deny them the freedom to cross our boundaries? To advertise America as the "land of the free," and to pose as the world champion of freedom in the contest with communism, is hypocritical, if at the same time we deny the freedom of immigration as well as the freedom of trade. And we may be sure that our neighbors overseas are not blind to this hypocrisy.

A community operating on the competitive basis of the free market will welcome any willing newcomer for his potential productivity, whether he brings capital goods or merely a willingness to work. Capital and labor then attract each other, in a kind of growth that spells healthy progress and prosperity in that community. That principle seems to be well recognized and accepted by those who support the activities of a local chamber of commerce. Why do we not dare risk the same attitude as applied to national immigration policy?

Our collective abandonment of the economic system of the free market leaves for us the controlled communal life, where everyone wants to be a consumer without producing anything.


The Basic Problem

Our immigration policy merely reflects the existence of this serious internal problem in America. Our present policy toward immigrants is consistent with the rest of the controls

over persons which inevitably go with national socialism. But the controlled human relationships within the "welfare state" are not consistent with freedom. Great Britain once thought she could deny freedom to American colonists. And now, her own people have traded their freedom for nationalized austerity. Even a "prosperous" modern America can ill afford traveling that same course. If we do, our community, too, will lose its capacity to attract newcomers. Then we wouldn't need an immigration policy. But who among us would want to remain in a community where opportunities no longer exist?


http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-freedom-to-move/

Fwd: Senate Republicans block Obama from making his beloved recess appointments

    Sure hope this works to stop him.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Senate Republicans block Obama from making his beloved recess appointments
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2011 16:59:20 -0500
From:	Travis <baconlard@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	politicalforum@googlegroups.com
To:	politics-current-events@googlegroups.com, Political Forum <PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com>, Conshana <conshana@gmail.com>

At least somebody is doing something right.

Senate Republicans block Obama from making his beloved recess appointments Scotty Starnes | May 27, 2011 at 10:14 AM | Tags: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, pro forma session, recess appointments, Senate Republicans | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5kf

Finally, Senate Republicans are stopping Obama from appointing more radicals by taking away his love of circumventing Congressional power through recess appointments.

Politico reports:

President Barack Obama won't be able to make any executive recess appointments when senators are home next week for the Memorial Day recess – including Elizabeth Warren, Obama's pick to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama appointed Warren his "special advisor" and not director over the newest government agency created by this administration.

The Senate will be in "pro forma session" because Republicans are threatening to block adjournment, Senate leadership aides said. A senator who lives in nearby Virginia or Maryland will be asked to briefly open and close the session on those days, during which time no business will be conducted.

The Senate is tasked with confirming top executive branch officials nominated by the president. But Article II of the Constitution allows the president to temporarily appoint officials during a Senate recess.

A temporary director for a full-time position at a newly created government agency funded by the taxpayers. It's been over a year since this newly created agency was started. Why is Obama scared to put his picks through congressional hearings? It's because they're all radical socialists.

Liberals have been pushing Obama to recess appoint Warren as the head of the new financial agency she helped create. But that won't be possible now given the Senate's procedural move.

Obama loves to bypass Congress every time he wants to do something he knows Congress won't approve. Obama hates the U.S. Constitution and it's system of checks and balances.

Continue reading>>>

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

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.

Shocking Helmet Video Shows SWAT's Barrage of Bullets

After the sheriffs broke through the door, four to five seconds elapsed before they fired 71 rounds in seven seconds. If Guerena was pointing an AR-15 rifle at them, why did it take so long for the sheriffs to open fire? Why was it necessary to shoot Guerena 60 times? Why did they wait for Guerena to die (1 hour 14 minutes, by other accounts) before allowing a medical team access to his body?

It appears as if there was an agenda behind this alleged warrant serving.

---

Shocking Helmet Video Shows SWAT's Barrage of Bullets
http://tinyurl.com/3aw5z4e

TUCSON - SWAT helmet video is providing insight into exactly what happened when a former Marine was shot 60 times while officers served a search warrant at his home.

The Pima County Sheriff's Department released video Thursday in response to public records requests from the media.

On May 5, the SWAT team fired 71 shots in seven seconds at 26-year-old Jose Guerena. He was allegedly pointing an AR-15 rifle at officers serving a search warrant.

The sheriff's department said Guerena was holding the rifle when he was killed, but he never fired a shot.

When Guerena opened the door, he allegedly said, "I've got something for you," according to SWAT. Guerena was riddled with 60 bullets.

Guerena's wife Vanessa, who was not hurt, told a local TV station that officers never identified themselves when they broke in -- but the SWAT team says they followed protocol.

The video provided Thursday shows that the team blared a siren for about 8 seconds, then stopped. Shooting ensued and the video also shows a SWAT officer falling.

Pima County authorities initially said Guerna fired on the officer, but they later found he never did. He never fired his weapon at all.

They also haven't said what the search warrant was for.

--

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.

Re: Can the Republicans find a more unelectable candidate?

From the party of Train wreck Mondale?

:-)

On May 27, 4:56 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> stay tuned for more obscure wackos from crazy town.

--
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.

Senate Republicans block Obama from making his beloved recess appointments

At least somebody is doing something right.

Senate Republicans block Obama from making his beloved recess appointments Scotty Starnes | May 27, 2011 at 10:14 AM | Tags: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, pro forma session, recess appointments, Senate Republicans | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5kf

Finally, Senate Republicans are stopping Obama from appointing more radicals by taking away his love of circumventing Congressional power through recess appointments.

Politico reports:

President Barack Obama won't be able to make any executive recess appointments when senators are home next week for the Memorial Day recess – including Elizabeth Warren, Obama's pick to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama appointed Warren his "special advisor" and not director over the newest government agency created by this administration.

The Senate will be in "pro forma session" because Republicans are threatening to block adjournment, Senate leadership aides said. A senator who lives in nearby Virginia or Maryland will be asked to briefly open and close the session on those days, during which time no business will be conducted.

The Senate is tasked with confirming top executive branch officials nominated by the president. But Article II of the Constitution allows the president to temporarily appoint officials during a Senate recess.

A temporary director for a full-time position at a newly created government agency funded by the taxpayers. It's been over a year since this newly created agency was started. Why is Obama scared to put his picks through congressional hearings? It's because they're all radical socialists.

Liberals have been pushing Obama to recess appoint Warren as the head of the new financial agency she helped create. But that won't be possible now given the Senate's procedural move.

Obama loves to bypass Congress every time he wants to do something he knows Congress won't approve. Obama hates the U.S. Constitution and it's system of checks and balances.

Continue reading>>>

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

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.

Congressman Says Obama Admin Materially Supporting Terrorists

Congressman Says Obama Admin Materially Supporting Terrorists creeping | May 27, 2011 at 8:45 AM | Tags: Barack Obama, cair, Creeping Sharia, fbi, finance, hamas, islam, Jihad, law, Legal, Life, Media, Muslim, News, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia, terrorism | Categories: Alerts, Creeping Sharia, DC, FBI, Legal, Media, Mosque, News, Obama, Politics, Religion, Sharia, Stealth Jihad, Texas | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-8Gm

via Big Peace, John Guandolo U.S. Congressman Says The Obama Administration Materially Supporting Terrorists. Last Friday, May 20th, U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert of the First District of Texas indicated the current Administration appears to be complicit in supporting the designated terrorist organization Hamas.  Thus far, there has been nearly no media coverage on the Congressman's [...]

Read more of this post

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.

American Gun Owners: You Have Been Warned!

Better stay locked and loaded.

http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2011/05/american-gun-owners-you-have-been-warned/

 

American Gun Owners: You Have Been Warned!

J.D. Longstreet | May 26, 2011 

 

 

American Gun Owners:  You Have Been Warned!

Obama's Gun Control

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

************* 

 

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." (SOURCE)

 

At Hotair.com there is more.  Here is a snippet from the Washington Post Lifestyle profile:

 

"On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."  (SOURCE)

 

It should come as no surprise to anyone that President Obama would seek to impose gun control regulations on American citizens using the regulatory agencies at his command and by-passing the Congress, altogether.  Obama rules as a potentate rather than a President of a constitutional republic.

 

Come on, folks.  Everyone should understand this simple fact:  There is no way the political left can get their agenda imposed on America -- without first disarming America.

In an article at the Huffington Post entitled:  "Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy" the following is reported:

 "Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say." (SOURCE)

The HuffPo goes on to say: "For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.


The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." (SOURCE)

From an article by John Lott at foxnew.com/opinion comes this: "Indeed, Obama has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership. He enacted a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns because, "The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents." He has proposed much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns. Obama's nomination of anti-gun Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives threatens imposing many new regulations. Still further, the Obama administration has actively pushed for the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty and continues to make inaccurate statements about the source of Mexico's crime guns." (SOURCE)

As if you needed to be reminded, we have an election coming up in November of 2012.  As one of the Americans described by Obama in his last campaign for President as  "… bitter Americans who cling to their guns and cling to their religion…".  I am going to remember all this next year, come time to cast my ballot.  I hope you do, too.

J. D. Longstreet

 

--
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.

Can the Republicans find a more unelectable candidate?

stay tuned for more obscure wackos from crazy town.

--
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: Obama & Netanyahu; A Picture Says A Thousand Words

american educated ... loyal to israel

there are plenty more like those boys

On May 27, 11:46 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If you want to read about an interesting guy, check out the wiki article
> about Bibi's brother Yonathan.  If it is all true, then he must be the
> role model that Bibi is still trying to live up to and that explains how
> he will not s*it from rookies like Zero (PBUH).
>
> On 05/27/2011 04:26 AM, Keith In K�ln wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bibi and Hussein during their twenties.....This should have been the
> > photo on the front page of the WSJ this weekend. It would make the
> > diplomatic impasse so much more understandable: --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

Is this what is called damning by faint praise???

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/134035/msnbcs-odonnell-connects-with-olbermanns-audience/

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

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

Bacon...Bacon...Bacon

Bacon Babble

---

Bacon…Bacon…Bacon Posted: 25 May 2011 10:48 AM PDT

You are subscribed to email updates from Bacon Babble To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

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

Governor Deval Patrick is in court today

Testifying for the prosecution in a federal bribery case former House
Speaker Sal DiMasi. Mr DiMasi will be the third CONSECUTIVE House
speaker to be convicted by the fed and joins a litany of Mass
legislatures looking through bars in clumps of years.

--
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.

Saw this on Slashdot and thought it looked menacing - DOJ again

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| DOJ Could Ban Texas Flights Over Anti-Patdown Law
| from the don't-mess-with dept.
| posted by timothy on Thursday May 26, @15:58 (United States)
|
https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/26/1944237/DOJ-Could-Ban-Texas-Flights-Over-Anti-Patdown-Law?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hellkyng writes "The Department of Justice [0]may ban flights from Texas
because of the Anti-Patdown law making its way through the legal system.
Says Rep. David Simpson, 'Someone must make a stand against the
atrocities of our government agents.' Should be interesting to see if
Texas can pave the way for grope-free flying fun."

Discuss this story at:

https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/26/1944237/DOJ-Could-Ban-Texas-Flights-Over-Anti-Patdown-Law?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email#commentlisting

Links:
0.
http://consumerist.com/2011/05/tsa-could-ban-flights-to-texas-if-state-passes-anti-patdown-law.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

--
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: There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says

Overwhelming bipartisan support for a 4 YEAR extension.

I thought it was bad?

On May 27, 12:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> *There�s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says*http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/
>
> "Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the
> surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers
> they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far
> broader legal interpretation � an interpretation that the government has
> conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or
> challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret
> interpretation empowers the government to deploy �dragnets� for massive
> amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its
> data-collection efforts much differently."
> --
>
>       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.

--
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: Obama & Netanyahu; A Picture Says A Thousand Words

If you want to read about an interesting guy, check out the wiki article about Bibi's brother Yonathan.  If it is all true, then he must be the role model that Bibi is still trying to live up to and that explains how he will not s*it from rookies like Zero (PBUH).

On 05/27/2011 04:26 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:

Bibi and Hussein during their twenties.....This should have been the photo on the front page of the WSJ this weekend. It would make the diplomatic impasse so much more understandable: --

There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says

There's a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

"Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy "dragnets" for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently."

--

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.

Seventy-One Shots: The Death of Jose Guereña

Seventy-One Shots: The Death of Jose Guereña
Jose Guereña survived two tours in Iraq, but he couldn't survive his own government.
May 25, 2011 - 12:00 am - by Bob Owens

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik infamously railed in January of this year that Arizona is a “Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

One must wonder if the “prejudice and bigotry” he considers endemic to Arizona is to blame for the death of U.S. Marine veteran Jose Guereña, killed when Dupnik’s deputies gunned him down in his home. They fired 71 shots. They hit him 60 times. And then, as if this wasn’t enough, Dupnik’s deputies blocked paramedics for an hour and 14 minutes from approaching the scene, denying Guereña treatment until he was assuredly dead.

Dupnik’s SWAT team initially claimed that Guereña fired at them while they were serving a warrant — as he slept. They claimed that his bullets hit the bulletproof shield that the entry team hid behind, and that the barrage of bullets they fired back was in self-defense.

Only, Guereña never fired his weapon. Awoken by his wife with screams that men with guns were invading his home and threatening his family, Jose Guereña armed himself with a AR-15 rifle and crouched in the hallway. The SWAT team unloaded upon Guereña on sight. He apparently recognized the home invaders as police. He took 60 rounds, but never — as the Pima County Sheriff’s Department was forced to admit — took off his weapon’s safety as he was being killed.

Prejudice and bigotry?

It was, you’ll recall, a claim Dupnik made in the wake of Jared Loughner’s bloodly rampage at a “Congress in your Corner” event at a Safeway supermarket in Tucson, where six were killed and 14 others were injured — including, gravely, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Dupnik was attempting to blame the conservative Tea Party movement for the shooting when he made the comment. And even after it was revealed that Loughner’s few known political views had been described as “quite liberal,” and were in fact muddled at best, he refused to retract his slur.

So when Dupnik’s teams attempted a complicated four-house raid of minority families looking for drugs, perhaps bigotry and prejudice really was in play.

Perhaps Dupnik’s officers assumed every Hispanic accused of being a drug dealer really was one, and perhaps they assumed that the tenant of a home protecting his loved ones must be a bloodthirsty cartel member waiting in ambush. Is that why they gunned down a tired, hard-working father sleeping off a night shift at the local copper mine? A Marine veteran of Iraq that had the discipline not to fire — a discipline that a trigger-happy SWAT team which has now killed three men in less than a year cannot itself exercise?

Not only has the Pima Sheriff’s Department tried to justify firing 71 shots at one man in a small hallway, hitting him (thankfully, just him) 60 times in a home where his wife and child were present. They’ve attempted to justify their refusal to let a team of paramedics treat Guereña, who was still miraculously alive after being sprayed mercilessly with bullets. It takes a competent SWAT team just a handful of minutes to “clear” a residential home during a raid. Dupnik’s SWAT team refused to declare the scene “clear” for an agonizing one hour and 14 minutes, and not until Jose Guereña had already died.

A cynic might be tempted to suggest Dupnik’s SWAT team was waiting for the only witness to their assault to die. Considering how the Sheriff’s Department has acted since they stormed the home, a rational person might be tempted to agree.

Not content to blame the victim for his own death, they attempted to insinuate he was a drug dealer, even though they were forced to admit under direct questioning that no drugs were found in his home, and that a clumsy cop falling down may have triggered the bloodbath.

Vanessa Guereña claims that neither she nor her husband heard the officers announce themselves as police. As anyone who has ever seen an episode of any popular police reality show knows, no entry team waits 15 seconds after announcing themselves to batter down a door and rush the inhabitants — as Pima County Lt. Michael O’Connor claims his SWAT team did. Identical scenes of immediate entry upon announcement (or after breaching), without giving those inside a chance to react, is a standard tactic captured again and again.

Why Lt. Michael O’Connor decided to tell a mistruth about a well-known, heavily documented, and highly standardized technique isn’t immediately clear. Perhaps it is because of the inevitable wrongful death lawsuit to be filed against the Pima County Sheriff’s Department on behalf of Vanessa Guereña and her two children. Or perhaps it is because of the possible DOJ civil rights investigation. Perhaps Dupnik’s employees simply are unable to act any more professionally after a raid than they do during one.

No-knock warrants are typically used to surprise the target of raids and keep them from disposing of evidence, with possible violence from the offender cited as justification for the military-style use of heavy armor and machine guns.

Jose Guereña’s death was entirely preventable. Over-armed, over-amped law enforcement is causing far more harm to the public than other tactics and techniques possibly could.

The over-militarization of law enforcement agencies and over-use of SWAT teams is an idea that needs to be revisited in a sane society. Too many good people have been traumatized, and too many killed, under the flimsiest of circumstances.

After surviving two tours of duty in Iraq, only to lose his life in an encounter with Clarence Dupnik’s keystone cops, Jose Guereña was buried with full military honors.

http://tinyurl.com/3zwh7ho

--

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.