Re: When you check this out it is sorta scary - do these people really not know?

Please explain how it applies to this subject.

On Jul 4, 2:04 pm, luis zuverza <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please look up sheeple in urbandictionary.com.
> It makes fun of a serious problem we have but it makes all the points
> Thru sarcasm and comedy,  also look up neocon. Sad but hilarious at
> The same time.
> On Jul 4, 2011 12:10 PM, "THE ANNOINTED ONE" <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dick,
>
> > They really don't know.
>
> > On Jul 3, 6:29 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006459
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
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.

FOX NEWS Twitter Alert: "BARACK OBAMA ASSASSINATED"

FOX NEWS Twitter Alert: "BARACK OBAMA ASSASSINATED" barenakedislam | July 4, 2011 at 6:10 PM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-wlq

NOT TRUE. **Sigh** Hackers Break Into Fox News TWITTER Account, Tweet Fake Obama Assassination News. Gee I wonder if this was part of George Soros' new multi million dollar campaign to take down FOX NEWS? george-soros-funded-media-matters-plans-to-sabotage-fox-news MASHABLE - A hacker group calling themselves Scriptkiddies has broken into one of Fox News' Twitter accounts and used it to disseminate [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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.

Bill Clinton: ‘I Like Huntsman and Romney’

Politics
Bill Clinton: 'I Like Huntsman and Romney'
Posted on July 3, 2011 at 6:19pm
by Christopher Santarelli

Former President Bill Clinton says that as far as Republicans go he likes GOP 2012 hopefuls Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney.   Clinton made his comments on the presidential field at the Aspen Ideas Festival Saturday evening. While Clinton still thinks President Obama will win reelection in 2012, he commented that the former Massachusetts governor is fronting a much stronger campaign than he did in 2008, and Michele Bachmann is looking like "a better candidate" than he thought. Clinton remarked:

"But, y'know, I like the governors: I like Huntsman and Romney. Romney's a MUCH better candidate than he was last time, because he's not apologizing for signing the health-care bill. He's got another creative way of saying we oughta repeal Obamacare, but that's prob'ly the price of gettin' the nomination.

"Huntsman hasn't said what he's for yet, but I just kinda like him. [laughter] He LOOKS authentic – he looks like a real guy. [laughter] I mean, a real human being. I like his family, I like his kind of iconoclastic way. And he was a pretty good governor. And he wasn't a right-wing ideologue.

"Bachmann's been a better candidate than I THOUGHT she'd be, and I don't agree with her on nearly anything. But she's got a very compelling personal story, and she gotta lot of juice, and she turns [on] a lot of those anti-government crowd."

Clinton went on to comment that he thought President Obama would win reelection based off things like the President's handling of the auto industry crisis, record on national security, and that "He took steps which avoided a depression." Clinton:

"It's not like he doesn't have a story to tell. I also think he's done a good job in trying to harmonize America's differences, trying to widen the circle of opportunity. I think he's got a good record on gay rights. I think he's got a good record on trying to promote diversity in a positive way."

Interesting comments. Is "a good record on gay rights"  pushing the removal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy which you installed? Great story.

While Clinton's support of the fellow Democrat and current President is to be expected, it will be interesting to see if his folksy comments on three Republican presidential candidates Saturday along with similar statements made in an ABC News interview last Thursday will have any effect on the GOP Presidential primary campaign.

With some commentators already questioning if Jon Huntsman is too moderate to be elected by today's GOP, will Clinton's kind words be hurled against the former Utah governor by his fellow 2012 hopefuls? Will conservatives who already have an issue with Mitt Romeny's " health care thing" become further frustrated by Clinton's approval?

How do you think Bill Clinton's comments will be used, if at all, as the Republican primary race tightens in coming months?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bill-clinton-i-like-huntsman-and-romney/

Re: Go figure

No, what I said was that the point you were trying to make was bullshit. The supposed motive is crap.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, luis zuverza <luiszuv@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear the anointed one.
There may have already been Muslim on Muslim war
But this fact in and of itself does not excuse rogue superpower
Behavior in an age of alleged humanitarianism.

Are u suggesting that since muslim on Muslim is not new and that since
Per hashem , Obama is a muslim, then all this warring is acceptable?

On Jul 4, 2011 11:08 AM, "THE ANNOINTED ONE" <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luis,
>
> In all your mentioned conflicts there was already Moslem on Moslem
> conflict.... try a new fact based tact.
>
> On Jul 4, 8:17 am, luis zuverza <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear hashem rules
>> If Obama is still a Muslim at heart and In reality then, why does he
>> continue to
>> Wage the previous Christian administrations wars in muslim Iraq and
>> Afghanistan?
>> Not only there, but expanding into other muslim lands like Libya, syria,
>> and beyond?
>> Now, what were u saying about terrorism?
>> On Jul 4, 2011 6:46 AM, "HaShem Rules" <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Obama is/was a Muslim. He converted to Christianity.
>> > Should't the terrorists behead him or something for
>> > being a traitor to his Muslim faith? They won't because
>> > they know he is Muslim still. Rules like one, and he
>> > hates Israel. Like all brethren of Ishmael do....
>>
>> > That's because they are genetic mutants through
>> > Hagar and Ishmael...
>>
>> > OOFA...
>> > Their is a hierachy in play upon the Earth....
>> > Islam, Judaism, and Crop Markings are a part of it.
>> > Crop Markings by legions of angels, of HaShem.
>> > In fields impossible to hoax at the mature stage.
>> > Fields of mature "Oil Seed Rape".
>>
>> > All the rest went, "under foot" in 1991, paid for, by
>> > Rupert Murdoch....
>>
>> > Hoaxers win the psyche of man, with their stinking
>> > feet...
>>
>> > Legions lose the psyche of man, with their baffling
>> > technology....
>>
>> > --
>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.

Censorship by the left - both by the Globe and by Snopes - it still goes on

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/07/04/positivity-what-the-declarations-signers-endured-and-what-happened-11-years-ago-to-a-columnist-who-wrote-about-it/

--
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.

Maybe he can make up for some of the others like Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/07/04/positivity-gary-sinise-a-true-american-patriot/

--
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: When you check this out it is sorta scary - do these people really not know?

Please look up sheeple in urbandictionary.com.
It makes fun of a serious problem we have but it makes all the points
Thru sarcasm and comedy,  also look up neocon. Sad but hilarious at
The same time.

On Jul 4, 2011 12:10 PM, "THE ANNOINTED ONE" <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dick,
>
> They really don't know.
>
> On Jul 3, 6:29 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006459
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

Check out the commentary on this one - some of these people are truly wigged out

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-wealth/2011/06/29/poll-should-debt-deal-include-tax-hikes-for-the-wealthy/

--
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: Go figure

Dear the anointed one.
There may have already been Muslim on Muslim war
But this fact in and of itself does not excuse rogue superpower
Behavior in an age of alleged humanitarianism.

Are u suggesting that since muslim on Muslim is not new and that since
Per hashem , Obama is a muslim, then all this warring is acceptable?

On Jul 4, 2011 11:08 AM, "THE ANNOINTED ONE" <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luis,
>
> In all your mentioned conflicts there was already Moslem on Moslem
> conflict.... try a new fact based tact.
>
> On Jul 4, 8:17 am, luis zuverza <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear hashem rules
>> If Obama is still a Muslim at heart and In reality then, why does he
>> continue to
>> Wage the previous Christian administrations wars in muslim Iraq and
>> Afghanistan?
>> Not only there, but expanding into other muslim lands like Libya, syria,
>> and beyond?
>> Now, what were u saying about terrorism?
>> On Jul 4, 2011 6:46 AM, "HaShem Rules" <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Obama is/was a Muslim. He converted to Christianity.
>> > Should't the terrorists behead him or something for
>> > being a traitor to his Muslim faith? They won't because
>> > they know he is Muslim still. Rules like one, and he
>> > hates Israel. Like all brethren of Ishmael do....
>>
>> > That's because they are genetic mutants through
>> > Hagar and Ishmael...
>>
>> > OOFA...
>> > Their is a hierachy in play upon the Earth....
>> > Islam, Judaism, and Crop Markings are a part of it.
>> > Crop Markings by legions of angels, of HaShem.
>> > In fields impossible to hoax at the mature stage.
>> > Fields of mature "Oil Seed Rape".
>>
>> > All the rest went, "under foot" in 1991, paid for, by
>> > Rupert Murdoch....
>>
>> > Hoaxers win the psyche of man, with their stinking
>> > feet...
>>
>> > Legions lose the psyche of man, with their baffling
>> > technology....
>>
>> > --
>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

Happy Insurrection Day!

Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy Insurrection Day!
William N. Grigg



Our Glorious Insurrectionary Heritage: Minutemen gun down soldiers of the Empire, April 19, 1775.  Sic semper tyrannis!

It has often been said that if voting actually changed things, it would be illegal. In much the same sense it could be said that if the genuine meaning of the event commemorated on the Fourth of July were to become widely known, our rulers would respond by criminalizing the celebration and the document that should be at its center.

This isn't a hypothetical proposition. Around the turn of the 20th Century it was common for "Wobblies" -- radical activists belonging to the Industrial Workers of the World, a schismatic socialist sect -- to be arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in public.

The inflammatory, seditious content of that document was largely unknown to the public even then, and when tranquil middle-class Americans were confronted with unsettling assertions like
the claim that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," many of them assumed their ears were being assaulted by the rhetoric of foreign subversives.

A few years later, after the regime of the unutterably evil Woodrow Wilson had maneuvered the United States into a European war on the side of Great Britain -- still regarded with understandable suspicion by the Middle Americans expected to provide the coffin-stuffers for the conflict -- public recital of the Declaration was ruled a violation of the Espionage Act. At least one man was sent to prison for the supposed crime of reading aloud from Jefferson's document.

In his war message to Congress on April 2, 1917, the detestable Wilson demanded of Americans nothing less than complete and perfect uniformity of opinion and behavior. He also deputized Americans to assist the state in "rebuking and restraining the few who may be of a different mind and purpose" than that ordained by his government.

"If there should be disloyalty," Wilson promised, "it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression; but, if it lifts its head at all, it will lift it only here and there and without countenance except from a lawless and malignant few."

Less than a century and a half had elapsed since a "lawless and malignant few" had gathered in Philadelphia to certify their disloyalty to the King of England -- or, more properly put, a small group of principled men who understood government's subordinate role in human affairs assembled to withdraw their consent to be governed by that man and his minions.

The Declaration articulated some indispensable truths. The first is the understanding that individual liberty is a gift of God, and the powers of government are contingent and revocable. A man can live without government, but he cannot live, as a man, without liberty. Second, the single greatest enemy to individual liberty is the government claiming the right to rule that individual.

The third, and most troublesome, of those truths is this: There is an inherent right to rebel against the supposed authority of any government that becomes "destructive" of the rights invested in the individual by God. That right, like all others, inheres in the individual. But it can be exercised collectively in the form of principled, violent insurrection when such action is justified. Most of the rest of the Declaration consists of a legal brief justifying the insurrection already underway in the British Colonies, and the decision to sever the political connection between those polities and the British Empire.



Self-enraptured mass murderer: The unfathomably vile Woodrow Wilson pauses at his desk to pose for a photograph. And then ... it's back to the merry business of plotting war, conscription, confiscation of wealth, and repression of individual liberties!

It's hardly surprising that the Wilson regime effectively criminalized the Declaration: Like collectivists of all ages, Wilson assumed that man, who was created for the state, should be pitifully grateful for whatever transient "liberties" he was given by the state, and should be prepared to sacrifice everything on behalf of the state.

"It is not an army we must shape and train for war, it is a nation," Wilson declared, as he centralized the economy, orchestrated a frenzy of war hatred against Germany, and moved to impose conscription. His Vice President, Thomas Marshall, urged that citizenship be formally revoked for anyone found to be "not heartily in support of the Government in this crisis."

Bernard Baruch, chairman of the War Industries Board and de facto commissar of the economy, explained the logic of Wilson's war regime in admirably frank terms: "Every man's life is at the call of the nation and so must be every man's property.... The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is his only as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and possessions at the call of the state."

Just as every man's life was considered property of the state, so were every man's offspring. This was made clear by the demented Theodore Roosevelt: "Any man who says, `I didn't raise my son to be a soldier' isn't fit for citizenship. That statement is on the same moral level with saying, `I didn't raise my girl to be a mother.'"




Raised to die on behalf of the State? Just a few of the many young men from Clovis, California who have died in the Idiot King's worthless war.

Killing and dying on behalf of the state -- the congealed essence of lethal violence -- was thus defined as a moral exercise as exalted as bringing life into the world. Or, as Bill Kauffman observes in his invaluable new book Ain't My America, to WWI-era collectivists like Wilson and Roosevelt, "Mothers were brood sows. Sons were herded into the abattoir."

Vaulting over the blood-stained decades that followed Wilson's administration, we find that today's adherents of the cult of the nation-state aren't content to send just their sons to the slaughterhouse; many of them are dispatching their daughters as well.

This was memorably dramatized during a recent "Military Appreciation Sunday" service at the Bell Shoals Baptist Church in Brandon, Florida (a video of which was very generously provided to me by a friend).

The service featured Lt. Col. Steve Russell, who commanded the troops who extracted quondam subcontractor for Washington Saddam Hussein from his "spider hole." The proceedings began with brief remarks -- laden with pious poses and orotund vowels -- by the late Pastor Forrest Pollock, in which he gave a detailed recital of the evils perpetrated by Saddam while he was on Washington's payroll -- a remarkable exercise in mote-obsession and beam-ignoring. He then urged attendees to pay heed to a nauseating video presentation offered by Russell's GOP-jingo PAC, Veterans for Victory.

The video first depicts a father in his 30s rising early in the morning to kiss his wife and son, then depart, clothed in the habiliments of the Empire's contract killers, to murder people in a distant land who have done our country no harm. Wretched as that spectacle is -- almost unbearably so, given that it is set to the "tune" of a soul-less corporate simulacrum of country pop -- it is the second vignette that is genuinely abhorrent.



Families ripped asunder by war: A mother consoles her children as their father departs to kill on behalf of the State (left); a man torn between his God-ordained role as father and State-appointed role as soldier embraces his children before leaving them behind (below).

The scene begins with a middle-aged couple walking out of their home, each of them flanking a daughter dressed in a BDU. Their little girl, obviously, wasn't raised to be a "brood sow"; she's a fully realized member of the killer caste.

"Somewhere a man and woman ... are waving their girl goodbye; for gone are the days of pigtails and curls and candle-light lullabies," keens the "singer" in the video's soundtrack as the couple and daughter hold hands in prayer. "If they had their way, she'd stay young forever and never be far from home. But freedom has drawn her heart to danger's shore -- and for freedom they'll let her go."



Ah, yes: "Freedom" -- defined here as a gift conferred by the Almighty State on some, through the expropriation and death of others.

The video ends with the wife and son being visited by a Marine chaplain who confers on them a folded piece of cloth in exchange for their living, breathing, irreplaceable husband and father. His life was extinguished carrying out what George W. Bush, in a voice-over, describes as "the highest calling of history" -- that is, enforcing the divine will of the State through lethal violence.

Mr. Bush, no stranger to blasphemy, insists that their mission resonates with "the words of the prophet Isaiah," as recorded in chapter 61:1 ("The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me ... to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound").

Christians who genuinely understand that passage recognize that it foretold how Jesus Christ would liberate from the captivity of sin those who accept Him as Savior. As the High Priest of Washington's murderous Civil Religion, Bush follows in the jackboot-steps of Lincoln, Wilson, and their damnable ilk in depicting the State as savior.



If that gesture seems similar, there's a reason: American schoolchildren reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1940s (left); dutiful German citizens at the 1936 Berlin Olympics offer the same gesture of allegiance to their version of the welfare/warfare state (below, right).

Throughout the United States today, Americans will celebrate the sanguinary majesty of that State and its pitiless apparatus of mass murder and repression. We should instead be celebrating the divine gift of individual liberty that was the focus of the "lawless and malignant" insurrectionists who gathered in Philadelphia -- disreputable men like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Hancock -- to shout their defiance at a previous globe-straddling empire.



How different would our society be today if, instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, schoolchildren (in private or home schools, of course) were required, each day, to read or recite this paragraph from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ­ That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ­ That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What if, instead of starting every day being marinated in the language of submission (to pledge "allegiance," after all, is to proclaim one's status as a vassal bound in service to a feudal lord, or "liege"), youngsters were taught, on a daily basis, the principles of self-responsibility, individual liberty, and principled rebellion? As I stated earlier, if this kind of thing were to become common, our rulers would simply criminalize the Declaration. They've done it before, and they would be more than happy to do so permanently.

The sobering truth is that, due to the cultivated docility of the American populace, Jefferson's document, much like the Constitution created eleven years later, poses no threat to the designs of our rulers.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/07/happy-insurrection-day.html

Good column by bizzy blogger on the revisionomics of the current admin

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/revisionomics/?singlepage=true

--
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.

Illinois House declares Islamic calendar month of Ramadan "green"

Ramadan is muzzie talk for CramItDown.  I say to them "UP YOURS".

Illinois House declares Islamic calendar month of Ramadan "green" creeping | July 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM | Tags: Barack Obama, cair, Creeping Sharia, dhimmi, hamas, islam, Legal, Life, Media, Muslim, News, Obama, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia | Categories: Alerts, Creeping Sharia, Illinois, Media, News, Obama, Politics, Religion, Sharia, Stealth Jihad | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-90b

There was an article out a few months ago titled Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad. The environmental concept of green appears to be a growing Islamist strategy. So much so that the Illinois House declared a month on the Islamic calendar (also referred to as the month of jihad) green, recognizing a Hamas-linked [...]

Read more of this post

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.

Re: When you check this out it is sorta scary - do these people really not know?

Dick,

They really don't know.

On Jul 3, 6:29 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006459

--
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: Military Discount at Lowes

This would make the USA a real special place for thieves and
fourflushers. You're a genuine veteran and could qualify for the
discount, but what if the guy behind you heard you getting a big
discount just by saying you served. What's to stop him from claiming
the discount just by claiming to be a veteran even though he wasn't--
and the guy behind him and the guy behind the guy behind him. Lowe's
isn't that stupid. Obviously they have a policy to grant the discount
only to those with documentary proof of military status. If your
cashier had been caught letting you claim the discount without proof,
he would--and should--have been fired on the spot. And what does his
place of birth have to do with it??!!! The same would apply to a
native born American. Would you expect it to be otherwise? The guy was
obviously doing his job well under difficult circumstances [the
difficult circumstance in this case being you] and is a credit to both
his new country and to his ancestry.

On Jul 3, 8:33 am, ray <jr3...@aol.com> wrote:
> Stopped by Lowes the other day to pick up and few odds and ends. Total
> bill came to about twenty bucks. At register, requested the military
> discount. I am a sixty year old Vietnam Vet of pure Irish heritage
> naturally born in this country. The cashier asked to see my military
> ID. I do not have a military ID and to be honest would not want to go
> through the trouble and effort of securing one. I relayed this
> information to cashier and he denied my discount. Now discount was
> only a couple of bucks and that is certainly no big deal. But here is
> the best part. The cashier was obviously born in India, Pakistan or
> regional country. He was difficult to understand. No problem with
> that, he will get better. But, for a gentleman who obviously came to
> this country using the very freedoms I helped secure for him, and then
> have the audacity to deny me?
>
> Just one more indication leading to the eventual erosion of all that
> was accomplished to make the USA such a special place.

--
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.

Fwd: Happy 4th of July

FINALLY A TRUE STORY - NOW JUST BELIEVE IT....     Posted by an anonymous person who reads newspapers every day.   The conclusion: The Arabs are not happy!!!   ·        They are not happy  in Gaza. ·        They are not happy  in the West Bank. ·        They are not happy  in Jerusalem. ·        They are not happy  in Israel. ·        They are not happy  in Egypt. ·        They are not happy  in Libya. ·        They are not happy  in Algeria. ·        They are not happy  in Tunis. ·        They are not happy  in Morocco. ·        They are not happy  in Yemen. ·        They are not happy  in Iraq. ·        They are not happy  in Afghanistan.  ·        They are not happy  in Syria. ·        They are not happy  in Lebanon. ·        They are not happy  in Sudan. ·        They are not happy  in Jordan. ·        They are not happy  in Iran.   Where are the Arabs happy?   ·        They are happy  in Britain. ·        They are happy  in France. ·        They are happy  in Italy. ·        They are happy  in Germany. ·        They are happy  in Sweden. ·        They are happy  in Holland. ·        They are happy  in Belgium. ·        They are happy  in Norway. ·        They are happy  in the U.S.A. ·        They are happy  in Romania. ·        They are happy  in Hungary.   They are happy in any other country in the world that is not under Muslim rule.   And whom do they blame?   ·      Not Islam. ·      Not their leadership. ·      Not themselves.   But the same countries in which they are happy to live. Democracy is really good for them :   In a democracy  they can live comfortably at the taxpayers' expense, enjoy the high quality of life which they did not build and work for, they don't have to be productive and earn a living, they can be wild, pray in the streets, openly plot and preach against the "West", exploit social services  and bite  the hand that feeds them.   And by the time the free world wakes up, it will be too late ....

 

--
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.

JIHAD TRAINING FOR MUSLIM WOMEN at terrorist training camp in Hancock, NY

JIHAD TRAINING FOR MUSLIM WOMEN at terrorist training camp in Hancock, NY barenakedislam | July 4, 2011 at 3:55 AM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-wks

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM: Located just 140 miles northwest of New York City, Hancock is the location of a secluded camp where Muslim women are trained on how to kill us and slit our throats. Lock & Load, people!

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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

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

Re: Go figure

Luis,

In all your mentioned conflicts there was already Moslem on Moslem
conflict.... try a new fact based tact.

On Jul 4, 8:17 am, luis zuverza <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear hashem rules
> If Obama is still a Muslim at heart and In reality then, why does he
> continue to
> Wage the previous Christian administrations wars in muslim Iraq and
> Afghanistan?
> Not only there, but expanding into other muslim lands like Libya, syria,
> and beyond?
> Now, what were u saying about terrorism?
> On Jul 4, 2011 6:46 AM, "HaShem Rules" <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Obama is/was a Muslim. He converted to Christianity.
> > Should't the terrorists behead him or something for
> > being a traitor to his Muslim faith? They won't because
> > they know he is Muslim still. Rules like one, and he
> > hates Israel. Like all brethren of Ishmael do....
>
> > That's because they are genetic mutants through
> > Hagar and Ishmael...
>
> > OOFA...
> > Their is a hierachy in play upon the Earth....
> > Islam, Judaism, and Crop Markings are a part of it.
> > Crop Markings by legions of angels, of HaShem.
> > In fields impossible to hoax at the mature stage.
> > Fields of mature "Oil Seed Rape".
>
> > All the rest went, "under foot" in 1991, paid for, by
> > Rupert Murdoch....
>
> > Hoaxers win the psyche of man, with their stinking
> > feet...
>
> > Legions lose the psyche of man, with their baffling
> > technology....
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

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

Re: The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July

Gee MJ,

This little treatise completely ignores the explanation and conditions
for all men to be equal ie:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it
is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.

On Jul 4, 10:15 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights."The Real Meaning of the Fourth of JulybyJacob G. Hornberger, July 4, 2008
> Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen. In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American citizens. It s easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people who took up arms against their own government.
> So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is that their government didn t consider them patriots at all. Their government considered them to be bad guys -- traitors, all of whom deserved to be hanged for treason.
> Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in the process.
> Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than the military victory over their government s forces at Yorktown does.
> Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man s rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government.
> Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from government. Such being the case, people haven t objected whenever government officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn t government officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?
> The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.
> What happens if a government that people have established becomes a destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish their government and establish new government whose purpose is the protection, not the destruction, of people s rights and freedoms.
> The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence. The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit the government s powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.
> Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government -- as a means to protect their rights -- they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.
> Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs: (1) that the federal government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better ensure their protection from federal infringement.
> On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights in history -- that man s rights come from God and nature, not from government.http://www.fff.org/comment/com0807b.asp

--
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 Phony Argument Against ‘Isolationism’

The Phony Argument Against 'Isolationism'
War Party twists history to suit its evil ends
by Justin Raimondo, July 04, 2011

The war continues – the war against "isolationism," that is. This time the latest blows are being struck on the op ed page of the New York Times, where Rutgers historian David Greenberg takes up the cudgels against these hated troglodytes. Bemoaning the sudden Republican turnabout on foreign policy, Professor Greenberg notes his surprise that the all-too-"predictable" response of GOP presidential candidates to President Obama's Afghanistan speech wasn't all that predictable after all: several declared his withdrawal announcement "too little, too late." In the Republican-controlled House, too, some have the nerve to question the President's legal authority to take us to war without congressional authorization – and, as if all that wasn't enough, GOP'ers afflicted with "balanced budget mania" have gone on a veritable rampage, and are actually talking about "scaling back defense spending of a sort that Republicans would once have never dared broach."

So, what does all this add up to, in Greenberg's view? Well, this:

"Suddenly, after the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years, isolationism ­ a stance that rejects America's leadership role in the world ­ is on the rise among Republicans."

If you think Congress, rather than the President, has the constitutionally-granted power to declare war, then what are you – a constitutionalist? An anti-monarchist? A believer in the rule of law? Well, no – you're an "isolationist."

If you don't sign on to the idea that America must exercise a " leadership role in the world" – i.e. if you don't' think we should be invading countries left and right and footing the bill for all kinds of international welfare schemes – you're somebody who wants to "isolate" America from the rest of the universe, no doubt by building a crocodile-filled moat on the border and posting a "Keep Out!" sign (in English only) just in case potential interlopers fail to take the hint.

By posing a false choice between a hyperactive foreign policy and an "isolationist" one, the War Party gets to argue as if they are the reasonable ones, and everyone else – in this case, most of the country – are marginal cranks. At this point, they get out their canned history lesson, and lecture us on the evils of our "isolationist" past, as does Professor Greenberg:

"But if this comes as an abrupt break, it is also a return to form: the impulse to retreat from the world stage has a long and hardy pedigree within Republican ranks. And while a dose of caution among conservatives can be refreshing, a Tea Party-led reversion to a dogmatic America First stance could damage both the party and the country.

"Modern Republican isolationism began with the 1919 battle over joining the League of Nations, when Senate Republicans, led by so-called Irreconcilables like William Borah of Idaho, killed the deal ­ even though without American guidance, European affairs were doomed to explode again. A pattern emerged, as liberal Democrats, along with Northeastern Republicans, wanted America to actively manage world affairs, while the Republicans' powerful Midwestern and Western factions viewed cooperative international ventures as dangerously entangling alliances."

Greenberg's historical overview is pretty much the Establishment party line: always there have been those "forward-looking" "progressive" leaders, like Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned tirelessly to get the US entangled in Europe's intrigues and her endless wars: and always, opposing these noble souls, there have been those nasty "Irreconcilables" – even the name sounds unreasonable, fanatic – who somehow doubted mortal men could "actively manage world affairs." What could possibly motivate these Irreconcilables, other than pure malicious contrarianism?

"The isolationists had complex motives: Congressional vigilance against presidential encroachments on their constitutional powers; a small-town obsession with balanced budgets; and conspiratorial suspicions of foreigners, financiers and ­ in the case of anti-Semites like Charles A. Lindbergh ­ Jews. Naturally, isolationism thrived among Congressional Republicans when a Democrat held the White House ­ as it does again today ­ but it continued through the Coolidge and Hoover years, too."

Those mean-minded members of Congress who think the Constitution must be obeyed – they're just selfish reactionaries, obsessed with maintaining their own power. And as for those who think we need to live within our means and balance the federal budget – they're just small-town "obsessives," and probably anti-Semites to boot.

Left out of Greenberg's pocket version of American history is World War I – and its legacy, which embittered an entire generation of American liberals who really did believe it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy." That is, until they saw the "peace" it created, which planted the seeds for yet another – and far bloodier – world conflagration. That was the warning of the "Irreconcilables," who saw the United States becoming an empire molded on the British model and – quite rightly – wanted no part of it.

Also left out of Greenberg's historical overview: the opponents of the "isolationists," who, in the post-WWI era, were an ominous-sounding group known as the "League to Enforce Peace." The Enforcers wanted to set up a world government, with the US and Britain at its head: anyone who looked cross-eyed at these Global Governors would be promptly invaded, subdued, and occupied. That was their idea of "peace" – pretty much the same vision upheld by today's internationalists, except they hadn't yet thought of proposing a World Central Bank.

A whole range of figures come up for Greenberg's opprobrium: Robert A. Taft, Phyliss Schlafly, radio host Paul Harvey, as well as Lindbergh: Taft for opposing NATO and the sacred idea of "collective security" (i.e. setting tripwires for war), Schlafly and Harvey for questioning the wisdom of the Vietnam war (Abbie Hoffman and the New York Times editorial page are exempted from the "isolationist" label, although they too opposed that foolish war.)

"Right-wing isolationism" was thought to have died out when Eisenhower stole the GOP presidential nomination from Taft, but no: the monster lives! It reemerged in the 1990s, on account of the fall of the Soviet Union, and "the perception that Mr. [George Herbert Walker] Bush's foreign affairs focus blinded him to economic suffering at home" (how unreasonable!). This led Republicans to wonder what we were doing in the Balkans – that maelstrom of unresolvable conflicts – siding with Osama bin Laden. Those isolationist cranks! Will they never learn?

And now, when the world "needs the US" to lead it to "stability" more than ever, there they are again – the isolationists are once more on the scene, doing their mischief. Who will rid us of these troublesome troglodytes? Professor Greenberg to the rescue!

"And this time, the G.O.P.'s old Eastern wing, which used to provide internationalist ballast, is almost nonexistent. A healthy democracy needs critics, particularly when it engages in risky overseas adventures. But the doctrinaire call to drastically scale back our global leadership role has usually led us into error, making the world a more chaotic and dangerous place. Following the path of isolationism today won't serve America well. Nor will it help the Republicans."

Let us take a moment, before getting into the meat of the matter, to rejoice that the Eastern Establishment of the Republican party – the old Rockefeller wing – is dead and buried. From the Lodge clan to the Rockefeller faction, these Big Government-friendly patricians have manipulated both their party and the federal government into enriching the investment bankers they have always served so faithfully. This has been their modus operandi throughout our history, from the invasion and occupation of Panama to secure the Canal right up to modern times, when the Rockefeller wing schemed ( successfully) to get us into World War II in the Pacific (the rubber trade of Southeast Asia and the vast China market were in their sights).

One has to ask Professor Greenberg: who is being "doctrinaire," here – the interventionists (like himself) who adhere to a failed policy of global meddling, which has gotten us into nothing but trouble and costs us trillions, or the "isolationists" who are saying it's time for a new course?

Greenberg's point is that non-intervention is not a new course, but rather an old pattern that was broken by his heroes Wilson and FDR – but what he leaves out is that the "isolationists" lost. Their advice – stay out of both world wars, mind our own business, abjure the temptations of empire – wasn't followed: instead, we chose a path to "world leadership," and now that the American Imperium is crumbling on every frontier some are beginning to call its alleged necessity into question.

It is Greenberg and his fellow interventionists who are the doctrinaires. Not since the end of World War II have we tried any policy other than asserting our alleged right to "world leadership." But what if the world doesn't want to be led – especially by us?

Well, then, these latter-day adherents of the League to Enforce Peace will just go in there and start enforcing, whether the world likes it or not.

Except that well-worn policy isn't working out very well for us, as any objective observer of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia will testify. We are coming to the end of our ability – and Americans' willingness – to police the world. Call that "small town" if you will, but an empire is a luxury we can no longer afford. If Greenberg and the War Party's academic detachment can't or won't reconcile themselves to the economic and political facts of reality, then it is they who are the true Irreconcilables.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/03/the-phony-argument-against-isolationism/

Re: There is No First Amendment Without a Second Amendment.

Remember.... the Second amendment is in place not so we can repel
invaders whether home or national border... it is there so we can
protect ourselves from our own government.

On Jul 3, 8:33 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>     <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/stungunsandmace/> There
> is No First Amendment Without a Second
> Amendment.<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/there-is-no-first-a...>
> *Steve <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/stungunsandmace/>* |
> July 3, 2011 at 4:27 am | Tags: Alan
> Caruba<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=alan-caruba>,
> Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and
> Explosives<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco...>,
> Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
> Arms<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=citizens-committee-for-th...>,
> Michael Bloomberg<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=michael-bloomberg>,
> Obama administration<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=obama-administration>,
> Second Amendment
> Foundation<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=second-amendment-foundation>,
> Second Amendment to the United States
> Constitution<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=second-amendment-to-the-u...>,
> United States <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=united-states> |
> Categories: Constitution <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=29050>,
> crime <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=34945349>, Idiot Law
> Makers <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=57323845>, Second
> Amendment <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=102988>, Tea
> Party<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=34918731>| URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-7VU
>
>  <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/gunflash.gif>
>
> Like AMEX, Don 't Leave Home Without It.
>
> *A very timely reminder of just how and where we came from. And the
> Consequences of ever giving up your second amendment right. Happy 4th Of
> July, It's up to us to have many more.  ~Steve~*
>
> *Reposted From Tea Party Nation.*
>
> http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPos...
>
> Posted by Alan Caruba<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/profile/AlanCaruba>on
> July 2, 2011 at 5:00pm
>
> Send Message <http://l/> View Alan Caruba's
> blog<http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/list?user=wo5vy0y6lr5s>
>
> By Alan Caruba
>
> When we celebrate the Fourth of July<http://www.history.com/topics/july-4th>,
> let's keep in mind that the first
> Americans<http://www.history.com/topics/states>won their independence
> from England with the force of arms. It was, in fact,
> a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were
> stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.
>
> The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that,
> after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to
> peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their
> right to bear arms.
>
> Wherever authoritarian regimes were established in the last century, they
> took away this right and then proceeded to kill those deemed enemies of the
> state.
>
> At this point in American history, the Obama
> administration<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration>constitutes
> a threat to the Constitution in general and the Second
> Amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co...>in
> particular.
> *More than 80,000,000 Americans are gun owners.*
>
> Two of the organizations that have been fighting to protect these rights are
> the Second Amendment
> Foundation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Foundation>(SAF)
> and the Citizens
> Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
> Arms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Committee_for_the_Right_to_Keep...>(CCRKBA),
> both led by Alan M. Gottlieb. Three quarters of the SAF budget is
> devoted to defending rights pertaining to the ownership of guns and to carry
> them for self-defense.
>
> In March, the Huffington Post had an article titled "Obama Looking for Ways
> Around Congress on Gun
> Policy"<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_83...>by
> Sam Stein. "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."
>
> *Since then we have learned of a U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and
> Firearms<http://www.atf.gov/>program, Fast and Furious, that actually
> facilitated the sale and transfer
> of guns to Mexico. How demented is that?*
>
> In May in my home state of New Jersey the SAF won a decision against
> officials for the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law when
> they had ruled that an applicant for a concealed carry permit had not
> demonstrated a "justifiable need" for it. In point of fact, the applicant,
> Philip Muller, had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who
> threatened to kill him. They had, however, grabbed the wrong man.
>
> Despite support by local and state police, action on his application was
> delayed for six months. Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson
> issued a directive that a permit should be granted. The case is still
> on-going with other plaintiffs that include a part-time sheriff's deputy, an
> applicant who carries large amounts of cash in his private business, and a
> civilian employee of the FBI with legitimate concerns of an attack from a
> radical Islamic group.
>
> Currently nearly thirty such cases have either been brought or joined by SAF
> to stop abuses of this most fundamental right of American citizens ranging
> from bans on interstate handgun sales, New York Mayor Michael
> Bloomberg<http://www.biography.com/articles/Michael-Bloomberg-16466704>'s
> imposition of a $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in one's home, and a
> Chicago ban on gun ranges open to the public. These cases cost between
> $60,000 and $80,000 each!
>
> *The greatest single threat to gun ownership right now is a United Nations
> "Small Arms Treaty" falsely identified as an "international arms control
> treaty" allegedly to fight terrorism."*
>
> "In reality," says Gottlieb, it is "a massive, global gun control scheme.
> It's a sham. It's a fraud." If the U.S., under the Obama administration and
> with the consent of the Senate, were to sign on to this treaty, it would
> nullify the Second Amendment.
>
> Suffice to say that the Obama administration wants to have the power to
> increase federal fees on guns and ammunition, to ban guns that are imported,
> to extend the waiting periods for permits, to ban the use of guns on all
> government property, and even to make it illegal if you own a gun and smoke!
>
> Americans do not have to "justify" gun ownership. It is guaranteed by the
> Second Amendment. The reality is that enemies of this fundamental rights
> continue to wage an assault on it.
>
> For information about SAF visithttp://www.saf.org/and CCRKBA athttp://www.ccrkba.org/.
>
> © Alan Caruba, 2011
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/there-is-no-first-a...>
>
>   [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Express
> yourself. Start a blog. <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *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.