Friday, March 25, 2011

Stable fragrance - Cow Farts -- Original stable smell from the can

Now your home can smell just like the White House.

http://www.stallduft.de/

--
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: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

If you are a leader and have no followers or adherents .... you are not a leader

if you are a writer and have no readers.... you are not a writer

Do you get the point there Einstein ??

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Dear Jonathan: If I had wanted to have the opinions of others
influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
House and the Senate. I realized, early on, that the status quo
governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
founding fathers. Not a single person would have risked their lives
to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
own weight in society.

It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
norm. And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
media—which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
US economy. My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
assess the events of the day. Once John Q. Public starts watching
news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of
hardworking Americans! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>

> I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor
> appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought,
> considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the
> opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New
> Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to
> create a one-man nation.
>
> On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan: Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts',
> > you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas. I don't
> > have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things
> > that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back
> > into my thread. Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about
> > my New Constitution. I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions

> > in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated. ï¿½

> > J. A. A. ï¿½
> > On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of
> >> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives."
>
> >> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long
> >> as I respect the equal rights of others?
>
> >> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and
> >> property-rights ï¿½ rights that existed naturally before any government
> >> was created?
>
> >> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted ï¿½ a right that
> >> existed naturally before any government was created?
>
> >> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the
> >> prior initiation of force by others ï¿½ such as murder, rape, robbery,
> >> kidnapping, and fraud?
>
> >> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing ï¿½ no special
> >> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.?
>
> >> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions ï¿½
> >> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any
> >> different?
>
> >> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Dear Jonathan: You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my
> >>> New Constitution! The proper function of government is to pass only
> >>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalismï¿½the concept of which
> >>> has existed for millenniaï¿½doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the
> >>> people. There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull
> >>> any of the strings.
> >>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government
> >>> interaction with the people. And that is NOT anarchy. My New
> >>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and
> >>> governmental influences of our lives. I recommend to others (than
> >>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony
> >>> Through Prosperity." from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. There is a
> >>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms
> >>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the
> >>> freedoms of others. If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell
> >>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving
> >>> out of the USA. No "group" nor individuals will have the power to
> >>> limit your personal libertiesï¿½trust me on that! ï¿½ John A. Armistead
> >>> ï¿½ Patriot
> >>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when
> >>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854.
> >>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market
> >>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government
> >>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept.
> >>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by
> >>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business.
> >>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil
> >>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that a
> >>>> government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have complete
> >>>> liberty without such need.
> >>>> *LIBERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
> >>>> 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the
> >>>> body, or to the will or mind.*
> >>>> CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and
> >>>> government of the citizens and subjects of a state_;
> >>>> On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a socialist-communistï¿½or
> >>>>> else you can't read and comprehend. Attack me in any way, and you
> >>>>> attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil
> >>>>> liberties for the vast majority of Americans. Until you can recognize
> >>>>> those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a
> >>>>> sharply pointed wooden stake. ï¿½ NE ï¿½
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond the scope
> >>>>>> of a REAL Constitution ie.
> >>>>>> *The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character
> >>>>>> of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must
> >>>>>> conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation,
> >>>>>> distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government
> >>>>>> departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its
> >>>>>> sovereign powers.*
> >>>>>> *
> >>>>>> *
> >>>>>> ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your time and most
> >>>>>> importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your "constitution"
> >>>>>> posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this forum. What you
> >>>>>> have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.*
> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
> >>>>>>> MJ: All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste aren't
> >>>>>>> increasing your status in the groups one bit. And haven't you heard?
> >>>>>>> It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size). You are a pest on my
> >>>>>>> post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for me. In
> >>>>>>> the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution, you
> >>>>>>> haven't gotten many readers, have you. Please make a "quote" of your
> >>>>>>> own worthy of being in Bartlett's. If you can't do that, then you
> >>>>>>> should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby. ï¿½ J. A. A.
> >>>>>>> ï¿½
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response.
> >>>>>>>> SADLY, you offer no support to your claims.
> >>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> >>>>>>> legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> >>>>>>> many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> >>>>>>> facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> >>>>>>> intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> >>>>>>> enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> >>>>>>> using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06 AM
> >>>>>>> 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of being
> >>>>>>> replied to. ï¿½ J. A.
> >>>>>>>> A. ï¿½
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 9:50 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this
> >>>>>>> Group (PoliticalFo...@GoogleGroups.com).
> >>>>>>>>> I never claimed to be a moderator.
> >>>>>>>>> I did not request a 'discussion'.
> >>>>>>>>> I did, however, ask for YOU to support YOUR assertion and explain:
> >>>>>>>>> What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine 'run counter' when you
> >>>>>>> claim, "sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients
> >>>>>>> and their families"
> >>>>>>>>> Apparently you cannot support your claim(s) which is why you resort to
> >>>>>>> spewing fallacy when anyone responds to your posts.
> >>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>> --MJ"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a
> >>>>>>> right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the
> >>>>>>> right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are
> >>>>>>> evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of
> >>>>>>> self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel
> >>>>>>> Adams, November 20, 1772At 05:42 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ: You are a
> >>>>>>> rude party crasher, not a moderator. I am not
> >>>>>>>>> interested in having a discussion with anyone regarding the specifics
> >>>>>>>>> of my New Constitution. As for science, I am the King of the Hill of
> >>>>>>>>> patriotic Americans! ï¿½ J. A. Armistead ï¿½
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:45 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In medical facilities all across the country, "medical protocol"
> >>>>>>>>>>> sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients
> >>>>>>>>>>> and their families.
> >>>>>>>>>> What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine to have 'run counter'?
> >>>>>>>>>> Please cite some examples.
> >>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>>>>>> Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on
> >>>>>>>>>> the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not
> >>>>>>>>>> prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the
> >>>>>>>>>> government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a
> >>>>>>>>>> charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. --
> >>>>>>>>>> Alyssa Rosenbaum
>

> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

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

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

www.filacoffee.com

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In the case of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary interaction. That is how things should be.

However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have been treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and let the jury decide." Would not a better (and less expensive) solution be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm that has no vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would need, as you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when "treated unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the government that has treated us unfairly.

How can government be the problem and the solution at the same time? Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not work. How does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on the bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the collection of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm would have no vested interest either way.

Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury decide" is the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of "democracy." Will the population collectively sit on every jury?

DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  You are a hopeless case.  No one is needed to explain the 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair.  In the case of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the contract are happy with the deal.  If a person thinks they have been treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and let the jury decide.  Those with a conscience (but not you) know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others.  No one needs to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say! Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum.  You don't have the reasoning ability of a (blind) mole.  — J. A. A. —

 

On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John,  Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"  Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule?  "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch."  On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Jonathan:  If you had spent 14 years of your life writing a New Constitution for the benefit of most Americans, you'd realize that "ego" just wouldn't be a suitable enough motive.  Apparently, I pegged you right that you are simply jealous that I have already accomplished things you've only talked about.  Conservatives such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh like to talk about this country's problems, but can't be taken seriously that they actually want those problems to be solved. Judge Andrew Napolitano has close to the right assessments of the unconstitutionality of much that the WH is doing.  But he always grins and stops short of calling for the immediate arrest of Barack Obama for TREASON.  My New Constitution will hang any public official not upholding this simple sworn statement: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"  Since socialism and communism are the anti-theses of fair play and of democracy, I highly recommend that no socialist-communist-minded air-heads ever seek public office.  If they do, there could become a shortage of hangman's nooses!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ Patriot On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have."

On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Mark:  Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from one day to the next?  If indeed you can read and comprehend, you wouldn't need to put those words in capitals.  Unlike you and MJ, I don't depend on YELLING to make my points.  If you find what I'm writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and thus opposed.  The "tone" of my document is pro control of government by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the rights of others.  I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have.  If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution. If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts.  No socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ Patriot On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>    wrote:

The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND. The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next what he says. On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<micha...@america.net>    wrote:

Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy. My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who support socialism and communism. When you attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet! Get lost, Jonathan! ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ And now HERE in THIS thread the same person: I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatizedï¿½while continuing to "cover" only those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of getting first rate care. The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism. There is ALSO this from the same person: Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing jurisdictionï¿½beyond fair registration cost. No more than 25% of regulatory board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry regulated. Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism. It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh> Sad. As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you refuse to present and merey proclaim. Regard$, --MJ Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote: MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about the people-oriented content of my New Constitution! Please reference a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private property is used. You can't do that, I'm sure! Ha, ha, HA! ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ Patriot On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:

Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA!  You aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily.  You are probably doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas and I the converse. It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see

how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.

Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private

property without outside interference.

Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention. Regard$, --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy

when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy" -- Charles Peters.If you agree with me say something like this:  "I

applaud your New Constitution!  We need less, more efficient government and the return of lost civil liberties.  Outlawing career politicians from Congress seems like a great place to start.  Good luck in everything you are seeking to do for the good of the country! ï¿½ J. A. Armistead  ï¿½ On Mar 21, 11:54 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John, eBay is a perfect example of capitalism at work. Over 2,000

transactions

are performed every minute throughout the world with no need for government. Both parties involved in those transactions report they are happy with the transaction 96% of the time. There is no need for government involvement in commerce. On 03/21/2011 07:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy.  My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who support socialism and communism.  When you attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro

capitalism

and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!

ï¿½

J. A. A. ï¿½ On Mar 19, 10:57 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

Civil liberties require government permission. As I choose to be a

free

sovereign, I do not consent. As for free enterprise, I sell on eBay. No government interference,

96%

successful transactions worldwide. That is as pro free enterprise as

it

gets. On 03/19/2011 07:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan Ashley isn't pro civil liberties nor pro free enterprise. So, like I first assumed, he is a socialist-communist bent on

tearing

down this country rather than saving it.  He should be railroaded

out

of the USA!  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

Wanna-Be-Dictator John A. Armistead has spoken once again! He wants to close down all news networks and outlaw political

parties.

He also thinks world government proponent Newt Gingrich has "the

smarts

and the temperament to be President." On 03/18/2011 02:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Bill O'Reilly and Chris Wallace get hot-under-the-collar if a

"guest",

like Sarah Palin, avoids answering questions that tie her hands

on

 ..  read more »

--
Do something today that questions the legitimacy of government. "Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless or corrupt." - Mahatma Gandhi

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Poll: Only 17% see Obama as strong and decisive military leader

Obarfo would make a great cat hearder.

Poll: Only 17% see Obama as strong and decisive military leader

Scotty Starnes | March 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM | Tags: commander in chief, Congress, Gadhafi, Libya, military leader, Moammar Gadhafi, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4Qx

Now why would the majority of Americans see the backpeddler-in-chief as a weak military leader?

MSNBC reports (shockingly):

WASHINGTON — Only 17 percent of Americans see President Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the United States and its allies began bombing Libya.

Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third see him as indecisive in military matters.

Maybe vacationing in Latin America as you send our military to bomb Libya has something to do with the perception? Maybe not wanting the US to be the leader in this 'kinetic action' has something to do with the majority of Americans seeing Obama as a wimp (or watching him throw a baseball).

Obama was widely criticized in 2009 for his months-long consultations with senior aides and military chiefs on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Critics called it dithering, but he said such a big decision required careful deliberation. He eventually dispatched 30,000 more troops.

And the fact that he had only talked to Gen. McChrystal once in his first 8 months in office has a lot to do with the perception.

But Obama is facing mounting discontent among opposition Republicans and from within his own Democratic Party over the fuzzy aims of the U.S.-led mission in Libya and the lack of a clearly spelled-out exit strategy for U.S. forces.

I guess that letter he wrote to inform the entire Congress that he had authorized military actions against Libya, without Congressional Authority, pissed off both parties.

If the Libya mission becomes a foreign policy mess, mixed with perceptions Obama is a weak military leader, it could spell trouble for him in the 2012 presidential election.

It's already a mess. Obama went around Congress and listened to the U.N. He used military action without congressional approval and he has flip-flopped on what the goals are in Libya. On Monday, Obama wanted Gadhafi gone. On Tuesday, Obama said he could stay if things changed.

America doesn't need a dithering, feckless leader running our military.

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

v Obama Regime still pushing for that "inclusive" New World Order

Obama Regime still pushing for that "inclusive" New World Order

Scotty Starnes | March 23, 2011 at 10:05 PM | Tags: new world order, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4Qb

You can't make this shit up. This is straight from the WhiteHouse.gov website:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 19, 2011

Joint Statement by President Rousseff and President Obama

At the invitation of President Dilma Rousseff, the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, paid a State Visit to Brazil on March 19, 20 and 21, 2011.

BRAZIL AND THE UNITED STATES AS GLOBAL PARTNERS

Noting the interdependence among peace, security and development, President Rousseff and President Obama reaffirmed their desire to build a just and inclusive world order, which promotes democracy, human rights and social justice.

Recognizing the need of reforming international institutions to reflect the current political and economic realities, the two leaders welcomed the designation of the G20 as the premier forum for coordinating economic policy, and efforts to reform the governance of international financial institutions. The Presidents agreed that just as other international organizations have had to change to be more responsive to the challenges of the 21st century, the United Nations Security Council also needs to reform, and expressed their support for a modest expansion of the Security Council that improves its effectiveness and efficiency, as well as its representation. President Obama expressed appreciation for Brazil's aspiration to become a permanent member of the Security Council, and acknowledged its assumption of global responsibilities. The two leaders agreed to continued consultation and cooperation between the two countries to achieve the vision outlined in the UN Charter of a more peaceful and secure world.

They highlighted the maturity and depth of the relationship between Brazil and the United States, which is based on shared values and principles and characterized by the ties of friendship that have brought their multicultural nations closer throughout their histories as independent States.

They decided to elevate to the Presidential level the major dialogues between the two countries, including the Global Partnership Dialogue, the Economic and Finance Dialogue, and the Strategic Energy Dialogue. The leaders directed the ministers involved to convene and report to them regularly.

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

Fwd: Homeless man builds his own car out of junk

Guy has some gumption there. Amazing what you do when you have the will to do it and just get going on it. Can we bring him here as an example?

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

Subject:	Homeless man builds his own car out of junk
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:30:15 -0400
From:	Jalopnik <email@jalopnik.com>
Reply-To:	Jalopnik <email@jalopnik.com>
To:	<rhomp2002@earthlink.net>

Jalopnik loves cars. Secret cars, concept cars, flying cars, vintage cars, tricked-out cars, red cars, black cars, blonde cars -- sometimes, cars just because of the curve of a hood.

By Justin Hyde

Homeless man builds his own car out of junk

This is Orismar de Souza, a homeless man in Brazil, who decided to build the car he couldn't buy using junk, spare parts and a hammer and chisel. Four years later, the "shrimpmobile" has him back on his feet.

Souza, 35, had to panhandle in the Brazilian city of São José de Piranha and go hungry for four months in order to raise the initial $270 he needed for sheet metal, which he cut into shape using a borrowed hammer and chisel. He scrounged a 125cc motorcycle engine, and gathered other junked parts from all over the region.

Homeless man builds his own car out of junk While Souza had decorated and traded metal cans as a child in exchange for food and clothes, he had no other experience in working with metal, and almost gave up when the steelwork became too difficult.

"Nobody believed, everybody laughed at me," Souza told Globo.com. "I was very humbled by this, but I won and I built my car alone with my own hands. "

Homeless man builds his own car out of junk By December, Souza was able to replace the motorcycle engine's kickstarter with a car ignition, and add in a gearbox with reverse. The mostly Fiat shrimpmobile can reach 50 mph on the highway, and Souza has been able to use it to find a home and a job in the local sugarcane fields.

Souza says his next goal will be to save enough money to have a garage for his creation. We wouldn't bet against him.

Thanks to Adrian!

Gawker Media, 210 Elizabeth Street, Floor 4, New York, NY 10012
Terms of use | Mailing List Policy

Re: Beck

I would bet the Beck Channel will swamp MSLSD, CNN, and OWN in the ratings.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

Newsmax

Will Glenn Beck Jump Ship — a $200 Million Gamble?

Thursday, March 24, 2011 03:11 PM

By: James Hirsen

According to street buzz and a story by the New York Times' Brian Stelter, Glenn Beck is considering a business startup to complete his media empire. The emoting host's contract ends at the bottom of this year, and he would then be free to head up his own enterprise, a Beck owned and run television network.

But networks don't come cheap. Or easy. Discovery is reported to have sunk more than $200 million into OWN, which started broadcasting Jan. 1. And in February, only about 135,000 people were watching OWN, a number down 10 percent from Discovery Heath, The New York Times reported. The network has already had to shuffle its programming.

It sounds as if Beck has given the idea some deep thought. The Times said that the host has "been contemplating a cable channel of his own for more than a year."

If anyone can pull it off, Beck can. Other than former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, no other media figure can raise the blood pressure of those on the left like Fox News host Glenn Beck.

There are other signs indicating a Beck cable channel possibility. He has been busily expanding the off and on-air personnel of his Web TV venture and his independent media company.

The Times cited reports, including one from the Mediate Web site, which named a senior Fox News executive, Joel Cheatwood, as a key player who "would soon join Mr. Beck's growing media company, Mercury Radio Arts."

Sources also indicate that Beck's business relationship with current employer Fox News is less than cozy, partially due to a significant number of sought after advertisers who have dropped his show. David Carr, another New York Times writer, recently cited anonymous Fox News officials who "are looking at the end of his contract in December and contemplating life without Mr. Beck."

Owning a network isn't Beck's only option. A Beck network could include the acquisition of an existing cable channel or expansion of his subscriber-based Web content business, "Insider Extreme," which takes in roughly $4 million a year.

Observers of media personalities and contract renegotiations view the story with a dose of cynicism, questioning whether or not Beck's camp is merely engaging in positioning for his upcoming contract renewal.

Forbes' Marc Babej is of the opinion that this is precisely what is going on.

"Talk of a Glenn Beck TV network might have its origins in a contract negotiation tactic. As a major programming concept it would be a nonstarter," Babej wrote.

Starting a network from scratch involves significant risk, particularly since the effort requires an abundance of advertisers. Beck's ratings are unprecedented for his cable time slot, hitting about 2 million viewers a day and outdrawing all of his competition combined.

These kinds of numbers may induce Fox News to bury the Beck hatchet, much like CBS is reportedly in the process of doing with sitcom star Charlie Sheen.

If Beck actually attempts to follow in Oprah Winfrey's footsteps and goes forward with his own network, it may signal a new media trend, one that may serve to increase the leverage media personalities have with respect to their employers.

That's if — and it's a big if — the network is successful.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

--- On Thu, 3/24/11, whatnowgop <whatnowgop@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: whatnowgop <whatnowgop@yahoo.com>
Subject: Beck is owned
To: majorhart@sbcglobal.net, phayes9402@comcast.net, hillbillytrailer@aol.com
Cc: FKerogen@aol.com, evedemian@verizon.net, algae5636@aol.com, edpals2@yahoo.com, beau@gcbussu.com, vbboyd123456@yahoo.com, conner2or@aol.com, Salemst@aol.com, Chirho33@aol.com, kolkaltai@aol.com, ducky4817@comcast.net, lfeverest@yahoo.com, pelli8@windstream.net, kmcgee3@aol.com, sergeantfreedom@gmail.com, boldsaber@gmail.com, HappyCyn1@aol.com, Ladywindsor1@aol.com, earljreese@gmail.com, bern30_06@hotmail.com, ChasNemo@aol.com, churi1001@gmail.com, colony14@gmail.com, cougarden@msn.com, d3869@sbcglobal.net, dagoodguys@yahoo.com, DecencySheriff@aol.com, dhses@hotmail.com, djibril888@gmail.com, Echos70@aol.com, finedude01@aol.com, fox95010@yahoo.com, Gaylesafe@aol.com, Gunner847@aol.com, hemilight@hotmail.com, hogpod22@aol.com, jmach499@hotmail.com, maximus475@cox.net, mferran@nycap.rr.com, microdhses@gmail.com, shadyslife@aol.com, sirguy2003@ameritech.net, smithjayr@verizon.net, srking@compuserve.com, tdietlin@sbcglobal.net, trggerhppy13@aol.com, twelve43@comcast.net, virginiaf.raines@gmail.com, wallyny@optonline.net, lenaprimeaux@bellsouth.net, cbhensler@aol.com, Sweetpea88MLC@aol.com, Rockysma1@msn.com, delyn@delyn.net, phayes9402@yahoo.com, jreed62254@aol.com, ea.richards@att.net, jimibee22@aol.com, jeri006@aol.com, jimmybug@rocketmail.com, carpbear@sbcglobal.net, harleymanfl@cox.net
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:55 PM

Not only is Beck owned the word is his contract will not be extended by FOX. Bye Bye Rodeo Clown.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42222117

--
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.

Hillary Clinton admits the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) runs the nation (Video)

Along with The Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission.

Hillary Clinton admits the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) runs the nation (Video)

Scotty Starnes | March 25, 2011 at 9:30 AM | Tags: CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Clinton, new world order, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4Rc

watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I

Oops. Somebody just admitted who tells this regime how to think and what to do.

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

U.S. Treasury Secretary — U.S. Must Incur More Debt!

Harold | March 25, 2011 at 6:27 am | Categories: Corruption, Criminal Activity, Debt, Executive, Federal Reserve, Financial, Government, Legislative, Progressives, Propaganda, Socialism/Communism | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-5FG

Robert L. Hale 3/22/2011 On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to increase the U.S. debt once again. Voting against the measure were 54 Republicans and 104 Democrats; 271 others voted to continue the status quo and impose billions of dollars in additional debt on America's taxpayers. The alternative, according to [...]