Saturday, May 14, 2011

**JP** بجلی کا بحران کب ختم ہو گا

اسلا م وعلیکم
جوا ئن پاکستان کے تما م ممبران کے لیے ! میں نے یہ کالم  بجلی کے بحران پر لکھا ہے امید ہے پسند آئے گا  شکریہ
عینی نیازی
بجلی کا بحران کب ختم ہو گا

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism

Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism
By Larken Rose

Something huge--huge and not good--just happened in Indiana, which will be little more than a blip in the propaganda that passes for national news. The Supreme Court of Indiana just ruled that in Indiana, if a police officer decides to illegally come into your house, you're not allowed to do anything to stop him. According to "Justice" Steven David, resisting an admittedly "unlawful police entry into a home" is against "public policy." Got that? If you live in Indiana, and a cop decides to invade your home without a shred of legal justification, it is considered a crime for you to do anything to stop him.

Bizarrely, "Justice" David also said that resisting law-breaking cops goes against "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." You see, only judges are wise enough to know that when the Fourth Amendment says you have a right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures," it actually means that the cops have the right to commit "unreasonable searches and seizures," and you have no right to do anything to stop it.

Please allow me to toot my own horn here, by pointing out that in my novel, "The Iron Web" (page 231), I predicted this step occurring. It is an essential, major step towards totalitarianism, for the control freaks to decide that even when they break their own laws, their victims have no right to resist. There is a huge principle at stake here, and what these three Indiana jackass "judges" have just done is guarantee either complete totalitarianism, or a bloody revolution (or both, in that order). Because this ruling means, quite literally, that residence of Indiana have no rights at all. What would it possibly mean to say you have a "right" to not have your home illegally invaded by a jackbooted thug, while also saying that you cannot do anything to defend that right? To say that you are legally required to allow your rights to be violated means that they aren't rights. (Duh.)

But never fear, because, according to the Supreme Jackass Court of Indiana, you can always come crawling to your masters, after you've been illegally victimized by one of their jackboots, to beg for some restitution. (Good luck with that.) "Justice" David says that, after you let the cop illegally invade your home, you can always "protest the illegal entry through the court system." That's almost straight out of my novel, where a new (fictional) law would "mak[e] it a crime to forcibly resist any arrest, while also providing legal remedies to those who have been subjected to improper arrest.” (This isn't the first thing in my novel that later became either proposed legislation or a new court ruling.)

If anyone considers this reasonable, keep in mind that by the exact same "reasoning" (and I use that term extremely loosely), they might as well also rule that if a cop decides to shoot your dog, or steal your car, or rape your wife, you have to quietly stand by and let him do it, and then later file a complaint, or a lawsuit. In other words, the jackboots can do absolutely anything they damn well please, "legal" or not, and your only recourse is to later whine to the very control freaks that the jackboots work for.

What was the rationale for this? In case all of the above wasn't Orwellian enough, check this out. "Justice" David argued that "allowing resistance [to law-breaking cops] unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved." Holy smokes! Why wouldn't this psychotic reasoning (a.k.a. "retroactive tyranny justification") also mean that if anyone breaks into your house, or assaults you, or steals your stuff, or otherwise attacks you, you'd better let him do it in order to avoid "escalat[ing] the level of violence"? Using defensive violence to combat aggressive violence is completely justified and righteous, notwithstanding the opinions of the tyranny apologists appointed by the parasite class. If a cop illegally barges into your home, you have every right to escalate the level of violence to any extent necessary to stop him, including blowing the fascist's damn head off.

I'm glad I don't live in Indiana, because if some cop decided to barge into my house without a shred of legal justification, I'd now know that if I tried to hold him back, or push him out, I'd be arrested and prosecuted. So I'd just have to shoot the bastard instead. And since it's tough to do that sort of thing without anyone noticing, I would then be a fugitive, for having defended my home and family against an invading criminal. And if that much happened, and I was forced to become a fugitive, I might feel obliged to go pay a visit to the three stupid, tyrant-loving fascist jackasses on the Indiana Supreme Court who just decided to declare it a crime for someone to defend himself against illegal trespassing, breaking and entering, and assault, if the scumbag attacker happens to have a badge.

Hmmm, I have an idea. If there are any Indiana cops who still respect the Constitution, please do your state a huge favor, and go barge into the home of "Justice" Steven David--during supper would probably be a good time. Barge in, without a warrant, and without any legal justification, guns drawn, and start ordering people around. See if "Justice" David does anything to resist. If he does, lock his fascist ass up for violating his own idiotic legal ruling. In fact, since he just declared it to be illegal for him to resist your illegal invasion of his home, if he lifts a finger to stop you, shoot the bastard, or at least give him a good tasering. (That's exactly what happened in the case where "Justice" David sided with the law-breaking cop.) After all, we can't just let people assault police officers, now can we? If some Indiana cop had the spine to do that, I know several thousand people who would be thrilled beyond words.

(P.S. Incidentally, in U.S. vs. John Bad Elk, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that resisting an unlawful arrest, even if doing so requires killing the cop, can be legal. Whether this conflict between the Supreme Court and the Indiana Nazi Brigade will be resolved in court remains to be seen. But whatever any black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding narcissist says, if someone decides to barge into your home, you have the right to evict him, with a harsh word, a fist, or a 12-gauge--whichever you deem necessary.)

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

Court: No Right To Resist Illegal Cop Entry Into Home

Court: No Right To Resist Illegal Cop Entry Into Home
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

"INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes."
--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

Re: Newt Gingrich, Weasel

Keith,

Once again, you have proved that you do not pay attention to details.

HR2295 was passed by the House on 09-29-1993. Gingrich voted YES (as is noted clearly on the link you provided).

While the synopsis does not mention funds for Russia, the bill itself includes the following section:

ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

SEC. 565. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act under the heading ‘‘Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union’’, and funds appropriated by the Supplemental Appropriations for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Act, 1993, shall be available for economic assistance and for related programs as follows:

Section 565 then proceeds to allocate $2.9 billion dollars for various means of "assistance." A PDF file of the bill is available here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr2295rs/pdf/BILLS-103hr2295rs.pdf

Your claim that "
the facts reveal that Gingrich does not support and never has supported large government involvement in Americans' lives!" is at best an attempt at brainwashing the public.

Even the liberal wackos at the Huffington Post love Gingrich:

"In his post-congressional life, Gingrich has been a vocal champion for mandated insurance coverage -- the very provision of President Obama's health care legislation that the Republican Party now decries as fundamentally unconstitutional.

"This mandate was hardly some little-discussed aspect of Gingrich's plan for health care reform. In the mid-2000s, he partnered with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to promote a centrist solution to fixing the nation's health care system. A July 22, 2005, Hotline article on one of the duo's events described the former speaker as endorsing not just state-based mandates (the linchpin of Romney's Massachusetts law) but 'some federal mandates' as well. A New York Sun writeup of what appears to be the same event noted that 'both politicians appeared to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage.'"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-individual-mandate-romney_n_861017.html



On 05/14/2011 01:58 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:

This stat that you posted, purportedly "12.9 billion on 09-29-1993, including $2.5 Billion To Russia"  didn't happen.  Here is the Bill that passed,  for $13.51 Billion, and that Gingrich voted for.  Note that there was no funds alotted to Russia.  The $12.9 Billion that alotted money to Russia,  Gingrich voted "Nay" and the Bill did not pass:
 
 
Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that appropriates $13.51 billion for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for fiscal year 1994.

Highlights:

- Prohibits use of funds for abortions as a method of family planning, or for any program or organization that motivates or coerces any individual to practice abortion, or performs involuntary sterilizations

- Excludes Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Iran, Serbia, Sudan, and Syria from any federal funding

- Bars bilateral assistance funds to any nation that supports terrorism or provides a haven for terrorists

- Prohibits funds to any nation that refuses to comply with the United Nations-imposed sanctions against Iraq, unless the President determines that the provided funds are used in the national interest of the U.S. or benefits the people of Iraq

- Prohibits funds from being used to pay for assessments, arrearages, or dues for any United Nations member

- Bans funds to any government that supplies "lethal military equipment" to any nation supporting international terrorism

- Prohibits funding from programs that entice businesses to relocate outside the U.S. and decrease the number of American employees

- $6.13 billion for the Agency for International Development, including $2.36 billion for the economic support fund, $811.9 million for the development assistance fund, and $603.82 million for assistance to new independent states of the former Soviet Union

- $3.15 billion for the foreign military financing program

- $835.19 million for the State Department, including $670.69 million for migration and refugee assistance, $100 million for international narcotics control

- $360.63 million for international organizations and programs

- $219.75 million for the Peace Corps


Link to Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:hr2295:

Full Text of Legislation (PDF Document)

House Passage: 06/17/1993 : Bill Passed: 309 - 111 (Roll no. 240)

Senate Passage With Amendment: 09/23/1993 : Bill Passed: 88 - 10 (Record Vote Number 287)

House Conference Report Vote: 09/29/1993 : Conference Report Adopted 321 - 108 (Roll no. 467)

Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/30/1993 : Conference Report Adopted: 88 - 11 (Record Vote Number 297)

President Passage: 09/30/1993 : Signed Became Public Law Number 103-87

Sponsor:
Rep. Obey, David Ross (D-WI) (out of office)
 
===============================
 
So,  once again,  I have established that those who claim Gingrich is a "Big Tax, Big Spending, Big Government conservative,  are either, (1)  Wacko Left, Socialst/Elitist Moonbats with an agenda,  or (2)  Wacko Right, Conspiratorialist Crackpots with an agenda.  In any case, the facts reveal that Gingrich does not support and never has supported large government involvement in Americans'  lives!
 



 
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
Keith,

It is you who needs to get his facts straight. In four instances the votes you claim as nay or against are not even listed at the links you provided. In another instance you provided an incorrect link. The correct link, however, shows a yea vote. In two others you claim nay votes when in fact yea votes were cast.

INLINE:


On 05/13/2011 11:52 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:
Hello Jonathan!
 
I love this,  "Let's Review":
 
Just some examples of his big government votes:

03-21-1991 - $40 billion - bailout of failed savings and loan institutions;
 
Voted For;  And I agree with the vote, this turned out to be profitable for the United States and its taxpayers;
 
 
06-26-1991 - $52.6 billion - agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; 

Voted Againsthttp://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=43&go.x=21&go.y=11

Your link is bad - this vote not listed.

 

10-05-1992 - $66.5 billion - housing and community development;
 
Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
 

09-22-1994 - $250.6 billion - appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.
 
Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=27&go.x=11&go.y=5


        Foreign Aid:

06-27-1990 - $15.7 billion for fiscal 1991;
 
Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
06-20-1991 - $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993;
 
Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
        06-25-1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993;
06-17-1993 - $13.0 billion for fiscal 1994;
 
Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14

 
 
09-29-1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia; 

Nay:  http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14

Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14 Well, you got one right!
 
=========
 
Get your facts correct Jonathan, which means staying off of the Moonbat and Crackpot sites that you and Michael seem to enjoy so much!
 
 
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
Keith,

Holding Gingrich out as a defender of small government by accepting what he says as opposed to what he has actually done does not seem very bright on your part.

Gingrich had mediocre Conservative Index ratings:

 96th Congress: 85
 97th Congress: 77
 98th Congress: 74
 99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80
101st Congress: 57
100nd Congress: 60
103rd Congress: 78


Just some examples of his big government votes:

03-21-1991 - $40 billion - bailout of failed savings and loan institutions;
06-26-1991 - $52.6 billion - agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps;
10-05-1992 - $66.5 billion - housing and community development;
09-22-1994 - $250.6 billion - appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.

Foreign Aid:

06-27-1990 - $15.7 billion for fiscal 1991;
06-20-1991 - $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993;
06-25-1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993;
08-06-1992 - $12.3 billion for the IMF.
06-17-1993 - $13.0 billion for fiscal 1994;
09-29-1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia;
08-04-1994 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1995.

I could likely spend most of the day finding his pro-big government votes.


On 05/13/2011 01:20 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:
Guten Morgen from Köln Michael!
 
To prove my point, I will take the time to refute another one of your dumb, "cut and paste" posts. 
 
As usual,  Michael  took an article from a Moonbat,  Tom Woods, who quotes another Moonbat, Bob Wenzel, in their bashing of Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,  the crux of the articles amount to nothing other than some name calling, specifically that Mr. Gingrich is a weasel. 
 
Let's review:
 
First,  Woods  cites Wentzel's "brief" article as being somehow "sharp"  and "insightful".    Here's what Wentzel said, according to Woods, the, "brief,  sharp insightful"  article in its entirety:
 
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,
 
The Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.

A Gingrich snippet:

The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policies

 

Aside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government."
 
========
 
Obviously,  both Wentzel and Woods are either just total ignoramuses, and/or they are purposely attempting to besmirch Mr. Gingrich's long record and established policy of smaller federal government.  For example,  here is a speech from just two months ago,  on Mr. Gingrich's policies on smaller, limited federal government:
 
 
"We need to declare our independence from trying to protect and defend failed bureaucracies that magically become ours as soon as we are in charge of them. We appoint solid conservatives to a department and within three weeks they are defending and protecting the very department that they would have been attacking before they got appointed.

I think that there are two grave lessons for the conservative movement since 1980. The first, which we still haven't come to grips with, is that governing..."

Source: Speech at 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 9, 2008
 
 
The 21st Century Contract with America includes:
  • Change the mindset of big government by replacing bureaucratic public administration with Entrepreneurial Public Management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, & efficiency of the information age.
  • Balance the federal budget and insist on a lean government, low tax, low interest rate economy to maximize growth.
  • Insist on congressional reform to make the legislative branch responsive to the needs of the 21st century.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org, “Issues” Sep 1, 2007
 
=============
 
I could go on and on showing and demonstrating Mr. Gingrich's belief that our federal government is out of control, and that both Woods and Wentzel are Moonbats.   As a matter of fact,  why don't you Google both men and see what their credentials are?   You will find that they are not qualified any more than you or I, to be espousing their misinformation.
 
So, the point being, is that the next time you cut and paste an article that you expect some kind of thoughtful feedback on, maybe you should start trying to post a little more thoughtful cut and paste articles?
 
 
 
 
--
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.
Watch host Steve Samblis every Friday as he brings you the top three newly
released movies of the week.
http://click.lavabit.com/es317zgkwbdtcdhd83676dnqtnqnqdrh9rezkdn8sz1ri83n9hry/

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

--
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.

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

--
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.

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

What’s So Important About a Declaration of War?


What's So Important About a Declaration of War?
by Tom Mullen, May 14, 2011

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul insists that the U.S. government shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war. His son Rand has also taken this position, as have several libertarian-leaning Tea Party candidates. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is invested with the power to declare war. These constitutionalists say that obtaining a declaration should be a requirement before military action is authorized.

I'm not sure that this is resonating with those who are unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure that Congress agrees to the use of the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president "asking permission" from Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially considering H.J. Res. 114 of October 2002. With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?

The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a "declaration" has nothing to do with "permission." Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something that already exists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing that the United States is already at war.

The intent of the declaration-of-war power is for the government to have an adjudication process for war analogous to a criminal trial for domestic crimes. Evidence must be presented that the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States. The Congress must deliberate on that evidence and then vote on whether or not a state of war exists. The actual declaration of war is analogous to a conviction at a criminal trial. The Congress issues the "verdict" and the president is called upon to employ the military. To wage war without a declaration of war is akin to a lynching: there has been no finding of guilt before force has been employed in response.

Herein lies the difference between H.J. Res. 114 and a declaration of war. In order for President Bush to have obtained a declaration of war against Iraq, he would have had to present his case that Iraq had already committed overt acts of war against the United States. Like a prosecutor, he would have had to convince the "jury" (Congress) that Iraq was guilty­not of "possessing weapons of mass destruction" but of having already committed aggression against the United States. Obviously, he would not have been able to do this. In fact, the absence of any overt acts of war by the nations in question is the reason that there were no declarations of war against Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, or any other nation that the U.S. government has waged war against since WWII.

The declaration-of-war power requires the government to obey the moral principle that no individual or group may initiate force against another. It mandates that before the executive can launch a military action against another nation, a separate body must deliberate on evidence and agree that said nation has committed aggression against the United States. Only then is waging war justified.

This interpretation is supported by every declaration of war in U.S. history. Here are two examples.

When James Polk asked Congress to declare war on Mexico in 1846, he said the following:

"But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war.

"As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country. …

"In further vindication of our rights and defense of our territory, I invoke the prompt action of Congress to recognize the existence of the war, and to place at the disposition of the Executive the means of prosecuting the war with vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace."
[Emphasis added.]

After reviewing Polk's request, Congress issued the following declaration of war [.pdf]:

"Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of enabling the government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination…." [Emphasis added.]

Note the words in bold. The state of war already exists because of the act of the Republic of Mexico.

Americans are probably most familiar with the last occasion on which the United States declared war. In what may have been the only constitutional act of his entire presidency, President Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan during this famous speech:

"Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

"Yesterday, December 7th, 1941­a date which will live in infamy­the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

"The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.… Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."

In response, Congress resolved [.pdf],

"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

Every other past declaration of war by the United States government follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that war already exists. It then directs the president to use the military to end the war.

Had this constitutional process been followed, the United States would not have been involved in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, or Afghanistan. The declaration-of-war power ensures that the U.S. government never initiates force but only uses the military to defend its citizens against an aggressor.

Following the Constitution on this point would have kept the United States out of every war since World War II and prevented the U.S. government from running up a large portion of its current debt. Abiding by the nonaggression principle is not only moral, but also cost-effective.

During the South Carolina Republican primary debate on May 5, Herman Cain articulated his position on the government's war powers. He stated that, as president, he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met:

1. There was a clear objective.
2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question.
3. There was a clear path to victory.

While his comments clearly excited the audience panel interviewed after the debate, Adolph Hitler's wars would have satisfied these requirements. Are those the only criteria upon which the U.S. government should base its decision to go to war? How about, "They attacked us"? That should be the one and only casus belli.

Going to war without a declaration of war is not only aggression against the nation in question, but also against every U.S. taxpayer. The only argument that can be made for taxing a free people is that taxation is necessary to underwrite the protection of their lives, liberties, and properties. The only reason that they should be compelled to pay for a war is if a state of war exists between them and another nation. To tax them for a war fought for other reasons, including defending people other than themselves, is to aggress against them. Once the government is allowed to do that, it is time to stop calling the United States "the land of the free."

http://original.antiwar.com/tom-mullen/2011/05/13/whats-so-important-about-a-declaration-of-war/

Re: Herman Cain is NOT a True Tea Party Candidate! His record speaks for itself.

    If we follow your logic then Ronald Reagan was not a true Republican.  His record speaks for itself.  After all he was a registered Democrat for years, president of a union local, big union boss - how could he be considered a Republican then.

    You seem to forget that people wise up to reality as they age and that is what we are seeing with Ronald Reagan and now with Herman Cain.  He saw what a money pit the old policies were and how they did nothing to solve the problems and so he was, unlike most academics, smart enough to see that he had been backing a dead horse.  Too bad our "intelligentsia" are smart enough to see the same thing.

On 05/13/2011 07:55 PM, MJ wrote:


Friday, May 6, 2011
Herman Cain is NOT a True Tea Party Candidate! His record speaks for itself.

Make NO MISTAKE about Herman Cain. Herman Cain is NO conservative. He is NO Tea Party candidate. He is an establishment Republican In Name Only. His positions on past issues are all we need to know that a Herman Cain presidency would not shrink the size of government, increase your liberties, or return America to its Constitution.

The Truth About Herman Cain.
DID YOU KNOW?


1. Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts.
He even wrote a column to vigorously argue in favor of the Wall Street bailout in 2008, writing: "Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem." Cain derided opponents of the bailouts as "free market purists." That sounds more like something Rachel Maddow would call Tea Partiers than something a true Tea Partier would use as an insult.

2. Herman Cain enthusiastically endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Herman Cain called Mitt Romney his "No. 1 choice" for president. Remember that Mitt "RINO" brought socialized medicine to Massachusetts as governor, and his "RomneyCare" legislation would eventually form the blueprint for ObamaCare, which all true Tea Partiers strongly opposed! How can a "Tea Party candidate" like Herman Cain endorse someone like Mitt Romney for president?

3. Herman Cain opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve. Actually a former chairman of the Federal Reserve bank of Kansas City, Herman Cain opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve bank and supports its continued existence and manipulation of our dollar. This isn't even just a Tea Party issue. 80% of ALL AMERICANS want an audit of the Fed. Herman Cain doesn't.


You have a responsibility to your country not to let your fellow Americans be fooled by the false impression Herman Cain is working hard to cultivate about himself.

Please share this article with everyone you know-- especially people who have been fooled by Herman Cain's excellent speaking skills and carefully calculated lip service to the Tea Party's values. Herman Cain's record clearly shows that he supports bank bailouts, socialized medicine on a federal level, and the Fed's continued manipulation of the dollar to provide "stimulus" to the economy and enable Washington's runaway deficit spending. Herman Cain is NO TEA PARTY CANDIDATE.

At this time of crisis, America CANNOT afford to elect someone with such a spotty record of positions and endorsements. We absolutely must elect someone with a die-hard record of unyielding commitment to liberty, someone who we absolutely KNOW will shrink the size, role, and influence of the government in Washington. There are only two such candidates on the Republican field today: Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Gary Johnson.

Thank you for reading.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/herman-cain-is-not-true-tea-party.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

And this guy's experience is why I think the State Dept needs to rethink the actions they took on this Visa problem

The off-handed way the State Dept handled this - "oops, my bad!! - and
then nothing happened to the guy who screwed up and that they still
wanted the applicants to keep on sending, expensively, the materials
even after they realized that they were going to throw out the results
makes it even worse. Really gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling for the
people in charge of our foreign policy. Also kinda explains why so many
things got screwed up in the past 2-1/2 years under the rookie.

Government Accountability (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, @08:31PM (#36123660)

My girlfriend was one of the initial winners. I don't have to tell you
how furious/disappointed we both are.

The incompetence demonstrated by the State Department is fucking mind
boggling. They have 6 months to draw winners, sample the results -make
sure everything is OK. They don't. Instead of drawing 100,000 applicants
they draw 22,000 most of which were no randomly drawn, but were among
the first to apply. They post the results and after a week shut down the
website with no explanation. People email the Kentucky Consular Center
to make sure everything is OK before they send in their documents (It
can be very expensive for internationally tracked packages, especially
from people all around the world-many of whom are not well off.) The KCC
emails people telling them everything is fine and to continue sending in
documents, even they know at this point that the whole lottery is a
clusterfuck. Then they announce that the first drawing was not random
and has been disqualified.

Why wouldn't the State Department at least try to request permission
from congress to increase the number of VISAs awarded to 75,000 up from
50,000 or randomly draw another 78,000 names to that 78,000 would be
random and the initial 22,000 would be less random.

It just seems so unfair to announce winners and then revoke that
announcement two weeks later, all the while telling people everything is OK.

Saved the best for last: The State Dept has announced that they will not
be taking disciplinary action against anyone involved in the "Incorrect
results" being posted. I would like to know of any other job on the
planet where you can fuck up 15 million visa applications, blame a
computer for what clearly is a persons job to ensure the results are
accurate before posting them, and not even receive disciplinary action.

David Donahue should resign in shame and Hillary Clinton should make a
public apology at the very minimum
Reply to This

and if your girlfriend hadn't been selected... (Score:3)
by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Friday May 13, @08:45PM (#36123728)

Would you be screaming for heads to be cut off?

Your girlfriend was selected in an unfair lottery. It wouldn't be right
to let all that stand.

How do you know the KCC was informed the results weren't accurate at the
point they were telling people to send in their documents?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:and if your girlfriend hadn't been selected... (Score:2)
by AK Marc (707885) on Saturday May 14, @12:10AM (#36124676)


Your girlfriend was selected in an unfair lottery.

But the process is a black box to the applicants. -So what's wrong with
saying "oops, we'll take the wrongly posted ones and the whole set of
rightly posted ones this year."
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Government Accountability (Score:2)
by thisisauniqueid (825395) on Saturday May 14, @12:56AM (#36124860)
I'm just glad I didn't check the results until after the website became
inaccessible. I'd rather not go through what you and your girlfriend
went through. Will be checking back on July 15th for sure -- but now I
have to wonder if their programmers are competent at all.
Reply to This
Parent

Re:Government Accountability (Score:2)
by rastoboy29 (807168) on Saturday May 14, @01:03AM (#36124898) Homepage
Most people don't understand computers at all, the way we do
(slashdotters). Their feelings about it could be summarized essentially
as "Zeus has frowned on us" and that's that.

Truly a special bummer, but that's life, isn't it? And I hope your
girlfriend gets lucky for real on the next draw.
Reply to This
Parent


I Hate To be That Guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14, @01:42AM (#36125012)

But how about we just cancel the whole darn thing?

I'm going to assume that most of you here are Americans. And as such,
you probably feel like America kicks butt and that we rock and everyone
wants to come here (and you'd be correct). You've probably heard how
it's REALLY HARD to come to America legally and probably have some view
on illegal immigration. What you probably aren't aware of, because
you've probably never tried, is just how difficult it is to immigrate to
other countries.

These same countries that are condemning our immigration system offer an
even more rigid, more unforgiving system. And these are really crappy
countries. Countries that, objectively, are the equivalent of a tiny
state in the US. 'Hey crappy EU country; you are the size of Iowa and
have 1/2 GDP, who exactly are you trying to keep out?'

These countries don't have lotteries. They have standards (high
standards). Upper middle class, educated, high paying job? If so, you've
got a tiny shot....only if you happen to work in one of these 3
professions and only if you can line up a job while on the other side of
an ocean. Anything less? No. Marry a citizen. That's it.

It's harder to immigrate into Mexico than it is the US. Stop and think
about that for a second. Screw em. You don't want us? Well, we sure as
heck don't want you. /Bitter //Really amazed at how difficult it is
///Will almost certainly be an 'illegal alien' in the next six months

--
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 kids are all right if they can do stuff like this

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 16-Year-Old Discovers Potential Treatment For Cystic Fibrosis
| from the early-start dept.
| posted by Soulskill on Friday May 13, @13:57 (Biotech)
|https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/13/1710225/16-Year-Old-Discovers-Potential-Treatment-For-Cystic-Fibrosis?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob the Super Hamste writes "According to a story at LiveScience, a
16-year-old Canadian 11th grade student has [0]discovered a possible
treatment for cystic fibrosis. The treatment is a combination of two
drugs which, in a computer simulation on the Canadian SCINET
supercomputing network, did not interfere with each other while
interacting with the defective protein responsible for the disorder. He
has also tested the drug combination on living cells with results that
'exceeded his expectations.'"

Discuss this story at:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/13/1710225/16-Year-Old-Discovers-Potential-Treatment-For-Cystic-Fibrosis?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email#commentlisting

Links:
0.http://www.livescience.com/14138-teen-cystic-fibrosis-drug-cocktail-contest.html

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

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

OBL' email system

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bin Laden's Sneakernet Email System
| from the guess-we-can't-take-flash-drives-on-airplanes-anymore dept.
| posted by Soulskill on Friday May 13, @10:41 (Communications)
|https://it.slashdot.org/story/11/05/13/1410209/Bin-Ladens-Sneakernet-Email-System?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[0]Hugh Pickens writes "Osama bin Laden was a prolific writer who [1]put
together a painstaking email system that thwarted the US government's
best eavesdroppers despite having no Internet access in his hideout.
Holed up in his walled compound in northeast Pakistan with no phone or
Internet capabilities, bin Laden would type a message on his computer,
save it using a thumb-sized flash drive that he passed to a trusted
courier, who would head for a distant Internet cafe. At that location,
the courier would plug the drive into a computer, copy bin Laden's
message into an email and send it. Intelligence officials are wading
through thousands of the email exchanges after around 100 flash drives
were seized from the compound by US Navy Seals."

Discuss this story at:
https://it.slashdot.org/story/11/05/13/1410209/Bin-Ladens-Sneakernet-Email-System?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email#commentlisting

Links:
0.http://hughpickens.com/
1.http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0512/Bin-Laden-email-system-prevented-detection-by-US

--
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.

Newsweek-CNN's Fareed Zakaria regularly advising Obama (video)




Newsweek-CNN's Fareed Zakaria regularly advising Obama (video)

The signs were there two years ago as we questioned in this post, Obama planning post American world. Is Obama formulating his foreign policy from a book? A book written by a Muslim from India who believes the U.S. is past its prime and in demise? It sure seems that way. Maybe that is the [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

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


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

20 Pornos They Found In Osama Bin Laden's Compound


--
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.

TEHE CUBAN FIVE AND THE MEDIA




Background:

In September 1998, five Cuban men were arrested  in Miami by FBI agents and kept in isolation cells for 17 months before their case was even brought before a court. Their mission in the United States was monitoring the activities of the groups and organizations responsible of terrorist activities against Cuba.
Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez were accused of the vague crime of conspiracy to commit espionage.
The US government never accused them of actual espionage, nor did it affirm that real acts of espionage had been carried out, as no classified document had been confiscated from them.

In spite of the vigorous objections raised by the Five's defense, the case was tried in Miami, Florida, a community with a long history of hostility toward the Cuban government, that prevented the holding of a fair trial.
The following text read as part of a speech given by Ricardo ALarcon de Quesada, President of the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba on May 3, 2011, in an event held jointly by the FELAP (Latin American Federation of Journalists) and the UPEC (Cuban Association of Journalists) for Día de la Libertad de Prensa [Press Freedom Day].

When the U.S. Government rejected Gerardo Hernández Nordelo's Habeas Corpus petition on April 25, it did so very categorically, without leaving any margin of doubt. Washington wants the court in Miami to declare his petition inadmissible and to do so summarily, without holding a hearing to examine its merits, without hearing Gerardo, without presenting the evidence it is hiding. This is how it responded to the last legal recourse of a human being sentenced to two life terms plus 15 years.

Washington asked for the appeals for Antonio Guerrero and René González to be dismissed in a similar manner.

These are three practically simultaneous actions that reveal the profoundly arbitrary and unjust nature of the U.S. system. They took place one week ago but have not become news, save for the mentions in our media.

The media dictatorship is probably currently the most efficient instrument in imperialism's political hegemony. It largely dominates information on a global scale, determining what people are allowed to know and blocking whatever it wishes to conceal, with an iron fist.

The battle for the freedom of our Five compatriots can only be won if we understand this essential fact in today's world, and are capable of acting accordingly.

Such iron-clad censorship is not accidental. Part of Gerardo's appeal is based precisely on the concealment of evidence and the perverse function of the so-called information media.

It has to do with a case that practically no-one outside of Miami is aware of. The great media corporations imposed total silence toward the outside world while their correspondents in that city joined with the local media with their dubious reputation, in order to unleash a virulent campaign against the accused which contributed to creating what three judges from the Court of Appeals described as a "perfect storm" of prejudice and hostility, on which basis they decided to dismiss the trial.

Judge Lenard herself repeatedly protested the provocative actions that these supposed journalists were carrying out which created fear among the jurors who felt threatened.

In 2006 it was revealed that these provocateurs had received payments from the U.S. government to perform their dirty work. Since that date, various organizations in the United States have called on Washington to turn over the data it is hiding regarding the reach of the conspiracy whose existence is more than sufficient to prove the scandalous prevarication of the authorities.
For five years, those friends in the U.S. have engaged in efforts as noble as they are lonely, which have been completely unreported by the corporate media and very little has filtered out through those who consider themselves their alternative.

And so it has not been difficult for the U.S. government to maintain its obstinate position and continue imposing secrecy.
Nor has it found it particularly difficult to keep the satellite imagery it jealously guards from public view about the incident of February 24, 1996. Fifteen years ago it did not allow the investigators from the International Civil Aviation Organization to view them, it refused to present them to the court in Miami, and now it has reiterated its refusal. Its attitude of impeding others from seeing the proof that only Washington can access is so obvious and suspicious that in its lengthy 123 page argument with three appendices against Gerardo, it barely alludes to the matter in a twisted five line paragraph.

Allow me a brief review. Gerardo Hernández  Nordelo had absolutely nothing to do with the downing of the aircraft on February 24, 1996. The U.S. government itself,that of W. Bush, acknowledged the lack of proof to sustain its accusation against Gerardo and asked to withdraw it at the last minute. It did so in an official document, titled "Emergency Petition" and which, according to they themselves, constituted an unprecedented action in the history of that country.

Here is the document, dated May 25, 2001, soon it will be ten years old, but as far as those who call themselves "information media" it does not exist. I have inherited a certain tendency toward obstinacy from my Andalucian ancestors, and that's why I carry it with me from time to time, because even gypsies believe in chance. You never know. Maybe one day someone will discover that this document exists.

Returning to the event of February 24, 1996. No U.S. court had jurisdiction over the matter, unless it had occurred in international airspace. The investigation performed by the ICAO revealed something surprising. Despite being warned beforehand by their government, the U.S. radar stations either did not register the event or offered contradictory data or destroyed the data. The only proof supplied by U.S. authorities is the testimony from the captain of a boat that operated – by coincidence? – out of Miami.
And so, the interest, first by the ICAO and later by Gerardo's defense team, in the satellite imagery. The U.S. government never denied the existence of these images, it admitted having them, but it put a fifteen year prohibition on allowing anyone else to see them.

How can it be explained that they have successfully managed to hide them for such a long time? Simply because their revealing conduct has never become news, because they have been able to count on the complicity of the enormous media corporations, but also, it must be said, on our own laziness.
The worst enemy of press freedom is the media dictatorship exercised by the huge corporations which manipulate information and substitute an industry of deceit.

This dictatorship imposes the news menu that circulates through our newsrooms, its codes of language and interpretation circulating along with it. If we wish to develop truthful journalism, capable of transforming itself into a real alternative, it's essential to go beyond the menu and find the truth in other sources. It is a professional necessity but also a duty of solidarity with those who, lacking resources, are waging hard battles alone. Assisting in the articulation of their scattered efforts is the obligation of a revolutionary press. It's also the best recipe for curing the infection from those codes that circulate, often inadvertently, among ourselves.

Acting this way, we can also make news. Without inventing it or fabricating it, like the inventions and fabrications that are so abundant on the menu we are served day and night. By breaking the chains that lock up the truths such as those I've allowed myself to mention here. We ought to be, finally, like Julio Antonio Mella wanted us to be: "Thinking beings not driven ones."

"I believe that there is no reason to keep the Cuban Five imprisoned, there were doubts in the U.S. courts and also among human rights organizations in the world. Now, they have been in prison 12 years and I hope that in the near future they will be released to return home.
- Jimmy Carter

For more information visit:  http://www.freethefive.org/index.htm

--
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.