Sunday, May 15, 2011

6 Years In Prison For Video Recording A Police Officer?

6 Years In Prison For Video Recording A Police Officer?
http://tinyurl.com/3zgkgfe

"CopBlock Liberty activist John Kurtz stands trial, facing a maximum sentence of 6 years in Prison on the allegations of battery on a LEO, Obstruction of a Police officer, and resisting arrest without violence, Kurtz adamantly proclaims his innocence and that he is a political target because of his involvement with Orlando Copwatch and other activism."
--

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: This little video is just hilarious..... Islam explained.

sounds damned sensible to me. 
But, being in Britain he runs the risk of being interrogated or arrested for saying it. 

Bear


On 15 May 2011 09:29, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781

--
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.

This little video is just hilarious..... Islam explained.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781

--
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.

**JP** Is the Time Coming




Ghazwa-e-Hind


http://youtu.be/O7S_qvZMP0U

--
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

**JP** FW: Best Photo of the YEAR!!!!!

 

 

 

 

**JP** FW: Islami Article

 

 

 

As being a Muslim must read it. Try to impose in your daily life, then forward to everyone remember me & all Muslims in your prays.

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Republitards want drug testing.... again... surprise!

Hey Studio,
 
Just out of curiosity Studio,  why is it that you are opposed to welfare recipients being required of a drug test,  (which is a search of their person); in order to receive a benefit from the United States government?  I think that I am closer to center on this issue; in that I have a problem with the search aspect of it,  but one can refuse the search,  it's not mandatory,  you just don't get the benefit.    Moreover, the whole "Welfare"  aspect needs to be really overhauled.   I don't have statistics, but I recall up in Michigan, Wisconsin and other States that rolled back welfare benefits, and other locales that enforced a drug policy for recipients,  the programs improved, and a lot of folks were dismissed from the program. 
 
In other words, anyone who is really in need of welfare benefits won't hesitate one moment to take a drug test.
 
 
 


 
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:43 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thats what Romney said, and it worked here.

UBER dem Mass is taking this to a whole new level, buts its only bad
if republicans do it.

The Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

On May 14, 11:19 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has always been my understanding that WELFARE money was to keep
> people clothed, fed, and housed.... ONLY. To allow them a basic life
> while they were to supposedly work their way out of a hole. It was
> never meant to be a way of life.
>
> On May 14, 8:40 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Really now.
>
> > Find a government job where you don't have to take drug screens.
>
> > Oh, and my Lordy goodness.  Massachusetts is about to pass,
> > OVERWHELMINGLY, drug screens for those applying for welfare, and
> > throughout, their receivership.
>
> > Did I say Massachusetts?
>
> > Dem Governor and an 88% dem legislature?
>
> > GASP!
>
> > Seems its DEMOCRATS running Auschwitz, like a summer campt here!  And
> > just in time for Summer.
>
> > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOppppppppppppppssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

--
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.

**JP** In Camera Briefing: Zardari and Gilani ordered Raymond Davis release: DG ISI

raymond davis in custody reut 543 In Camera Briefing: Zardari and Gilani ordered Raymond Davis release: DG ISI

ISLAMABAD: Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt-Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha told the joint parliamentary session that CIA contractor and killer of two Pakistanis Raymond Davis was handed over to the US on orders of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, a PML-N MP quoted the chief spymaster as saying.

You Can Read This Report in Urdu and English by Clicking Below


In Camera Briefing: Zardari and Gilani ordered Raymond Davis release: DG ISI

Columnpk.com is a big source of Pakistani Urdu Columns, English Columns, Urdu Articles, Urdu Editorials, Special and Investigative Reports, Important News and Events from Pakistan, Political News and Views, Javed Chaudhry Latest Columns, World News, Cricket News, Sports News Analysis and much more from Jang, Express, Nawaiwaqt, Khabrain, Dawn, TheNews, TheNations and other Urdu and English Newspapers at one place.

--
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

**JP** Fw: column 15.01.011



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Qasim Ali <qasima23@yahoo.com>
To: afzal0300@yahoo.com
Sent: Sun, May 15, 2011 12:10:54 AM
Subject: column 15.01.011


**JP** Daily Quran and Hadith

IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

 

 



 



--

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403


--
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

Gee, looks like the Finns are starting to get buyer's remorse about the Euro and the EU

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/opinion/14Partanen.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

--
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.

PRIVATE Re: Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism

Somehow, I don't think filing a complaint will stop other cops from stalking the innocent and vandalizing property in the middle of the night... or day! 
I remember hearing that cops would pull someone over saying a taillight was out... and then take the nightstick and smash the taillight.


From: Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com>
To: TheUnrepentantPatriots@yahoogroups.com; politicalforum@googlegroups.com; american-tea-party@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 11:17:18 AM
Subject: 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

--
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: Let's not forget that John Ensigns (R-tard-NV) investigation is not over

 
 
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:50 PM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is he apologizing for? It's not a crime to be a retard or
supported by other retards
 
 
 
Greetings From Amsterdam Studio!
 
Do you think that DiFi, Babs,  Nanc,  Barney,  Chuckie Schumer,  Maxine Waters,  Dick Durbin,  Charlie Rangel, and the majority of Democrats realize that?
 
 
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:50 PM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
Senate ethics panel finds evidence Ensign broke laws
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/john-ensign-ethics-investigation-/1

The Senate Ethics Committee has found "substantial credible evidence"
that Republican John Ensign violated laws and Senate rules.

Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced that the committee is
referring its findings to the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal
Election Commission for further action.

The report's release caps a two-year saga that has already caused
Ensign, once a rising GOP star who was talked about as a potential
presidential candidate, to resign from the Senate.
He stepped down the day before he was scheduled to be questioned under
oath by the ethics investigators, and apologized to his colleagues for
being "arrogant."
---

What is he apologizing for? It's not a crime to be a retard or
supported by other retards.

--
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.

Re: What’s So Important About a Declaration of War?

Whats hauntingly missing is the requirement for the country to use its
military without declaration of war.

LOTS of precedent, before and after 1941, which was the last time.

On May 14, 1:39 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What's So Important About a Declaration of War?byTom 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 consideringH.J. Res. 114of 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 thatalreadyexists. 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 isalready 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 hadalreadycommitted 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 havingalready 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 mayinitiateforce 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 nationsare 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 Congressto 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 followingdeclaration of war[.pdf]:"Whereas,by the actof the Republic of Mexico,a state of war existsbetween 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 waralreadyexistsbecause of theactof 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 duringthis 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, Congressresolved[.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 waralreadyexists. It then directs the president to use the militaryto 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 neverinitiatesforce 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/

--
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.

**JP** Great news, a new direction against all odds....

As all can see, they plan and try hard to hit on Pakistan, destabilize it, hurt it, affect its nuclear power, create divisions inside, help terrorists bomb our nationals, but what is happening on the ground is just the opposite. They plan but Allah has a plan too and we all know who is the bigger planner. With every attempt Pakistan is growing more stronger, more closer to each other, uniting its factions, even the filth in the politicians is being put aside and these nut heads are also attempting to unite, voicing the same thing that the loyalists have been pleading for years.....what Quran has said clearly in its writings.....and i say in my words, do not make "them" your allies, because if you do, you will be standing against the Almighty....and now finally the realization even in the political circle is, we need to reconsider our policy with US...they are not our friends, they cannot be, they never were....it is time to stand for our nation for our country, for Islam for our brothers, for the people in FATA who had been criminally massacred every day by these criminal drones, now we can see that the politicians, the military and the whole nation has one voice.....separate from the crimes of Nato, and we have nothing in common with the ameriki plans.....we are finally recognizing the real enemies and their aims....and our unity is the biggest power, much bigger than even the nuclear power...... now the world is coming to support us (and they all will do and many have predicted these events....it just need an eye to see)....the Russians putting aside the bhartis ....wanting to invest heavily in Pakistan, China, the all time friend, now wanting to give another nuclear plant, has been wanting to invest billions (Pakistan wanting to share with them the stealth components of the crashed helicopter), with Iran coming all out for support of Pakistan, and so are the the middle-eastern countries....and the only people barking against our nation, other than the ameriki media are the bharities, whose aim we all know....the biggest racist country in the world, the open enemy of our country.....now is the turning point..the moment we disengage from the criminal nato aggression against the Afghans, the Iraqis, the Libyans and other Muslim states....we will begin to see the help of Allah....as we unite....we need to support our nation, our military and anyone who comes and defend the innocents from the plans of the terrorists...

Meanwhile, you can read the work of Nato in our neighbourhood...

Gotta love govt unions - check the end of this article

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/11/05/14/fire-inspector-changes-plea

--
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.

**JP** DON'T TALK WHILE HE DRIVES..............


A PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE, I AM SORRY...............IF ANY BODY GOT SOME BAD FEELINGS.
--
Kashif Chatha
Sheikhupura

--
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

Re: Greet Wilder warns about Islam

Mr. Wilders was in Canada the other day and Ezra interviewed him. 

For those who don't know him. Ezra Levant was a publisher of a magazine in Canada. Until he criticized radical islam. then the "human rights" commissions went after him. Bankrupting him and thus silencing his magazine. 

Thankfully they did not silence him. He now has a daily show on the new Sun News Network. 
A news channel that has a conservative bent. That is so radical here, that one of the major telecommunication companies won't carry it. Even though they carry Al Jazera (?).

Such is the state of our world. 

Bear



On 14 May 2011 15:19, JSM <ekrubmeg@gmail.com> wrote:

It is about Islam, this guy has personal experience and it is beginning to happen in the US of A.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/05/14/geert-wilders-speech-in-nashville-tennesse/
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

--
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.

Greet Wilder warns about Islam


It is about Islam, this guy has personal experience and it is beginning to happen in the US of A.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/05/14/geert-wilders-speech-in-nashville-tennesse/
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

--
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.

White House bans cameras at daily news briefing

White House bans cameras at daily news briefing


What is going on at the White House? First, Obama announces that he will no longer provide 'staged' news photos for reporters. Then, today it was announced that the White House will 'go dark,' that is, the press today was barred from live-casting the daily news briefings provided by Press Secretary Jay Carney.


Increasingly the White House is distancing itself from news reporters, withholding vital information from the press and the public, and essentially dictating to the media when and where they are allowed to video or take pictures of the President.

In what was supposed to be 'the most transparent Administration in history,' the Obama Administration has increasingly miffed reporters, leaving them totally in the dark concerning the decision-making process, with
former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declaring curtly, 'Some things should not be done in publc view,' meaning of course that this White House and this President have become perhaps the most closed and hidden Administration in history. 

The new tactic of placing broad distance between the President and news gathering entities is cause for concern. Red flags are going off in the heads of liberty-oriented citizens who see danger in the growing reluctance of the Administration to provide the public critical information concerning its actions.

It has become common knowledge among observers of the Administration that much goes on in the shadows, away from public knowledge, in what is known as 'the shadow government.' With Obama this entails not only billionaire movers and shakers who share his vision for a new world order but outright Marxists who give the President advice on a regular basis. The Cabinet has been rendered useless in this regime. Instead Obama relies on 'czars' and unpopular rejects from the White House staff who officially resigned under pressure from the public but still feed Obama information on policy initiatives. These persons include Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Valerie Jarrett, and Samantha Power--the wife of Sunstein who is now directing foreign policy in the Middle East and is widely viewed as the master-mind behind the push to allow Muslim extremist groups to come to power in Egypt and other nations in the region, and who reportedly is rabidly anti-Israel.

But now the White House has begun to choke off news stories that were previously allowed.

One observer says this tactic is being used to save the Obama Administration from some major embarrassments:

But the issue goes much deeper than an embarrassing resignation. The White House also this week issued this interesting piece of information

Such a practice of limiting reporter photos and videos, using the explanation given by the White House, appears to be no big deal. But when taken together with other numerous run-ins with the press that have characterized this Administration, citizens have every right to be wary.

A free press is central to a free republic. It is a protected first amendment right. And this White House has often shown little regard for the concept--unless Obama is presented in a positive light.

www.examiner.com

Apparently, Cameras, i.e. truth and facts, keep making him look like an idiot.  gb

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

--
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.