Sunday, May 22, 2011

As usual the Dems never see a money pit they cannot support

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/22/3642782/pull-plug-on-high-speed-rail-why.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.

More good stuff from unions - they keep such good records

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/22/3642619/personal-finance-pension-detectives.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.

Sorry but this sounds like someone trying to beat a dead horse that ain't gonna get up and run

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/22/3644578/california-bulks-up.html

6OP18BULLET.JPG
California High-Speed Rail Authority

An artist's conception of a high-speed rail car traveling in California.
More Information

* Editorial: Pull plug on high-speed rail? Why?
* What others are saying about state's high-speed rail

Capitol and California - State Politics
44 Comments | Print
California bulks up high-speed rail lobbying ... but is it working?
Share
By Michael Doyle
mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com
Published: Sunday, May. 22, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3A
Last Modified: Sunday, May. 22, 2011 - 10:24 am

WASHINGTON – The California High-Speed Rail Authority has bulked up its
lobbying efforts even as some lawmakers question its effectiveness.

Facing a skeptical Congress, the Sacramento-based high-speed rail group
this year enlisted a Republican who learned the ropes alongside former
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The Republican lobbyist, Drew Maloney, augments a Democrat, Mark Kadesh,
who once served as chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Both have their work cut out for them.

For high-speed rail, the questions are sharp, the competition is
motivated, and the money is tight.

"With the Federal Railway Administration being our major project and
funding partner, we think it important to have representation in D.C. to
interface with the administration and with members of Congress," said
Jeffrey Barker, the high-speed rail authority's deputy executive director.

Barker said Kadesh and Maloney, while registered lobbyists, are serving
as "our actual federal policy advisers," augmenting a 20-member
California staff. He said they keep federal officials "informed about
the status of our project (rather) than … advocate."

Still, lobbying and other disclosure records shed light on how much
money is being spent in California and beyond to reach lawmakers.

California's competitors include the Western High Speed Rail Alliance,
with dreams of building a system connecting Arizona, Colorado, Nevada
and Utah. It paid its chief lobbyist $120,000 last year, records show.

In a similar vein, the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation
Commission paid its lobbyists $40,000 last year.

Florida High Speed Rail followed suit in January, hiring lobbyists who
formerly worked for Florida lawmakers. The American High Speed Rail
Alliance has paid its lobbyist $70,000 since hiring the firm in October.

"It's a tough environment," Kadesh acknowledged Friday. "All major
projects are under the microscope … but, we have the strongest and best
ally, who is the president of the United States."

So far, the Obama administration has provided California nearly $3.5
billion for a high-speed rail system whose initial route would stretch
from Bakersfield to near Chowchilla.

For fiscal 2012, the Obama administration has requested $8.2 billion in
national high-speed rail funds. Separately, lawmakers will write a
transportation bill this year that could include a high-speed rail
section. Both the appropriations and public works bills are traditional
catnip for lobbyists, but both will also be particularly difficult to
pass this year.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority first hired Kadesh in June
2007, disclosure records show. Last year, he was paid $100,000 by the
rail authority.

Kadesh served as Feinstein's chief of staff for seven years. Two of his
lobbying associates likewise formerly worked for Feinstein.

In January, when the House shifted to Republican control, the California
High-Speed Rail Authority hired the Republican Maloney as well.

The California rail group paid Maloney's firm, Ogilvy Government
Relations, $30,000 during the first three months of 2011, records show.
Ogilvy Government Relations is a subsidiary of Ogilvy Public Relations
Worldwide, which has a multimillion-dollar contract with the rail authority.

Kadesh targets Democrats and Maloney targets Republicans. It's a
standard tactical division of labor, though it can sometimes seem
schizophrenic. Some California congressional offices on both sides of
the rail debate say they haven't yet been contacted by Maloney or the
Ogilvy team.

"I wouldn't recognize him if he walked down the hallway," said
Democratic Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno, a longtime high-speed rail
advocate. "I've been frustrated, and I've questioned the authority
several times about (Ogilvy's work)."

A lost opportunity, Costa said, occurred recently when the California
Legislative Analyst's Office released a scathing 28-page critique of the
high-speed rail project. No one tried to coordinate a unified Capitol
Hill defense, he said.

Costa, while praising his fellow Democrat Kadesh as "effective," said
that the California High-Speed Rail Authority "ought to save themselves
some money" and consider ending the Ogilvy contract.

Katherine Strehl, the high-speed rail project lead for Oglilvy
Government Relations, responded Friday that the Republican lobbyists
were brought in "due to their strong relationships with incoming members
and leadership," and said they have worked successfully.

"They have conducted significant outreach to California members and
those who make transportation-related decisions on both sides of the
aisle," Strehl said.

Seen another way, the dispute underscores just how politically delicate
the high-speed rail lobbying issue has become.

--
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 Namaz

Jis ki namaz achi - us ki zindagi achi
jis ki zindagi achi - us ki maut achi
jis ki maut achi - us ki kabar achi
jis ki kabar achi - us ki akhirat achi
jis ki akhirat achi - us ki jannat pakki
so dont miss "Namaz"

JP Invasion of Pakistan - the most chilling article you will read in a long time.

Forwarding as recieved.

· It is quite clear that the "War on terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony with the expressed goal of containing China.

· In reality, the true goal is to contain the rise of China and other emerging economies using the pretense of terrorism.

· The drone campaign is being used specifically by US to stir up the Pashtun minority and aim them at Islamabad.

· Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as "Soviet tanks" once did.

Subject:Invasion of Pakistan - the most chilling article you will read in a long time .

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/globalists-pakistan-war-plan.html

Globalists' Pakistan War Plan:

Destabilization and invasion long planned

by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, May 11, 2011

In a 2007 article from the London Guardian titled, "Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal," it is stated that fears of destabilization inside Pakistan might prompt the United States to occupy Islamabad and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and Baluchistan in an attempt to secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads. Behind this report is Fredrick Kagan, brother of the equally sloven Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy Initiative, yet another contrived, corporate fueled warmongering think-tank.

Fredrick Kagan sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI's board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI's "research staff" are warmongers Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.

While the sense of self-importance these degenerates shower upon themselves may seem comical, with titles like "senior fellow" and "resident scholar," the fact that their "policy research" usually becomes corporate subsidized "policy reality" and subsequently the American people's unending nightmare, is enough reason to keep tabs on them. For instance Fredrick Kagan was supposedly the architect behind the US troop surge in Iraq. And while we may kid ourselves that with Obama taking office the agenda of these supposed Neo-Conservatives is sidelined, Paul Wolfowitz' plan to overthrow the nations of the Middle East, now being fully executed with US-funded revolutions, probably couldn't have been done without the veil of "left-cover."

Kagan's report regarding Pakistan's partial occupation and the seizure of its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable concern; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. According to Kagan's narrative, Islamic extremists seizing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as "Soviet tanks" once did.

It's not terrorists, it's China

What Kagan leaves out is the very source of this destabilization and America's overall grand strategy in the region. America's continued presence in Afghanistan as well as its increasingly aggressive "creep" over the Afghan-Pakistani border has been justified under the ambiguous and omnipresent threat of "terrorism." In reality, the true goal is to contain the rise of China and other emerging economies using the pretense of "terrorism." Destabilization via foreign-funded ethnic insurgencies, regime change via foreign-funded sedition, and a regional strategy of tension between power brokers in Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad have for years attempted to keep in check not just China and Pakistan's rise, but India's as well.

This is not merely speculative conjecture. China itself has recently accused the United States of directly attempting to destabilize their nation as well as using the pretense of "terrorism" as a means to hobble China's growing influence. In an April 2011 Reuters report, it was stated that "a senior domestic security official, Chen Jiping, warned that "hostile Western forces" -- alarmed by the country's rise -- were marshalling human rights issues to attack Party control." Compounding China's accusations are open admissions by the US State Department itself declaring that tens of millions will be spent to help activists circumvent China's security networks in an effort to undermine Beijing. This comes after it has been revealed that the entire "Arab Spring" was US-funded.

The issue of Pakistan in regards to China is not merely a figment of a paranoid Beijing's imagination, it is stated policy circulating throughout America's corporate-funded think-tanks. Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces specifically calling for carving off of Pakistan's Baluchistan province, not as part of a strategy to win the "War on Terror," but as a means to thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing.

In "Free Baluchistan," he explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."

In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis," Harrison begins by stating, "China's expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then repeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."

Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port, the starting
point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese
territory. The plan is to plunge the entire nation into chaos and use
US forces to systematically "help" restore order. (click to enlarge)

The very suggestion of fomenting armed violence simply to derail sovereign relations between two foreign nations is scandalous and reveals the absolute depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It is quite clear that the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of regional hegemony with the expressed goal of containing China. This in turn, is part of a greater strategy covered in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral." Throughout the report China's growing influence and various means to co-opt and contain it are discussed. SSI makes special note to mention engaging with all of China's neighbors in an effort to play them off against Beijing in order to maintain American preeminence throughout Asia.

Destabilizing Pakistan

In addition to the Gwadar port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, China has also built dams, roads, and even nuclear power plants in the country. China has also supplied Pakistan with a tremendous amount of military technology. The only cards America seems to have left in its hand to counter this growing relationship are threats of destabilization, the subsequent stripping of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan's Balkanization into smaller, ineffectual states.

In a 2009 article by Seymour Hersh titled, "Defending the Arsenal," much attention was given to the immense amount of suspicion and distrust Pakistan views America with. In particular, distrust is garnered over America's obsession with "defending" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Under the pretense of "helping" Pakistan if ever it fell into chaos, America has been trying to ascertain the location of Pakistan's nuclear weapons as well as the trigger assembles kept separate as a security measure.

While America supposedly "fears" destabilization, concurrently, the effects of their war with the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border has overtly stirred up instability inside Pakistan. At one point, Hersh describes Islamabad's request for predator drones to conduct the attacks themselves, which was denied. They then asked for America to at least pretend to have given the drones to Pakistan and give them Pakistani markings - this was also denied. In fact, it seems almost as if the war against the Taliban, especially the drone campaign, is being used specifically to stir up the Pashtun minority and aim them at Islamabad, just as Harrison had suggested the Baluchistan insurgents be used to carve off Pakistan's southwest coastal region.

This brings us back to Fredrick Kagan's "blueprint," which is summed up in a New York Times piece co-authored with Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon. Their article titled, "Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem," describes the complete collapse of the Pakistani government, overrun by "extremists." It goes on to describe "Pro-American moderates" within the Pakistani army in need of US forces to help them secure Islamabad and their nuclear arsenal. Several options are given for where the nuclear weapons could be stored safely, all of them involve US oversight. This would give the US an ideal geopolitical scenario that would permanently Balkanize the country along Pashtun, Baluchi, and other ethnic minority lines, and result in a permanent Western presence inside the country.

The article then goes on to say larger military operations to take back Balkanized sections of the country could be undertaken, "If a holding operation in the nation's center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan's tribal and frontier regions."

It should be noted that co-author Michael O'Hanlon also contributed to the "Which Path to Persia?" report which described how using foreign-funded armed insurgency, foreign-funded popular revolutions, co-opting members of the military, and covert military operations could be used to topple Iran's government. In Iran's case, this plan has already gone operational. In Pakistan's case it seems all but a foregone conclusion that it is at least being attempted.

If Kagan's plan were executed after sufficient instability and justification had been created, China's holdings in Pakistan would be entirely eliminated, with Pakistan itself becoming a permanent extension of the unending US occupation of Afghanistan. This explains China's initial reaction to the "Bin Laden" hoax. Immediately recognizing the unfolding implications, China rushed to Islamabad's defense calling for support from the international community for Islamabad. China also criticized America's intrusion into Pakistan's sovereign territory.

The US raid incensed the Pakistani people, attempted to drive a wedge between the military and the government, as well as gave rhetorical leverage to the US over Islamabad and the Pakistani military. The suggestion by the US that "Bin Laden" had a support network inside Pakistan's military appears to be an initial attempt to usher in some form of Kagan's "nuke-napping" invasion plan. With Beijing openly accusing the US of interfering in its internal affairs and with the "Arab Spring" quickly turning into regional warfare, there is no turning back for the globalists.

The corporate-financier oligarchs and their many helping hands are a degenerate elite who have spent their entire lives sheltered from the consequences of their actions. It has always been the soldiers and the taxpayers who bore the brunt for their delusions of grandeur. To them, war is a cost-benefit analysis, and like their financial pyramid schemes that only get bigger and bigger, so too their gambles with our lives and treasure. It appears that they are quite willing to destabilize Pakistan, a nation with 170 million people, and risk war, a nuclear exchange, and a possible confrontation with China and Russia in the process.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/01/pakistan.iraq

Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal

· Architect of Iraq surge draws up takeover options

· US fears army's Islamists might grab weapons

Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark

The Guardian, 1 December 2007

Pakistani paramilitary forces holds an alleged suspect during a crackdown operation against militants near Mingora in northern Pakistan, Friday, November 30, 2007. Photograph: Mohammad Zubair

The man who devised the Bush administration's Iraq troop surge has urged the US to consider sending elite troops to Pakistan to seize its nuclear weapons if the country descends into chaos. In a series of scenarios drawn up for Pakistan, Frederick Kagan, a former West Point military historian, has called for the White House to consider various options for an unstable Pakistan.

These include: sending elite British or US troops to secure nuclear weapons capable of being transported out of the country and take them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a "remote redoubt" inside Pakistan; sending US troops to Pakistan's north-western border to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida; and a US military occupation of the capital Islamabad, and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan if asked for assistance by a fractured Pakistan military, so that the US could shore up President Pervez Musharraf and General Ashfaq Kayani, who became army chief this week.

"These are scenarios and solutions. They are designed to test our preparedness. The United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," Kagan, who is with the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank with strong ideological ties to the Bush administration, told the Guardian. "We need to think now about our options in Pakistan,"

Kagan argued that the rise of Sunni extremism in Pakistan, coupled with the proliferation of al-Qaida bases in the north-west, posed a real possibility of terrorists staging a coup that would give them access to a nuclear device. He also noted how sections of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment continued to be linked to Islamists and warned that the army, demoralised by having to fight in Waziristan and parts of North-West Frontier Province, might retreat from the borders, leaving a vacuum that would be filled by radicals. Worse, the military might split, with a radical faction trying to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Kagan accepted that the Pakistani military was not in the grip of Islamists. "Pakistan's officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah's regime and look what happened in 1979," he said, referring to Iran. The scenarios received a public airing two weeks ago in an article for the New York Times by Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, who has ties to the Democrats.

They have been criticised in the US as well as Pakistan, with Kagan accused of drawing up plans for another US occupation of a Muslim country. But the scenarios are regarded with some seriousness because of Kagan's influence over thinking in the Bush administration as the architect of the Iraq troop surge, which is conceded to have brought some improvements in security.

A former senior state department official who works as a contractor with the government and is familiar with current planning on Pakistan told the Guardian: "Governments are supposed to think the unthinkable. But these ideas, coming as they do from a man of significant influence in Washington's militarist camp, seem prescriptive and have got tongues wagging - even in a town like Washington, built on hyperbole." Kagan said he was not calling for an occupation of Pakistan.

"I have been arguing the opposite. We cannot invade, only work with the consent of elements of the Pakistan military," he said. "But we do have to calculate how to quantify and then respond to a crisis that is potentially as much a threat as Soviet tanks once were. Pakistan may be the next big test." The political and security crises there have led the Bush administration to conclude that Pakistan has become a more dangerous place than it was before Musharraf took over in the coup of October 1999.

One Pentagon official said last week that the defence department had indeed been war-gaming some of Kagan's scenarios. A report by Kagan and O'Hanlon in April highlighted their argument. "The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America's vital interests throughout this dangerous time," it said. But in Pakistan, aides to Musharraf yesterday dismissed Kagan's study as "hyperbole".

"One voice can make a difference. A million can change the world!"

If you don't wish to receive emails in future, then pls reply to this email with "UNSUB" in subject!

--
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: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

John,

You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker" like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate.

That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof).

On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

J. Ashley:  Any communication involves two, the sayer and the receiver.  You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the same communiqué differently.  A positive thinker, like me, wants a "you're fired" man to be President.  A negative thinker, like you, was hoping Trump would not enter the race.  You would have made a great lawyer, because those like to make their point.  They could do that in a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat.  Get the point? Ha, ha, HA!  — J. A. A. —

 

On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John,  Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no intention of entering the race.  On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

J. Ashley:  Then what was Trump dropping out of?  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>  wrote:

*John, INLINE:*

On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:>  Dear Jonathan:

(1.)  Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender for President.  You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the present, let alone project the way future events could have played out.

*I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to believe? The media? Or, Donald Trump?*

Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below: "Preface:        The Will of the People is the foundation of government.  The People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the coming ages.  Federal government shall be limited to functions that cannot be better performed by local and state governments.  Such shall be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both internal and external.  Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from politics.  The federal government shall not be considered to be synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class nor are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and shall be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens thereof.  We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves and our posterity."

*I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*>  (3.)  In my New Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian

who happens to be presiding.  That person shall have no power to direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases.  This is the sentence which you neglected to copy: " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a violation.  ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote."  That excludes allowing the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power' than the members have.

*What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*>  (4.)  The Secret Service wasn't part of government during the earlier

years.  It is required in the Constitution that candidates for President be natural born citizens of the USA and at least 35 years old.  All members of the Secret service are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  If such deliberately and flagrantly overlook CRIMINALITY that is hugely harmful to the USAï¿½the way all socialist-communist policies areï¿½then members of the S. S. who are responsible, likewise, shall be guilty of treason, for giving aid and comfort to the ENEMY (socialists and communists)!   Since the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, deliberately violating that law for the obvious purpose of SUBVERTING the Constitution and causing the failure of our economic systems is TREASON of the highest order!  Barack H. Obama should be hanged post haste!

*The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."* *Unfortunately, that same Constitution offers no insight as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen" or how such provision shall be enforced. That the Secret Service was not created until 1865 (to suppress counterfeit currency) should be evidence enough that they have no responsibility for determining the eligibility of the POTUS. *

ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½  Patriot On May 19, 1:22 pm, Jonathan<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>    wrote:

John, As usual, I have some comments and questions (which you will no doubt avoid answering, as usual): 1) Reality check: Donald Trump was never in "the race." 2) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? 3) "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." As such, the House has chosen to elect a Speaker. This would prompt most people to call that person Speaker, much as most would call the head of a local PTA "Madam President." 4) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret Service to look into the qualifications of the President? "The mission of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events." On 05/18/2011 07:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

A huge number of the naï¿½ve among us are probably supposing that the USA can be saved if we can just elect the right President. Our Republican choices include those who have already sold their souls to the lock-step rituals and the Pomp and Circumstance of Washington. The same, typical, ego-maniacs, are content to form committees to raise outlandish amounts of capital for waging months-long battles inï¿½ the primaries. None of those same presidential hopefuls have a enough practical sensibility to see that pressing-the-flesh in as many states as possible is more of a disqualification than a qualification to be President. As many as 18% of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The rock hard, leftist Democrats for Obama are projected to be able to raise over a billion dollars to get that traitor to America re elected. If, as Iï¿½ve proposed, presidential candidates spend no more than five million dollars on their campaigns, *** there can be, literally, billions of dollars that can remain in the pockets of the voters, rather than going to our close-to-universally-corrupt media. A huge plus will be the suspension of the unconstitutional, spaced-out primaries that give the most power to the voters of Iowa and etc. When the primaries are suspended, there will be no more unconstitutional party conventions such as gave us our Manchurian Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya. Once and for all there will be an end to the unconstitutional political parties which have ï¿½split the USA down the aisleï¿½ for far too long. Voters should have no trouble choosing good choices for President based simply on televised debates and fairly-formatted candidate interviews. The entire election process should span no more than six months, and the candidates can stay rested, rather than being frazzled by the stupidity of jetting back and forth on the pretext of being better able toï¿½ ï¿½serveï¿½ the people of the particular state they happen to be in better than he or she can serve the citizens of a dozen other states where the same dull speech was recited before. With ï¿½give-ï¿½em-hellï¿½ Donald Trump out of the race, Iï¿½m not sure there is a single presidential hopeful wise enough and practical enough to Kick the Ass of the Entire Primary System! It only takes ONE brave candidate to do that. Simply say: ï¿½The primaries give inequitable power to the voters in the early primaries. That makes the spaced-out primaries unconstitutional, as it does the party conventions that follow. Nothing in the Constitution allows quasi-governmental bodies, like our political parties, to have ANY say-so whatsoever in how governmental processes are run. In a Republic, like the USA is so clearly mandated to be, there can be no LEADERS in Congress! Every representative, regardless of how recently he or she was elected, shall have identical voting power. To call Newt Gingrich ï¿½Mr. Speakerï¿½ is to create ROYALTY in Congress that was so detested by the founding fathers. George Washington rejected the idea that he should be king! And George Washington would reject the notion that Czars under the control of the President can bypass the powers granted to Congress alone. Thus far, the ï¿½Ritualï¿½ of the Secret Service protecting the (gag) President is preventing them from asking this simple question: Is the ï¿½long formï¿½ birth certificate of Obamaï¿½which was posted on the Internet in digital formï¿½a LAYERED *. pdf file? If there are LAYERS, then, that document is a definite forgery. I repeat: Is the ï¿½long formï¿½ birth certificate of Obamaï¿½which was posted on the Internet in digital formï¿½a LAYERED *. pdf file? If the answer is confirmed to be

 ..  read 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.

"The great object is that every man be armed; everyone who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

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

Amazing Paint scheme on Camaro

This is a really cool paint job.

Take a close look at the detail.

May God Bless the USA , every Veteran and Active Duty Military Member.

--
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.

MUSLIM convenience store owners involved in food stamp fraud all around the country

Feds ahould close ans sieze all these stores.

MUSLIM convenience store owners involved in food stamp fraud all around the country

barenakedislam | May 22, 2011 at 2:39 AM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-uj8

MINNESOTA: Khaffak Sahib Ansari, 45, the Muslim owner of a St. Paul market was indicted in Minneapolis Federal Court Wednesday for illegal trafficking of about $3 million in food stamps. CBS LOCAL - The indictment alleges that between January 2006 and Oct. 7, 2010, Ansari exchanged food stamps for money and ineligible merchandise. The USDA authorized his [...]

OH, BOO HOO! Another chubby Muslim convert girl whines, 'Americans aren't giving Muslims the respect we deserve'

Muzzies get no respect because they give no respect. Islamoshit is a cult of hate and death and deserves disrespect.

OH, BOO HOO! Another chubby Muslim convert girl whines, 'Americans aren't giving Muslims the respect we deserve'

barenakedislam | May 22, 2011 at 4:44 AM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-ujx

In a letter sent to Barack Hussein Obama, Kari Ansari states, "While I appreciate your encouraging statements to the people of the Muslim world (and your dissing of the state of Israel), I couldn't help feeling that many Americans are not setting the example of which you spoke when it comes to our own Muslim [...]

Fwd: Liberty on the Rocks Wednesday DC 16th and U NW

May Rooftop Happy Hour

Andrew Guevara invited you · Share · Public Event

See All

People You May Know

Add as friend782 mutual friends

See All

Event Invitations

Today, May 22

RSVP:Yes · No · Maybe

Time	Wednesday, May 25 · 6:30pm - 9:00pm

Location	Local 16 1602 U St., NW Washington, DC

Created By	Liberty on the Rocks DC, Andrew Guevara, Elizabeth Siphokazi Matecki

More Info	In celebration of the beginning of summer, Liberty on the Rocks is headed to one of DCs best rooftop bars. Come join us on the rooftop bar at Local 16 and watch the sunset with your friends while mingling over some cocktails. As always, all newcomers are welcome. Hope you all can join for what is sure to be a great time! Local 16 is three blocks west of the U Street metro exit on the Green/Yellow Line.http://localsixteen.com/

JP FW: Self taught Natural Builder

Watch these birds build their nest with skill and proficiency and praise the ALLAH(ST) who taught them this art

Different stages of construction of the nest: