Nov 12, 2011 || World News

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Fwd: [grendelreport] Shots fired near White House; Cops investigating recover AK-47

Shots fired near White House; Cops investigating recover AK-47
Police closed a stretch of Constitution Avenue after reports of gunfire
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shots-fired-white-house-cops-invest
igating-recover-ak-47-article-1.976571

BY The Associated Press

Saturday, November 12 2011, 12:13 AM
The White House at Sunset
R. Morley/PhotoLink/Getty Images

Shots were fired near the White House on Friday night, prompting police
investigation.

WASHINGTON - Police closed a stretch of Constitution Avenue near the White
House Friday night to investigate reports of gunfire in the area and
recovered an AK-47 assault rifle.

Sgt. David Schlosser of the U.S. Park Police said the White House did not
appear to have been the focus of the incident.

Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said witnesses heard shots and saw
two vehicles racing on Constitution Avenue toward 17th Street, and one of
the vehicles was abandoned at 23rd and Constitution.

Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shots-fired-white-house-cops-invest
igating-recover-ak-47-article-1.976571#ixzz1dTFVt79Q

==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___

--
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 Immigration Problem?

Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate.

The US Government is acting CONTRARY to the Constitution in regards to Guantanamo. The United States Government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

AIS9C2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There, of course, is NO 'Rebellion' NOR is/has there been an 'Invasion'.

As such 'suspending' (or ignoring) Habeas Corpus in this instance is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Amendments V and VI are applicable.

Regard$,
--MJ

On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. -- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)

At 10:39 AM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Good Morning Michael!

A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.

First, it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails, message boards, or Groups like Political Forum. I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!) that I intended. (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)

Second, I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum, have one or two things in common: (1) We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs; (2) We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers. It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s), but in general, we are looking to be either (A) affirmed in our beliefs, or (B) proven incorrect.

Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008); that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus; especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens. A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens"; personally, I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years. Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional, and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances.

KeithInTampa

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:

Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity" refer to?

Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?

I agree with you, that the term, "The People" sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference "[t]he People" (or are non-specific) apply to say, folks in China, or Iran?

AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.

OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally? Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?

Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.

In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.

Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?

Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?

If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.

I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions, are victims of our "interventionist" policies, and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.

Regard$,

--MJ

"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."

=======

No, it doesn't. That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking.

ROTFLMAO!

The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.

Never see:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...

,,, the right of the people to keep and ...

... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...

The right of the people to be secure ...

No person shall be held to answer for a ...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?

Regard$,

--MJ

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.

--

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.

--

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.
Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_guws441t0

Re: What Immigration Problem?

Good Morning Michael!

A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.

First, it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails, message boards, or Groups like Political Forum. I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!) that I intended. (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)

Second, I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum, have one or two things in common: (1) We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs; (2) We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers. It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s), but in general, we are looking to be either (A) affirmed in our beliefs, or (B) proven incorrect.

Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008); that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus; especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens. A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens"; personally, I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years. Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional, and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances.

KeithInTampa

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:

Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity" refer to?

Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?

I agree with you, that the term, "The People" sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference "[t]he People" (or are non-specific) apply to say, folks in China, or Iran?

AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.
OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally? Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?

Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.
In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.
Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?

Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?

If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.

I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions, are victims of our "interventionist" policies, and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."

=======

No, it doesn't. That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking.

ROTFLMAO!

The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.

Never see:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...
,,, the right of the people to keep and ...
... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...
The right of the people to be secure ...
No person shall be held to answer for a ...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?

Regard$,

--MJ

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.

--

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.

--
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 Immigration Problem?

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:

Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity" refer to?

Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?

You did not answer the question.

I agree with you, that the term, "The People" sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference "[t]he People" (or are non-specific) apply to say, folks in China, or Iran?

AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.
OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

One does not become part of "the people" without consent....blah,blah,,blah. They are "a person" as described in the same documents.

Note: in this instance the word "the" is pronounced "T͟Hē" NOT T͟Hə and denotes exclusivity... but then i assume from the limited understanding you have of the English of our founders you are ignorant of the MANY meanings and applications of that tiny word.

Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally? Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?

Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.
In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.
Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?

If a state chose to allow illegals to vote then under current state laws they could be electors.

Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?

If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.

Nice try, Puerto Rico is an "ANNEXED" territory and may be "DE-ANNEXED" at any moment. According to the US Supreme Court in at least six different decisions "The constitution does NOT follow the flag"

I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions, are victims of our "interventionist" policies, and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."

=======

No, it doesn't. That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking.

ROTFLMAO!

The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.

Never see:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...
,,, the right of the people to keep and ...
... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...
The right of the people to be secure ...
No person shall be held to answer for a ...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?

Regard$,

--MJ

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.

--

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.

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

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

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

What It Really Means To Support the Troops

What It Really Means To Support the Troops
by Joel Poindexter

This essay is based on a letter I sent to a conservative organization. They were soliciting donations of hygiene products for an event they sponsored in support of deployed soldiers. I have updated it and edited it for this site.

Among the principals held by conservatives are limited government, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the constitution. How any group claims these tenets as principals and yet supports the state's wars of aggression is beyond my understanding. If "war is the health of the state," as Randolph Bourne wrote, then conservatives are the health of war.

Limited governments, if such a thing could exist, cannot wage perpetual war; only a leviathan state can do so. A truly limited government would be unable to expropriate enough money through taxes, borrowing, and printing to fund these foreign conquests. A limited government would also be powerless to conscript an army for its machinations, or coercively retain those already in the ranks. This last item is especially important now, as nearly 100,000 service members have had their enlistment terms involuntarily extended in the past ten years, including the author.

Wars are not fiscally responsible; they come at an incredible cost, both in terms of human life and in treasure. The U.S. government right now is spending trillions of dollars on no less than seven undeclared, open-ended, no-win wars. None of which serve the interests of the people in whose names they are waged.

None of the dozens upon dozens of military engagements the U.S. government has undertaken in the past seven decades has been constitutional. Without exception, each has been a war of aggression. Each was fought at the prerogative of the president, who has behaved more like a King, and who was never meant to have war-making powers.

Many suggest they are not supporting the wars, only the troops. This is patently wrong. Anyone who glorifies "their sacrifice," necessarily supports the wars these soldiers are fighting in. Likewise, to espouse the false claim that these men and women are "defending freedom" is to endorse current U.S. foreign policy, including the wars.

It is either tragic naïveté or willful deception to assert that these wars are meant to defend freedom. The vast warfare/national security state that has been erected in the past ten years has done nothing to promote freedom here, or abroad. To date, the U.S. government has suspended Habeas Corpus; it has detained many thousands of people and held them without charges in secret prisons all around the world. It violates the sovereignty of other nations and summarily executes their people. It convenes panels in secret, drafting lists of citizens to be hunted and killed without due process, or even so much as the pretense of judicial oversight. Children are not even free from such tyranny. It has callously butchered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, displaced many millions, and destroyed billions of dollars of private property. Torture, or its equally disgusting euphemism, "enhanced interrogation," is considered by many to be perfectly acceptable, even virtuous. Of course when they do it to us it is considered barbaric.

It is precisely this moral relativism that perpetuates our problems. By refusing to see the humanity in the people whose lives are destroyed in the name of "freedom" we only ensure that others will be driven to take up arms against us out of retaliation. Vengeance is the single greatest factor in motivating terrorism; not an abstract hatred of our lifestyle. It is shameful that so many in this country hold one American citizen in higher regard than one person from another country. Our value as human beings is not determined by which government claims legal authority over us, nor is it by which arbitrary set of boundaries we are born within. Our value is the same in the eyes of our Creator, and is derived simply from our being His.

The federal government has claimed the right to take nude photos of anyone wishing to travel by airplane in this country, and to unnecessarily subject them to potentially dangerous levels of radiation. Those who object are instead treated to what in any other case would be considered sexual molestation. Not even the disabled, the young, nor the elderly can escape this abuse. Our persons, property and effects are no longer secure from federal agents, as warrants issued upon probable cause are from a bygone era. This is the freedom they are fighting to defend, and which these conservatives support?

I would prefer they actually support the troops. This can only be done by relentlessly fighting to bring them home. And by closing the 900 U.S. bases around the world, ceasing to support corrupt and repressive regimes, and by ending the U.S. Empire and all such intervention. As a veteran twice over from the occupation of Iraq, I can think of no better gift to the men and women of the U.S. military than to bring them home. Somehow a toothbrush and a bottle of shampoo just doesn't measure up.

Nothing says "I support the troops" more than declaring that from this point forward, none of them will die needlessly, thousands of miles from home, fighting unlawful wars of aggression. That they need not fear horrific injuries, nor have their minds irreparably scarred by the trauma and horrors of warfare. Nothing would be better for their families as well. Oh that they can find peace in the knowledge that their father or mother, brother or sister, husband or wife, son or daughter will no longer have to leave for extended periods of time, fearful they'll never return.

Fwd: Democrats: Countdown to Armageddon

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bearing Drift
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2011
Subject: Democrats: Countdown to Armageddon

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Countdown to Armageddon

Dear bruce,

This past week, the unthinkable happened to Virginia Democrats: they lost power.

It was a good, ol'-fashioned, behind the wood-shed kind of moment for the Democratic party.

Oh, sure, they gerrymandered the heck out the senate district lines, and because of it, they only lost two seats, managing a split in the Senate 20-20 after Edd Houck and Roscoe Reynolds acknowledged defeat in narrow losses. But in the popular vote across the state, they were soundly whooped.

In both the House of Delegates and state Senate campaigns, Republicans captured approximately 60% of the vote.

I don't care if the turnout is 10% or 100% (in this case, it was the predicted 30%), if 6 of 10 voters think you're out-of-touch with them, you have a problem.

But Brian Moran of the Democratic Party of Virginia didn't quite see it that way.

Despite suffering massive defeat for the third straight year, instead of looking inward and reflecting about candidate recruitment, fundraising, message, and policy, in his Nov. 10 missive to supporters, he acted as if the campaign was still on-going. Moran spoke to his base of the "Cantor machine", withstanding "attacks" by GOP candidates, and how conservatives attempted to "tear down" such esteemed Virginia leaders as Toddy Puller and George Barker.

But what Moran said in his post-mortem is nothing compared to what Democrats and the liberal media said BEFORE the election.

I did a little bit of research, and, according to the left, now that the right has control of Capitol Square, it's going to be Armageddon come January 2012.

U.S. Senator Mark Warner thinks: allowing Republicans to take the majority is akin to turning "the keys of every part of state government over to a fringe group"
Tim Kaine, the U.S. Senate candidate for the Dems said in 2008, when Repubilcans lost the presidency and the U.S. Senate, that "Old Virginny is Dead!" Does this mean that now that the GOP has returned, "Old Virginny is Alive?" What, are we about to go back to Jim Crow?
According to one Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates, electing Republicans will result in police investigating women who have miscarriages.
Virginia New Majority, a leftist political organization, said, "We're certain that these [Republican] candidates favor drastic, frightening cuts to Virginia's schools, that will hack away at the already diminishing sense of security that many Virginians work hard to achieve."
Dick Saslaw, the FORMER Senate Majority Leader, is not feeling too good about the outcome, he said prior to the election, "You can essentially have Mississippi-type legislation passing very easily....guns on college campuses, that's a priority with that crowd. Selling the ABC stores, which would deprive the state government of $200 million - one-third of that coming out of public schools. I can go on and on."
Moran of the DPVA predicted, according to the Virginian-Pilot, that "abortion rights will be curtailed, environmental protections gutted, and government health, public safety and education funding slashed."
And, our friends in the media openly speculated in NEWS articles about the GOP legislative agenda (as if these ideas were down-right frightening):

easing gun restrictions
limiting access to abortions
giving tax credits to companies that donate to private school scholarships
creating an optional defined-contribution retirement plan for state workers
preventing illegal immigrants from receiving in-state college tuition
making some murder accomplices eligible for capital punishment
extending legal rights to fetuses
granting civil immunity to homeowners who kill intruders
prohibiting compulsory union membership by making "right to work" a state constitutional amendment
Supporting the repeal amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The bottom-line is that the world is not going to end for Democrats. Some of the above might get passed, but the biggest issue on everyone's plate is going to be the biennial budget. The governor has had surpluses for 19 of 20 months, but the state still has to keep it's belt tight, fix the Virginia Retirement System, and meet all its obligations.

While I am sure the GOP would love to take action on some of the above, and they likely will, would promoting the 2nd Amendment be such a bad thing? Would supporting the culture of life cause the Commonwealth to go into a tail spin? Would allowing private companies to support educational choice be that sacrilegious? Would promoting doing things legally in this country be so terrible? Does a person have to pull the trigger to be culpable for a heinous crime?

The rhetoric from the left certainly isn't helpful, and the enabling from their friends in the media will certainly not encourage debate. Unfortunately, for both of them, they're on the outside looking in as conservatives begin to plan their agenda for a pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-family Virginia.



Yours in Conservative Victory,

Jim Hoeft

            Publisher and Founder

            Bearing Drift

Support conservative media in the Commonwealth with a secure donation today!


Forward email

JP How To Receive Hajjis ?

In the name of Allah, the Most-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

"May the Peace and Blessings of Allah be Upon You"

Praise be to Allaah, we seek His help and His forgiveness. We seek refuge with Allaah from the evil of our own souls and from our bad deeds. Whomsoever Allaah guides will never be led astray, and whomsoever Allaah leaves astray, no one can guide. I bear witness that there is no god but Allaah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.

Bismillah Walhamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaam 'ala Rasulillah

As-Salaam Alaikum Wa-Rahmatullahi Wa-Barakatuhu

http://magickalgraphics.com/Graphics/Friendship/WelcomeBack/welcomeback9.gif

How To Receive Hajjis ?

On welcoming hajjis home, it is mustahab (commendable) to congratulate them and make a banquet for them. But decorating with lights, firing gunshots, and hanging welcoming banners on walls are all forms of extravagance and showing off that should be avoided. Basically, there is nothing wrong in showing happiness for the safe arrival of hajjis when receiving them, yet it should be done without wasting money because this was not the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Allah accepts acts of worship when done with sincerity, which is achieved by avoiding all aspects of showing off. My concern is that such acts like putting up banners, colored lights, and firing gunshots as a welcoming gesture might be counted as a form of extravagance and showing off; that is why I suggest that they should be avoided.

In this regard Allah says: (O ye who believe! Render not vain your almsgiving by reproach and injury, like him who spendeth his wealth only to be seen of men and believeth not in Allah and the Last Day. His likeness is as the likeness of a rock whereon is dust of earth; a rainstorm smiteth it, leaving it smooth and bare.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 264)

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "He who lets the people hear of his good deeds intentionally, to win their praise, Allah will let the people know his real intention (on the Day of Resurrection), and he who shows off, Allah will disgrace." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Besides, it is unlawful to slaughter sheep and make a hajji pass over it because slaughtering should be dedicated only for the sake of Allah.
Almighty Allah says: (Say: Lo! My worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the Worlds.) (Al-Anam 6: 162)

Receiving people coming from Hajj should be done without exaggeration. There is nothing wrong in using phrases like "May Allah accept your Hajj, grant you forgiveness, and reward you for your efforts."

In another hadith the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "O Allah! Forgive pilgrims and those for whom pilgrims have sought forgiveness from You."

There is nothing wrong if the relatives of hajjis prepare a banquet for them and those who come to congratulate them.

Generally speaking, it is preferable to congratulate a pilgrim on his safe arrival and on performing Hajj, for this is an act of supplication of a Muslim to his Muslim brother. Besides, it is a token of affection and showing mercy and sympathy to one another.

In the Quran, we read a verse congratulating the believers on the blessings they have in Paradise. Almighty Allah says: ((And it is said unto them): Eat and drink in health (as a reward) for what ye used to do.) (At-Tur 52: 19).

On congratulating one another, people should use phrases and actions that create happiness and conform with the commands of Allah and the teachings of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Occasions like marriage, birth of a child, Eid, return from a journey, Hajj, or Umrah, getting rid of distress are all occasions that need congratulations.

Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, to post on Internet sites and to publish in full text and subject title in not-for-profit publications.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LoveIslam_LiveIslam/

RE: JP Letter to Editor - Winds of Change

Salam Col Sahib

Tussi Great Ho. I am sorry in advance my dear Sir, Lekin Baat Yeh ke Jis Mulk Mein (Rairee Wale) se lekar President tak corrupt ho. US Mulk mein kya Imran Khan Chal Paye Ga? hmmm.................The answer is very simple and is NO.

"Muhammad (S.A.W) The greatest and sweetest messanger of ALLAH said. Jis Tarhan logon ke aamaal honge, wese he Hukuran un par Aaein ge."

I am also the supporter of PTI and I.K, and we need PTI and I.K to rule this beautiful country, we have to offer prayers and submitt TAUBA, because TAUBA is the only solution to all problem. I.K will rule easily and Pakistan will progress insha Allah.

Col.Sahib tussi great ho. khush raho Aamin.

Best regards

Mansoor Rahim Zahid

Subject: **JP** Letter to Editor - Winds of Change
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:00:37 +0500
From: jafri@rifiela.com

Dear Join Pakistan

LETTER TO EDITOR
November 12^th, 2011

Winds of Change:

Migratory birds migrate during a particular season but the weathercocks change their direction with the changing wind. Something similar is in the offing for the PTI. Many an opportunist, including some heavy weights also, in the garb of the proverbial fasli batera are stoking their feathers to fly towards it. Unfortunately, most of them are tainted in various shades of corruption and thePTI doesn't have any cleansing device to wash away the grime and dirt of corruption besmearing almost all of them. And, in the wake of their efforts to enter into the folds of the PTI it is certainly causing concern to many like me about the party's claim of eradicating corruption in Pakistan. I am sure IK is aware of the peril that such 'fasli bateras' – nay 'fasli vultures' - could cause to the party and its manifesto and would be extremely watchful about it. Or else, the masses pinni ng great hopes in him and his promises will be utterly dismayed. IK might be having some consideration for some of them as the potential vote getters, but let me assure him if he focuses primarily upon the youth and sticks tenaciously and uncompromisingly to his manifesto of eliminating corruption and taking to task the corrupt by confiscating all their undeclared assets within and without Pakistan, he need not have any such worries. Remember, during the rising days of Bhutto the people were said to have voted even for a pole if Bhutto had allotted it the party ticket. Same would happen again if the masses have the similar confidence in Imran Khan too. However, at the same time IK should look for highly dedicated and competent persons (Technocrats, if I may call them) to form his team to deliver all that he has in mind and the people expect from him.

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
30 Westridge 1
Rawalpindi 46000
Pakistan
Tel: (051) 5158033
E.mail: jafri@rifiela.com

--
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 Reminder: Weekly Q/A Session with Mufti Akhtar Rida al-Qadiri [November 13, 2011 @ 2100 IST]

Assalamu Alaikum wa raHmatullahi Ta'ala wa Barakaatuhu

This email is a reminder for the LIVE Question & Answer Session with Taaj al-Shari'ah Mufti Muhammad Akhtar Rida Khan al-Qadri tomorrow (Sunday), 13th November 2011 at 09:00pm – 2100 IST (Indian Standard Tme i.e. GMT +5:30) from Bareilly Sharif - India in sha ALLAH over

http://www.jamiaturraza.com/live

You may send your Questions to AsjadRazaKhan@gmail.com ... Questions can be asked in Arabic, Urdu and English languages.

Note: Dars of Sahih al-Bukhari Sharif with Taaj al-Shariah Mufti Akhtar Rida al-Qadiri Hafidhahullahu Ta'ala goes On-Air from Mondays to Saturdays at 10:00pm - 2200 IST (India Standard Time i.e. GMT +5:30).

Regards,

C.I.S. Jamiat-ur-Raza

Bareilly Sharif (U.P.), India

Download Previous Dars-e-Hadith Sessions

DARS082 - The Excellence of a Man's Islam (Part - III) [31st August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS081 - The Excellence of a Man's Islam (Part - II) [30th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS080 - The Excellence of a Man's Islam (Part - I) [27th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS079 - Paryer is part of Belief (Part - III) [26th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS078 - Paryer is part of Belief (Part - II) [25th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS077 - Paryer is part of Belief (Part - I) [24th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS076 - The Deen (Religion) is Easy (Part - III) [23rd August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS075 - The Deen (Religion) is Easy (Part - II) [22nd August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS074 - The Deen (Religion) is Easy (Part - I) [21st August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS073 - Fasting Ramadan in Expectation of Reward [20th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS072 - Voluntary Prayers in Ramadan [19th August 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS071 - Jihad is a part of Belief [18th August 2011 - Delhi]

DARS070 - Performing the Prayer on the Night of Power (Part - II) [17th August 2011 - Delhi]

DARS069 - Performing the Prayer on the Night of Power (Part - I) [16th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS068 - Signs of the Hypocrite (Part - III) [15th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS067 - Signs of the Hypocrite (Part - II) [14th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS066 - Signs of the Hypocrite (Part - I) [13th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS065 - One injustice is able to be less than another injustice (Part - II) [12th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS064 - One injustice is able to be less than another injustice (Part - I) [10th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS063 - If two groups of Muslims fight against each other, reconcile them (Part - II) [8th August 2011 - Madinah Munawwarah]

DARS062 - If two groups of Muslims fight against each other, reconcile them (Part - I) [7th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS061 - Disobedience is part of Jahiliyyah [6th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS060 - Ingratitude after Ingratitude (Part - II) [5th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS059 - Ingratitude after Ingratitude (Part - I) [4th August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS058 - Greeting widely is part of Islam (Part - II) [3rd August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS057 - Greeting widely is part of Islam (Part - I) [2nd August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS056 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - III) [1st August 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS055 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - II) [30th July 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS054 - When Islam is Genuine? (Part - I) [29th July 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS053 - Belief lies in Actions (Part - III) [28th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS052 - Belief lies in Actions (Part - II) [27th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS051 - Belief lies in Actions (Part - I) [26th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS050 - On Allah's words (9:5) [25th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS049 - Modesty is part of belief (Part - II) [24th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS048 - Modesty is part of belief (Part - I) [23rd July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS047 - Grading of the superiority of the believers is based on their deeds (Part - II) [21st July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS046 - Grading of the superiority of the believers is based on their deeds (Part - I) [20th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS045 - Hating to revert to disbelief as much as being thrown into a fire (Part - III) [19th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS044 - Hating to revert to disbelief as much as being thrown into a fire (Part - II) [17th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS043 - Hating to revert to disbelief as much as being thrown into a fire (Part - I) [14th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS042 - True Knowledge is an Action of the Heart [13th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS041 - Fleeing from Civil Strife (Fitan) is part of Belief (Part - II) [11th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS040 - Fleeing from Civil Strife (Fitan) is part of Belief (Part - I) [10th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS039 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - VII) [9th July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS038 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - VI) [8th July 2011 - Bombay]

DARS037 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - V) [7th July 2011 - Bombay]

DARS036 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - IV) [6th July 2011 - Nashik]

DARS035 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - III) [5th July 2011 - Bombay]

DARS034 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - II) [5th July 2011 - Bombay]

DARS033 - Love for Ansaar is a sign of Belief (Part - I) [4th July 2011 - Bangalore]

DARS032 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - V) [2nd July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS031 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - IV) [1st July 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS030 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - III) [30th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS029 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - II) [29th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS028 - The Sweetness of Belief (Part - I) [28th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS027 - Love for the Beloved Prophet is Part of Belief (Part - III) [27th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS026 - Love for the Beloved Prophet is Part of Belief (Part - II) [25th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS025 - Love for the Beloved Prophet is Part of Belief (Part - I) [24th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS024 - Want for your Brother what you want for yourself (Part - II) [23rd June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS023 - Want for your Brother what you want for yourself (Part - I) [22nd June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS022 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - IV) [21st June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS021 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - III) [20th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS020 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - II) [19th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS019 - Whose Islam is Best (Part - I) [18th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS018 - A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe (Part - III) [17th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS017 - A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe (Part - II) [16th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS016 - A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe (Part - I) [15th June 2011 - Bareilly Sharif]

DARS015 - Modesty is a branch of Belief [14th June 2011 - Delhi]

DARS014 - Islam is based on Five things (Part - III) [10th June 2011 - Dubai]

DARS013 - Islam is based on Five things (Part - II) [9th June 2011 - Dubai]

DARS012 - Islam is based on Five things (Part - I) [4th June 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS011 - Hadith-e-Hiraqal (Part - III) [3rd June 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS010 - Hadith-e-Hiraqal (Part - II) [31st May 2011 - Madina Munawwarah]

DARS009 - Hadith-e-Hiraqal (Part - I) [30th May 2011 - Madina Munawwarah]

DARS008 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - IV) [27th May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS007 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - III) [24th May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS006 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - II) [23rd May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS005 - The Beginning of Revelation (Part - I) [21st May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS004 - Every Man has what He Intends (Part - II) [19th May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS003 - Every Man has what He Intends (Part - I) [18th May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS002 - Sharah Hadith-e-Niyyat (Part - II) [15th May 2011 - Jeddah]

DARS001 - Sharah Hadith-e-Niyyat (Part - I) [14th May 2011 - Jeddah]

Files are in MP3 Format and can easily be downloaded to your device. Right Click and Choose 'Save As' to download and save to your device.

"The Superiority of the learned man over the worshiper is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets (Alaihim as-Salam), and the Prophets leave neither dinar nor dirham, leaving only knowledge, and he who takes it takes a big fortune."