Nov 13, 2011 || World News

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Fwd: [I-S] Nevada Health Department Raids Picnic: Orders Food Destroyed

---------

http://visiontoamerica.org/5467/nevada-health-department-raids-picnic-orders-food-destroyed/

Nevada Health Department Raids Picnic: Orders Food Destroyed

It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special "farm to fork" picnic dinner put on for guests — and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

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.

Fwd: [PresidentBarakObama] Gay rights victory to vanish

Gay rights victory to vanish
Lyle Denniston, Reporter
Posted Wed, November 9th, 2011 4:07 pm

One of the modern gay rights movement's most significant courtroom
victories — a California judge's ruling last year striking down the
military's ban on gays and lesbians — is about to vanish from the
federal record books, as if it had never happened. It will do so
because the Ninth Circuit Court refused on Wednesday to reconsider a
ruling that erased the decision, and everything about it, and barred
any gay rights lawyer from ever trying to use it to help in any other
case. The brief order by the Circuit Court, denying rehearing by a
three-judge panel, also noted that no judge eligible to vote even
called for a tally on reconsideration by the full en banc court. This
was a final legal victory for the Obama Administration in a case that
at times had been bitterly contested.

The practical effect of the ruling is two-fold: it does not disturb
the action of Congress and the Pentagon to carry out the actual repeal
of the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy (the repeal took
effect September 20), and it eliminated as a precedent of any kind the
decision against the ban in September last year by U.S. District Judge
Virginia A. Phillips of Riverside, Calif. The denial of further
review by the panel and by the full Circuit Court also left intact a
blistering critique by one of the three judges of any jurist who would
use a 2003 gay rights ruling by the Supreme Court — Lawrence v. Texas
— as the basis for recognizing new rights for homosexuals. (Circuit
Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain's advice to his colleagues — a
"guidepost for responsible decision-making," he called it — was
described in this post at the time it was issued in late September.)

The case, Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S. (Circuit dockets 10-56634 and
10-56813), was under review in the Ninth Circuit when the Obama
Administration, responding to the repeal of the policy against gays
and lesbians serving openly in the military services, asked the panel
to declare the case moot and to vacate Judge Phillips' decision
against the ban. The panel did so on September 29. It had been told
that lawyers expected to try to build on the case as a precedent, but
the panel bluntly said neither they nor anyone else could rely upon
what Judge Phillips had done.

The panel said: "We vacate the district court's judgment, injunction,
opinions, orders, and factual findings — indeed, all of its past
rulings — to clear the path for any future litigation. Those now-void
legal rulings and factual findings have no precedential, preclusive,
or binding effect."

Reacting, lawyers for the advocacy group, Log Cabin Republicans, in
mid-October sought panel or en banc rehearing. First, the lawyers
contended that their case was not moot, and then argued that the panel
had acted without even considering the legal arguments the group had
made on that point.

The plea also challenged the panel's "sweeping, and unnecessary,
vacatur order," saying it "eradicates over a dozen thoughtful district
court rulings, including factual findings after a full bench trial.
It not only condemns any future servicemember who may claim injury
from an unconstitutional discharge order under [the policy] to
re-litigate the entire factual basis for this lawsuit, at an enormous
cost of judicial resources, but it calls into public question the very
validity of the proceedings below, which were held and concluded
before the Repeal Act was enacted."

When a federal court stands up to "the combined might of the other
branches," that filing contended, "it should ensure that its own
authority is at its maximum, to show that it gave this matter the
sustained attention it merits."

Among other arguments, the Log Cabin Republicans' counsel contended
that their lawsuit had prodded President Obama and Pentagon leaders to
move more rapidly to implement the repeal law.

With the case declared moot, the counsel contended, the Pentagon and
Congress were left with nothing to bar them from re-instituting a new
limit of military service by gays and lesbians. Moreover, it argued,
servicemembers who had been discharged because of the policy were
continuing to suffer adverse consequences from the policy.

Their filing insisted that they were not asking the Circuit Court
panel to rule that Judge Phillips' ruling actually could be used as an
argument in future cases growing out of the policy, but rather to
leave that to federal trial judges when new cases arose. Instead,
they argued, what the panel did was to create "the fiction that this
case never existed, that the matter was never tried, and that judgment
that DADT is unconstitutional was never entered. It especially goes
too far in its imperious directive that neither Log Cabin, nor anyone
else, may ever in future use the district court's rulings in any
fashion whatever. To thus sow the fields of law with salt is
unnecessary and gratuitous."

Under federal court rules, it was up to the Circuit panel to decide
whether to ask the other side — here, the Pentagon — to respond to the
rehearing request. The panel chose not to do so, and took no action
until it issued its order Wednesday bringing the case to a complete
end.

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PresidentBarakObama/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PresidentBarakObama/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
PresidentBarakObama-digest@yahoogroups.com
PresidentBarakObama-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PresidentBarakObama-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: "occupy Portland" beats the Mayor

Send in the HELLS ANGELS.. and tell them.

USE ANY MEAN NECESSARY TO FIND THEIR LEADERS...

YOU ARE FREE TO USE TORTURE IF THAT IS NOW NECESSARY!

From: Daniel Seigler <danielseigler@hotmail.com>
To: andy.carson@kptv.com; debra.gil@kptv.com; hatu <investigators@katu.com>; jeff gianola <jgianola@koin.com>; Ken boddie <kboddie@koin.com>; kelly day <kday@koin.com>; pete ferryman <pete.ferryman@kptv.com>
Cc: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 9:23 AM
Subject: "occupy Portland" beats the Mayor

So, Mayor Adams has decided to close the two occupied parks at midnight...but the occupying forces decided not to evacuate except into the immediate streets, at which point the police told them to get out of the street so they went back to the parks...and the news says this is NOT a victory for the occupying force?

And no one has mentioned, yet, that a democracy is where the majority rule is agreed upon by everyone. But as soon as someone does something that would put a TRUER light on the evils of this occupation, the occupiers immediately pull out the "we cannot control individual actions" of republic politics. Mind you, i am not discussing political parties, i am talking about political systems. And no where within the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution for these states united as a country is the word democracy. No, as a matter of fact, our founders knew the difference between democracy and republic forms. In a democracy, the individual implies consent to the will of the majority. In a republic, the individual must express consent to the will of the majority. In the 'Occupy Portland', the individual implies consent (they say they are democracy) to be the will of the majority. Therefore the 'Occupy Portland' is not a 'peaceful protest' in that there have been attacks upon private property (fires and a molotov) and one representative of the Law of Portland was injured during the clearing of the parks.

Does Portland need the assistance of the State guard? Does the Governor need to step in? Or how about the federal government? After all, this occupation is part of the "Occupy Wall Street" move...

Here is an idea on how to clear the occupiers...line the sidewalk opposite the parks in question, broadside, and start walking. While the line walks, pick up the trash in front of you. This includes tents, tarps, sleeping bags, etc. After all, it is the responsibility of the city to clean the common areas. Oh, and if some ONE is in the way, haul them away like the rest of the trash.

sign me
daniel karl seigler, born in Fort Benning, Cussetta County, Georgia, son of
Clarance Roland O'Neil Seigler, born in Ozark, Dale County, Alabama, son of
Thomas Malcolm Seigler, born somewhere in Alabama

"occupy Portland" beats the Mayor

Re: Cain's real problem: On foreign policy he's as clueless as Bill O'Reilly

The effects of U.S. sanctions include expensive basic goods
> for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil
> aircraft fleet. According to the Arms Control Association, the
> international arms embargo against Iran is slowly reducing Iran's
> military capabilities, largely due to its dependence on Russian and
> Chinese military assistance. The only substitute is to find
> compensatory measures requiring more time and money, and less
> effective.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Sage2 <wisdom812@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 11, 11:39 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sounds to me more like UN interference than US ? !!!!!!!

****************************************************************************************************
> UN sanctions against Iran
> United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 - passed on 23
> December 2006. Banned the supply of nuclear-related materials and
> technology and froze the assets of key individuals and companies
> related to the program.United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747
> - passed on 24 March 2007. Imposed an arms embargo and expanded the
> freeze on Iranian assets.United Nations Security Council Resolution
> 1803 - passed on 3 March 2008. Extended the asset freezes and called
> upon states to monitor the activities of Iranian banks, inspect
> Iranian ships and aircraft, and to monitor the movement of individuals
> involved with the program through their territory.United Nations
> Security Council Resolution 1929 - passed on 9 June 2010. Banned Iran
> from participating in any activities related to ballistic missiles,
> tightened the arms embargo, travel bans on individuals involved with
> the program, froze the funds and assets of the Iranian Revolutionary
> Guard and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, and recommended
> that states inspect Iranian cargo, prohibit the servicing of Iranian
> vessels involved in prohibited activities, prevent the provision of
> financial services used for sensitive nuclear activities, closely
> watch Iranian individuals and entities when dealing with them,
> prohibit the opening of Iranian banks on their territory and prevent
> Iranian banks from entering into relationship with their banks if it
> might contribute to the nuclear program, and prevent financial
> institutions operating in their territory from opening offices and
> accounts in Iran.[edit]EU sanctions against Iran
> The European Union has imposed restrictions on cooperation with Iran
> in foreign trade, financial services, energy sectors and technologies,
> and banned the provision of insurance and reinsurance by insurers in
> member states to Iran and Iranian-owned companies.[edit]National
> sanctions against Iran
> U.S. sanctions against Iran: The United States has imposed an arms ban
> and an almost total economic embargo on Iran, which includes sanctions
> on companies doing business with Iran, a ban on all Iranian-origin
> imports, sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, and an almost
> total ban on selling aircraft or repair parts to Iranian aviation
> companies. An exception from the Treasury Department is required to do
> business with Iran.Canada imposed a ban on dealing in the property of
> designated Iranian nationals, a complete arms embargo, oil-refining
> equipment, items that could contribute to the Iranian nuclear program,
> the establishment of an Iranian financial institution, branch,
> subsidiary, or office in Canada or a Canadian one in Iran, investment
> in the Iranian oil and gas sector, relationships with Iranian banks,
> purchasing debt from the Iranian government, or providing a ship or
> services to Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, but allows the
> Foreign Minister to issue a permit to carry out a specified prohibited
> activity or transaction.[2]Australia has imposed financial sanctions
> and travel bans on individuals and entities involved in Iran's nuclear
> and missile programs or assist Iran in violating sanctions, and an
> arms embargo.[3]South Korea imposed sanctions on 126 Iranian
> individuals and companies.[4]Japan imposed a ban on transactions with
> some Iranian banks, investments with the Iranian energy sector, and
> asset freezes against individuals and entities involved with Iran's
> nuclear program.[5][dead link]Switzerland banned the sale of arms and
> dual-use items to Iran, and of products that could be used in the
> Iranian oil and gas sector, financing this sector, and restrictions on
> financial services.[6]India enacted a ban on the export of all items,
> materials, equipment, goods, and technology that could contribute to
> Iran's nuclear program.[7]Israel banned business with or unauthorized
> travel to Iran under a law banning ties with enemy states.[8] Israel
> has also enacted legislation that imposes sanctions on any companies
> that violate international sanctions.[9] Israel later extended the
> sanctions by imposing a series of administrative and regulatory
> measures to prevent Israeli companies from trading with Iran, and
> announced the establishment of a national directorate to implement the
> sanctions.[10][edit]Effects
> The sanctions have had a substantial adverse effect on the Iranian
> nuclear program by making it harder to acquire specialized materials
> and equipment needed for the program. The sanctions have also had a
> strong impact on the Iranian economy. As well as reduced access to
> products needed for the oil and energy sectors, the sanctions have
> prompted many oil companies to withdraw from Iran, and have also
> caused a decline in oil production due to reduced access to
> technologies needed to improve their efficiency. According to U.S.
> officials, Iran may lose up to $60 billion in energy investments
> annually. Many international companies have also been reluctant to do
> business with Iran for fear of losing access to larger Western
> markets. The effects of U.S. sanctions include expensive basic goods
> for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil
> aircraft fleet. According to the Arms Control Association, the
> international arms embargo against Iran is slowly reducing Iran's
> military capabilities, largely due to its dependence on Russian and
> Chinese military assistance. The only substitute is to find
> compensatory measures requiring more time and money, and less
> effective.[11][12] According to at least one analyst (Fareed Zakaria),
> the market for imports in Iran is dominated by state enterprises and
> regime-friendly enterprises, because the way to get around the
> sanctions is smuggling, and smuggling requires strong connections with
> the regime. This has weakened Iranian civil society and strengthen the
> state.[13][edit]
> On Nov 11, 6:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is it that you think our Nation is doing that interferes with Iran,
> > internally or externally?
>
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > is the problem solely fear
> > > based??
> > > ----
> > > good observation
>
> > > those who live in fear will go to extremes to feel safe
>
> > > On Nov 11, 11:02 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Lets see..... a foreign naval vessel in international waters.... I do not
> > > > see the problem.
>
> > > > Tell me....EXACTLY.... what is the problem?? Or is the problem solely
> > > fear
> > > > based??
>
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > *Iranian Navy to Patrol off U.S. Coast, What!?
> > > > > *
> > > > > Read more:
> > > > >http://defensetech.org/2011/09/28/iranian-navy-to-patrol-off-u-s-coas.
> > > ..
> > > > > Defense.org
>
> > > > > "No word on what type of ships Iran will send to establish this
> > > "powerful
> > > > > force." Keep in mind, that this light frigate<
> > >http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jamaranmowjclassmult/>known as
> > > the Jamaran, is one of Iran's most modern and powerful ships. It
> > > > > carries four Noor class anti-ship missiles with a range of about
> > > 125-miles
> > > > > along with four SM-1 anti-aircraft missiles, light torpedoes and a 76
> > > mm
> > > > > gun. Not exactly an Aegis destroyer."
>
> > > > > Read more:
> > > > >http://defensetech.org/2011/09/28/iranian-navy-to-patrol-off-u-s-coas.
> > > ..
> > > > > Defense.org
>
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <
> > > markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > >> whoop-di-whoop!!!!!! Keith.... Irans capability is 1250 miles. No
> > > > >> more of a threat to the US than one that flies 10 miles or 90 miles.
> > > > >> According to British sources (much more reliable than US sources now
> > > > >> that the Blair Gov. is gone) they have stopped trying to increase
> > > > >> distance as Israel is well within range now.
>
> > > > >> The problem is that to have a massive capability (nuke) Iran has
> > > > >> realized that hitting Israel will kill/affect more Moslims/Arab
> > > > >> nations than Jews and so have the other Moslim nations in the area.
> > > > >> the inverse is not true.
>
> > > > >> On Nov 10, 7:46 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > You better read up on Iran's capabilities Sarge.....You sound like a
> > > > >> > Moonbat this week.
>
> > > > >> > (Good to see ya by the way!)
>
> > > > >> > KeithInTampa
>
> > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM, SgtUSMC <devildawg...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > Yea, well, Iraq was going to attack us with Scuds that only had a
> > > 90
> > > > >> > > mile range. Some people are clueless.
>
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > >> > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > >> > > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > >> * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://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.*
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fwd: [I-S] Since Obamacare’s Passage, Millions Have Lost Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DOC
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2011
Subject: [I-S] Since Obamacare's Passage, Millions Have Lost Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
To: aI-S <Individual-Sovereignty@yahoogroups.com>

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-s-passage-millions-have-lost-employer-sponsored-health-insurance_607994.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/7u5kyt4

Since Obamacare's Passage, Millions Have Lost Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

4:42 PM, Nov 11, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Throughout the Obamacare debate, President Obama repeatedly promised, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months.

This is not what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted would happen. Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now. It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO's projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO's rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.

Whether the decline in employer-sponsored insurance over the past 18 months is a product of Obamacare or of the Obama economy — and whether Obamacare is the principal cause of the anemic performance of the Obama economy — can be debated. But what's clear is that, more than 25 months before Obamacare would really go into effect — if it's not repealed first — employers are already dropping employees from their insurance rolls.

Take Walmart, for example — a prominent Obamacare supporter. Gallup writes,

"The nation's largest private employer, Wal-Mart, announced in October that new part-time employees who work less than an average of 24 hours a week would no longer be able to get their health insurance from the company. Wal-Mart laid out several other cuts to its health insurance offerings, including some workers' ability get coverage for their spouses. Other companies have already made and will likely continue to make similar changes to their health insurance benefits….

"If Wal-Mart's decision is a precursor of how employers intend to manage their healthcare costs, the downward trend in employer-based healthcare will likely continue."

So in addition to costing about $2.5 trillion over its real first decade (2014 to 2023), looting nearly $1 trillion from Medicare over that time (according to the CBO), forcing Americans to buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of law, and amassing unprecedented power and money in Washington at the expense of Americans' liberty — if Obamacare stays on the books, you may like your health care plan, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can keep your health care plan.

It's time to repeal Obamacare.

--

Warm Regards

DOC

___________________ ~ ~
(_____(*)___________} } }

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

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

<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=d0a1caec-0d68-11e1-b06a-939fd3973520&T=1c91kue4d%2fX%3d1321127962%2fE%3d1705303292%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1776573715%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iUG9kY2FzdHM7TWVzc2FnZV9Cb2FyZHM7TmV3cztHbztGaW5hbmNlO1RWO0V2ZW50cztQZW9wbGU7WWVsbG93X1BhZ2VzO01hcHM7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJkMGExY2FlYy0wZDY4LTExZTEtYjA2YS05MzlmZDM5NzM1MjAiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzMjExMjc5NjI1ODUyNzIiIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d27228962&U=13c27poqs%2fN%3djFESJEoGYn4-%2fC%3d493064.14543979.14562481.13298430%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d6060255%2fV%3d1>
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2420737/grpspId=1705303292/msgId=252953/stime=1321127962/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848621/nc3=5191953>
__,_._,___

Fwd: One Bumper Sticker Really Stands Out ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2011
Subject: One Bumper Sticker Really Stands Out ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
To: ITSALLGONEROOMY@freedoms.lost

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.2&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.3&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.4&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.5&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.6&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.7&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.8&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.9&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.10&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.11&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.12&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.13&disp=emb&zw></mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.14&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.15&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.16&disp=emb&zw>

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.17&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.18&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.19&disp=emb&zw></mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.20&disp=emb&zw>

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.21&disp=emb&zw></mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.22&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.23&disp=emb&zw></mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.24&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.25&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.26&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.27&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.28&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.29&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.30&disp=emb&zw>
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13399607b21b8add&attid=0.0.31&disp=emb&zw>

JP 10 facts about diabetes on World Diabetes Day 14 Nov 2011

Dear Friends,

10 facts about diabetes on World Diabetes Day

By Shoaib Habib Memon

1-More than 346 million people worldwide have diabetes.

There is an emerging global epidemic of diabetes that can be traced back to rapid increases in overweight, obesity and physical inactivity.

2-Diabetes is predicted to become the seventh leading cause of death in the world by the year 2030.

Total deaths from diabetes are projected to rise by more than 50% in the next 10 years.

3-There are two major forms of diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by a lack of insulin production and type 2 diabetes results from the body's ineffective use of insulin.

4-A third type of diabetes is gestational diabetes.

This type is characterized by hyperglycaemia, or raised blood sugar, which has first appeared or been recognized during pregnancy.

5-Type 2 diabetes is much more common than type 1 diabetes.

Type 2 accounts for around 90% of all diabetes worldwide. Reports of type 2 diabetes in children – previously rare – have increased worldwide. In some countries, it accounts for almost half of newly diagnosed cases in children and adolescents.

6-Cardiovascular disease is responsible for between 50% and 80% of deaths in people with diabetes.

Diabetes has become one of the major causes of premature illness and death in most countries, mainly through the increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

7-In 2004, an estimated 3.4 million people died from consequences of high blood sugar.

8-80% of diabetes deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.

In developed countries most people with diabetes are above the age of retirement, whereas in developing countries those most frequently affected are aged between 35 and 64. \

9-Diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, amputation and kidney failure.

Lack of awareness about diabetes, combined with insufficient access to health services and essential medicines, can lead to complications such as blindness, amputation and kidney failure.

10-Type 2 diabetes can be prevented.

Thirty minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity on most days and a healthy diet can drastically reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes cannot be prevented.

Regards

Shoaib Habib Memon

Thatta

Cell.0314 2090252

--
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: Cain's real problem: On foreign policy he's as clueless as Bill O'Reilly

On Nov 11, 11:39 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sounds to me more like UN interference than US ? !!!!!!!

****************************************************************************************************
> UN sanctions against Iran
> United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 - passed on 23
> December 2006. Banned the supply of nuclear-related materials and
> technology and froze the assets of key individuals and companies
> related to the program.United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747
> - passed on 24 March 2007. Imposed an arms embargo and expanded the
> freeze on Iranian assets.United Nations Security Council Resolution
> 1803 - passed on 3 March 2008. Extended the asset freezes and called
> upon states to monitor the activities of Iranian banks, inspect
> Iranian ships and aircraft, and to monitor the movement of individuals
> involved with the program through their territory.United Nations
> Security Council Resolution 1929 - passed on 9 June 2010. Banned Iran
> from participating in any activities related to ballistic missiles,
> tightened the arms embargo, travel bans on individuals involved with
> the program, froze the funds and assets of the Iranian Revolutionary
> Guard and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, and recommended
> that states inspect Iranian cargo, prohibit the servicing of Iranian
> vessels involved in prohibited activities, prevent the provision of
> financial services used for sensitive nuclear activities, closely
> watch Iranian individuals and entities when dealing with them,
> prohibit the opening of Iranian banks on their territory and prevent
> Iranian banks from entering into relationship with their banks if it
> might contribute to the nuclear program, and prevent financial
> institutions operating in their territory from opening offices and
> accounts in Iran.[edit]EU sanctions against Iran
> The European Union has imposed restrictions on cooperation with Iran
> in foreign trade, financial services, energy sectors and technologies,
> and banned the provision of insurance and reinsurance by insurers in
> member states to Iran and Iranian-owned companies.[edit]National
> sanctions against Iran
> U.S. sanctions against Iran: The United States has imposed an arms ban
> and an almost total economic embargo on Iran, which includes sanctions
> on companies doing business with Iran, a ban on all Iranian-origin
> imports, sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, and an almost
> total ban on selling aircraft or repair parts to Iranian aviation
> companies. An exception from the Treasury Department is required to do
> business with Iran.Canada imposed a ban on dealing in the property of
> designated Iranian nationals, a complete arms embargo, oil-refining
> equipment, items that could contribute to the Iranian nuclear program,
> the establishment of an Iranian financial institution, branch,
> subsidiary, or office in Canada or a Canadian one in Iran, investment
> in the Iranian oil and gas sector, relationships with Iranian banks,
> purchasing debt from the Iranian government, or providing a ship or
> services to Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, but allows the
> Foreign Minister to issue a permit to carry out a specified prohibited
> activity or transaction.[2]Australia has imposed financial sanctions
> and travel bans on individuals and entities involved in Iran's nuclear
> and missile programs or assist Iran in violating sanctions, and an
> arms embargo.[3]South Korea imposed sanctions on 126 Iranian
> individuals and companies.[4]Japan imposed a ban on transactions with
> some Iranian banks, investments with the Iranian energy sector, and
> asset freezes against individuals and entities involved with Iran's
> nuclear program.[5][dead link]Switzerland banned the sale of arms and
> dual-use items to Iran, and of products that could be used in the
> Iranian oil and gas sector, financing this sector, and restrictions on
> financial services.[6]India enacted a ban on the export of all items,
> materials, equipment, goods, and technology that could contribute to
> Iran's nuclear program.[7]Israel banned business with or unauthorized
> travel to Iran under a law banning ties with enemy states.[8] Israel
> has also enacted legislation that imposes sanctions on any companies
> that violate international sanctions.[9] Israel later extended the
> sanctions by imposing a series of administrative and regulatory
> measures to prevent Israeli companies from trading with Iran, and
> announced the establishment of a national directorate to implement the
> sanctions.[10][edit]Effects
> The sanctions have had a substantial adverse effect on the Iranian
> nuclear program by making it harder to acquire specialized materials
> and equipment needed for the program. The sanctions have also had a
> strong impact on the Iranian economy. As well as reduced access to
> products needed for the oil and energy sectors, the sanctions have
> prompted many oil companies to withdraw from Iran, and have also
> caused a decline in oil production due to reduced access to
> technologies needed to improve their efficiency. According to U.S.
> officials, Iran may lose up to $60 billion in energy investments
> annually. Many international companies have also been reluctant to do
> business with Iran for fear of losing access to larger Western
> markets. The effects of U.S. sanctions include expensive basic goods
> for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil
> aircraft fleet. According to the Arms Control Association, the
> international arms embargo against Iran is slowly reducing Iran's
> military capabilities, largely due to its dependence on Russian and
> Chinese military assistance. The only substitute is to find
> compensatory measures requiring more time and money, and less
> effective.[11][12] According to at least one analyst (Fareed Zakaria),
> the market for imports in Iran is dominated by state enterprises and
> regime-friendly enterprises, because the way to get around the
> sanctions is smuggling, and smuggling requires strong connections with
> the regime. This has weakened Iranian civil society and strengthen the
> state.[13][edit]
> On Nov 11, 6:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is it that you think our Nation is doing that interferes with Iran,
> > internally or externally?
>
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > is the problem solely fear
> > > based??
> > > ----
> > > good observation
>
> > > those who live in fear will go to extremes to feel safe
>
> > > On Nov 11, 11:02 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Lets see..... a foreign naval vessel in international waters.... I do not
> > > > see the problem.
>
> > > > Tell me....EXACTLY.... what is the problem?? Or is the problem solely
> > > fear
> > > > based??
>
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > *Iranian Navy to Patrol off U.S. Coast, What!?
> > > > > *
> > > > > Read more:
> > > > >http://defensetech.org/2011/09/28/iranian-navy-to-patrol-off-u-s-coas.
> > > ..
> > > > > Defense.org
>
> > > > > "No word on what type of ships Iran will send to establish this
> > > "powerful
> > > > > force." Keep in mind, that this light frigate<
> > >http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jamaranmowjclassmult/>known as
> > > the Jamaran, is one of Iran's most modern and powerful ships. It
> > > > > carries four Noor class anti-ship missiles with a range of about
> > > 125-miles
> > > > > along with four SM-1 anti-aircraft missiles, light torpedoes and a 76
> > > mm
> > > > > gun. Not exactly an Aegis destroyer."
>
> > > > > Read more:
> > > > >http://defensetech.org/2011/09/28/iranian-navy-to-patrol-off-u-s-coas.
> > > ..
> > > > > Defense.org
>
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <
> > > markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > >> whoop-di-whoop!!!!!! Keith.... Irans capability is 1250 miles. No
> > > > >> more of a threat to the US than one that flies 10 miles or 90 miles.
> > > > >> According to British sources (much more reliable than US sources now
> > > > >> that the Blair Gov. is gone) they have stopped trying to increase
> > > > >> distance as Israel is well within range now.
>
> > > > >> The problem is that to have a massive capability (nuke) Iran has
> > > > >> realized that hitting Israel will kill/affect more Moslims/Arab
> > > > >> nations than Jews and so have the other Moslim nations in the area.
> > > > >> the inverse is not true.
>
> > > > >> On Nov 10, 7:46 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > You better read up on Iran's capabilities Sarge.....You sound like a
> > > > >> > Moonbat this week.
>
> > > > >> > (Good to see ya by the way!)
>
> > > > >> > KeithInTampa
>
> > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM, SgtUSMC <devildawg...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > Yea, well, Iraq was going to attack us with Scuds that only had a
> > > 90
> > > > >> > > mile range. Some people are clueless.
>
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > >> > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > >> > > * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > >> * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://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.*
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

Re: What Immigration Problem?

No Michael, my "absurd" comments are based on the Law Of The Land, and Article III of the Constitution.

Maybe you should refresh your memory on what exactly Article III of the United States Constitution states. You might also want to touch upon Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), where Chief Justice Marshall so succinctly helped define the role of the United States Supreme Court in determining what is Constitutional versus un-Constitutional.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me help you grasp your folly.

Constitutional is of or pertaining to the constitution, Note that this has NOTHING to do with Court decrees; compounded errors of centuries or more nor mob belief.

Consider ...

Congress makes a law "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person" is not rape. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
The President chooses NOT to prosecute anyone who participates in "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person". Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
The supreme Court issues a decision proclaiming "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person" is not rape. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
ALL of the above 'policies' are continued/perpetrated/followed for 200 years. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?

Constitutional is of or pertaining to the constitution,

Read AIS2C1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Let's say that House Members are chosen every 7 years by Chairs of ten Political Science Departments in US Universities chosen at random.
If this process is followed for over 100 years ... will it be constitutional?
If the supreme Court decrees that this process is in keeping with the constitution ... will it be constitutional?
If 78% of the people polled (margin of error of 1%) believe this process is in keeping with the constitution ... will it be constitutional?

Do explain how a Court Ruling is 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
Do explain how a mistake continued over 100 years makes it 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
Do explain how a mob wishing a mistake continued over 100 years makes it 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.

You do realize that by your absurd assertion the constitution itself is meaningless (just as it has proven to be with this idiotic idea that government is to determine its own limitations).

Regard$,
--MJ

"[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)

At 02:40 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Apparently, Michael, YOU miss the point the rulings I referred to are well over 100 years old and have never been questioned... quite the opposite they have actually been upheld by the populaces they effect.... by popular vote.....several times.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Apparently YOU missed the reality to which I identified.

"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 Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them Constitutional.

The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them legal.

The Government's costumed enforcers may enforce those interpretations/inventions/decrees, but that does not make them Constitutional.

Regard$,

--MJ

I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran

At 02:01 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Michael,

One of my points, and you obviously missed it.

Whether you like it, or you don't like it, the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict. It becomes law. The law of our Land. We are a Nation of Laws. You can disagree, you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with, to be legislated, but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.

Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law) doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful. "It Is, What It Is".

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

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

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.

--
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: Who is the Real Newt Gingrich?

These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors

Devvy Kidd

Keeping with our 100Q collection that commemorates famous and infamous tax scam artists, we have minted a chip for de-tax dame Devvy Kidd.

You know, if you start to think that most of these leaders of the "tax protestor" movement have a screw loose which is rattling around in only half a brain, you only have to look as far as Devvy Kidd for confirmation. Devvy buys into about every far-right-wing conspiracy theory, including that the world is actually illegally controlled by Freemasons. New World Order, United Nations, buying Chinese products -- if it is a stupid theory the odds are good that Devvy has bought into it whole hog.

Of course, not having half a brain doesn't mean that you can't cash in like the other tax scam artists. For a mere $24.95 you can get the whole Devvy collection of conspiracy theories and her "proof". But wait! Selling CDs is small pickin's compared to Devvy's other gig, which is endorsing "El Dorado Gold Discount" which deals in gold coins over the internet.

At one point, Devvy apparently tried to form the "Wallace Institute" (named after Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart) but was unsuccessful in getting 501(c)(3) charitable status, so that went by the wayside.

Devvy's theory regarding taxes is that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Of course, she didn't do any significant research on her own but merely refers to ex-felon and fellow Quatlooser Bill Benson's "The Law That Never Was". In January of 2000, Devvy proclaimed that the Wallace Institute was preparing to file a lawsuit in Oklahoma City to declare the 16th Amendment illegal. The case of course went nowhere. Devvy also has put our flyers declaring the income tax to be "voluntary", although the courts have regularly sanctioned, fined, and convicted those who have raised this ridiculous argument.

Devvy has also been implicated in the "We the People" scam, which has had its greatest publicity recently with Lynne Meredith's indictment. We can only hope that Devvy is soon able to spend long hours chatting with her comrade-in-scam.

___________________________

Devvy Kidd 's Claims Exploded

Devvy Kidd 's premise is that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

Relevant Case Law:

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

Devvy Kidd and Bill Conklin further exposed as scam artists at http://devvyconklin.tripod.com/fakery.html

Thurston Bell says Devvy Kidd is a Scam Artist

from http://www.nite.org/docs/academic-deficiency.htm

Notice of Academic Deficiency

5.12.2001

There just seems to be an endless number of people out here on the internet, who, without credentials, positive accomplishments, or evidence of prior experience or knowledge of their work on the Internet, and who also believe that they have some argument "worthy" of hearing by the federal courts, will ask that YOU send them some money. There are in fact SO MANY of these people, that I could spend every day for the rest of my life arguing against and exposing them. This will do nothing but serve the wishes of the Treasury Department.

I have to learn to trust that individuals can be responsible for themselves, can show prudence, and judge that which is sent to them over the World Wide Web.

When it comes to IRS lawsuits, I can only share a few points of certainty regarding the issues of lawsuits.

A: The Federal Courts do NOT want to rule in YOUR favor because;

B: No Federal Judge wants to be the Federal Judge who collapses the House of Cards known as the Economic Stabilization Program.

C: The Government and the Judge will use Rule 12(b)(6) to throw your case out at the drop of a hat. That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

D: The Courts and the Government will look for the weakest point of your argument and they will rule on that one and ignore the rest of the issues.

So, if someone is sending an e-mail regarding wanting money from you to help support a case where there is no specifically damaged plaintiff and there are multiple arguments, I will not respond to such e-mails.

If you are seriously considering spreading news of or financially supporting the ideas of such people who have discovered the Internet as a means of conning people out of money, instead of sending me their e-mail please write back to them and ask them what their credentials are, what results have they had, what is their area of expertise and experience, and do they have references from anyone that you might hold in esteem.

This how the Establishments of Academia control discussions and discourse. (References are important.) And believe me folks, if someone out there was doing something that you needed to know about, I would have told you already. And if they don't have the guts to come to me directly and seek counsel with people like me who have results, they certainly are NOT worth your time and effort.

Thurston P. Bell
Founder

PLEASE NOTE:

NITE has VERY strict standards about following the letter of the Law. The people and organizations listed below use arguments that the courts have already deemed frivolous, and make all sorts of claims with no results to show for themselves. While some have truth mixed in with lies, there is just enough truth to get people tangled into their web. Some of these people are academic plagiarists who have been using NITE's work product and claiming it as their own and / or intermingling our argument with frivolous res judicata patriot arguments. Many of these people / organizations are networked (i.e. working together). A few of them are SHAM trust salesmen / women. Therefore, we can truthfully say that from our experience and first hand knowledge, the following people are "Snake Oil" peddlers and / or CON-men/women who do not deserve your trust:

Re: What Immigration Problem?

Let me help you grasp your folly.

Constitutional is of or pertaining to the constitution, Note that this has NOTHING to do with Court decrees; compounded errors of centuries or more nor mob belief.

Consider ...

Congress makes a law "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person" is not rape. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
The President chooses NOT to prosecute anyone who participates in "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person". Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
The supreme Court issues a decision proclaiming "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person" is not rape. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?
ALL of the above 'policies' are continued/perpetrated/followed for 200 years. Does this *magically* make rape something other than rape?

Constitutional is of or pertaining to the constitution,

Read AIS2C1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Let's say that House Members are chosen every 7 years by Chairs of ten Political Science Departments in US Universities chosen at random.
If this process is followed for over 100 years ... will it be constitutional?
If the supreme Court decrees that this process is in keeping with the constitution ... will it be constitutional?
If 78% of the people polled (margin of error of 1%) believe this process is in keeping with the constitution ... will it be constitutional?

Do explain how a Court Ruling is 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
Do explain how a mistake continued over 100 years makes it 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.
Do explain how a mob wishing a mistake continued over 100 years makes it 'of or pertaining to the constitution'.

You do realize that by your absurd assertion the constitution itself is meaningless (just as it has proven to be with this idiotic idea that government is to determine its own limitations).

Regard$,
--MJ

"[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)

At 02:40 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Apparently, Michael, YOU miss the point the rulings I referred to are well over 100 years old and have never been questioned... quite the opposite they have actually been upheld by the populaces they effect.... by popular vote.....several times.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Apparently YOU missed the reality to which I identified.

"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 Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them Constitutional.

The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them legal.

The Government's costumed enforcers may enforce those interpretations/inventions/decrees, but that does not make them Constitutional.

Regard$,

--MJ

I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran

At 02:01 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Michael,

One of my points, and you obviously missed it.

Whether you like it, or you don't like it, the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict. It becomes law. The law of our Land. We are a Nation of Laws. You can disagree, you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with, to be legislated, but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.

Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law) doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful. "It Is, What It Is".

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

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

--

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.

--
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.