World News: Nov 21, 2011

Monday, November 21, 2011

JP These are asking to rule us and bring solutions!!!!!

This is a glimpse of those who are supposedly holding the solutions to all the country's problems. Does anyone still have hopes from such? Are you going to get up tomorrow and go out and stand in lines to vote for such and then be part of their games? The nation is captive in the hands of politicians, we need freedom!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PYStn_5tE&feature=related

Re: Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate

On Nov 21, 11:10 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Studio,
>
> The lead or upper chamber of Congress is controlled by the DEMOCRATIC,
> not the Republican Party... One would have thought you knew
> that...obviously not.

And one would have thought you'd know it's the lower house they're
talking about!
But keep on playing ignorant, that's what your party stands for anyway.

--
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: Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate

On Nov 21, 6:22 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In yet another poll on the front page of MSN.com, it asks the
question:
US deficit talks crumble

Automatic spending cuts loom as Congressional leaders trade blame
of their inability to agree on a deficit overhaul.

Who's to blame for the deficit mess?

Congress for playing politics instead of tackling the hard issues.
60 % agree 58,205 votes

The GOP for trying to protect the rich from taxes.
25 % agree 24,575 votes

Democrats for refusing to cut Medicare & Social Security.
7 % agree 7,294 votes

I'm not sure, but the deficit needs to be fixed.
8 % agree 8,360 votes
---
So there you go; there are more people who are "Not Sure", than blame
Democrats.
And yet these idiots think the American people are going to elect
another Republitard billionaire to protect the rich!???

They'd rather elect Not Sure than a Republitard.

--
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: Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate

Hey PlainOl!

Maybe a small wager is in order? A dollar and a beer says you willl be saying, "President Gingrich" this time next year.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate
---
hogwash ... history will prove you wrong

Newt is an unelectable asshole with poor judgement

On Nov 20, 9:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> November 15, 2011http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/15/new_poll_shows_gingrich_...
> Poll Shows Gingrich More
> Electable<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/15/new_poll_shows_gingrich_...>A
> new McClatchy-Marist
> poll<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/15/130402/poll-gingrich-scores-bes...>finds

> Newt Gingrich is the strongest Republican presidential candidate when
> matched head to head against President Obama.
>
> Obama leads Gingrich by just two points, 47% to 45%. Mitt Romney is next
> closest, trailing Obama by 4 points, 49% to 44%. Ron Paul is the third best
> bet for the Republicans right now, 8 points back from Obama, 49% to 41%.
>
> No other Republican is within single digits of the president.
>

> Newt.2012.gif
> 16KViewDownload

--
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: Gingrich: The “smartest, most electable conservative in the race”

I think Gingrich's message should be taken seriously by those anti-American, anti-Western civilization Grand Muftis and the theological ruling elite in Iran.

Again, Good on Newt!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

An offhand statement made five and a half years ago.

---
November 19, 2011 forum in Des Moines, Iowa:
"I agree entirely with Senator Santorum. I would say to the
government of Iran today, you have a very short time to solve this on
your own, and if you don't we will solve it for you. And we frankly
couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. We're going to
get it done." - NG

On Nov 21, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So let me make sure I understand. You have gone back to a statement that
> Senator John McCain and Former House Speaker Gingrich made on July 17,
> 2006, dealing with the Syrian and Iranian internal interference of
> Lebanon, and an off hand remark by McCain and Gingrich, that this could be
> the beginning of World War III, as somehow suppporting Gingrich as pushing
> for war with Iran?
>
> An offhand statement made five and a half years ago.
>
> Come on PlainOl, please tell me that this is not the basis of your logic!
>

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Tell me what it is that you disagree with, that
> > Gingrich purports or stands for.
> > ----
> > I disagree with almost everything he says and supports.
>
> > example:
> > Looking to their American counterparts on Monday, Knesset members were
> > surprised at the solidarity and support being shown among key US
> > politicians.
> > Several top US political figures, including former House Speaker Newt
> > Gingrich (Rep.) called the current Middle East crisis the beginning of
> > "World War III" and said they were "gravely concerned" in an interview
> > on CNN's Larry King Live.
>
> > Gingrich, who called the crisis World War III in several interviews
> > over the weekend, said that the US and Israel were acting with much
> > restraint and that the US should shoot down Iranian planes sending
> > supplies to Lebanon.
> > "I have to say that I'm a bit nervous about what they mean," said MK
> > Danny Yatom (Labor). "To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about the US
> > intervening. Let them send us money, supplies... we can do the rest
> > ourselves."
> > Many MKs said that while they were happy to hear US politicians taking
> > a strong line in support of Israel, they were concerned about how US
> > intervention would play itself out.
> > "It is not World War III because there are no armies involved," said
> > Vice Premier Shimon Peres (Kadima). "They must remember that this is
> > an entirely different type of conflict."
> > "In many ways they are completely disconnected from what is going on
> > here," said MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz). "They might make calls for
> > something that is completely unnecessary."
> > "They haven't learned anything and they don't understand anything. I
> > hope that they understand more about America than they understand
> > about the Middle East," said MK Colette Avital (Labor).
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:37 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > PlainOl';
>
> > > I have now watched the first video you sent, (and I will get around to
> > the
> > > second video later today).
>
> > > Again, I ask you, what can you point to, anything, that supports your
> > > statement that Gingrich is pushing for war in Iran? It is clearly not in
> > > this video, and EVERYTHING that Gingrich says in this video, I agree
> > with.
>
> > > What in the video, other than he is appearing on Shalom TV, do you
> > > disagree with?
>
> > > Specifics please. Tell me what it is that you disagree with, that
> > > Gingrich purports or stands for.
>
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:31 AM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Newt Gingrich is a warmonger and a propagandist for zionist fascism
> > > > that supports military intervention in the middle east.
> > > > He should already be political history.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RtJYib1O4g
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqrpAkmP6Y
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 9:05 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > How sad for you PlainOl'.
>
> > > > > I suggest you take another look at Gingrich.
>
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:12 AM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > Newt's decision making making abilities are impaired and bound to
> > > > > > fail.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 20, 9:40 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Gingrich: The "smartest, most electable conservative in the race"
>
> > > > > > > Posted by NN&V Staff
> > > > > > > <http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/author/admin>on Nov
> > 10th,
> > > > 2011
>
> > > > > > > *(Charlie Smith/Time for Newt)* – "Smartest guy in the room." "A
> > > > genius."
> > > > > > > "Brilliant." "Fantastic to listen to." "I would love to see him
> > > > debate
> > > > > > > Obama."
>
> > > > > > > "But he can't win."
>
> > > > > > > If you're like me, every time Newt Gingrich's name comes up,
> > this is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > kind of thing you hear. Conservatives love him. He's clearly the
> > > > smartest
> > > > > > > guy on the stage and the candidate best suited to take the fight
> > to
> > > > > > Obama.
> > > > > > > So why does he always get ignored?
>
> > > > > > > Because the liberal media and the establishment have been
> > telling us
> > > > all
> > > > > > > for a year that Newt Gingrich can't possibly win. Well, I'm here
> > to
> > > > tell
> > > > > > > you that all that's changed. Newt Gingrich is now leading Mitt
> > > > Romney in
> > > > > > > Iowa.
>
> > > > > > > *Consider this email your permission slip to do what you've
> > wanted
> > > > to do
> > > > > > > all along: get behind Newt Gingrich and fight for the smartest,
> > most
> > > > > > > electable conservative in the race.*
>
> > > > > > > Mitt Romney came up with the idea that became the template for
> > > > Obamacare.
> > > > > > > Without Mitt Romney, there IS no Obamacare. Rick Perry thinks
> > you're
> > > > > > > heartless if you don't want to give free college tuition to
> > illegal
> > > > > > aliens.
> > > > > > > (He actually SAID that!) And Herman Cain is a nice man, but he
> > can't
> > > > win
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > this point.
>
> > > > > > > That leaves Newt, right where he's been all along, articulating
> > real
> > > > > > > solutions that will allow us to take our country back, turn this
> > > > economy
> > > > > > > around and make us freer, stronger, and safer as a country.
>
> > > > > > > Just stop with me a second and think about something: Next Fall,
> > > > there's
> > > > > > > going to be a Presidential debate between Obama and the GOP
> > nominee.
> > > > Who
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > you want to be in it?
>
> > > > > > > Mitt Romney? The guy who has taken different positions on every
> > > > single
> > > > > > > major issue?
>
> > > > > > > Rick Perry, the guy who can't articulate his positions, and when
> > he
> > > > does,
> > > > > > > seems to offend conservatives every time he talks?
>
> > > > > > > Herman Cain?
>
> > > > > > > The answer is clear: Newt Gingrich. He will absolutely wipe the
> > floor
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > Obama. He won't be cowed, he knows policy better, and he has the
> > > > backbone
> > > > > > > to tell it like it is. He has the guts to say to the American
> > people,
> > > > > > > "President Obama has failed."
>
> > > > > > > As the leading pro-Newt SuperPAC, we're going to go into the
> > states
> > > > and
> > > > > > > rally the activists, and build the organization Newt needs to win
> > > > this
> > > > > > > nomination and beat Obama in the Fall.
>
> > > > > > > The media and the establishment don't get to pick our nominee.
> > We do.
>
> > > > > > > Will you join us?
>
> > > > > > > It's time.
>
> > > > > > > Newt.2012.gif
> > > > > > > 16KViewDownload
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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.

--
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: [grendelreport] Weird: The Secret Life of Barack Obama

--------

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10866/pub_detail.asp

November 21, 2011

The Secret Life of Barack Obama

Cliff Kincaid

Print ThisE-mail This

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133c736d8d3a4efd&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw>

ShareThis

Comments (0)

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133c736d8d3a4efd&attid=0.2&disp=emb&zw>

Tabloids sometimes get the story right, such as when the National Enquirer exposed the love child of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. But its sister publication, the National Examiner (also published by American Media Inc.) has a real dud on its hands in the case of Mondo Frazier's new book, The Secret Life of Barack Obama, which is promoted on the cover of the November 21 issue that is screaming at people in the supermarket check-out lines.

This "scrupulously researched" book, according to the book flap, includes such "eye-opening" revelations as that of a female "Obama associate," who allegedly spent a night with Obama and then "moved to the Caribbean, where it was whispered that she was involved in overseeing a mysterious fund-raising apparatus."

Frazier's bio says he has "written and edited for a variety of publications, including the Official Racing Program & News," and is the "founder/editor/writer of DeathBy1000Papercuts.com." It is not clear what the "Official Racing Program & News" is all about.

One thing is certain: his own website describes itself as "The WORLDWIDE LEADER in WEIRD," which is certainly true. The book is also weird.

Underneath photos of "Stars Without Makeup!," the cover of the Frazier book is featured on the National Examiner and trumpets "news" about Obama's alleged arrest in Russia, "his strange CIA cover-up," and his "sinister Pakistan ties" going back 30 years. But a quick look finds that Frazier relies on Wayne Madsen for the claims of Obama's CIA ties. Madsen is the propagandist for Russian TV who has been making the rounds alleging that Obama may be a secret CIA operative. Such fanciful and easily discounted claims have the effect of diverting attention away from Obama's communist and socialist connections, which is where the scrutiny should be applied.

Three years into Obama's presidency, the American people still deserve real answers to the mystery of who occupies the oval office. They won't find the answers in the Mondo Frazier book.

My recommendations for good books on the keys to unlocking the Obama mystery include Trevor Loudon's Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, Red Army by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, and Subversion Inc. by Matthew Vadum.

For whatever reason, the Frazier book diverts attention from the real story, which is—and has been—Obama's ties to Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis, his childhood mentor in Hawaii, and the communist and socialist networks in Hawaii and Chicago which nurtured and sponsored Obama's political career. These are the networks which have spawned the "Occupy" movement embraced by Obama. It is a movement that continues to get more violent over time but which ignores the role of Obama financial patron George Soros in the ongoing financial turmoil.

Frazier tells me in an email, "My book doesn't say a lot about Frank Marshall Davis at all," and goes on, "Understand, this is not because there is nothing to be said on the subject. It's because 1- there are so many things to cover, so few pages; and, 2- once the relationship between Obama's grandfather(?!?) and Davis is included, then so much veers off into the realm of speculation. Not that that speculation wouldn't be fertile and/or interesting ground."

There is no need for speculation. Obama talked about Davis in his own book, referring to him as just "Frank." Trevor Loudon broke the story about who "Frank" was, and I confirmed the identity and obtained the 600-page FBI file on Davis from the FBI. Numerous sources then confirmed the relationship between Davis and Obama, although Obama and his aides persist in falsely claiming that Davis was just a civil rights activist.

The appropriate avenue for further inquiry is why Obama is covering up the nature of this relationship. What's more, how could a candidate with links to communists and terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn get to be president? One answer is that we have a loophole in our system that has been exploited by our media to allow a security risk to occupy the oval office. The major media abandoned their adversarial and independent posture and became cheerleaders for the Obama phenomenon. One part of the process was refusing to probe why a financial collapse was engineered just weeks before the 2008 presidential election.

Trevor Loudon, who is from New Zealand but is on a book tour of the U.S. and recently appeared on Glenn Beck's Internet TV and radio shows, is given no credit for this story—or any of his other revelations about Obama—in Frazier's book.

However, the unreliable Wayne Madsen is quoted at length for several pages on the dubious claim that Obama may be a CIA operative.

Frazier stumbles upon some real information without acknowledging where it came from. He mentions, for example, that Obama, as a senator, had sponsored a piece of legislation known as the Global Poverty Act, which would authorize $845 billion for foreign aid. He says "…stories about the Global Poverty Act were a rarity." In fact, we broke that story at Accuracy in Media and it was picked up by many in the conservative media, including Rush Limbaugh.

The reference to Obama's alleged arrest in Russia is based on a story I wrote regarding an Obama trip to Russia that resulted in his detention by Russian authorities. There was no arrest. But questions remain as to whether or not Russian authorities inspected Obama's passport and what they discovered. It is another part of the mystery.

I hesitated to write anything else about the Frazier book, but it is worth comment because a powerful publishing house, Threshhold Editions, a division of Simon and Schuster, put it out. The company can claim credit for a number of conservative bestsellers. But why the editors chose to publish this Mondo Frazier book is beyond comprehension.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic
Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group
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=e0c81cea-1467-11e1-8b5c-a39e3cf8c788&T=1ckalufke%2fX%3d1321897218%2fE%3d1705323667%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d205512607%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iUG9kY2FzdHM7R3JvdXBzO1dpZGdldHM7RmxpY2tyO0Jvb2ttYXJrO0dlb2NpdGllcztNYWlsO05ld3M7QWxlcnRzO0tub3dsZWRnZV9TZWFyY2g7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlMGM4MWNlYS0xNDY3LTExZTEtOGI1Yy1hMzllM2NmOGM3ODgiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzMjE4OTcyMTgzMjI3MjQiIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d9E238962&U=13caeuupv%2fN%3dnldlLWKJiTw-%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=20194806/grpspId=1705323667/msgId=0/stime=1321897218/nc1=3848614/nc2=5898817/nc3=5758223>
__,_._,___

Re: JP Why "No" to Imran Khan....

Read the following link of Dawn (Sunday -Letters to the Editor)

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/20/imran-and-dengue-fever-test.html

1st mail

AS we hear of a wave of change everywhere in the shape of Imran Khan's PTI, most of us are thinking and want that there must be a positive change in the country and issues like corruption, unemployment, power crisis and law and order should be resolved.

I was also with the PTI for a few months until the dengue spread in Lahore. Test laboratories started fleecing the people for dengue fever test and Shaukat Khanum laboratory was also in the same line, demanding Rs700 to Rs1,400. The Punjab government announced that the charges for dengue virus test is Rs90 to facilitate the people in crisis, which was a need of time.

But a few laboratory owners, including Shaukat Khanum — purely run by donations and contributions given by people — offered resistance to the government decision and approached the Lahore High Court.

Now the point is that if the PTI chief, the trustee of Shaukhat Khanum laboratory, could not help the people in a criss, how come he will do that on coming to power.

I am now focusing on the party which has a strong experienced team and fewer corrupt people in it because we, as nation, are not perfect apart from the few who do have some authority.

SAEED IQBAL
via email

2nd mail

Cricket hero

SUPPORT for Imran Khan is not because of his great achievements in the political arena but because of him winning the World Cup and building the Shaukat Khanam Memorial Hospital. Indeed they are great accomplishments but in no way do they amount to any political substance. The most common reason for his support is that 'everyone else has been tested and so now its Imran Khan's turn.' As 'moving' as that testimony is, it does not hold any political reasoning as it means that the support for Imran is not for his 'qualification' but more so based on other political players disqualifications.

Similarly, when Pervez Musharraf is spoken about in the political sphere, the one thing that overshadows all other is his military background. No doubt, it is a major part of his life but it cannot be the dominant aspect of his political portfolio. Even if it was, it still is not a disqualifying feature as supporters of Turkey's first President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, American President Dwight Eisenhower, Singaporean former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and Vietnamese Prime Minister Ho Chi Minh would certainly beg to differ.

Hence, there is a grave need for objectivity in current political discussions so that our people do not use Imran's novelty aspect as a viable reason to vote for him. Let us analyse our politicians for the true political mettle they are made of and not go with the flow just because their non-political aspects appeal to us.

HAWRA POONAWALA
Karachi

From: Mansoor Rahim <mnf132@hotmail.com>
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: **JP** Why "No" to Imran Khan....

W Salam

Well first of all we knows that Imran is having qualities of a great leader, and as a great leader he will choose only right politicians. He already has a commission in his party, who are collecting records of right and wrong politicians.

Secondly I am disagree with your "NO" as other political parties have been failed to produce quality work to develope this beautiful country.

MY VOICE IS 'YES' FOR PTI AND IMRAN KHAN

thank you all

Mansoor Rahim Zahid

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:51:18 -0800
From: unbarry@yahoo.com
Subject: **JP** Why "No" to Imran Khan....
To:

assalam o alaikum.

It seems that Imran Khan is captured by the people of vested interests. He started his political career as a 'Muslim Hero" then suddenly he becomes "liberal". It seems that he is not clear about what he want to b? Then how can he lead us?

Secondly, his party is joining by the old, cunning and bad reputed politicians of Q-League, their presence have raised some doubts in our minds regarding the party policy and the ruling policy of our country under these ministers.

Imran needs to review his vision and mission seriously because ruling the country is not a joke......

Regards

U N Barry

--
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: Gingrich: The “smartest, most electable conservative in the race”

An offhand statement made five and a half years ago.
---
November 19, 2011 forum in Des Moines, Iowa:
"I agree entirely with Senator Santorum. I would say to the
government of Iran today, you have a very short time to solve this on
your own, and if you don't we will solve it for you. And we frankly
couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. We're going to
get it done." - NG

On Nov 21, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So let me make sure I understand. You have gone back to a statement that
> Senator John McCain and Former House Speaker Gingrich made on July 17,
> 2006, dealing with the Syrian and Iranian internal interference of
> Lebanon, and an off hand remark by McCain and Gingrich, that this could be
> the beginning of World War III, as somehow suppporting Gingrich as pushing
> for war with Iran?
>
> An offhand statement made five and a half years ago.
>
> Come on PlainOl, please tell me that this is not the basis of your logic!
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Tell me what it is that you disagree with, that
> > Gingrich purports or stands for.
> > ----
> > I disagree with almost everything he says and supports.
>
> > example:
> > Looking to their American counterparts on Monday, Knesset members were
> > surprised at the solidarity and support being shown among key US
> > politicians.
> > Several top US political figures, including former House Speaker Newt
> > Gingrich (Rep.) called the current Middle East crisis the beginning of
> > "World War III" and said they were "gravely concerned" in an interview
> > on CNN's Larry King Live.
>
> > Gingrich, who called the crisis World War III in several interviews
> > over the weekend, said that the US and Israel were acting with much
> > restraint and that the US should shoot down Iranian planes sending
> > supplies to Lebanon.
> > "I have to say that I'm a bit nervous about what they mean," said MK
> > Danny Yatom (Labor). "To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about the US
> > intervening. Let them send us money, supplies... we can do the rest
> > ourselves."
> > Many MKs said that while they were happy to hear US politicians taking
> > a strong line in support of Israel, they were concerned about how US
> > intervention would play itself out.
> > "It is not World War III because there are no armies involved," said
> > Vice Premier Shimon Peres (Kadima). "They must remember that this is
> > an entirely different type of conflict."
> > "In many ways they are completely disconnected from what is going on
> > here," said MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz). "They might make calls for
> > something that is completely unnecessary."
> > "They haven't learned anything and they don't understand anything. I
> > hope that they understand more about America than they understand
> > about the Middle East," said MK Colette Avital (Labor).
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:37 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > PlainOl';
>
> > > I have now watched the first video you sent, (and I will get around to
> > the
> > > second video later today).
>
> > > Again, I ask you, what can you point to, anything, that supports your
> > > statement that Gingrich is pushing for war in Iran? It is clearly not in
> > > this video, and EVERYTHING that Gingrich says in this video, I agree
> > with.
>
> > > What in the video, other than he is appearing on Shalom TV, do you
> > > disagree with?
>
> > > Specifics please. Tell me what it is that you disagree with, that
> > > Gingrich purports or stands for.
>
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:31 AM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Newt Gingrich is a warmonger and a propagandist for zionist fascism
> > > > that supports military intervention in the middle east.
> > > > He should already be political history.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RtJYib1O4g
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqrpAkmP6Y
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 9:05 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > How sad for you PlainOl'.
>
> > > > > I suggest you take another look at Gingrich.
>
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:12 AM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > Newt's decision making making abilities are impaired and bound to
> > > > > > fail.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 20, 9:40 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Gingrich: The "smartest, most electable conservative in the race"
>
> > > > > > > Posted by NN&V Staff
> > > > > > > <http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/author/admin>on Nov
> > 10th,
> > > > 2011
>
> > > > > > > *(Charlie Smith/Time for Newt)* – "Smartest guy in the room." "A
> > > > genius."
> > > > > > > "Brilliant." "Fantastic to listen to." "I would love to see him
> > > > debate
> > > > > > > Obama."
>
> > > > > > > "But he can't win."
>
> > > > > > > If you're like me, every time Newt Gingrich's name comes up,
> > this is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > kind of thing you hear. Conservatives love him. He's clearly the
> > > > smartest
> > > > > > > guy on the stage and the candidate best suited to take the fight
> > to
> > > > > > Obama.
> > > > > > > So why does he always get ignored?
>
> > > > > > > Because the liberal media and the establishment have been
> > telling us
> > > > all
> > > > > > > for a year that Newt Gingrich can't possibly win. Well, I'm here
> > to
> > > > tell
> > > > > > > you that all that's changed. Newt Gingrich is now leading Mitt
> > > > Romney in
> > > > > > > Iowa.
>
> > > > > > > *Consider this email your permission slip to do what you've
> > wanted
> > > > to do
> > > > > > > all along: get behind Newt Gingrich and fight for the smartest,
> > most
> > > > > > > electable conservative in the race.*
>
> > > > > > > Mitt Romney came up with the idea that became the template for
> > > > Obamacare.
> > > > > > > Without Mitt Romney, there IS no Obamacare. Rick Perry thinks
> > you're
> > > > > > > heartless if you don't want to give free college tuition to
> > illegal
> > > > > > aliens.
> > > > > > > (He actually SAID that!) And Herman Cain is a nice man, but he
> > can't
> > > > win
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > this point.
>
> > > > > > > That leaves Newt, right where he's been all along, articulating
> > real
> > > > > > > solutions that will allow us to take our country back, turn this
> > > > economy
> > > > > > > around and make us freer, stronger, and safer as a country.
>
> > > > > > > Just stop with me a second and think about something: Next Fall,
> > > > there's
> > > > > > > going to be a Presidential debate between Obama and the GOP
> > nominee.
> > > > Who
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > you want to be in it?
>
> > > > > > > Mitt Romney? The guy who has taken different positions on every
> > > > single
> > > > > > > major issue?
>
> > > > > > > Rick Perry, the guy who can't articulate his positions, and when
> > he
> > > > does,
> > > > > > > seems to offend conservatives every time he talks?
>
> > > > > > > Herman Cain?
>
> > > > > > > The answer is clear: Newt Gingrich. He will absolutely wipe the
> > floor
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > Obama. He won't be cowed, he knows policy better, and he has the
> > > > backbone
> > > > > > > to tell it like it is. He has the guts to say to the American
> > people,
> > > > > > > "President Obama has failed."
>
> > > > > > > As the leading pro-Newt SuperPAC, we're going to go into the
> > states
> > > > and
> > > > > > > rally the activists, and build the organization Newt needs to win
> > > > this
> > > > > > > nomination and beat Obama in the Fall.
>
> > > > > > > The media and the establishment don't get to pick our nominee.
> > We do.
>
> > > > > > > Will you join us?
>
> > > > > > > It's time.
>
> > > > > > > Newt.2012.gif
> > > > > > > 16KViewDownload
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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.

--
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: Obama Regime Will Force US Taxpayers To Pay the Salaries of Terrorists

You should probably take it a little more seriously
---
I don't have a dog in that hunt. The myth believing xians, jews and
muzzies can kill each other all they want ... without US tax dollars
and military support.

choose sides carefully

On Nov 21, 10:02 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should probably take it a little more seriously.
>
> I have witnessed first hand what is going on in Europe, and personally, I
> think most of Europe is lost. It will be predominately fundamentalist
> Islamic before our demise.
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:56 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Fundamental Islam threatens our very way of life.
> > They want us dead.
> > ----
> > your fear of islam has been noted
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:40 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Unless either group threatens the security or lifestyle of Americans and
> > > our Nation. As PlainOl has agreed previously, then we have every right
> > to
> > > defend our interests. Fundamental Islam threatens our very way of life.
> > > They want us dead.
>
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:15 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > paying for the war between the jews and muzzies is insanity
>
> > > > let'em fight it out without our taxes or military
>
> > > > On Nov 20, 8:11 pm, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/its-official-the-obama...
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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 see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

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

JP Remembering Waheed Murad

Hello Folks,

This week marks the 28th death anniversary of Pakistani actor/filmmaker Waheed Murad. For those of you who are unfamiliar with his work, Waheed Murad is one of Pakistan's biggest ever screen legends. The title character in one of his best known films, Armaan, was the inspiration behind Iqbal Academy's recent TV film, 'Iqbal', which I mentioned to you all a few months ago, and which is available on YouTube.
 So why, you may ask, am I mentioning Waheed Murad here? What has he to do with Jinnah, Iqbal, or the story of Pakistan? Perhaps more than you think. Iqbal Academy researcher Khurram Ali Shafique has been collecting material on the filmmaker for a number of years. He has found some interesting links between Murad and Iqbal (personal and intellectual) and has done some presentations exploring what Murad has to offer as an artist. The attached article written by Mr Shafique is sure to intrigue you, and is a good introduction for anyone who doesn't know about Murad.
 In the meantime, the links take you to a series of short articles, including clips from his movies that have been used in Mr Shafique's presentations.

Comments are welcome, and in fact encouraged.

Take Care Folks,

Saleena

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

Saleena Karim,

author of Secular Jinnah

--
Shahzad Shameem

Re: Ron Paul: Hopelessly Naive or Just Plain Stupid?

I reject the notion that the United States is some type of an
interventionist war mongering Nation. That's simply not true.
---
it's damn true
interventionists need to be replaced with honorable Americans who
won't continue a failed policy to civilize 3rd world animals for oil
and israel

On Nov 20, 3:41 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Bruce,
>
> Dr. Paul said it, during one of the debates, (I think the third debate)
>
> I don't necessarily agree with most of what Mark just wrote, although I
> think it simplifies the status of the United States' Middle Eastern Foreign
> Policy. I reject the notion that the United States is some type of an
> interventionist war mongering Nation. That's simply not true.
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I doubt he said that
>
> > On Sunday, November 20, 2011, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a
> > > marine> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a
> > > warship in the> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own
> > > soil in a few> minute's time one fine September morning.
>
> > > Lets see..... the present course of action has seen the USA help in
> > > the FOUNDING of at least two firmly entrenched radical Islam/anti-
> > > America governments, third out of four has point blank said that if
> > > there was a choice between helping an Islamic country or the USA they
> > > would help the Islamic state. The fourth, the one the USA has NO
> > > interest in, now or ever, is the only one that will come out of recent
> > > conflict as moderate and progressive.
>
> > > Given the constant state of "alerts" in the USA the wars have done
> > > NOTHING to make you more secure... other than to be secure in the loss
> > > of basic rights.
>
> > > Just exactly what is wrong with the "rule of law"? Just what do you
> > > have against the constitution that is forcing you into the the "war
> > > powers" and "(un)patriot act" corner?
>
> > > The standing army is not a good idea... A well armed ...in every way..
> > > defense force is. Had the Air Force done its duty on 9-11 no planes
> > > would have hit the towers... had the ships watch done its duty the
> > > Cole would not have been harmed... etc. etc. etc. NONE of the
> > > protocol was followed in any of these cases.. this resulted in the
> > > successful attacks.
>
> > > I have "0" problem with not allowing a plane, ship, or automobile that
> > > carries a Muslim to enter US space. Just quit playing politics with
> > > the world, bomb Irans nuke plant, cut off aid to Muslim countries etc.
> > > But don't play with boots on the ground.. it has not worked in over 50
> > > years.
>
> > > On Nov 20, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch
> > >> military action or initiate a war.
>
> > >> I'm convinced now, that Ron Paul has become a complete buffoonish
> > nitwit,
> > >> either hopelessly naive, or plain stupid. I'd like to hope it's the
> > former,
> > >> but as the days wear on and I listen to his insane anti-war rantings,
> > I'm
> > >> not so sure anymore.
>
> > >> How can anyone even consider this 'Feel-The-Love' Libertarian for the
> > helm
> > >> of Commander-In-Chief?
>
> > >> Jihadists all over the world are vowing our destuction. Ahmadinejad of
> > Iran
> > >> is vowing to wipe out "The Great Satan" and usher in the Islamic
> > Messiah.
> > >> Nukes are being sought by Al Qaeda and being developed by Jihad states.
> > >> Plans for mass death and mayhem in American neighborhoods and schools
> > have
> > >> been recovered from Jihad base camps.
>
> > >> Ron Paul says he sees no possible reason to EVER launch military action
> > or
> > >> go to war.
>
> > >> The guy is on some serious LSD, or he has a hippie Love Fest hangover
> > with
> > >> his pals at moveon.org and other Left-wing Anti-war groups of mostly
> > 60′s
> > >> anti-war retreads.
>
> > >> No possible reason to EVER launch military action???
> > >> Hey Paulie Girl! Remember this???
>
> > >> *(Picture of the WTC)*
>
> > >> Or do you think some 17th Century letter of Marque and Reprisal would
> > >> better deal with the global beast that is militant Islam? But then, if
> > >> Jihad homicide bombers kill themselves by killing Americans then the
> > idea
> > >> of letters of marque are a bit stupid are they not?? The perps are
> > already
> > >> DEAD.
>
> > >> Of course some Libertarians not smoking a bong would think that Letters
> > of
> > >> Marque and Reprisal is a workable option – except they be hypocrites
> > >> considering they are the loudest voices of opposition to Blackwater USA,
> > >> which is essentially the posse a Letter of Reprisal would merit.
>
> > >> Yes, methinks Ron Paul has had too many tokes from the doobie or a major
> > >> contact high from his hippie fans piled in the Ron Paul '08 VW Van
> > >> considering his foray into an alternate reality where giving peace a
> > chance
> > >> defeats Jihadists hell bent on world domination.
>
> > >> But let's take a look at Ron Paul's latest Blame America Pacifistic
> > >> sonata<
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR200...>
> > >> .
>
> > >> In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas
> > >> congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if
> > he
> > >> were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard
> > bully
> > >> and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
>
> > >> 3,000 dead Americans whose blood cries out to us disagree with you Mr.
> > >> Paul. Of course you are of the Osama Bin Laden opinion that America
> > >> deserved 9-11, due our presence in the Middle East and the world.
>
> > >> "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he
> > said
> > >> in the interview.
>
> > >> That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a
> > marine
> > >> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a warship in the
> > >> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil in a few
> > >> minute's time one fine September morning.
>
> > >> "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If
> > >> anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the
> > >> earth within hours.
>
> > >> Oh really? And what nation should we have wiped off the earth after
> > 9-11?
> > >> Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Egypt? All four?
>
> > >> You bother to READ Islamic prophecy and what both Bin laden and
> > Ahmadinejad
> > >> WANT Mr. Paul?
>
> > >> Of course not.
>
> > >> Otherwise you would not be an appeasement stooge for them, playing into
> > >> their foremost desires to martyr entire Muslim nations before the final
> > >> great battle they promise will destroy the West.
>
> > >> And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like
> > such
> > >> bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military
> > >> and have no weapon."
>
> > >> It was amazing what their trained warrior Jihadists were able to
> > accomplish
> > >> with just a few boxcutters and some training on U.S. soil thanks to our
> > >> Immigration policies.
>
> > >> 3,000 American dead. Billions in destruction.
>
> > >> Wonder what the same kind of barbarians would be able to accomplish WITH
> > >> substantive weapons and the willpower to use them to kill us all Mr.
> > Paul?
>
> > >> Nah, your feeble mind refused to grasp reality and the concept the 9-11
> > >> reality woke us up to.
>
> > >> Ron Paul, you are become a disgrace. An embarrassment. Just like the
> > >> hippies of old – you are high and you stink.
>
> > >> If we keep listening to this foreign policy idiot, we're going to need
> > some
> > >> heavy ludes to calm us down, but Ron Paul is already there on the mellow
> > >> yellow submarine of psychedelic pacifism. Pass the 'shrooms and get
> > ready
> > >> to go far out man, all the way back to the 1700′s when men wore wigs and
> > >> the biggest weapon was a ten pound cannonball. Yup, those days of Marque
> > >> and Reprisal are sure to put a stop to Al Qaeda today. Of course there's
> > >> this little problem with the fact Congress passed a law forbidding the
> > >> assassination of any foreign leaders or rogues – but hey – whose
> > counting
> > >> facts? Let's wrap ourselves in the parchment of the Constitution and
> > >> pretend the real world melts in it's presence.
>
> > >> Kindof how our faces seem to melt with the heavy drugs Ron Paul must be
> > >> freebasing.
>
> > >> Someone wake up Ronnie there – before some Jihadist hands him a hooka
> > next
> > >> and he smokes some more appeasement propaganda.
>
> > >>http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/ron-paul-is-hopelessl.
> > ..
>
> > >> 9-11.jpg
> > >> 112KViewDownload
>
> > >> Paul2012..jpg
> > >> 185KViewDownload
>
> > > --
> > > 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 see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

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

The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All

The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All
by Scott Lazarowitz

During a recent Republican Presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich implied that he strongly disagrees with very important assertions of the Declaration of Independence: "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Additionally, like many people now, Gingrich seems to believe that there should be a different set of laws for society when there is a "war" underway. But the truth is, war is an artificial concept used by collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts of aggression against others and get away with it.

The truth is, there are really two kinds of behaviors in general:

Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense), theft, fraud and trespass; or
Non-peaceful, aggressive behavior that consists of the violation of others' persons or property. These are the crimes of society, which include theft and the initiation of aggression against others, terrorist acts, and the use of the State's armed apparatus to initiate violence against foreign peoples.

By "all men," the Declaration refers to all of humankind created equal, and endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty that are inherent in all of us as human beings. The Declaration does not state that such rights apply only to Americans. And "unalienable" (or inalienable) means that such rights are not given to anyone by government because they are inherent rights. If these basic, inherent rights are not given to us by the State and its agents, then the State may not take such rights away. And the Founders were very clear on the idea of due process, which are very strict rules placed on the government to prove its case against a suspect.

Gingrich disagrees with these basic points. He opposes the idea of presumption of innocence. If Gingrich believes that the President, a CIA officer, a soldier or general may have the power to be judge, jury and executioner against someone, then he certainly couldn't believe in the idea of inalienable rights.

Here is just one example of Gingrich's ignorance, joined by most of the other Republican candidates for president, in reference to President Obama's order to assassinate American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process, without trial or any evidence brought forward:

When asked by CBS News anchor Scott Pelley if, as President, Gingrich would "sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas," Gingrich's response was a correction for Pelley. Gingrich declared that al-Awlaki was found guilty, by "a panel that looked at it and reported to the president."

But such a panel and its findings have been kept secret, away from the scrutiny of al-Awlaki's counsel, a jury, Congress or the American people. Gingrich believes that, if the government has told us that someone is guilty of terrorism, without trial or even evidence brought forth, then we must have a blind faith in these government officials that they are telling the truth.

This is despite the fact that Obama never presented actual evidence against al-Awlaki, just as George W. Bush never presented evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt. We should just believe them. Even the so-called killing of bin Laden by the Navy SEALS might not have been true, and bin Laden may actually already have died as early as 2001.

So, are the war supporters and government expansionists really sure they want such un-American, banana republic governmental powers to be in place? At the recent debate, Gingrich declared that, "If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States…You cannot go to court."

Now, Gingrich is called, "Mr. Speaker" because he is fairly good at speaking. But they do not call him "Mr. Thinker," that's for sure. You see, like many others nowadays, he is assuming that, based on someone's determining that one is an "enemy combatant," therefore one has no civil liberties. But it is those civil liberties, those inalienable rights to life and liberty that includes presumption of innocence and due process, which protect the individual from being falsely imprisoned or executed.

When you know that the Bush Administration knowingly apprehended hundreds of innocent people, including children and senile old men, at the beginning of their war against Afghanistan, and detained them indefinitely without trial, evidence or even suspicion, and with more innocents victimized by the Obama Administration as well – some of whom languished at Guantanamo prison for years – you have to admit that these have been crimes committed by the agents of the U.S. government against innocents.

And contrary to what the propagandists have been stating, the real purpose of torturing presumably innocent people has been to extract false confessions and to falsely implicate other innocents. (See here, here and here.). Stating, "but we're at war," as do Newt Gingrich and other statist proponents of this kind of banana republic society, is a simply juvenile attempt at rationalizing the government's crimes.

Now, are you really sure you want to trust the President, military officers and soldiers, and CIA officers – or local police, for that matter – to decide that someone is a "terrorist," and then be his judge, jury and incarcerator, and executioner? Do you trust these people under orders of the likes of Obama, Janet Napolitano or Eric Holder to be the ones to conclude that someone is a "terrorist," and then to be his judge, jury and executioner? Already, some of these public officials have referred to Tea Partiers as " terrorists."

And so we should believe that someone is a "terrorist" without any evidence, because Barack Obama said so? Now, there's someone with credibility. A President who has worked feverishly to bomb and destroy Libya, only to have it come under al Qaeda rule. Or a President such as Bush who bombed and destroyed Iraq, only to bring Iraq under rule of repressive Islamic Sharia Law. We should trust these people to act as judge and jury and to imprison those that such officials determine to be a terrorist, despite the hundreds or thousands who had been swept up randomly in Afghanistan and Iraq, falsely implicated, detained, tortured and murdered?

And should we trust the young soldiers on the battlefield to make that judgment? Remember, the brilliant George W. Bush has said that the whole world is the battlefield now. And that includes the U.S., in which each individual is treated like a criminal now, thanks to the TSA, DHS and Patriot Act.

And should we trust soldiers, many of whom have been committing sexual assaults against female military personnel? Or those who have been committing sexual assaults against other male military personnel, and trust their superior officers who defend them? Should we trust people of that ilk to determine that someone somewhere is a "terrorist"? Or local police departments, many of which are corrupt or have been increasingly militarized?

Should we trust military personnel who have intentionally murdered innocent civilians for the "thrill of it" and other military or police who also have demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic ethics or who suffer from war-induced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or who have criminal backgrounds? (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Remember, "if you see something, say something" – the Stasi fusion centers are waiting for you, and, the detention centers are awaiting those who have been designated "enemy combatants" by the self-appointed judges and juries of the government and police.

And, in being the government's own judge, jury and executioner of those they deem to be "terrorists," should we also trust U.S. officials in the Congress or Senate who also have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the ideas of inalienable rights and presumption of innocence, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, or who have shown themselves to have warped views in life such as Rep. Allen West, or who have shown mental instability such as Rep. Michele Bachmann?

Should we trust the judgment of an attorney general who has (allegedly) been overseeing a gun-running op from the U.S. government to Mexican criminals and drug lords, with the guns then being used against Americans?

Or an FBI run amok, in which agents intentionally approach young Muslim males, manipulate their emotions and motivate them to act against America. FBI agents entering mosques to encourage young Muslim boys and men to be terrorists? You see, in the real world of common sense, you would go into a mosque to discourage, not encourage, young Muslims from wanting to commit acts of terrorism. But, alas, the central planners of national security do not have any common sense.

It is a shame that an innocent young guy like Bradley Manning, who allegedly exposed criminal wrongdoing amongst U.S. government forces overseas, has been locked up in solitary confinement, under torturous and inhumane conditions, without trial or charges. But that is just a typical example of Newt Gingrich's idealized banana republic.

Very similar to communists and fascists, the main purpose of today's neoconservatives – hardly conservative, by the way – has been to expand the size and power of the central government, in its domestic intrusiveness and its reach into foreign lands, while using fear-mongering campaigns and the bogeyman of "terrorists" as their excuse. All they have done especially since 1990 is deliberately provoke foreigners to act against us, as a means of justifying their ever-expanding, centralized Leviathan monstrosity.

Unfortunately for the rest of us who have to live in the same world with these Newt Gingrich statists and collectivists, many government policies (such as presidents starting wars against other countries who were of no threat to us, and un-American police-state domestic policies – not to mention the government's false flag ops) have been based on the bureaucrats' lies and propaganda, repeated by their lapdog media stenographers. Many amongst the population, over whom those unproductive agents of the State rule, come to conclusions and approval of these policies based solely on emotion and not reason. The Bush Administration exploited the fears that the 9/11/01 attacks provoked, and used its fear-mongering as the way for the general population to accept the rights-violating, government-expansionist domestic and foreign intrusions the federal government had been planning to put into place long before 9/11.

One particular kind of mentality wrought by the past century's statism and growth of central planning has been short-term thinking. Like the moral relativism of Gingrich, Obama et al., such short-term thinking has been reinforced by America's government-controlled education system, whose purpose has been the indoctrination of the young to be obedient to the State. The apparatus of central planning itself, promoted by democracy and the collectivizing of the entire territory, has thrived on the population's self-destructive short-term thinking. (See Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book, Democracy: The God That Failed for a thorough analysis of that, and see here as well.)

If Newt Gingrich, Romney and the others prefer living in a banana republic, and do not believe in the morals and ethics of the American Founders – that all humans are equal under the law and under God, that all humans have inherent, inalienable rights to life and liberty – then they ought to go live in Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela. But please stop trying to turn America and the rest of the world into another Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. We can do without it.

http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz34.1.html

Re: Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate

Again, Poor, Poor Pitiful Studio,

Understanding polls and math are clearly not your forte'.....

Watch for the Democratic controlled Senate to swap hands, as well as a massive exodus of those communists parading as Democrats in the House come November. Therein lies the issue with a 9% approval rating, (but again, as we have already ascertained, understanding polls and math are not your strong suit).

Just out of curiosity, where are you camped out at this week? Have you been doused with Pepper spray yet? When is the last time you had a bath?

Last week, while in Washington D.C., I joined your "Peeps", protesting whatever the Hell it is that ya'll are protesting, as well as offering a few personal hygiene tips. Had I known which "Tent/Lean-To" you were in, I would have thrown a couple of bucks in your can!

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:22 AM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obama leads Gingrich by just two points, 47% to 45%. Mitt Romney is next
> closest, trailing Obama by 4 points, 49% to 44%. Ron Paul is the third best
> bet for the Republicans right now, 8 points back from Obama, 49% to 41%.

lol... only in Republitard polls can there be 137% favoritism over
Obama!

Other polls show a 9% favorability rating for the Republitard led
Congress...
...not only is it the lowest rating ever recorded for a Congress, but
it's lower than:

Communism - 11.5% approval rating
Dying alone - 38% approval rating
Penn State sexual assault case involving children - 25% approval
rating
Charles Manson... who enjoys a 9.5% approval rating!... better than
the Republitard led Congress!

http://myfivebest.com/5-things-that-have-a-better-approval-rating-than-congress/

--
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: [2] new discussions on LinkedIn

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Republican Liberty Caucus Group Members
Date: Monday, November 21, 2011
Subject: [2] new discussions on LinkedIn
To: Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com>

Republican Liberty Caucus

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133c59420caaa439&attid=0.0.2&disp=emb&zw>

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133c59420caaa439&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&zw>

November 21, 2011

Latest: Discussions (2)

New Discussions (2)

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News...

Started by Dave Hatter, Entrepreneur, consultant, programmer, author, teacher, and speaker. I help businesses save and/or make money!

Like · Flag

America Before The Entitlement State

Started by Dave Hatter, Entrepreneur, consultant, programmer, author, teacher, and speaker. I help businesses save and/or make money!

Like · Flag

Don't want to receive email notifications? Adjust your message settings.

Stop inappropriate content the moment it is posted. Send me an email for each new discussion »

LinkedIn values your privacy. At no time has LinkedIn made your email address available to any other LinkedIn user without your permission. © 2011, LinkedIn Corporation.