Tuesday, December 27, 2011

**JP** Fw: ! ATM Trcik Please Forward All Freinds



--- On Tue, 27/12/11, Farhan Safeer Qureshi <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Farhan Safeer Qureshi <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com>
Subject: ! ATM Trcik Please Forward All Freinds
To: "Farhan Safeer Qureshi" <qureshiqureshiqureshi@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 27 December, 2011, 9:28 AM




http://i44.tinypic.com/167jllc.jpg 

--
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

TAXPAYER ALERT: Treasury Official Says Obama Will Ask Congress for ANOTHER Debt Ceiling Increase

Going to ask for $1.2T.


New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

TAXPAYER ALERT: Treasury Official Says Obama Will Ask Congress for ANOTHER Debt Ceiling Increase

by Scotty Starnes

Is he serious? Obama wants to spend another $1.2 trillion while Congress is in recess.

What happened to his promise about cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term? This will be Obama's second call for a debt ceiling hike.

I wonder how the credit downgrade happened?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House plans to ask Congressby the end of the week for an increase in the government's debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday.

The approval is expected to go through without a challenge, given that Congress is in recess until later in January and the request is in line with an agreement to keep the U.S. government funded into 2013.

The debt is projected to fall within $100 billion of the current cap by December 30, when the United States has $82 billion in interest on its debt and payments such as Social Security coming due.President Barack Obama is expected to ask for authority to increase the borrowing limit by $1.2 trillion, part of the spending authority that was negotiated between Congress and the White House this summer.

It will be more next year thanks to those payroll tax cuts which take revenue away from Social Security. Obama and Congress fail to mention this to the taxpayers and Seniors.

...The debt limit currently stands at $15.194 trillion and would increase to $16.394 trillion with the request.

Translation. Obama has added $6 trillion to the national debt in just 3 years. Bush added $4 trillion in 8 years. Obama is the problem and the taxpayers can't afford four more years of his spread the wealth agenda.

Continue reading>>>

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/taxpayer-alert-treasury-official-says-obama-will-ask-congress-for-another-debt-ceiling-increase/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
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.

Comedy Gold: ATF “Loosens” Restrictions on Gun Sales to Foreigners



New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Comedy Gold: ATF "Loosens" Restrictions on Gun Sales to Foreigners

by Scotty Starnes

At a time when the ATF is under the microscope for trafficking firearms to a foreign country via their scandalous Fast and Furious operation, here comes this news nugget.

Via AllGov.com:

The Obama administration has decided to eliminate a 1998 restriction on the sale of guns to foreigners, claiming federal law does not allow the government to have different gun-control rules for noncitizens.

In a letter to firearms dealers, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said it would no longer require sellers to obtain proof from foreign buyers that they have lived in the state for 90 days. The rule was originally instituted after a disturbed Palestinian, 69-year-old Ali Abu Kamal, admitted to the United States on a legal nonimmigrant visa, bought a 380-caliber Beretta semiautomatic handgun in Florida and, on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in New York City, shot to death one person and injured six others.

The ATF and DOJ under Obama have no issues with giving guns to foreigners. Ask the Mexican government.

"The Department of Justice … has recently concluded that, as a matter of law, applying a more stringent State residency requirement for aliens legally present in the U.S. than for U.S. citizens is incompatible with the language of the [Gun Control Act]," the ATF letter reads.
Some gun-control advocates criticized the change. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) said that eliminating the regulation defied "common sense and puts Americans at risk" because it could make it easier for foreign terrorists to obtain weapons inside the country.
What else would one expect from an administration who has been supplying the Mexican drug cartels with firearms?

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/comedy-gold-atf-loosens-restrictions-on-gun-sales-to-foreigners/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
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.

Jello for Adults Only – What Would Bill Cosby Say?




New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Jello for Adults Only – What Would Bill Cosby Say?

by lowtechgrannie

Jell-O uses facial biometrics to dispense "adults only" desert

As part of Jell-O's new campaign to promote its latest desert the company is giving away free samples using a sophisticated vending machine that uses facial biometrics to keep children away

As part of Jell-O's new campaign to promote its latest desert the company is giving away free samples usinga sophisticated vending machine that uses facial biometrics to keep children away.

"Temptations," Jell-O's new pudding is meant to be for "adults only," so to ensure that children are not getting any free samples, its new vending machines will use facial recognition technology.  Full Story

~LTG

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/jello-for-adults-only-what-would-bill-cosby-say/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
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: US To Buy $500 Million In Smallpox Vaccine - Why?

Thanks.  Sent to my source.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
 
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:







   Subject: US To Buy $500 Million In Smallpox Vaccine - Why?

 

 

         US To Buy $500 Million In Smallpox Vaccine - Why?

 

         Why is the U.S. Doubling Its Protection Against this

 Non-existent Health Enemy?

 

         By Dr. Mercola

           The U.S. government has awarded a $433-million contract to

 pharmaceutical company Siga Technologies for 1.7 million doses of an

 experimental smallpox drug called ST-246 (Tecovirimat).

 

           In this time of limited resources and heavy budget deficits,

 the decision to spend nearly half a billion dollars to stockpile a

 drug of questionable safety and effectiveness, for a strictly

 theoretical danger, is puzzling -- and that is an extreme

 understatement.

        

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/24/experime

ntal-smallpox-drug-test.aspx?e_cid=20111224_DNL_art_3

 

 

         www.rense.com

 

 

 

 

 

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: NDAA, AKA 'Indefinite Citizen Imprisonment w/o Trial Act' is still open to veto

I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's review
---
even someone 'associated' with terrorists

On Dec 27, 11:47 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After study and review, as well as being familiar with the Supreme Court
> Decision in *Rumsfeld v.  Hamdi*,  where the Supremes ruled that EVERY
> American is entitled to *habeas corpus* and review of detainment;  that
> Section 1022, and the phrase which states in part:
>
>  *b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
>   (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the
> United States.*
>
> I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's review,
> whether he has been caught on the battlefield, or in downtown Tampa.
> This obviously does not apply to foreign enemy combatants, and I for one
> agree that it should not apply to enemy combatants who are not American.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > btw - RP's opposition is that the amendment repeals parts of the bill
> > of rights, patriot act, 4th and 5th amendments and even magna carta
> > principles.
> > Many Americans don't understand the relationship between local, state,
> > federal, and military authority.
> > If thinking that our authorities should have all the resources they
> > need to combat terrorism makes me a moonbat then keep calling me a
> > moonbat.
>
> > On Dec 26, 6:28 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Just in case you missed it:
>
> > > *(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
> > >   (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> > > military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the
> > > United States.
> > > *
> > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Good Morning.
>
> > > > I am genuinely hoping that you will respond to this post.  As a side
> > note,
> > > > last week, we had Crackpots and Moonbats claiming that this piece of
> > > > legislation,  (which is renewed every year since 1961, with various
> > > > modifications)   was setting up camps to imprison American citizens,
> >  (I
> > > > assume Ron Paul supporters)  until level heads pointed out to these
> > > > Moonbats and Crackpots that the legislation didn't say anything of the
> > > > sort.
>
> > > > What in particular, are you, and others who oppose this legislation,
> > > > opposed to?  Here is the section that you reference, (which by the way,
> > > > does not say what you claim it says).  I suggest that all of the
> > Moonbats,
> > > > and all of the Crackpots read the legislation before they listen to
> > other
> > > > Crackpots and Moonbats, and get their proverbial panties in a wad:
>
> > > > Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
>
> > > > SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
> > > > STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE
> > OF
> > > > MILITARY FORCE.
>
> > > >    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President
> > > >    to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
> > Authorization
> > > >    for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note)
> > includes
> > > >    the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain
> > covered
> > > >    persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under
> > the law of
> > > >    war.
>
> > > >    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any
> > person
> > > >    as follows:
>
> > > >    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
> > > >       terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
> > harbored those
> > > >       responsible for those attacks.
>
> > > >    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda,
> > > >       the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in
> > hostilities against
> > > >       the United States or its coalition partners, including any
> > person who has
> > > >       committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such
> > hostilities in
> > > >       aid of such enemy forces.
>
> > > >    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under
> > > >    the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the
> > following:
>
> > > >    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of
> > the
> > > >       hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military
> > Force.
>
> > > >    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as
> > > >       amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
> > Public Law
> > > >       111-84)).
>
> > > >    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal
> > > >       having lawful jurisdiction.
>
> > > >    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of
> > > >       origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
>
> > > >    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or
> > > >    expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
> > Authorization for
> > > >    Use of Military Force.
>
> > > >    (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to
> > affect
> > > >    existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United
> > States
> > > >    citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other
> > persons
> > > >    who are captured or arrested in the United States.
>
> > > >    (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense
> > > >    shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
> > authority
> > > >    described in this section, including the organizations, entities,
> > and
> > > >    individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of
> > subsection
> > > >    (b)(2).
>
> > > > SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
>
> > > >    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
>
> > > >    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed
> > Forces
> > > >       of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph
> > (2) who is
> > > >       captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the
> > Authorization for
> > > >       Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody
> > pending
> > > >       disposition under the law of war.
>
> > > >    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to
> > > >       any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who
> > is
> > > >       determined--
>
> > > >    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force
> > > >          that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction
> > of al-Qaeda; and
>
> > > >    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out
> > an
> > > >          attack or attempted attack against the United States or its
> > coalition
> > > >          partners.
>
> > > >    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection,
> > the
> > > >       disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning
> > given in
> > > >       section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in
> > paragraph
> > > >       (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the
> > requirements
> > > >       of section 1028.
>
> > > >    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the
> > > >       requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to
> > Congress a
> > > >       certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national
> > security
> > > >       interests of the United States.
>
> > > >    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
> > Aliens-
>
> > > >    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> > > >       military custody under this section does not extend to citizens
> > of the
> > > >       United States.
>
> > > >    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> > > >       military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful
> > resident
> > > >       alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place
> > within the
> > > >       United States, except to the extent permitted by the
> > Constitution of the
> > > >       United States.
>
> > > >    (c) Implementation Procedures-
>
> > > >    (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the
> > enactment
> > > >       of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress,
> > procedures
> > > >       for implementing this section.
>
> > > >    (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall
> > > >       include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
>
> > > >    (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make
> > > >          determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by
> > which such
> > > >          determinations are to be made.
>
> > > >    (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody
> > > >          under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of
> > ongoing
> > > >          surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons
> > not already
> > > >          in the custody or control of the United States.
>
> > > >    (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection
> > (a)(2)
> > > >          is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion
> > of an
> > > >          interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination
> > is made and
> > > >          does not require the interruption of any such ongoing
> > interrogation.
>
> > > >    (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody
> > > >          under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law
> > enforcement,
> > > >          or other Government officials of the United States are
> > granted access to an
> > > >          individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
>
> > > >    (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security
> > > >          interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the
> > purpose of
> > > >          transferring a covered person from a third country if such a
> > transfer is in
> > > >          the interest of the United States and could not
>
> ...
>
> read 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: US To Buy $500 Million In Smallpox Vaccine - Why?

 
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:







   Subject: US To Buy $500 Million In Smallpox Vaccine - Why?

 

 

         US To Buy $500 Million In Smallpox Vaccine - Why?

 

         Why is the U.S. Doubling Its Protection Against this

 Non-existent Health Enemy?

 

         By Dr. Mercola

           The U.S. government has awarded a $433-million contract to

 pharmaceutical company Siga Technologies for 1.7 million doses of an

 experimental smallpox drug called ST-246 (Tecovirimat).

 

           In this time of limited resources and heavy budget deficits,

 the decision to spend nearly half a billion dollars to stockpile a

 drug of questionable safety and effectiveness, for a strictly

 theoretical danger, is puzzling -- and that is an extreme

 understatement.

        

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/24/experime

ntal-smallpox-drug-test.aspx?e_cid=20111224_DNL_art_3

 

 

         www.rense.com

 

 

 

 

 

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Watch and decide yourself.

 

O

Obama Mythologos

Barack Obama is a myth, our modern version of Pecos Bill or Paul
Bunyan. What we were told is true, never had much basis in fact — a
fact now increasingly clear as hype gives way to reality.

"Brilliant"

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss, on no evidence, once
proclaimed Obama "probably the smartest guy ever to become president."
When he thus summed up liberal consensus, was he perhaps referring to
academic achievement? Soaring SAT scores? Seminal publications? IQ
scores known only to a small Ivy League cloister? Political wizardry?

Who was this Churchillian president so much smarter than the
Renaissance man Thomas Jefferson, more astute than a John Adams or
James Madison, with more insight than a Lincoln, brighter still than
the polymath Teddy Roosevelt, more studious than the bookish Woodrow
Wilson, better read than the autodidact Harry Truman?

Consider. Did Obama achieve a B+ average at Columbia? Who knows? (Who
will ever know?) But even today's inflated version of yesteryear's
gentleman Cs would not normally warrant admission to Harvard Law. And
once there, did the Law Review editor publish at least one seminal
article? Why not?

I ask not because I particularly care about the GPAs or certificates
of the president, but only because I am searching for a shred of
evidence to substantiate this image of singular intellectual power and
known erudition. For now, I don't see any difference between Bush's
Yale/Harvard MBA record and Obama's Columbia/Harvard Law record —
except Bush, in self-deprecation, laughed at his quite public C+/B-
accomplishments that he implied were in line with his occasional
gaffes, while Obama has quarantined his transcripts and relied on the
media to assert that his own versions of "nucular" moments were not
moments of embarrassment at all.

At Chicago, did lecturer Obama write a path-breaking legal article or
a book on jurisprudence that warranted the rare tenure offer to a
part-
time lecturer? (Has that offer ever been extended to others of like
stature?) In the Illinois legislature or U.S. Senate, was Obama known
as a deeply learned man of the Patrick Moynihan variety? Whether as an
undergraduate, law student, lawyer, professor, legislator or senator,
Obama was given numerous opportunities to reveal his intellectual
weight. Did he ever really? On what basis did Harvard Law Dean Elena
Kagan regret that Obama could not be lured to a top billet at Harvard?

That his brilliance is a myth was not just revealed by the weekly
lapses (whether phonetic [corpse-man], or cultural [Austria/Germany,
the United Kingdom/England, Memorial Day/Veterans Day] or inane [57
states]), but in matters of common sense and basic history. The error-
ridden Cairo speech was foolish; the serial appeasement of Iran
revealed an ignorance of human nature; a two-minute glance at an
etiquette book would have nixed the bowing or the cheap gifts to the
UK.

In short, the myth of Obama's brilliance was based on his teleprompted
eloquence, the sort of fable that says we should listen to a clueless
Sean Penn or Matt Damon on politics because they can sometimes act
well. Read Plato's Ion on the difference between gifted rhapsody and
wisdom — and Socrates' warning about easily conflating the two. It
need not have been so. At any point in a long career, Obama the
rhapsode could have shunned the easy way, stuck his head in a book,
and earned rather than charmed those (for whom he had contempt) for
his rewards. Clinton was a browser with a near photographic memory who
had pretensions of deeply-read wonkery; but he nonetheless browsed.
Obama seems never to have done that. He liked the vague idea of
Obamacare, outsourced the details to the Democratic Congress, applied
his Chicago protocols to getting it passed, and worried little what
was actually in the bill. We were to think that the obsessions with
the NBA, the NCAA final four, the golfing tics, etc., were all
respites from exhausting labors of the mind rather than in fact the
presidency respites from all the former.

"Healer"

Take away all the"'no more red state/no more blue state," "this is our
moment" mish-mash and what is left to us? "Reaching across the aisle"
sounded bipartisan, but it came from the most consistently partisan
member of the U.S. Senate. Most of the 2008 campaign was a frantic
effort on the part of the media to explain away Bill Ayers, ACORN, the
SEIU, Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, the clingers speech, "get in their
face," and the revealing put downs of Hillary Clinton. But those were
windows into a soul that soon opened even wider — with everything from
limb-lopping doctors and polluting Republicans to stupidly acting
police and "punish our enemies" nativists. The Special Olympics
"joke," the pig reference to Sarah Palin, the middle finger nose rub
to Hillary — all that was a scratch of the thin shiny veneer into the
hard plywood beneath.

The binding up our wounds myth had no basis in reality, but was
constructed on the notion (to channel the racially condescending Harry
Reid and Joe Biden) that a charismatic and young postracial
rhetorician seemed so non-threatening. The logic was that Obama took a
train from Springfield to DC; so did Lincoln; presto, both were like
healers. The truth? The Obamites — Jarrett, Axelrod, Emanuel, etc. —
were hard-core partisan dividers, who had a history of demonizing
enemies, suing to eliminate opponents, and leaking divorce records, in
addition to the usual Chicago campaign protocols.

If one were to collate the Obama record on race (from Eric Holder's
"my people" and "cowards" to Sotomayor's "wise Latina" and Van Jones's
racist rants), it is the most polarizing in a generation. The Obama
way is and always was to create horrific straw men: opponents of
health care reform are greedy doctors who want to rip out your
tonsils; opponents of tax increases jet off to Vegas to blow their
children's tuition money; skeptics of Solyndra-like disasters want to
dirty the air; those against open borders wish to put alligators and
moats in the Rio Grande as they round up children at ice cream
parlors. There were ways of opposing Republicans without the
demonization, but the demonization was useful when followed by the
soaring, one-eyed Jack rhetoric about reaching out, working together,
and avoiding the old politics of acrimony.

"Reformer"

The notion that there was anything in Obama's past or present
temperament to suggest a political reformer was mythological to the
core. Almost all his prior elections relied on a paradigm of attacking
his opponents rather than defending his own record, from the races for
the legislature to the U.S. Senate. He shook down Wall Street as no
one had before or since — and well after the September 2008 meltdown.
He was the logical expression of the Chicago/Illinois system of Tony
Rezko, Blago, and the Daleys, not its aberration — from the mundane of
expanding his yard to melting down opponents by leaking sealed divorce
records.

The more Obama badmouthed BP and Goldman Sachs, the more we knew he
received record amounts of cash from both (were the bad "millionaires
and billionaires" snickering that this was just part of the game?). He
renounced liberal public financing of campaigns of over three decades
duration, as only a liberal reformer might, and got away with it.
Obama raised far more money than any candidate in history, and will go
back to the same trough this time around. On a Monday the president
will vilify Wall Street, on Tuesday host a $40,000-a-head dinner for
those who apparently did not get his earlier message that at some
point they had already made enough money and this was now surely not
the time to profit — or did they get it all too well? Wait, you say,
"They all do this!" Well, perhaps most at any rate; but most also
spare us the messianic rhetoric and so do not win the additional
charge of hypocrisy. Reforming the system is hard; reforming the
reformers of the system impossible.

So when Obama speaks loudly about Wall Street criminality, we now
snooze — only to awaken knowing Corzine's missing $1 billion, or
George Soros's felony conviction in France, or Jeffrey Immelt's no-tax
gymnastics were not just never raised, but are exempted through the
purchase of liberal penance, in the manner that John Kerry never
really docked his gargantuan yacht in a less taxed state, or Timothy
Geithner never really pocketed his FICA allowances.

As far as the vaunted promises to end the revolving door, lobbyists,
and earmarks and usher in a new transparency, well, blah, blah, blah.
Obama did not merely violate his proposed reforms, but excelled in the
old politics as few others had. The career of a Peter Orszag or the
crony machinations of the Solyndra executives attest well enough.

As far as medical transparency, I care only that my president seems
healthy enough to get up in the morning for his grueling ordeal and
can be spared the how part; but I do recognize that we have a history
of disguising maladies (cf. Wilson's incapacity, FDR's last year, or
JFK's numerous prescription drugs), and that, in recent times at
least, we have demanded a new transparency. Was that why the media
harped on McCain's melanoma, his age, and his injuries? So I thought
we would get the now mandatory 24-look at 500 pages of thirty years of
Obama's doctors visits, medications, vital signs, diseases, all the
treatments that the watchdog media goes ape over — whether Tom
Eagleton's shock treatments or Mike Dukakis's use of Advil or the Bush
thyroid problem.

Instead, we got a tiny paragraph from Obama's doctor assuring us that
he's healthy, and this from the most "transparent" president in
history, in an age when the press is frenzied over a presidential
Ambien prescription. To this day, I have no idea whether our president
smokes, or ever did, or for how long and how much, or if he ever took
a prescription drug, or if his blood pressure is perfect or under
treatment. Again, I care only that he gets up in the morning — and
that the de facto rules of disclosure that have applied to others
apply to him.

We will never know much about Fast and Furious, and even less about
Greengate. Obama — and this was clever rather than brilliant — gauged
rightly that not only would liberals' hysteria about ethics cease when
he brought them to power, but in a strange way they would grin that
one of their own had out-hustled the supposed right-wing hustlers. Or
was it a sort of paleo-Marxist idea of using the corrupt system to end
the supposedly corrupt system? Those who vacation at Vail, Martha's
Vineyard, or Costa del Sol are supposedly insidiously undermining the
system that allows only the millionaire and billionaire few to do so?

"Magnanimous"

This was the strangest chapter of the myth, the idea that Obama the
Olympian was above the fray. He lobbied the Germans for an address at
the Brandenburg Gate, settled for the Prussian Victory Column, and, as
thanks, then skipped out as president on the 20th anniversary of the
fall of the Berlin Wall — but managed to jet to Copenhagen to lobby
for the Chicago Olympics.

There was never a peep that Obama's present anti-terrorism protocols —
Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, Predators, the Patriot Act,
preventative detention — came from George Bush. Much less did we hear
that had Bush for a nanosecond ever listened to the demagoguery of
then state legislator and later senator Obama, none of these tools
would presently exist. How did what was superfluous, unconstitutional,
and possibly illegal in 2008 become vital in 2011?

Ditto the Iraq War. We went in a blink from the surge that failed and
made things worse and all troops must be out by March 2008 to Iraq was
a shining example of American idealism and commitment. It was as if
the touch-and-go, life-and-death gamble between February 2007 and
January 2009 in Iraq never had existed. Bombing Libya was not warlike,
and those who sued Bush on Iraq and Guantanamo now filed briefs to
prove that we were not at war killing Libyan thugs. We hear only of
reset; never that Obama has now simply abandoned all his "Bush-did-it"
policies and is quietly going back to the Bush consensus on Russia,
Iran, Syria, and the Middle East in general. We will not only never
see Guantanamo closed or KSM tried in a civilian court, but never hear
why not. Are we to applaud the hypocrisy as at least better than
continued ignorance?

On the domestic front, we are forever frozen on September 15, 2008.
There is never an Obama sentence that the Freddie/Fannie machinations
(both agencies were routinely plundered for bonuses by ex-Clinton
flunkies) gave a green light to Wall Street greed — much less that
both empowered public recklessness either to flip houses or to buy a
house without credit worthiness or any history of thrift. Did we ever
hear that between the meltdown and the inauguration, there were four
months of frantic stabilization that, by the time of Obama's
ascendancy, had ensured that the panic had largely passed? Instead,
blowing $5 trillion in three years is to be forever the response to
the ongoing and now multiyear Bush crash, all to justify a "never
waste a crisis" reordering of society.

I could go on, but we know only that we know very little about Barack
Obama, and what we do know is quite different from what is alleged.
All presidents have mythographies, but they also have a record and
auditors that can collate facts with fiction. In Obama's case, we were
never given all the facts and there were few in the press interested
in finding them.

To quote Maxwell Scott in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "When the
legend becomes fact, print the legend."

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/when-the-legend-becomes-fact-pri...

--
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 ’06 Memo: “Agree Entirely With Gov . Romney” on Health Care

I wonder if Jonathan Karl actually read Gingrich's memo.  
 
Gingrich's point, is that those who choose to avoid paying for their own health care, and opt for the free medicaid/free health care ticket;  a State such as Massachusetts (or any other State)  has a right to regulate such provisions.
 
I agree.  It is when the Federal Government starts getiting involved in such a boondoggle that every American should be concerned!    It is getting harder and harder to distinguish between Crackpots and Moonbats.   Hopefully, Crazy Uncle Ron's fifteen minutes of fame will end in a couple of months.
 


 
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:54 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:


Gingrich '06 Memo: "Agree Entirely With Gov. Romney" on Health Care
By Jonathan Karl
Dec 27, 2011 7:41am

To conservatives, the biggest strike against Mitt Romney is the health care plan he put in place in Massachusetts, but Newt Gingrich lavished praise on Romney's plan after it was passed in 2006.

"We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans," Gingrich wrote in 2006.

And, Gingrich wrote, the key to achieving that goal was doing what Romney did in Massachusetts:  Requiring everybody who could afford it to buy health insurance.  In fact, Gingrich makes an impassioned case for the so-called individual mandate ­ which is also at the center of President Obama's health plan ­ on conservative grounds.

"We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System," Gingrich wrote in the memo which was found on an old Gingrich website by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski.  "Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers."

Read the memo.

Gingrich had some criticisms of the Massachusetts plan ­ including what he called the state's over-regulation of health insurers ­ but overall, he loved it.

Newt:  "Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system."


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-06-memo-agree-entirely-with-gov-romney-on-health-care/

--
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: NDAA, AKA 'Indefinite Citizen Imprisonment w/o Trial Act' is still open to veto

After study and review, as well as being familiar with the Supreme Court Decision in Rumsfeld v.  Hamdi,  where the Supremes ruled that EVERY American is entitled to habeas corpus and review of detainment;  that Section 1022, and the phrase which states in part:
 
 b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
  (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

I believe that no American can be detained without a Court's review,  whether he has been caught on the battlefield, or in downtown Tampa.    This obviously does not apply to foreign enemy combatants, and I for one agree that it should not apply to enemy combatants who are not American.



On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
btw - RP's opposition is that the amendment repeals parts of the bill
of rights, patriot act, 4th and 5th amendments and even magna carta
principles.
Many Americans don't understand the relationship between local, state,
federal, and military authority.
If thinking that our authorities should have all the resources they
need to combat terrorism makes me a moonbat then keep calling me a
moonbat.

On Dec 26, 6:28 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just in case you missed it:
>
> *(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
>   (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the
> United States.
> *
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Good Morning.
>
> > I am genuinely hoping that you will respond to this post.  As a side note,
> > last week, we had Crackpots and Moonbats claiming that this piece of
> > legislation,  (which is renewed every year since 1961, with various
> > modifications)   was setting up camps to imprison American citizens,  (I
> > assume Ron Paul supporters)  until level heads pointed out to these
> > Moonbats and Crackpots that the legislation didn't say anything of the
> > sort.
>
> > What in particular, are you, and others who oppose this legislation,
> > opposed to?  Here is the section that you reference, (which by the way,
> > does not say what you claim it says).  I suggest that all of the Moonbats,
> > and all of the Crackpots read the legislation before they listen to other
> > Crackpots and Moonbats, and get their proverbial panties in a wad:
>
> > Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
>
> > SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
> > STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF
> > MILITARY FORCE.
>
> >    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President
> >    to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization
> >    for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
> >    the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
> >    persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of
> >    war.
>
> >    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person
> >    as follows:
>
> >    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
> >       terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those
> >       responsible for those attacks.
>
> >    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda,
> >       the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against
> >       the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has
> >       committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in
> >       aid of such enemy forces.
>
> >    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under
> >    the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
>
> >    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the
> >       hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
>
> >    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as
> >       amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law
> >       111-84)).
>
> >    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal
> >       having lawful jurisdiction.
>
> >    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of
> >       origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
>
> >    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or
> >    expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for
> >    Use of Military Force.
>
> >    (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
> >    existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States
> >    citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons
> >    who are captured or arrested in the United States.
>
> >    (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense
> >    shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority
> >    described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and
> >    individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection
> >    (b)(2).
>
> > SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
>
> >    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
>
> >    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces
> >       of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is
> >       captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
> >       Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending
> >       disposition under the law of war.
>
> >    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to
> >       any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is
> >       determined--
>
> >    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force
> >          that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
>
> >    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an
> >          attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition
> >          partners.
>
> >    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the
> >       disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in
> >       section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph
> >       (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements
> >       of section 1028.
>
> >    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the
> >       requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a
> >       certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security
> >       interests of the United States.
>
> >    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
>
> >    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> >       military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the
> >       United States.
>
> >    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in
> >       military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident
> >       alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the
> >       United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the
> >       United States.
>
> >    (c) Implementation Procedures-
>
> >    (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
> >       of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures
> >       for implementing this section.
>
> >    (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall
> >       include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
>
> >    (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make
> >          determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such
> >          determinations are to be made.
>
> >    (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody
> >          under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing
> >          surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already
> >          in the custody or control of the United States.
>
> >    (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2)
> >          is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an
> >          interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and
> >          does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
>
> >    (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody
> >          under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement,
> >          or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an
> >          individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
>
> >    (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security
> >          interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of
> >          transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in
> >          the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
>
> >    (d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
> >    the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the
> >    Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement
> >    agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered
> >    person is held in military custody.
>
> >    (e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is
> >    60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with
> >    respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the
> >    custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that
> >    effective date.
>
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Constitutional.Reset <
> > constitutional.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, A Very Merry Christmas! The remembrance of close friends in high
> >> places is right on time - We need the guidance, courage and help.
> >> There is lower business that needs attending.
>
> >> While there is still time, Please ask BHO to veto the H.R.1540, AKA
> >> NDAA & 'Indefinite Citizen Imprisonment w/o Trial Act' legislation for
> >> cause of its provisions not pursuant to our US Constitution in:
> >> "Subtitle D. SEC. 1021 (c)(1)Detention under the law of war without
> >> trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization
> >> for the Use of Military Force" where covered persons are defined by
> >> the administration's assignment of guilty status not by properly
> >> sufficient evidence in a proper civilian court of law - the option to
> >> apply that to US Citizens is retained by omission of the exclusion.
> >> See Subtitle D. SEC. 1022 (b)(1)
> >> ===========================
> >> Contact BHO at
>
> >>http://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/comment-legislation?billname=H.R.+1...
> >> View legislation pending a POTUS signature (non-void) at
>
> ...
>
> read 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.