Wednesday, December 28, 2011

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

Keep away from Wiki PlainOl......It's dangerous!
 


 
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is that, as part of the oath, a new citizen must pledge "to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen."

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Dual citizenships are illicit, period.  (I know, there are many
"Americans"  who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless
illegal.
----
try again
Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship
(7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that
dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a
person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries


On Dec 28, 10:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dual citizenships are illicit, period.  (I know, there are many
> "Americans"  who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless illegal.
>
> An American citizen is "An American Citizen".   Doesn't matter where he was
> born.   (It is a very narrow window for an American citizen to be born in a
> foreign land).
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > The
> > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the
> > American
> > will.
> > ---
> > oh, so a foreign born US citizen is excluded from the right to a court
> > review?
> > what about those with dual citizenships?
>
> > On Dec 28, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Good Morning PlainOl,
>
> > > Yes,  including any American who may be associated with terrorists.   The
> > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the American
> > > will.
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.

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

 
Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is that, as part of the oath, a new citizen must pledge "to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen."

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Dual citizenships are illicit, period.  (I know, there are many
"Americans"  who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless
illegal.
----
try again
Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship
(7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that
dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a
person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries


On Dec 28, 10:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dual citizenships are illicit, period.  (I know, there are many
> "Americans"  who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless illegal.
>
> An American citizen is "An American Citizen".   Doesn't matter where he was
> born.   (It is a very narrow window for an American citizen to be born in a
> foreign land).
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > The
> > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the
> > American
> > will.
> > ---
> > oh, so a foreign born US citizen is excluded from the right to a court
> > review?
> > what about those with dual citizenships?
>
> > On Dec 28, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Good Morning PlainOl,
>
> > > Yes,  including any American who may be associated with terrorists.   The
> > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the American
> > > will.
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.

Hope and change…

Since this is not a muzzie company think President Bendover Assinair will bail them out?

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Hope and change…

by DCG

Sears to close 100 to 120 Kmart, Sears stores

Mail.com: Sears Holdings Corp. plans to close between 100 and 120 Sears and Kmart stores to raise cash after a weak holiday shopping season for the retailer.

The closings fueled speculation about whether the 125-year-old retailer can turn itself around. The closings are the latest and most visible in a long series of moves to try to fix a company that has struggled with falling sales and shabby stores as rivals like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Target Corp. spruced up their looks and turned into one-stop shopping sources.

Absolutely Pathetic (AP) goes into spin mode:  "There's no reason to go to Sears," said New York-based independent retail analyst Brian Sozzi, "It offers a depressing shopping experience and uncompetitive prices." Billionaire investor Edward Lampert purchased Kmart out of bankruptcy in 2003 and bought Sears, Roebuck & Co. a year later. Since 2004 Sears Holdings — which operates both Kmart and Sears stores — has watched its cash and short-term investments go from about $2.09 billion for the year ended Jan. 31, 2004 to $1.34 billion for the year ended Jan. 31, 2011, according to FactSet. The figure now stands at about $700 million.

That company disputes talk that it is in trouble financially or will have problems surviving. Spokesman Chris Brathwaite says Sears Holdings has more than $3.5 billion of liquidity, consisting of $700 million in cash and $2.9 billion available under its credit lines.

Still, Sears Holdings said its declining sales, ongoing pressure on profit margins and rising expenses pulled its adjusted earnings lower. The company predicts fourth-quarter adjusted earnings will be less than half the $933 million it reported for the same quarter last year.

At least some experts recognize the true problem:  Some industry experts say part of the problem Sears is facing is that economic difficulties continue to grip its core customers. These middle-income shoppers have seen their wages fail to keep up with higher costs for household basics like food.

AP spins again:  But the bigger issue, analysts say, is that Sears hasn't invested in remodeling, leaving its stores uninviting. Preschool teacher Sara Kriz concurred. Picking up conditioner at a Kmart in Manhattan on Tuesday, Kriz said she shops at Kmart "only when I have to," which amounts to once every few months. Yet she goes to Wal-Mart or Target nearly every week because, she said, they are cleaner and better stocked.

I've been to all the stores mentioned in this article.  Walmart and Target are cleaner stores? Please, they all have their issues.  I've never been in a Sears and thought, wow, this store isn't clean.

Can anyone blame the lackluster sales on the stores' appearances?  Sure.  But let's talk about the economy.  This Christmas, my friends and family, we chose not to exchange gifts (kids excluded).  We all are feeling the pinch.  Yet Americans shopped like there's no tomorrow on Black Friday.  Though they probably charged the majority to credit cards. 

Real unemployment is at 11%, and existing home sales climbed recently yet although rebenchmarking resulted in lower adjustments to several years of home sales data, the month-to-month characterization of market conditions did not change.

And Obamacare will impose new compliance regulations, employer mandate taxes, taxes on business "flow-through" and investment income, and numerous indirect costs on small- and medium-size companies.

We have over $15 trillion in debt and Skippy wants to ask for a debt limit hike. 

How can any business be thriving under this administration's policies?  Until this administration is done, I'm going to bet you'll see more stores and businesses closing. 

DCG

DCG | December 28, 2011 at 5:57 am | Tags: Kmart, Sears | Categories: Economy | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-bt2

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/2011/12/28/hope-and-change/

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

Dual citizenships are illicit, period. (I know, there are many
"Americans" who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless
illegal.
----
try again
Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship
(7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that
dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a
person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries


On Dec 28, 10:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dual citizenships are illicit, period.  (I know, there are many
> "Americans"  who possess dual citizenship....It is nevertheless illegal.
>
> An American citizen is "An American Citizen".   Doesn't matter where he was
> born.   (It is a very narrow window for an American citizen to be born in a
> foreign land).
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > The
> > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the
> > American
> > will.
> > ---
> > oh, so a foreign born US citizen is excluded from the right to a court
> > review?
> > what about those with dual citizenships?
>
> > On Dec 28, 9:21 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Good Morning PlainOl,
>
> > > Yes,  including any American who may be associated with terrorists.   The
> > > foreign born terrorist may not receive a court's review, but the American
> > > will.
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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: Well, well, well, the Texas Christmas Day massacre of 7 people, including the killer, was a MUSLIM honor killing, after all.

Need to just put a bounty on muzzies.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Islam should be outlawed in the United States
----
Approximately 300 ultra-Orthodox Jews began chasing police officers,
hurled rocks at them, and burned trashcans after police were called to
remove a sign on a main street that orders the separation of men and
women in the neighborhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFl4VWCxVso&feature=related

if it weren't for the US it would be the jews throwing rocks at the
muzzies

On Dec 28, 9:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The writer is correct,  I had heard nothing at all about this tragedy
> involving Muslims,  and especially that this was an honor killing.
>
> It appears that this is exactly what happened, and to date,  I have yet to
> hear any mainstream media outlet report on this.
>
> Just another example of how and why Islam should be outlawed in the United
> States, and all Western civilizations.  Until such time as Islam reforms,
> it is just flat out incompatible with Western standards and norms.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> > <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  Well, well,
> > well, the Texas Christmas Day massacre of 7 people, including the killer,
> > was a MUSLIM honor killing, after all.<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...> by
> > barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> > Truth be told, I quickly discounted my initial reaction that Muslims might
> > be involved because the killer was reported to be in a Santa costume.
> > Stupid me. The 'Santa' who massacred his family on Christmas morning was a
> > Muslim who was enraged that his daughter was dating a non-Muslim. As usual,
> > the media ignored the [...]
>
> > Read more of this post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...>
> >  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> > * | December 27, 2011 at 5:58 PM | Categories: Religion of Hate<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=173710>| URL:
> >http://wp.me/peHnV-Efx
>
> >   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...>
> >    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...>
>
> >   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> > *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
>
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...
> >     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
>
> >  --
> > 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.

--
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: Well, well, well, the Texas Christmas Day massacre of 7 people, including the killer, was a MUSLIM honor killing, after all.

To quote a regular posting member here in PF:  "There War,  There Problem".   What happens in Israel stays in Israel.   The honor killing that this thread is about took place in Texas U. S. Of A.
 


 
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Islam should be outlawed in the United States
----
Approximately 300 ultra-Orthodox Jews began chasing police officers,
hurled rocks at them, and burned trashcans after police were called to
remove a sign on a main street that orders the separation of men and
women in the neighborhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFl4VWCxVso&feature=related

if it weren't for the US it would be the jews throwing rocks at the
muzzies

On Dec 28, 9:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The writer is correct,  I had heard nothing at all about this tragedy
> involving Muslims,  and especially that this was an honor killing.
>
> It appears that this is exactly what happened, and to date,  I have yet to
> hear any mainstream media outlet report on this.
>
> Just another example of how and why Islam should be outlawed in the United
> States, and all Western civilizations.  Until such time as Islam reforms,
> it is just flat out incompatible with Western standards and norms.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> > <http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>  Well, well,
> > well, the Texas Christmas Day massacre of 7 people, including the killer,
> > was a MUSLIM honor killing, after all.<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...> by
> > barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
>
> > Truth be told, I quickly discounted my initial reaction that Muslims might
> > be involved because the killer was reported to be in a Santa costume.
> > Stupid me. The 'Santa' who massacred his family on Christmas morning was a
> > Muslim who was enraged that his daughter was dating a non-Muslim. As usual,
> > the media ignored the [...]
>
> > Read more of this post<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...>
> >  *barenakedislam<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/author/barenakedislam/>
> > * | December 27, 2011 at 5:58 PM | Categories: Religion of Hate<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/?cat=173710>| URL:
> >http://wp.me/peHnV-Efx
>
> >   Comment<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...>
> >    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...>
>
> >   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> > *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
>
> >http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/well-well-well-the-tex...
> >     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
>
> >  --
> > 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.

--
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** Daily Quran and Hadith

 THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

 

 



 




 
--


Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
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

Affordable Care? New Obamacare Fee Coming to Health Insurance in 2012




New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

Affordable Care? New Obamacare Fee Coming to Health Insurance in 2012

by Harold

Publius, Breitbart 12/27/2011 Starting in 2012, the government will charge a new fee to your health insurance plan for research to find out which drugs, medical procedures, tests and treatments work best. But what will Americans do with the answers? The goal of the research, part of a little-known provision of President Barack Obama's health [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/05-818/

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.