Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Re: How Congress Has Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest Act

the other cool part about the NDAA is that it allows for the arrest of
muzzies and jews who are caught spying on our government and bombing
each other, something that will increase in the coming years, if not
months

On Jan 4, 10:20 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any member of congress who is not a crook?  Damn few.
>
>  ** **
>
> *How Congress Has Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest
> Act*
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28478****
>
> ** **
>
> I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now
> passed the National Defense Appropriations
> Act<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf>,
> with Section 1021, which allows for the military detention of American
> citizens. The section is so loosely worded that any American citizen could
> be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to
> assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people
> do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military
> prisons, one's lawyer's calls are monitored, witnesses for one's defense
> are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and
> isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and
> now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the
> history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the
> history books. ****
>
> They may have supported this bill because—although it's hard to
> believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al
> Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that 'at most', low-level
> dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected
> to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history
> shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest
> themselves.****
>
> Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will
> always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy
> — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT
> the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about
> to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own
> security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its
> inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is
> accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control
> the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be
> directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be
> directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in
> charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed
> this power over to the military can attest.****
>
> Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be 'they' who are
> targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary
> leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence
> when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold
> civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception
> to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against
> the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a
> hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that
> allowed torture of the 'other' that did not eventually turn this abuse on
> its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so
> today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power
> to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did
> not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation's
> own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a
> democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a
> militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more
> can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or
> even arresting him or her.****
>
> Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected
> official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian
> citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and
> union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most
> dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian
> democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically
> attack and intimidate? Mussolini's former colleagues in Parliament — as
> they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and
> debating the laws. Whom did Hitler's Brownshirts arrest in the first wave
> of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but
> they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them
> off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a
> blind eye to when it had been directed at the 'other.' Who was most at risk
> from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin's
> Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically
> endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse,
> were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor.****
>
> Is this intimidation and arrest by the military a vestige of the past?
> Hardly. We forget in America that all over the world there are militarized
> societies in which shells of democracy are propped up — in which Parliament
> meets regularly and elections are held, but the generals are really in
> charge, just as the Egyptian military is proposing with upcoming elections
> and the Constitution itself. That is exactly what will take place if
> Congress gives the power of arrest and detention to the military: and in
> those societies if a given political leader does not please the generals,
> he or she is in physical danger or subjected to military arrest. Whom did
> John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, say he was
> directed to intimidate and threaten when he worked as a 'jackal', putting
> pressure on the leadership in authoritarian countries? Latin American
> parliamentarians who were in the position to decide the laws that affected
> the well-being of his corporate clients. Who is under house arrest by the
> military in Myanmar? The political leader of the opposition to the military
> junta. Malalai Joya is an Afghani parliamentarian who has run afoul of the
> military and has to sleep in a different venue every night — for her own
> safety. An on, and on, in police states — that is, countries with military
> detention of civilians — that America is about to join.****
>
> US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them
> from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their
> arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they
> sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff
> are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not
> the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its
> subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of
> ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years
> that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very
> first targets.****
>
> *Author, social critic, and political activist Naomi Wolf raises awareness
> of the pervasive inequities that exist in society and politics. Wolf's New
> York Times bestseller, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young
> Patriot, is an impassioned call to return to the aspirations and beliefs of
> the Founders' ideals of liberty. The New York Times called the documentary
> version "pointedly inflammatory." Her latest book, Give Me Liberty: A
> Handbook For American Revolutionaries, includes effective tools for
> citizens to promote civic engagement and create sustainable democracy.*****
>
> ** **

--
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: Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul

yes ... Dick, is a cheating sob

Morris said that he has reached an agreement with Connecticut is
committed to paying his taxes: "Following a difficult period in my
life, I fell into arrears. But since then, I have paid almost $3
million in state and federal taxes."

On August 29, 1996, Morris resigned from the Clinton campaign after
reports stated that he had been involved with a female prostitute,
Sherry Rowlands, as reported by the Washington Post. It was also
alleged he had an illegitimate child from an affair with a Texas
woman.

On Jan 4, 10:43 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The one good thing about Dick Morris, is that whatever he predicts,  you
> can usually count on just the opposite happening.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >  "Strange, because I've known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I
> > see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington -- and certainly
> > the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates.
> > I'm talking about *true* conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately
> > described when he said, "The very heart and soul of conservatism is
> > libertarianism.""
>
> > *Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul
> > *by Robert Ringer
>
> > It's been quite humorous watching Dick Morris switch modes -- from
> > dismissing Ron Paul as a nut and a crackpot to hysterically warning people
> > how dangerous he is. In one of his recent lunch videos, Morris ranted
> > nonstop about Paul, going so far as to say, "He is the most radical,
> > liberal candidate running." Then, on *The O'Reilly Factor*, Morris said,
> > "I think that he is absolutely the most liberal, radical, left-wing person
> > to run for president in the United States in the last fifty years."
>
> > Strange, because I've known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see
> > him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington -- and certainly the
> > most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I'm
> > talking about *true* conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately
> > described when he said, "The very heart and soul of conservatism is
> > libertarianism."
>
> > So what, specifically, does Morris not like about Ron Paul? For starters,
> > he says that Paul "has this crazy idea about returning to the gold
> > standard." Hmm … I never thought of a return to sound money as being a
> > crazy idea. With all due respect, Dick, I think I'll stick with Hayek and
> > Von Mises on that one.
>
> > Other Ron Paul sins, according to Morris, include his desire to:
>
> >    - Get rid of the Fed.
> >    - Legalize drugs. (Sorry, pseudo-conservatives, but the unpleasant
> >    reality is that the war on drugs has caused even more violence than did the
> >    war on alcohol.)
> >    - Stay out of other countries' affairs (which would make it possible
> >    to slash our military budget without *weakening* our national
> >    defense).
> >    - Repeal the Patriot Act, which would reduce government's ability to
> >    snoop on American citizens.
>
> > Morris even claimed that Ron Paul favors abortion on demand, paid for by
> > the government. Now that's one I've never heard before. Paul has always
> > been adamantly pro-life and, further, he believes that the issue of
> > abortion comes under the auspices of the states, not the federal government.
>
> > So why is Morris so worried about a guy he has repeatedly referred to as a
> > nutcase, a crackpot, and worse? Because, he says, he is afraid that Paul
> > will run as a third-party candidate and "hand the election to Barack Obama."
>
> > First of all, Ron Paul has never been the nutcase his detractors have
> > tried so hard to paint him to be. Second, he is one of the most morally
> > sound individuals I have ever known, and is intellectually sound as well.
>
> > In fact, the "crazy uncle" remarks that the fearful media pundits keep
> > throwing out about Paul couldn't be further from the truth. On the
> > contrary, if Ron Paul has one weakness, it's that he's intellectually above
> > the average voter's head, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand
> > what he's saying.
>
> > I admit that a handful of comments purportedly made in Ron Paul's
> > newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s were over the line, but they certainly
> > were not hardcore racist. More important, he unequivocally renounces those
> > statements today. Often, Paul's problem is that he is very uninhibited when
> > it comes to being precise about the law and what he believes to be the
> > truth, and, unfortunately, a majority of the population is more interested
> > in political correctness than the Constitution or the truth.
>
> > I can only speak from my own firsthand experience, and, behind closed
> > doors, I have never heard Ron Paul say anything that even mildly bordered
> > on racism. Nor is he anti-semitic or anti-Israel. As he explained it to me
> > on a couple of different occasions, he just happens to believe that Israel
> > would be better off without having to answer to the U.S. for its actions.
>
> > Putting aside the mudslinging, the bottom line is that, more than any
> > other candidate, Ron Paul stands for freedom. But is such a strong advocate
> > of freedom electable? Dick Morris and other establishment Republicans say
> > absolutely not. And they could be right. But there's a part of me that
> > wonders if they might just be wrong.
>
> > If Ron Paul ran as a third-party candidate -- especially if Mitt Romney
> > were to be the Republican nominee -- he would attract not only Tea Party
> > voters, but independents, moderate Democrats, and anti-war people of all
> > stripes. While the contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is, from a
> > long-term point of view, marginal, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are polar
> > opposites.
>
> > Mitt Romney is John McCain. Mitt Romney is George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is
> > Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is George Herbert Walker Bush. Mitt Romney is Thomas
> > Dewey. Mitt Romney is Herbert Hoover. Which is why I believe that millions
> > of fed-up Americans, rather than swallowing John McCain Light or accepting
> > four more years of Obama's anti-American policies, might just consider
> > casting their vote for a candidate who stands for pure, unadulterated
> > freedom.
>
> > Even if Paul did not win, it would be a presidential race like no other.
> > And if it resulted in Obama's reelection, I'm fine with that if it keeps
> > Mitt Romney from taking the reins of power and feeding us small doses of
> > socialism day in and day out.
>
> > Longtime readers will recall that I took the exact same position in 2008
> > when it was John McCain versus Barack Obama. Early on, I said that I
> > preferred Obama over McCain because his Marxist agenda would finally wake
> > up millions of apathetic Americans. And that's precisely what has happened.
> > In fact, by scaring the hell out of the American electorate, Obama himself
> > brought the Tea Party into existence.
>
> > Unfortunately, the Tea Party has not kept the heat on either Obama or
> > Congress. But if Barack Obama is reelected, maybe Tea Partiers will be
> > jolted into rising up in earnest -- *365 days a year* -- and get really
> > serious about taking back America.
>
> > While Dick Morris says that "Ron Paul is just an absolute nightmare," I
> > say he would be the perfect person to lead the charge against Obama's march
> > toward Marxism.
>
> > Could it be that it's Dick Morris who is the crazy uncle?
>
> >  http://robertringer.com/2012/01/why-dick-morris-fears-ron-paul/
>
> > --
> > 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.

Pics and toons 1/4/12 (6)




 

--
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.

Pics and toons 1/4/12 (5)




 

--
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.

sometimes you just have to laugh at people

Apparently the trend in Israel recently is to expand its claim to
include not only the property of Jews who left Arab countries six
decades ago, but also the property that Jews owned in Arabia — now
Saudi Arabia — since the time of the prophet 14 centuries ago.
Israel intends to present the Saudi government with a compensation
bill of more than $100 billion for Jewish properties in the kingdom
since the time of Prophet Mohammad.
Iran will be pursued for compensation as well. The report says that
compensation for the "alleged hundreds of dead and missing Iranian
Jews in Iran whose fates are unknown will be set at $100m".
That brings the total amount sought by Israel to just over $400
billion.

http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2012/01/04/186277.html

--
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.

Pics and toons 1/4/12 (4)



 

--
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.

Hillfullofbeans no gonna be VP





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: HillBuzz.org <ads@hillbuzz.org>
Date: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Subject: New Post at [HillBuzz.org]
To: ads@hillbuzz.org


HillBuzz.org has posted a new item, 'Why Hillary Clinton Will Not Replace Joe
Biden as VP on the 2012 Ticket'

You may view the latest post at
http://hillbuzz.org/why-hillary-clinton-will-not-replace-joe-biden-as-vp-on-the-2012-ticket-46248

You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
posted.

Best regards,
HillBuzz.org
ads@hillbuzz.org



--
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.

And the REAL winner is ...



If you do a little old-fashioned research, you might discover that PAUL actually won the Caucus by collecting the most votes? No. The most DELEGATES.

Maybe the idea about removing Obama (Bush) was correct.

Regard$,
--MJ

"I watched the caucus last night on-line on fox's and nyt websites. As usual there were some typical comments from the people at the Fox desk - also many fair and decent observations among them - but one in particular caught my ear. One of the commentators - a former Democratic pollster - suggested that one of the reasons for this relative peace between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is the fact that in a brokered convention Ron Paul's delegates might be a crucial asset for Romney that he might try to get by offering to take Rand Paul on his ticket. While not something you might expect from Ron Paul it certainly seems like a viable strategy for Romney's campaign in 2012 since there is very very few winner-takes-all states in the primary process which will undoubtedly force a brokered convention. Besides Mitt Romney never struck me as a particularly honest warmonger. It all looked to me as just another attempt to gain credibility. If it paid him to be the peace candidate to get the nomination - watch him go! Also isn't it a coincidence that Florida is one of those very few states that kept winner-takes-all status? And that it will host the convention? Are we going to see 2000 again?

But my most pressing question would be why there is so much talk about the showing during the caucus and who got to win or come second but nobody mentions that what matters - again - is how many delegates for a state caucus - were elected for each candidate. Here is a link that shows what was really most important in this year's political battle.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201

"Godzich and Sydney Hay, another Paul advisor, crisscrossed Iowa in the weeks leading up to the caucuses, making sure precinct leaders knew what to do and organizing slates of delegates that would ensure Paul walked away with a strong majority, even if he lost the caucus' straw poll vote. By the eve of Election Day, Hay said she was confident that Paul would come away from Iowa with a strong majority of the state's delegates."

Worst case scenario leaves Ron Paul with the same amount of delegates as Romney. Somehow I really doubt magic numbers for Rick Santorum somehow will translate into delegates for the state caucus. In turn it might be just Mitt Romney and Ron Paul getting majority of the 28 delegates to Tampa. As a result of the strategy every caucus during the primary can hopefully bring disproportionate advantage to Ron Paul. -- Pawel Krzywulski:

Re: Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul

The one good thing about Dick Morris, is that whatever he predicts,  you can usually count on just the opposite happening.
 


 
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
"Strange, because I've known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington -- and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I'm talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said, "The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.""

Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul
by Robert Ringer

It's been quite humorous watching Dick Morris switch modes -- from dismissing Ron Paul as a nut and a crackpot to hysterically warning people how dangerous he is. In one of his recent lunch videos, Morris ranted nonstop about Paul, going so far as to say, "He is the most radical, liberal candidate running." Then, on The O'Reilly Factor, Morris said, "I think that he is absolutely the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last fifty years."

Strange, because I've known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington -- and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I'm talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said, "The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

So what, specifically, does Morris not like about Ron Paul? For starters, he says that Paul "has this crazy idea about returning to the gold standard." Hmm … I never thought of a return to sound money as being a crazy idea. With all due respect, Dick, I think I'll stick with Hayek and Von Mises on that one.

Other Ron Paul sins, according to Morris, include his desire to:
  • Get rid of the Fed.
  • Legalize drugs. (Sorry, pseudo-conservatives, but the unpleasant reality is that the war on drugs has caused even more violence than did the war on alcohol.)
  • Stay out of other countries' affairs (which would make it possible to slash our military budget without weakening our national defense).
  • Repeal the Patriot Act, which would reduce government's ability to snoop on American citizens.

Morris even claimed that Ron Paul favors abortion on demand, paid for by the government. Now that's one I've never heard before. Paul has always been adamantly pro-life and, further, he believes that the issue of abortion comes under the auspices of the states, not the federal government.

So why is Morris so worried about a guy he has repeatedly referred to as a nutcase, a crackpot, and worse? Because, he says, he is afraid that Paul will run as a third-party candidate and "hand the election to Barack Obama."

First of all, Ron Paul has never been the nutcase his detractors have tried so hard to paint him to be. Second, he is one of the most morally sound individuals I have ever known, and is intellectually sound as well.

In fact, the "crazy uncle" remarks that the fearful media pundits keep throwing out about Paul couldn't be further from the truth. On the contrary, if Ron Paul has one weakness, it's that he's intellectually above the average voter's head, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand what he's saying.

I admit that a handful of comments purportedly made in Ron Paul's newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s were over the line, but they certainly were not hardcore racist. More important, he unequivocally renounces those statements today. Often, Paul's problem is that he is very uninhibited when it comes to being precise about the law and what he believes to be the truth, and, unfortunately, a majority of the population is more interested in political correctness than the Constitution or the truth.

I can only speak from my own firsthand experience, and, behind closed doors, I have never heard Ron Paul say anything that even mildly bordered on racism. Nor is he anti-semitic or anti-Israel. As he explained it to me on a couple of different occasions, he just happens to believe that Israel would be better off without having to answer to the U.S. for its actions.

Putting aside the mudslinging, the bottom line is that, more than any other candidate, Ron Paul stands for freedom. But is such a strong advocate of freedom electable? Dick Morris and other establishment Republicans say absolutely not. And they could be right. But there's a part of me that wonders if they might just be wrong.

If Ron Paul ran as a third-party candidate -- especially if Mitt Romney were to be the Republican nominee -- he would attract not only Tea Party voters, but independents, moderate Democrats, and anti-war people of all stripes. While the contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is, from a long-term point of view, marginal, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are polar opposites.

Mitt Romney is John McCain. Mitt Romney is George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is George Herbert Walker Bush. Mitt Romney is Thomas Dewey. Mitt Romney is Herbert Hoover. Which is why I believe that millions of fed-up Americans, rather than swallowing John McCain Light or accepting four more years of Obama's anti-American policies, might just consider casting their vote for a candidate who stands for pure, unadulterated freedom.

Even if Paul did not win, it would be a presidential race like no other. And if it resulted in Obama's reelection, I'm fine with that if it keeps Mitt Romney from taking the reins of power and feeding us small doses of socialism day in and day out.

Longtime readers will recall that I took the exact same position in 2008 when it was John McCain versus Barack Obama. Early on, I said that I preferred Obama over McCain because his Marxist agenda would finally wake up millions of apathetic Americans. And that's precisely what has happened. In fact, by scaring the hell out of the American electorate, Obama himself brought the Tea Party into existence.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party has not kept the heat on either Obama or Congress. But if Barack Obama is reelected, maybe Tea Partiers will be jolted into rising up in earnest -- 365 days a year -- and get really serious about taking back America.

While Dick Morris says that "Ron Paul is just an absolute nightmare," I say he would be the perfect person to lead the charge against Obama's march toward Marxism.

Could it be that it's Dick Morris who is the crazy uncle?

http://robertringer.com/2012/01/why-dick-morris-fears-ron-paul/

--
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.

How Congress Has Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest Act

Is there any member of congress who is not a crook?  Damn few.





 

How Congress Has Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest Act

 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28478

 

I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Section 1021, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The section is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one's lawyer's calls are monitored, witnesses for one's defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.

They may have supported this bill because—although it's hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that 'at most', low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.

Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.

Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be 'they' who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the 'other' that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation's own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.

Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini's former colleagues in Parliament — as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler's Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the 'other.' Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin's Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor.

Is this intimidation and arrest by the military a vestige of the past? Hardly. We forget in America that all over the world there are militarized societies in which shells of democracy are propped up — in which Parliament meets regularly and elections are held, but the generals are really in charge, just as the Egyptian military is proposing with upcoming elections and the Constitution itself. That is exactly what will take place if Congress gives the power of arrest and detention to the military: and in those societies if a given political leader does not please the generals, he or she is in physical danger or subjected to military arrest. Whom did John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, say he was directed to intimidate and threaten when he worked as a 'jackal', putting pressure on the leadership in authoritarian countries? Latin American parliamentarians who were in the position to decide the laws that affected the well-being of his corporate clients. Who is under house arrest by the military in Myanmar? The political leader of the opposition to the military junta. Malalai Joya is an Afghani parliamentarian who has run afoul of the military and has to sleep in a different venue every night — for her own safety. An on, and on, in police states — that is, countries with military detention of civilians — that America is about to join.

US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.

Author, social critic, and political activist Naomi Wolf raises awareness of the pervasive inequities that exist in society and politics. Wolf's New York Times bestseller, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, is an impassioned call to return to the aspirations and beliefs of the Founders' ideals of liberty. The New York Times called the documentary version "pointedly inflammatory." Her latest book, Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, includes effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement and create sustainable democracy.

 


 


--
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.

Conspiracies or Coincidences







http://rt.com/news/world-government-conspiracy-therory-657/

 

2012: Year of the World Government

Edited: 30 December, 2011, 15:21

The Private Global Power Elite embedded in major governments is dead set on imposing World Government on us sooner rather than later. Let's look at 12 mega-processes – veritable "Triggers" – that we infer they are using to achieve their goals.

­All roads lead to World Government. This should come as no surprise. London's Financial Times openly articulated this view in an article by their chief foreign affairs commentator, Gideon Rachman, published on 8 December 2009, whose title said it all: "And Now for a World Government." These goals are echoed by the Trilateral Commission, CFR and Bilderberg insiders – even by the Vatican.

Macro-managing planet Earth is no easy matter. It requires strategic and tactical planning by a vast think-tank network allied to major elite universities whereby armies of academics, operators, lobbyists, media players and government officers interface, all abundantly financed by the global corporate and banking superstructure.

They do this holistically, knowing that they operate on different stages moving at very different speeds:

  • Financial Triggers move at lightning speed thanks to electronic information technology that can make or break markets, currencies and entire countries in just hours or days;
  • Economic Triggers move slower: manufacturing cars, aircraft, food, clothes, building plants and houses takes months;
  • Political Triggers tied to the "democratic system" put politicians in power for several years;
  • Cultural Triggers require entire generations to implement; this is where PsyWar has reached unprecedented "heights".

Risk-managing this whole process takes into account the many pitfalls and surprises in store. So each plan in every field counts, with "Plan B's" – even Plans "C" and "D" – which can be implemented if needed.

­Twelve Triggers for World Government


Today, the Global Power Elite are wrapping up globalization and ushering in World Government. Paraphrasing the tightrope walker in German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra," this implies "….a dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting…"

These 12 Triggers are interlinked and interlocked in a highly complex, holistic matrix, very flexible in its tactics but rigidly unbending in its strategic objectives. When read as a whole, the picture that unfolds shows that whole being far more than the sum of its parts.

1) Financial Meltdown. Since 2008, the Global Financial System continues on life-support. Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and the US economic hit team – Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, JPMorganChase mega-bankers working with the Bank of England and the European Central Bank – have not and will not take any measures to help the populace and ailing economies. They just funnel trillions to the banking elite, imposing the media myth that certain banks are "too big to fail" (Orwellian Newspeak for "too damn powerful to fail"). Why? Because it's not governments overseeing, supervising and controlling Goldman Sachs, CitiCorp, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, JPMorganChase, but exactly the other way around…

2) Economic Crises. Today, "Destructive Extreme Capitalism" is collapsing national and regional economies, reformatting them into international slave-labour Gulag-like entities that Joseph Stalin would envy. Our woes lie not with the world's real economy (mostly intact), but with the fake world of finance, banks, and speculation;

3) Social Upheavals. Meltdowns in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland and – soon to come – Italy, Spain and others, trigger violent social uprisings, even in the US and UK;

4) Pandemics. Get ready for more "flu surprises" leading to mandatory vaccinations: a discreet opportunity to slip RFID chips into our bodies and test "intelligent viruses" targeting specific DNA strains. Racially and ethnically selective viruses as part of mass depopulation campaigns?

5) Global Warming. As the global economy sinks into zero growth mode, economic drivers shift from growth expansion to consumption contraction. Will coming "carbon credits" open the path to full societal control?

6) Terrorist "False Flag" Mega-Attacks. The Elite have this wildcard up their sleeve to jump-start new "crises" as short-cuts towards world government. Will new "attacks" dwarfing 9/11 justify further global wars, invasions and genocide? A nuclear weapon over a major city to be blamed on the Elite's "enemies"?

7) Generalized War in the Middle East. As we speak, naval forces, bombers, entire armies are poised to attack and invade Syria, Iran…

8) Ecological/Environmental "Accidents". The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident sparked the beginning of the end of the former USSR by showing the world and the Soviets themselves that their State could no longer manage their own nuclear facilities. April 2010 saw the BP "Deepwater Horizon" oil rig eco-catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico; since March 2011, Japan and the world have been grappling with a much larger nuclear accident in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex. Was foul play involved?

9) Assassination of a major political or religious figure to be blamed on an Elite enemy. Mossad, CIA, MI6 are really good at playing this type of dirty trick;

10) Attacks on "Rogue States" – Iraq, Libya… Who's next? Iran? Syria? Venezuela? North Korea?

11) Staged "Religious" Event. The growing need of the masses for meaning in their lives makes them easy victims of a Hollywood-staged, 3D virtual reality hologram show, orchestrating a "second coming". An electronically engineered "messianic figure" acting in sync with Elite global objectives? Who would dare go against God himself?

12) Staged "Alien Contact." This too may be in the works. For decades, large sectors of world population have been programmed to believe in aliens. Here too, hologram technology could stage a "space vehicle landing" – on the White House lawn, of course – highlighting the "need" for Mankind to have "unified representation" in the face of extraterrestrials. Further justification for world government?
What do such interlocking "crises" have in common? Global warming, pandemics, "international terrorism", financial collapse, economic depression, even alien contacts? They all serve to show that they cannot be addressed by any single nation state, thus "justifying" the need for World Government.
2012: We must stay especially alert, understanding things the way they really are and not the way the global TV Masters want us to believe they are.

Adrian Salbuchi for RT

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com.ar

 

 

 

 


--
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.

SAUDI BOY for sale at the bargain price of $20,000,000

Obarfo will probably buy him with our tax dollars. 

New post on Bare Naked Islam

SAUDI BOY for sale at the bargain price of $20,000,000

by barenakedislam

A Saudi man put his young son up for sale on Facebook for a whopping $20 million because he can no longer afford to send him to Junior Terrorist-in-Training flight school. Emirates 2/7 (H/T TROP)   According to 'Al Sharq' newspaper, Saud bin Nasser Al Shahry took the extreme step when his business of collecting debts and settling [...]

Read more of this post

barenakedislam | January 4, 2012 at 3:46 AM | Categories: Children | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-EsR

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/saudi-boy-for-sale-at-the-bargain-price-of-20000000/

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.

New threat from radical Islam



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

New threat from radical Islam

by Dr. Eowyn

Offiical seal of the Muslim Brotherhood

This morning, the radical Islamic group Muslim Brotherhood warned the United States that if we continue to meddle in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other potential hot spots in the Middle East, they intend to - GASP! - cut off America's supply of 7-11 and Motel 6 managers.

If this action does not yield sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by Dell, AT&T and AOL customer service reps.

Finally, if all else fails, they are threatening not to send us any more presidents either.

It's gonna get ugly, people.

H/t our beloved Joseph.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | January 4, 2012 at 4:46 am | Tags: Muslim Brotherhood | Categories: Humor, Islam, Military, Terrorism, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-bCy

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/2012/01/04/new-threat-from-radical-islam/

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: The Rachel Maddow Comedy Show: How many Oxford Dons do you have to blow to get a PhD when you can't read?

She has three degrees alright:  B.S.,  M.S.,  PhD.  Bull Shit, More of the Same,  Piled high and Deep.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Bruce!
 
You should go and swap sugar with Rachael....She's done more for your blog than anyone else!!
 
<Grin>!
 
Is that Rachael, the blonde?   She was do-able back in the day!
 


 
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
Around 9 pm during her Iowa Caucus coverage, sharpie researcher Rachel Maddow announced that two term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who had dropped out of the Republican primaries to seek the Libertarian Party nomination, was now dropping out of the Libertarian race to endorse Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.



Problem was, it was not true.  She retracted the story on air a few hours later.



Maddow has a history of sloppy factual errors.  During Glenn Beck's march on Washington she attacked a tea party blogger who wrote a guide to DC for out-of-towners, as being a racist from deepest whitest Maine.  Because she read his blog reposted on a Maine blog.  He was a 30 year long resident of DC.

Good thing no one watches her show and depends on her for information.

--
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.

Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul

"Strange, because I've known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington -- and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I'm talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said, "The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.""

Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul
by Robert Ringer

It's been quite humorous watching Dick Morris switch modes -- from dismissing Ron Paul as a nut and a crackpot to hysterically warning people how dangerous he is. In one of his recent lunch videos, Morris ranted nonstop about Paul, going so far as to say, "He is the most radical, liberal candidate running." Then, on The O'Reilly Factor, Morris said, "I think that he is absolutely the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last fifty years."

Strange, because I've known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington -- and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I'm talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said, "The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

So what, specifically, does Morris not like about Ron Paul? For starters, he says that Paul "has this crazy idea about returning to the gold standard." Hmm … I never thought of a return to sound money as being a crazy idea. With all due respect, Dick, I think I'll stick with Hayek and Von Mises on that one.

Other Ron Paul sins, according to Morris, include his desire to:
  • Get rid of the Fed.
  • Legalize drugs. (Sorry, pseudo-conservatives, but the unpleasant reality is that the war on drugs has caused even more violence than did the war on alcohol.)
  • Stay out of other countries' affairs (which would make it possible to slash our military budget without weakening our national defense).
  • Repeal the Patriot Act, which would reduce government's ability to snoop on American citizens.

Morris even claimed that Ron Paul favors abortion on demand, paid for by the government. Now that's one I've never heard before. Paul has always been adamantly pro-life and, further, he believes that the issue of abortion comes under the auspices of the states, not the federal government.

So why is Morris so worried about a guy he has repeatedly referred to as a nutcase, a crackpot, and worse? Because, he says, he is afraid that Paul will run as a third-party candidate and "hand the election to Barack Obama."

First of all, Ron Paul has never been the nutcase his detractors have tried so hard to paint him to be. Second, he is one of the most morally sound individuals I have ever known, and is intellectually sound as well.

In fact, the "crazy uncle" remarks that the fearful media pundits keep throwing out about Paul couldn't be further from the truth. On the contrary, if Ron Paul has one weakness, it's that he's intellectually above the average voter's head, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand what he's saying.

I admit that a handful of comments purportedly made in Ron Paul's newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s were over the line, but they certainly were not hardcore racist. More important, he unequivocally renounces those statements today. Often, Paul's problem is that he is very uninhibited when it comes to being precise about the law and what he believes to be the truth, and, unfortunately, a majority of the population is more interested in political correctness than the Constitution or the truth.

I can only speak from my own firsthand experience, and, behind closed doors, I have never heard Ron Paul say anything that even mildly bordered on racism. Nor is he anti-semitic or anti-Israel. As he explained it to me on a couple of different occasions, he just happens to believe that Israel would be better off without having to answer to the U.S. for its actions.

Putting aside the mudslinging, the bottom line is that, more than any other candidate, Ron Paul stands for freedom. But is such a strong advocate of freedom electable? Dick Morris and other establishment Republicans say absolutely not. And they could be right. But there's a part of me that wonders if they might just be wrong.

If Ron Paul ran as a third-party candidate -- especially if Mitt Romney were to be the Republican nominee -- he would attract not only Tea Party voters, but independents, moderate Democrats, and anti-war people of all stripes. While the contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is, from a long-term point of view, marginal, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are polar opposites.

Mitt Romney is John McCain. Mitt Romney is George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is George Herbert Walker Bush. Mitt Romney is Thomas Dewey. Mitt Romney is Herbert Hoover. Which is why I believe that millions of fed-up Americans, rather than swallowing John McCain Light or accepting four more years of Obama's anti-American policies, might just consider casting their vote for a candidate who stands for pure, unadulterated freedom.

Even if Paul did not win, it would be a presidential race like no other. And if it resulted in Obama's reelection, I'm fine with that if it keeps Mitt Romney from taking the reins of power and feeding us small doses of socialism day in and day out.

Longtime readers will recall that I took the exact same position in 2008 when it was John McCain versus Barack Obama. Early on, I said that I preferred Obama over McCain because his Marxist agenda would finally wake up millions of apathetic Americans. And that's precisely what has happened. In fact, by scaring the hell out of the American electorate, Obama himself brought the Tea Party into existence.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party has not kept the heat on either Obama or Congress. But if Barack Obama is reelected, maybe Tea Partiers will be jolted into rising up in earnest -- 365 days a year -- and get really serious about taking back America.

While Dick Morris says that "Ron Paul is just an absolute nightmare," I say he would be the perfect person to lead the charge against Obama's march toward Marxism.

Could it be that it's Dick Morris who is the crazy uncle?

http://robertringer.com/2012/01/why-dick-morris-fears-ron-paul/