Friday, February 24, 2012

**JP** Fw: My book, 'Systems' - free download

Forwarding as received following msg from one of our group member.
 
Regards / Admin - joinPakistan
 
----- Original Message -----
From: ""Saleena Karim"" <editor@cyberblurb.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:31 AM
Subject: My book, 'Systems' - free download

Dear JoinPakistan team,

I'm on your daily email list (Google groups) and wanted to let you
know that my novel, 'Systems' which is inspired by the Pakistan idea
(Quranic ideology) is available for free download at my blog. Details
are at the home page at:

www.libredux.com/blog

I didn't wish to post advertising on your GoogleGroup without
permission. But please send this information to your list urgently.
The offer ends tomorrow night (24 Feb). Please let your members know
they can download this book and also have a chance to win a signed
paperback copy.

All the Best,

Saleena


Saleena Karim
Author of Secular Jinnah & Pakistan
and Systems: A Novel
http://www.secularjinnah.co.uk
http://www.libredux.com

Re: Rick Santorum Dragged Down By Support Of Bush Initiatives

Ted Kennedy sponsored No Child Left Behind.

Now if you'd like a list of Bush initiatives Obama has ramped UP,
lemme know, its kinda lengthy

On Feb 24, 10:50 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Santorum Dragged Down By Support Of Bush Initiatives
>
> George W. Bush Still A Drag On Rick Santorum's Prospects
>
> WASHINGTON - In 2006, Rick Santorum was decisively tossed out of his
> Senate seat in Pennsylvania by 18 points, in a wave election where
> Democrats romped largely because of President George W. Bush's
> unpopularity.
>
> Six years later, Santorum is running for Bush's old job, but the
> former president is still a weight around his neck.
>
> Santorum was dragged down in Wednesday night's debate by his support
> for a few of Bush's initiatives.
>
> The 2002 No Child Left Behind legislation was the Bush agenda item
> that hurt Santorum most in the debate. Santorum said his support for
> the measure was "a mistake."
>
> "It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when
> you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the
> leader," Santorum said.
>
> Mitt Romney, ignoring the fact that he himself supported No Child Left
> Behind, made hay Thursday with Santorum's ill-advised quip.
>
> "I wonder which team he was taking it for," Romney said at a campaign
> stop in Phoenix. "My team is the American people, not the insiders in
> Washington."
>
> Others said it was no mystery which team Santorum was on.
>
> "The team he was taking it for was President George W. Bush in his
> first year in office," said Bill Kristol, the founder of the
> conservative Weekly Standard, on Fox News.
>
> But Kristol said that Santorum's admission that he had erred was to
> the Pennsylvanian's credit, and that Romney's 2006 health care
> overhaul when he was governor of Massachusetts is a bigger problem for
> him.
>
> "Maybe No Child Left Behind was bad legislation. Rick Santorum said
> last night, 'I made a mistake.' Mitt Romney has never said about
> RomneyCare, 'I made a mistake.' And as a conservative, I think
> RomneyCare is a heck of a lot bigger mistake than the No Child Left
> Behind bill," Kristol said.
>
> Romney also dinged Santorum Wednesday for two other times that
> Santorum helped Bush, namely his 2004 endorsement of fellow
> Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter -- which was important to the White
> House at the time so that they kept control of the Senate -- and
> Bush's imposition of tariffs on imported steel in 2002.
>
> Santorum's steel tariff decision was driven as much by parochial
> self-interest as any loyalty to Bush, but it was nonetheless a
> controversial decision with conservatives for Bush to put the trade
> barriers in place, and Santorum's support -- at a time when he was the
> number three Republican in the Senate -- was a help to the White
> House.
>
> The way in which Bush's legacy has begun to hurt Santorum is a
> microcosm, some said, for how the former Republican president
> negatively impacted the conservative movement as a whole.
>
> "Santorum is a perfect example of what Bushism did to the Republican
> Party," said a former Senate GOP aide with detailed knowledge of
> Santorum's work in GOP leadership, who feels Santorum "undermine(d)
> fiscal conservatives."
>
> Many conservatives see No Child Left Behind, along with Bush's
> expansion of Medicare and his failure to veto any spending bills for
> most of his presidency -- while Republicans controlled Congress -- as
> betrayals of conservative belief in limited government. They believe
> Bush accelerated a trend of expanding the federal government that has
> in turn been sped up by President Barack Obama.
>
> A win for Santorum in next Tuesday's Michigan primary would be a
> game-changer, badly wounding Romney and thrusting Santorum forward
> into the driver's seat. But Santorum's Bush association is one of the
> major factors -- past statements on social issues is the other big one
> -- that has been a drag on his momentum this week, as Romney has moved
> to make up ground in the polls.
>
> Yet Andrew Card, who was Bush's White House chief of staff from 2001
> to 2006, said that Santorum was not an automatic Bush ally in every
> fight.
>
> "He was not always a dependable vote to be honest with you. We had to
> work hard for it," Card told The Huffington Post. "But he listened
> well and gave us the benefit of the doubt when we came to him with a
> challenge."
>
> On No Child Left Behind, Card said he "put Rick in the leaning
> favorable-skeptic category" going into the effort to pass the
> legislation. Santorum's caution, Card said, was based on concerns
> about the federal government's role in education.
>
> "I still think it's the right policy," Card, currently acting dean of
> The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M
> University, said of the law.
>
> "It didn't always get implemented to live up to people's expectations.
> But it was a noble and historic reform that was brought into education
> that you were going to hold people accountable and have some measure
> of success," Card said. "It did crack the establishment to bring more
> accountability to it."
>
> More:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/bush-santorum-_n_1298273.htm...
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
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: No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure

LOL!

On Feb 24, 10:47 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Just pointing out the typical and usual effort of fallacious spewing you offer ad nauseam.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "The greater part of men are much too exhausted and enervated by their struggle with want to be able to engage in a new and severe contest with error. Satisfied if they themselves can escape from the hard labor of thought, they willingly abandon to others the guardianship of their thoughts." (Friedrich Schiller: 17591805)"At 10:44 AM 2/24/2012, you wrote:You can cut an paste until the cows come home, and it won't get me
> onto Infowars and Prison Planet, mate.
> --

--
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 Rick Santorum Can Win

How Rick Santorum Can Win

Santorum Makes Campaign Swing Through Seventeenth CenturyBlasts
Contraception, Electricity, Soap


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY (The Borowitz Report) – In an effort to
underscore his core beliefs leading up to this Tuesday night's primary
contests, former Sen. Rick Santorum made a campaign swing through the
Seventeenth Century today.

At the first stop of his ambitious journey, Mr. Santorum restated his
reason for seeking the White House: "I am running for President today
because the position of Spanish Inquisitor is no longer available."

The former Pennsylvania Senator served up red meat to his
seventeenth-century supporters, telling them, "Since we all agree that
contraception is a bad idea, it's time to take a harder look at
electricity and soap."

Mr. Santorum, who said that in his first day in office he would repeal
the Age of Enlightenment, stressed that he had home-schooled all seven
of his children: "That means there are at least eight people in this
country who don't understand evolution."

In a lighter moment, Sen. Santorum told his audience what he said was
his favorite joke: "A Kenyan, a Muslim and a socialist walk into a
bar. And then he makes everyone get an abortion."

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
scored points with this comment on education: "We should leave no
child behind, only wives."

More:
AmdyBorowitz.com

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

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

--
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.

Rick Santorum Dragged Down By Support Of Bush Initiatives

Santorum Dragged Down By Support Of Bush Initiatives

George W. Bush Still A Drag On Rick Santorum's Prospects

WASHINGTON - In 2006, Rick Santorum was decisively tossed out of his
Senate seat in Pennsylvania by 18 points, in a wave election where
Democrats romped largely because of President George W. Bush's
unpopularity.

Six years later, Santorum is running for Bush's old job, but the
former president is still a weight around his neck.

Santorum was dragged down in Wednesday night's debate by his support
for a few of Bush's initiatives.

The 2002 No Child Left Behind legislation was the Bush agenda item
that hurt Santorum most in the debate. Santorum said his support for
the measure was "a mistake."

"It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when
you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the
leader," Santorum said.

Mitt Romney, ignoring the fact that he himself supported No Child Left
Behind, made hay Thursday with Santorum's ill-advised quip.

"I wonder which team he was taking it for," Romney said at a campaign
stop in Phoenix. "My team is the American people, not the insiders in
Washington."

Others said it was no mystery which team Santorum was on.

"The team he was taking it for was President George W. Bush in his
first year in office," said Bill Kristol, the founder of the
conservative Weekly Standard, on Fox News.

But Kristol said that Santorum's admission that he had erred was to
the Pennsylvanian's credit, and that Romney's 2006 health care
overhaul when he was governor of Massachusetts is a bigger problem for
him.

"Maybe No Child Left Behind was bad legislation. Rick Santorum said
last night, 'I made a mistake.' Mitt Romney has never said about
RomneyCare, 'I made a mistake.' And as a conservative, I think
RomneyCare is a heck of a lot bigger mistake than the No Child Left
Behind bill," Kristol said.

Romney also dinged Santorum Wednesday for two other times that
Santorum helped Bush, namely his 2004 endorsement of fellow
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter -- which was important to the White
House at the time so that they kept control of the Senate -- and
Bush's imposition of tariffs on imported steel in 2002.

Santorum's steel tariff decision was driven as much by parochial
self-interest as any loyalty to Bush, but it was nonetheless a
controversial decision with conservatives for Bush to put the trade
barriers in place, and Santorum's support -- at a time when he was the
number three Republican in the Senate -- was a help to the White
House.

The way in which Bush's legacy has begun to hurt Santorum is a
microcosm, some said, for how the former Republican president
negatively impacted the conservative movement as a whole.

"Santorum is a perfect example of what Bushism did to the Republican
Party," said a former Senate GOP aide with detailed knowledge of
Santorum's work in GOP leadership, who feels Santorum "undermine(d)
fiscal conservatives."

Many conservatives see No Child Left Behind, along with Bush's
expansion of Medicare and his failure to veto any spending bills for
most of his presidency -- while Republicans controlled Congress -- as
betrayals of conservative belief in limited government. They believe
Bush accelerated a trend of expanding the federal government that has
in turn been sped up by President Barack Obama.

A win for Santorum in next Tuesday's Michigan primary would be a
game-changer, badly wounding Romney and thrusting Santorum forward
into the driver's seat. But Santorum's Bush association is one of the
major factors -- past statements on social issues is the other big one
-- that has been a drag on his momentum this week, as Romney has moved
to make up ground in the polls.

Yet Andrew Card, who was Bush's White House chief of staff from 2001
to 2006, said that Santorum was not an automatic Bush ally in every
fight.

"He was not always a dependable vote to be honest with you. We had to
work hard for it," Card told The Huffington Post. "But he listened
well and gave us the benefit of the doubt when we came to him with a
challenge."

On No Child Left Behind, Card said he "put Rick in the leaning
favorable-skeptic category" going into the effort to pass the
legislation. Santorum's caution, Card said, was based on concerns
about the federal government's role in education.

"I still think it's the right policy," Card, currently acting dean of
The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M
University, said of the law.

"It didn't always get implemented to live up to people's expectations.
But it was a noble and historic reform that was brought into education
that you were going to hold people accountable and have some measure
of success," Card said. "It did crack the establishment to bring more
accountability to it."

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/bush-santorum-_n_1298273.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=022412&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

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

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

--
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: No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure


Just pointing out the typical and usual effort of fallacious spewing you offer ad nauseam.

Regard$,
--MJ

"The greater part of men are much too exhausted and enervated by their struggle with want to be able to engage in a new and severe contest with error. Satisfied if they themselves can escape from the hard labor of thought, they willingly abandon to others the guardianship of their thoughts." (Friedrich Schiller: 17591805)"



At 10:44 AM 2/24/2012, you wrote:
You can cut an paste until the cows come home, and it won't get me
onto Infowars and Prison Planet, mate.

--

Re: No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure

You can cut an paste until the cows come home, and it won't get me
onto Infowars and Prison Planet, mate.

--
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: No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure

  1. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

    1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
    2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

  2. The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the same character or circumstances.

    1. In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My point might be bad, but yours is worse."
    2. If the subject includes an assessment of behavior, the point can be put "So I do x [some specific action], but you do too."

  3. Since the circumstantial variety of the ad hominem can be regarded as a special case of the abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the circumstantial is often ignored.
  4. Informal Structure of  ad Hominem
  5. Person L says argument A.
  6. Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
  7. Argument A is not a good argument.
  8. Examples of the ad hominem:

    • A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars are not trustworthy.

    • Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty.

    • Prof. Smith says to Prof. White, "You are much too hard on your students," and Prof. White replies, "But certainly you are not the one to say so. Just last week I heard several of your students complaining."

    • I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.

  9. Uses of ad hominem considerations:

    1. When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or circumstancescan sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other words, ad hominem considerations can show motives and can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas.
    2. The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the sincerity of views being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic decision-making.

  10. Self-reference and ad hominem:

    1. If a philosopher presents a "naturalistic view of knowledge," arguing that all knowledge is a function of the adjustment of an organism to its environment and at the same time pleads that his own knowledge is an exception to this generalization, then the ad hominem fallacy would occur.
    2. If William James were to claim that all philosophers were either tender-minded or tough-minded except for him with respect to his own variety of pragmatism, then an ad hominem appeal should not be ruled inadmissible against James..

At 10:34 AM 2/24/2012, you wrote:
Thanks for saving me the effort Keith

On Feb 24, 9:27 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whoops.   I actually clicked on this link, and then went to the link within
> the link, and low and behold,  I came across Alex Jones and InfoWars.
>
> The story lost all credibility at that point.  Alex Jones is a crackpot.

Re: No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure

Thanks for saving me the effort Keith

On Feb 24, 9:27 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whoops.   I actually clicked on this link, and then went to the link within
> the link, and low and behold,  I came across Alex Jones and InfoWars.
>
> The story lost all credibility at that point.  Alex Jones is a crackpot.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >             New post on *ACGR's "News with Attitude"*
> > <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>  No judge, no jury, gun
> > rights taken for refusing medical procedure<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/04-886/> by
> > Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>
>
> > Brasscheck TV 2/23/2012 We've been posting on medical tyranny here on
> > Brasscheck TV, well over on our sister site, 2nd Amendment TV, we've been
> > posting on medical tyranny too. David Sarti's doctor was able to strip him
> > of his Second Amendment rights for refusing an unnecessary medical
> > procedure. Without so much as committing a crime [...]
>
> > Read more of this post <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/04-886/>
> >  *Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>* | February 24,
> > 2012 at 8:16 am | Categories: Corruption<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=22388>,
> > Criminal Activity <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398859>, Executive<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=53796>,
> > Government <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=2311>, Gun Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=203449>,
> > Health <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=337>, Health Care<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=20052>,
> > Judicial <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=218186>, Legislative<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=217843>,
> > Local Law Enforcement <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=5832636>,
> > NeoConservatives <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=152793>, Police State<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=1955>,
> > Privacy Rights <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=162861>, Progressives<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=182563>,
> > Propaganda <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=13722>, Property Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=6928>,
> > Sovereignty <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=69462>, States Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=280753>,
> > U.S. Constitution <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=51155> | URL:
> >http://wp.me/pmtmV-7wh
>
> >   Comment <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/04-886/#respond>    See
> > all comments <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/04-886/#comments>
>
> >   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=7f89380f46003915c34c2cdd2b126a38...>.
>
> > *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
> >http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/04-886/
> >     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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

Re: Stopping the Next Hitler

Ouch!!!

not to worry ... they can only conduct needless wars if they have
willing soldiers.
given the unemployment rate they have plenty of fodder.

On Feb 24, 9:13 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "In order to prevent another Hitler, it is necessary to know how Hitlers are made. The National Socialist recipe is in the public domain, available in any historical cookbook. Let's go into the kitchen with master chef Woodrow Wilson and watch the Nazi soufflé rise."Stopping the Next Hitlerby Bill WalkerThe US is about to launch yet another undeclared war on yet another eastern front, this time against Iran. Supposedly our permanent state of war is necessary to "stop the next Hitler"…. in other words, the way to prevent a Nazi regime from arising is to launch surprise attacks on small countries, round up Semitic scapegoats and put them in secret camps, spy on our own people with 17 Gestapo-style intelligence agencies, build a series of invincible robot wonder weapons… wait just a darn minute here. I think our foreign-policy cooks are using the wrong recipe book.
> In order to prevent another Hitler, it is necessary to know how Hitlers are made. The National Socialist recipe is in the public domain, available in any historical cookbook. Let's go into the kitchen with master chef Woodrow Wilson and watch the Nazi soufflé rise.Hitler: Created by US Intervention, Kept in Power by England and FranceGermany and France had fought a war in 1870. Some expendable soldiers died, a few civilians were collateral damage, and a couple border areas changed hands. Overall, the war changed nothing, and after the war Europe returned to peace and business as usual.
> In 1917 World War One was on track to burn itself out in similar fashion. Both sides were war-weary; common people had been reminded that being gassed and ripped apart by artillery isn't really as fun as it sounds. Another peace of exhaustion was in the cards, helped along by military technologies which favored the defender. Trench warfare and railbound supply lines made successful aggression difficult. Millions of troops died without changing the front lines very much.
> Woodrow Wilson saved the War To End Wars with a major media campaign and 2.8 million drafted Americans. Funded by the recently created Federal Reserve, the US poured fresh troops and money in to support the British and French empires. This allowed Clemenceau and Lloyd George to launch a total war against the German civilian population.
> The Germans signed an Armistice on November 11, 1918. However, the Allies didn't stop fighting. They used their fleets to blockade (nowadays we would say "to impose sanctions") Germany until July 1919. At least a quarter of a million Germans were killed by starvation and disease during the blockade.
> Backed by their invincible US mercenaries, the French and British looted Germany. The Versailles Treaty prevented economic recovery and any return to normal trade for Germans. The Weimar government tried to pay its impossible foreign debts by inflating the mark, destroying the middle class and discrediting capitalist values like honesty and saving. Socialism of different stripes became the only ideology in Germany.
> Without the Versailles Treaty, Hitler would have become a house-painting contractor or maybe a minor artist. Under the Treaty, he became a Messiah. People are evolved to live in tribes, and their default setting is xenophobic tribalism. Germans simply reset to the default setting, as other peoples from Japan to Rwanda have done under economic stress.
> After Hitler came to power, the other powers jumped in to… help him. Britain and France pressured the Czechs to cede a strip of land (which coincidentally contained the Czech defense fortifications). After the Czechs were rendered defenseless, Poland and Hungary annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, helping Germany finish it off.
> The interventionist policies of the other world powers also helped Hitler make Europe Judenfrei. Britain and France refused to allow most Jews to escape. Even in 1938, at theEvian Conference, the nations of the world continued to restrict Jewish immigration. The US used its navy and coast guard to turn back ships full of escaping Jews. Without these active government interventions, most of the Jews of Germany could have escaped the Holocaust.
> So Hitler was created by interventionist foreign policy and war, then enabled by more interventions. After he finally attacked his benefactors in open warfare… they still worked hard to keep him around. The Springfield-toting sniper in Saving Private Ryan asks a simple question: why not send him to shoot Hitler, instead of shooting one German draftee at a time? It's a very good question.Saving Corporal HitlerDid the heroic Allies actually try to remove Hitler and save the Jews, as our current mythology implies? Or did they treat him as just another member of the club, a good ol' boy engaged in the gentlemanly arts of demagoguery, war, and tax collection? Roger Moorhouse has collected all the attempts on Hitler's life intoone volume. The book is fairly short for lack of material; in general, governments made no serious attempts to kill Hitler. We know they could have, because one construction worker almost succeeded with no assistance.
> In 1938, an ordinary German carpenter named Georg Elser was convinced that Hitler was going to plunge Germany back into war. Elser decided to kill Hitler and save the world.
> First, he traveled to Munich for the observance of the November 8th anniversary of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, an important Nazi holiday. Hitler was obliged to give a speech at the Burgerbraukeller for these festivities. Elser simply went in afterward and bought a beer. He observed the position of the speaker's lectern and the structure of the hall. Then he went home and got a job in a quarry that used explosives.
> In August 1939, Elser moved to Munich. Every evening he bought dinner in the Burgerbraukeller. After each dinner he hid in a storeroom until the employees left. Then he emerged and worked all night, constructing a hidden cavity in a pillar behind the speaker's dais. On the 2nd of November 1939, he installed a large homemade bomb. On November 5, he set the timers for the evening of November 8 (remember this is a punctual German bomb, it had a backup timer).
> On the evening of November 8, Hitler entered the Burgerbraukeller and gave his speech. Unfortunately he was an hour early. Due to bad weather, he had decided to use the train instead of displaying his high-tech flair by flying. So he left the hall at 9:07. Elser's bomb went off exactly at 9:20, not only blasting the lectern but bringing the whole gallery down onto the dais. Instead of killing Hitler and other high-level Nazis, he got only a few low-ranking supporters.
> Elser missed… but not by much. He demonstrated that any individual who put a few months of their time into killing Hitler would have a pretty good chance of success. Unfortunately, as the rest of Moorhouse's book shows, the major governments of the world never spared as much as one full-time carpenter to kill Hitler. Stalin put elaborate assassination nets in place, but then carefully avoided any harm to Adolf, probably fearing that a less crazy leader would make Germany more powerful.
> The democratic Allies did no better. The British demonstrated that they could assassinate even the highest-ranking Nazis deep inside Eastern Europe, by killingReinhard Heydrich. They produced James Bond weapons like theWelrodpistol and distributed them to resistance movements, and assassinated Nazi small fry all over Europe. But though they did a feasibility study ("Operation Foxley") on shooting Hitler at his retreat in the Alps, they too left him strictly alone. On April 25, 1945, the British finally made some PR shock and awe by sending 375 bombers to blast Berchtesgaden. The results were the same as the attacks on Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the Iraq War; the dictator was nowhere nearby.
> The American war leadership followed the British lead. They preferred to spend billions on bombing ordinary German civilians rather than sending in one sniper to Berlin. (Killing Hitlermakes it plain that Hitler drove openly around Berlin until quite late in the war; he would have been no harder to hit than Heydrich). Hitler was left to pursue his campaign against the Jews to the very end.
> Governments, whether "democratic" or openly totalitarian, are all driven by the same evolutionary laws. They gain power by maximizing the length and cost of wars.
> "War is the health of the State" is a truism because it is true. Governments create and maintain Hitlers; if they remove one it is usually only to install another. (Ask the Poles and the Czechs how much they "benefited" from World War II… unlike switching to Geico, switching to Stalin didn't save them hundreds of thousands of lives).
> Hitler only died as an accidental byproduct of the financial and political machine that was World War. If he had actually used theWMDs that he had builtto win on D-Day and/or at Kursk, he might have come to a Cold War accommodation of his own and lived on to die of old age. As it was he simply failed to be a strong enough bogeyman, and was replaced by Stalin and Mao… each of whom killed far more people in peacetime genocides than Hitler.
> Mao alone killed around 77 million Chinese according to historian R.J. Rummel. Maybe Mao should take Hitler's place as the generic epithet for politician… but he won't, since he didn't lose. In fact, he went on to enjoy hispalaces and haremsand die at a ripe old age, much to his own surprise.After World War Two: Let a Thousand Hitlers BloomSince 1945, the US has given foreign aid to most of the world's genocidal dictatorships. Pol Pot was on the US dole, even after achieving the all-time record for "proportion of population killed". Castro was given massive aid after the Bay of Pigs…. and the biggest job security boon to a Latin American dictator ever, in the form of US trade restrictions that kept Castro economically dominant and most Cuban homes free of VCRs.
> Ho Chi Minh got a chunk of change from the US after the Vietnam War, although most of his support before that came from Warsaw Pact countries that borrowed the money from US banks. Idi Amin, Julius Nyerere, Robert Mugabe, Mobutu, Charles Taylor… you can just call the roll of dictators and not risk hitting one that wasn't on the take from official US foreign aid.
> Official foreign aid, like the current official US national debt, is just the tip of the iceberg. Unofficial aid can't even be easily tracked. All a dictator has to do is borrow money from a US bank; with a wink and a nudge from the Federal Reserve, he's on foreign aid that won't be on the books for twenty years, and even then not without a real audit of the Fed. This is how "socialist" regimes can exist with no visible means of support; they don't need a domestic market economy as long as they have their foreign-aid credit card.
> So let's drop the pretense that US intervention is about "stopping the next Hitler". Our taxes and borrowings and printings and flat-out imaginary wild promises support a worldwide network of little Hitlers, from the ex-Soviet Afghan warlords to the nuclear-armed god-kings of North Korea.
> If we want to "prevent the next Hitler", we first have to stop US foreign aid to all the little Hitlers of the world. Then we have to stop our home-grown Goebbels and Goerings from bankrupting our country with wars on every front. The "next Hitler" is us.http://lewrockwell.com/walker/walker45.1.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.

Re: Marriage equality in Maryland, Maine & again in California

Dems own DOMA.

--
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: Nuclear Hypocrisy

It doesn't matter what they say ... some Americans will stay afraid of
Iran. It's a old and sad story that costs Americans more tax dollars
and soldiers.

On Feb 24, 9:06 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "U.S. intelligence reports in2007and2010came up with no evidence that Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency and UN inspectors have confirmed it. The chief of Israel's Mossad,Tamir Pardo, "doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel."James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." According to Pentagon spokesmanGeorge Little, "We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.""Nuclear Hypocrisyby Laurence M. Vance, February 22, 2012
> Republican presidential candidates and officials in the U.S. government from the president on down have turned up the rhetoric against Iran.
> In his State of the Union address,Barack Obamastated, "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
> Secretary of StateHillary Clintonreiterated that "it is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table."
> U.S. State Department spokesmanMark Tonermaintains that the Obama administration "is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons."
> During a recent campaign stop in Cleveland,Newt Gingrichwarned about the dangers to Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and New York from an Iranian nuclear strike. Said Gingrich, "Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it's 300,000 dead. Maybe a half million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That's why I think it's important that we have the strongest possible national security."
> Meanwhile, while campaigning in Missouri,Rick Santorumwarned Missourians about Iran: "Once they have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri. These are folks who have been and are at war with us since 1979. This is a country that has killed more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Iraqis and Afghans." (Funny that the Reagan administration facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in 1985 and 1986 when we were supposedly at war. And funny that Santorum said 1979 instead of 1953 the year that the United States overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed an authoritarian puppet in the shah.)Mitt Romneyhas said that if you elect him, "Iran will not have a nuclear weapon" because "a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the entire world." If sanctions fail to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, "there's nothing else we could do besides take military action."
> The charge has been made that Tehran's UN-inspected nuclear power program is a front for the development of nuclear weapons to target Israel and the United States.
> There are several things that negate that charge that the Republican presidential candidates seem to have missed.
> U.S. intelligence reports in2007and2010came up with no evidence that Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency and UN inspectors have confirmed it. The chief of Israel's Mossad,Tamir Pardo, "doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel."James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." According to Pentagon spokesmanGeorge Little, "We have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon."
> But whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and whether or not Iran develops nuclear weapons in the future, there are seven ways in which the U.S. government is guilty of nuclear hypocrisy.
> First, it is the United States that helped Iran to start its nuclear program. In 1967, under Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, the United Statessoldthe government of Iran a 5-megawatt, light-water-type research reactor. In 1978, Jimmy Carter made a deal with the shah of Iran to send up to eight U.S.-made light-water reactors to Iran, but the deal fell through after the Iranian revolution of 1979. A recently declassified 1974 Defense Departmentmemorandumnotes that should the shah fall from power, "domestic dissidents or foreign terrorists might easily be able to seize any special nuclear materials stored in Iran for use in bombs." The memo concludes that "an aggressive successor to the Shah might consider nuclear weapons the final item needed to establish Iran's complete military dominance of the region."
> Second, by a vote of 4 to 1, theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionrecently approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia at an existing nuclear site. The applications were submitted seven years ago. That was the first time in more than 30 years that the U.S. government has approved the construction of new nuclear reactors. The reactors that began operation in the last decades received their initial licenses before 1978. With all the talk about clean energy, green energy, climate change, and the pollution from coal-fired power plants, it is strange that the U.S. government has stifled the construction of new nuclear reactors for peaceful use.
> Third, besides the United States, the countries of Russia, China, France, Israel, and Great Britain, and, to a lesser extent, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, have nuclear weapons. Why are these countries not considered to be more of a threat to the United States than Iran? Especially Pakistan, which is very unstable, seeing that it borders on Afghanistan. And what about Russia and China? Director of National IntelligenceJames Clapperjust stated in his Worldwide Threat Assessment that "Russia and China are aggressive and successful purveyors of economic espionage against the United States." The controversy regarding Iran is less about nuclear weapons and more about the "sea of oil" that Iran sits on and the struggle for hegemony in the Middle East.
> Fourth, of the 195 countries in the world, 189 of them including Iran aresignersof theNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea signed and then withdrew; India, Pakistan, and Israel never signed; and the new countries of Kosovo (2008) and South Sudan (2011) have not signed yet. Non-nuclear signatories of the treaty agree "not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Article IV of the treaty allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty." Why doesn't the United States pressure India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to sign and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty instead of condemning Iran a signer that hasn't manufactured, acquired, or received any nuclear weapons?
> Fifth, Iran is surrounded by U.S.military bases. There is a new U.S.special operations teamknown as Joint Special Operations Task Force–Gulf Cooperation Council at work near Iran, and the U.S. military hasaircraft carrier battle groupsnear Iran's shores. Yet the United States and Iran signed theAlgiers Accordsin 1981 to end the hostage crisis. The first point, "Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs," reads, "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." If words have any meaning, that would have to preclude investigating Iran's nuclear program.
> Sixth, who is the United States to say that a country should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons? When did all the other countries of the world appoint the United States to be the world's policeman, inspector, and guardian? As much as officials in the U.S. government may not like it, even if Iran had nuclear weapons that would still not give the United States the right to do anything about it beyond diplomacy. The United States has more than5,000nuclear warheads that are a threat to the entire planet. Every country in the world not just Iran would be justified in obtaining nuclear weapons to protect itself against the country that was the first to develop nuclear weapons, the country that has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in battle the United States.
> That brings us to my last point. There is only one country in the world that had a secret program theManhattan Projectto develop nuclear weapons for offensive purposes and then used them. On August 6, 1945, "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, "Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki. Perhaps 200,000 people died, most of them Japanese civilians, some of them Korean conscripts, and a few of them Allied POWs. But wasn't dropping atomic bombs on Japan necessary to end World War II? First of all, World War II was anunnecessarywar. Second, World War II needs to berethought. Third, thanks to the recently publishedbookby the former president Herbert Hoover titledFreedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's History of the Second World War, it has now once again been confirmed that Franklin Roosevelt lied about keeping America out of war even as he took one deliberate step after another to take it into war. And fourth, no it wasn't, at least according to then-GeneralDwight Eisenhower, who said, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
> Is Iran "guilty" of secretly developing a nuclear weapon? Perhaps. But one thing is certain the United States is guilty of nuclear hypocrisy and there is nothing secret about it.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1202p.asp

--
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: muslim assults athiest. muslim judge lets him walk.

This
Atheist was in fact attempting to agitate and cause a disturbance.
---
It was basically one man's word against another's, the judge said.
so, creeping sharia, eh?

On Feb 24, 7:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Bear,
>
> I noted that in the AmericanAtheist Article of which you quoted; (and
> here's the link) :
>
> http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-jud...
>
> The article mentions the video, and claims to share the link, but in fact,
> the link to the video is missing.
>
> Here's the video link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8
>
> Here is also another article covering the same court hearing:
>
> http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/west_shore_judge_d...
>
> Note that in the PennLive article, it states that the law enforcement
> officer was not present during the purported attack.
>
> The web is now crawling with articles,  all based on the AmericanAtheists'
> article;  (and one other source);  but I question whether Judge "Mark
> Martin"  is in fact a Muslim.  Don't all Muslims have to take some kind of
> a funky Islamic name?
>
> No question that Muslims cannot get away with hiding behind Sharia, or a
> State Court of U.S. Court judge trying to inflict Sharia on our Court
> system,  but in this case, I don't think that is what happened.  This
> Atheist was in fact attempting to agitate and cause a disturbance.  He was
> clearly an asshole.
>
> Prefacing my view of this with the knowledge that I was not there during
> the court proceeding, and knowing that the AmericanAtheist has clearly
> misrepresented the truth in their article,  I think the Judge probably
> ruled correctly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This case is just disgusting. Sharia law is slowly coming to the U.S.
> > At least in the U.S. a judge can be removed.
>
> > Be sure to listen to the videos in the links.
>
> > Bear
>
> > Muslim Attacks Atheist. Muslim Judge Dismisses Case, Blames Victim.
>
> > The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest
> > Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween
> > parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie
> > Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to
> > his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an
> > open-and-shut case. That's not what happened, though.
>
> >  The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions
> > were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent
> > Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that
> > his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to
> > show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
>
> > The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark
> > Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge
> > not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name
> > and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he'd be put to
> > death. Judge Martin's comments included,
>
> > "Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in
> > predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the
> > faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I
> > challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad
> > arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things.
> > Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find
> > out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr.
> > (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something
> > like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in
> > fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their
> > society.
>
> > Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
>
> > "Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture, their culture. It's
> > their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day
> > towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a
> > pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because
> > you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt.
> > Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be
> > with you. Whenever, it's very common when speaking to each other it's
> > very common for them to say uh this will happen it's it they are so
> > immersed in it.
>
> > Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the
> > First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
>
> > "Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence,
> > their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I
> > find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside
> > your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I
> > spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go
> > to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly
> > Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we
> > are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other
> > people's rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the
> > other people's say"
>
> > But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into
> > evidence, and then said,
>
> > "All that aside I've got here basically.. I don't want to say he said
> > she said but I've got two sides of the story that are in conflict with
> > each other."
>
> > And,
>
> > "The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… "
>
> > And,
>
> > "…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this
> > defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the
> > charge"
>
> > The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law
> > does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the
> > defendant to familiarize himself with our laws.  This is to say
> > nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not
> > acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use
> > violence in the defense of religious beliefs.  Instead, the judge
> > gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim
> > faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces
> > Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone " to piss off
> > other people and other cultures" and he was also insulted by Mr.
> > Perce's portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
>
> > This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video
> > evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on
> > Mr. Perce's behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the
> > officer didn't give an accurate account or doesn't give it any weight.
>
> > Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge
> > during the trial:
>
> > Here's coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate
>
> > Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
> > unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
> > citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
> > while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then
> > blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible
> > abrogation.
>
> > This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is
> > blamed for her own rape because she "was asking for it" by virtue of
> > the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the
> > rapist free.
>
> > I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not
> > by a long shot.
>
> > –
>
> > Al Stefanelli - Georgia State Director, American Atheists, Inc.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

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

Re: AFGHAN Muslim savages want to put quran-burners on public trial…..

and interventionists think they can civilize the muzzies by force.

it's almost funny

On Feb 24, 7:37 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://www.endtimestoday.com/?author=1>  AFGHAN Muslim savages want to put
> quran-burners on public
> trial…..<http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/23/afghan-muslim-savages-want-to-pu...>by
> barenakedislam <http://www.endtimestoday.com/?author=1>
> And apparently, NATO has agreed?  Will they also make the beheadings public
> because that is the punishment for blasphemy?
>
> <http://barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ss-120223-koran-...>
>
> MSNBC<http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/23/10488437-afghans-karz...>
> Afghanistan wants NATO to put on public trial those who burned copies of
> the Quran at a NATO base, President Hamid Karzai's office said Thursday,
> after a third day of bloody protests over the incident. It said NATO had
> agreed to a trial, but that could not be immediately confirmed.
>
> Karzai had earlier accused a U.S. officer of "ignorantly" burning copies of
> the Quran, in an incident that has deepened anti-Western sentiment in a
> country NATO is trying to stabilize before foreign combat troops leave by
> the end of 2014.
>
> <http://barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ss-120223-koran-...>
>
> *Demonstrations have drawn thousands of angry Afghans to the streets,
> chanting "Death to America!" amid violence that has killed 11 people
> including two U.S. service personnel.*
>
> "NATO officials, in response to a request for the trial and punishment of
> the perpetrators ... promised this crime will brought to court as soon as
> possible," Karzai's office said in a statement.
>
> <http://barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ss-120223-koran-...>
>
> Muslim-in-Chief Barack Obama sent a letter to Karzai apologizing for the
> burning of the Qurans, after Afghan laborers found charred copies while
> collecting rubbish at the sprawling Bagram air base.
>
> http://widgets.vodpod.com/w/video_embed/Video.16131814
>
>  *barenakedislam <http://www.endtimestoday.com/?author=1>* | February 23,
> 2012 at 11:01 pm | Categories:
> IslamoMania<http://www.endtimestoday.com/?cat=8843274>| URL:http://wp.me/p276zM-FP8
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/23/afghan-muslim-savages-want-to-pu...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/23/afghan-muslim-savages-want-to-pu...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=7f89380f46003915c34c2cdd2b126a38...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/23/afghan-muslim-savages-want-to-pu...

--
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.

mind your own business

Israel dismisses warnings from US about attacking Iran
By Jeremy Herb - 02/22/12 12:39 PM ET

Israel's foreign minister on Wednesday said it's not the business of
the United States whether his country decides to attack Iran.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that warnings from the United
States and Russia about an attack would not affect Israel's decision-
making.

"[It] is not their business," Lieberman said in an interview with an
Israeli TV station Wednesday, according to The Associated Press.

"The security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of
Israel, this is the Israeli government's responsibility," he said.

Lieberman's comments come after Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin
Dempsey said Sunday that an Israeli attack would be "destabilizing"
for the region.

President Obama has said that the United States will not allow the
Iranians to obtain a nuclear weapon, but Israeli officials say their
country's existence is threatened by a nuclear Iran. The Israelis have
suggested they might attack Iran to stop its nuclear program with or
without U.S. assistance.

Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but
Israel, the United States and their allies believe Iran is striving to
create a nuclear weapon.

U.S. officials have pushed Israel to wait for sanctions against Iran
to have an impact on the country that could convince the Iranians to
abandon their nuclear pursuits.

U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon just returned from a visit
to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
other top Israeli officials.

Netanyahu and Obama have a meeting scheduled March 5 at the White
House while Netanyahu is in the country for the AIPAC convention.

--
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: President Obama Talks About Gas Prices, Energy

Hopefully, the American people will see that President Obama's failure to respond in any meaningful fashion yesterday in Miami, (while on a campaign trip)  while so many Americans are hurting due to the drastic increase in fuel prices,  will be the light bulb going off in their heads, and they will remember this nine months from now.
 

 
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
From Coleman


Obama Talks About Gas Prices, Energy

President Obama jogged up the stairs leading to the stage where he
spoke at the University of Miami on Thursday.
By MARK LANDLERNYTimes Published: February 23, 2012
MIAMI — President Obama, confronted by the political perils of surging
gas prices in an election year, on Thursday defended his efforts to
wean the United States off imported oil, even as he conceded there was
little he could do in the short run to ease the pain at the pump.

Enlarge This Image

Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama discussed gas prices and energy policy during his address.

Speaking to students at the University of Miami, in a swing state
where gas averages $3.69 a gallon, Mr. Obama said: "Just like last
year, gas prices are climbing across the country; this time, it's
happening even earlier. And when gas prices go up, it hurts
everybody."
The president offered what he called an "all-of-the-above" response,
based on more domestic oil production, development of alternative
energy sources and stricter fuel-efficiency standards.

Drawing a sharp contrast with Republicans and anticipating potential
attacks on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama ridiculed his opponents for
recycling a "three-point plan for $2 gas."

"Step one is to drill, and step two is to drill, and then step three
is to keep drilling," he said.

This was the president's first major effort to tackle an issue that
has surfaced in the last few weeks as oil prices have been driven up
by tensions in the Middle East, where Iran has threatened to retaliate
against the West because of sanctions over its nuclear program.

Mr. Obama seemed keenly aware of the risk posed by oil prices. A
previous cycle of price increases played briefly to the benefit of
Senator John McCain during the 2008 campaign, when his running mate,
Sarah Palin, revved up crowds with the chant, "drill, baby, drill."

The president said that the United States is producing more oil now
than at any time during the last eight years, with a record number of
rigs pumping. The White House, he said, was prepared to open new areas
in the Arctic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico to exploration.

But Mr. Obama warned that no amount of domestic production could
offset the broader forces driving up gas prices, chief among them
Middle East instability and the ravenous energy appetite of China,
which he said added 10 million cars in 2010.

"Anybody who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem
doesn't know what they're talking about, or just isn't telling you the
truth," he said to whoops from the crowd of nearly 1,500.

Mr. Obama's remarks, tinged with humor and sarcasm, were bluntly
political, on a trip that included fund-raising events in Miami and
Orlando. But his message was sober: neither he nor anyone else can do
much about oil prices, which he said were likely to keep rising.

The White House contends that the public has grown accustomed to these
periodic spikes and will credit him for speaking honestly about the
underlying economic realities rather than offering "gimmicky" fixes —
something he eschewed in 2008.

Still, with gasoline prices nationally about 12 percent higher than a
year ago, Democratic political analysts believe Mr. Obama needs to get
ahead of the issue quickly. Newt Gingrich, for example promised this
week to bring gas down to $2.50 a gallon.

"Four dollars per gallon has typically been the tipping point when
people go from complacency to exasperation," said Geoff Garin, a
Democratic pollster, who notes that people have begun mentioning gas
prices with increasing urgency in his focus groups.

Gas prices did not figure prominently in the Republican debate on
Wednesday in Arizona, where the candidates trained most of their fire
on one another. But Republicans in Congress criticized Mr. Obama for
not opening more federal land to exploration, and for not approving
the Keystone XL pipeline.

"The president would like everyone to forget that gas prices have
doubled over the past three years while he consistently blocked and
slowed the production of American-made energy," a spokesman for House
Speaker John A. Boehner, Brendan Buck, said in a statement.

Even Mr. Obama, they noted, once referred to his "all-of-the-above"
policy as a "hodgepodge."

Among Mr. Obama's proposals are opening 75 percent of the nation's
offshore oil and natural gas resources by 2017; fuel-economy and
emissions standards for trucks, vans and buses; and an administration
effort to prevent bottlenecks in the oil market.

Michael Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations,
said, "Any effective energy policy is almost inevitably going to be a
hodgepodge." He credited the president with stimulating production,
though he said the rejection of Keystone sent a weak signal.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's lobbying group, said
Mr. Obama had restricted opportunities to produce more oil by
shortening leases and slowing permit approvals.

The president fired back, repeating his demand that Congress end
subsidies for the oil and gas industries.

"It's outrageous," he said. "Every politician who's been fighting to
keep these subsidies in place should explain to the American people
why the oil industry needs more of their money."

None of Mr. Obama's proposals were new, and some were aspirational. He
said gasoline and diesel produced from algae could replace up to 17
percent of imported oil. But experts say such fuel is a long way from
being commercially viable on that scale.

Joking that he once bought a car for $500, Mr. Obama said that because
of new fuel-economy standards, new cars will average nearly 55 miles
per gallon by the middle of the next decade.

Mr. Obama struck his own inadvertent blow for fuel economy, by flying
to Florida on a Boeing 757 rather than a 747. The bigger 747, which
usually serves as Air Force One, was in the shop.


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



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

--
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.

President Obama Talks About Gas Prices, Energy

From Coleman


Obama Talks About Gas Prices, Energy

President Obama jogged up the stairs leading to the stage where he
spoke at the University of Miami on Thursday.
By MARK LANDLERNYTimes Published: February 23, 2012
MIAMI — President Obama, confronted by the political perils of surging
gas prices in an election year, on Thursday defended his efforts to
wean the United States off imported oil, even as he conceded there was
little he could do in the short run to ease the pain at the pump.

Enlarge This Image

Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama discussed gas prices and energy policy during his address.

Speaking to students at the University of Miami, in a swing state
where gas averages $3.69 a gallon, Mr. Obama said: "Just like last
year, gas prices are climbing across the country; this time, it's
happening even earlier. And when gas prices go up, it hurts
everybody."
The president offered what he called an "all-of-the-above" response,
based on more domestic oil production, development of alternative
energy sources and stricter fuel-efficiency standards.

Drawing a sharp contrast with Republicans and anticipating potential
attacks on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama ridiculed his opponents for
recycling a "three-point plan for $2 gas."

"Step one is to drill, and step two is to drill, and then step three
is to keep drilling," he said.

This was the president's first major effort to tackle an issue that
has surfaced in the last few weeks as oil prices have been driven up
by tensions in the Middle East, where Iran has threatened to retaliate
against the West because of sanctions over its nuclear program.

Mr. Obama seemed keenly aware of the risk posed by oil prices. A
previous cycle of price increases played briefly to the benefit of
Senator John McCain during the 2008 campaign, when his running mate,
Sarah Palin, revved up crowds with the chant, "drill, baby, drill."

The president said that the United States is producing more oil now
than at any time during the last eight years, with a record number of
rigs pumping. The White House, he said, was prepared to open new areas
in the Arctic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico to exploration.

But Mr. Obama warned that no amount of domestic production could
offset the broader forces driving up gas prices, chief among them
Middle East instability and the ravenous energy appetite of China,
which he said added 10 million cars in 2010.

"Anybody who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem
doesn't know what they're talking about, or just isn't telling you the
truth," he said to whoops from the crowd of nearly 1,500.

Mr. Obama's remarks, tinged with humor and sarcasm, were bluntly
political, on a trip that included fund-raising events in Miami and
Orlando. But his message was sober: neither he nor anyone else can do
much about oil prices, which he said were likely to keep rising.

The White House contends that the public has grown accustomed to these
periodic spikes and will credit him for speaking honestly about the
underlying economic realities rather than offering "gimmicky" fixes —
something he eschewed in 2008.

Still, with gasoline prices nationally about 12 percent higher than a
year ago, Democratic political analysts believe Mr. Obama needs to get
ahead of the issue quickly. Newt Gingrich, for example promised this
week to bring gas down to $2.50 a gallon.

"Four dollars per gallon has typically been the tipping point when
people go from complacency to exasperation," said Geoff Garin, a
Democratic pollster, who notes that people have begun mentioning gas
prices with increasing urgency in his focus groups.

Gas prices did not figure prominently in the Republican debate on
Wednesday in Arizona, where the candidates trained most of their fire
on one another. But Republicans in Congress criticized Mr. Obama for
not opening more federal land to exploration, and for not approving
the Keystone XL pipeline.

"The president would like everyone to forget that gas prices have
doubled over the past three years while he consistently blocked and
slowed the production of American-made energy," a spokesman for House
Speaker John A. Boehner, Brendan Buck, said in a statement.

Even Mr. Obama, they noted, once referred to his "all-of-the-above"
policy as a "hodgepodge."

Among Mr. Obama's proposals are opening 75 percent of the nation's
offshore oil and natural gas resources by 2017; fuel-economy and
emissions standards for trucks, vans and buses; and an administration
effort to prevent bottlenecks in the oil market.

Michael Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations,
said, "Any effective energy policy is almost inevitably going to be a
hodgepodge." He credited the president with stimulating production,
though he said the rejection of Keystone sent a weak signal.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's lobbying group, said
Mr. Obama had restricted opportunities to produce more oil by
shortening leases and slowing permit approvals.

The president fired back, repeating his demand that Congress end
subsidies for the oil and gas industries.

"It's outrageous," he said. "Every politician who's been fighting to
keep these subsidies in place should explain to the American people
why the oil industry needs more of their money."

None of Mr. Obama's proposals were new, and some were aspirational. He
said gasoline and diesel produced from algae could replace up to 17
percent of imported oil. But experts say such fuel is a long way from
being commercially viable on that scale.

Joking that he once bought a car for $500, Mr. Obama said that because
of new fuel-economy standards, new cars will average nearly 55 miles
per gallon by the middle of the next decade.

Mr. Obama struck his own inadvertent blow for fuel economy, by flying
to Florida on a Boeing 757 rather than a 747. The bigger 747, which
usually serves as Air Force One, was in the shop.


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

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

--
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: No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure

Whoops.   I actually clicked on this link, and then went to the link within the link, and low and behold,  I came across Alex Jones and InfoWars. 
 
The story lost all credibility at that point.  Alex Jones is a crackpot.
 
 
 


 
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:


New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

No judge, no jury, gun rights taken for refusing medical procedure

by Harold

Brasscheck TV 2/23/2012 We've been posting on medical tyranny here on Brasscheck TV, well over on our sister site, 2nd Amendment TV, we've been posting on medical tyranny too. David Sarti's doctor was able to strip him of his Second Amendment rights for refusing an unnecessary medical procedure. Without so much as committing a crime [...]

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/2012/02/24/04-886/

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.

--
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.