Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Re: GAS

allyourbasearebelongtous

have you seen borg lately?

On Feb 29, 11:46 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
> BO has slashes the value of a dollar in half in only three years.
> Let's give him five more; a buck will become worthless. Then
> DC can confiscate all your Gold; again.
> We forget FDR did that.
>
>  __._,_.___
>   Reply to sender
> <cadiza...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20OBAMA%20AND%20GAS> | Reply
> to group <RumblesAL...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20OBAMA%20AND%20GAS>
> | Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJzMmUxc3Y5...>|
> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY3AwcWt2...>
> Messages in this
> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/message/372046;_ylc=X3oDMT...>(
> 2)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>    - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMTBqN...>
>    2
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbnZncW1tBF9TA...>
>  [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZWM3aGZnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycEl...>
> Switch to: Text-Only<RumblesAList-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<RumblesAList-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <RumblesAList-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>•
> Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>
> __,_._,___

--
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.

Federal ?Trespass Bill? will make protest illegal

Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make protest illegal


Federal ?Trespass Bill? will make protest illegal
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
Basically a federal law to make it a felony to protest any place too
close to a federal politician, even if you didn?t know they were going
to be or near the building or other facility!

--
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.

Snowe

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

**JP** Fw: Vacant Post of Chief Protection Officer

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tahir Khan

dear group administrator
attached is advertisement of vacancy of Chief Protection Officer in Child Protection & Welfare Commission. please post it on your group.

Tahir M. Khan
Assistant Chief (Child Protection)
Child Protection & Welfare Commission
Social Welfare, Special Education & Women Empowerment Department
(Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
(Provincial Secretariat: 04, Old Bara Road, University Town Peshawar) 

Fwd: [RMN] Where did all the wealth go?


 
Where did all the wealth go?
 
Haven't you been wondering: how can everyone in the civilized world go broke at the some time,
and no one else has gotten super rich? We're talking $15 trillion! It boggles the mind.
 
While I can't vouch for the veracity of the below reports, I feel they are too important to withhold.
Besides, it's the first explanation of the world's missing wealth that makes any sense.
 
 

Missing Foundations
by Linh Dinh
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/26-1

 
 


The Republican Establishment are concerned that conservatives, i.e. the TEA Party, will not support them or the RINOs come Nov. They argue that any of them would be better than their Democrat opponent.

 
 
Too bad they didn't think of that when they withheld support for Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman and Carlie Fiorina.


The GOP could've had a majority in the Senate at the very least.

 



  


____________________________________________________________consumerproducts.com

Recent Activity:
Visit our main page!!
http://www.rumormillnews.com/

Come join the FUN!
CGI - Common Grounds Independent Media 
Everyone can post!!
RMN READER'S Forum -
http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi
.

__,_._,___

--
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.

GAS


 

BO has slashes the value of a dollar in half in only three years.
Let's give him five more; a buck will become worthless. Then
DC can confiscate all your Gold; again.
We forget FDR did that.

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

--
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: SANTORUM: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 'MAKES ME WANT TO THROW UP'

Huh?
---
Christianity supports the Divine Rights of Kings -- you know, King
George et al -- rather than Natural Rights as noted in the Declaration
of Independence

more proof that religion is not something we want in our government

have you noticed how xians get all excited when the see british
royalty?

On Feb 29, 10:02 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> At 10:43 AM 2/29/2012, you wrote:rather than Natural Rights as noted in the Declaration of Independence
> ---
> oops!
> Huh?WHEN in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate & equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.WE hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator withinherent and* [certain]* inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, & organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpationsbegun at a distinguished period andpursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains them toexpunge[alter] their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history ofunremitting[repeated] injuries & usurpations,among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have[all having]in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid worldfor the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.Legitimate Government secures (natural) rights.
> This is quite different from Divine Rights of Kings ...Romans 13:1-2 clearly forbids rebellion against the established authorities and was, moreover, written about the pagan government of the Roman Empire, which actively persecuted Christians: "Every person must submit to the supreme authorities.There is no authority but by act of God,and theexistingauthorities are instituted by him; consequently, anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who so resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive." George III, it should be noted, was a Christian monarch; if Paul commanded obedience by Christians to the pagan and tyrannical Roman emperors, surely he would have demanded equal obedience by Christians to the avowedly Christian (and far less cruel or oppressive) British king and parliament.Regard$,
> --MJ
> From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. -- John Locke

--
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 Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War

Anyone who refuses to see that Islam is our enemy is wrong about
Islam.
---
opinion noted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvxb0zXk2i0

On Feb 29, 6:34 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone who refuses to see that Islam is our enemy is wrong about Islam.  It
> is a totalitarian system controlled by the Koran and Sharia.  Islam
> requires the destruction of everything and everybody that is not Islamic.
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War
>
> > by 1389 on February 27, 2012
>
> > in 1389 (blog admin)<http://1389blog.com/category/1389-blog/authors/1389/>,
> > 2012 US Elections<http://1389blog.com/category/politics/2012-us-elections/>,
> > Global Conflict <http://1389blog.com/category/military/global-conflict/>,
> > history <http://1389blog.com/category/history/>, history of jihad<http://1389blog.com/category/history/history-of-jihad/>,
> > Islam <http://1389blog.com/category/islam/>, military<http://1389blog.com/category/military/>,
> > Ron Paul <http://1389blog.com/category/politics/ron-paul/>, September 11,
> > 2001 <http://1389blog.com/category/history/9-11/>
>
> > Sultan Knish explains:
> > Between Responsible and Irresponsible Isolationism<http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/12/between-responsible-and-irres...>
>
> > There is one fundamental element that is absolutely necessary for an
> > isolationist foreign policy. Isolation. Isolationism without physical
> > isolation is as much good as belligerence without an army to back it up.
>
> > American isolationism might have been feasible during WW1 when its
> > neighbors were either friendly or no threat, there was no danger from the
> > Pacific and a fleet crossing the Atlantic seemed unlikely. Though it wasn't
> > so unlikely even then.
>
> > As far back as 1897 and long before any American involvement in Europe,
> > Operational Plan Three called for shelling New York and seizing parts of
> > Virginia, as a staging base for attacks on Washington and Baltimore. Plans
> > were drawn up in Germany for the occupation of Boston and Philadelphia.
>
> > Vice-Admiral August Thomsen wrote, "At the moment every thinking German
> > officer is occupied with the consequences of a belligerent conflict between
> > Germany and the United States of America."
>
> > No American politician was thinking the same thing. America had not
> > intervened in any European wars and had no interest in Germany. But that
> > didn't matter. The Kasier wanted to seize parts of the hemisphere and that
> > meant breaking the dominant power in the region. America's weak fleet made
> > it seem like an easy target.
>
> > That is the most important part of the equation that isolationists fail to
> > include in their calculations. Regardless of our foreign policy, we are
> > still a target. Whatever our calculations are, potential enemies may have
> > calculations entirely different from our own. They don't just react to what
> > we do, they have their own plans and agendas. Passivity isn't a defense for
> > the ostrich or for a nation.
>
> > In 1900 while America slept, German diplomats were scouting Cape Cod and
> > Provincetown as support bases for an attack on Boston. And the Germans
> > weren't alone. In the early 20th century there were British plans for an
> > assault on New England. But Germany's failure to formulate an alliance with
> > other European powers against the United States led to the abandonment of
> > Operational Plan Three.
>
> > When Charles Lindbergh ridiculed the idea of a foreign attack on America,
> > such an attack was less than a year away, but variations of it had been
> > planned by European powers for a good deal longer than that. Terrorist
> > attacks by foreign agents were a now forgotten reality during WW1,
> > including the Black Tom explosion which severely damaged the Statue of
> > Liberty, the Vanceboro bridge bombing, and in an early form of biological
> > warfare a laboratory in Chevy Chase was working on anthrax and glanders
> > cultures to be used on horses.
>
> > With the jet plane and the intercontinental ballistic missile,
> > isolationism became completely unworkable without strong deterrence. Even
> > if the United States had chosen to abandon Europe, it would still have
> > needed massive nuclear missile stockpiles, a sizable fleet and military,
> > and a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction just to pursue a policy of
> > isolationism. And had the USSR managed to make even deeper inroads in South
> > America, the United States would have been forced to either push it out or
> > increase the size of its forces to compensate for the loss of a buffer zone
> > against preemptive attacks.
>
> > It's not impossible to have an isolationist foreign policy today, to cut
> > any alliances with the rest of the world. But there's a fundamental
> > difference between a responsible and an irresponsible isolationist policy.
> > A responsible isolationist policy recognizes that we have enemies who will
> > act regardless of what we do and prepares against the possibility of war
> > without actively seeking it out.
>
> > An irresponsible isolationist foreign policy however acts as if we have no
> > enemies and that any talk that we have enemies is a conspiracy to bring us
> > into a war. It accepts every bit of enemy propaganda as gospel and assumes
> > that if we just "stop bothering them", they'll "stop bothering us". It
> > assumes that the enemy is entirely motivated by our actions, that any
> > conflict we are in is the result of our foreign policy and that
> > isolationism will avert any such conflicts.
>
> > This is the version of isolationism that you hear in the Republican
> > debates from Ron Paul. It's the version that Americans heard back in the
> > 1930′s from Lindbergh. Rather than recognizing that a military buildup is
> > an important deterrent to war, it attacks military buildups as provocative.
> > It assumes that the only possible reason why we might be attacked are
> > foreign entanglements and if we just tuck our heads in then there will be
> > no conflict.
>
> > The absurdity of this approach when it comes to the current clash of
> > civilizations with Islam is obvious enough. This isn't a conflict that
> > dates back from 1991 or 1948 or even the First Barbary War in 1805. It's a
> > war that predates the United States and modern day Europe. It is a conflict
> > that goes back over a thousand years to the decline and fall of the eastern
> > remains of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam as a militant unification
> > ideology to fill that void.
>
> > American foreign policy can't turn back the clock on that history. It can
> > affect events in the present day, but it can't undo the roots of a conflict
> > that it has inherited. American foreign policy had a good deal to do with
> > the rise of Islamic states built on petrodollars, but isolationism is
> > certainly not going to make them go away. Certainly not Ron Paul's brand of
> > isolationism which pretends that there is nothing wrong with Islam that
> > can't be fixed with an American isolationist foreign policy.
>
> > During the last debate, Ron Paul asked why they're bombing us and not
> > Sweden or Switzerland. The answer is very simple. You only bomb people who
> > resist. Stockholm is 20 percent Muslim. Muslim terrorists operate out of
> > Sweden, including a top Al-Qaeda leader, but they don't need to attack a
> > territory that they're already on the way to ruling through natural
> > demographics.
>
> > 44 percent of Europe's population is over 45. Under 34 percent is under
> > 30. Meanwhile half of European Muslims are under 30. The math isn't very
> > hard to do. The only countries that need to be targeted by Muslim
> > terrorists are those which have a high enough birth rate that demographics
> > alone won't do the trick.
>
> > The First World country with the highest birth rate is Israel. It's also
> > the country most targeted by Muslim terrorists. The First World country
> > with the second highest birth rate is the United States. It is the country
> > second most targeted by terrorists. The next major countries on the list
> > are France and the UK. There's a term for this sort of thing. It's
> > demographic suppression and political intimidation.
>
> > Back in the 19th century the Kasier hoped that shelling Manhattan and
> > seizing a few cities would bring the United States to the negotiating
> > table. Japan thought that bombing Pearl Harbor would accomplish the same
> > thing. But while Tojo was wrong, the House of Saud was correct. September
> > 11 brought the United States to the negotiating table with Islam. Muslims
> > have been granted special privileges and their immigration rate has
> > increased. That's one path to an eventual demographic domination.
>
> > Islamic attacks against the United States may emerge from various
> > micro-events, but the macro-event from which they originate is the shared
> > history of the Western world and the ongoing conflict between the Muslim
> > world and the West. Some isolationists may act as if the United States can
> > break with European history through assertion alone. It cannot. Like it or
> > not it shares a common history and a common culture. America derives from
> > Europe, and whether Americans recognize it or not, the rest of the world
> > does. To Islam, America is not an island, it is another outpost of an enemy
> > civilization that must be subdued so that the way of Mohammed will triumph
> > around the world.
>
> > Ron Paul type isolationists fail to distinguish between the proximate
> > causes of war and the ultimate causes of war. A proximate cause of war may
> > be a ship that has wandered into the wrong area which may have been caused
> > by a trade dispute which may have been caused by debts which may have been
> > caused by growing militarism and greed for land. But none of those are
> > truly the ultimate cause of war. The ultimate cause of war is the
> > incompatibility of two systems and two civilizations within the same space.
>
> > Technological development means that the old boundaries are all but gone.
> > Immigration means that the enemy population is already here. The rise of
> > Islam means that war is inevitable, all that remains are the details, which
> > battle, on
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

Fwd: Best Picture


 
Pretty funny
College kids .. gotta love em!
Obama never saw it coming &..but boy was he ticked after it happened!
It is now rumored that obama has everyone s hands checked before taking pictures with them
LOL!!!!!!
 
.

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

**JP** Daily Quran and Hadith

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

 

 



 




Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403


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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: NBC TODAY Show: Gingrich: I’ll Amass More Delegates

I also believe Newt is a good guy and could do a very good job if he does as he says.  And except that philosophically I agree with Paul most, Newt is by far the best of the remaining free.  Mitt is nothing more that obamalite and sanitarium is the only guy I know that plays 'pocket pool' with 2 bibles.  

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
<Grin>!
 
Good Morning Travis!
 
I understand.   Nevertheless, I am still a fan.  I genuinely believe that Newt Gingrich could in fact inspire Americans,  similar in the way that Ronald Reagan did,  and do a lot of good for this Nation.  Gingrich brings intelligent conservative solutions to many of the issues that we as a Nation face in the New Millennium.
 
I encourage everyone to try and forget Newt's "baggage"  for a moment, and just listen to the man......Or not.....
 


 
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
"Arse of Newt" is still not on my menu.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/333873/nbc-today-show-gingrich-i%E2%80%99ll-amass-more-delegates?from=fb_share

--
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.

--
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: Google Issues

I've switched to using Bing when on my Ipad as it doesn't save your info and share it the way google does

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Good Morning Members,
 
Google is having "issues"  with their search engines, and this is somehow affecting the Groups and G-Mail services.  If you are having trouble loading the pages from the Group's message board,  we are aware of the problem(s)......We feel your pain!
 
It's our experience that these problems usually clear themselves up in a relatively short period of time.   "Relative"  being the operative word here.  If you are experiencing problems with viewing the web pages from the Group,  hitting your "Re-Load"  button on your browser may be of benefit;  but otherwise,  there's not much we can do, other than to suffer through!  Hopefully the problem(s) will be corrected in the next 24 hours or so.
 
Thanks for your understanding and patience!
 
KeithInTampa

--
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.

Google Issues

Good Morning Members,
 
Google is having "issues"  with their search engines, and this is somehow affecting the Groups and G-Mail services.  If you are having trouble loading the pages from the Group's message board,  we are aware of the problem(s)......We feel your pain!
 
It's our experience that these problems usually clear themselves up in a relatively short period of time.   "Relative"  being the operative word here.  If you are experiencing problems with viewing the web pages from the Group,  hitting your "Re-Load"  button on your browser may be of benefit;  but otherwise,  there's not much we can do, other than to suffer through!  Hopefully the problem(s) will be corrected in the next 24 hours or so.
 
Thanks for your understanding and patience!
 
KeithInTampa

--
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: NBC TODAY Show: Gingrich: I’ll Amass More Delegates

<Grin>!
 
Good Morning Travis!
 
I understand.   Nevertheless, I am still a fan.  I genuinely believe that Newt Gingrich could in fact inspire Americans,  similar in the way that Ronald Reagan did,  and do a lot of good for this Nation.  Gingrich brings intelligent conservative solutions to many of the issues that we as a Nation face in the New Millennium.
 
I encourage everyone to try and forget Newt's "baggage"  for a moment, and just listen to the man......Or not.....
 


 
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
"Arse of Newt" is still not on my menu.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/333873/nbc-today-show-gingrich-i%E2%80%99ll-amass-more-delegates?from=fb_share

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

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

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

Re: NBC TODAY Show: Gingrich: I’ll Amass More Delegates

"Arse of Newt" is still not on my menu.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/333873/nbc-today-show-gingrich-i%E2%80%99ll-amass-more-delegates?from=fb_share

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

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

Re: Why Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War


Anyone who refuses to see that Islam is our enemy is wrong about Islam.  It is a totalitarian system controlled by the Koran and Sharia.  Islam requires the destruction of everything and everybody that is not Islamic.

 
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

Why Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War

by 1389 on February 27, 2012

in 1389 (blog admin), 2012 US Elections, Global Conflict, history, history of jihad, Islam, military, Ron Paul, September 11, 2001

Sultan Knish explains:

Between Responsible and Irresponsible Isolationism

There is one fundamental element that is absolutely necessary for an isolationist foreign policy. Isolation. Isolationism without physical isolation is as much good as belligerence without an army to back it up.

American isolationism might have been feasible during WW1 when its neighbors were either friendly or no threat, there was no danger from the Pacific and a fleet crossing the Atlantic seemed unlikely. Though it wasn't so unlikely even then.

As far back as 1897 and long before any American involvement in Europe, Operational Plan Three called for shelling New York and seizing parts of Virginia, as a staging base for attacks on Washington and Baltimore. Plans were drawn up in Germany for the occupation of Boston and Philadelphia.

Vice-Admiral August Thomsen wrote, "At the moment every thinking German officer is occupied with the consequences of a belligerent conflict between Germany and the United States of America."

No American politician was thinking the same thing. America had not intervened in any European wars and had no interest in Germany. But that didn't matter. The Kasier wanted to seize parts of the hemisphere and that meant breaking the dominant power in the region. America's weak fleet made it seem like an easy target.

That is the most important part of the equation that isolationists fail to include in their calculations. Regardless of our foreign policy, we are still a target. Whatever our calculations are, potential enemies may have calculations entirely different from our own. They don't just react to what we do, they have their own plans and agendas. Passivity isn't a defense for the ostrich or for a nation.

In 1900 while America slept, German diplomats were scouting Cape Cod and Provincetown as support bases for an attack on Boston. And the Germans weren't alone. In the early 20th century there were British plans for an assault on New England. But Germany's failure to formulate an alliance with other European powers against the United States led to the abandonment of Operational Plan Three.

When Charles Lindbergh ridiculed the idea of a foreign attack on America, such an attack was less than a year away, but variations of it had been planned by European powers for a good deal longer than that. Terrorist attacks by foreign agents were a now forgotten reality during WW1, including the Black Tom explosion which severely damaged the Statue of Liberty, the Vanceboro bridge bombing, and in an early form of biological warfare a laboratory in Chevy Chase was working on anthrax and glanders cultures to be used on horses.

With the jet plane and the intercontinental ballistic missile, isolationism became completely unworkable without strong deterrence. Even if the United States had chosen to abandon Europe, it would still have needed massive nuclear missile stockpiles, a sizable fleet and military, and a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction just to pursue a policy of isolationism. And had the USSR managed to make even deeper inroads in South America, the United States would have been forced to either push it out or increase the size of its forces to compensate for the loss of a buffer zone against preemptive attacks.

It's not impossible to have an isolationist foreign policy today, to cut any alliances with the rest of the world. But there's a fundamental difference between a responsible and an irresponsible isolationist policy. A responsible isolationist policy recognizes that we have enemies who will act regardless of what we do and prepares against the possibility of war without actively seeking it out.

An irresponsible isolationist foreign policy however acts as if we have no enemies and that any talk that we have enemies is a conspiracy to bring us into a war. It accepts every bit of enemy propaganda as gospel and assumes that if we just "stop bothering them", they'll "stop bothering us". It assumes that the enemy is entirely motivated by our actions, that any conflict we are in is the result of our foreign policy and that isolationism will avert any such conflicts.

This is the version of isolationism that you hear in the Republican debates from Ron Paul. It's the version that Americans heard back in the 1930′s from Lindbergh. Rather than recognizing that a military buildup is an important deterrent to war, it attacks military buildups as provocative. It assumes that the only possible reason why we might be attacked are foreign entanglements and if we just tuck our heads in then there will be no conflict.

The absurdity of this approach when it comes to the current clash of civilizations with Islam is obvious enough. This isn't a conflict that dates back from 1991 or 1948 or even the First Barbary War in 1805. It's a war that predates the United States and modern day Europe. It is a conflict that goes back over a thousand years to the decline and fall of the eastern remains of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam as a militant unification ideology to fill that void.

American foreign policy can't turn back the clock on that history. It can affect events in the present day, but it can't undo the roots of a conflict that it has inherited. American foreign policy had a good deal to do with the rise of Islamic states built on petrodollars, but isolationism is certainly not going to make them go away. Certainly not Ron Paul's brand of isolationism which pretends that there is nothing wrong with Islam that can't be fixed with an American isolationist foreign policy.

During the last debate, Ron Paul asked why they're bombing us and not Sweden or Switzerland. The answer is very simple. You only bomb people who resist. Stockholm is 20 percent Muslim. Muslim terrorists operate out of Sweden, including a top Al-Qaeda leader, but they don't need to attack a territory that they're already on the way to ruling through natural demographics.

44 percent of Europe's population is over 45. Under 34 percent is under 30. Meanwhile half of European Muslims are under 30. The math isn't very hard to do. The only countries that need to be targeted by Muslim terrorists are those which have a high enough birth rate that demographics alone won't do the trick.

The First World country with the highest birth rate is Israel. It's also the country most targeted by Muslim terrorists. The First World country with the second highest birth rate is the United States. It is the country second most targeted by terrorists. The next major countries on the list are France and the UK. There's a term for this sort of thing. It's demographic suppression and political intimidation.

Back in the 19th century the Kasier hoped that shelling Manhattan and seizing a few cities would bring the United States to the negotiating table. Japan thought that bombing Pearl Harbor would accomplish the same thing. But while Tojo was wrong, the House of Saud was correct. September 11 brought the United States to the negotiating table with Islam. Muslims have been granted special privileges and their immigration rate has increased. That's one path to an eventual demographic domination.

Islamic attacks against the United States may emerge from various micro-events, but the macro-event from which they originate is the shared history of the Western world and the ongoing conflict between the Muslim world and the West. Some isolationists may act as if the United States can break with European history through assertion alone. It cannot. Like it or not it shares a common history and a common culture. America derives from Europe, and whether Americans recognize it or not, the rest of the world does. To Islam, America is not an island, it is another outpost of an enemy civilization that must be subdued so that the way of Mohammed will triumph around the world.

Ron Paul type isolationists fail to distinguish between the proximate causes of war and the ultimate causes of war. A proximate cause of war may be a ship that has wandered into the wrong area which may have been caused by a trade dispute which may have been caused by debts which may have been caused by growing militarism and greed for land. But none of those are truly the ultimate cause of war. The ultimate cause of war is the incompatibility of two systems and two civilizations within the same space.

Technological development means that the old boundaries are all but gone. Immigration means that the enemy population is already here. The rise of Islam means that war is inevitable, all that remains are the details, which battle, on what terms and in what form, and the larger detail of who will win.

Rationalism isolationism accepts that war may be inevitable but chooses to meet it on our terms. Irrational isolationism, which often carries with it defeatist and treasonous overtones, accepts the enemy's justifications for the conflicts and assumes that if we modify our behavior accordingly that there will be no need for war.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum," was a rule that the old Romans knew. If you would have peace, prepare for war. The emblem of the Strategic Air Command was an olive branch and thunderbolt held in a mailed fist. Its motto was "Peace is Our Profession". The SAC kept the peace through the threat of war. Only an isolationism that understands the meaning of that motto can be successful.

--
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.

Bipartisan House Bill Looks to Strip Eminent Domain Powers from Local, State Governments




New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Bipartisan House Bill Looks to Strip Eminent Domain Powers from Local, State Governments

by Scotty Starnes

I'm beyond shocked. The House of Representatives is actually fighting for the people it represents. This is a bipartisan bill that looks to strip eminent domain powers from local and state governments in order to protect property rights of American citizens.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House sought Tuesday to undercut a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that gives state and local governments eminent domain authority to seize private property for economic development projects.

Sponsors of the bill, which passed by a voice vote, said it was needed because the 5-4 high court ruling skewed constitutional intentions that eminent domain apply only to land for public use projects.

That ruling, said bill cosponsor Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., justified "the government's taking of private property and giving it to a private business for use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base." As a result, he said, the "government's power of eminent domain has become almost limitless, providing citizens with few means to protect their property."

His legislation would withhold for two years all federal development aid to states or locales that take private property for economic development. It also bars the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes and gives private property owners the right to take legal action if provisions of the legislation are violated.

Sensenbrenner, a conservative, was joined in sponsoring the legislation by Rep. Maxine Waters of California, a liberal Democrat and senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus. She said that economic development projects have "all too often been used by powerful interest groups to acquire land at the expense of the poor and politically weak."

Continue reading>>>

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/bipartisan-house-bill-looks-to-strip-eminent-domain-powers-from-local-state-governments/

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.

Good/bad Snowe news




New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Good/bad Snowe news

by Dr. Eowyn

The good news is that RINO Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), blaming the "increasing polarization in Washington," surprised every one when she announced today she will not seek reƫlection.

The bad news is that, as The Washington Post puts it, "Snowe's retirement represents a major setback for the GOP's efforts to regain a majority in the Senate. As a moderate Republican, she may be the party's only hope to hold a seat in the strongly blue state."

However, maybe Maine isn't that blue after all since a Republican, Paul LePage, was elected governor in 2010.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | February 28, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Tags: Olympia Snowe | Categories: 2012 Election, Republican Party, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-cMP

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/2012/02/28/goodbad-snowe-news/

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.

NBC TODAY Show: Gingrich: I’ll Amass More Delegates

http://www.hulu.com/watch/333873/nbc-today-show-gingrich-i%E2%80%99ll-amass-more-delegates?from=fb_share

--
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 Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War

Why Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War

by 1389 on February 27, 2012

in 1389 (blog admin), 2012 US Elections, Global Conflict, history, history of jihad, Islam, military, Ron Paul, September 11, 2001

Sultan Knish explains:

Between Responsible and Irresponsible Isolationism

There is one fundamental element that is absolutely necessary for an isolationist foreign policy. Isolation. Isolationism without physical isolation is as much good as belligerence without an army to back it up.

American isolationism might have been feasible during WW1 when its neighbors were either friendly or no threat, there was no danger from the Pacific and a fleet crossing the Atlantic seemed unlikely. Though it wasn't so unlikely even then.

As far back as 1897 and long before any American involvement in Europe, Operational Plan Three called for shelling New York and seizing parts of Virginia, as a staging base for attacks on Washington and Baltimore. Plans were drawn up in Germany for the occupation of Boston and Philadelphia.

Vice-Admiral August Thomsen wrote, "At the moment every thinking German officer is occupied with the consequences of a belligerent conflict between Germany and the United States of America."

No American politician was thinking the same thing. America had not intervened in any European wars and had no interest in Germany. But that didn't matter. The Kasier wanted to seize parts of the hemisphere and that meant breaking the dominant power in the region. America's weak fleet made it seem like an easy target.

That is the most important part of the equation that isolationists fail to include in their calculations. Regardless of our foreign policy, we are still a target. Whatever our calculations are, potential enemies may have calculations entirely different from our own. They don't just react to what we do, they have their own plans and agendas. Passivity isn't a defense for the ostrich or for a nation.

In 1900 while America slept, German diplomats were scouting Cape Cod and Provincetown as support bases for an attack on Boston. And the Germans weren't alone. In the early 20th century there were British plans for an assault on New England. But Germany's failure to formulate an alliance with other European powers against the United States led to the abandonment of Operational Plan Three.

When Charles Lindbergh ridiculed the idea of a foreign attack on America, such an attack was less than a year away, but variations of it had been planned by European powers for a good deal longer than that. Terrorist attacks by foreign agents were a now forgotten reality during WW1, including the Black Tom explosion which severely damaged the Statue of Liberty, the Vanceboro bridge bombing, and in an early form of biological warfare a laboratory in Chevy Chase was working on anthrax and glanders cultures to be used on horses.

With the jet plane and the intercontinental ballistic missile, isolationism became completely unworkable without strong deterrence. Even if the United States had chosen to abandon Europe, it would still have needed massive nuclear missile stockpiles, a sizable fleet and military, and a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction just to pursue a policy of isolationism. And had the USSR managed to make even deeper inroads in South America, the United States would have been forced to either push it out or increase the size of its forces to compensate for the loss of a buffer zone against preemptive attacks.

It's not impossible to have an isolationist foreign policy today, to cut any alliances with the rest of the world. But there's a fundamental difference between a responsible and an irresponsible isolationist policy. A responsible isolationist policy recognizes that we have enemies who will act regardless of what we do and prepares against the possibility of war without actively seeking it out.

An irresponsible isolationist foreign policy however acts as if we have no enemies and that any talk that we have enemies is a conspiracy to bring us into a war. It accepts every bit of enemy propaganda as gospel and assumes that if we just "stop bothering them", they'll "stop bothering us". It assumes that the enemy is entirely motivated by our actions, that any conflict we are in is the result of our foreign policy and that isolationism will avert any such conflicts.

This is the version of isolationism that you hear in the Republican debates from Ron Paul. It's the version that Americans heard back in the 1930′s from Lindbergh. Rather than recognizing that a military buildup is an important deterrent to war, it attacks military buildups as provocative. It assumes that the only possible reason why we might be attacked are foreign entanglements and if we just tuck our heads in then there will be no conflict.

The absurdity of this approach when it comes to the current clash of civilizations with Islam is obvious enough. This isn't a conflict that dates back from 1991 or 1948 or even the First Barbary War in 1805. It's a war that predates the United States and modern day Europe. It is a conflict that goes back over a thousand years to the decline and fall of the eastern remains of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam as a militant unification ideology to fill that void.

American foreign policy can't turn back the clock on that history. It can affect events in the present day, but it can't undo the roots of a conflict that it has inherited. American foreign policy had a good deal to do with the rise of Islamic states built on petrodollars, but isolationism is certainly not going to make them go away. Certainly not Ron Paul's brand of isolationism which pretends that there is nothing wrong with Islam that can't be fixed with an American isolationist foreign policy.

During the last debate, Ron Paul asked why they're bombing us and not Sweden or Switzerland. The answer is very simple. You only bomb people who resist. Stockholm is 20 percent Muslim. Muslim terrorists operate out of Sweden, including a top Al-Qaeda leader, but they don't need to attack a territory that they're already on the way to ruling through natural demographics.

44 percent of Europe's population is over 45. Under 34 percent is under 30. Meanwhile half of European Muslims are under 30. The math isn't very hard to do. The only countries that need to be targeted by Muslim terrorists are those which have a high enough birth rate that demographics alone won't do the trick.

The First World country with the highest birth rate is Israel. It's also the country most targeted by Muslim terrorists. The First World country with the second highest birth rate is the United States. It is the country second most targeted by terrorists. The next major countries on the list are France and the UK. There's a term for this sort of thing. It's demographic suppression and political intimidation.

Back in the 19th century the Kasier hoped that shelling Manhattan and seizing a few cities would bring the United States to the negotiating table. Japan thought that bombing Pearl Harbor would accomplish the same thing. But while Tojo was wrong, the House of Saud was correct. September 11 brought the United States to the negotiating table with Islam. Muslims have been granted special privileges and their immigration rate has increased. That's one path to an eventual demographic domination.

Islamic attacks against the United States may emerge from various micro-events, but the macro-event from which they originate is the shared history of the Western world and the ongoing conflict between the Muslim world and the West. Some isolationists may act as if the United States can break with European history through assertion alone. It cannot. Like it or not it shares a common history and a common culture. America derives from Europe, and whether Americans recognize it or not, the rest of the world does. To Islam, America is not an island, it is another outpost of an enemy civilization that must be subdued so that the way of Mohammed will triumph around the world.

Ron Paul type isolationists fail to distinguish between the proximate causes of war and the ultimate causes of war. A proximate cause of war may be a ship that has wandered into the wrong area which may have been caused by a trade dispute which may have been caused by debts which may have been caused by growing militarism and greed for land. But none of those are truly the ultimate cause of war. The ultimate cause of war is the incompatibility of two systems and two civilizations within the same space.

Technological development means that the old boundaries are all but gone. Immigration means that the enemy population is already here. The rise of Islam means that war is inevitable, all that remains are the details, which battle, on what terms and in what form, and the larger detail of who will win.

Rationalism isolationism accepts that war may be inevitable but chooses to meet it on our terms. Irrational isolationism, which often carries with it defeatist and treasonous overtones, accepts the enemy's justifications for the conflicts and assumes that if we modify our behavior accordingly that there will be no need for war.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum," was a rule that the old Romans knew. If you would have peace, prepare for war. The emblem of the Strategic Air Command was an olive branch and thunderbolt held in a mailed fist. Its motto was "Peace is Our Profession". The SAC kept the peace through the threat of war. Only an isolationism that understands the meaning of that motto can be successful.

--
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.