Friday, June 22, 2012

Fwd: AEI announces $50,000 video contest

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: AEI Video Contest
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012
Subject: AEI announces $50,000 video contest
To: Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com>

AEI announces $50,000
free enterprise video contest

The American Enterprise Institute is serious about reinvigorating America's spirit of free enterprise. Big ambitions require big promotions, which is why AEI is proud to announce a $50,000 video contest, "Make the Moral Case for Free Enterprise," to unleash the market's creative potential. We're calling on everyone who loves America's system of free enterprise to submit a short video (under two minutes) that sets forth its worth -- not on the basis of political ideology or economic efficiency but on the basis of simple moral truths, namely:

Free enterprise promotes earned success, which is the substance of lasting happiness.
Free enterprise promotes real fairness, based on merit and hard work.
Free enterprise does the most good for the most vulnerable by supplying both ample charity and unmatched opportunity.

These three points are adapted from "The Road to Freedom," the new book from AEI president Arthur Brooks, and part of AEI's multi-year project with the same name. We hope that you will consider submitting a video and help spread the word about the contest to friends and colleagues.

AEI will be awarding a first-place prize of $40,000, a second-place prize of $7,500, and a third-place prize of $2,500. Entries will be judged and evaluated on persuasiveness and clarity of argument, creativity and originality of video concept, and quality of technical and artistic production. The contest begins at noon ET on June 18, 2012, and final submissions must be entered no later than 11:59 a.m. ET on September 4, 2012. For additional details about the contest and its rules, please visit www.aei.org/2012videocontest.

For questions, email videocontest@aei.org.

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research | 1150 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
P: 202.862.5800 | F: 202.862.7177 | www.aei.org

Follow AEI and AEI Scholars on:

You may unsubscribe from AEI announcements or manage your subscriptions.

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

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

Re: The Many, The Gay, The New Marines to Celebrate Gay Pride Month

Everyone is legal.... yes. But there are limits within the permits issued as there is with ALL permits. These limits are set by the communities (in this case ..the state) that issues them. Hearings are held, votes are taken and the majority win... in this case the ONLY thing that sets the gay community apart from the straight community is sexual proclivity... this is NOT a federally controlled activity and therefore is not entitled to "protection" / thank god it is not... I do not want the feds in my or anyone elses' bedroom.... do you? Once the door is opened it can never be shut as to scope or purpose.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

In most of Europe this is rather simple... Here in Costa Rica as
well....
EVERYONE gets a civil union (legal). You can then go to the church of
your
choice and be "married"...

---
works for me ... but then I'm not gay.

that way everyone is legal, with the SAME rights ... and any church
that wants to marry gays can do so or not

On Jun 21, 6:43 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not true ... they can't marry each other
>
> Neither can I...Thats called equality.
>
> In most of Europe this is rather simple... Here in Costa Rica as well....
> EVERYONE gets a civil union (legal). You can then go to the church of your
> choice and be "married"...
>
> On Thu, Jun 2ity

> 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is where Plain Ol puts on his blinders. He refuses to
> > acknowledge
> > that homosexuals have the same, identical rights and privileges as we
> > do
> > ---
> > bs ... gays can't marry gays
>
> > They can marry anyone, just like I can
> > ---
> > not true ... they can't marry each other
>
> > They want to get away from the religious connotations of
> > marriage,
> > ---
> > religion doesn't own marriage
>
> > civil unions
> > are unacceptable to secuarlists and militant homosexuals.
> > ---
> > they want marriage ... and they'll get it, regardless of what the myth
> > believing religious want
>
> > On Jun 21, 1:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is where Plain Ol puts on his blinders. He refuses to acknowledge
> > > that homosexuals have the same, identical rights and privileges as we
> > > do......The statement that "Gays can't get married" is, as you said
> > Mark,
> > > patently false. They can marry anyone, just like I can, who will marry
> > > them. The distinction, (and again, Plain Ol doesn't want to acknowledge
> > > this) is that secularists and Gay militants want to change the definition
> > > of marriage. They want to get away from the religious connotations of
> > > marriage, (re-writing history for the secularists) and shoving down an
> > > alternative lifestyle as being, "normal" from the militant Gay
> > > standpoint. Again, equality has nothing to do with it; as civil unions
> > > are unacceptable to secuarlists and militant homosexuals.
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > no they don't as gays aren't 'allowed' to get married.
>
> > > > That is patently false and you well know it. Any man (Gay or not) may
> > > > marry any woman... he so desires and that will agree.
>
> > > > Gays and Straights alike are limited to this. The vast majority of the
> > US
> > > > population (for whatever reason and as evidenced in 33 popular votes
> > in 33
> > > > Sovereign States have said so. I want to build to my lot line, nobody
> > in my
> > > > neighborhood can get a permit variance for that either... yet it is MY
> > land
> > > > and I would love the extra security and other soft warm fuzzy feelings
> > that
> > > > would come with it...
>
> > > > Ten states now have legally equal laws on the books for Gay Civil
> > Unions.
> > > > Yet in every one of those states they want the word "Marriage" on that
> > > > permit... So you see it is NOT equal rights... they have them in at
> > least
> > > > ten states...
>
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:20 PM, plainolamerican <
> > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Even I don't have that right...
> > > >> ---
> > > >> yes you do ... all you have to do is buy a permit
>
> > > >> If i choose to buy a permit the very same rules apply to me and the
> > > >> Gay guy... and they apply
> > > >> equally.
> > > >> ---
> > > >> no they don't as gays aren't 'allowed' to get married.
>
> > > >> it's the religious who persecute homosexuals.
>
> > > >> again, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do recognize persecution
> > > >> when I see it.
>
> > > >> our sexual preferences are ours ... not to be impeded by the state or
> > > >> the religious.
>
> > > >> On Jun 20, 3:41 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > to get married ... for starters
>
> > > >> > Even I don't have that right... I have to buy a permit. If i choose
> > to
> > > >> buy
> > > >> > a permit the very same rules apply to me and the Gay guy... and they
> > > >> apply
> > > >> > equally.
>
> > > >> > Try again.
>
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM, plainolamerican
> > > >> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >> > > EXACTLY what "right" don't they have that I do ??
> > > >> > > ---
> > > >> > > to get married ... for starters
>
> > > >> > > On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > they want the same rights ... not more rights
>
> > > >> > > > EXACTLY what "right" don't they have that I do ?? This is one
> > > >> question no
> > > >> > > > one on the pro Gay side has ever been able to answer...
>
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:45 PM, plainolamerican <
> > > >> > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > If you think that I am some type of Bible thumping zealot,
> > you are
> > > >> > > > > very
> > > >> > > > > much mistaken.
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > did I imply that you are?
>
> > > >> > > > > I find it somewhat humorous, but mostly disturbing that folks
> > > >> like you
> > > >> > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > your drawers all up in a wad over Christians,
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > accusation noted and completely false
>
> > > >> > > > > and that we are pretty much
> > > >> > > > > the majority in this Nation. We don't make a big fuss about
> > > >> much; we
> > > >> > > > > don't have a lot of demands.....The far left mock us; the
> > > >> secularists
> > > >> > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > yourself want to see us wiped from the history books; and
> > yet, we
> > > >> > > > > continue
> > > >> > > > > to "Continue On", keeping a low profile, and having, "Faith".
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > you are more than welcome to keep your faith
>
> > > >> > > > > I have no objections to, or any problems with homosexuals, and
> > > >> > > > > whatever it
> > > >> > > > > is that they do.
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > so, you don't believe that homosexuality is sinful like most
> > other
> > > >> > > > > christians, jews, and muzzies?
>
> > > >> > > > > It might be a wonderful thing for all I know, and their
> > > >> > > > > lifestyle(s) might truly be "Da Big Big Party"; again, I
> > don't
> > > >> > > > > know. I
> > > >> > > > > do know that when ANY group or organization starts clamoring
> > for
> > > >> more
> > > >> > > > > rights and privileges than you or I have, because of their
> > > >> behavior;
> > > >> > > > > just
> > > >> > > > > like when I smell horse hockey, I usually say as much.
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > they want the same rights ... not more rights
>
> > > >> > > > > On Jun 20, 10:19 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Plain Ol,
>
> > > >> > > > > > If you think that I am some type of Bible thumping zealot,
> > you
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > very
> > > >> > > > > > much mistaken. I am a Christian, and have not a problem
> > > >> admitting
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > that, or being ashamed of my, "Faith", (and I emphasize
> > that
> > > >> > > "Faith" is
> > > >> > > > > > the operative word there). I'm not, "Fishing For Men"; I'm
> > > >> not out
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > street corner handing out leaflets, nor do I go to folks
> > houses
> > > >> on
> > > >> > > > > Saturday
> > > >> > > > > > mornings trying to get them to hear, "The Word".
>
> > > >> > > > > > I find it somewhat humorous, but mostly disturbing that
> > folks
> > > >> like
> > > >> > > you
> > > >> > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > your drawers all up in a wad over Christians, and that we
> > are
> > > >> pretty
> > > >> > > much
> > > >> > > > > > the majority in this Nation. We don't make a big fuss about
> > > >> much;
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > don't have a lot of demands.....The far left mock us; the
> > > >> > > secularists
> > > >> > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > yourself want to see us wiped from the history books; and
> > yet,
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > > > continue
> > > >> > > > > > to "Continue On", keeping a low profile, and having,
> > "Faith".
>
> > > >> > > > > > I have no objections to, or any problems with homosexuals,
> > and
> > > >> > > whatever
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > is that they do. It might be a wonderful thing for all I
> > know,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > their
> > > >> > > > > > lifestyle(s) might truly be "Da Big Big Party"; again, I
> > don't
> > > >> > > know. I
> > > >> > > > > > do know that when ANY group or organization starts clamoring
> > > >> for more
> > > >> > > > > > rights and privileges than you or I have, because of their
> > > >> behavior;
> > > >> > > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > like when I smell horse hockey, I usually say as much.
>
> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, plainolamerican
> > > >> > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > > > It's just a matter of time before the lid blows off of
> > this
> > > >> whole
> > > >> > > > > > > fraud.
> > > >> > > > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > > > you're right ... the religious in the military need to be
> > > >> muzzled
> > > >> > > like
> > > >> > > > > > > rabid dogs.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > the military is going to say enough
> > > >> > > > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > > > and American will tell them to stfu or get out.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > DADT is the best that the religious in the military can
> > hope
> > > >> for.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Keith In Tampa <
> > keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > It's just a matter of time before the lid blows off of
> > this
> > > >> whole
> > > >> > > > > > > > fraud. The first Gay Pride parade, where folks are
> > parading
> > > >> > > around
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > their uniforms all "gussied" up, and/or there will be
> > > >> some "Gay
> > > >> > > > > Drama"
> > > >> > > > > > > > from the likes of someone like Lil'TommyTomTomForNews,
> > > >> shit will
> > > >> > > > > > > literally
> > > >> > > > > > > > hit the fan, and the military is going to say enough.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:20 PM, plainolamerican
>

> ...
>
> 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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Re: The Many, The Gay, The New Marines to Celebrate Gay Pride Month

In most of Europe this is rather simple... Here in Costa Rica as
well....
EVERYONE gets a civil union (legal). You can then go to the church of
your
choice and be "married"...
---
works for me ... but then I'm not gay.

that way everyone is legal, with the SAME rights ... and any church
that wants to marry gays can do so or not

On Jun 21, 6:43 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not true ... they can't marry each other
>
> Neither can I...Thats called equality.
>
> In most of Europe this is rather simple... Here in Costa Rica as well....
> EVERYONE gets a civil union (legal). You can then go to the church of your
> choice and be "married"...
>
> On Thu, Jun 2ity
> 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is where Plain Ol puts on his blinders. He refuses to
> > acknowledge
> > that homosexuals have the same, identical rights and privileges as we
> > do
> > ---
> > bs ... gays can't marry gays
>
> > They can marry anyone, just like I can
> > ---
> > not true ... they can't marry each other
>
> > They want to get away from the religious connotations of
> > marriage,
> > ---
> > religion doesn't own marriage
>
> > civil unions
> > are unacceptable to secuarlists and militant homosexuals.
> > ---
> > they want marriage ... and they'll get it, regardless of what the myth
> > believing religious want
>
> > On Jun 21, 1:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is where Plain Ol puts on his blinders. He refuses to acknowledge
> > > that homosexuals have the same, identical rights and privileges as we
> > > do......The statement that "Gays can't get married" is, as you said
> > Mark,
> > > patently false. They can marry anyone, just like I can, who will marry
> > > them. The distinction, (and again, Plain Ol doesn't want to acknowledge
> > > this) is that secularists and Gay militants want to change the definition
> > > of marriage. They want to get away from the religious connotations of
> > > marriage, (re-writing history for the secularists) and shoving down an
> > > alternative lifestyle as being, "normal" from the militant Gay
> > > standpoint. Again, equality has nothing to do with it; as civil unions
> > > are unacceptable to secuarlists and militant homosexuals.
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > no they don't as gays aren't 'allowed' to get married.
>
> > > > That is patently false and you well know it. Any man (Gay or not) may
> > > > marry any woman... he so desires and that will agree.
>
> > > > Gays and Straights alike are limited to this. The vast majority of the
> > US
> > > > population (for whatever reason and as evidenced in 33 popular votes
> > in 33
> > > > Sovereign States have said so. I want to build to my lot line, nobody
> > in my
> > > > neighborhood can get a permit variance for that either... yet it is MY
> > land
> > > > and I would love the extra security and other soft warm fuzzy feelings
> > that
> > > > would come with it...
>
> > > > Ten states now have legally equal laws on the books for Gay Civil
> > Unions.
> > > > Yet in every one of those states they want the word "Marriage" on that
> > > > permit... So you see it is NOT equal rights... they have them in at
> > least
> > > > ten states...
>
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:20 PM, plainolamerican <
> > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Even I don't have that right...
> > > >> ---
> > > >> yes you do ... all you have to do is buy a permit
>
> > > >> If i choose to buy a permit the very same rules apply to me and the
> > > >> Gay guy... and they apply
> > > >> equally.
> > > >> ---
> > > >> no they don't as gays aren't 'allowed' to get married.
>
> > > >> it's the religious who persecute homosexuals.
>
> > > >> again, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do recognize persecution
> > > >> when I see it.
>
> > > >> our sexual preferences are ours ... not to be impeded by the state or
> > > >> the religious.
>
> > > >> On Jun 20, 3:41 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > to get married ... for starters
>
> > > >> > Even I don't have that right... I have to buy a permit. If i choose
> > to
> > > >> buy
> > > >> > a permit the very same rules apply to me and the Gay guy... and they
> > > >> apply
> > > >> > equally.
>
> > > >> > Try again.
>
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM, plainolamerican
> > > >> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >> > > EXACTLY what "right" don't they have that I do ??
> > > >> > > ---
> > > >> > > to get married ... for starters
>
> > > >> > > On Jun 20, 2:42 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > they want the same rights ... not more rights
>
> > > >> > > > EXACTLY what "right" don't they have that I do ?? This is one
> > > >> question no
> > > >> > > > one on the pro Gay side has ever been able to answer...
>
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:45 PM, plainolamerican <
> > > >> > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > If you think that I am some type of Bible thumping zealot,
> > you are
> > > >> > > > > very
> > > >> > > > > much mistaken.
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > did I imply that you are?
>
> > > >> > > > > I find it somewhat humorous, but mostly disturbing that folks
> > > >> like you
> > > >> > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > your drawers all up in a wad over Christians,
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > accusation noted and completely false
>
> > > >> > > > > and that we are pretty much
> > > >> > > > > the majority in this Nation. We don't make a big fuss about
> > > >> much; we
> > > >> > > > > don't have a lot of demands.....The far left mock us; the
> > > >> secularists
> > > >> > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > yourself want to see us wiped from the history books; and
> > yet, we
> > > >> > > > > continue
> > > >> > > > > to "Continue On", keeping a low profile, and having, "Faith".
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > you are more than welcome to keep your faith
>
> > > >> > > > > I have no objections to, or any problems with homosexuals, and
> > > >> > > > > whatever it
> > > >> > > > > is that they do.
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > so, you don't believe that homosexuality is sinful like most
> > other
> > > >> > > > > christians, jews, and muzzies?
>
> > > >> > > > > It might be a wonderful thing for all I know, and their
> > > >> > > > > lifestyle(s) might truly be "Da Big Big Party"; again, I
> > don't
> > > >> > > > > know. I
> > > >> > > > > do know that when ANY group or organization starts clamoring
> > for
> > > >> more
> > > >> > > > > rights and privileges than you or I have, because of their
> > > >> behavior;
> > > >> > > > > just
> > > >> > > > > like when I smell horse hockey, I usually say as much.
> > > >> > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > they want the same rights ... not more rights
>
> > > >> > > > > On Jun 20, 10:19 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Plain Ol,
>
> > > >> > > > > > If you think that I am some type of Bible thumping zealot,
> > you
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > very
> > > >> > > > > > much mistaken. I am a Christian, and have not a problem
> > > >> admitting
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > that, or being ashamed of my, "Faith", (and I emphasize
> > that
> > > >> > > "Faith" is
> > > >> > > > > > the operative word there). I'm not, "Fishing For Men"; I'm
> > > >> not out
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > street corner handing out leaflets, nor do I go to folks
> > houses
> > > >> on
> > > >> > > > > Saturday
> > > >> > > > > > mornings trying to get them to hear, "The Word".
>
> > > >> > > > > > I find it somewhat humorous, but mostly disturbing that
> > folks
> > > >> like
> > > >> > > you
> > > >> > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > your drawers all up in a wad over Christians, and that we
> > are
> > > >> pretty
> > > >> > > much
> > > >> > > > > > the majority in this Nation. We don't make a big fuss about
> > > >> much;
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > don't have a lot of demands.....The far left mock us; the
> > > >> > > secularists
> > > >> > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > yourself want to see us wiped from the history books; and
> > yet,
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > > > continue
> > > >> > > > > > to "Continue On", keeping a low profile, and having,
> > "Faith".
>
> > > >> > > > > > I have no objections to, or any problems with homosexuals,
> > and
> > > >> > > whatever
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > is that they do. It might be a wonderful thing for all I
> > know,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > their
> > > >> > > > > > lifestyle(s) might truly be "Da Big Big Party"; again, I
> > don't
> > > >> > > know. I
> > > >> > > > > > do know that when ANY group or organization starts clamoring
> > > >> for more
> > > >> > > > > > rights and privileges than you or I have, because of their
> > > >> behavior;
> > > >> > > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > like when I smell horse hockey, I usually say as much.
>
> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, plainolamerican
> > > >> > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > > > It's just a matter of time before the lid blows off of
> > this
> > > >> whole
> > > >> > > > > > > fraud.
> > > >> > > > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > > > you're right ... the religious in the military need to be
> > > >> muzzled
> > > >> > > like
> > > >> > > > > > > rabid dogs.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > the military is going to say enough
> > > >> > > > > > > ---
> > > >> > > > > > > and American will tell them to stfu or get out.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > DADT is the best that the religious in the military can
> > hope
> > > >> for.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Keith In Tampa <
> > keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > It's just a matter of time before the lid blows off of
> > this
> > > >> whole
> > > >> > > > > > > > fraud. The first Gay Pride parade, where folks are
> > parading
> > > >> > > around
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > their uniforms all "gussied" up, and/or there will be
> > > >> some "Gay
> > > >> > > > > Drama"
> > > >> > > > > > > > from the likes of someone like Lil'TommyTomTomForNews,
> > > >> shit will
> > > >> > > > > > > literally
> > > >> > > > > > > > hit the fan, and the military is going to say enough.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:20 PM, plainolamerican
>
> ...
>
> 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.

2 Sides To Every Story: The Left’s– And The Truth

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

2 Sides To Every Story: The Left's– And The Truth

by Terry

Real scumbags, right ? A whole family selling out our country for profit, right ? Well, that's what the MSM and Holder's Justice Dept. would have you believe.

But Wait ! There's just a tiny bit more to this story:

U.S. family jailed for Holder's gun crimes

A stunning story of Fast & Furious hypocrisy

by Jeff Knox /WND/June 21, 2012

Eighteen months after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona by Mexican bandits using guns purchased through a U.S. government program called Fast and Furious, we still don't know who within the Department of Justice knew about the program, much less who authorized it.

Certainly there has been no serious talk about prosecuting any of the people responsible for assisting in the illegal sales of over 2,000 guns to Mexican arms traffickers – guns that were subsequently involved in the murders of BPA Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata, as well as possibly hundreds of Mexican citizens.

But while that investigation has dragged on, with Attorney General Eric Holder denying knowledge of the program, denying knowledge of who was involved and denying congressional investigators access to tens of thousands of documents that might answer those questions, New Mexico gun dealer Rick Reese and his two sons Ryin and Remington have sat rotting in separate detention centers, jails and prisons around the state accused of a similar crime involving some 30 guns.

The Reese family, including Rick's wife Terri, ran a gun shop in Deming, N.M., and was arrested in late August of 2011 on charges of knowingly selling guns to Mexican smugglers and various other related charges.

After spending 6 months in jail, Terri Reese was finally granted bail in March of this year, but Rick and the boys have been repeatedly denied bail on the pretext that they are flight risks or might try to engage in a Ruby Ridge-type standoff.

The rationale for denying the Reeses' constitutional rights is that Rick knows some people in Mexico, his home has a well and solar power and there were guns and ammunition in their homes and businesses when they were arrested. That's right: Guns and ammo in the home and business of a federally licensed firearms dealer (all of which were seized a year ago and have never been returned) is being offered as evidence that they can't be trusted – and a judge bought it.

Well, there's also the fact that Rick and Terri were involved with a local tea-party group. That's probably reason enough right there.

The Reeses are scheduled to finally get their day in court in late July, almost a full year after they were arrested and incarcerated. The first of several pre-trial motion hearings was held last week in which the judge heard arguments as to whether the charge of criminal conspiracy should be dropped. The prosecution contends that the Reese family members were all in cahoots in a conspiracy to sell guns to illegal buyers, falsify purchase paperwork, smuggle guns to Mexico and launder the illegal proceeds. The defense contends that the family operated a business buying and selling firearms, ammunition and accessories, and that they made every effort to ensure that every sale they made was legal and properly documented.

During this first hearing, we learned several things about the prosecution's case. For instance, we learned that prosecutors acknowledge that every gun the Reeses sold was properly logged into and out of their store inventory, and that FBI background checks were conducted, and approvals received, for each purchaser. They also agree that all taxes were paid and no money was exchanged "under the table," nor did any of the family members receive compensation above their normal company paycheck.

We learned that Rick Reese also employed retired and off-duty law enforcement officers as part-time help in the shop, and that a substantial portion of the company's business came from law enforcement officers and agencies.

We learned that prosecutors consider three family members standing close to each other and quietly talking to be evidence of conspiracy and that the lead investigator in the case has a very low opinion of fellow law enforcement officers. When asked if he considered the fact that the Reeses employed LEOs in the shop to be contraindicative of a criminal conspiracy, he replied that he did not because "a lot of them [cops and former cops] are dirty."

Probably the most important fact we learned at this hearing was that the entire investigation was instigated based on a tip that a woman named Penny Torres was making suspicious purchases of guns and ammunition, and might be illegally buying for someone else. That tip led to Torres' arrest and her subsequent grand jury testimony against the Reese family and another gun shop where she had made some purchases. The presumption is that her cooperation garnered her leniency in the charges and sentence she was facing for her criminal activity.

What is most significant about the arrest of Penny Torres is that the original tip identifying her as a potential "straw buyer" came from Terri Reese.

Torres had claimed that her purchases were in preparation for a large family reunion at an area ranch where her relatives wanted to do a lot of shooting. At some point after the sales, Terri Reese became suspicious of Torres' story and contacted a friend in the Luna County Sheriff's office, who acted as the shop's go-to guy in law enforcement. He assured Terri that he would make a report to ATF and get back to her.

Torres testimony against the Reese family led to a months-long sting operation conducted against the Reeses by a federal agency called Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI. That investigation involved a confidential informant named Roman, who was trying to earn a reduced sentence for drug and human smuggling. His job was to make purchases of firearms and ammunition from the Reeses while dropping hints that his intent was to illegally take the guns to Mexico. The trick was to drop those hints in such a way that they wouldn't alarm the Reeses, but that someone listening to a recording of the tape and reading a transcript would conclude that the Reeses knew, or should have known, his intentions.

Roman, by the way, speaks only broken English, and his conversations with the Reeses included a lot of Spanish, a language that no one in the Reese family speaks, but which has been transcribed for the court in English.

Who would believe that a gun dealer's report of a suspicious purchaser would lead to a federal investigation of the dealer herself, culminating in a raid with armored vehicles, helicopters and heavily armed officers and agents from multiple jurisdictions?

Or that a few firearms and ammunition sales in a high-volume gun store, including the sales that Terri Reese had reported as suspicious, would result in confiscation of virtually everything the family had accumulated over a 25-year marriage and 17 years in business – bank accounts, gun and coin collections, store inventory, vehicles, real estate, just about everything the family had?

Or that the same Justice Department that had instructed dealers to sell over 2,000 guns to known straw buyers for Mexican drug cartels while making no attempt to track or interdict them – with a few arrests and minor charges against the straw purchasers, but no charges against the ATF and DOJ employees who masterminded the criminal operation – would effectively destroy a family for not being quite diligent enough in their efforts to screen their customers?

It is worth noting that as HSI progressed in their investigation against the Reese family, they were briefing and receiving guidance from Phoenix ATF Bureau Chief Bill Newell – the man responsible for directly overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.

For the Reese family, who have already served 10 months behind bars and have had all of their worldly possessions taken from them, the July trial is an opportunity to prove their innocence and try to reassemble what's left of their lives.

For the prosecution, it is imperative that they prove that the Reeses were intentionally engaging in the criminal activity they have already been being punished for. Failure to get a conviction would leave egg on the face of a relatively new federal law enforcement agency trying to establish itself, and would mean that the various agencies involved wouldn't get to divvy up the spoils already pillaged.

Once again though, we see a case where those inside the government and law enforcement are handled with kid gloves and given the benefit of every doubt, while those outside of government and law enforcement are presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence – even after the government has taken away the resources they need to make their case

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/family-jailed-for-holders-gun-crimes/

If you would like to help the Reese family in their struggle, a defense fund has been set up at:

REESE DEFENSE FUND ATTENTION Patricia Arias First Savings Bank 520 South Gold Deming, NM 88030

Terry | June 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Tags: Agenda 21, big government, Constitution, Democrats, government, Left, liberals, Obama administration, TEA Party, White House | Categories: 2012 Election, Agenda 21, Constitution, crime, Culture War, Economy, Eric Holder, Insanity, Liberals/Democrats, New World Order, persecution, Second Amendment, Taxes, Tea Party, Terrorism, The Powers That Be, Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-fee

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/2012/06/21/2-sides-to-every-story-the-lefts-and-the-truth/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Townhall and NRO shill for sharia

New post on Creeping Sharia

Townhall and NRO shill for sharia

by creeping

It's expected from Associated with terrorists Press, al Reuters, BBC, WAPO, etc. And so it creeps. via Washington Times. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group's stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as Shariah. [...]

Mark Levin: ‘Nancy Pelosi Has to Be One of the Dumbest People Ever to Have Been Speaker of the House’

Dumb? Who? Not Miss Rutabaga IQ of 1962.

New post on therightplanet.com

Mark Levin: 'Nancy Pelosi Has to Be One of the Dumbest People Ever to Have Been Speaker of the House'

by Sard

Mark Levin excoriates Nancy Pelosi over accusing GOP of attacking Holder in order to suppress voters.

h/t: The Right Scoop

Sard | June 22, 2012 at 10:24 am | Categories: American Culture, American Sovereignty, Communications, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Fast and Furious, GOP, House of Representatives, Immigration, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Security, Plantation Liberalism, Progressive Movement, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Tea Party, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-603

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/06/mark-levin-nancy-pelosi-has-to-be-one-of-the-dumbest-people-ever-to-have-been-speaker-of-the-house/

Re: Ron in Veepstakes?

Actually, I think this would be great! I also don't think that Romney would be all that opposed to Paul as VP, but I think Paul is already targeted as Secretary of the Treasury.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Ron in Veepstakes?
Posted on June 21, 2012 by LHR, Jr.

Thanks to a hilarious GOP rule change by Morton Blackwell, Paulist delegates may be able to nominate Ron for VP from the floor in Tampa. This could lead to a polling of the entire convention--taking many hours--and open up the processs to other candidates whom Romney also dislikes. It would certainly add some interest to an otherwise galactically boring event.

xxx

Ron Paul's Route To Convention Chaos: The Vice Presidential Nomination
Jon Ward
Posted: 06/20/2012 7:19 pm Updated: 06/21/2012 8:36 am

WASHINGTON -- This may be the Ron Paul gambit we've been waiting for.

An obscure rule change made four years ago by the Republican Party has opened the door for Paul forces to cause a major headache for Mitt Romney when he tries to nominate his choice for vice president at the party convention in August.

The Republican National Committee could change Rule 40 in the week leading up to the convention, but that would risk the appearance of jamming Romney's nominee through, and likely cause a subsequent backlash.

Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president. This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.

Such a move would transform a symbolic procedure that has taken mere minutes in the past several conventions into a chaotic and time-consuming spectacle that could eat up the better portion of a day.

Not only would such a floor fight step all over the message of party unity and strength that the Romney campaign hopes to drive through the convention, it would also open the door for alternatives to Romney's choice to gain momentum and further drive the process off the rails.

For example, if Romney chose Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as his vice presidential pick, but the Paul forces leveraged their impressive foothold in several states to nominate Paul from the floor, then someone like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) could emerge as the preferred pick for many delegates as the convention goes into a roll call vote. And Rubio's name could be entered into nomination, in addition to Paul's, if a plurality of five states voted to nominate him.

Where things would go from there is anybody's guess.

It is the word "plurality" that is key.

On January 17, 2008, eight months before the GOP convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the RNC's rules committee changed the process for nominating the presidential nominee or vice presidential nominee, so that instead of requiring a majority of delegates from five states, a candidate needed only a plurality of delegates from five states.

The alteration came during a primary where Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was competing with Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Paul (R-Texas).

Morton Blackwell, a Republican committee man from Virginia and a veteran of the conservative movement, spearheaded the change during the January 2008 meeting, arguing that if multiple presidential candidates split delegates from a large number of states, then it was possible that no candidate would be able to muster a majority from five states, and the party would be prevented from having a nominee.

Blackwell originally proposed that the number of states be reduced from five to one, according to a source who was at the January meeting but revealed its details on condition of anonymity. But then he altered his amendment, so that it retained the five-state threshold but changed the requirement for each state's support from majority to plurality.

The impact of the rule change on vice presidential nominations was not discussed. The change took effect at the 2008 convention, but it was so overlooked at the time that when McCain was nominated, the chair of the convention used the language referring to his having the support of a majority of five states, instead of a plurality.

Blackwell could not be reached on Wednesday. A secretary at The Leadership Institute, the conservative group he founded in 1979, said he was on vacation all week.

Former New Jersey committeeman David Norcross, who chaired the January 2008 meeting where the rule was originally changed, told The Huffington Post that he did not know why they had changed the rule.

"No question it lowers the bar" for those who want to undermine the choice of the presidential nominee, Norcross said. "I cannot for the life of me figure out why we would lower the bar, why we would want to lower the bar."

Arizona committeeman Bruce Ash, who is currently the chair of the RNC rules committee, also said he was not aware of the change to Rule 40.

"I don't know that this is a concern that has jumped up on to anybody's radar screen," Ash said. "I suppose under the right set of circumstances, there might be some sort of potential competing name. I doubt it."

But there are some in the party who have recently become aware of the Rule 40 situation, and are trying to alert others to its potential for disruption.

Paul supporters have waged an intense and often contentious battle at the state level to win as many delegate spots to the national convention as possible. This has often meant fighting inch-by-inch through every step of the arcane and often confusing processes that each state uses to determine who represents it at the national convention. HuffPost has written extensively, for example, about how this works in Iowa, though each state has its own unique methodology.

A Paul adviser did not respond to a request for comment, but the speculation has been that Paul wants to use his convention strength to gain a prime-time speaking slot or to force changes in the Republican platform, and his campaign has in fact articulated the issues it wants to see prioritized.

Yet, the legitimate prospect of a floor fight has not yet surfaced until now.

And while the change to Rule 40 four years ago from a majority requirement to a plurality requirement also applies to the presidential nomination, it is more relevant to the vice presidential pick. That's because delegates who are bound by state party rules to vote for Romney -- a restriction some are disputing -- are not bound at all on the question of who should be the vice presidential nominee.

There are states, such as Nevada, for example, where Paul supporters have managed to win 22 of 28 delegate spots. Those delegates are bound by state rules to cast their vote on the presidential nominee question for Romney. However, those restrictions don't apply to the vice presidential nominee. Nevada's delegates are therefore free to support whoever they want for vice president.

Thus, in the context of the vice presidential nomination, you can add Nevada to the list of states -- in addition to Minnesota, Iowa and Maine -- where Paul forces control majorities of delegates and would likely support placing Paul's name into nomination for vice president.

This is before you even get to the question of which states might have a plurality of delegates who want to support Paul --or for that matter his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- for vice president.

Paul said in a recent statement that all together, he estimates to have about 200 delegates headed to Tampa that are bound to him, with another 300 or so delegates supporting him but bound to Romney. But again, those 300 delegates are bound to Romney only on the question of the presidential nominee, and not on the question who should be the party's vice presidential nominee.

A Romney campaign adviser did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and neither did an RNC spokesman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-vice-president-nomination-republican-national-convention_n_1613763.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.