arm-chair generals in the State Department, Administration, and
Congress. In case you missed it we lost our ass in Vietnam. US service
men had to fight their way ashore in San Diego due to the protests.
Result is that the majority of the troops landed in Baumholder
confined to the barracks. Thousands of the US soldiers never went
home. The Foreign Legion was the new home for lots of Americans. Man
you should get your facts together. McChrystal should have been
drummed out and stood up against the wall for what he did. Have you
never heard "Get with the program or the program will get with you."?
This sounds like Sara Palin does your speeches.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM,
<politicalforum+noreply@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Today's Topic Summary
>
> Group: http://groups.google.com/group/politicalforum/topics
>
> History of man [2 Updates]
> Al Gore's 'Iceberg' got him in trouble...accused of sexual assault [1
> Update]
> No Room for Truth In Obama Regime: General Resigns after Calling 'a spade a
> spade' in Afghan Policy Dispute [1 Update]
> What should a free man do? [1 Update]
> A "Know-Nothing" Who Has Done Everything To Destroy America -- Standing In
> Judgment Over A General Who Has Spent Decades Trying To Save Her [1 Update]
> Look what they found near the Texan/Mexican ... [1 Update]
> Excellent column by Bizzy Blogger on big government [1 Update]
> IBD on the Financial Reform Bill (eye opening article here ) [1 Update]
> Guess who can ignore a Democrat's Racist Statement [1 Update]
> Jim Miller might have a point - I am not in a position to know [1 Update]
> Who would ever have guessed [4 Updates]
> Reason Magazine Debate [1 Update]
> Bashing BP (For Doing Exactly What Government Led Them to Do) [2 Updates]
> [Fwd: well, looky here!] [3 Updates]
> Protect America from What? [1 Update]
> Transsexual Freakazoid Is Ruled Both Man and Woman [1 Update]
> Hillary moves forward for private weapons ban via UN treaty [1 Update]
> MORON: Obama's Immigration Chief Orders Release of ALL Violent Criminal
> Illegal Aliens; ICE Agents: "We've Lost America" [1 Update]
>
> Topic: History of man
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 03:48PM -0500 ^
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *For those that don't know about history ... Here is a condensed version:
>
>
> Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic
> hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and
> would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
>
> The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer
> and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the
> beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the
> catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
>
> 1 . Liberals, and
> 2. Conservatives.
>
> Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of
> agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so
> while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented,
> they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
>
> Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while
> they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the
> Conservative movement...
>
> Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off
> the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing,
> fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
>
>
> Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known
> as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the
> domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the
> concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
> conservatives provided.* *
> **
> Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most
> powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the
> jackass for obvious reasons.
>
> Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white
> wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well
> done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another
> interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher**
> **testosterone
> levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys,
> journalists, dreamers in** **Hollywood** **and group therapists are
> liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't
> fair to make the pitcher also bat.
>
> Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud** **or Miller. They eat red
> meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters,
> rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors,
> police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the
> military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively.
> Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work
> for a living. *
> *
> Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and
> decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more
> enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in
> Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the
> Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for
> nothing. *
>
> *Here ends today's lesson in world history:
>
> It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily
> respond to the above before forwarding it.
>
> A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth
> of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true
> believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.* *
> **
> And there you have it…Let your next action reveal your true self*
>
>
>
> dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> Jun 26 07:49AM -0400 ^
>
> All too true!!
>
> Travis wrote:
>
>
>
> Topic: Al Gore's 'Iceberg' got him in trouble...accused of sexual assault
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 03:50PM -0500 ^
>
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> Al Gore's
> 'Iceberg' got him in trouble...accused of sexual
> assault<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/al-gores-iceberg-got-him-in-trouble-accused-of-sexual-assault/>
> *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| June 24,
> 2010 at 5:15 AM | Tags: Al
> Gore <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/al-gore/>, climate
> change<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/climate-change/>,
> CO2 <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/co2/>,
> divorce<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/divorce/>,
> global warming <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/global-warming/>,
> iceburgs <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/iceburgs/>, massage
> therapists <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/massage-therapists/>,
> National
> Enquirer <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/national-enquirer/>,
> Oregon<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/oregon/>,
> Portland <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/portland/>,
> sex-crime<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/sex-crime/>,
> sexual assault <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/sexual-assault/>,
> Tipper
> Gore <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/tipper-gore/> | Categories:
> Uncategorized <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/> |
> URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-1Dy
>
> <http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/iceberg.jpg>
>
> Al Gore's Iceberg
>
> It looks like Al Gore let his little iceberg do the thinking for him. A
> massage therapist is accusing Gore of 'unwanted sexual advances' back in
> 2006. Charges were never filed due to lack of evidence. Maybe this is the
> reason Tipper left him?
>
> The National Enquirer
> <http://www.nationalenquirer.com/al_gore_sex_scandal_police_confidential_report/celebrity/68876>
> reports:
>
> *AL GORE* has been accused of sexually attacking a masseuse in Portland,
> Oregon<http://www.nationalenquirer.com/al_gore_sex_scandal_police_confidential_report/celebrity/68876#>
> -
> and is named in the *official police report* about the alleged assault, The
> ENQUIRER has learned exclusively!
>
> The bombshell story will appear in the new issue of The ENQUIRER and will
> include the secret police documents, a photo of the woman making the
> stunning charges and will reveal the shocking details about the pants she
> saved as evidence!
>
> Our investigative team uncovered the amazing story just weeks after the
> former Vice President announced that he and wife* TIPPER* were ending their
> 40-year marriage - amidst reports she suspected her husband was involved
> with "a gorgeous massage therapist."
>
> We have verified the 62-year-old former VP was in Portland at the time of
> the alleged incident - Oct. 24, 2006 - and we saw the $540 massage bill.
>
> No criminal charges were brought against Gore, but the Portland police
> prepared a document marked *"Confidential Special Report"* - which
> records<http://www.nationalenquirer.com/al_gore_sex_scandal_police_confidential_report/celebrity/68876#>the
> explosive allegations of "unwanted sexual contact" by Al Gore "at a
> local upscale
> hotel<http://www.nationalenquirer.com/al_gore_sex_scandal_police_confidential_report/celebrity/68876#>
> ."
>
> The ENQUIRER is withholding the name of the 54-year-old woman making the
> stunning accusations because she is potentially a sex-crime victim.
>
> Doesn't Al know that asking for a happy-ending produces that evil CO2 he
> constantly complains about.
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/al-gores-iceberg-got-him-in-trouble-accused-of-sexual-assault/#respond>
>
>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/6296/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/6296/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/6296/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/6296/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/6296/>
>
> [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=dc6bd5cdb9344eeac78d3235c3f6cb6d&email=twmccoy%40gmail.com>|
> One-click
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=dc6bd5cdb9344eeac78d3235c3f6cb6d&email=twmccoy%40gmail.com&b=CXK2rsvmRajINS9Q5GWbus3_Q4Xm%7Cc%3FFnv%5Bk%3F%2B%5D%2Cj>|
> Reach
> out to your own subscribers with
> WordPress.com.<http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*
> http://subscribe.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> Topic: No Room for Truth In Obama Regime: General Resigns after Calling 'a
> spade a spade' in Afghan Policy Dispute
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 03:49PM -0500 ^
>
> http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i77336
>
>
>
> Topic: What should a free man do?
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 03:47PM -0500 ^
>
> What should a free man do? <http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/>
> http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2008/03/well-then-mak-1.html Be
> without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may
> love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard
> the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath.
> BOMB-MAKING
> STUFF<http://freemendo.typepad.com/photos/bombmaking_gear/index.html>
>
> · [image:
> Primasheet]<http://freemendo.typepad.com/photos/bombmaking_gear/index.html>
>
> The items and material here can be used to manufacture Improvised Explosive
> Devices (IED) a/o Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED). While
> not suspicious in and of themselves, the presence of several of them in one
> location or by one person a/o small group of persons not apparently involved
> in legitimate laboratory work of some sort may be considered suspicious and
> should be reported to the police ASAP.
> 18 March 2008
> Well, then ~ make your own watch list
>
> Yes, it is the mandate of the federal government to protect *us*. But, and
> I hate to be pedantic, it is not the responsibility of any government to
> protect *you*. That is a matter of settled law, not opinion. This
> story
> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_watchlist_4;_ylt=Aqa4XypVCoz.C9.l53igVjQTv5UB>should
> remind us that we're all in this together. We all have to be on the same
> team.
>
> So, in terms of your own self-protection and that of those you love, that
> means you have a bear to cross. Yea... I know.
>
> How many Air Marshals are on any flight you may take? Probably none, like
> it says here <http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/>, given
> manpower at FAMS juxtaposed 'gainst the number of planes flying any given
> day. How many off-duty cops a/o agents who're packing heat on any flight?
> Few. How many armed 'citizens' per flight? I'd guess that's a goose-egg.
>
> So, if miscreants are trying to get another plane, and they most certainly
> are as evidenced
> here<http://www.theaviationnation.com/category/dry-runs-and-probes/>
> then
> you'd better have a plan in case one slips through the crack, eh? *Read the
> whole thing; Annie's done a lot of hard work here.*
>
> Here's your watch-list, unerschrocken. Pay attention or this is all you'll
> get from me, you knuckleheads. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bit9YxtTamY>
>
> At the airport, no matter where you are between the front curb and the ramp
> to the plane, stay away from glass walls and trash cans as much as
> possible. Trash cans go boom. Right after that boom, glass walls turn into
> shrapnel.
>
> Who are you looking for? Yes,* looking* for. *Proactively*.
>
> Men a/o women, *maybe* Middle-eastern in appearance. That can be a good
> start to your list of suspicious things, but don't assume people who appear
> to be from the Middle East are the only ones who can/would pull the pin on
> you. They may appear to be Indonesian. Or Filipino. Or Caucasian. Or
> Black. Or Hispanic. There's really no way to tell in advance who's zoomin'
> who. So you're going to have to be paying attention to what they're *doing*
> .
>
> At the curb, does someone seem to be extra careful with a particular bag?
> Like maybe he's got to be the only one touching it? Like maybe he doesn't
> want it to go*BOOM* right there or its contents discovered too soon?
>
> My thoughts: If you see someone in the airport put a bag down and begin to
> walk away from it, ask loudly, loud enough so there is no way he can't hear
> you: *Hey, is this yours?* If he ignores you and keeps walking away…
> trouble? Could be. Maybe he's deaf. So, maybe you want to go tap him on
> the shoulder and ask again. If he turns back to you but keeps walking away
> without answering you or returning to the bag… trouble? Uh-huh; that would
> be my guess. Move away from the abandoned bag quickly, calmly and quietly
> letting others in the area know there's a suspicious thingy over there
> (point to it) and then call security or the cops on a land-line phone.
> Don't run up or down the concourse screaming, OH MY GOD, IT'S A BOMB, A
> BOMB, A BOMB I TELL YA. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.
>
> *Just don't.*
>
> At the ticket counter, do you somehow hear or see someone with a one-way
> ticket paid for with cash? I'm not saying at all that you should poke your
> nose into someone's bag or business ~ you should not. But you may spot
> something within the parameters of the plain view
> doctrine<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine>.
> Is there another person in the line next to you with the same setup; making
> it two bad guys? Listen to the ticket clerks before you get to the counter;
> you may hear a/o see something then that, put together with things you hear
> a/o see later, may indicate trouble.
>
> On the way to the security check-in, do you see someone who seems hesitant
> to get in line for the x-ray/search? Do you see someone making last-minute,
> furtive adjustments to things in luggage, carry-on or stowed?
>
> Do you see people together who seem to disperse and behave as though
> they're *not*together and don't know each other the closer they get to the
> plane? Since 9/11/01 terrorists have done dry runs on flights using as many
> as 14 men. See Annie Jacobsen's great work at The Aviation
> Nation<http://www.theaviationnation.com/> if
> you think I'm yankin' your chain. As if...
>
> At the check-in counter/boarding area: Do you see men a/o women who sit
> apart from each other but look at one another repeatedly as though they know
> one another a/o appear to be giving signals of some sort, back and forth?
>
> Do you see passenger(s), male a/o female, who appear focused on something
> other than their surroundings, as though they're deep in thought. They may
> seem hesitant to be near other people waiting in the area lest they be
> engaged in dialogue. They want to concentrate on their mission and their
> role in it. They're rehearsing in their minds what they're about to do and
> don't want to be disturbed by you or anyone else.
>
> They may seem unusually well-groomed and overly-perfumed for just a quick
> business jump. Perhaps *ritual hygiene* ~ getting ready to meet their
> maker, intending to take you along for the ride.
>
> They may turn away from roving security and police patrols, hiding their
> face; or get up and move from their seat if they see a police K9 team,
> because they're concerned explosives might be sniffed out by the dogs.
>
> Is a woman who appears to be very pregnant moving in a way that suggests she
> doesn't care about the child she's bearing? Does she bump her bump against
> the seat or pull the seatbelt tooooo tight? Given x-ray machines and
> searches, that scenario may be statistically improbable but you never know,
> but perhaps this will turn the lights on for
> you.<http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/28/tsa.bombtest/index.html>
>
> If you use the lavatory and notice something broken such as a seam between
> the wall and the mirror, or ceiling tiles that appear out of place, damaged,
> cut, punctured; report it to crew immediately. Not when you get around to
> it. Now. If you see something affixed to the wall or counter that doesn't
> match the décor or just doesn't look like it belongs, report it immediately.
>
> Are there men a/o women who in quick succession get up and go to the
> lavatory, forming a line at one particular lavatory though several may be
> unoccupied? Are any of those people carrying items into the lavatory? Does
> anyone in that line cut in front of someone else? Could be a dry-run or an
> actual attack ~ putting a bomb together in the john.
>
> Let's say you're sitting there trying to figure out which in-flight music to
> listen to and you see some guys across the way putting Vaseline or lotion on
> their necks, arms, and hands; trying to keep the stuff off the palms of
> their hands. What's up? You may be watching a very detailed dry-run, or, as
> we used to say in the Army: the balloon is going up ~ a hi-jacking attempt
> is about to take place. They're putting lubricants on their necks, arms and
> the backs of their hands so when you try to grab them, they can slip away.
> But they want to be able to grab and hold weapons so they may apply the
> lubricant with a tissue to keep their palms dry.
>
> So, everything's going fine and Poof, suddenly you're taken over by
> terrorists. You can sit there repeating in your head, *Ruh-ro… we're all
> toast.* Or you can do something.
>
> Pretty basic choices. The paradigm changed, didn't it? Used to be they'd
> grab a plane with a bunch of hostages and negotiate for something.
> Nowadays, you can't be sure.
>
> You should understand that you just might have to fight since your other
> choice will probably be to die in a fiery crash. I don't know. You decide.
>
> Okay, who wants to duke it out with bad-guys on a plane?
>
> Posted at 02:49 PM in
> Attacks<http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/attacks/>
> |
> Permalink<http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2008/03/well-then-mak-1.html>
>
>
>
> Topic: A "Know-Nothing" Who Has Done Everything To Destroy America --
> Standing In Judgment Over A General Who Has Spent Decades Trying To Save Her
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 03:46PM -0500 ^
>
> American warriors can win any war if allowed to fight for victory........we
> won all military battles in Viet Nam but lost the political war because of
> arm-chair generals in the State Department, Administration, and
> Congress......plus the John Kerry traitors of the 60s......
>
> It has been moving toward the same decision in Afghanistan for some
> time...Bush nearly lost the Iraq war, even though it was won decisively by
> military action...his State Department/Administration pulled some stupd
> stunts, decimated what infrastructure remained, failed to fill the Iraq
> government infrstructure void, and nearly allowed a rag-tag takeover,
> costing unnecessary lives. Now we have an incompetent Clinton running the
> State Department who has failed miserably in accomplishing her role to form
> an infrastructure in Afghanistan that will pick up as the military victories
> occur........what has happened?? The lame brain special envoy Holbrooke and
> ego seeking Ambassador Eikenberry have been McChrystals and victory's worst
> enemies in Afghanistan......the two State Department gurus are busy worrying
> about political and personal gain, criticizing national strategy, to hell
> with the war success, generally making life miserable for McChrystal...while
> the incompetent commander in chief (CIC) could care less.
>
> All this crap is a reflection of loss in Viet Nam to a communist
> regime...politicians fighting their own troops for political gain.....I
> don't blame General McChrystal one dam bit for telling it like it is. In a
> normal condition, which assumes mature and competent leadership in America,
> McChrystal would be far off base, but conditions in America today require
> major departure from normal...if we had more Generals like McChrystal
> standing up, the political side would get the message.....
>
> To see a slime ball like Obama standing in judgement over a warrior who has
> put his life on the line for decades in defense of our nation, being
> reprimanded, relieved, by a know-nothing, done-nothing, illegal usurper of
> the US Constitution in the White House, puts me in severe "puke mode".
>
> America over the last two years has gone into severe down-fall
> disaster.....Obama, his lame-stream media, and covy of liberal
> socialist/communist supporters distort, fabricate, ignore the Constitution
> in their no-holds barred destruction of America. While the war should be
> priority number one with Obama or any CIC, he has ignored the troops,
> ignored lives lost, placed all his domestic destructive tactics on the front
> burner and is totally overwhelmed by ignorant, political posturing advisors
> that have America teetering on the precipice of total revolution. These
> a..holes forget, if they ever recognized, that American men and women are
> being killed, maimed, wounded, and used as cannon fodder while they diddle
> in socialist/communist politics.
>
> General McChrystal recognizes the threat, LTC Lakin recognizes the threat,
> millions of Americans recognize the threat...these two warriors have both
> exercised extreme sacrifice, fallen on their sword for liberty and freedom,
> *while America snoozes*
>
> It's about damn time for all freedom loving Americans to speak-up, stand-up,
> and show-up on the Washington DC Mall in the next few months and be prepared
> to fall on our sword.
>
> Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret., 111 Overview Drive, Crestview, FL 32539,
> 850-689-1818, hmriley@cox.net
>
>
>
> Topic: Look what they found near the Texan/Mexican ...
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 03:45PM -0500 ^
>
> *Subject: **You will want to see this! Look what they found near the
> Texan/Mexican border*
>
>
>
>
>
> And people think we should open the borders......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This will open your eyes & make you think! What are they planning?
>
>
>
>
> Look what they found near the
> *Texan/Mexican border*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *A P**rime** example of why we MUST support our neighbors in Arizona, and
> bolster the Texan border.* *
> This was a Zetas camp (a Mexican cartel w/ Guatemalan ties) that was found
> near Higueras, Nuevo Laredo , Mexico .
> The "state" of Nuevo Laredo borders the Rio Grande , and this town is a
> little over 100 miles away from Laredo , TX .
> Please forgive the crude translations; my Mexican Spanish isn't that great.*
> -J.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> *
>
> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> "This Tuesday, the army found makeshift camp in Higueras, where they
> encountered a massive arsenal."*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> At least 25 suspects managed to get away.*
>
>
>
>
> They found 12 trucks/SUVs under a shaded canopy.
>
>
> *
> The vehicles contained military & police issue accessories.*
>
>
> *
> It's estimated that they found around 200 rifles, and 30 pistols.*
>
>
> *
> They also found grenade and rocket launchers.*
>
>
> *
> There were over 300 magazines and uniforms.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> They also found a box of 60 grenades.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> T
>
>
>
> Topic: Excellent column by Bizzy Blogger on big government
>
> dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> Jun 26 07:13AM -0400 ^
>
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/06/26/more-money-spent-less-value-delivered/
>
>
>
> Topic: IBD on the Financial Reform Bill (eye opening article here )
>
> dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> Jun 26 07:10AM -0400 ^
>
> If IBD is right, then this bill should never pass into law.
>
>
> IBD on Deformed 'Financial Reform'
> <http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/06/26/ibd-on-deformed-financial-reform/>
>
> Filed under: Economy <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/economy/>, Taxes
> & Government <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/taxes-government/> ---
> TBlumer @ 8:38 am
>
> Maybe it's time for "FRINO," a new acronym that would stand for
> "Financial Reform In Name Only."
>
> On second thought, the reality as described in the last two excerpted
> paragraphs below from an Investors Business Daily editorial
> <http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/538630/201006251913/Financial-Deform.aspx>
> Friday
> evening is much more sinister than that, rendering such an acronym an
> inadequate descriptor:
>
> For instance: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were inarguably at
> the heart of the financial crisis, and which have already cost U.S.
> taxpayers $146 billion (with hundreds of billions more on the way),
> aren't addressed in this bill at all.
>
> This is insane, given the role these two government-sponsored
> enterprises played both in encouraging lending to poor, unqualified
> homebuyers and repackaging those securitized loans for resale to
> banks and investors around the world. /(Ed. Note: The repackaging
> was also done in a systematically fraudulent manner
> <http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/01/10/fan-and-fred-fundamental-frauds-by-design/>
> for
> about 15 years.)/
>
> Worse, the bill does nothing to amend the "too-big-to-fail" doctrine
> that has guided U.S. banking policy for decades. Any bank that runs
> into trouble can still walk up to Uncle Sam's borrowing window and,
> hand outstretched, ask for money. And if the bank is politically
> connected or very large, it will get it.
>
> This puts every small bank, investor or lender at a huge
> disadvantage, since they're most certainly not "too big to fail."
> This is a big reason why the biggest U.S. banks didn't squawk too
> much about the legislation. As bad as it is, it gives them a
> competitive edge.
>
> ... *The bill also gives federal regulators sweeping new powers to
> seize and break up financial firms. Good idea, you say? Remember:
> The government also gets to decide what is a "financial" firm. Does
> GM, which makes loans, fall into that category? How about Wal-Mart,
> which issues its own credit cards?*
>
> *In effect, this lets the government seize and dismantle the assets
> of almost any company --- and then force others to pay for it.*
>
> This enables those who would wish to exercise such powers to engage in
> financial tyranny. Not even angels, let alone the dictator wannabes in
> this administration (Example 1: John Holdren
> <http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/07/27/and-democrats-called-bush-hitler/>;
> Example 2: Zeke the Bleak Emanuel
> <http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/08/24/zeke-the-bleak-tries-a-sneak/>;
> Exhibit 3: Cass Sunstein
> <http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-czar-wants-mandatory-government-propaganda-on-political-websites.html>),
> should be entrusted with such unaccountable command-and-control
> authority so easily abused for politic
>
>
>
> Topic: Guess who can ignore a Democrat's Racist Statement
>
> dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> Jun 26 07:08AM -0400 ^
>
> Who Can Ignore and Downplay Democrat's Racist Statement? The
> Establishment Media Can
> <http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/06/26/who-can-ignore-and-downplay-democrats-racist-remarks-the-establishment-media-can/>
>
> Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias
> <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/msm-biz-bias/>, MSM Biz/Other
> Ignorance <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/msm-biz-ignorance/>, Taxes
> & Government <http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/taxes-government/> ---
> TBlumer @ 11:01 am
>
> Kanjorski0610To refresh, as posted at NewsBusters
> <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/06/25/hail-halperin-calls-out-deutsch-ford-kanjorski-double-standard>and
> Eyeblast.tv
> <http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Xd2G6UqGyt>, Pennsylvania
> Congressman Paul Kanjorski said the following on Wednesday while he was
> defending what Investors Business Daily has called "Financial Deform"
> <http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/538630/201006251913/Financial-Deform.aspx>:
>
> We're giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every
> day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this
> recession, these are people --- and they're not minorities and
> they're not defective and they're not all the things you'd like to
> insinuate that these programs are about --- these are average, good
> American people.
>
> This isn't too tough to decipher, no matter how many House Democrats try
> to give him defensive cover
> <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39014.html> --- If the people
> Kanjorski "deal(s) with in my office everyday" are "average, good
> American people" because "they're not minorities and they're not
> defective," then those who are minorities and "defective" in some way
> are not "average, good American people." Kanjorski uttered an
> objectively racist
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist> (embodying "the belief
> that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and
> that a particular race is superior to others") statement.
>
> According to this report
> <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/dem-congressman-contrasts-minorities-good-american-people/story?id=11006485>,
> Kanjorski is not apologizing. Therefore, one must conclude that the
> congressman is comfortable with his objectively racist statement.
>
> The mostly Democrat-defending establishment press that generally sets
> the narrative for radio and TV news mostly understands the
> aforementioned elementary exercise in logic. This explains why
> Kanjorski's statement, while occasionally being framed with the usual
> "Republicans attack poor misunderstood Democrat" approach, is mostly
> getting ignored.
>
> A search at the Associated Press's main web site on the Congressman's
> last name comes up with one seemingly relevant item
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLITICAL_INSIDER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>,
> an article headlined "McMahon: Wrestling was soap opera." Yeah, you read
> that right. But the article is really a collection of four short items
> and two "Quick Hits." AP writer Philip Elliott (or perhaps his editors)
> thought that Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon's
> description of her Word Wrestling Entertainment enterprise was more
> important than Kanjorski's racist remark, the coverage of which came second.
>
> Naturally, Elliott's item used the "Republicans attack" technique:
>
> Republicans criticized Rep. Paul Kanjorski for what they said were
> remarks suggesting minorities are not "average, good American people."
>
> The 13-term Pennsylvania Democrat vigorously denied the charge,
> saying Republicans were taking his words out of context to score
> political points.
>
> ... A Kanjorski spokeswoman said the congressman was defending
> people who get government help from those who unfairly criticize them.
>
> Sure he was. But in the process, he uttered an objectively racist
> remark. Alleged "context" is irrelevant.
>
> Well, at least the AP has covered it in its own quirky way. The New York
> Times hasn't
> <http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=kanjorski&d=&o=&v=&c=&n=10&dp=0&daterange=full&sort=newest>.
>
> The Washington Post restricted coverage of Kanjorski's statement to its
> "44? blog
> <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/dem-rep-finance-bill-will-help.html>,
> and has apparently kept the matter out of its print edition. Matt
> DeLong's post is funny, in a reality-denying, sickening sort of way
> (bolds are mine):
>
> A Democratic congressman has found himself the target of
> conservative criticism after *an inartful description* of who will
> be helped by the financial reform bill currently working its way
> through Congress.
>
> The conservative website Human Events reported that Rep. Paul
> Kanjorski's (D-Pa.) *appeared* to say during Wednesday's financial
> reform conference committee meeting that the financial overhaul will
> help "average, good American people" --- but not minorities or "the
> defective."
>
> It's amazing how often the word "inartful" --- which isn't even a
> recognized word in the dictionary (here
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inartful> or here
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inartful>) --- has appeared
> since candidate Barack Obama and others frequently employed it in 2008
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+my+words+were+inartful+2008&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=>
> to
> defend him and others after verbal gaffes and worse utterances.
>
> As to DeLong's use of "appeared" --- Matt, stop insulting our intelligence.
>
> Finally, it's also quite predictable to see DeLong tag Human Events
> (accurately) as "conservative," while, as Tim Graham at
> NewsBusters noted earlier this week
> <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/06/24/why-cant-media-acknowledge-rolling-stone-radical-left>,
> magazines like Rolling Stone almost never get the "liberal" or "radical
> left" tag from the establishment press.
>
> /Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org
> <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2010/06/26/who-can-ignore-and-downplay-democrats-racist-statement-establishment-med>./
>
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/06/26/who-can-ignore-and-downplay-democrats-racist-remarks-the-establishment-media-can/
>
>
>
> Topic: Jim Miller might have a point - I am not in a position to know
>
> dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> Jun 26 07:02AM -0400 ^
>
> *Worth Reading: *With the exception of one paragraph. From David
> Brooks, here's that paragraph, followed by another that shows why the
> rest of that column
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25brooks.html?ref=global>is
> worth reading.
>
> General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding
> relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships
> with his various civilian partners in the State Department and
> beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly
> used military and civilian expertise.
>
> But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently
> missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the
> record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product
> of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his
> magazine profile.
>
> And so now McChrystal is gone, because his aides said the kinds of
> things almost all of us say about our bosses and co-workers, when we
> think we are in private. (Nearly all of the "kvetching" in the /Rolling
> Stone/ article came, not from McChrystal, but from his aides.)
>
> (Why am I dubious about the first paragraph quoted? Because some of it
> seems obvious nonsense, the idea, for instance, that McChrystal had
> "outstanding" relations with the White House. And some of what he did
> in Afghanistan, notably his rules of engagement
> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/petraeus-modify-afghanistan-rules-engagement-source-says/>,
> may have hurt the war effort. It may be that McChrystal is one of those
> officers --- and military history provides many examples of this type
> --- who is excellent, as long as he is not in a top command.)
> - 2:26 PM, 25 June 2010 [link] <./June2010_4.html#jrm8860>
>
>
>
> Topic: Who would ever have guessed
>
> Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> Jun 26 12:45PM -0400 ^
>
> Euwe, Euwe, Euwe; Let's Review:
>
> The Bush Administration called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms
> repeatedly, all to fall upon deaf ears by the Democrats.
>
>
>
> *"Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008
> Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings"*
>
>
>
> http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
>
>
>
>
>
> In 2003, the Bush Administration was encouraging and pushing the Congress to
> reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all which fell upon deaf ears by the
> Democrats, the Democrats fought change to Freddie and Fannie vociferously:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
>
>
>
> =============
>
> **
> * *
>
> Here is a video from 2004, which shows Congressman Barney Frank, (D.
> Mass) Congresswoman
> Maxine Waters, (D. Cal.); Congressman Lacey Clay, (D. Mo.); Congressman
> Arthur Davis (D. Ala), Congressman Gregory Meeks, (D. N.Y.) as well as other
> Democrats vehemently denying that there were any problem with Fannie Mae or
> Freddie Mac in 2004. That Senator Obama's presidential campaign economic
> advisor, and former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was doing, "An
> outstanding job"; and that the regulators were the ones that were creating
> the problem:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========
>
>
>
> Here is the statement that Congressman Davis, (the same Congressman Davis
> who is strongly defending Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the above
> video) released
> to Sean Hannity yesterday, September 30, 2008:
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the
> recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage
> affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the
> concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic
> colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.
> By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the
> early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the
> securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it
> comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go
> around for both sides."*
>
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431209,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ==================
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you figured it out yet? Are you having a hard time accepting and/or
> understanding what transpired? Lets move on:
>
>
>
> =================
>
>
>
> Although Congressman Davis's statement still acknowledges my point, and
> should make every American stand up and take note, Congressman Davis's
> statement goes on, in a partisan attempt to blame Republicans for not
> tightening the regulatory scheme.
>
>
>
> If the Republicans can be blamed, it should be for not sounding the alarm
> bells loud enough, over the fraud pepetrated by the Democrat Party's
> socialist Agenda!
>
>
>
> It was in fact the Clinton Administration and Robert Rubin who were pushing
> for the deregulation.
>
>
>
> Former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, who was President Clinton's
> Treasury Secretary, in a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress, Rubin
> advocated the Bill modifications to the Community Reinvestment Act, and
> professed the Clinton Administration's intent to repeal the Glass-Steagall
> Act:
>
>
>
>
>
> *"The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two
> decades ago, let alone in 1933….[T]he industry has been transformed into a
> global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new
> products, services and markets. U.S. banks generally engage in a broader
> range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically… Even
> domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking
> envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly."*
>
>
>
> http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/pilgrim/2008/09/19/the_players_in_paving_the_way_to_the_wall_st_meltdown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> By the mid 1990s, the Clinton Administration had in fact adopted a "quota
> system" , and unabashedly favored expansion of, and the empowered use of
> the "Community Reinvestment Act", believing that a governmental response to
> economic problems in inner cities is generally more effective than a market
> solution.
>
>
>
> Eugene Ludwig, President Clinton's Comptroller of the Currency and head of
> the Office of the Comptroller and Currency, was a strong proponent of
> expanding the reach of Community Reinvestment Act. Ludwig said in his
> confirmation hearing that his first priority as Comptroller would be to
> eliminate
>
>
>
> *"discrimination from our financial system, root and branch." *
>
>
>
> Ludwig told bankers,
>
>
>
> *"If you seize this issue as an opportunity, you will reap the benefits in
> the form of new business and heightened respect from the press, the
> Congress, and your communities."* (*See* the CATO Institute, a non-partisan
> Libertarian Think-Tank, link provided below)
>
>
>
> With regard to the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton Administration
> Attorney General Janet Reno said,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"No loan is exempt, no bank is immune. For those who thumb their nose at
> us, I promise vigorous enforcement."*
>
>
>
> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:90IT4MK9474J:www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf+Community+Reinvestment+Act&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
>
>
>
>
>
> Finally, there is really no dispute. Former President Clinton said on
> September 26, 2008:
>
>
>
> *"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have, may rest more in
> resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was
> president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and
> Freddie Mac."*
>
>
>
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MELTDOWN_ADS?SITE=DCUSN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no argument here. Our Nation was sold out by a socialist agenda
> and greed by the Democrat Party.....
>
>
>
> euwe <machgielis@gmail.com> Jun 26 10:05AM -0700 ^
>
> Bush said that
> --------
> link to him saying it to the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -
> thanks.
>
>
>
>
> euwe <machgielis@gmail.com> Jun 26 10:06AM -0700 ^
>
> There is no argument here. Our Nation was sold out by a socialist
> agenda
> and greed by the Democrat Party.....
> -----------
> All you're saying is compromise with the Republicans destroyed the
> country.
>
>
>
>
> Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> Jun 26 02:14PM -0400 ^
>
> No Euwe, I am saying that there were a large number of Socialist-Elitists
> who are members of the Democratic Party, who sold our Nation out, and threw
> American free market principals under the bus for greed, (and/or a misguided
> Socialist-Elitist Agenda; one or the other, or both!!) As I pointed out in
> my last message:
>
>
>
> "*In 2004/early 2005, a Bill captioned, the "Federal Housing Enterprise
> Regulatory Reform Act" of 2004/2005, sponsored by Republicans, .John McCain,
> Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu, and Chuck Hagel, was put before the Congress.
> The
> Bill was blocked, by the Democrats in the Senate, and the majority of
> Democrats in the House of Representatives". *
>
>
>
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
>
>
>
> The summary of the Bill, written by Congressional Services:
>
>
>
> *1/26/2005--Introduced.*
>
>
>
> *Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the
> Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to
> establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
> of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent
> Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over
> the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks,
> the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home
> Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing
> Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory
> provisions of the Agency,* *including provisions respecting: (1) assessment
> authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and
> critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital
> classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions
> and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting. Amends the Federal
> Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance
> Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal
> Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks
> from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal
> Housing Finance Board.*
>
>
> ===========
>
> There was no compromise by the Socialst-Elitists of the Democratic Party,
> but instead, a focused, concentrated effort to push a socialist agenda,
> despite repeated warnings by conservatives and moderates from the Republican
> Party!! What part of this are you failing to understand or fathom???
>
>
>
> Topic: Reason Magazine Debate
>
> Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> Jun 26 01:23PM -0400 ^
>
> During the Kagan Supreme Court nomination hearings, *Reason* magazine and
> Reason.tv presents:
>
> *Conservatives v. Libertarians: Judicial Restraint and Constitutional
> Activism*
>
> *What: *A debate between* Reason* Associate Editor Damon Root and Federalist
> Society President Eugene B. Meyer on fault lines in the Supreme Court
>
> *When:* Wednesday, July 30, 6.30-9pm
>
> *Where:* Reason DC HQ, 1747 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington DC 20009
> (Two blocks north of Dupont Circle; take Red Line Metro to Dupont Circle
> North exit)
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "*REPLY*", your message will be sent to
> *everyone*on this mailing list (
> LPNOVA-list@meetup.com)
> This message was sent by Paul Blumstein (pbandj@pobox.com) from The Northern
> Virginia Libertarian Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/LPNOVA/>.
> To learn more about Paul Blumstein, visit his/her member
> profile<http://www.meetup.com/LPNOVA/members/85324/>
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click
> here<http://www.meetup.com/LPNOVA/settings/>
>
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 |
> support@meetup.com
>
>
>
> Topic: Bashing BP (For Doing Exactly What Government Led Them to Do)
>
> "M. Johnson" <michaelj@america.net> Jun 26 11:08AM -0400 ^
>
> Bashing BP (For Doing Exactly What Government Led Them to Do)
>
> Wednesday, June 23, 2010
>
> by Matthew J. Novak
>
> There has been tremendous criticism in the media of late regarding BP's
> response to the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig
> and the subsequent spilling of millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of
> Mexico.
>
> An ABC news / Washington Post poll shows that 81 percent of those polled
> stated they thought unfavorably of the response by BP to the spill. Download
> PDF The same poll shows that nearly two-thirds of those responding favor
> criminal charges against BP and other companies involved in the spill.
>
> Although I am not one to condone negligence or malice, I have no intention
> of adding my voice to the chorus bashing BP. After all, they are one of many
> companies providing fuel for our cars, generating electricity to power our
> homes, and enabling so many aspects of our lives today. I could not readily
> type this short article, and expect to send it to an editor who will read it
> within a few hours and let me know whether he is interested, without
> companies like BP.
>
> Instead, I want to illustrate that while BP is being bashed for the
> company-wide effort to contain its recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico
> (amidst cries for government to "DO SOMETHING!"), the spill is so difficult
> to deal with precisely because of government intervention in the
> marketplace.
>
> Government Intervention: A Major Contributor to the Mess
>
> After first hearing about the problem BP as a company currently faces, I
> became curious about the positions of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. I
> am no expert, but drilling in over five thousand feet of water sounds hard.
> So, I searched for something to show me where the platforms are located and
> found the following map, which I find useful for discussion.
>
> Figure 1
>
> I've seen the total number of platforms estimated at around 4,000, with up
> to 100 drilling rigs operating at a time. One of the interesting things to
> me about this map is that it shows no rigs in the eastern part of the Gulf
> of Mexico. It turns out this is due to a moratorium on drilling first put in
> place by President Bush in 1990. In 1998, President Clinton extended the
> moratorium until 2012. So, one government intervention has resulted in a
> situation in which drilling operations are constrained west of the border
> between Alabama and Mississippi, with a concentration of drilling off the
> coast of Louisiana.
>
> Another interesting thing I noticed is that there are many platforms that
> are a great distance from the shoreline particularly off the Louisiana
> coast. Wondering why this is the case, I did some research and found one
> particularly compelling explanation.
>
> Incentivizing Risk
>
> In 1995, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Deepwater Royalty Relief
> Act (DWRRA), which was "intended to encourage natural-gas and oil
> development in the Gulf of Mexico in waters at least 200 meters (656 feet)
> deep by offering royalty relief on qualifying natural gas and oil lease
> sales." This act has since expired, but there remain continued incentives
> for drilling in deep water.
>
> For example, a report from the DOE written in 2005 states that after the
> conditions of the DWRRA expired in 2000
>
> the MMS adopted a program which determines royalty relief on a
> lease-specific basis. Under the revised method, leases located in the same
> water depth may have different volumes exempt from royalty charges if the
> economic conditions vary. For example, if one natural gas field is more
> expensive to access, then it may potentially receive more royalty relief
> than a field in the same water depth with lower costs to access. Download
> PDF
>
> In other words, the government specifically passed laws that gave the oil
> companies incentives to drill far offshore that is, in deeper water where
> risk is presumably higher. In addition to the higher risk of accidents, the
> cost of solving any problems are necessarily greater in five thousand feet
> of water than in, say, 250 feet of water.
>
> How much of an incentive was there to drill in deeper water? The same DOE
> report contains the following table.
>
> Figure 2
>
> It seems that it would have been downright foolish for a company to spend
> much effort drilling in shallow, more easily accessible regions nearer to
> the coastline, when by law there was a five-fold incentive for them to go
> out into deeper waters. Who could blame a company for trying to achieve a
> minimum relief volume, which would guarantee billions of dollars in
> royalty-free sales of petroleum and natural gas?
>
> To see how this affected the amount of oil taken from deep waters, let's
> examine a second table from the same DOE report.
>
> Figure 3
>
> As is seen from this table, the production of crude oil in deep waters
> increased dramatically after the passage of the DWRRA in 1995. As of 2003,
> there was more than a 250 percent increase in the percentage of total oil
> produced in the deep-water regions of the gulf, with about 70 percent of all
> drilling taking place there.
>
> It seems the DWRRA law was passed with precisely the intention of
> encouraging deep-water drilling, and it accomplished this goal.
> Unfortunately, accomplishing this goal led necessarily to higher risk and
> unintended consequences.
>
> Unintended Consequences
>
> The problems caused by the current spilling of oil into the Gulf of Mexico
> will certainly have tremendous impact on the residents of the coastal
> states, on the fishermen, on the beaches and wildlife, and not least of all
> on BP as a company. There are some who think BP may end up in bankruptcy. In
> the meantime, it seems the company is doing quite a bit to make good on
> promises to clean up the problem and to take care of damages.
>
> Stepping back from all this and taking a look from a free-market
> perspective, it is clear that the incentives put in place by the state
> undoubtedly at the behest of lobbyists for oil companies led to drilling in
> deep water, leading to increased risk. The incentives encouraged drilling in
> water that had been previously deemed economically unattractive by those
> same companies.
>
> Additionally, a liability cap of $75 million for the oil companies was put
> in place by law. This is an incredible use of the control of the political
> means to make favorable dealings for oneself in the economy.[1] In fact, it
> is the very definition of corporatism: First, individuals within a company
> work to get laws passed to reward companies for taking risks previously
> deemed unworthy of the time, energy, and capital expenditures. Then, those
> same individuals within the company work to get other laws passed to limit
> liability when things go wrong.
>
> This oil spill is something that we in engineering and science refer to as a
> three-sigma event, in that it is a very low-percentage occurrence. In other
> words, Congress and big oil companies colluded to reward risky behavior and
> lost their bet. Comically, we now see Congress who encouraged the risks cry
> "foul!" They are demanding that the previously set damage cap be raised,
> retroactively, to another arbitrary figure deemed more appropriate for BP's
> sins: at present, $20 billion, although this may change in the near future.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Predictably, in response to the mess, there have been calls for more and
> tighter regulation on the industry. President Obama recently said he is
> interested in finding out who deserves punishment for the crime of the oil
> spill. (Maybe he can blame Congress?) Also predictably, there is scarcely a
> mention of the role of government intervention in the mess in any of the
> traditional state media. Instead, there is the standard demonizing of
> "unfettered capitalism" and the cries about the failure of the free market.
> Barely a mention is made that safety on drilling platforms has been under
> the purview of government regulators within the US Minerals Management
> Service and that the Deepwater Horizon was deemed a model for industry
> safety just last year.
>
> In a free market, where BP would bear full responsibility for damages caused
> by its operations, there might not be such a mess to deal with in the gulf.
> Additionally, private insurers for BP would not have allowed for such a
> shoddy inspection record on the safety of a very complicated and difficult
> operation. Drilling far out in the ocean waters would likely have been
> pursued in some form, but with the companies bearing all the risk and
> certainly not being rewarded for taking economically unsound actions there
> would have been far less activity in deep waters.
>
> Many people agitate for BP to hold true to its corporate line of moving
> "Beyond Petroleum" to alternative energy sources. The environmental disaster
> in the gulf will undoubtedly place further pressure on the company. Yet how
> can we ever know if that direction is feasible without freedom in the
> markets? True freedom would put the costs at the level that are truly
> indicative of risks and rewards involved with each activity.
>
> For now, the vast majority of what we do in our lives is in one way or
> another dependent upon petroleum. With that in mind, we can only hope that
> the damage can be cleaned up quickly and that the coastal towns can move on
> to brighter days.
>
> Dr. Matthew J. Novak is a senior optics research engineer at the University
> of Arizona, College of Optics.
>
> Notes
>
> [1] See Albert Nock, Our Enemy, the State (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises
> Institute, 2009 [1935]).
>
> http://mises.org/daily/4488
>
>
>
> euwe <machgielis@gmail.com> Jun 26 08:47AM -0700 ^
>
> Republicans would defend satan for a 500 dollar check at the end of
> the year.
>
>
>
>
> Topic: [Fwd: well, looky here!]
>
> THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> Jun 25 09:30PM -0700 ^
>
> Not true, the right of self-defense crosses the line.
>
> Mexicos ARMY does so regularly...
>
> Written by Len Sherman
> Thursday, 07 August 2008
> Mexican soldiers on Arizona soil held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at
> gunpoint Sunday night. The Mexicans retreated after backup agents
> responded.
>
> This is far from the first time the Mexican military, and/or those
> wearing Mexican uniforms, most likely members of Los Zetas, have
> crossed over the border, in support of drug and illegal immigration
> operations. Though both governments have sought to downplay such
> incidents, the increasing number of these sometimes violent incursions
> – over 200 confirmed incursions since 1996 - makes the situation
> difficult to sweep under the rug.
>
>
> From The Washington Times: Agents assigned to the Border Patrol
> station at Ajo, Ariz., said the Mexican soldiers crossed the
> international border in an isolated area about 100 miles southwest of
> Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who was not identified.
>
> It was unclear what the soldiers were doing in the United States, but
> U.S. law enforcement authorities have long said that current and
> former Mexican military personnel have been hired to protect drug and
> migrant smugglers.
>
> "Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Mexican military personnel
> has been going on for years," union Local 2544 of the National Border
> Patrol Council (NBPC) said on its Web page. "They are never held
> accountable, and the United States government will undoubtedly brush
> this off as another case of 'Oh well, they didn't know they were in
> the United States.'
>
> "It is fortunate that this incident didn't end in a very ugly
> gunfight," saidthe local's posting.
>
> Not for the first time, U.S. officials kept mum on the subject. The
> Border Patrol spokesman did not respond to the newspaper's questions,
> and a State Department spokeswoman claimed her department had no
> information, and referred questions to the same Border Patrol that
> refused to return the Times' phone calls.
>
> The Mexicans issued a statement, which, as such statements often are,
> could beviewed as blandly self-serving: Ricardo Alday, spokesman at
> the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said Tuesday that Mexico and the
> United States are engaged in "an all-out struggle to deter criminal
> organizations from operating on both sides of our common border."
>
> "Law enforcement operations have led, from time to time, to innocent
> incursions by both U.S. and Mexican law enforcement personnel and
> military units into the territory of both nations, and in particular
> along non-demarcated areas of our border," he said.
>
> "We always try to solve these incidents in a cooperative fashion, and
> as acknowledged by the Border Patrol, this was the case in the episode
> at Ajo," he said.
>
> Other incidents have proved even more dramatic. From the paper:
>
> A year ago, U.S. law enforcement authorities were confronted by
> gunfire from automatic weapons as they chased and caught a drug-
> smuggling suspect in Texas trying to flee back into Mexico, the
> Hudspeth County (Texas) Sheriff's Office said.
>
> No one was hurt in that incident, and the gunmen were not identified,
> although the area has been the scene of similar incidents over several
> months, including a confrontation in January 2007, when heavily armed
> men in Mexican military uniforms fired on Texas officers with a .50-
> caliber machine gun mounted on a camouflaged Humvee.
>
> Themen were identified at the time by Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin
> West as "soldiers."
>
> Inthat incident, Hudspeth County deputies pursued three sport utility
> vehicles back to Mexico after spotting them driving north from the Rio
> Grande. The pursuit ended on the U.S. side of the border when the
> deputies encountered 10 heavily armed men in what they described as
> battle-dress uniforms.
>
> At that time, deputies found 1,400 pounds of marijuana in one of the
> vehicles abandoned after it blew a tire early in the pursuit. Another
> made it into Mexico and a third got stuck in the Rio Grande and was
> burned by the "soldiers" after it was unloaded.
>
> In November 2007, the Border Patrol chased a dump truck full of
> marijuana in the same area when it also got stuck in the river while
> trying to return to Mexico. While agents sought to unload 3 tons of
> marijuana, the driver - who had fled - returned with a heavily armed
> group of men wearing Mexican military uniforms and carrying military-
> style weapons.
>
> The soldiers backed the agents away and bulldozed the truck back into
> Mexico.
>
> No suspects were ever identified and arrested.
>
> A coalition of Texas border sheriffs has demanded that both the U.S.
> and the Mexican governments do something before the situation spins
> out of control.
>
> Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr. of Zapata County, Texas, who founded
> the coalition, said a growing number of suspected incursions and
> violence aimed at the area's law enforcement officers is making the
> border "a pretty dangerous place."
>
> Sheriff Gonzalez said three of his deputies in 2006 spotted 25 men
> dressed in military uniforms in the U.S. during a late-night patrol.
> He said the men marched two abreast and carried duffel bags and
> automatic weapons, and that his "outmanned and outgunned deputies"
> were forced to retreat.
>
> "The only thing you can do in that kind of situation is seek cover,"
> Sheriff Gonzalez said. "I'm not going to lose someone in an unfair
> fight."
>
> Speaking anecdotally, rogue ex-military units like Los Zetas generally
> do not enforce military marching discipline. The truth is that the
> invaders are both military and criminal gangs. To be more specific, it
> is no secret that Los Zetas control and manipulate the border, and it
> is also no secret that elements of the Mexican Army, as corrupted as
> much of the rest of the Mexican government, are involved in drug
> running and human smuggling.
>
> From Texas to Arizona to California, we are watching as the border
> disintegrates under the pressure of a collapsing and corrupt Mexican
> state, and a distant and feeble American response.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mustang <mustangspnkr@yahoo.com> Jun 25 10:27PM -0700 ^
>
> Why not? If a "most wanted juvenile smuggler" with a record starting at age
> 13
> is throwing rocks from 30-40 feet away it could do a hell of a lot of
> damage.
> They weren't wiffle rocks! The kid, and others, was determined to hurt the
> Border Patrol Agents. He had no respect for laws or life. Now, the choir boy
> is dead. He will smuggle no more. He should have been at home studying. His
> parents are now paying the price for neglect and disrespect for America.
> They
> should have given him a "time out" after his first arrest.
>
> I lost two sons to cancer. I know the heartache. The kid was wrong and paid
> the highest of consequences for his own actions. What did you expect the
> agents
> to do? What would you do if criminals threw a barrage of rocks at you? Say
> "Please don't do that."?
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: euwe <machgielis@gmail.com>
> To: PoliticalForum <politicalforum@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, June 25, 2010 4:28:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: well, looky here!]
>
> Not while they are on Mexican soil.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
> euwe <machgielis@gmail.com> Jun 26 08:46AM -0700 ^
>
> Absolutely - kids have gotten a free ride long enough - it's time to
> start lowering the age of outrage - kill them in the womb!
>
>
>
>
> Topic: Protect America from What?
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 06:38AM -0500 ^
>
> http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2010/06/24/protect-america-from-what/
>
>
>
> Protect America from What?
> By *Peter Brookes<http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/peterbrookes/>
> *(bio <http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/peterbrookes/bio/>)
>
> While Americans focus on the significant challenges at home, they must also
> not forget the growing national security challenges that our nation faces
> abroad. The world remains a dangerous place, populated with states and
> groups that hold — or could hold — America and its interests around the
> world at risk.
>
> *Terrorism*
>
> The attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner over Detroit and the
> recent Times Square plot in New York City remind us that the terrorist
> threat is not behind us. We are still squarely in the terrorists'
> cross-hairs.
>
> In fact, while foiled conspiracies are quickly forgotten, it is important to
> remember that there have been at least 10 attacks or thwarted plots in the
> United States just over the past year, headlined by the tragedy at Fort Hood
> last fall. While we are fundamentally safer today than we were on 9/11, we
> are still not safe.
>
> *South Asia and the Middle East*
>
> There are challenges in South Asia, too, where terrorist groups such as
> al-Qaeda and the Taliban are seeking to take and hold terrain to train,
> plan, and operate in places like Pakistan's tribal areas. Next door in
> Afghanistan, more than 90,000 American troops are fighting a Taliban
> insurgency that has persisted for nearly nine years. Failure in Afghanistan
> could allow that country once again to become a terrorist safe haven.
>
> The Middle East is rife with challenges as well. While some 90,000 American
> troops are drawing down in Iraq, violence still occurs and the peace is
> fragile, in large part due to continuing political reconciliation challenges
> and meddling by Iraq's neighbor, Iran. But Iranian troublemaking is not
> limited to Iraq or Afghanistan; Tehran is unsettling the entire region with
> its belligerency and nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
>
> Indeed, it is very likely that Iran will join the once-exclusive nuclear
> weapons club in the near future, despite its insistence that there is no
> military dimension to its nuclear program. Frankly, there is no reason to
> believe Tehran's assertions, considering the hiding of its nuclear program
> for more than 20 years, a violation of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
> obligations. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is
> still having trouble developing a comprehensive picture of Iran's nuclear
> program. No surprise: The international community continues to discover
> additional undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.
>
> Iran is making matters worse with its ballistic missile efforts, including a
> long-range program that it is operating under the cover of a civilian space
> program. In fact, the Pentagon estimates that Iran will be able to field an
> intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. The IAEA also believes Iran may
> be working on a nuclear warhead to be affixed to one of its growing classes
> of ballistic missiles.
>
> And don't forget that Iran is still the world's most active state sponsor of
> terrorism, providing financial, moral, and military support to a number of
> terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, along with Syria,
> arms both terrorist groups, destabilizing the region and undermining the
> chances for Middle East peace.
>
> *The Western Hemisphere*
>
> Iran has likewise busied itself with affairs in this hemisphere, promising
> to share nuclear technology with Venezuela. It is also believed that Iranian
> special forces are being sent to the Latin American country for unknown
> purposes, but with Caracas's permission, on a regular Venezuela–Syria–Iran
> flight.
>
> And speaking of Venezuela, we should really be concerned about developments
> to the South. Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chávez, is virulently anti-American
> and exporting his socialist agenda across Latin America and the Caribbean by
> bankrolling like-minded political candidates in places like Nicaragua,
> Bolivia, and Ecuador. He is also keeping the Castro regime afloat in Cuba by
> providing cheap oil.
>
> Venezuela has been caught supporting the narco-terrorist group, the FARC,
> which has been waging war with its neighbor Colombia for years and has held
> Americans hostage. Chávez has also been allowing the FARC to traffic
> narcotics across Venezuela for export abroad.
>
> Chávez is also spending billions on arms from Russia in the absence of a
> threat. But most worrisome is his interest in nuclear power, where he is
> seeking assistance from both Russia and Iran, conjuring up the possibility
> of a nuclear threat not far from our shores.
>
> *Korea, China, and Russia*
>
> In Asia, North Korea remains a security wild card. The likelihood of a power
> transition — the first in 15 or so years — from "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il to
> a successor is cause for concern as there could be a power struggle for the
> capital, Pyongyang.
>
> The North maintains a very large army with significant firepower and is not
> afraid to use that firepower, even without provocation, as it demonstrated
> recently by sinking a South Korean ship with a torpedo. A confirmed nuclear
> weapons state since 2006, Pyongyang continues to work on an ICBM program
> that can target American cities.
>
> Equally worrisome on the nuclear front, Pyongyang is willing to proliferate
> its nuclear know-how off the Korean peninsula. In 2007, Israel destroyed a
> Syrian nuclear facility being built by the North Koreans. Some believe that
> such cooperation continues.
>
> China is also a growing challenge as it works diligently to wrest a top spot
> on the big-power stage. While China's economic juggernaut is of concern to
> some, its military buildup may be the most alarming. Today, China may have
> the world's third largest defense budget. While budget comparisons can be
> misleading, there is no question that Beijing has matched its budget growth
> — increasing at a double-digit rate for at least a decade — with
> improvements in the quality of its weaponry.
>
> China has the second largest navy in the Pacific after the United States,
> with expectations of aircraft carriers not far over the horizon. It is also
> developing its air and missile power projection forces as well as
> cyber-warfare and counter-space capabilities, aimed almost exclusively at
> U.S. military operations.
>
> And what about Russia? It is fair to say that Russia has readjusted its
> foreign policy orientation from one that was Western-friendly to one that is
> increasingly nationalistic — even anti-West — and intent on reasserting
> Russia as a great power.
>
> Equally troubling are Russian arms sales to the likes of China, Syria, Iran,
> and Venezuela, which are clearly aimed at complicating America's security
> situation. Moscow has also reportedly cut nuclear power deals with Tehran,
> Damascus, and Caracas.
>
> Moscow will be an increasingly significant player in international politics,
> and while cooperation is possible, there will be issues of critical
> importance on which Russia will not align itself with American interests.
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> Regrettably, the list of challenges does not end there and could include
> such others as the drug war in Mexico, pirates off the Horn of Africa, and
> energy security. As a result, there is no question that we need a strong
> defense and a vigorous foreign policy to protect and advance American
> interests against this litany of challenges and threats. The consequences of
> not providing for our national security are incalculable.
>
>
>
> Topic: Transsexual Freakazoid Is Ruled Both Man and Woman
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 06:37AM -0500 ^
>
> http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/06/transsexual-fre-4.html
>
>
>
> Topic: Hillary moves forward for private weapons ban via UN treaty
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 06:36AM -0500 ^
>
> ACTION ALERT!!! U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban
>
> June 23, 2010 by randyedye
>
>
> http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/06/12/gun-ban-being-cra...
>
> (NATIONAL GUN RIGHTS) The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary
> Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.
>
> The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade
> Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference
> intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping
> Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.
>
> Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the
> conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they
> meet at the full conference.
>
> The stakes couldn't be higher.
>
> Former United Nation's ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners
> about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN "is trying to act as though
> this is really just a treaty about international arms trade
> between nation states, but there's no doubt that the real agenda here is
> domestic firearms control."
>
> Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the
> first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.
>
> The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious,
> anti-gun treaty.
>
> . . .and that's where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.
>
> Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United
> Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.
>
> As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S.
> Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous
> treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms
> owned by private citizens like YOU.
>
> That's why it's vital you sign the special petition I've made up for your
> signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the
> UN's "Small Arms Treaty."
>
> So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their
> new scheme under wraps.
>
> But looking at previous versions of the UN "Small Arms Treaty," you and I
> can get a good idea of what's likely in the works.
>
> Don't let any of the "experts" lull you to sleep by saying "Oh, we have it
> handled" or "Until you know exactly what's in the treaty you can't fight
> against it."
>
> Judging by Ambassador Bolton's comments - who certainly knows what to
> expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests
> the U.N. - we are certain the treaty's going to address the
> private ownership of firearms.
>
> If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate (which is where we
> must ultimately make our stand), the UN "Small Arms Treaty" would almost
> certainly FORCE national governments to:
>
> *** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut
> through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
> *** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all
> firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
> *** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic
> weapons;
> *** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for
> full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition
> to your U.S. Senators before it's too late!
>
> You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
>
> Here's what you can do to help the National Association for Gun Rights
> fight Hillary Clinton and her United Nations cronies:
>
> . Click here and sign our petition to DEMAND that your United States
> Senators vote AGAINST the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.
> . Forward this petition to your friends and relatives who share your
> concern for American sovereignty and protecting our right to keep and
> bear arms.
> . Please consider making a generous contribution to the National
> Association for Gun Rights to help us fight Hillary Clinton and the
> United Nations "Small Arms Treaty."
>
> source
>
> source
>
> Gun Ban Being Crafted in Secrecy
>
> Posted by Admin in News, Other Articles on 06 12th, 2010 | no responses
> Alan Gottlieb Inside The UN To Protect US Gun Rights
>
> CCRKBA's Alan Gottlieb is a Non-Government Organization (NGO) delegate to
> the UN with a mission: KILL ANY SMALL ARMS TREATY LANGUAGE THAT INFRINGES
> ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF AMERICANS.
>
> On June 14-18 Alan is New York at the UN BMS-4 Small Arms and Light
> Weapons meeting to discuss the final details of the Small Arms and Light
> Weapons Treaty. The treaty is not yet written and it is imperative that
> US gun rights and the Second Amendment be protected from international
> regulation.
>
> Alan's wife Julianne H. Versnel, in her international efforts to defend
> gun rights, is also participating and is scheduled to testify at the UN on
> gun control issues relating to the women of the world.
>
> Alan will directly defend in committee all attempts by Obama, Hillary and
> UN delegates from around the world to end run the Second Amendment of the
> United States Constitution.
>
> Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were
> murdered by their own government during the last century - that is 2.6
> million per year even when they have the small arms to defend
> themselves. How many more would have died unable to fight back if we had
> the UN Small Arms Treaty?
> The UN's solution: Take guns from patriot freedom fighters leaving them
> defenseless against notorious totalitarian regimes. The UN cannot
> protect the people of the world from tyrannical governments such as
> Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone all of which
> support the UN Gun Ban Treaty.
>
> If this UN Treaty were in place in 1776 there would be no United States
> and we would still be part of the British Empire. Why does Obama want it
> now? Why take gun rights away from US citizens and leave us
> powerless?
>
> TELL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT GANG WE ARE NOT GIVING UP OUR
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FIGHT
>
> The UN says guns used by insurgents in armed conflicts cause 300,000
> deaths worldwide every year. But not all insurgencies are "bad." To ban
> providing guns to freedom fighters in totalitarian countries is like
> arguing that people do not have the right to defend themselves.
>
> Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and President Obama have said the U.S.
> will commit to and sign the UN Small Arms Treaty that will set the stage
> for foreign gun control laws in the U.S.
>
> Obama is not telling the truth and continues to say "I'm not going to take
> your guns away" and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I think
> people can take me at my word." Yeah right and the government has
> the Gulf Oil Spill under control.
>
> Obama continues to work to keep the UN Treaty cloaked in secrecy, so that
> there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in
> Congress. Take action now, do not wake up one morning and find
> that the United States has signed a UN treaty that:
>
> - Prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.
> - Prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership.
> - Requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local
> government
> collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
>
> This has happened in other countries, and is happening now!
>
> Hillary Clinton and her anti-constitution cronies are partnering up with
> the anti-Second Amendment collaborators of the United Nations to pass "The
> Small Arms Treaty." If this treaty is passed YOUR firearms
> rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated.
> "The Small Arms Treaty" is being touted by liberal gun-grabbers as a
> treaty that will help fight against "terrorism," "insurgency" and
> "international crime rings." The treaty is merely a facade to seize
> control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens.
>
> UN To Confiscate and Destroy "Unauthorized" Small Arms
> The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday,
> law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus
> bureaucracy to obtain a firearm. It is unfathomable that regular
> citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to
> protect us from. "The Small Arms Treaty" will hijack and destroy all
> weapons that are classified "unauthorized." What exactly classifies a
> firearm as "unauthorized" is up to the liberal gun-haters. The treaty
> will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic
> weapons. Clinton, Obama and their anti-liberty commission are also
> calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to
> eventually disarming every American citizen.
>
> CHOOSE TO TELL YOUR SENATORS TO VOTE NO ON RATIFYING "THE SMALL ARMS TREATY"
>
> Conact Jeanne Shaheen and Judd Gregg here.
>
> The globalist gun agenda ultimately seeks to take away not only your
> individual liberties, but also more importantly, your complete autonomy.
> Obama, Hillary and the United Nations conspirators believe that every
> single American is not capable of making their own decisions so they
> want to make them for us. Just like Obamacare, again big bureaucrats
> want to take away your right to live freely without the government
> breathing down your neck.
>
> Now is the time to take action. We can't afford to lose this battle. This
> treaty has to be ratified in the Senate. It ONLY takes 67 members of the
> Senate to ratify and pass this unconstitutional treaty. NOW it is
> time to speak out against "The Small Arms Treaty."
>
> Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437
> and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE
> OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!
>
> CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your
> disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.
>
>
>
> Topic: MORON: Obama's Immigration Chief Orders Release of ALL Violent
> Criminal Illegal Aliens; ICE Agents: "We've Lost America"
>
> Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> Jun 26 06:35AM -0500 ^
>
> http://www.debbieschlussel.com/23516/moron-obamas-immigration-chief-orders-agents-to-free-violent-criminal-illegal-aliens-ends-detention-ice-agents-weve-lost-america/
>
>
>
> June 22, 2010, - 10:54 am
> MORON: Obama's Immigration Chief Orders Release of ALL Violent Criminal
> Illegal Aliens; ICE Agents: "We've Lost
> America"<http://www.debbieschlussel.com/23516/moron-obamas-immigration-chief-orders-agents-to-free-violent-criminal-illegal-aliens-ends-detention-ice-agents-weve-lost-america/>
>
> By *Debbie Schlussel* <http://www.debbieschlussel.com/>
>
> Recently, you may have read reports that Barack Obama's Immigration and
> Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief, John "Moron" Morton, said he may not accept
> illegal aliens detained under Arizona's immigration law. But it gets worse.
> Far, far worse. Moron ordered ICE agents to FREE violent criminal illegal
> aliens until they are convicted at trial . . . a trial to which they will
> never show up (because they were set free to disappear). To that end, he's
> dropped all reference to the word "detention" in an ICE reorganization.
>
> [image: illegalalienssmaller2.jpg][image: johnmortonice]
>
> *Moron: Obama Immigration Chief John Morton Says*
>
> *Set Violent Criminal Illegal Aliens Free on the Streets*
>
> Many agents within ICE tell me they are extremely demoralized because, until
> recently, Morton has instructed them not to detain and lock up illegal
> aliens unless they have a criminal record. But, now, Morton told agents
> that even illegal aliens who are accused of serious crimes, like rape and
> murder, must be set free . . . until they are convicted. Think these
> illegal aliens charged with serious crimes will show up for trial, once
> they've been set free? Think again. This policy is clearly by design, and
> it comes straight from the Obama White House, the agents tell me.
>
> Moreover, many ICE agents sent me a memo (posted later on in this entry)
> which Morton sent out, reorganizing ICE and changing the name of ICE's
> Detention and Removal Operation to "Enforcement and Removal Operations." In
> other words, no more detention. Almost all references to the word
> "detention" are gone. Just more catch and release of illegal aliens. So,
> what's the point of having the I in ICE? I'm not sure, and frustrated
> agents aren't either.
>
> In May, Morton made a visit to the Chicago ICE office. His statements and
> behavior dismayed ICE agents to the point that several of them told me "we
> have lost this country." Here is one account which mirrors what I've heard
> from so many other agents within the floundering agency:
>
> Morton showed up with his posse to visit our sanctuary city. They appeared
> at the Chicago DRO [Detention and Removal Operations] Office inquiring about
> the Secure Community initiative. One ass-kissing ICE lawyer who was part of
> Morton's entourage told the agents they were "NOT" to lodge ICE detainers on
> [arrest and detain] illegal aliens despite the crime UNTIL they were
> actually convicted.
>
> Can you imagine this? An illegal alien commits a rape, and instead of
> placing an ICE hold on this alien, while commencing the deportation process,
> this illegal alien is allowed out and released on bond posted. Do you think
> he'll ever come back and show for his appearance? Ha! He will NEVER be seen
> again.
>
> The agents were shocked. They–ICE chief Morton's people–stated this is
> coming directly from Obama. Do you think they showed up in Chicago for
> nothing…his home town? The agents were all too shocked and scared of
> reprisal. So no one said a thing. There were many people present who
> witnessed the whole thing. They–the agents–felt intimidated by the Moron and
> his staff and were worried for their careers if they asked questions. But
> they were "instructed' not to detain/lodge ICE detainers on illegal aliens,
> regardless of the violent and serious nature of the crime until they are
> convicted. This is ridiculous.
>
> Debbie, I have playing this illegal game now for many years–decades. It is
> IMPOSSIBLE to track aliens and monitor them for criminal convictions, once
> we release them out into the public. My case load is HUNDREDS of illegal
> aliens. HUNDREDS. How in the world can I wait for a conviction, when it is
> so much easier (not to mention they are tracked in detention) to lodge an
> immediate detainer upon arrest of the illegal alien?
>
> This is being done by Obama so this country is brought down and America is
> turned into a Third World country, saturated with illegals. America will be
> Mexico #2 soon, if we do not reverse the flood of illegals. There is no
> question that Barack Obama wants to bring this country down.
>
> We have lost America, Debbie.
>
> Here are the appropriate parts of the memo:
>
> From: ICE-Broadcast
> Sent: Wed Jun 09 15:00:20 2010
> Subject: A Message from Assistant Secretary Morton
>
> A Message from Assistant Secretary Morton
>
> To all ICE employees
>
> June 9, 2010
>
> Internal Realignment of ICE Offices
>
> When I arrived last year as the Assistant Secretary, one of my priorities
> was to improve the management structure of ICE and to give the agency a
> clearer sense of identity and focus. Of particular concern to me was that
> the agency's core operational and management functions were divided among
> many different offices without a clear reporting structure.
>
> After thoroughly reviewing our agency's leadership and reporting structure,
> I have determined that ICE will be able to better fulfill its mission if its
> offices are aligned around its two core operational
> responsibilities–criminal investigation and civil immigration enforcement
> supported by a robust management program. Therefore, I am pleased to
> announce that ICE will now operate through three new directorates—Homeland
> Security Investigations (HSI), *Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)*,
> and Management and Administration. A revised organizational chart is
> attached. . . .
>
> *Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO): ERO will align the existing
> offices in ICE that are primarily devoted to civil immigration enforcement,
> namely the Office of Detention and Removal Operations and the Secure
> Communities program.* This directorate will ensure a coherent and consistent
> approach to civil immigration enforcement in a manner that prioritizes
> convicted criminals, fugitives and illegal re-entrants, and recent border
> violators. The directorate will also oversee the agency's detention system,
> removal flight operations, and efforts to locate aliens subject to criminal
> prosecution for illegal re-entry. James Chaparro will serve as ERO Executive
> Associate Director.
>
> Um, how can you have "secure communities" or any "coherent and consistent
> approach" if you don't detain illegal aliens–especially VIOLENT CRIMINAL
> illegal aliens–when you catch them and merely release them to roam free in
> the great American abyss? *Helloooo . . . .?*
>
> I was extremely critical of ICE under incompetent Bush appointee Julie L.
> Myers a/k/a "The ICE Princess." But while things were incredibly bad under
> her um, "leadership," they're even worse now under Obama's Morton, who
> spends much of his time taking advantage of government paid chauffeurs and
> bodyguards and *spending your tax money feting open
> anti-Semites*<http://www.debbieschlussel.com/18990/ice-honors-a-jew-hater-immigration-sec-john-moron-hangs-w-anti-semite/>.
> Not only did he keep the most incompetent and unworthy Republican/Bush/Myers
> people on, but he added many more incompetents who are even worse.
>
> Say good-bye to America as we know it. The inmates–the illegal aliens–are
> running the asylum. And their leader is John Morton, brought to you by
> Barack Obama.
>
> Attention, Illegal Aliens: this is your time to invade America and roam
> free. Your time to wreak havoc on our nation.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment