World News

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

NWO Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle: Federal Judge Permanently Blocks John McCain’s NDAA Military Detention Provision!

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Political Vel Craft

NWO Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle: Federal Judge Permanently Blocks John McCain's NDAA Military Detention Provision!

Federal Judge Katherine Forrest has ruled against President Obama's NDAA appeal issuing permanent injunction against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

Thoughts for Constitution Day

"Looking at the two possible interpretations of what had happened in the United States, either that the Constitution was being blatantly violated or that it indeed allowed for the abusive federal government he saw, Spooner summed up my current attitude: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certainthat it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.""

Thoughts for Constitution Day
By Anthony Gregory
Monday September 17, 2012

By my reading, almost nothing the federal government does is Constitutional. The entire national security state and empire are dubious at best. The welfare state is unauthorized. Nothing in Article I, Section 8, the clause empowering Congress to legislate, gives that body the general authority over education, health care, the environment, most businesses, and most law and order issues. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would mean the immediate abolition of the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, federal immigration controls, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Energy, antitrust regulation, the Food and Drug Administration, NASA, Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, and hundreds of other programs and agencies.

Virtually everything that both Obama and Romney propose to do as president is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Yet this seems not to matter to most Americans. And sadly, it has been this way for a long time. In fact, the first few presidents of the United States violated the Constitution flagrantly. Washington's championing of a National Bank, Adams's Alien and Sedition Act, and Jefferson's embargo and Louisiana Purchase were all on very shaky ground. But the Constitution was at least taken seriously on some theoretical level for most of the nineteenth century. As late as the 1920s, politicians realized they could not simply ban alcohol on the federal level without changing the Constitution with the Eighteenth Amendment. By 1937, no such amendment was even seriously considered for Franklin Roosevelt to ban marijuana. And why would it? The entire New Deal was a war on the Constitution that early on faced resistance from the Supreme Court, which only ultimately caved and supported FDR's power grabs.

Partisans yap about the Constitution, but I don't think they almost ever mean it. During the Bush administration, liberal Democrats attacked the president for unconstitutional searches on citizens without warrants and unconstitutionally depriving prisoners of due process rights in the war on terror. Now that Obama has run with these programs, his comrades have simply shut up about them. When Bush did it it was criminal. When Obama does it it is just playing politics, you see.

Similarly, conservative Republicans talk about Obama's many crimes against the Constitution, yet where were they when Bush expanded Medicare, signed No Child Left Behind, and shredded the Bill of Rights in the undeclared war on terror? Almost everything Bush did was just as unconstitutional as everything Obama does.

It would be easier to count the number of things Congress and the president do that do have some Constitutional legitimacy. They fund and run the Post Office. Senators face election contests every six years. The federal government levies an income tax.

But this raises the question of how great the Constitution is to begin with. It was ratified in 1789 and amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791, after years of revolution against Great Britain over centralized authority, militarized law enforcement, and taxation. Soon after, the DC government cracked down on tax protests and stripped American political enemies of due process rights and the freedom of speech.

The Constitution, indeed, ushered in a far bigger, more powerful, more easily exploitable government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry wanted nothing to do with it. Thomas Jefferson thought it was unnecessary. The document created a powerful president, advocated by quasi-monarchists to resemble the English king, a tyrannical judicial branch, and a powerful Congress with the authority to tax, declare war, create bureaucracies, and suspend habeas corpus, over the wishes of individual states. The so-called Anti-Federalists saw the Constitution as a betrayal of the American Revolution. In many ways, it was.

In short, the Constitution authorized a government worse than what existed before, and in some ways created a system worse than what the American colonists faced under British rule. Yet compared to the Constitution of 1789, the current federal government is still despotic. As I've said before, the Constitution is far from libertarian, but the federal government is far from constitutional.

Lysander Spooner, probably America's greatest nineteenth century libertarian, was very critical of the Constitution, although believed the worst crime against liberty in his time -- slavery -- was illegal even by the imperfect Constitution's standards. I guess that's about how I feel.

Today, many Americans would say that my particular interpretation of the Constitution is both too cynical and too romantic. It is too cynical, presumably, because I see the abuses of liberty so early on in the framing of the document. It is too romantic, I suppose, because I still think today's government is even worse than what the Constitution authorizes. For example, most Americans think plenty of thingsthe president's powers to assassinate anyone he wants, to regulate whatever he desires, to bomb any country his heart is intent on bombing, to use the police power to shape the economy as he wishesare perfectly Constitutional.

Looking at the two possible interpretations of what had happened in the United States, either that the Constitution was being blatantly violated or that it indeed allowed for the abusive federal government he saw, Spooner summed up my current attitude: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certainthat it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

http://blog.independent.org/2012/09/17/thoughts-for-constitution-day/

JP Anti Muslim movie

Dear Users,

For your all information Anti Muslim Movie related to Muslims are still online in Pakistan till Saturday 17-09-2012 at 03:00 PM as PTA claim they have close the 850 links, the said moive is still accessible in Pakistan by youtube. Pls Jang news paper first find the truth then publish the news.

Please stop the same movie in Pakistan.

Regards

Re: Obama's intelligence failure - Opinion

Everyone knew attacks were coming
---
interventionism has it's drawbacks

On Sep 17, 4:23 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/16/obamas-intelligence-f...
> ****
>
> ** **
> Obama's intelligence failure**** Everyone knew attacks were coming but the
> White House****
>
> U.S. Ambassador to the United
> Nations<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>Susan
> Rice is gamely trying to toe the administration line on the attacks
> on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi and Cairo that left four dead including U.S.
> Ambassador to Libya Christopher
> Stevens<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/christopher-stevens/>.
> On Sunday, she said the attacks were "spontaneous – not a premeditated" and
> "in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated." White
> House <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/> spokesman Jay
> Carney <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jay-carney/> earlier claimed
> the attacks were not directed at the United States and cannot be read as an
> indictment of Obama
> administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>policies.
> ****
>
> In fact, the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo were the result of massive
> intelligence failure at the top levels of government. There were many
> indications that extremists were targeting U.S. diplomats in
> Libya<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>and
> Egypt <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypt/> months before this
> year's Sept. 11 attacks. These deadly plans had nothing to do with a
> low-budget, anti-Islamic film. The Obama
> administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>simply
> failed to connect the dots.
> ****
>
> Ambassador Christopher
> Stevens<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/christopher-stevens/>had
> been targeted in Benghazi before. On June 6, a jihadist group called
> the "Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman" set off a bomb on
> the consulate perimeter, wounding one. The attack coincided with Mr.
> Stevens<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/christopher-stevens/>'
> first trip to the country as ambassador – he had arrived May 26 – and he
> was the likely target of the attack, though when the bomb went off he was
> not nearby. According to the SITE monitoring group, the Rahman Brigades
> said they were "targeting a group of 'Christian overseers' who were
> preparing to receive one of the 'heads of instigation' from the State
> Department <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>."
> They were seeking to avenge the death of senior
> Al-Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/>leader
> Abu
> Yahya al-Libi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/abu-yahya-al-libi/>,
> who was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Even though the attack failed, the
> jihadists knew the ambassador was coming.****
>
> The Rahman Brigades is named for the "Blind Sheikh," mastermind of the
> 1993 World
> Trade Center <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/world-trade-center/>bombing,
> who is currently serving a life sentence in the United States. His
> name runs like a current through both the events in
> Libya<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>and
> Egypt <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/egypt/>, and his imprisonment
> is a much more important instigating factor in the violence than the
> scape-goat video the Obama
> administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>has
> fixated on.
> ****
>
> In Benghazi five days after the initial June bombing, the same group
> attacked a car carrying British Ambassador to Libya Dominic
> Asquith<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dominic-asquith/>with
> rocket-propelled grenades, injuring two. The United
> Nations <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/> special
> envoy to Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> was also
> targeted. These strikes were clearly pre-planned. The Rahman Brigades also
> mounted several attacks on the offices of the International Committee of
> the Red Cross<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/international-committee-of-the-...>,
> forcing the ICRC<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/international-committee-of-the-...>to
> suspend its operations in eastern
> Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>. On Aug. 11,
> General Mohammed
> Hadia <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mohammed-hadia/>, a senior
> military official in the new Libyan
> government<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libyan-government/>,
> was gunned down in the city. On Sept. 2, a Libyan
> intelligence<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libyan-intelligence/>officer
> was killed and another wounded in a car-bombing attack in Benghazi.
> Three days before last week's attack that took four American lives,
> Benghazi security official Jamal Mabrouk warned U.S. diplomats that the
> situation there was not safe.****
>
> These are only a few of the numerous violent acts that were being carried
> out in Benghazi prior to the Sept. 11, 2012 uprising. All are based on
> open-source information, and presumably the U.S. intelligence community had
> even more details. Mrs. Rice said the level of security afforded an
> ambassador "depends on the circumstances," but in Benghazi the
> circumstances were dire. Any reasonable person would conclude that city was
> a dangerous place, that U.S. interests were being targeted, that extremists
> groups affiliated with al
> Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/>were
> involved and they knew exactly what they were doing.
> ****
>
> In Cairo, there were also reasons to believe there were endemic threats
> unrelated to the film. Again, the name that keeps popping up is Sheikh Omar
> Abdul Rahman. There had been a sit-in in support of the "Blind Sheikh"
> outside the embassy for 18 months. On July 27, the sheikh's son Abdallah
> Abdel Rahman threatened to organize a blockade of the embassy and to detain
> the Americans inside unless his father was released. Two days later,
> then-president-elect Mohammed Morsi vowed publicly to work to free the
> sheikh, and it will be at the top of his agenda in future meetings with
> President Obama.****
>
> The build-up to the embassy breach ran like clockwork. On Aug. 30, Jamaa
> Islamiya, the terrorist group formerly led by the Blind Sheikh, announced
> that the embassy sit-in was being turned into an active protest. On Sept.
> 4, the Egyptian General Intelligence Service warned all Egyptian security
> agencies of planned attacks against the embassy by a group called Global
> Jihad, which has been active in the Sinai.****
>
> On Sept. 7, an Islamist named Nasser
> Al-Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-qaeda/>posted a
> statement on the Jihadi chat group Shumoukh Al-Islam that the U.S.
> embassy in Cairo should be burned down and everyone inside killed or taken
> hostage in order to bring pressure to bear to release the Blind Sheikh. On
> the day before the embassy assault, several other jihadist groups with ties
> to al Qaeda <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/> –
> including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group and Jamaa Islamiya – echoed this
> threat and called for the release of the Blind Sheikh and all detainees in
> all U.S. detention facilities including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. None of these
> groups made mention of the allegedly offending film.****
>
> The takeaway from this timeline is that the Obama
> administration<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/barack-obama/>was
> blind to the growing threats. The State
> Department <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/> has
> admitted as much. On Sept. 6, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security Overseas
> Security Advisory Council (OSAC) website announced it had "no credible
> information to suggest that al
> Qaeda<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nasser-al-qaeda/>or any
> other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to
> coincide with the upcoming anniversary of Sept. 11." This announcement was
> taken down after the recent attacks took place. Secretary of State Hillary
> Rodham Clinton must explain why this part of the historical record was
> removed and what other incriminating documents have been deleted or
> destroyed.****
>
> The White House <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/> and
> the liberal media want to keep attention focused on the film as a pretext
> for the violence to argue that the protests were spontaneous and not
> directed at administration policy. Yet substantial evidence exists to
> fatally compromise this self-serving narrative. The crisis was building all
> along, but the White
> House<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/>simply
> refused to see it. Mr. Obama's soft spot for Islam became a blind
> spot for American security.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **

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

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

Re: Libyan Attack Sends Obama’s Odds Through the Roof

maybe you'll like this more:

A new Pew Research survey finds that just 26% of those who have
followed news on the attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East
approve of Mitt Romney's comments on the situation, while 48%
disapprove.
In contrast, 45% approve of President Obama's handling of the recent
turmoil, while 36% disapprove.

On Sep 17, 4:34 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Plain Ol......That statement is just out right ignorant.......Come On!
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > American mainstram media have not published this photo of murderers
> > dragging Ambassador Stephens' body through the streets.
> > ---
> > The training Stevens got at the Nat'l War College didn't prove to be
> > very valuable.
>
> > Warmongers Beware!
>
> > On Sep 17, 3:49 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Libyan Attack Sends Obama's Odds Through the RoofWritten by Gary North
> > on September 17, 2012
> > > On the day before the attack on the American embassy in Libya, Obama's
> > odds of re-election on the Intrade betting website were at 57 high. As news
> > of the attack spread, the odds jumped to 65. Then they rose to 67.
> > > American mainstram media have not published this photo of murderers
> > dragging Ambassador Stephens' body through the streets. That might not be
> > good for Obama's re-election campaign.
> > > I searched Google for "Stephens' body" anddragged through streets. I got
> > lots of hits, but none from America's mainstream media.
> > > Themainstream media did cite Hillary Clinton's explanation, as posted on
> > thewebsite of the U.S. State Department. "And when the attack came
> > yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded.
> > Libyans carried Chris' body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and
> > lead other Americans to safety." Americans were deeply moved.
> > > Americans are manipulated and clueless.
> > > Betting statistics have no explanations, but I think it is clear what is
> > at work here. The President is seen as representing the nation to its
> > enemies. An attack on the embassy is perceived, correctly, as an attack on
> > the United States. The representative of the United States government is
> > the President. The psychology is this: "Rally round the flag. The President
> > is carrying the flag."
> > > The announcement by Bernanke of QE3 also had a lifting effect.
> > > The attacks seem to be waning. The odds have begun to fall a little:
> > about one percentage point. But they would have to fall 16 more percentage
> > points, meaning 24%, to get into the 50-50 range. He has not been in this
> > range since late in 2011.
> > > How accurate was Intrade in 2008? Very accurate, and by the day of the
> > election, almost perfect. It called his victory in the Electoral College
> > withinone vote out of 538uncanny.
> > > We read: "There was only one point in mid-September when McCain was
> > actually forecasted to win more electoral votes than Obama. Other than
> > that, Obama enjoyed a sizeable lead for most of the election season. "
> > Obama's oddsjumped in late September.
> > > To see what Obama's odds are today, click the link.Continue Reading on
> >www.intrade.comhttp://
> > teapartyeconomist.com/2012/09/17/libyan-attack-sends-obamas-odds-through-the-roof/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

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