Saturday, January 7, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Senator (that may be redundant) was tragically hit by a car and died.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St.. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really?, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St.. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really?, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven...”
So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. "Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell... Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders. "I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil smiles at him and says:
"Yesterday we were campaigning,
Today, you voted.."
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Is THIS how it starts?
CA Judge Deems Ramming Jewish Woman with Shopping Cart ‘Free Speech’
The Blaze
Back in June of 2010 a leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at University of Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. The counter-protest was dubbed “Israel Wants Peace Week.”
Now, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg has deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in protected political speech.
The Greeley Gazette reports:
On Thursday U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.
Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.
“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg stated. “Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum.”Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Seeborg said that much of the conduct involved “pure political speech” that is constitutionally protected even if it “contained language that plaintiffs believe was inflammatory, offensive or untrue.”
Seeborg said some courts have allowed public colleges to outlaw harassing speech and conduct that interferes with students’ rights, but schools have no legal duty to do so. The Muslim organizations receive campus funding on the same basis as other groups, the judge said, and any attempt to withdraw it would raise “serious First Amendment issues.”
The Huffington Post adds:
The suit also alleged this attack was part of a pattern of behavior during Apartheid Week, during which Jewish students were spit on and Israel’s government was equated to that of Nazi Germany.
While the university has previously disciplined some of the event’s participants and even had Husam Zakharia, the student who hit Felber with the shopping cart, arrested in connection with the incident, Felber (who graduated last year) has accused university President Mark Yudof, who is Jewish, of allowing an anti-Semitic environment to flourish on campus.
SJP and Zakharia have been involved in other incidents on campus to incite violence against and intimidate Jewish and other students,” stated the lawsuit. “Defendants knew of this history of incitement and intimidation yet took no reasonable step to adequately control Zakharia or other student members of the SPJ.”
Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer said the judge’s decision affirms that Muslims assaulting Jewish students is now protected speech.
“This is an outrageous decision. The Muslim students were trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Jewish students. The judge says this is a ruling in favor of free speech, but actually the freedom of speech was being infringed and the judge is saying that is ok to protect the freedom of speech of the Muslim students. Don’t the Jewish students have freedom of speech as well?”
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
If it were only lumps of coal...
Michael Oberndorf, RPA Full Story
It’s ironic that Obama-Soetoro should have put so many lumps of coal in American’s Christmas stockings this year, since one of them was EPA regulations designed to kill the coal industry itself.
It’s ironic that Obama-Soetoro should have put so many lumps of coal in American’s Christmas stockings this year, since one of them was EPA regulations designed to kill the coal industry itself.
However, that was but one of many really evil, dangerous, and destructive acts performed this year by the would-be Marxist dictator currently squatting in the White House. In collusion with his stooges in the Senate and the House, he took some giant steps that shredded the Constitution and moved us to the very brink of totalitarian rule.
We'll have no self-defense--and we'll be at the mercy of muslim oil...
Panetta to Unveil Plan to Decimate the Military
By Rick Moran
It was US defense policy for decades that we should have a military capable of fighting one large ground war (formerly in Europe) and a smaller, regional war (Korea) at the same time. This made sense in a bi-polar world where the Soviets were threatening Europe and Asia was a tinderbox. In the early part of this century, Donald Rumsfeld sought to change that strategy - or at least alter its parameters - by emphasizing special forces and intelligence as a means to fight the jihadists. But he still wanted to maintain 11 carrier strike groups and a large, global, air force capable of projecting American power in a very short period of time.
Now comes Obama and Leon Panetta who appear to want to upend the military establishment and, thanks to the inability of congress to agree on budget cuts, slice a trillion dollars out of the defense budget over the next decade while degrading our ability to respond to crisis.
New York Times:
It was US defense policy for decades that we should have a military capable of fighting one large ground war (formerly in Europe) and a smaller, regional war (Korea) at the same time. This made sense in a bi-polar world where the Soviets were threatening Europe and Asia was a tinderbox. In the early part of this century, Donald Rumsfeld sought to change that strategy - or at least alter its parameters - by emphasizing special forces and intelligence as a means to fight the jihadists. But he still wanted to maintain 11 carrier strike groups and a large, global, air force capable of projecting American power in a very short period of time.
Now comes Obama and Leon Panetta who appear to want to upend the military establishment and, thanks to the inability of congress to agree on budget cuts, slice a trillion dollars out of the defense budget over the next decade while degrading our ability to respond to crisis.
New York Times:
In a shift of doctrine driven by fiscal reality and a deal last summer that kept the United States from defaulting on its debts, Mr. Panetta is expected to outline plans for carefully shrinking the military - and in so doing make it clear that the Pentagon will not maintain the ability to fight two sustained ground wars at once.
Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to "spoil" a second adversary's ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.
Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to "spoil" a second adversary's ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.
Pentagon officials, in the meantime, are in final deliberations about potential cuts to virtually every important area of military spending: the nuclear arsenal, warships, combat aircraft, salaries, and retirement and health benefits. With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America's ground forces.
There is broad agreement on the left, right and center that $450 billion in cuts over a decade - the amount that the White House and Pentagon agreed to last summer - is acceptable. That is about 8 percent of the Pentagon's base budget. But there is intense debate about an additional $500 billion in cuts that may have to be made if Congress follows through with deeper reductions.
Much of these cuts would come at the expense of personnel in the form of reduced salaries, health insurance, and retirement benefits. The F-35 stealth fighter is almost certainly on the chopping block, as are plans to replace aging ships with newer models. Reductions in the number of ground forces might be doable if we continue to see China and Russia as, if not friends, then as not quite enemies. But it would take years to grow our ground forces to the point where we could fight a winning war against either of those two potential adversaries - years that we wouldn't have to counter a move by China into Taiwan, or a restless Russia trying to recapture its old empire.
The military budget should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other government spending. And we must carefully and thoughtfully develop a defense strategy that is realistic and prudent. But there is nothing realistic or prudent about cutting a trillion dollars over a decade from our defense budget. It won't make us safer and will make the world a more dangerous place.
Remember how Zero won before...
Americans Elect: Obama's Third-Party Tar PitAnyone with the remotest interest in replacing Barack Obama as America's president in 2012 should take his eyes off Iowa and the boring ups and downs of the race for the Republican nomination.
The real action that may well decide our next president is quietly going on elsewhere, in the state offices that qualify candidates and parties for the November 2012 presidential ballot.
You may not have heard much about a shadowy group called "Americans Elect" (it does not disclose its contributors because of alleged concerns that they might suffer loss of business or social contacts, and because it fancifully but only occasionally declares itself to be a 501[c] [4] tax-exempt organization [though it has qualified as a political party for ballot position in multiple states including Ohio, California, Nevada, and Arizona, which should deprive it of tax-exempt status]). But if you haven't heard of Americans Elect, you soon will.
Given the organization's original moneybags founder and current "chairman," Peter Ackerman (mega-rich Wall Street 2008 Obama supporter), its stated goals, and the nature of American politics, it bids fair to decide who will prevail for the presidency in 2012.
Americans Elect is presently a tax-exempt organization (or a political party, at least in the states where it has qualified for the ballot -- one can't be sure which) with the stated goal of promoting a centrist third-party presidential candidate, to be selected from a nomination process that at least in part winnows candidates through internet voting. It plans to gain access to the ballot in all 50 states, and it has already qualified in multiple states (see above for partial list).
At present, the organization has raised $22M (the first $5M from Wall Street heavy Peter Ackerman, about whom more later), and it is aiming for $35M, the sum its string-pullers believe will be needed to get its candidate on all 50 state ballots.
For a fawning, shallow, and utterly predictable MSM description of the organization and its goals, which takes at face value everything Americans Elect says about itself, check out CNN's 12/29/2011 article.
For an even scarier MSM direct promotion of a group virtually destined to save the nation, see this interview by MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, presenting Americans Elect's Chief Executive Officer Kahlil Byrd (former "communications director" to Massachusetts' left-wing Democrat Governor Deval Patrick).
Interestingly, no candidate has announced his/her intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination, and no political movement is clamoring for such a party. Thus, this so-called third party is a response neither to a specific candidate's presidential aspirations (there is no such candidate) nor to a spontaneous programmatic movement seeking a candidate (again, no such movement exists).
Americans Elect is a political party (but only when seeking ballot qualification; it calls itself a tax exempt 501[c] [4] organization when keeping prying eyes away from its donor list), but a party with no public program, platform, or publicly stated philosophy, and no public donor list -- all of which might help interested parties evaluate it -- nor does it have a candidate or candidates, or even public criteria for selecting candidates.
Its public statements (See Byrd's pronouncements above) suggest that some sort of new-age internet vote-off will determine its presidential candidate, but the organization's bylaws strongly suggest that the Americans Elect board will make the final candidate choice, and that the internet voting prelude is a sham to draw in the unsophisticated.
In short, Americans Elect is like the Republicans and Democrats, but without their scrupulous honesty, openness, and transparency. What's not to like?
This "party" is in fact the reverse of a candidate or a movement -- it is an empty political vehicle formed for a candidate yet to be identified who will agree with the party's program to be determined later. Sound fishy yet?
If I were really paranoid, I would suspect that Americans Elect was a joint creation of the Democratic and Republican Party central commands to make their parties look good by contrast.
Alas, were it only so.
After qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states, Americans Elect will seek a candidate who will be tasked with grabbing a large portion of the independent, unaffiliated American middle and soft center-right, thereby tossing an otherwise lost cause to Obama. It is that simple.
PLEASE READ MORE:
(Ribbet)
Let's all remember the underhandedness by which Obama won his Senate races. This is the same song, second verse. Please read the entire article at the above-mentioned link; I couldn't post the entire piece here...
Monday, January 2, 2012
What Obama's working towards...
The Coming War in AmericaBy Doug Hagmann
As the attention of most Americans was captivated by the shiny object in Times Square this weekend like infants fixated on car keys dangled in front of them, Barack Hussein Obama signed into law H.R. 1540, better known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Regardless of any concurrent executive signing statements that are mere window dressing and not legally binding, Obama and every member of congress who crafted and voted for this act has essentially declared war on American citizens on U.S. soil.
To quote Rush Limbaugh, “words mean things.” As a career investigator, I can assure you that words contained in local, state and federal laws most certainly mean things, and provide the legal authority for conduct sanctioned by national or state authorities without regard to any promised judicial or prosecutorial discretion that could be likened to the signing statement. The NDAA now codifies the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act, which “candidate” Obama publicly opposed. What changed?
Greasing the slope
Any person of reasonable sensibilities should be raising a multitude of questions upon considering the current and historical conduct of the executive and legislative branches of our government. It was the attack on 9/11 that ostensibly paved the way for the Bush administration to craft the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law by congress on October 26, 2001. That legislation broadened law enforcement powers well beyond the rights granted to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. While many of the provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act were scheduled to end on December 31, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill containing numerous changes in July 2005, and the House of Representatives submitted a bill that kept most of the original bill intact. The largely unchanged bill passed congressional vote on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by George W. Bush.
Although the PATRIOT Act has gone through various subsequent incarnations, congress crafted and Obama signed a four-year extension last May, extending certain key provisions that particularly focused on businesses in the U.S. It is important to note that the manner and methods in which the U.S. government interprets and carries out the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are classified and kept secret from the American public, an issue rarely addressed by politicians or pundits. Why the secrecy?
Continuity of agenda
One must also question the obvious continuity of agenda from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, and from the congress seated in 2001 through today. Despite pro-Constitutional campaign rhetoric from both Republicans and Democrats, and the rapid acquiescence of some TEA party candidates who now occupy seats of power, it is obvious that the rights of Americans granted by the very Constitution elected officials swore to uphold are under attack. Why the change? As one looks at the larger picture, pieces of the puzzle seems to become more recognizable.
The move toward globalism
Once thought to be the fanciful designs of the conspiracy minded, there appears to be an acceleration toward one world governance, or the infamous “New World Order.” It is an agenda that has been in place for decades, yet the politically myopic and the agent facilitators deliberately avoid any discussion of its existence. Exposure of this agenda has been hobbled by the merger of major news organizations into a half-dozen corporations who control what is reported. Even many who present themselves as purveyors of the truth decline to discuss the globalist agenda, or are held hostage by big money contracts with editorial stipulations and controls.
While the attacks of 9/11 paved the way for passage of the PATRIOT Act, what could explain the draconian legislation contained in the NDAA of 2012? Looking through the prism of current events, those with intellectual honesty can readily see events unfolding that would create conditions to necessitate its implementation.
Controlled economic collapse
Who could have predicted the economic crisis of 2008, just two months before the U.S. presidential election? Nearly everyone who was aware of the agenda of the global elite. The economic crisis of 2008, an incident which the banking elite used the specter of martial law to fund their global operations, landed a financial sucker punch on every American with the approval of congress. Using such phrases as “too big to fail,” banking giants, facilitated by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury and members of congress knowingly and deliberately defrauded the American public out of trillions of dollars, much of which remains unaccounted for despite dubious internal financial audit reports.
While the corporate media remain lapdogs for the banking and global elite and report recovery on the horizon, the real story has yet to be told by our media and elected officials. There is a controlled demolition of not only our national economy, but the entire world economy. Look at the financial death throes of the European Union, which cannot survive, despite the best fiction from cable news economists hired to hide the truth from the masses. The consequential social upheaval will not be contained to Europe, nor will the economic apocalypse. Due to the Ponzi scheme created by the globalist bankers and government leaders from the Goldman-Sachs bloodline, Americans will find themselves in financial turmoil unseen in modern history.
Perhaps it is for those who cannot seem to take their eyes of the shiny objects, or those who camp out at big box stores for bargains on the latest and greatest electronic gadgets that the NDAA was crafted.
Note: For detailed discussion on the signing of the NDAA, tune in to the new Hagmann & Hagmann Report, broadcast live in audio and video format weeknights from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. ET on the Liberty Broadcasting Network. The new show debuts today. For more information, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
