Reply to: comm-677911555@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-05-12, 1:15PM PDT
Barr announces Libertarian White House bid
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.
His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.
Barr said he is not getting into the race to play spoiler or to make a point.
"I've heard from Americans from all walks of life ... they want a choice," he said at a news conference in Washington. "They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us."
"We intend to succeed," he said.
Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.
If he wins the White House, he said he would immediately freeze discretionary spending in Washington. He also would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and consider slashing spending at federal agencies such as the departments of education and commerce — as well as at overseas military bases.
Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism.
Nancy Pelosi has vowed there will never be a wall built. She has for decades hired illegals with stolen social security numbers to work her $20 million Napa winery. So does Dianne Feinstein hire illegals for her San Francisco Hotel. Even after the people said NO to more illegals, Feinstein and Boxer were in the back room with pockets full of Big Ag Biz dirty money working for an amnesty for farm workers. Most of whom will end up on public assistance.
The fight to save our country from the invasion of Mexico and American corporate pillage, a.k.a. sub-prime, will be fought on the local level. Local communities all over the country are fighting the invasion while Bush’s paper trained dem whores work for amnesty.
Hillary Clinton not only wants AMNESTY, she wants CHAIN MIGRATION. CNN reports that chain migration would admit 272 additional illegal family members for everyone handed amnesty, including the bit by bit amnesty called DRIVER’S LICENSES.
Hillary Clinton’s California campaign co-chairman, the virulently racist Mexican supremacist Anthony Villaraigosa has vowed that no laws against illegals will be enforced in Mexican occupied Los Angeles. This city alone spends nearly $40 million per month in welfare to illegals. It also has nearly 1000 Mexican gang related murders that cost the county nearly one million dollars each to prosecute. You’re paying for the lifetime of prison for the illegal Mexican drug murderer afterwards!
1 in 5 births in Sanctuary city of Los Angeles are from illegals. You’re paying for it. It’s 1-10 in the rest of the country.
THE WORK FORCE IN MEXICAN OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES IS NOW 47% LOW WAGE THIRD-WORLDERS, OVERWHELMINGLY MEXICAN! Then take into account the hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Indians that enter this nation with their own extended family to take our high-tech jobs. But if you’ve been to Silicon Valley lately, you’ll find that even gas station jobs go to Indians!
GO ANYWHERE, and you will not hear English being spoken.
These are only a few of the business that hire illegals:
BOETHINGS TREELAND
MacDONALDS
BURGER KING
99 CENT ONLY STORE, all 249 of them
RALPHS
WALGREENS
If you’re disgusted with the Mexican invasion and occupation, copy this and mail to your elected La Raza whore. No she doesn’t give a shit what you think unless you’re a big corporation wanting to depress wages, but at sometime her lies will run out and we will driver her out of office.
OPEN BORDER AMNESTY LA RAZA WHORES are:
Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Obama, McCain, Feinstein, Boxer,
Eshoo, Lofgren, Waxman, Baca, Farr, Sanchez, (add your own)
Then call ICE and report the employer hiring illegals.
To save our country, and doing it without an army all we need to do is put employers of illegals in prison. The illegals will find their way back home and perhaps start demanding NARCOMEX fix their own problems of poverty instead of using the American people as their welfare system!
If you know where suspected illegal aliens work, you can call ICE. You don't have to have any proof they are illegals, just if you SUSPECT. If you suspect your neighbors are illegal aliens, you can call ICE.
NEW YORK TIMES
May 13, 2008
Hundreds Are Arrested in U.S. Sweep of Meat Plant
By SUSAN SAULNY
In the biggest workplace immigration raid this year, federal agents swept into a kosher meat plant on Monday in Postville, Iowa, and arrested more than 300 workers.
The authorities said the workers were suspected of being in the United States illegally or of having participated in identity theft and the fraudulent use of Social Security numbers.
A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not say how many people had been rounded up beyond the initial 300 or whether the management and owners of the plant, AgriProcessors, would face criminal charges.
The plant has 800 to 900 people and is the country’s largest producer of meat that is glatt kosher, widely regarded as the highest standard of cleanliness.
The plant shut temporarily.
The agents set up a perimeter around the 60-acre plant, in northeastern Iowa, and entered on the morning shift, carrying out two search warrants, federal authorities said. An affidavit filed in court before the raid by the Homeland Security Department cited “the issuance of 697 criminal complaints and arrest warrants against persons believed to be current employees” and to have acted criminally.
The affidavit said a former plant supervisor had told investigators that a methamphetamine laboratory had operated at the plant and that some employees had carried weapons to the plant. The former supervisor, the affidavit said, estimated that 80 percent of the employees were in the United States illegally.
A spokesman for Representative Bruce Braley, Democrat of Iowa, said the number of arrests was expected to increase, perhaps even double, as the investigation continued.
Federal officials leased an expansive fairground area in nearby Waterloo to process and house the arrested workers. Among people at the fairgrounds and in Postville, “there is a lot of fear,” said Prof. Mark A. Grey, who focuses on immigration at the University of Northern Iowa.
“It’s absolutely devastating to the local economy,” Professor Grey said.
In a news release, Matt M. Dummermuth, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, called the sweep “the largest operation of its type ever in Iowa.”
Federal authorities have been conducting workplace raids across the country in recent years, with the pace accelerating since the failure of immigration legislation last year in Congress.
The raid had been planned for months and was conducted in coordination with local law enforcement, according to the news release, released jointly by Claude Arnold, special agent in charge for the ICE regional office in Bloomington, Minn.
Calls to AgriProcessors, a global giant in the kosher meat market and the major employer in Postville, a town of 2,200 people, were not answered. A lawyer for the plant did not return a call.
According to a company Web site, Aaron Rubashkin, whose family controls the plant, bought a defunct meat factory in Postville in 1987 and turned it into the present plant.
According to Menachem Lubinsky, the editor of Kosher Today and a marketing consultant, AgriProcessors provides 60 percent of the kosher retail meat and 40 percent of the kosher poultry nationally, and most retail chains depend on it for supply. Mr. Lubinsky said the company was also the sole American packing plant whose products are accepted in Israel.
The raid was not the first moment in the national spotlight for the plant. In 2004, it was asked to change its slaughtering methods after an animal rights group secretly documented workers cutting the throats of living steers and letting them bleed to death.
The company has also been a target of environmental pollution complaints.
.....................................
WhistleBlower
May 2006 – ALIEN NATION: Secrets of the Invasion – Why America's government invites rampant illegal immigration
It's widely regarded as America's biggest problem: Between 12 and 20 million aliens – including large numbers of criminals, gang members and even terrorists – have entered this nation illegally, with countless more streaming across our scandalously unguarded borders daily.
The issue polarizes the nation, robs citizens of jobs, bleeds taxpayers, threatens America's national security and dangerously balkanizes the country into unassimilated ethnic groups with little loyalty or love for America's founding values. Indeed, the de facto invasion is rapidly transforming America into a totally different country than the one past generations have known and loved.
And yet – most Americans have almost no idea what is really going on, or why it is happening.
While news reports depict demonstrations and debates, and while politicians promise "comprehensive border security programs," no real answers ever seem to emerge.
But there are answers. Truthful answers. Shocking answers.
In its groundbreaking May edition, WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine reveals the astounding hidden agendas, plans and people behind America's immigration nightmare.
Titled "ALIEN NATION," the issue is subtitled "SECRETS OF THE INVASION: Why government invites rampant illegal immigration." Indeed, it reveals pivotal secrets very few Americans know. For example:
Did you know that the powerfully influential Council on Foreign Relations – often described as a “shadow government" – issued a comprehensive report last year laying out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter"?
Roughly translated: In the next few years, according to the 59-page report titled "Building a North American Community," the U.S. must be integrated with the socialism, corruption, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. As Phyllis Schlafly reveals in this issue of Whistleblower: "This CFR document asserts that President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' and assigned 'working groups' to fill in the details. It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American Summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet 'vigilantes' on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona."
The CFR report – important excerpts of which are published in Whistleblower – also suggests North American elitists begin getting together regularly, and presumably secretly, "to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations." The Bilderberg and Wehrkunde conferences are highly secret conclaves of the powerful. For decades, there have been suspicions that such meetings were used for plotting the course of world events and especially the centralization of global decision-making.
Did you know that radical immigrant groups – including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and the National Council of La Raza (La Raza) – not only share a revolutionary agenda of conquering America's southwest, but they also share common funding sources, notably the Ford and Rockefeller foundations?
''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. So why would the Rockefeller and Ford foundations support such groups? Joseph Farah tells the story in this issue of Whistleblower.
Why have America's politicians – of both major parties – allowed the illegal alien invasion of this nation to continue for the last 30 years unabated? With al-Qaida and allied terrorists promising to annihilate major U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, with some big-city hospital emergency rooms near closure due to the crush of so many illegals, with the rapid spread throughout the U.S. of MS-13, the super-violent illegal alien gang – with all this and more, why do U.S. officials choose to ignore the laws of the land and the will of the people to pursue, instead, policies of open borders and lax immigration enforcement?
The answers to all this and much more are in Whistleblower's "ALIEN NATION" issue.
Is there hope? Or is America lost to a demographic invasion destined to annihilate its traditional Judeo-Christian culture, and to the ever-growing likelihood that nuclear-armed jihadists will cross our porous borders and wreak unthinkable destruction here?
There most definitely is hope, according to this issue of Whistleblower. Although most politicians of both major political parties have long since abdicated their responsibility for securing America's borders and dealing effectively with the millions already here illegally, there are a few exceptions – most notably Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.
May's Whistleblower includes an exclusive sneak preview of Tancredo's forthcoming blockbuster book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security." In an extended excerpt, Whistleblower presents Tencredo's expert and inspired analysis of exactly how to solve the nation's most vexing problem.
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE MEXICAN CONTEMPT FOR AMERICANS, NOT ONLY FOR OUR BORDERS, FLAG, LAWS BUT FOR EVERYTHING GRINGO!
“La Raza” means THE RACE. MEXICANS ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE OUT THERE.
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writer
Saturday, June 16, 2007
(06-16) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger knew he was setting himself up for plenty of criticism when he urged Latinos to "turn off the Spanish television set" in order to learn English faster, but it was a briar patch the Austrian immigrant was happy to leap into.
Speaking to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention in San Jose Wednesday night, the governor, relaxed and seated in a chair on stage, answered questions for more than 40 minutes on Latino-oriented issues ranging from immigration to education. Late in that session, he was asked what could be done to help Latino students, many new to the country, pass the newly required high school exit exams.
FORTY PERCENT OF THE STUDENT BODY IN CALIFORNIA CAN NOT SPEAK ENGLISH.
He talked at first about providing more tutors and after-school help to improve their English-language skills, but then suggested that the ability of many California Latinos to lead their daily lives -- shopping, watching television, reading newspapers, speaking with friends -- almost entirely in Spanish was making it harder for them to learn English.
"This is politically not the correct thing to say, but here I am, getting myself into trouble,'' Schwarzenegger said, anticipating the furor he was creating. "But I know that when I came to this country, I ... very rarely spoke German to anyone.''
The governor admitted that his experience as a young, single man moving into an area where German speakers were few and far between was very different from a Spanish-speaking family living in an established Latino community like East Los Angeles, because he was forced to speak English.
But the governor quickly found himself under attack, both for his message and for its timing. When Schwarzenegger acknowledged that it was difficult for Spanish-speaking Latinos to find the time to perfect their English skills as quickly as possible, Pilar Marrero, a columnist for La Opinion, a Spanish-language newspaper in Los Angeles, said, "They're busy working; they don't have time to learn.'' BUSY WORKING STEALING CARS AND SPRAY PAINTING THE SIDES OF BUILDINGS. I’VE SEEN ILLEGALS HERE FOR DECADES THAT CAN’T SPEAK ENGLISH NOR CAN THEIR CHILDREN!
Schwarzenegger's statement was "both insensitive and irresponsible,'' said John Ramirez, a professor of media studies at Cal State Los Angeles. "This is a very scary and dangerous time because of the growing anti-immigration sentiment, which is all the more reason for the governor of California to be a little more sensitive.'' WHERE’S THE MENTION OF THE GROWING LA RAZA, THE RACIST MEXICAN PARTY’S SENTIMENT THAT THE AMERICAN SOUTH WEST ACTUALLY BELONGS TO NARCO-MEX?
The U.S. military has their own network of radars looking over the U.S. borders, and out over the ocean (NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer to be able to get information on incoming flights from overseas, but if they see a target over international waters headed toward the U.S., without flight plan information, they will call on the "shout" line to the appropriate Center sector for an ID. Sector 66 might get a call to ID a radar target, and if 66 has no datablock or other information on it, the military will usually scramble an intercept flight. Essentially always they turn out to be private pilots ("VFR") not talking to anybody, who stray too far outside the boundary, then get picked up on their way back in. But, procedures are procedures, and they will likely find two F-18's on their tail within 10 or so minutes.
For the controller, the scrambles are treated like most other flights, with normal handoffs and altitude assignments, though they are given direct routes to the target. Center controllers handle the intercept, except in unusual situations, after being shown the target (or general area) by the NORAD controller. The Center controller just gives them a heading toward the area, and usually whatever altitude the intercept flight requests. When the flight leader acquires the target on radar or visually, they just take over the remainder of the intercept, and call you back when they're done and need a clearance back to their base.
"Done" doesn't mean they shoot them down, but rather they have identified the aircraft as a frightened private pilot, or possible drug smuggler, and NORAD has decided to let the Coast Guard take over the tracking and/or following. Or, they just record the tail number and send a letter to the plane owner telling them to be careful!
http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm
“Prior to 11 September 2001, our air defense posture was aligned to counter the perceived external threats to North America air sovereignty—-we considered flights originating domestically as “friendly by origin.” Within this context, our aerospace warning and control missions were oriented to detect and identify all air traffic entering North American airspace, and if necessary, intercept potentially threatening inbound aircraft." -- General Eberhart
Changes to NORAD defense strategy as a result of Sept. 11:
For the first time in history, NATO radar planes from the 19-member alliance -- countries such as England, Germany and France -- are patrolling U.S. skies to assist NORAD's AWACs.
Air Force generals have been authorized to shoot down hijacked commercial jets threatening U.S. cities without consulting the president first.
NORAD now monitors 40,000 daily flights, adding domestic flights to the 7,000 international flights it formerly tracked.
New computers in NORAD headquarters Command Center identify every internal North American flight.
Federal Aviation Administration officials moved into the Command Center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., to liaise round the clock with NORAD.
Now 100 fighter jets stand on constant alert as opposed to 14 in North America prior to Sept. 11.
No in flight problem is considered routine. Fighter jets now scramble to "babysit" suspect aircraft several times daily as opposed to one or so a week before the attacks.
I swear I have never seen so many words not say a damn thing....
But I gotta applaud your convince of measure...
here's Wall Street Journal reporting that the majority of the "sampled' economists say demand is what is causing higher prices, not the mythical evil oil companies. So you try to muddy the water with your babbling...insinuating that you apparently have a professional economics background superior to the WSJ.
Just like when you knew more about the climate then those scientists and climatologists that don't buy your green 'group-think'. So when you goto lunch do you have to get a seat for that ego too?
But whats even funnier is that you'll believe a sample of scientists when they say you are the cause of climate change ...you jump right on board, ...amazing.
J Madison:
Whether Republicans or Democrats care to understand the TRUE underlining causes for the dramatic rise in Oil costs, whether their arguments are based on barrel cost or pump price; There are actually only a few legitimate factors that remain a constant.
1. The fall of the Dollar.
---
This is the NUMBER 1 cause of the price of oil going up. Oil is benched marked on the value of the dollar. When Bill Clinton was the President the dollar was super strong. We were paying back into the deficit.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
Even a couple of years into the Bush presidency the dollar was strong and oil was cheap. Oil was close to dropping to 12 dollars a barrel.
Bush policies completely unchecked by both the house and the senate, led to tax breaks for the supremely wealthy. This caused a failure to pay into our deficit, and an increase of our deficit. Many contracts were made nobid, and earmarks and bridges to no where went everywhere. Our deficit was growing. This was before Iraq. This continued even after Iraq. All these tax breaks for the wealthy and a failure to pay into the deficit leads to a weak dollar.
J Madison:
2. The Global Market (not to be incorrectly taken as a value of economic theory of supply and demand).
---
You make a statement. The Global market includes speculation. Speculation is based on instability in the oil supply. For instance, when Bush Senior led a true coalition of world forces against Iraq, people were worried about the oil supply, and the price of oil jumped drastically. After the war we now knew this would happen if a Middle East country was invaded. When we pulled out, the price of oil dropped. These are facts. It was seen similar during the Yom Kippur war as well as the Iran/Iraq war.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
J Madison:
3. Yet, supply and demand, based on emerging countries demand for oil, such as India and China, certainly is a huge factor on OPEC'S maximization of profits.
---
Actually, supply and demand does not play a huge part of in the issue right now. OPEC and the world supply of other countries have enough to produce enough oil; they keep things lean to prevent price drops. It is an artificial and not true supply problem.
J Madison:
4. Hostile Dictatorships such as Hugo Sanchez and those that control Russia's Oil Ministry drive up cost simply based on their hatred of America and its pro capitalist economic policies.
---
False. This is an opinion statement and has little facts behind it. Please feel free to back this statement with facts up or STFU about it.
J Madison:
5. The fact that since 1981, not one new refinery has been built in The U.S.
---
Correct. Refineries have been shut down as the gasoline makers and oil refiners
consolidate and make refineries more efficient. They are the ones who build refineries. There are places and locations in the US they can build refineries but they choose not to do so. Why? It is because the oil refiners like a LEAN supply of gasoline. Gasoline makers know that if there is an artificial supply problem they can raise prices. They have NO motivation to make new oil refineries and have chosen that route on purpose. Why make refineries if it makes them more money to not have a billion dollar refinery built?
J Madison:
6. The environmentalists who stall any new proposals for drilling. This includes not only ANWR, but offshore drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts with respect to the continental shelves.
---
I will grant you that having a larger domestic supply would keep more profits in the United States, but it would not grant us independence from world oil.
Anwr has been shown not to have enough in it to make it financially viable. The only advantage of going into ANWAR right now, would be because the price is so high and it would maximize profit for the oil conglomerates.
O.P.E.C. can just lower output, and keep prices high.
J Madison:
7. Federal and individual state levied taxes. To include different formulas based on horsehit emission outputs and therefore the very few and outdated refineries that still exist in The U.S., continually have to calibrate barrel by barrel, so as to meet state guidelines.
---
Yes, those roads we drive on need to be paid for some how. Why not with gasoline taxes? I know what SMOG is, being a southern Californian native all my life. Those are not horsehit emission outputs. They work and our smog problem has been made better. I am sorry if you don't like clean air. I want my children to have clean air.
J Madison:
8. Congress, whether Republican controlled or now Democratically controlled; Their hypocrisy that stems from all of them beholden to their constituents. This includes voters, corporations, lobbyists, PAC'S, Coalition Groups, and their own greed. Greed that each and every one of them campaigns to fight against, yet pass legislation in the form of add-ons to bills that benefit their re-election campaigns. Worse yet, is those like Feinstein and Boxer who sell us out to China for the benefit of their Husband’s businesses, yet claim to champion the middle class.
---
Well your argument has drifted from oil prices to partisan hate. You also make the claims that each party is equally corrupt. You don't offer solutions but you do decide to point out people on the opposite side of your personal partisan aisle. I also disagree with you on who is more corrupt right now. Republicans had absolute power for 6 years. Enough said.
J Madison:
9. The unwillingness of Congress to do anything short or long term. Rather than propose even the most ridiculous solution, they would rather propose nothing and blame the person or administration for their own greed and lack of vision.
---
Well the oil industry knows how to spend its millions to lobby the presidency. Energy conglomerates did put in an energy president into the Whitehouse after all. It has paid dividends. Guess how much the oil refiners are donating to the current election funds of McCain.
J Madison:
10. This is strictly a Liberal factor, but it is nonetheless a HUGE FACTOR! This factor is in addition to #9, but it is directly related.
---
Yawn. Actually, we are talking about oil prices. Remember. Your hatred and emotions have taken you off topic.
J Madison continues:
THE LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY IS ONE OF, "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!" THEIR SOLUTION OF BIO-FUELS HAS ONLY DRIVEN UP THE COST AND HAS CREATED A GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS.
---
Food cycles go in 5 year patterns. Right now we are on the up side. I do agree that biofuel sources include corn and other grains to make ethanol. The Bush Administration championed this 4 to 6 years ago. Go ahead and look it up. Try to keep up with who sponsors what. It was not Liberals.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200204/24_steilm_bushvisit-m/
True liberals use diesel engines converted to use old cooking oil from eating establishments who normally throw the old cooking oil out. Most Liberals who are educated don't like the use of ethanol because it actually increases green house emissions.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17129156/site/14081545/
In any case, foods need to be transported. That cost money due to the price of oil and gasoline. So your biofuel story has validity, but it is the price of food transportation and not President Bush's encouragement of corn to ethanol refineries that have hiked up the price of food.
J Madison continues:
Liberals seem to believe that they can continually get away with blaming everyone else without providing a short term and long term solution. Pass the buck, right?!
---
Actually, I saw you doing a lot of emotionally based blaming. I decided to use things called facts.
J Madison continues:
Even Hillary claimed that if elected, she could single handily bring oil back down to $2.00 a gallon. Of course, she never actually presented a detailed plan.
---
Make the dollar stronger is her plan. Pull the troops out to decrease instability in the Middle East lowers prices. Stop wasting money, on our occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, will make the dollar stronger. Reinstating taxes on the filthy rich to pay into the deficit will make the dollar stronger as well. This all lowers oil prices.
J Madison continues:
MOREOVER!...Do Liberals understand how Government works? I'm sorry, but the question was rhetorical. It's unfortunate that Pelosi and the Democratically controlled Congress has been elected my morons who subscribe to the same IDIOT'S GUIDE TO FAILURE!"
---
Did you know that Liberal voters usually have a higher education? This is rhetorical. We know you don't. (See it is easy to insult.) I find it rather strange that you call the higher educated morons.
J Madison continues:
Let me refresh the morons....Congress creates legislation and approves it, only then after it passes many revisions, does it even get to the President's desk or in this case, Mr. Bush.
---
So did those 6 years of absolute Republican rule, and blank check ideas of Republicans make this country into a better place or worse place since Clinton?
Rhetorical question. Benchmarks show Republicans screwed things up.
This is a direct quote from Bush in 2005:
"Biodiesel is one of our nation's most promising alternative fuel sources. And by developing biodiesel, you're making this country less dependent on foreign sources of oil."
You fucking conservatives make me laugh. I mean really. Can you show me one reliable source showing Democrats have blocked any significant oil drilling besides ANWR? If ANWR was used to meet 100% of US demand, we are talking about a 2 year supply.
Your ridiculous post succesfully demonstrated that you have no understanding of the issue. Congratulations, you're an idiot.
We're participating here in a tweak of the media. Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. "Every year from 1999 to 2005, the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states," this is from the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And the title of the piece here is, "How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council," and there are 57 of them. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?...
Related Stories
Ex-officials: Bush admin. ignored Iraq corruption
US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,076
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees.
Arthur Brennan, who briefly served in Baghdad as head of the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency last year, and James Mattil, who worked as the chief of staff, told Senate Democrats on Monday that their office was understaffed and its warnings and recommendations ignored.
Brennan also alleges the State Department prevented a congressional aide visiting Baghdad from talking with staffers by insisting they were too busy. In reality, Brennan said, office members were watching movies at the embassy and on their computers. The staffers' workload had been cut dramatically because of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's "evisceration" of Iraq's top anti-corruption office, he said.
The State Department's policies "not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government," Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
The U.S. embassy "effort against corruption - including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency - was little more than 'window dressing,'" he added.
Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration takes the issue of corruption seriously and pointed to its recent appointment of Lawrence Benedict as coordinator for anti-corruption initiatives at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Benedict's appointment "is another demonstration that we are working at very senior levels to help the Iraqis deal with this issue," Casey said. "Any assertion that we have not taken this issue seriously or given it the attention it deserves is simply untrue."
The Office of Accountability and Transparency, or "OAT" team, was intended to provide assistance and training to Iraq's anti-corruption agencies. It was dismantled last December, after it alleged in a draft report leaked to the media that al-Maliki's office had derailed or prevented investigations into Shiite-controlled agencies.
The draft report sparked hearings in Congress and prompted a showdown between Democrats and senior State Department officials on whether the public has a right to know the extent to which al-Maliki was involved in corruption cases.
Brennan charges the State Department never responded to his team's report, which was retroactively classified because agency officials said it could hurt bilateral relations with Iraq. Other recommendations by the group also were kept secret, including a negative assessment of Iraq's Joint Anti-Corruption Committee, Brennan said.
In July 2007, the OAT team concluded that the committee's only purpose was to provide a forum for complaints against Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, a top anti-corruption official in Baghdad whom many U.S. officials have hailed as the most effective in exposing fraud and abuse.
But information later released by the embassy ignored the team's assessment and ultimately "failed to even mention what a disaster" the committee "really was," Brennan said.
Brennan said he approved the embassy report against his better judgment but later regretted it.
Mattil, who worked with Brennan, made similar allegations. Specifically, he said the U.S. "remained silent in the face of an unrelenting campaign" by senior Iraqi officials to subvert Baghdad's Commission on Public Integrity, which had been led by al-Radhi. Then, the U.S. turned its back on Iraqis who fled to the United States after being threatened for pursuing anti-corruption cases, he said.
"Since we have done so little (to undercut corruption), it's easy to see why the government of Iraq has not done more," said Mattil, who left the accountability office last October after having served for a year as its chief of staff. "We have demanded no better."
Brennan was appointed as OAT director last summer and arrived in Baghdad in July. He left only a few weeks later after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. He stepped down from his position in August.
Iraqi government officials could not be reached for comment.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, head of the Democratic Policy Committee, said the testimony was critical in light of upcoming legislation that would appropriate more than $170 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate Appropriations Committee, of which Dorgan is a member, is expected to approve the legislation Thursday.
"It is a cruel irony if we are appropriating money next Thursday or did appropriate money last month or last year and that money ends up actually providing the resources for an insurgency in Iraq which ends up killing Americans," said Dorgan, D-N.D.
"[And why aren't you on the other side of the world stopping them?]"
Because I'm on this side of the world fighting your ignorance and support of thes islammo-fascist terrorist...But a fair question is why aren't you over there fighting wit hezbollla?
Are corporations protected by the constitution? They aren't US Citizens so I don't see why their bribery (in my personal views) should be protected by our constitution. Though as you said I'm sure constitutional scholars may disagree with me as well. What makes one a citizen don't you have to be a citizen to be protected by the constitution? I suppose groups of citizens form a corporation so the lobby money is protected as being the groups free will to give money?
"In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America."[4]
This is to clear up the confusion of the reply that says NORAD is not here to control our airspace... I don't want to get into semantics but I'm not sure what you meant as far as "control"... NORAD is here to protect our airspace and they did not do that on 9/11.
This bill created by democrats wants to allocation billions of taxpayer funds to bail out individuals who basically bit off more they can chew it attempts to prevent foreclosure on homes across the county. Rep. Neugebauer from Texas brings up a valid point “The American people don’t want to make their neighbor’s payment when they’re having trouble making their own”, which is precisely what this bill would do. Assuming the bill passes, and homeowners are pulled from the brink of defaulting on their mortgage loan, what makes anyone think these people will be able to afford the TAXES on their homes if they can’t afford the home itself? At which point where they default on paying their taxes, they will again face foreclosure. Then what democrats? Or don’t you think that far ahead? If it’s not the house payment it will be the taxes on the house payment that these people will more than likely default on. I happen to work at a law office that specialize in this area of law and thus see this scenario on a daily basis. The point remains that they cannot afford to live in the lifestyle they have chosen and thus should more than likely downgrade or downsize their spending to accommodate their income; rather than require the federal government to bail them out at taxpayer’s expense...
Okay, this isn't a nasty post... but I am curious: Why do you still support her? Why, at this point, does anyone? She appears to be doing a scorched-earth strategy in her run - making sure that Obama is as damaged as possible going in the the general election...
What about Hillary motivates you to this level of support? I am genuinely curious.
His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.
Barr said he is not getting into the race to play spoiler or to make a point.
"I've heard from Americans from all walks of life ... they want a choice," he said at a news conference in Washington. "They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us."
"We intend to succeed," he said.
Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.
If he wins the White House, he said he would immediately freeze discretionary spending in Washington. He also would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and consider slashing spending at federal agencies such as the departments of education and commerce — as well as at overseas military bases.
Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism.
Yes, but at least I have a handle. I encourage you to simply skip my posts if you find them without merit. Similarly, I encourage you to adopt a nick of your own so I can likewise ignore your posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: comm-677882529@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-05-12, 12:58PM PDT
Hi there--
If you are not a Hillary supporter, then please stop reading here--I'm not looking for any nasty responses.
I was just called by one of Hillary's volunteers today asking if I would like to come to Oregon to help campaign for Hillary. I told her I would absolutely love to--but I am flat-broke (I've donated to her twice already) and there's no way I could afford the cost of gas to get there and back.
So I'm asking if anyone who might be interested in doing this but might not be able to take the time off of work I could go as your "surrogate" and you'd be able to say that you were a part of history :-)
This is not a scam in any way--I'm simply looking for gas money and nothing else. I just want to help Hillary since the race is so close. And if anyone else would like to come, I have a tiny 1998 pick-up truck that would fit one other person :-)
I was just called by one of Hillary's volunteers today asking if I would like to come to Oregon to help campaign for Hillary. I told her I would absolutely love to--but I am flat-broke (I've donated to her twice already) and there's no way I could afford the cost of gas to get there and back.
So I'm asking if anyone who might be interested in doing this but might not be able to take the time off of work I could go as your "surrogate" and you'd be able to say that you were a part of history :-)
This is not a scam in any way--I'm simply looking for gas money and nothing else. I just want to help Hillary since the race is so close. And if anyone else would like to come, I have a tiny 1998 pick-up truck that would fit one other person :-)
Well, this is a sticky issue - one that has gotten McCain into some trouble.
At the core of it is this notion that money in politics is an expression of first amendment rights - and so any restriction of money flowing into politics is a violation of the constitution. This seems highly selective to me, but many constitutional scholars would disagree.
It does seem apparent that money flowing they way it does by its nature corrupts our elected officials - and this is not a party exclusive idea. Both parties feed pretty heavily at the trough of lobbyists, many of whom represent some pretty unsavory folks. McCain/Feingold, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain_feingold) took some steps to remove the big money from politics - it was half hearted at best and made many hard-core conservatives (not to mention the lobbying firms) very unhappy.
I, personally, am for much greater restriction on lobbying and campaign finance for both parties - and I think that I'm not alone. Alas - money talks and most everything else sucks wind. So it goes.
Nooottt. too sure when you got appointed spokesman, love your enthusiasm but...
"we have a few trolls on this list that just hurl insults and threats from the right, and never adopt a nick or handle so we can just avoid their idiotic posts"
Lets not forget the threats and insults from the left as well..be sure to fill him in on your "skyfairy, banjo-pickin jethro" insults you love to hurl...
Most folks here are just mindlessly partisan. It seems that the few that are not just knee-jerk partisans are largely liberals, but we have a few thoughtful conservatives posting here. A few. Hell, I don't even think Mikey P is a full-on knee-jerk democrat (I know that I'm not!)
That's the problem: Neither party really has all the answers; Smart folks see that. Add to that, we have a few trolls on this list that just hurl insults and threats from the right, and never adopt a nick or handle so we can just avoid their idiotic posts.
I swear I have never seen so many words not say a damn thing....
But I gotta applaud your convince of measure...
here's Wall Street Journal reporting that the majority of the "sampled' economists say demand is what is causing higher prices, not the mythical evil oil companies. So you try to muddy the water with your babbling...insinuating that you apparently have a professional economics background superior to the WSJ.
Just like when you knew more about the climate then those scientists and climatologists that don't buy your green 'group-think'. So when you goto lunch do you have to get a seat for that ego too?
But whats even funnier is that you'll believe a sample of scientists when they say you are the cause of climate change ...you jump right on board, ...amazing.
It's been two weeks since my last Starbucks coffee.
Admittedly, I am one of those who don't think twice about dropping $4 for a cup of coffee that costs less than $.50 to make. I am a self-proclaimed coffee house junkie and need that wonderful yuppie, intellectual "atmosphere" and freshly brewed aroma as much as the caffeine.
When I moved to D.C. right out of college, I encountered my first Starbucks drink, or should I say "experience"? Growing up in a military family, I loved chain restaurants because of the sense of familiarity they offered in every new town we moved to. So, to be able to get the same type of specialty coffee – grande, iced, skim, sugar-free vanilla, latte – everywhere, was an addiction waiting to happen.
Fast forward four years, and about 800 lattes later – I'm a Starbucks addict!
When a report came out earlier this year showing that none of Starbucks' charitable contributions went to conservative causes, I didn't blink -- I bought a latte. When I walked by a liquor store in Northeast D.C. with a big advertisement for Starbucks liquor, I kept walking, stopped in at Starbucks and bought a latte! When I was at work a couple weeks ago, reading an e-alert from our California organization (yes, latte in hand), I finally had a wake-up call.
The alert described the annual "gay" pride events which are scheduled in San Diego each year:
San Diego's annual "Pride" events include dangerous "circuit" parties, a parade with sexual content and sponsors along the route, including one advertising anal lubricants, a festival with sexually oriented venues.
OK, yes, that is all pretty disturbing, but daily, I read, write about and edit papers dealing with the homosexual agenda, so I was not at all shocked that this was going on. I was a little upset when I read that Starbucks was a sponsor. I took a sip of my latte as I read on:
In addition, the "festival" includes a "Youth Hangout Space" and a "Children's Garden." Not only is there concern about young people being part of sexually oriented events and venues, but two members of San Diego's Gay Pride organization's volunteer staff have been exposed as registered sex offenders who committed sex crimes against children.
OK – STOP, WAIT A MINUTE AND PUT THAT CUP OF COFFEE DOWN!
Not only is Starbucks sponsoring "Pride" week, but an event that places innocent children in the middle of sexually explicit materials ... and registered child molesters will be there running the show? If Starbucks is doing this knowingly, it is blatant irresponsibility, and if they are doing it unknowingly, it is irresponsible of them not to have done their homework. I started pacing back-and-forth, and all I could think was "Starbucks hates children."
For the first time, I stepped away from my latte, faced my denial about this company and started to do some serious soul searching – I needed to find out what they really supported. Fortunately, I didn't have to search very long because I have the Internet at my fingertips and one of the nation's top experts, Robert Knight, just down the hall from me.
Less than 30 minutes of research revealed the following:
* Robert Knight told me that about 10 years ago, Starbucks started sponsoring these types of events, but backed off when conservatives started putting on the pressure. He explained that it is apparent they are slowly working their way back into the "gay" movement.
* Starbucks is listed on the Planned Parenthood website under this introduction:
The following companies all generously match employee donations to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. If your employer is on this list, then you can make your gift go as much as twice as far.
* Seattle, Wash., held "Gay Pride" events last month where, according to the newspaper, Seattle Post Intelligence Reporter:
About 75 Starbucks employees will march in the parade and will wear T-shirts in rainbow colors with the word "PRIDE" on the front ... A van from the coffee company will follow them. On Capitol Hill tomorrow, Starbucks employees at the company's three stores there will pass out samples of Mint Mocha Chip Frappuccino.
The marketing director for Starbucks in Washington explained: "We're committed to supporting things that matter to our employees and our customers."
* Several conservatives are upset already by Starbucks' fairly new "The way I see it campaign," which prints quotes from actors, artists, etc., on the outside of their paper cups. By visiting their website and reading some of the quotes, it's easy to see why there has been this big brouhaha – nearly all of them are liberal celebrities.
The list does go on, but in a nutshell – Starbucks has a corporate policy of supporting the homosexual agenda by sponsoring "Pride" events all over the country -- events where children will be exposed to sexually explicit materials and pedophiles as well as the extremely liberal and pro-abortion Planned Parenthood. This might be a good time to add that the owner of Starbucks made a large donation to a liberal candidate's campaign.
So what do I do now?
I am not a big fan of boycotts. A friend once told me if we boycotted everything we disagreed with, we would be naked and hungry. I've also heard something like, "It doesn't matter what's on the cup, but what's in it." I love Starbucks coffee and as I worked through this problem, I wasn't about to give up without a fight – and I didn't give up, but rather, I failed miserably.
I overestimated, but discovered that if I drink five grande lattes a week for a year, the total number of lattes would equal 260, coming to a total cost of $1,040. So, in my four post-college years, I could have contributed as much as $4,160 to a company that supports the volunteer work of child abusers, "Pride" events, abortionists, and do I really need to go on? Back to that marketing director's quote: "We're committed to supporting things that matter to our employees and our customers." Um ... HELLO, I am a customer, too!
As I was searching the Internet, I saw a link to a site with words no Christian girl should repeat. I didn't have to enter to read this: "Folks, if Starbucks is 'too liberal' for you then don't buy their @#$# percent*# coffee."
Thanks for the tip! "Folks," what you do is up to you, but as for me and my habit, I will no longer support Starbucks.
"Shows how little you know... No self-respecting leftist would ever admit to "drinking starbucks". "
Well I guess this show how little you know......
From our August 2001 issue: ""Kill your parents!" urged sixties leftist Bill Ayers, whose father was the chairman of Commonwealth Edison here. In Ayers's new memoir, Fugitive Days, he reconciles his militant past with his present identity: father of three, esteemed professor at UIC—and unabashed patron of the great bourgeois coffee chain, Starbucks"
Here's a flag stomping, cop killing, obama supporting leftist terrorist who enjoys starbucks...
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and defeated contender for the GOP presidential nomination, is currently at the top of John McCain's short list for a running mate. At least that's the word from a top McCain fundraiser and longtime Republican moneyman who has spoken to McCain's inner circle. The fundraiser is less than thrilled with the idea of Huckabee as the vice presidential nominee, and many economic conservatives—turned off by the populist tone of Huckabee's campaign and his tax record as governor—are likely to share that marked lack of enthusiasm. But here is the logic of picking Huckabee:
1) He is a great campaigner and communicator who could both shore up support in the South among social conservatives (Huckabee is a former Baptist minister) and appeal to working-class voters in the critical "Big 10" states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
2) As any pollster knows, voters search for candidates who "care about people like me," and Huckabee would probably score a lot higher on that quality than millionaire investor Mitt Romney. Plus, given all the turmoil on Wall Street, 2008 would seem to be a bad year to pick a former investment banker for veep.
3) Economic conservatives and supply-siders may balk, but the threat of four years of Obamanomics and higher investment, income, and corporate taxes might be enough to keep them on board.
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - Republican John McCain pledged to take the lead in combating global climate change if elected president in a speech that set him apart from the policies of President George W. Bush.
In remarks he prepared to give at a wind technology firm in Portland, Oregon, on Monday, the Arizona senator said he would seek international accords to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would offer an incentive system to make businesses in the United States cleaner.
"The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington," McCain said in remarks he planned to give at the Vestas Wind Technology plant.
"Good stewardship, prudence, and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly," he added.
McCain is visiting Oregon where Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama is favored to beat Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary on May 20.
The speech set McCain apart from fellow Republican Bush, who has been skeptical about global warming throughout his eight-year term, and was calibrated to win support from independents and centrist Democrats he will need to convince to win office in the November election.
"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges," he added.
If elected president, McCain said he would push for "meaningful environmental protocols" that included developing industrial powers India and China, to seek to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
He planned to present a so-called cap and trade system to Congress that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gas emissions for U.S. businesses, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions, so as to "change the dynamic" of the U.S. energy economy.
"Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy," he said.
McCain said the plan would set out specific goals on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including a return by 2012 to 2005 levels of emission, and by 2020 to 1990s levels.
McCain has campaigned on his support for alternative energy sources including wind, solar and biomass technologies in his run for the White House, as well as support for nuclear power.
]]>