Author Topic: Chuck Norris: America faces '1,000 years of darkness' if Obama wins re-election  (Read 15567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/04/13645398-chuck-norris-america-faces-1000-years-of-darkness-if-obama-wins-re-election?lite

Chuck Norris and his wife Gena made a YouTube video encouraging evangelical Christians to oust President Barack Obama, with Norris warning that the nation stands on the brink of "socialism or something much worse."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WFLNmThRMNQ

Gena Norris also quotes a 1964 speech by Ronald Reagan, saying that failed actions "will sentence (our children) to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness." Reagan gave the speech on behalf of then-presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who went on to lose to Lyndon Johnson by one of the largest margins in history.

In the video, Norris warns that the nation "may be lost forever if we don't change the course our country is taking."

Norris also says "our great country and freedom are under attack," while Gena says that 30 million evangelical Christians failed to vote in 2008, resulting in Barack Obama winning the presidency by 10 million votes.

Norris is far from the only celebrity to interject himself into political discourse recently. Actor Clint Eastwood captured headlines by pretending an empty chair was President Obama at last week's Republican National Convention, and singer Ted Nugent has issued numerous controversial remarks about Obama in the past months.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhm, no...for one, the elections are RIGGED, and two, John McCain/Sarah Palin did EVERYTHING they could to throw the election Obama's way. ::)

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Norris also says "our great country and freedom are under attack"

Yes, the most obvious case in point being the NDAA:

----------------------------

http://www.naturalnews.com/034291_SB_1867_war_on_terror.html

Occupied America: Senate bill 1867 would allow U.S. military to detain and murder anti-government protesters in American cities

by Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com
December 01, 2011

(NaturalNews) I don't know if you're all getting this through your heads yet, but Senate Bill 1867 -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- would openly "legalize" the U.S. government's detainment and murder of OWS protesters and the assassination of talk show hosts, bloggers, journalists and anyone who holds a so-called "anti-government" point of view. This is the open and blatant declaration of war against any who do not going along with TSA thugs reaching down your pants, the Goldman Sachs economic takeover of nations, the secret arrest and torture of American citizens, and other acts of outright tyranny waged by an out-of-control government.

Those who have been burying their heads in the sand over the coming police state need to wake up and face the music. That U.S. Senators would knowingly and willfully attempt to pass a bill that legalizes the indefinite detainment, torture and killing of American citizens with no due process whatsoever -- and on American soil! -- is nothing less than a traitorous betrayal of the once-free American people. These are, our founding fathers would have said, acts of war against the People. They reveal the insidious plan to put in place a legal framework to end the Bill of Rights, murder protesters, and overrun America with total police state brutality.

And yet the sheeple are still asleeple

I grow weary of trying to warn the American people to wake up and see what is now right in front of their eyes, so for those who want to read these words themselves -- right in the Senate bill -- you can read it at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

And YES, it has now been confirmed that the indefinite detainment and murder provisions do apply to American citizens on the streets of American cities. As Sen. Lindsey Graham explained in plain language on the Senate floor: "...1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."

That means America, for those of you who are still wondering what "homeland" means. It's a phrase borrowed from Nazi Germany, of course, which is the source of much of this legislation as you might have noticed.

"The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself," says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being).

Homefront: The U.S. government's war against the People

If this bill passes and is signed into law, it would mean that America's war machine could then be turned against the American people -- liberal, conservative, libertarian... it doesn't matter. If you question the government, you are suddenly an "enemy combatant" and they will cite this law as the legal justification for putting a bullet in your head, fire-bombing your little protest group, or literally running over you and your buddies with tanks. (And they won't stop like China did in Tiananmen Square when that one brave citizen stood up against tyranny there in 1989.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inWKFKv9UA)

The premeditate murder of U.S. protesters (Occupy Wall Street, anyone?) is now being codified into law as the government's "right." Of course, your rights to Free Speech, due process, owning a firearm and other rights are being obliterated in the process. Only the government has "rights" now, didn't you know? The slaves of the nation (i.e. the citizens) are being stripped of all rights, including the right to grow your own food, have a picnic or even buy fresh dairy products from a farmer.

Governments routinely murder far more people than terrorists

Right now, every history teacher in America should be absolutely outraged about all this, as they know what always comes next in the history of nations. Once any government "legalizes" the murder of its own citizens, it is inevitably followed by a mass-murder holocaust-style event.

Tyrants, you see, always like to "legalize" their mass murder before they pull the trigger. Just read the history of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and others. In every case, they worked diligently to put into place a legal framework for the mass murder that was about to be unleashes on their own citizens. That legal framework looks strikingly similar to Senate Bill 1867, which is about to be passed.

This also brings to mind the mathematical reality that, statistically speaking, governments are orders of magnitude more deadly than terrorists. While terrorists sometimes success in taking out a few thousand people at a time, governments routinely murder tens of MILLIONS of people.

It's called GENOCIDE, and there's a long and well-documented history of how governments have committed genocide year after year, one nation after another:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

See more statistics at:

     http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So if the People of America had any courage at all, they would be running the People's road blocks and searching government vehicles for weapons! It is the government agents, after all, who are statistically at the highest risk of engaging in mass murder, and very soon the U.S. Senate looks likely to effectively legalize that mass murder.

At the airports, We the People should be searching the TSA employees and checking them for illegal drugs, child pornography and stolen electronics. At government buildings, We the People should be searching all the government employees who come and go to make sure they don't stage the demolition of their own buildings as a way to blame whatever convenient enemy they want to discredit -- patriots, conservatives, "conspiracy theorists" or what have you.

It's no longer a conspiracy theory, you see, that the government wants to have the legal right to openly murder U.S. citizens right on the streets of America. It's written right into the Senate bill. It's public record. So all those out there still clinging to their pathetic denialist "conspiracy theorists" rants can now clamp shut their pie holes and throw themselves off a cliff or something. It's time to face the reality of the total police state tyranny that's now written in black and white, plain as day.

All of you who are still obsessed with your narrow world view of fashion, dancing with the stars, microwaveable processed food and fake mainstream news are about to be rocked out of your easy chairs and dumped into the cesspool of tyranny at your doorstep. Just know that when they come for you, there will be nobody left to speak for you, because you remained silent as all this was rolled out. And I won't be there for you, either, because I'll be holed up in Texas, handing out emergency food supplies to the local churches and performing emergency medicine procedures on those protesters wounded by U.S. government military attacks -- the ones that are still alive, anyway.

You think none of this is coming? Why would the U.S. Senate write this into law if they didn't intend on using it to murder Americans? Maybe you need to clear the cobwebs out of your head and open your eyes to what's really happening right now in the U.S. Senate.

Read between the lines, folks. It's not that difficult to get the full picture here. The very idea that the U.S. Senate is even considering such a law to "legalize" the detainment and murder of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by U.S. troops is, all by itself, a complete and utter crime against the American people.

The U.S. Senate is about to declare WAR on the American people. And I don't mean that metaphorically. They are trying to make this a military war where anyone who opposes the U.S. government -- even if they have nothing at all to do with "terrorism" -- is now a fair game target for precision bombings, assassinations and heavy military armor (i.e. tanks rolling down your driveway).

[Continued...]


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/new-bill-authorizes-rendition-of-american-citizens-living-within-the-united-states-to-other-countries-for-torture.html

New Bill Authorizes Rendition of American Citizens Living within the United States to Other Countries for Torture

Washington's Blog
December 21, 2011

Top experts – including the sponsors of the bill – say that the newly-passed National Defense Authorization Act authorizes indefinite detention of Americans living within the United States.

Top legal experts point out that the government claims the right to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil without any charges, trial or other constitutional protection.

I noted last month that Congress was considering repealing prohibitions against torture. (I wrote to attorneys at the ACLU, but haven’t received word yet on whether such a provision has been enacted).

However, Mother Jones notes today that Congress has explicitly authorized rendition, allowing American Citizens on U.S. soil to be sent to other countries which do torture:

[Continued...]


http://www.prisonplanet.com/happy-new-year-obama-signs-ndaa-indefinite-detention-now-law-of-the-land.html

Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land

President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
PrisonPlanet.com
January 1, 2012

Indeed it is a new day. Ushering in the New Year, President Obama signed legislation that helps to further destroy the principles the nation was founded upon.

President Obama, who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has now signed it. Of course, his promise was only for public consumption. After all, lying to your enemy is what invading corporate takeover armies do. It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be added while at the same time telling the American people he was fighting to protect their rights. This is treason on parade, in your face all out despotism– that is, for those paying any attention!

In this video is Alex Jones’ reaction to the bill and Obama’s accompanying signing statement:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxXhn3We7U

As the Associated Press reports, the President signed the bill on Saturday “despite having ‘serious reservations’ about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

However, those reservations have nothing to do with the rights of the people under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that he swore to protect– rather, his reservations dealt with changes that “challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.” He reportedly accepted the legislation only after such impedance was removed.

Instead, it was a deceptive maneuver to appear wary of such powers when the White House demanded it all along. In fact, Obama’s veto threat was always about that issue– the language over Section 1022 and NOT the authorization for the indefinite detention of Americans in Section 1021. Rather, it was a debate over “requiring” military protocol on detention rather than leaving the discretion over whether to detain to the executive branch, under the power of the Presidency.

Yesterday, with a friendly note, Obama issued a signing statement that read:

    “Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

Despite positioning himself in the signing statement as cautious towards the rights of the individuals in the nation, the President has just signed into law a provision that threatens the right of every American to due process, and a public trial with a jury. Instead, he has handed over grotesque authority to himself and EVERY President that comes after him, whatever their intentions might be.

Obama’s signing statement later states:

    "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

Even if Obama’s stated intention here is true, it is no guarantee of the attitudes and interpretations of future presidents, or of the intent of their power advisors, many of whom operate the national security shadow network. Instead, it is yet another Constitution-destroying, power-grabbing so-called law.

The ACLU, too, warns about this deception:

[Continued...]


http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-is-meaningless.html

Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement Is Meaningless

Administration itself demanded power to detain American citizens without trial

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 2, 2012

Barack Obama’s signing statement that was added to the passage of the NDAA bill in an effort to dampen concerns over the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the bill is smoke and mirrors for a number of reasons – prime amongst them the fact that it was the White House itself – not lawmakers – who demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

On first reading, Obama’s signing statement appears to assuage fears that American citizens could be targeted for arrest and detention without trial.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation,” wrote Obama.

However, the statement is meaningless for a number of reasons.

Firstly, even if Obama manages to fulfil one of the rare occasions on which he keeps his word, this does nothing to stop future administrations from exercising the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.

Secondly, the Obama administration is already carrying out even more egregious measures than those supposedly authorized within the NDAA, by targeting American citizens worldwide for state-sponsored assassination with no legal process whatsoever.

Thirdly, Obama has reversed almost every single promise he made to get elected – his word is no good. Given the right civil emergency, Obama could turn to indefinite detention of citizens without hesitation.

Crucially, Obama’s promise that he will not use the law to detain Americans without trial is completely hollow – because it was his administration that demanded the power to do so in the first place.

As the bill’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech on the floor last month, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

If the Obama administration is so opposed to the idea of detaining Americans without trial, why did they push for such powers to be included in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act?

It’s also necessary to highlight the fact that just because this bill has been passed into law, that shouldn’t bestow any kind of legitimacy to it given that indefinite detention is anathema to the bill of rights and the constitution. It was once a law that black people were not human – that doesn’t mean it’s right or should be given credence.

[Continued...]


http://www.prisonplanet.com/myth-busted-yes-the-ndaa-does-apply-to-americans-and-heres-the-text-that-says-so.html

Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so

Mike Adams
Natural News
Monday, January 2, 2012

In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law “does not apply to American citizens.”

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can’t even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under “existing authorities.”

Let’s parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf)

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows:

(d) CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the “or” operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the “authority of the President” to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(e) AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This section “e” is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying “protects American citizens” from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you’ll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here’s what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the “or” operator:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does notalter“existing authorities” relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand “existing authorities.”

What are those “existing authorities?”

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an “existing authority” that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don’t believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it’s widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a “secret panel” of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a “kill list” and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, “Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] — first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES…”

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama’s executive “kill list” justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

[Continued...]


http://www.prisonplanet.com/final-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011.html

Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011

Jonathan Turley
Global Research
January 3, 2012

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

[Continued...]


http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28611

Totalitarianism: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Latest Chapter In the Road towards "Police State USA"

by Sherwood Ross



Global Research
January 11, 2012

"I believe," warned James Madison in a speech to the Virginia Convention on June 16, 1788, "there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Surely, this is the story behind the New Year's Eve, 2011, signing by President Obama of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). While they were merry-making and tootling horns, NDAA stripped Americans of the last vestiges of their liberties. Now that President Obama can order the military to arrest and imprison you indefinitely on suspicion without trial, your First Amendment rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition have no meaning. Who are you going to assemble with from your jail cell?

NDAA is only the most recent chapter in a creeping totalitarian horror story going back decades. President Harry Truman vetoed the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but his veto was overturned by Congress. Truman called the Act "the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, a "mockery of the Bill of Rights" and a "long step toward totalitarianism."

That Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act, was aimed at the Communist Party of the United States and authorized incarceration of those who would "probably engage in espionage or sabotage." At the time it would have been difficult to think of any example of any known U.S. Communist Party member anywhere engaging in sabotage. By contrast, it was about the same time the CIA was getting off to a jump start at overthrowing foreign governments by force and violence.

Under the Act, prominent individuals considered subversive were barred entry to the United States, limiting the free speech of American citizens. Among them: Argentine novelist Julio Cortazar, Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and British novelist Graham Greene, Wikipedia recalls.

Totalitarianism continued its creep despite the objections of Senator George McGovern of South Dakota in 1970, who vainly blasted the "no knock" ordinance Congress pressed down upon that occupied territory known as the District of Columbia. This law allowed police to bust into any dwelling without a court order. McGovern referred to it as the Big Brother Act, pointing out that "your home is no longer your castle and your liberties are no longer your own." That was but one small foretaste of today's police state powers.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It set up the FISA Court, and later the FISA Court of Review, true "Star Chambers" that international law Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois says "are nothing more than rubber stamps for government requests for unconstitutional surveillance on U.S. citizens."

"With the FISA Amendments Act approved by Obama," Boyle continues, "there is nothing left of the Fourth Amendment that protects 'The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' I do not understand how any self-respecting U.S. Federal Judge can serve on the FISA Court and the FISA Court of Review and actively participate in the interment of the Fourth Amendment."

According to Boyle, "After the "draconian Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) passed by Congress in 1996 in reaction to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, there was no legitimate law enforcement need for the Patriot Act." Among other things, the AEDPA drastically limited the right of inmates to appeal their death sentences.

Enactment of the Patriot Act of 2003, rushed through Congress after 9/11 and since renewed at leisure, opened the spillways of totalitarianism to flood an entire nation. "From the gagging of our nation's librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans' rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU's Washington office.

"In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation's lawmakers hastily expanded the government's authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora's box of surveillance," she cautioned in a statement on ACLU's web site.

Amazingly, there has been scant public outcry condemning these government actions. Few Americans objected when President Obama in March, 2011, by executive order decreed Guantanamo detainees could be held indefinitely---a policy that NDAA now applies to American citizens under the NDAA.

"No president," said the ACLU, "should have the power to declare the entire globe a war zone and then seize and detain civilian terrorism suspects anywhere in the world---including within the United States---and to hold them forever without charge or trial."

"By signing this defense spending bill (NDAA), President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."

"This amounts to the repeal of the U.S. Constitution," Roth said, adding, "We have a Republican Party that is a Gestapo Party---to arrest American citizens and put them in concentration camps." (Author's note: NDAA could not have passed without the strong support of Democratic lawmakers.)

Roth goes on to say:

[Continued...]

----------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Yes, the most obvious case in point being the NDAA:

Yet what does Chuck's hero, Twitt Romney, have to say about that treasonous, freedom-destroying, anti-American piece of legislation?

----------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/romney-would-sign-ndaa.html

Romney Would Sign NDAA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2012

During the latest “debate” in South Carolina, Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would sign the National Defense Authorization Act.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yY3NCiMVQ

Prior to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he wasn’t up to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website, which he never did.

Romney said you don’t have the “right to join a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.

The NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the bankster cartel now in control of the government.

The law is a “violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Truman tried to veto the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but he was overturned by Congress.Truman said it was “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly” since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and represented a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and was a “long step toward totalitarianism.”

In the years after Truman’s warning, the government slowly chipped away at the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus as it passed the McCartney-Walter Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (following the Oklahoma false flag), the Patriot Act (following the 9/11 false flag), and has finally repealed the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights with the passage of the NDAA.

As Sherwood Ross notes, with the passage of the NDAA, we have returned “to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.”

World War II, however, had an end, whereas the bogus war on terrorism is designed to last forever, as our leaders have stated on a number of occasions.

Romney has no opinion on the Constitution, Magna Carta, and centuries of common law. He is an empty vessel filled up with nonsense produced by the global elite who run the disgusting dog and pony shows that now pass as elections in the United States.

[Continued...]

----------------------------

To Chuck Norris and all other mainline Republicans out there: If, knowing the above, you still vote for Romney, then you frankly deserve every single ounce of Nazi-style tyranny you get!
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Nah we'll have a knock down dragged out hot civil war before then.

Hell we may even get it now despite all of Alex Jones' pleas for a diplomatic, political and voter solution.

I think they have gone to far and need to finish what they started.  America may be down but not defeated into total submission as of yet.

There are already many rebellion camps out there who are anti-NWO.  You can't dominate and have a rebellion growing exponentially.  This is what America has now.  More and more people waking up every day.

If anything why the 50 states can declare sanctions on Washington DC may yet prove to be interesting history in the making.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341


  This country won't last 1000 more years.

  He'd been more believable saying 100 years of darkness.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,404


Chuck Norris, who played Cordell Walker in the TV series ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ is officially a Texas Ranger.  And we don’t mean he’s playing baseball on their Major League Baseball team.

Chuck Norris became an honorary Texas Ranger on December 2nd 2010 .


http://vbuzzblog.freedomblogging.com/category/celebrities/


His name is Chuck Norris, Texas Ranger. On Thursday, ‘Walker, Texas Ranger’ actor Chuck Norris was designated honorary Texas Ranger by Texas Governor Rick Perry. Awesome! What took so long? Norris’ younger brother, 59-year-old stunt coordinator and producer Aaron Norris, also became an honorary Ranger.

http://www.chucknorris.us/
His real name is Carlos Ray, born on 10th March 1940. He is an American actor, martial artist with great media personality. His popularity started when he became a martial artist after serving the United States Air Force for a considerably long period of time. Since his journey to fame started, he has founded his own school with the name Chun Kuk Do.
...
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,549
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"

  This country won't last 1000 more years.

  He'd been more believable saying 100 years of darkness.

Actually Doc, the 1000 years of darkness will not be just for America... Witness the last imperial-elite caused collapse of culture back in the 5th century. It consolidated the elite's power into an oppressive Dark Age that engulfed the world for almost 1000 years until the pre-enlightenment of the Renaissance...

We are plummeting into a new Dark Age with a technological overlay that will destroy humanity and most if not all life on earth if we don't stop it. The only way IS to awaken the world's people to what is happening... there is no other way to stop it. This new Hell promises no possibility of a eventual renaissance. Their tans-humanist inorganic agenda desires all organic life to be dead right down to the last amoeba.

JTCoyoté

"The strength and power of despotism
consists wholly in the fear of resistance."

~Thomas Paine

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Frankly, this whole "Christians have to VOTE in the elections!" is NONSENSE.

For one, with all of the debate over how Republican Presidents will appoint conservative, pro-family justices...remember when Roe V Wade was upheld in 1992, ALL FIVE justices that voted to uphold it were GOP appointees. Reagan appointed O'Conner and Kennedy, Bush I appointed Souter, Nixon appointed Blackmun, and Ford appointed Stevens. With the slight exception of Kennedy, these justices are/were VERY liberal. And don't give us that line that the abortion debate was non-existent in the 80's, b/c it was in 1980 when the "religious right" formed to combat just that.

So what makes everyone think Romney will appoint good-little conservative justices, when pretty much no other GOP President did? Bush II appointed some guy who voted to uphold Obamacare!

Two, even Republicans have done NOTHING to stop, or try to stop the #1 terrorist organization in the world...the FDA.

End of story.

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Exactly you'll have a bi-cameral kaistocracy as far as legialation goes and a Globalist run kritocracy as far as the judicial branch goes and a Globalist Fueher to take orders from Bilderberg to run it all.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Looks like Peter Schiff has drunk the Romney Kool-Aid as well
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2012, 02:37:02 pm »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/peter-schiff-is-endorsing-romney.html

Peter Schiff is Endorsing Romney?

Prisonplanet.com
Sept 4, 2012

Luke Rudkowski got a guest pass into the last night of the RNC and got to question Peter Schiff while he was live streaming.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvSOuF9ac3c
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Looks like Peter Schiff has drunk the Romney Kool-Aid as well
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2012, 02:39:34 pm »
If you'd like to know who to sarcastically thank for how ridiculously bad things have gotten in recent years, thank "lesser evil voters."

So brainwashed, so sheeplike, and so emotionally wedded to the false left-right/Democrat-Republican paradigm are lesser evil voters, that even if the Republican and Democratic nominees were Hitler and Stalin -- and God himself was the third party candidate -- the two "major" candidates would still get over 90% of the vote, and the morons who voted for them would then congratulate themselves afterwards for not having "wasted" their votes.  ::)

-------------------------------------

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/28643

The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting

Joel S. Hirschhorn
American Chronicle
June 02, 2007

Condemn progressives for voting enthusiastically for Democrats and the inevitable response is something like “just imagine how much worse voting for Republicans would be.” Similarly, many true conservatives and Libertarians see voting for Republicans as a necessary evil. With many progressives regretting giving Democrats a majority in Congress and many conservatives regretting putting George W. Bush in the White House, it is timely to refute lesser evil logic.

Inevitably, lesser evil voters face personal disappointment and some shame. Politicians that receive lesser evil votes do not perform according to the values and principles that the lesser evil voter holds dear. These voters must accept responsibility for putting ineffective, dishonest and corrupt politicians in office. Though they may be lesser evils, they remain evils.

All too often lesser evil voters avoid shame and regret and prevent painful cognitive dissonance by deluding themselves that the politician they helped put in office is really not so bad after all. Corrosive lesser evil voting erodes one’s principles as pragmatism replaces idealism. This makes the next cycle of lesser evil voting easier.

Lesser evil voting helps stabilize America’s two-party duopoly that greatly restricts true political competition. Third party and independent candidates – and minor Democratic and Republican candidates in primaries – are defeated by massive numbers of lesser evil voters. Despite authentically having the political goals that mesh with many voters on the left or right, these minor “best” candidates fall victim to lesser evil voting. Lesser evil voters are addicted to a self-fulfilling prophesy. They think “If I vote for a minor candidate they will lose anyway.” They ensure this outcome though their lesser evil voting. The truly wasted vote is the unprincipled lesser evil vote.

Effective representative democracy requires politically engaged citizens that vote. Lesser-evil voters support the current two-party system with its terribly low voter turnout and chronic dishonesty and corruption. Lesser evil voters help put into office disappointing politicians, not the best people that would restore American democracy and show more citizens that voting is valuable. Lesser evil voters demonstrate the validity of turned-off citizens’ view that it really does not matter which major party wins office.

Politicians knowingly market themselves to lesser evil voters by constructing phony sales pitches, especially to certain audiences outside of their more certain base constituents. Democrats make themselves look more progressive than they really are, and Republicans make themselves look more conservative than they really are. Lesser evil voters are phony, and they produce a phony political system. Lesser evil voters contribute mightily to the travesty of our political system that no sane person respects and has confidence in.

Lesser evil voting demonstrates the worst aspects of political compromise. This is the common cause of terrible laws. When citizens surrender so much of what they truly believe in, they enable compromise politicians to create bad public policy that, in the end, satisfies very few people and puts band-aids on severe problems. Lesser evil voters concede victory to the other side – the side they view as the worse alternative because the people they vote for will not stand up for what is right and necessary. Think Iraq war. Even when their lesser evil side wins, they do not have the principled positions that would prevent awful compromises, often in the name of bipartisanship that is a clever way to justify our corrupt two-party mafia.

Lesser evil voters deride the alternatives of not voting or voting for minor candidates. The outcome should the “other” side win is deemed unacceptable. There is worse and there is worst. The core problem with lesser evil voters is that they are short term thinkers. They fail to see the repeated long term consequence of their style of voting – a system over many election cycles that persists in delivering suboptimal results. The “good” outcome in the current election (from their perspective) is the enemy of the “better” solution in the longer term (from an objective perspective). The better solution is major reform that will never happen as long as lesser evil voting persists.

Understand this: Lesser evil voting is not courageous. It is cowardly surrender to the disappointing two-party status quo. Lesser evil voters should trade regret for pride by voting for candidates they really think are the best. Voters in this presidential primary season have some remarkable opportunities to transform fine minor candidates into competitive major candidates – more honest and trustworthy people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example.

Finally, the deadly decline of American democracy results in large measure from lesser evil voters electing lesser evil politicians. When virtually no elected public official is there because most voters have embraced his clear principled, trustworthy positions we get a government that is easily corrupted by corporate and other moneyed interests. We get what we have now. And if you are dissatisfied with that, then reconsider the wisdom of lesser evil voting. We will only get the best government by voting for the best candidates. Otherwise, we get what we deserve and what the power elites prefer.


http://www.nolanchart.com/article8066-lesserevil-voting-perpetuates-evil.html

Lesser-Evil Voting Perpetuates Evil

The root explanation of why the nation is in terrible shape and speeding down the wrong track is the dominant practice of lesser-evil voting.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Nolan Chart
October 13, 2010

For many years Americans have justified voting for candidates they were not especially thrilled with by convincing themselves that the lesser evil deserved to win office. The fraction of people totally committed to one of the two major parties is small. Most Americans see themselves as independents, liberals, conservatives, progressives or libertarians, but not as loyal Democrats or Republicans. Most Americans are fed up with both major parties, not just incumbents.

But this year's midterm elections will once again result in only Democratic or Republican candidates winning. Other than staying home and not voting, nearly all voters will employ the lesser-evil justification. Just one problem: That lesser-evil strategy has resulted in the dismal state of the nation that angers most Americans.

The only logical conclusion is that lesser-evil voting perpetuates all the cancerous evil plaguing the political system. This should not surprise anyone. Regardless of party affiliation, major party candidates convincingly lie to voters and the tons of money poured into politics create a mass propaganda machine from both parties that deceives voters.

Lesser-evil voting sometimes works in favor of Democrats and sometimes favors Republicans. Negative advertising creates fear of some candidates and media pundits and celebrities use their considerable power to give voters reasons to vote for or against candidates. The thirst for true reforms of government persists, as evidenced by the Tea Party movement and even the election of President Obama. It is the force that moves the pendulum from one party to the other.

When will Americans wake up and realize that lesser evil still means evil? Least bad still means bad. Least corrupt still means corrupt. Least dishonest still means dishonest. Least stupid still means stupid.

But many people despairingly see no other option if they want to fulfill their civic responsibility and participate in elections. That is because the two major parties have given Americans no real options. They like the lesser-evil system that sustains the two-party plutocracy. Only voters in Nevada can choose the "none of the above" option. The rest of us can stay home or vote for third party candidates that stand no real chance of winning. What to do?

Stop deluding yourself that any Democrat or Republican in Congress or the White House will actually do absolutely everything, even if it means not winning reelection, to reform the corrupt, dysfunctional, wasteful government system being controlled by wealthy people and corporate interests, and devastating ordinary Americans.

Your lesser-evil vote perpetuates evil. Do you want to live with that?

[Continued...]

-------------------------------------

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Looks like Peter Schiff has drunk the Romney Kool-Aid as well
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2012, 02:40:38 pm »
http://web.archive.org/web/20031208013721/www.3pc.net/essays/fallacy.html

The Fallacy of the "Wasted" Vote

If you are like most people, you might say something like:

"The way I see it, there are only two possible outcomes in any election: either the Democrat will win or the Republican will win. I vote for one of these two because I do not want to waste my vote on someone who has no chance of winning."

Roughly 80% of Americans use this procedure when deciding how to vote, and this is unfortunate. Voting for a candidate other than your true favorite has the EXACT OPPOSITE of the desired effect. Let's see why...

"But I don't want to vote for someone who can't win."

Voting for a candidate other than your favorite has the exact opposite of the desired effect. If your beliefs exactly match those of some particular candidate, then you ought to vote for them. Of course, this never happens, so you have to pick the lesser, or the least, of several evils.

Suppose you, and people like you, almost always vote for candidates from one of the two major parties. If you do this, the optimal strategy for the parties is to IGNORE you completely. Since the candidate already knows that your vote is in hand, he can then concentrate on moving the platform AWAY from your wishes, in order to court the votes of people with beliefs far from your own.

For example, many people who like Libertarian ideas always vote for Republicans. What does the party do to reward them? They make policies to win over moderate liberals. Similarly, many people who like Green Party ideas always vote for Democrats, and so the Democrats ignore them and make policies to win over moderate conservatives. Either way, the voters get the opposite of what they wanted, as the Democrats and Republicans move toward the political center.

To give recent example, in this year's presidential race, it is likely that most of Pat Buchanan's supporters will vote for Bob Dole in the coming election. Dole knows this, so he simply ignores Buchanan and his platform, and even tries to make himself look more liberal in order to court centrist Democrats.

Politicians don't need your approval, so long as they have your vote.

"But I dont want that other guy to win!"

Perhaps you feel that if you vote for your favorite candidate instead of a more popular alternative, then things will backfire on you because then your LEAST favorite candidate might win, and if he does then it will be your fault. This is a false fear.

If your least favorite candidate wins, then it is NOT your fault. You personally have only one vote. Like it or not, you are powerless to turn the results of a democratic election. This being the case, your one vote counts for something only in the sense that it represents your approval of some set of principles. Voting is a means of conveying information about what you believe. If you ignore your principles then this information is lost, and your vote really is wasted.

In preparation for subsequent elections, all politicians in the dominant parties continuously review polls and election results to see what voter blocks they might like to try to sway. If your block or party is big enough, these politicians will make some effort to win some of you over by implementing policies that you favor. They would be fools not to, since politicians and parties that enact unpopluar legislation lose the next election. Recall what happened to George Bush after he broke his "no new taxes" pledge.

The only way you can make your vote worth something is to use it to vote for the candidate whose principles are closest to what you really want.

The Clear Conclusion

In short, voting for someone other than your favorite candidate is not only unappealing, but also contrary to your own best interests. The only way to make your voice heard is to actually VOTE, and when you do, vote for your principles.

In the 1996 presidential primaries in South Carolina, Republican candidate Bob Dole spent several hundred thousand dollars running an ad that said:

    "Bob Dole is going to be the nominee. Don't waste your vote."

We leave it to you to resolve the paradox.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/hooper1.html

The Myth of the Wasted Vote

by Charles L. Hooper
LewRockwell.com
September 21, 2004
        
Recently, I was surprised to see a long-term Libertarian's car sporting a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. "What's with the Kerry bumper sticker?" I asked my friend. "Isn't it self-explanatory?" he replied sarcastically. "Okay, okay, I see that you’re going to vote for Kerry. I just want to know why. I thought you would be voting Libertarian."

He then proceeded to tell me that while he doesn't like Kerry, he simply despises George W. Bush. "You don't want to waste your vote on somebody that you fundamentally disagree with, do you?" I asked him. "I've been wasting my vote for years by voting Libertarian," he replied bitterly.

"Ah, but you will be wasting your vote this year because Kerry is almost assured to take California. One extra vote won't make a difference." I hadn't run the numbers, but I was sure that my friend's vote wasn't going to affect the California electoral vote and, therefore, had no chance of affecting the national result.

Since our conversation I have run the numbers, and they are mind-boggling. Based on these results, reasonable people may conclude that they should never vote. But if you do decide to cast your vote, as I have, you should vote for the best candidate and abandon any attempts to displace the disliked Kerrys, Bushes, Clintons, Reagans, Carters, and Gores of the world.

To run the numbers, I created a Monte Carlo computer simulation model and ran well over 300,000 simulations. My model has two pretty evenly matched main political parties and three smaller ones that fight over roughly ten percent of the vote total. I defined voting groups, each with probability distributions. With these groups defined, I ran multiple runs of the model at 5,000 iterations (5,000 elections) each while varying the number of total voters.

It turns out that your one vote, and mine too, has a probability of swinging any evenly-matched election based on the following formula: Probability equals 3.64 divided by N, where N is the total number of votes cast. So for a small election, say for a homeowners' association with 100 members, your probability of casting the vote that determines the outcome is about 3.64 percent (or 0.0364). Stated differently, you'd have to vote in 27.5 elections to determine a single one. As we move up to the state and national level, the odds fall dramatically. With 11 million voters in California, where my friend and I live, the probability drops to 3.3 x 10-7 (0.00000033), which means that you'd have to vote in over three million presidential elections to determine the winner in California just once.

Of course, California isn't the whole country. California currently has 55 electoral votes out of a total of 538, with 270 needed to elect a president. Since 1852, when Californians first voted for U.S. president, California has been a key swing state in only two presidential elections. In 1876, California cast 6 electoral votes for Rutherford B. Hayes, who beat Samuel J. Tilden by the razor-thin margin of 185 to 184. In 1916, California cast 13 electoral votes for Woodrow Wilson, who beat Charles E. Hughes by 277 to 254. In either election, if California voters had gone the other direction, the national totals would have followed. In every other presidential election, however, the winner was determined regardless of how Californians voted. By acknowledging that California has been a swing state in only two of its 38 elections (5.3%), we can get to our final answer: A voter in California would have to vote in 57.5 million elections to determine one President of the United States.

This ignores voting error and fraud, but even with them, there is still a point at which the official vote total swings from candidate A to candidate B. The question is whether you will cast that key vote. And the answer is that it’s extremely unlikely.

What does this mean? Well, first of all it means that you'd have to vote for a very long time – 230 million years – to swing one election and all you'd have to show for it is a Bush in the White House instead of a Kerry (or visa versa). If you are like me and many other voters, you can't get very excited about either Bush or Kerry, so your final payoff would be lackluster, at best. For those who still think these odds look acceptable, consider the following comparisons. You are 12 times as likely to die from a dog attack, 34,000 times as likely to die in a motor vehicle accident, and 274 times as likely to die in a bathtub drowning as you are to swing a presidential election.

My friend thinks that his Libertarian votes have been wasted and that his vote for a Democrat will matter. This analysis shows that his vote for Kerry has a vanishingly small expected value. Even if he would be willing to pay $10,000 to determine the winner in November, the expected value (probability times value) of his vote for Kerry is only $0.00017. Americans won't even stoop to pick up a penny on the ground yet every four years they happily cast votes worth one fiftieth as much. Voting may still make sense, but the overall satisfaction of participating in a great democracy must be compared to the time and costs of voting. The expected vote-swinging outcome is rounding error. In fact, if you drive to your polling place, you are approximately ten times more likely to die in an accident on the way than you are to swing that presidential election.

Now, what if my friend votes for Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian candidate? Is that vote wasted? Well, it is clear that no third-party candidate will win the 2004 election, but my friend's support would certainly help his favorite political party stay in business and therefore get noticed. While it is in business, his party will help define election issues and could even get lucky and elect a president. Abraham Lincoln and Jesse Ventura are good examples of third-party candidates who were elected. Ross Perot in 1996 and 1992, American Independent George Wallace in 1968, and Progressive Robert LaFollette in 1924 were presidential candidates who got a large percentage of the popular vote. More likely, as any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party's platforms. The same thing happened with the Socialist party early in the 20th century. As Milton Friedman points out, the Socialists failed miserably with a popular vote total that peaked at only six percent in 1912. But they succeeded in the way that matters most. Dig below the surface and you'll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist's 1928 platform has since been written into law. The votes cast for these Socialists certainly weren't wasted from the point of view of those who cast them.

Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome. If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Looks like Peter Schiff has drunk the Romney Kool-Aid as well
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2012, 02:45:27 pm »
http://www.naturalnews.com/036172_President_Obama_Mitt_Romney.html

Why we must oppose Obamney for President in 2012

by Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com
June 14 2012

(NaturalNews) There is a dangerous person running for President in 2012, and his name is Baritt Obamney. I normally try not to attack specific candidates for political office, but Baritt Obamney is so offensive to American sensibilities that I had to share this warning with my fellow Americans. In 2012, we must vote against Obamney for President.

And why? Because here is what Obamney believes in, based on his actions and voting record:

• Big, bigger and even BIGGER government! The bigger the government, the better.

• GMOs: Obamney is a huge supporter of Monsanto and the biotech industry that produces genetically modified seeds. He wants all Americans to eat foods laced with pesticides grown by the crops themselves! This is all part of the mass poisoning plan to keep America sick and incapable of resisting tyranny.

• Trillion-dollar banker bailouts! Obamney was put into power by the Goldman Sachs banking elite, of course, and he wants to keep handing over trillions of dollars to his master while driving the average hard-working American into total debt slavery.

• Continued government raids on raw milk farmers and food distribution centers: Obamney is an enemy of food freedom and farm freedom, and he can't wait to use the power of the federal government to imprison a few more Amish dairy farmers.

• Socialized medicine: Obamney believes in taking away free choice, putting in place a Big Pharma monopoly over health care, and forcing Americans to buy health insurance even if they don't want it! This traps everyone in a system of broken medicine that doesn't even promote wellness.

• Endless wars: Obamney is a huge fan of keeping America involved in endless wars, even if it means fabricating a fictional enemy concept -- "terrorism" -- to justify it. The military industrial complex, after all, pulls Obamney's strings.

• Vaccines: Obamney is a staunch advocate of endless vaccinations for the entire population. It's part of his strategy to inject cancer-causing stealth viruses into the population at large (http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html), thereby keeping America diseased and medically enslaved.

• Gun confiscation: Obamney is a huge fan of gun confiscation, because the worst thing for a corrupt government is for citizens to have their own individual power. That's why Obamney wants to criminalize private gun ownership and concentrate firepower in the hands of the government's most corrupt "loose cannon" departments: ATF, DEA and soon even the TSA. It's so much easier to terrorize and oppress the population when they can't shoot back.

• Runaway national debt leading to financial collapse: Perhaps the worst thing about Obamney is that he wants to keep spending America into financial ruin. This is actually being done by design so that his bankster masters can then buy up all the assets at pennies on the dollar, leaving American small business owners and wage workers living in abject poverty.

Is Obamney a member of the DemoCRIPS, or the ReBLOODlicans?

Now, I'm not sure which gang Obamney has joined: Is it the DemoCRIPS, or is it the ReBLOODlicans?

That's the name of Gov. Jesse Ventura's new book that exposes the total gang-style criminality of our current two-party system. Check it out at:

[Continued...]

-------------------------

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,240
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Looks like Peter Schiff has drunk the Romney Kool-Aid as well
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2012, 02:46:06 pm »
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32488

2012 US Elections: Obamney vs. Rombama
War, economic collapse and poverty await Americans no matter who they vote for

by Tony Cartalucci



Global Research, August 25, 2012
landdestroyer.blogspot.com

War, economic collapse, and personal devastation await Americans no matter who they vote for - and what we should do instead.

A vote for Obama will bring war with Syria, Iran, and eventually Russia and China. The economy will continue to suffer in order to bolster the interests of off-shore corporate-financier interests, while  the collective prospects of Americans continue to whither and blow away. A vote for Romney, however, will also bring war with Syria, Iran, and eventually Russia and China. The economy will also continue to suffer in order to bolster the interests of off-shore corporate-financier interests, while the collective prospects of Americans continue to whither and blow away. Why?

Because the White House is but a public relations front for the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London. A change of residence at the White House is no different than say, British Petroleum replacing its spokesman to superficially placate public opinion when in reality the exact same board of directors, overall agenda, and objectives remain firmly in place. Public perception then is managed by, not the primary motivation of, corporate-financier interests.

It is the absolute folly to believe that multi-billion dollar corporate-financier interests would subject their collective fate to the whims of the ignorant, uninformed, and essentially powerless voting masses every four years. Instead, what plays out every four years is theater designed to give the general public the illusion that they have some means of addressing their grievances without actually ever changing the prevailing balance of power in any meaningful way.

The foreign policy of both Obama and Romney is written by the exact same corporate-financier funded think-tanks that have written the script for America's destiny for the last several decades.

Bush = Obama = Romney

As was previously reported, while the corporate media focuses on non-issues, and political pundits accentuate petty political rivalries between the "left" and the "right," a look deeper into presidential cabinets and the authors of domestic and foreign policy reveals just how accurate the equation of "Bush = Obama = Romney" is.



Image: Professional spokesmen, representative not of the American people but of Fortune 500 multinational corporations and banks. Since the time of JP Morgan 100 years ago, the corporate-financier elite saw themselves as being above government, and national sovereignty as merely a regulatory obstacle they could lobby, bribe, and manipulate out of existence. In the past 100 years, the monied elite have gone from manipulating the presidency to now reducing the office to a public relations functionary of their collective interests.

George Bush's cabinet consisted of representatives from FedEx, Boeing, the Council on Foreign Relations, big-oil's Belfer Center at Harvard, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Circuit City, Verizon, Cerberus Capital Management, Goldman Sachs, and the RAND Corporation, among many others.



Image: The Henry Jackson Society is just one of many Neo-Conservative think-tanks, featuring many of the same people and of course, the same corporate sponsors. Each think-tank puts on a different public face and focuses on different areas of specialty despite harboring the same "experts" and corporate sponsors.

His foreign policy was overtly dictated by "Neo-Conservatives" including Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Richard Armitage, Zalmay Khalilzad, Elliot Abrams, Frank Gaffney, Eliot Cohen, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Francis Fukuyama, William Kristol, and Max Boot - all of whom hold memberships within a myriad of Fortune 500-funded think-tanks that to this day still direct US foreign policy - even under a "liberal" president. These include the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group, the Foreign Policy Initiative, the Henry Jackson Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and many more.



Image: A visual representation of some of the Brookings Institution's corporate sponsors. Brookings is by no means an exception, but rather represents the incestuous relationship between US foreign and domestic policy making and the Fortune 500 found in every major "think-tank." Elected US representatives charged with legislative duties, merely rubber stamp the papers and policies drawn up in these think-tanks.

Obama's cabinet likewise features representatives from JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, the Council on Foreign Relations, Fortune 500 representatives Covington and Burling, Citi Group, Freedie Mac, and defense contractor Honeywell. Like Bush's cabinet, foreign policy is not penned by Obama sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, but rather by the very same think-tanks that directed Bush's presidency including the Council on Foreign Relations, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group, and the Chatham House. There are also a myriad of smaller groups consisting of many of the same members and corporate sponsors, but who specialize in certain areas of interest.



Image: Obama, not a Marxist. A visual representation of current US President Barack Obama's cabinet's corporate-financier ties past and present. As can be plainly seen, many of the same corporate-financier interests represented in Obama's administration were also represented in Bush's administration.

And with Mitt Romney, "running for president" against Obama in 2012, we see already his foreign policy advisers, Michael Chertoff, Eliot Cohen, Paula Dobrainsky, Eric Edelman, and Robert Kagan, represent the exact same people and corporate-funded think-tanks devising strategy under both President Bush and President Obama.

While Presidents Bush and Obama attempted to portray the West's global military expansion as a series of spontaneous crises, in reality, since at least as early as 1991, the nations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and many others that previously fell under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, were slated either for political destabilization and overthrow, or overt military intervention. While the public was fed various narratives explaining why Bush conducted two wars within the greater global "War on Terror," and why Obama eagerly expanded these wars while starting new ones in Libya and now Syria, in reality we are seeing "continuity of agenda," dictated by corporate-financier elite, rubber stamped by our elected representatives, and peddled to us by our "leaders," who in reality are nothing more than spokesmen for the collective interests of the Fortune 500.



Image: The International Crisis Group's corporate sponsors reveal a pattern of mega-multinationals intertwined with not only creating and directing US, and even European foreign policy, but in carrying it out. ICG trustee Kofi Annan is in Syria now carrying out a ploy to buy time for NATO-backed terrorists so they can be rearmed, reorganized, and redeployed against the Syrian government for another Western-backed attempt at regime change - all done under the guise of promoting "peace."

....

No matter who you vote for in 2012 - until we change the balance of power currently tipped in favor of the Fortune 500, fed daily by our money, time, energy, and attention, nothing will change but the rhetoric with which this singular agenda is sold to the public. Romney would continue exactly where Obama left off, just as Obama continued exactly where Bush left off. And even during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Bush Sr., it was the same agenda meted out by the same corporate-financier interests that have been driving American, and increasingly Western destiny, since US Marine General Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" in 1935.

What Should We Do About It?

1. Boycott the Presidential Election: The first immediate course of action when faced with a fraudulent system is to entirely disassociate ourselves from it, lest we grant it unwarranted legitimacy. Boycotting the farcical US elections would not impede the corporate-financier "selection" process and the theatrical absurdity that accompanies it, but dismal voter turnout would highlight the illegitimacy of the system. This in many ways has already happened, with voter turnout in 2008 a mere 63%, meaning that only 32% of America's eligible voters actually voted for Obama, with even fewer voting for runner-up John McCain.

Ensuring that this mandate is even lower in 2012 - regardless of which PR man gets selected, and then highlighting the illegitimacy of both the elections and the system itself is the first step toward finding a tenable solution. People must divest from dead-ends. Presidential elections are just one such dead-end.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Actually Doc, the 1000 years of darkness will not be just for America... Witness the last imperial-elite caused collapse of culture back in the 5th century. It consolidated the elite's power into an oppressive Dark Age that engulfed the world for almost 1000 years until the pre-enlightenment of the Renaissance...

We are plummeting into a new Dark Age with a technological overlay that will destroy humanity and most if not all life on earth if we don't stop it. The only way IS to awaken the world's people to what is happening... there is no other way to stop it. This new Hell promises no possibility of a eventual renaissance. Their tans-humanist inorganic agenda desires all organic life to be dead right down to the last amoeba.

JTCoyoté

"The strength and power of despotism
consists wholly in the fear of resistance."

~Thomas Paine




All the more reason to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior.
............not one of those you gave me have been lost. None    John 18:9 KJV
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
VOTE FOR RON PAUL AFTER HIS TONIGHT SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT TOMORROW !!!!!!!!
 ;)

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Actually Doc, the 1000 years of darkness will not be just for America... Witness the last imperial-elite caused collapse of culture back in the 5th century. It consolidated the elite's power into an oppressive Dark Age that engulfed the world for almost 1000 years until the pre-enlightenment of the Renaissance...

We are plummeting into a new Dark Age with a technological overlay that will destroy humanity and most if not all life on earth if we don't stop it. The only way IS to awaken the world's people to what is happening... there is no other way to stop it. This new Hell promises no possibility of a eventual renaissance. Their tans-humanist inorganic agenda desires all organic life to be dead right down to the last amoeba.

JTCoyoté

"The strength and power of despotism
consists wholly in the fear of resistance."

~Thomas Paine


  I understand JT.  One of my sons and I were discussing stuff like this the other night.  We think we would be better off if the entire earth suffered an EMP attack and we were back to the technology of the 1800's---guns and horses.  Man has really scrwed things up.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341


All the more reason to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior.
............not one of those you gave me have been lost. None    John 18:9 KJV


  He will straighten things out before we have 1000 years of darkness.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
bump

This isn't the first time I've heard this over the last 4 years - where in the world is good 'ole Chuck and others coming up with "30 million" Christians not voting the last time around?(which supposedly resulted in Obama getting elected)

What did he and everyone else do? Go around the country knocking on everyone's doors to ask them if they are a Christian AND voted? Did they mail or email questionnaires asking them what they did on that election night?

And for that matter too - John McCain isn't even a conservative. He supports abortion and gun control(among other liberalism issues), and voted for TARP. So would it have mattered if he had gotten "elected" instead?

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
VOTE FOR GARY JOHNSON OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
 Faces, actors, MSM heads, get attention.
 The elite's have a battalion of recruiters, guys who run around in the right circles and get these guys.
They convince them one way on another to hop on the wagon, they know exactly what buttons to push.

 Profilers do their job and their controll sicks the right *their * people to get the job done. They have been doing this at universitys forever, I know it sounds low key but its part of the game. They seek out the pliable but promising  college brains and the agency recruits , they are convincing.

 MIT being one university that is but run by the agency.. So take your pick, from the promising young ones, to the public figures like Chucky. It's rigged.
 
 Long ago during the McCarthy (witch hunt) reign of terror and the communist behind every bush, Hollywood actors were terrified of being blacklisted, well folks, for the most part it seem they still are.

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Gary Johnson Sues for Participation in Pres. Debates
       

Raven Clabough
New American
Sept 25, 2012

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has filed suit in an effort to be permitted to engage in the presidential debates set to take place between President Obama and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Johnson has filed an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court, asserting that the two major parties are conspiring to ostracize third party candidates from the debates as well as the Oval Office.

Raw Story reports, “In the suit, Johnson’s attorneys argue that the rules of the televised debates, which are set by the major parties, are deliberately structured to bar third party candidates and squash their candidacies. The suit asks that the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., therefore impose a temporary restraining order blocking the debates until all ‘constitutionally eligible’ candidates be allowed to participate.”

According to the presidential debate rules, for a candidate to participate in the debates, they must be constitutionally eligible, have achieved ballot access in enough states to stand a chance to win a majority of the Electoral College in the general election, and received at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five polling organizations selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Such obstacles are virtually insurmountable for a candidate like a Gary Johnson who is often not even listed in major polls as an option.

“The view that presidential debates are critical to the outcome of the election is now universally held,” reads the suit. “From that premise, it follows that the participation by a candidate in the nationally-televised debates is equally critical to his or her candidacy.”

The lawsuit contends that since the presidential and vice presidential positions are paid salaries, pursuit for the White House can be deemed as commerce and therefore regulated under the Sherman AntiTrust Act.

The relevant portion of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which prohibits business activities that reduce competition and requires the government to investigate trusts, reads:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

“In agreeing to these rules to exclude the plaintiff from participating in the debates, the defendants are conspiring and contracting to restrain the plaintiffs from participating in the electoral process,” reads the suit.

Likewise, the Johnson camp contends that the Libertarian Party ticket will be on the November ballot in 47 states, which is enough to conceive of a 270 Electoral College vote victory for the Libertarian Party in the presidential election.

Johnson’s case has been assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, a George W. Bush appointee, who has only heard one other case involved a minor party.

This is not the first time throughout this election that Johnson has been barred from a debate. In fact, Johnson has been barred from almost every Republican primary debate this year. Organizers behind the debates claimed that Johnson did not have enough support in the polls to warrant his inclusion in the debates. In the end, Johnson decided not to pursue the GOP nomination and instead opt for a third party nomination.

Whether Johnson will have any success in his lawsuit remains to be seen, though recent historical precedent says no. In 2000, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan fired suit against the Commission on Presidential Debates asking to be included in the debates, but failed.

The Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987 to replace the League of Women Voters, and opponents of the CPD argue that the CPD ultimately fosters the two-party system because board members of the CPD are primarily leads within the Democratic and Republican parties.

According to George Farah in his book No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, the CPD took over the debate process in order to provide unlimited power to the two-party system. Farah wrote that the current debate system was manufactured so to stifle third-party candidates.

But previous failures have not deterred the Johnson campaign from pursuing what they believe is right.

“There is nothing remotely surprising in the fact that a private organization created by and run by the Republican and Democratic Parties has only invited the Republican and Democratic candidates to their debates. It is a bit more disturbing that the national news media has chosen to play the two-party game, when a full one-third of the American people do not necessarily identify with either of those two parties…” said Johnson advisor Ron Nielson.

“Someone has to stand up and call this what it is — a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly,” Nielson continued, “That someone will be the Johnson campaign.”

And according to US News, a court failure for Johnson may not necessarily hurt his chances of having an impact on the national election:

Even if his lawsuit fails, it could help Johnson gain publicity and maximize his potential on Election Day. Johnson favors deep cuts in federal spending and power, along with withdrawal of U.S. troops from abroad, including Afghanistan. If he can boost his support in a handful of battleground states, he could have an impact on the race by taking votes from the major-party nominees, especially Romney, who is also trying to appeal to less-government conservatives.

If Johnson’s suit is successful, this year’s presidential debates will either have to include Johnson, as well as Green Party candidate Jill Stein of Boston, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania anti-poverty candidate Cheri Honkala, or be cancelled.

The last third party candidate to share the stage with the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees with Ross Perot in 1992, who garnered a significant 18.9 percent of the popular vote on Election Day.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gary-johnson-sues-for-participation-in-pres-debates.html

Offline Ojos Rojos

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
well atleast reagan and norris have the positive outlook that we can recover in 1000 years when in reality regardless of which of these two tools you vote for america is on the brink of eternal darkness and it's probably to late to turn it around without drastic action of some sort and even that at this point would be questionable as to it's effectiveness. the america that i was born into just 4 decades ago is a smoldering heap of rumble and very few have stopped and taken notice. the people who designed and implemented this plan worked in stealth so far ahead of us and for so long that the water has done boiled and the frog is cooked and floating belly up in the pot.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
well atleast reagan and norris have the positive outlook that we can recover in 1000 years when in reality regardless of which of these two tools you vote for america is on the brink of eternal darkness and it's probably to late to turn it around without drastic action of some sort and even that at this point would be questionable as to it's effectiveness. the america that i was born into just 4 decades ago is a smoldering heap of rumble and very few have stopped and taken notice. the people who designed and implemented this plan worked in stealth so far ahead of us and for so long that the water has done boiled and the frog is cooked and floating belly up in the pot.
Ojos, bingo...and welcome to the site.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,404
bump - replay   



Quote
Actor Clint Eastwood captured headlines by pretending an empty chair was President Obama at last week's Republican National Convention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ
Clint Eastwood RNC Speech (COMPLETE): Actor Assails Obama Through Empty Chair

Published on Aug 30, 2012
RNC 2012: Mystery speaker Eastwood stages a mock conversation with President Obama. For more: http://abcn.ws/OB07tV
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Dude447

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,185
As an outsider looking on . If the USA is going to keep going with the 2 party system . Would I be right in thinking the average american has not got a lot of choice? . Please Lord let there be no President Hilldog the world is mad enough .

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
S. 1867 'Indefinite Detention' Defense Bill Passes Senate
www.conservativeactionalerts.com/.../s-1867-indefin...
Traduzir esta página
With eyes wide open.

02/12/2011 - It's official: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867, passed the Senate yesterday, December 1. The Upper ...
The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes ...
endthelie.com/.../the-entire-united-states-is-now-a-w...

02/12/2011 - S.1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012, passed with a resounding 93-7 vote. That's right, 93 of our ...
[PDF]S. 1867 AN ACT - U.S. Government Printing Office
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf
S. 1867. AN ACT. To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense ...

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,404

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/tom-delay-obama-paralyzed-by-muslim-sympathies/
Tom DeLay: Obama paralyzed by Muslim sympathies

ISIS failure attributed to religious background, ideology, incompetence
Published: 2 days ago 09/04/2014

NEW YORK – President Obama’s left-leaning political ideology combined with sympathies for Islam acquired from being raised by a Muslim stepfather paralyze him as he faces the threat posed by the Islamic jihadist group ISIS, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told WND in an interview.

“In defending America against radical Islamic terrorism, Barack Obama cannot be trusted,” DeLay said.

Barack Obama was raised a Muslim, and he claims he is a Christian, and I can’t say for sure whether he’s a Christian or not, but he has shown over the last few years that he has great sympathies with Islam,” DeLay explained.

You combine that with Obama’s political orientation that is far to the left,” he continued, “and you get a president who hates war, hates the military, and you have a formula for military inaction when it comes to combating radical Islamic terrorists like we are seeing in ISIS.”

DeLay’s indictment of Obama did not end there.

You add to mix that Barack Obama is incompetent, way over his head as president, and the whole combination produces a worldview that makes Obama detached and reluctant to take the type of the military action against ISIS that would be effective,” he said

DeLay concluded Obama “does not want to face the reality of the danger and threat represented to the United States by ISIS, and he does not want to admit the connections between al-Qaida and ISIS, because he refuses to understand that we are in a war against radical Islamic terrorism.”

...
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Dude447

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,185
Obama  could not arrange a game of golf on a good day