PDA

View Full Version : Just In: Obama Admin. Admits Gave OK Kill US Citizens Overseas!



Peter Lemkin
02-09-2010, 01:08 PM
Way to Go USA! Hey, we're gonna show those damn Nazi's we can be meaner, tougher, more ruthless, care less about law and justice.....we edge closer every day....to our ultimate goal.....!!:s::thumpdown:

US says it may kill Americans abroad

By John Byrne
Thursday, February 4th, 2010 -- 8:57 am

Update at bottom: Renowned blogger/lawyer Glenn Greenwald says program breaks US laws

In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee. He said US counter-terrorism officials may try to kill American citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with "specific permission" from higher up.

If "we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Blair said in response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Representative Pete Hoekstra.

Blair's comments came after The Washington Post reported that US President Barack Obama had embraced predecessor George W. Bush's policy of authorizing the killing of US citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.
Story continues below...


If a United States citizen was determined to have joined a foreign terrorist group, that person could be legally murdered under orders given by President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks.

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said," the Post reported. "The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,' said one former intelligence official.

"The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, 'it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,' said a senior administration official. 'They are then part of the enemy.'"

The Post, citing anonymous US officials, said the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Joint Special Operations Command have three Americans on their lists of specific people targeted for killing or capture.

Blair said weighing whether to target a US national required determining "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans."

The intelligence chief said he was offering such unusually detailed information in public because "I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless."

"In fact, we're not careless about endangering lives at all, but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country," he said.

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican, asked what the standards were for targeting American citizens abroad. Blair didn't specifically articulate them.

"We don't target people for free speech," he said. "We target them for taking action that threatens Americans."

Hoekstra pressed him, citing a 2001 incident in which Peru's air force shot down a plane carrying US missionaries, killing a woman and her seven-month-old daughter, after the aircraft was misidentified as a drug-smuggler.

"We were careless and we were reckless," Blair replied. "I want to make sure that this committee does everything that it can and within its power that it does not allow the community to be reckless and careless again."

"While I'm in charge, we will not be careless and reckless," he pledged.

Renowned blogger/lawyer Glenn Greenwald says program breaks US laws

Two of the most respected bloggers from the left who focus on civil liberties and constitutional issues offered harsh criticisms of the assassination program on Thursday.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald, a former NYC lawyer and the 'author of two New York Times Bestselling books,' observes, "Although Blair emphasized that it requires 'special permission' before an American citizen can be placed on the assassination list, consider from whom that 'permission' is obtained: the President, or someone else under his authority within the Executive Branch. There are no outside checks or limits at all on how these 'factors' are weighed. In last week's post, I wrote about all the reasons why it's so dangerous -- as well as both legally and Constitutionally dubious -- to allow the President to kill American citizens not on an active battlefield during combat, but while they are sleeping, sitting with their families in their home, walking on the street, etc. That's basically giving the President the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial. Who could possibly support that?"

Greenwald continues,

The severe dangers of vesting assassination powers in the President are so glaring that even GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra is able to see them (at least he is now that there's a Democratic President). At yesterday's hearing, Hoekstra asked Adm. Blair about the threat that the President might order Americans killed due to their Constitutionally protected political speech rather than because they were actually engaged in Terrorism. This concern is not an abstract one. The current controversy has been triggered by the Obama administration's attempt to kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. But al-Awlaki has not been accused (let alone convicted) of trying to attack Americans. Instead, he's accused of being a so-called "radical cleric" who supports Al Qaeda and now provides "encouragement" to others to engage in attacks -- a charge al-Awlaki's family vehemently denies (al-Awlaki himself is in hiding due to fear that his own Government will assassinate him).

The question of where First Amendment-protected radical advocacy ends and criminality begins is exactly the sort of question with which courts have long grappled. In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who — surrounded by hooded indivduals holding weapons — gave a speech threatening ”revengeance” against any government official who “continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Court held that the First Amendment protects advocacy of violence and revolution, and that the State is barred from punishing citizens for the expression of such views. The Brandenburg Court pointed to a long history of precedent protecting the First Amendment rights of Communists to call for revolution — even violent revolution — inside the U.S., and explained that the Government can punish someone for violent actions but not for speech that merely advocates or justifies violence (emphasis added):

As we [395 U.S. 444, 448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

Blogger Empty Wheel, who published a highly acclaimed book on the Plame leak case under her real name Marcia Wheeler, writes, "Glenn’s point is important because it appears the government agrees with him on the First Amendment point: all of the speech al-Awlaki has engaged in for the last decade was not deemed worthy of even a criminal indictment. Yet all of a sudden, it got al-Awlaki on the kill list."

David Guyatt
02-09-2010, 02:08 PM
In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

Once upon a time in the distant past there was this very curious and archaic system whereby someone believed to be doing something inimical to the interests of the state (or at least against its stated laws), would be arrested by a policemen, taken to court where something called a trial took place. Advocates for the accuser (the state) and the defence (the accused) presented factual evidence and a Jury of 12 men and women weighed the evidence and came to a judgement whether the accused was guilty or innocent of the accusation -- and if found guilty then a court Judge handed down a punishment. This was especially the case in cases where the defendants life was in jeopardy if found guilty. I say especially because human jurisprudence over the centuries turned up so many cases where a trial was rigged, the evidence false and innocent lives taken needlessly that it was felt that a particularly strong test must be made to ensure the judgement must be correct in the future.

It was, undeniably, a very laborious process - and mistakes continued to happen from time to time. But, at least, it was the best that could be managed under the circumstances, namely the blind leading the blind.

It seems like sheer madness these days, I know. Thankfully such archaic ideas and processes slipped into misuse what seems like centuries ago now. Today we are fortunate to have a state that is never wrong, would certainly never do anything that was unlawful and who, bless them, have only our best interests in the forefront of their mind. So we can rest assured that they will only do right.

Ergo, justice is safe in their hands.

As are our wallets....

Peter Lemkin
02-09-2010, 03:09 PM
In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.

Once upon a time in the distant past there was this very curious and archaic system whereby someone believed to be doing something inimical to the interests of the state (or at least against its stated laws), would be arrested by a policemen, taken to court where something called a trial took place. Advocates for the accuser (the state) and the defence (the accused) presented factual evidence and a Jury of 12 men and women weighed the evidence and came to a judgement whether the accused was guilty or innocent of the accusation -- and if found guilty then a court Judge handed down a punishment. This was especially the case in cases where the defendants life was in jeopardy if found guilty. I say especially because human jurisprudence over the centuries turned up so many cases where a trial was rigged, the evidence false and innocent lives taken needlessly that it was felt that a particularly strong test must be made to ensure the judgement must be correct in the future.

It was, undeniably, a very laborious process - and mistakes continued to happen from time to time. But, at least, it was the best that could be managed under the circumstances, namely the blind leading the blind.

It seems like sheer madness these days, I know. Thankfully such archaic ideas and processes slipped into misuse what seems like centuries ago now. Today we are fortunate to have a state that is never wrong, would certainly never do anything that was unlawful and who, bless them, have only our best interests in the forefront of their mind. So we can rest assured that they will only do right.

Ergo, justice is safe in their hands.

As are our wallets....

Yeah, 'Once Upon A Time....' like in a fairytale. Just think in a few years there will be young adults who don't remember anything of such 'old fashioned' and cumbersome methods of justice. A killer drone not only saves time, but saves the trouble of all of the above. Just one last thought.....from killing citizens outside the country without trial - or legal process of any kind - to the killing citizens INSIDE the country without trial - or legal process of any kind is a VERY small step - and as all on this Forum know has already been stepped over many 'O time [covertly]....and it is only a matter of months, IMO, before that say so openly! When I was young I used to want to live to be 100 or more. Now at 59 I sometimes wonder if I even want to bother reaching 60, the way things are going.......:bandit:

Peter Lemkin
02-09-2010, 05:04 PM
[me speaking - who's to say that your government doesn't find you secretly, without any legal process a 'terrorist' and decides it can kill you without any compunctions or consequences?.......]:five: I'm an American critical of the Regime out of the USA....am I fair game....I assume I am!


AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration has acknowledged it’s continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of US citizens abroad. The confirmation came from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in congressional testimony last week.

Blair told the House Intelligence Committee US forces can assassinate Americans believed to be involved in terrorist activity against the United States. Blair said, quote, “Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

Blair’s comments came one week after the Washington Post reported at least three US citizens are on “hit lists” maintained by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. The most well-known target is the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is accused of having ties to the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the shooting at Fort Hood.

My first two guests have been among the most vocal critics of the continued assassination policy. Democratic Congress member Dennis Kucinich joins us from Washington, DC. Last week he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an explanation of the Obama administration’s legal basis for the extrajudicial killing of US citizens. And we’re joined on the telephone by Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. He wrote a widely circulated piece for Salon last week called “Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens.”

Let’s begin with Congress member Dennis Kucinich. Explain what you wrote to Attorney General Holder.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I think it’s incumbent upon the Attorney General to explain the basis in law for such a policy. Our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, our Seventh Amendment, our Fourteenth Amendment all clearly provide legal protections for people who are accused or who would be sentenced after having been judged to be guilty. And what’s happened is that the Constitution is being vitiated here. The idea that people are—have—if their life is in jeopardy, legally have due process of law, is thrown out the window.

And, Amy, when you consider that there are people who are claiming there are many terrorist cells in the United States, it doesn’t take too much of a stretch to imagine that this policy could easily be transferred to citizens in this country. That doesn’t—that only compounds what I think is a slow and steady detachment from core constitutional principles. And once that happens, we have a country then that loses its memory and its soul, with respect to being disconnected from those core constitutional principles which are the basis of freedom in our society.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, you’ve been writing about this extensively. Can you talk about your major objections and where you think this policy is going?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, look at the controversies that Democrats and progressives were so vocal about during the Bush years. They objected vehemently over the Bush administration’s wiretapping of American citizens without any court warrants or judicial oversight. They objected when the Bush administration put, not American citizens, but foreign nationals into cages at Guantánamo, merely on the say-so of the President that these people were terrorists.

Here, you’re talking about the worst elements of those policies, but even more extreme. You’re talking about American citizens not being merely wiretapped by the President with no oversight, but murdered, assassinated, killed, based solely on the unchecked say-so of the President.

And I think what really has to be emphasized is, look at how many times over the past decade that the administration—both first the Bush administration, then the Obama administration—has accused people of being terrorists, the worst of the worst, and it turned out that they were completely wrong. Hundreds of people who were at Guantánamo ended up being released because there was no evidence of wrongdoing print. Ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 granted habeas corpus rights to detainees, thirty-three out of thirty-nine Guantánamo detainees who brought their cases before a court were ordered released by federal judges on the grounds that there was no evidence to justify the accusations against them.

So there are few things more dangerous than allowing the executive branch to label people terrorists and treat them accordingly, and that danger is compounded severely when you’re talking about American citizens who have constitutional rights and talking about not merely eavesdropping on them or imprisoning them, but actually murdering them.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, you quote a 1981 executive order signed by Ronald Reagan.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, you know, assassinations have a very long and sordid history in the United States, and the reason is, is that the CIA has used assassinations as a major weapon in its arsenal, so much so that they’ve assassinated people who ended up being wrongly killed, who ended up causing great controversy because it’s extrajudicial killings. And even Ronald Reagan, who engaged in all sorts of extreme policies in Central America waging covert war, declared political assassinations, assassinations of political leaders, to be illegal. Now that applies only to political assassinations, not necessarily to assassinations of people accused of terrorism, but the principle is the same, that these kind of extrajudicial killings, which we condemn when virtually every other country does, was so extreme, so contrary to our values, that even Ronald Reagan issued an executive order banning it.

And now here’s President Obama doing it again, not with regard to foreign nationals or to foreign leaders who we accuse of all kinds of extremities, but United States citizens, in the case of al-Awlaki, born and raised and educated in the United States. And it’s as severe and extreme a policy as can be imagined.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Congress member Dennis Kucinich, what can you do about this in Congress?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

And I think that the reason why this is important for the Attorney General to reflect upon is that the President and all federal officials take an oath to defend that Constitution. This is the Constitution. If they’re saying that the authorization for the use of military force passed after 9/11 is the basis for this action, we should know that they’re saying that. But a fair reading of that said it applied only to those who were involved in 9/11, not someone who joins an organization later on, no matter how misguided or wrongheaded that that may be, that is seen to be a threat to the US, that someone can just say, “Well, you know, you’re done. You’re dead.”

You know, what about the right to be able to be told of the charges against you? What about the right to a trial? What about the right to be able to have—be presented by your accusers? This is—this is a dangerous moment. And either—I see it as a constitutional crisis. And Congress has to start stepping up to review these actions without regard to whether it’s a Democrat or Republican administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have support among your colleagues, Congressman Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I just raised this issue in the last week, and it’s been snowing here, so I’ll be speaking to my colleagues about that when I see them. I’m here. I’m hopeful that this week there will still be some sessions of Congress, so we can begin the discussion.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, thank you for making your way into the studio today. On another issue, I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision. You ran for president. You were part of the Democratic primary. In fact, wasn’t it true that ABC News stopped following you when they said you hadn’t raised enough money? I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We’re working on a constitutional amendment right now, Amy, that would address this—the core issues in not only the Citizens United case, but the Buckley v. Valeo case. Our government right now is like an auction, where policy is—goes to the highest bidder. And this pay-to-play environment is destructive of any hope that people could have to have their practical aspirations addressed by the government. You know, the idea that Wall Street is now moving its smart money over to the Republicans is quite instructive. The idea that health insurance interests could raise money during the very—for members of Congress, during the very time that legislation is before the Congress that would change the way that they do business, these are things that reflect on the danger to our democracy.

And I think this Citizens United case, which gave the corporations the ability to interfere in elections in a major way, through their money, puts us at risk of openly having a corporate-dominated government. Now it’s kind of a secret, I suppose, in some places. But it’s now—you know, once Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court in the way it was, now it’s basically open season on anyone who challenges these corporate interests and a free pass for anyone who supports them. A real danger to our democratic tradition calls out for constitutional remedies, and there are many that are now being considered, and I’m certainly working on some.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, you know, it was interesting because I was—I agree with Congressman Kucinich completely with regard to the constitutional arguments he was making about the presidential assassination program. If you look at the Fifth Amendment, it really does say no person shall be deprived of life without due process. It says that in clear terms. To me, the First Amendment is just as clear, and it says Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. And as Justice Hugo Black said, I read that to mean Congress shall make no law abridging free speech.

So, I certainly agree that corporate dominance of our Congress—you know, Senator Durbin recently said the banks own the place, an extraordinary statement for the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate to make. I think the corporate dominance of our political process is one of the two or three greatest threats we face. But I also think that whatever solutions we try and find for that need to be consistent with the clear constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment, and allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seems very problematic.

So I think there are ways around it. I think public financing of campaigns can equalize the playing field. I think some constitutional amendment might be viable, but I do think it’s a very difficult question constitutionally to allow the government to start saying who can speak about our elections and who can’t. So, I think the First Amendment needs to be just as honored as the Fifth Amendment when we talk about these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I would agree with Mr. Greenwald and also thank him for the three important articles he wrote in the wake of Dana Priest writing in the Washington Post about this assassination program.

With respect to corporate contributions, let’s take for example anyone who gets a contract from the government. Why should they be permitted to plow the money they get from taxpayers back into political contributions? Because since money is fungible, that is what would happen. There should be restrictions there. That would go a long way to stopping these interest groups from being able to compete for government contracts and then turn around and rewarding those who give them money. I mean, take, for example, the bailouts. You know, we have an—will have an unending bailout culture, if you can have Wall Street continuing to give money to politicians who will then vote for bailouts for them. When does it stop?

This is why the only remedy is constitutional. And certainly one of the factors that has to be in there is public financing. I mean, if you have public financing of campaigns, you have public ownership of the political process. You have private financing of campaigns, you have private ownership of the political process. So, again, we have to—we’re continuing in this experiment in government to decide what kind of government we want. Do we want government of the people? Do we want government of the corporations? Right now, with two Supreme Court rulings, we have moved towards the balance towards government of the corporations. This is something that Jefferson feared, something that Lincoln feared, something that Eisenhower warned about. And we should find out, in this time, in 2010, whether or not we truly believe that this Declaration of Independence and Constitution is a living testament or whether it’s just, you know, a document gathering dust in some place in antiquity.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, in this last minute, Congress member Kucinich, the death of your close friend, Congress member Murtha.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: You know, when you see someone like John Murtha, who had the capacity to listen carefully and to watch carefully what was happening in Iraq and to come forward as he did in 2006 to change and to challenge the war, that was an important moment. Congressman Neil Abercrombie and I spent many long discussions with John Murtha talking to him about the war and expressing to him, in 2004, 2005, our deep concerns about the direction that the war had gone, and John Murtha listened carefully. And that really was the measure of Mr. Murtha.

I have to tell you, on a personal note, I mean, despite the fact that he and I may have had some, you know, fundamental differences of opinion about the great mass of money that went—that goes into the Department of Defense, he was someone—because of his openness, he was someone who was really loved by members of Congress. And my—[no audio]

AMY GOODMAN: We just lost Congress member Kucinich. But we’re going to go to break, and when we come back, we’re going to play a brief conversation I had with Congress member Murtha in 2006. It was about the killings in Haditha. It was about the war in Iraq. Congress member Kucinich, joining us from Ohio, and Glenn Greenwald, joining us on the phone, constitutional law attorney and legal blogger at Salon.com.

David Guyatt
02-09-2010, 05:33 PM
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

(my bolding)

Kucinich appears to be saying that the Constitution has been secretly suspended following 911?

Although off subject, he also lets the cat out of the bag that there a state of national emergency has been declared about Iran, which was news to me, and by which I assume that Iran is going to be hammered no matter what? The decision has already been taken?

Peter Lemkin
02-09-2010, 07:33 PM
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

(my bolding)

Kucinich appears to be saying that the Constitution has been secretly suspended following 911?

Although off subject, he also lets the cat out of the bag that there a state of national emergency has been declared about Iran, which was news to me, and by which I assume that Iran is going to be hammered no matter what? The decision has already been taken?

We have SO SO SO Precious few real Representatives, and fewer still Senators who are not owned down to their gonads. Kucinich could have been, IMO, a real Presidential contender and President, but the powers that be didn't even let him get to what we call in the 'States' 'first base'......not a candle's chance in Hell. These three states of national emergency [non-capitals mine] trump the Constitution and much common and statutory law, by fiat..I never did like those cars!

My good man and former financial bigwig, before 'she' is soon widely seen to be a strumpet - a woman of loose morals and false facade, may I interest you in a very highly discounted half of a continent. Cash on the barrelhead, no scrip taken......offer ends very soon. I think even the dolts will soon figure out where America has put her dirty underwear.

Did you hear that today an American ex-soldier in Iraq was arrested [thank goodness or small miracles!] for repeatedly waterboarding his four year old daughter for not doing her 'A,B,C' to his satisfaction......

Your Empire faded out with the end of the War and ours is now at denouement.

Peter Lemkin
02-09-2010, 07:49 PM
A US soldier was accused of waterboarding his four-year-old daughter because she would not recite the alphabet.

Joshua Tabor, 27, allegedly pushed the child's head under water face-up in the kitchen sink at his house.

Tabor told a police officer he and his girlfriend "held her down on the counter and submerged her head into the water three or four times until the water came around her forehead and jawline," according to court documents.

The suspect said he meted out the punishment to the youngster for "refusing to say her letters."

Tabor, a soldier at the Lewis-McChord base in Tacoma, Wash., was charged with second-degree assault of a child and was due to appear in court Feb. 16.


The suspect told police his daughter was afraid of water "and was squirming around trying to get away from the water."

"Joshua did not act as though he felt there was anything wrong with this form of punishment," the report said.

The controversial practice of waterboarding was used by the CIA to break Al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Water was poured over the faces of detainees until they feared they would drown.

President Barack Obama since banned the practice.

Police went to Tabor's house in the Tacoma suburb of Yelm after his girlfriend reported he was "irate, intoxicated and walking around the neighborhood with his Kevlar helmet threatening to break windows."

Tabor's girlfriend told officers he beat the child. The youngster's back was reportedly covered in bruises.

She also claimed the child locked herself in a cupboard because she was afraid of her father.

Police sergeant Rob Carlson confirmed the alleged abuse happened because the little girl would not recite her ABCs, according to police reports.

Tabor was released from jail after posting $10,000 bail but restricted to the base at Lewis-McChord as a condition of his release and cannot have any contact with his girlfriend or children.

The youngster was taken into custody by Child Protective Services.

Peter Lemkin
02-09-2010, 07:53 PM
O.K, Late night special. Whole Nation for half price....

Ed Jewett
02-09-2010, 07:56 PM
In James Douglass' book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters" [unhesitatingly recommended], I am up to page 322. On the preceding 14 pages, he speaks of the stories of Navy Lt. Commander William Bruce Pritzker and retired Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel Daniel Marvin, and earlier quoted Charles Crenshaw, M.D. from his book "JFK: Conspiracy of Silence": "... anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor."

Google up General Order 100 by Abraham Lincoln, cue up the 'Godfather' theme music, and then watch Episode 1C of "The World at War" about the night of the long knives and the dawening realization of the Germans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oyiHbQ4B-c&feature=player_embedded

Extrajudicial murder has achieved a breakthrough, and now we have the condottieri of the private military contractors. See also:

The Central Intelligence Agency at Work

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-operation.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1248521/Theyre-killing-The-dramatic-video-showing-fighter-jets-shooting-U-S-familys-plane-bungled-CIA-operation.html)

And then there is this:

“The ongoing struggle to put Logan County's Blair Mountain on the National Register of Historic Places is drawing attention to West Virginia's notorious mine wars of the early 1900s. Whether or not Blair finally gets U.S. recognition, one thing is certain: The bloody conflict truly was historic.
The State Archives contain many books and reports on America's largest insurrection since the Civil War … Full-scale warfare between defenders on Blair and strikers below ensued for several days. Chafin's forces included state troopers, militiamen, Baldwin-Felts guards and deputized Logan countians. Hundreds of thousands of bullets were fired in the woodland, but casualties were surprisingly light, perhaps under 20. Nobody knows an accurate body count.
President Harding sent federal troops from Kentucky, plus an air squadron under war hero Billy Mitchell from Langley Field near Washington.”
Read the full commentary here:
http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201002060273


"Plus ca change ..."


People outside the States yell that we inside the States should wake up and do something, and some inside the States yell to the states outside the States to do something.

I don't think we'll have to wait long now to see the outcome.

Film at 11.

Magda Hassan
02-10-2010, 12:54 AM
There is something Kaftaesque, if not grotesque, about there even being a discussion about if it is legal or not for the US state to murder US citizens. I am not a lawyer but even I know it is a) wrong and b) illegal. End of discussion.

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2010, 05:12 AM
There is something Kaftaesque, if not grotesque, about there even being a discussion about if it is legal or not for the US state to murder US citizens. I am not a lawyer but even I know it is a) wrong and b) illegal. End of discussion.

There are those neocons....err, I mean neo-fascists in the U.S. who actually try to make the 'legal' (sic) argument that it is legal if the President or someone the Presidents says can make such decisions so decides - because they think that person or person might be a threat [terrorist or other such pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey tag, tag, your dead moniker]. Name 'em and nail 'em - no messy and lengthy trial and conviction rates are better than any prosecutor's dream. But, yes, not only does it specifically violate many U.S. laws and the Constitution, it also violates international treaties the U.S. has signed and International Law - including those the U.S. imposed on the defeated Nazis - how ironic. What goes around really does come around in odd fashions.....

Ed Jewett
02-10-2010, 05:34 AM
The suspension of the Constitution has been at the heart of the "continuity of government" planning in place and accelerated since Reagan, Ollie North, Iran-Contra et al. Major players, even while not serving in government, were Cheney and Rumsfeld, starting when they were in the White House under Ford and continued thereafter and, of course, renewed under VP Cheney in the Bush Administration. FEMA is the sheath of that sword. It goes back to the anti-war protests in the 60's, the riots in the inner cities, etc. when some in government felt especially threatened by the people being upset and potentially capable of raising enough of a ruckus so as to cause termination of war/empire, and so they put in place provisions for martial law, etc. This has been a major focus of Peter Dale Scott's inquiries, as well as others, especially in re: 9/11 when the COG was indeed activated. Though additional research is needed, it is my sense that that move was then quickly choked off into silent presence. There is previously the famous interchange between Sen. Daniel Inouye during the Iran-Contra hearings to squelch and hide inquiry. It lives today in the presence of the Main Core database of Americans to be watched and/or rounded up in the event of ... Today, it is suggested that some subset is also the to-be-terminated-for-cause list available to the terminators.

It has also to do with the flight of the "Doomsday" 'flying Pentagon' planes on 9/11 as documented by Mark Gaffney and others. Many relevant Executive Orders have been written and are in place requiring merely the formal signature and announcement. While I'm sure most here are cognizant of the matter, what we have witnessed is creeping totalitariansim; liberty and blance of power have been slowly rolled back at a slow rate, the infamous 'boiling frog' phenomenon, Milton Mayer's famous description of the Nazi escalation "They Thought They Were Free" (here's an excerpt: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html ), etc. And, yes, the declaration of a 9/11 state emergency has never, to my knowledge, been rescinded. All of this is documented and available on the 'net.

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2010, 06:02 AM
As W famously once said, "The Constitution is JUST a piece of PAPER!". Sadly, due to his ilk, toilet paper and already flushed down and away.......

Some of the best stuff on COG is on Peter Dale Scott's website

Magda Hassan
02-10-2010, 08:13 AM
What about that Peace Prize thingy he got? About time he gave that back I think. He received it under false pretenses. :reddy::evil::mad:

David Guyatt
02-10-2010, 09:42 AM
O.K, Late night special. Whole Nation for half price....

I considered it and naw, but thanks. I've got an offer for 2/3rds of Blighty on the table at half the price right now. And Europe is coming up shortly too.

My money's on the whole planet going cheap after it goes down the toilet. The R & R profits will be enormous.

If there are any aliens around.

I've decided instead to focus my vast and unholy wealth in new educational practices. I'm going to start a nationwide night school and home tuition college (online) offering lessons to young parents in "educational water-boarding" and low voltage "electrickery remedial maths".

After all, it is so very important to drum the 3 "R's" into our young voters to be, don't you think?

And the balance of my worldly abundance will be invested in new smart global voting booths, where the new age new "elec"-torate will receive near lethal pulses of taser-juice if they try to press the wrong button.

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2010, 09:58 AM
O.K, Late night special. Whole Nation for half price....

I considered it and naw, but thanks. I've got an offer for 2/3rds of Blighty on the table at half the price right now. And Europe is coming up shortly too.

My money's on the whole planet going cheap after it goes down the toilet. The R & R profits will be enormous.

If there are any aliens around.

I've decided instead to focus my vast and unholy wealth in new educational practices. I'm going to start a nationwide night school and home tuition college (online) offering lessons to young parents in "educational water-boarding" and low voltage "electrickery remedial maths".

After all, it is so very important to drum the 3 "R's" into our young voters to be, don't you think?

And the balance of my worldly abundance will be invested in new smart global voting booths, where the new age new "elec"-torate will receive near lethal pulses of taser-juice if they try to press the wrong button.

If you're going public and offering shares, I'm in! Electrifying and Enterprising ideas - RIGHT up with the 'times' and the ethics of the times.:shot:

Peter Lemkin
02-10-2010, 10:00 AM
What about that Peace Prize thingy he got? About time he gave that back I think. He received it under false pretenses. :reddy::evil::mad:

No, maybe you didn't notice it is now called the PIECES prize.

Jan Klimkowski
02-10-2010, 06:51 PM
A US soldier was accused of waterboarding his four-year-old daughter because she would not recite the alphabet.

(Snip...)

Tabor was released from jail after posting $10,000 bail but restricted to the base at Lewis-McChord as a condition of his release and cannot have any contact with his girlfriend or children.

The youngster was taken into custody by Child Protective Services.

Three more lives fucked up by Their fatuous War on Terror. :evil:

Ed Jewett
02-11-2010, 02:31 AM
[quote]Kucinich appears to be saying that the Constitution has been secretly suspended following 911?Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Yes, America is Still in an Official State of Emergency (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/yes-america-is-still-in-official-state.html)



A reader asked whether the U.S. is still in an official state of emergency, and if so, what that means.
The answer is yes, we are still in a state of emergency.
Specifically (http://constitutionally.blogspot.com/):
On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001621----000-notes.html) on 9/14/2001:

"A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.


NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . ."
That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 [throughout the Bush administration] to the present.On September 10 2009, President Obama continued the state of emergency (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Message-from-the-President-regarding-the-emergency-declared-with-respect-to-the-September-11-2001-terrorist-attacks/):
The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. Does a State of Emergency Really Mean Anything?

Does a state of emergency really mean anything?

Yes, it does (http://constitutionally.blogspot.com/):
The Washington Times wrote (http://web.archive.org/web/20010918184425/www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-1136.htm) on September 18, 2001:
"Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law."

Is the Times correct? Well, it is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized (http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=124) by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society:
In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported:
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . taken together, [they] confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."(Most or all of the emergency powers referred to by the above-quoted 1973 Senate report were revoked in the late 1970's by 50 U.S.C. Section 1601 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C34.txt). However, presidents have made numerous declarations of emergency since then, and the declarations made by President Bush in September 2001 are still in effect).

It is also clear that the White House has kept substantial information concerning its presidential proclamations and directives hidden from Congress. For example, according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy:
"Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress (http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00321)."As former United States congressman Dan Hamburg wrote (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/16-2) in October:
While ... Congress and the judiciary, as well as public opinion, “can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers,” nothing of the sort has occurred. Under the 1976 National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651), Congress is required to review presidentially declared emergencies. Specifically, “not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.” Over the past eight years, Congress has failed to obey its own law, a fact that casts doubt on the legality of the state of emergency.
As far as public opinion is concerned, how many Americans are even aware that a state of emergency even exists. For that matter, how many members of Congress know? ...
The Obama administration is essentially arguing that the United States is currently in a state of resisting foreign invasion a full eight years after the attacks of 9/11!
This is ludicrous. [Dr. Harold C. Relyea, a specialist in national government with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress] argues that Congress and the judiciary, as “co-equal branches of constitutional government,” serve as a check on the executive power. As we have seen, Congress has either been shut out of this process, or, as in so many cases, it has capitulated. Dr. Relyea then offers that public opinion can restrain the executive. But the public doesn’t even know they’re living under a state of emergency. The media doesn’t report it, and the government is certainly not in the business of providing information that might raise the hackles of real Americans.
It’s time for the American people to rise to this challenge. Write your member of Congress, and your senators. Tell them to obey their own laws. Tell them to end this phony and treacherous state of emergency that imperils the freedom of us all.
Hamburg's must-read article also discusses the suspension of Possse Comitatus, the operation of Northcom inside the U.S., and the refusal of the Department of Homeland Security to provide information on the state of emergency to Congress or even to Congress members on the Homeland Security committee with the highest security clearances.
The Effect of a State of Emergency on the Economy and Business

The continuous state of emergency in effect from September 2001 to the present may have had a substantial affect on the economy and business.

Initially, as William K. Black - senior regulator during the S&L crisis, professor of Economics and Law, and an expert on white collar financial crime - has repeatedly pointed out, the government knew about an epidemic of mortgage fraud a long time ago. For example, the FBI warned of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. However, the FBI, DOJ and other government agencies putted their agents off of financial fraud investigation and forced them to focus on terrorism instead. See this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html) and this (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/133224/Former-Regulator-Clear-Fraud-in-Financial-Crisis----Why-Isn%27t-Anyone-in-Jail?tickers=BAC,WM,CFC,XLF,JPM)

And as Reuters noted (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60N1S220100124) last week:
U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve's bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.The national security claim may seem outlandish, but it is nothing new.
As Business Week wrote (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily) on May 23, 2006:
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations.In other words, national security has been discussed for years as a basis of keeping normal accounting and securities-related disclosures secret. While "national security" and a state of "national emergency" may not be exactly the same, they are variations of a single theme - an existential threat to our nation - which has dominated American since September 11.

Similarly, Congressman Brad Sherman, Congressman Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/government-said-bailouts-were-needed.html) that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn't passed.
Last year:



Senator Leahy said (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13706.html) "If we learned anything from 9/11, the biggest mistake is to pass anything they ask for just because it's an emergency"



The New York Times wrote: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23skeptics.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
"The rescue is being sold as a must-have emergency measure by an administration with a controversial record when it comes to asking Congress for special authority in time of duress."
***
Mr. Paulson has argued that the powers he seeks are necessary to chase away the wolf howling at the door: a potentially swift shredding of the American financial system. That would be catastrophic for everyone, he argues, not only banks, but also ordinary Americans who depend on their finances to buy homes and cars, and to pay for college.
Some are suspicious of Mr. Paulson’s characterizations, finding in his warnings and demands for extraordinary powers a parallel with the way the Bush administration gained authority for the war in Iraq. Then, the White House suggested that mushroom clouds could accompany Congress’s failure to act. This time, it is financial Armageddon supposedly on the doorstep.
“This is scare tactics to try to do something that’s in the private but not the public interest,” said Allan Meltzer, a former economic adviser to President Reagan, and an expert on monetary policy at the Carnegie Mellon Tepper School of Business. “It’s terrible.”


Most of the Fed and Treasury's looting of America to funnel trillions in bailouts, loans, guarantees, and other favors to the too big to fails was done under the justification of an "emergency".
I don't know whether the official declaration of a "state of emergency" in effect from September 2001 to today was directly used for financial looting. But again, the fear of an existential threat to our country was used to justify the looting.
And many people allege that the government has taken drastic steps to manipulate market prices. If true, the president's ability to use emergency powers to "stabilize the markets" no doubt makes manipulation easier.

Congress Has the Power to Revoke the State of Emergency

A note to Congressional staffers: Congressman Hamburg is right. Congress does have the power to revokethe state of emergency.

Specifically, the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. Sections 1601-1651 (passed in 1976), gives Congress the power to countermand (http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf) a presidential declaration of national emergency. Indeed, in 1976, Congress rescinded (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001601----000-.html) all of the declarations of national emergency made since World War II, as many of them had been on the books for years and were giving the executive unrestricted powers which were undermining the Constitution.

In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fus%2F462%2F9 19%2Fcase.html&ei=o-CQSKO3G5-CpwTv37HoBw&usg=AFQjCNFSVEeaxrz3ypshakEhw4Fxyk_dvA&sig2=Nj4mi-F9xiinBapAb7aT2g) a portion of Congress' power to countermand a declaration of national emergency. But Congress got around that ruling by amending the National Emergencies Act in 1985 to confirm Congress' power to countermand - through a joint resolution between the House and Senate - a declaration of emergency by the president (see this (http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21017.pdf)).

Moreover, in 2007, the Bush Administration tried to ignore the National Emergencies Act by issuing National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824). But that dog won't hunt. The Constitution does not allow the president to unilaterally cut Congress out of the picture.
As former Chicago Federal Reserve economist and Senior Morningstar equity analyst William Bergman wrote in 2001:

Lord Acton’s famous saying that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ provides a valuable warning. In light of the sweeping powers seemingly provided by statutes like 12 U.S.C. 95a and 12 U.S.C. 95(a), those who care about democratic principles and freedom may wish to monitor the implications of these and other laws for government choices before conditions arise giving rise to assertions of emergency authority, in addition to behavior arising amidst an emergency itself. This study could usefully include a renewed assessment of the constitutionality of these and other emergency statutes, as well as more fundamental review of their welfare implications per se, including work along the lines produced for the Senate Special Committee to Terminate the National Emergency in 1973.[i]

[i] See for example Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, “Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency.” United States Senate Report 93-549; November 19, 1973.

Magda Hassan
02-11-2010, 03:22 AM
And the 'War on Terror' will assure that the SOE stay that way for ever and ever and a day or until some some sanity prevails. But that will never happen if looking at the gene pool they have to choose from is any indication.

Peter Lemkin
02-11-2010, 06:29 AM
Sadly, if noting radical is done to REVERSE the situation; develop a totally NEW paradigm in USA, she is IMO in the quicksands of a corporate/financial/war-machine dictatorship up to her chin and about to go under with few even believing what is there for anyone to see - if they would only allow themselves to look. Those of us SCREAMING are usually just branded as paranoid and delusional, marginalized and to the greatest part of the society unheard. The propaganda and distraction machinery is the finest the world has ever seen - and one of the last 'products' still made in the USA - along with weapons and the security-prison-intelligence-weapons industrial complex. Ancient Rome in its late stages can't hold a candle to what we've got going now.....full-fledged moral, legal and economic collapse (except for the top .5%) and the rapid development of a very ugly National Security State. That NSS has been there in its current form since WW2, but has been consolidating its power and running the government (not the other way around) and now starting (sic) to have total surveillance and (their term) full-spectrum dominance over everyone, be they inside and citizens or outside and not. All the shared resources of the Planet they feel are theirs for the taking by force or stealth - usually both. So, as you can see from above and other sources, the USA is in a state of emergency, the exact features of which are secret. All we know is that those who are really 'pulling the strings' can (and do) ignore laws, the Constitution, International Treaties and Laws, Human Rights and Liberties in the name of their unholy Jihad without end. Not a pretty picture, and getting worse by the day. They have built-in a ratchet mechanism and they keep tightening it; ratchet mechanisms only go one way, unless you break them! Not exactly a moment to be proud of what has been going on in my country; but certainly a moment for all who see what is going on to put our shoulders to the wheel - while we are still free to do so. The prison camps are already built. The draconian emergency decrees waiting to be broadcast on some false-flag pretext, IMO. :bandit: Perilous times and most frighteningly, unseen by most - though they know something is wrong, they are falling for the magician's trick and watching the wrong 'hand'.

Ed Jewett
02-11-2010, 07:56 AM
And the 'War on Terror' will assure that the SOE stay that way for ever and ever and a day or until some some sanity prevails. But that will never happen if looking at the gene pool they have to choose from is any indication.


Waiting in the wings...

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d23/XXXevilgrinXXX/LOLZ2/131747a4.png


Asked by a moderator to identify her top three priorities, Palin first mentioned the need to cut spending. Then she looked down at the palm of her hand and appeared to be reading notes of what to say next. The words "Energy," "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" were visible in a photograph of her hand that appeared in the media. The phrase "Budget cuts" also appeared with the word Budget crossed out.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palinhandclose.jpg

Peter Lemkin
02-11-2010, 09:04 AM
And the 'War on Terror' will assure that the SOE stay that way for ever and ever and a day or until some some sanity prevails. But that will never happen if looking at the gene pool they have to choose from is any indication.


Waiting in the wings...

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d23/XXXevilgrinXXX/LOLZ2/131747a4.png


Asked by a moderator to identify her top three priorities, Palin first mentioned the need to cut spending. Then she looked down at the palm of her hand and appeared to be reading notes of what to say next. The words "Energy," "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" were visible in a photograph of her hand that appeared in the media. The phrase "Budget cuts" also appeared with the word Budget crossed out.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palinhandclose.jpg

...and she may well be our next President or Vice-President. Colbert said it best. Palin is a f***ing idiot!....but then W was not a bright light! I'd love to see one of those TV intelligence shows where they ask historical, artistic, philosophic, scientific, political, other questions of the contestants - with Palin v. W. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ed Jewett
02-11-2010, 07:03 PM
We are already in Jeopardy, approaching the final round, in this year's Tournament of Idiots.

Peter Lemkin
02-11-2010, 08:03 PM
We are already in Jeopardy, approaching the final round, in this year's Tournament of Idiots.

It is hard to imagine the gulf between, say, Presidential candidates Adlai Stevenson or Jack or Bobby Kenndy and Sara Palin....I guess Darwin WAS wrong and it is the survival of the least fit that pass on their genes and jeans.

Jan Klimkowski
02-11-2010, 09:27 PM
We are already in Jeopardy, approaching the final round, in this year's Tournament of Idiots.

Can someone ask Sarah Palin how to spell "potato"?

If, Quayle-like, she adds an 'e' to render it "potatoe" , then I will declare that photograph of writing with cues on the palm of the divinely-inspired hockey mom's hand as a conspiracy of the left-wing and socialist media, as it will be proven that Sarah can neither read nor write. For she needs no mortal words to inspire the American people. She needs the words of God, to ensure America's return to its true status as a God-fearing nation.

Revelations 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.

Ed Jewett
02-11-2010, 11:51 PM
We are already in Jeopardy, approaching the final round, in this year's Tournament of Idiots.

It is hard to imagine the gulf between, say, Presidential candidates Adlai Stevenson or Jack or Bobby Kenndy and Sara Palin....I guess Darwin WAS wrong and it is the survival of the least fit that pass on their genes and jeans.


Where mediocrity becomes the norm,

it is not long

before mediocrity becomes the ideal.


--A. N. Wilson

Peter Lemkin
02-12-2010, 05:09 AM
We are already in Jeopardy, approaching the final round, in this year's Tournament of Idiots.

Can someone ask Sarah Palin how to spell "potato"?

If, Quayle-like, she adds an 'e' to render it "potatoe" , then I will declare that photograph of writing with cues on the palm of the divinely-inspired hockey mom's hand as a conspiracy of the left-wing and socialist media, as it will be proven that Sarah can neither read nor write. For she needs no mortal words to inspire the American people. She needs the words of God, to ensure America's return to its true status as a God-fearing nation.

Revelations 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.

Sadly, in jest [?] I think you hit the nail on the head. Her followers don't care if she has to working synapses - as she is an empty vessel that will 'channel' God's word for policy matters. America has lost all reality - it is now a parody of a parody of own worst aspects and trends. Would be funny if it didn't likely spell the end of the World......

Peter Lemkin
02-12-2010, 05:13 AM
We are already in Jeopardy, approaching the final round, in this year's Tournament of Idiots.

It is hard to imagine the gulf between, say, Presidential candidates Adlai Stevenson or Jack or Bobby Kenndy and Sara Palin....I guess Darwin WAS wrong and it is the survival of the least fit that pass on their genes and jeans.


Where mediocrity becomes the norm,

it is not long

before mediocrity becomes the ideal.


--A. N. Wilson

The BBC did a piece on Americans who dislike Obama [hate is closer to their feelings] and many of them loved Sara. One older man when asked what he liked about Sara Palin for President said, 'Well, she's really pretty and nice to look at....I'm serious...I'm being serious!' It is all like a Monty Python skit....but frighteningly real. I think Palin better fits the Dead Parrot sketch. And I dare anyone to present evidence of general 'dumbing down' of the American population. They are as bright as, say, W or Sara...and that is real bright!:o

Ed Jewett
02-12-2010, 08:46 AM
The dumbing down of America -- aside from the Iserbyt book and others like it, and the generalized themes of such found on web sites-- is palpable and observable on the streets of America, in the retail establishments, and in other examples of everyday life. Typos are becoming chronic on news graphics and "crawls", few at check-out behind a cash register can make change easily and often correctly (at least without resorting to a calculator), grammar is appalling in local newspapers, and the radio "call in" talk shows are notorious evidence. TV has had its impact in lowering the "lowest common denominator" threshold, and everyone gets a good laugh out of it when the late-night comedy shows go out on the street to ask everyday people simple questions. So when they see Palin refer to her hand, they don't see what's wrong with it. The American people have been traumatically and subtly made to become dull. :withstupid:

Magda Hassan
02-12-2010, 09:10 AM
This has been posted here before but it is worthwhile doing so again. It does go some way to explain Sarah Palin and those who love her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYjjynROFuI