Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 2nd, 2008

Saturday Open Thread… (8/2/08)

By- Suzie-Q @ 5:30 PM MST

Good Evening Justice Bloggers:

This is an open thread…   What’s on your mind?

Read Full Post »

Remember Hitler’s Eugenics Program ?

GEF @ 7:08 PM ET

Remember Nazi Population Control Scheme ?

Read Full Post »

Cindy Lou Hensley McCain: Millionaire aka Pillionaire?

By- Suzie-Q @ 12:30 PM MST

Dickipedia: Cindy McCain

236.com: The News Only Funnier | August 2, 2008 11:18 AM

Cindy Lou Hensley McCain (born Cindy Lou Hensley on May 20, 1954) is the wife of U.S. Senator, ill-fated presidential candidate, elderly curmudgeon, and dick John McCain. She, herself, is a multi-millionaire, pill-popper–a combination sometimes referred to as a “pillionaire”–and an excellent example of why people should stop after one facelift, two max. She is also a dick.

As a potential though seriously long shot First Lady, anything and everything about Cindy McCain will be seized upon and exaggerated by the media. Like her hideously plastic appearance. And the period of her life she spent zonked out on Percocet. And that she obviously has a fetish for old balls.

McCain is chair of Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributors in the nation. Essentially, this makes her a legalized drug kingpin. Of course, better that than ketchup czar, but still.

Cindy McCain wishes she were Michelle Obama so bad, it gives her sweater bullets just thinking about it.

Read the whole story here.

Read Full Post »

anthony @ 19:22 BST

…the day stays grey and lonely for Little Orphan Annie and Sandy gets sent to the pound and eternal sleep!

Excerpt: “I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson where Senator Aldrich’s private car would be in readiness attached to the rear-end of a train to the south. Once aboard the private car we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. We addressed one another as Ben, Paul, Nelson and Abe. Davison and I adopted even deeper disguises abandoning our first names. On the theory that we were always right, he became Wilbur and I became Orville after those two aviation pioneers the Wright brothers. The servants and train crew may have known the identities of one or two of us, but they did not know all and it was the names of all printed together that would’ve made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery we knew simply must not happen.” (Frank Vanderlip, Saturday Evening Post, February 9, 1935)

From A Talk by Edward Griffin: Author of The Creature from Jekyll Island:

When I did my research on this topic I came to the startling conclusion that the Federal Reserve System does not need to be audited, it needs to be abolished. This is very intriguing to think we should audit the Fed but I discovered that probably if they audited the Fed it would get a clean bill because it’s undoubtedly doing exactly what it’s supposed to do according to the law. What it is supposed to do according to the law is justification for abolishing it so all we have to do is understand what the Federal Reserve System is supposed to do and we’ll be pretty upset about it. The fact of the matter is that most people haven’t the foggiest idea of what it is in fact supposed to do.

I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for seven reasons. I’d like to read them to you now just so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from, as they say. I put these into the most concise phrasing that I can to make them somewhat shocking and maybe you’ll remember them:

The Federal Reserve is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
It is a cartel operating against the public interest.
It’s the supreme instrument of usury.
It generates our most unfair tax.
It encourages war.
It destabilizes the economy.

I don’t know what you think about those seven points. I know a lot of you folks agree with them right off the bat, but I presume that there are some skeptics here tonight and I hope there are otherwise I am the minister talking to the choir. I know in fact that there are always quite a few skeptics that come to these meetings and frankly you are the folks I’m talking to tonight because once, not too long ago, I was in that same frame of mind. I would’ve thought to myself those are rather extreme statements, I don’t think they can be supported by fact. Though time doesn’t permit me to cover all of those seven points here tonight, I would like to splash around on the first four topics for a little while and show you that there is in fact quite a bit of reason for a rational person to conclude that those statements are true. (more…)

Read Full Post »

anthony @ 18:57 BST

On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing 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 to the present. For example, the White House website states:

“Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, last extended on September 5, 2006, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2007. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.”

A separate announcement on the White House website states:

“Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2007. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.”

See also this. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Wal-Mart Shoots Themselves In The Foot….Again!

GEF @ 1:28 PM ET

WOW TALK ABOUT STUNTS THAT WILL HURT PROFITS!

SO HOW MANY DEMOCRATS DO YOU THINK WILL STOP SHOPPING AT WALLY WORLD BECAUSE OF THIS? LIKE MULTI-MILLIONS ?

BWAHAHAHAHA! 😉

Wal-Mart Corp. Warns Its Employees About The Perils Of Democrats In Office
By: C&L

Wall Street Journal:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.[..]

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don’t specifically tell attendees how to vote in November’s election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

“The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union,’” said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said.

This would be a great opportunity to recommend that you rent Robert Greenwald’s documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices to see just how anti-union Wal-Mart truly is and what you compromise to get those super low prices.

The G Spot has more…

Read Full Post »

Sudhan @17:15 CET

Jason Leopold | Online Journal, July 31, 2008

waterboard3-small.jpg

A Justice Department legal opinion issued in August 2002 advised the CIA that its interrogators would not be prosecuted for violating anti-torture laws as long as they acted in “good faith” while using brutal techniques to obtain information from suspected terrorists, according to a previously undisclosed memo released publicly last Thursday.

The closely guarded Aug. 1, 2002, memo provided the Bush administration with the legal framework to use “alternative interrogation methods” against suspected terrorists captured in the war on terror.

The heavily redacted document, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act request, was signed by then Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and specifically outlined approved methods the CIA could use, such as waterboarding, during interrogations. Waterboarding has been regarded as torture since the days of the Spanish Inquisition.

“To validate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering,” the Aug. 1, 2002 memo says. “Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture.”

The Bybee memo was written by John Yoo, a former deputy attorney general at the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and preceded a second August 2002 legal opinion about CIA interrogation methods leaked to the media in 2004. Both memos were later rescinded.

The Aug. 1, 2002, legal opinion was based on a statute governing health benefits when Yoo provided the White House with a legal opinion defining torture, according to a former Justice Department official.

Yoo’s legal opinion stated that unless the amount of pain administered to a detainee results in injury “such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions” than the interrogation technique could not be defined as torture.

Waterboarding, a brutal and painful technique in which a prisoner believes he is drowning, Yoo wrote, therefore was not considered to be torture.

“That statute defined an ‘emergency medical condition’ that warranted certain health benefits as a condition ‘manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)’ such that the absence of immediate medical care might reasonably be thought to result in death, organ failure, or impairment of bodily function,” Jack Goldsmith, the former head of OLC, wrote in his book, The Terror Presidency

“The health benefits statute’s use of ’severe pain’ had no relationship whatsoever to the torture statute. And even if it did, the health benefit statute did not define ’severe pain.’ Rather it used the term ’severe pain’ as a sign of an emergency medical condition that, if not treated, might cause organ failure and the like. . . . OLC’s clumsily definitional arbitrage didn’t seem even in the ballpark.”

Yoo, who now teaches at the University of California at Berkeley, also drafted a March 14, 2003 document, nearly identical to the August 2002 memo he authored, that essentially provided military interrogators with legal cover if they resorted to brutal and violent methods to extract information from prisoners. The ACLU under a FOIA request also obtained that document earlier this year.

Continued . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: