LOL...as the liberals cry...IRS scandal now traced to the White House! This thing just became the headline act.
Holder to be put on the hot seat. Will end up under the bus in less than a week!
Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press
“Bill Clinton could have ”
Since: May 10
#914308 May 29, 2013
Since: Sep 10
#914309 May 29, 2013
Dumbwaiter once pretended to be a 'Nam Vet.
As par for the course, he was lying. That's what he does.
#914310 May 29, 2013
President’s Obama’s Promise: Global War on Terror to Continue, with Fresh Makeup. Assassinating People Prevents Them From Attacking Us
The United States uses Predator and Reaper drones to kill people at a distance, sometimes at random, sometimes Americans or children, and after a decade of this practice, in the face of scattered popular protest, President Obama gave a speech about it on May 23 that was preceded by waves of advance media buzz that the President was going to change some of the policy in the global war on terrorism.
Who in a sane state of mind would expect any change of policy when the president gives a speech about counter-terrorism at the National Defense University?
In effect, two American administrations have followed the same pre-emptive killing policy that can be summed up simply:“Assassinating people prevents them from attacking us, whether they want to or not, and it’s not up to us to figure out what they want.”
No administration official since 2001 has put it quite that way, of course, but it is a fair summary of the country’s fear-based endless war against an abstraction, terrorism, that is made more palpable by the very actions taken to fight it.
Another way to summarize a dozen years of pre-emptive war is that the United States is within its rights to defend itself against all enemies, real and imagined.
What Do You Call It When One Man Decides Who Lives or Dies?
Since American terror policy is contradictory and semi-secret, it appears incoherent. In March 2012 on CNN, Attorney General Eris Holder expressed the administration’s point of view in a manner suitable to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.” Here, rendered in the quasi-poetic form it deserves, is Holder’s explanation of lethal drone strikes:
Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’
They are not. And the use of that loaded term is misplaced.
‘Assassinations’ are ‘unlawful killings.’
Here, for the reasons that I have given,
the US Government’s use of lethal force
in self-defense against a leader of al Qaeda
or an associated force
who presents an imminent threat of violent attack
would not be unlawful
and therefore would not violate
the executive order banning assassination….
In Holderworld, it is somehow not an assassination to commit a killing that fits the widely accepted definition of “assassination” as “the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons…. An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives….”
You Don’t Need Law When There’s No Political Challenge
As Holder well knows, as does Obama, both being lawyers, there is no clear constitutional, statutory, court precedent, or other legal grounding for assassination by drone. The only basis in law is untested legal argument, some if which remains secret. But as both men know, the assassination policy has solid grounding in both politics and psychology.
And so the President framed his counter-terrorism speech with 9/11, which is as logical and useful as it is exceptional and misleading, telling his audience falsely but with Humpty Dumpty mastery of words,“And so our nation went to war.”
DIDNT AMERICA AND BLACK PEOPLE HATE BUSH FOR THESE SAME THINGS
Since: Sep 10
#914311 May 29, 2013
Remember, it was his Daddy who told him electric bill would triple or whatever.
The nut didn't fall too far from that tree.
Since: Sep 10
#914312 May 29, 2013
Gotta go. It's been fun.
#914313 May 29, 2013
Who Calls the Shots in Washington? Government Of, By, and “For The Banks Five years since the 2008 financial meltdown, the speculation and fraud that caused the crash are back in full force in the United States. Flush with the $85 billion in cash printed up and handed to the banks every month by the Federal Reserve, business at the Wall Street casino is booming. Stock values are at record levels and so are bank profits, amidst declining wages and mass poverty.
Under these conditions, the banks have been pushing to rip up even the very modest restrictions on financial speculation, while broadening the scope of government bailout laws. The aim is simple: to give banks the maximum ability to speculate without constraint, while getting the maximum possible government assistance if and when the bubble collapses.
So close is the bankers’ grip on the reins of government that, no longer content to let their bought-and-paid-for politicians write laws, the banks have taken to doing the work themselves.
This was the case with a bill that passed the House Financial Services Committee this month, HR 992, which significantly expands the number of financial institutions eligible for coverage by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The bill, which passed with majority support by both Democrats and Republicans, amends an earlier law that prevented financial institutions that trade swaps—a set of dangerous and largely unregulated derivatives—from coverage by the FDIC.
The New York Times reported Friday that, according to emails the newspaper examined, 70 out of the bill’s 85 lines were based on the recommendations of Citigroup, one of the largest US banks. Two paragraphs were inserted nearly word-for-word from an email written to lawmakers by the bank.
The bill restricts provisions in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed on July 21, 2010. This law was largely a publicity measure by the Obama administration, made to appear as a crackdown on financial speculation while in reality allowing the banks to go on with business as usual.
Instead of creating regulations, the Dodd-Frank bill merely mandated that a series of regulations be implemented at some point in the future by regulators. Nearly three years after the bill’s passage, the vast majority of these regulations have not been implemented.
Out of 135 bank regulatory rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank bill, only 40 have been put into effect. The act’s much-vaunted mandate for the creation of a “Volcker rule,” preventing deposit-taking institutions from carrying out financial speculation, remains a dead letter.
Moreover, many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill, toothless as they were, are being scaled back by subsequent acts of Congress, such as HR 992, described above.
Even those regulations that have been implemented have been even further weakened by regulators to comply with the demands of the banks. Last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted to implement regulations on derivatives—speculative financial products based on other asset values—that were significantly weakened from those that were proposed under Dodd-Frank.
The Commission had initially proposed that the purchasers of derivatives be required to contact five banks when seeking to set the price of a contract. Under the new law, purchasers are only required to contact two banks, further tightening the monopoly of a handful of institutions that dominate the largely unregulated multitrillion-dollar derivatives market.
The bill likewise originally proposed that derivatives be traded on electronic exchanges similar to stock markets, so that buyers would have a better understanding of prices across the market, making price gouging by issuers more difficult. But the final rules allow for much of derivatives trading to take place over the phone, making it nearly impossible to regulate.
obama big business besty
#914314 May 29, 2013
After your outburst at Betty Lou you will be lucky if any of your stupid posts are up here much longer.
No one here really cares about your opinions or your childish insults but we have gotten you to go over the line.
#914315 May 29, 2013
Rogue President Obama: Defending the Indefensible
Forked tongue rhetoric can’t disguise it. Throughout Obama’s tenure, he has governed lawlessly. He’s done so at home and abroad. He spurns rule of law principles and other democratic values.
Nothing suggests change. Business as usual continues. War on humanity is policy. Rogue leaders govern that way. Obama threatens everyone.
On May 23, he spoke at Washington’s National Defense University. He defended what he urged changing four years earlier.
On May 21, 2009, he spoke at the National Archives. He addressed national security. He said America can’t be safe “unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”
“The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – these are not simply words written into aging parchment.”
“They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.”
“(O)ur government made a series of hasty decisions.”
“(O)ur government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”
“(W)e set (aside fundamental) principles as luxuries that we could no longer afford.”
“In other words, we went off course.(Americans) called for a new approach – one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”
We must act, he said,“with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”
“(D)ecisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach.”
He called doing so “neither effective nor sustainable.”
He pledged change. He said he took steps to prohibit torture. He ordered Guantanamo closed, he claimed.
He made other high-minded promises. He “swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” he said. He systematically spurned it. He did so across the board. He represents the worst of rogue leadership.
His Thursday address reflected same old, same old. It was beginning-to-end demagogic boilerplate. We’ve heard it throughout his tenure. He repeats it ad nauseam.
Promises made are broken. Defending the indefensible doesn’t wash. CODEPINK Women for Peace co-founder Medea Benjamin challenged him.
She interrupted his speech. She did so several times. She called on him to close Guantanamo, release cleared detainees, and stop killer drone attacks.
“Will you apologize for the thousands of Muslims that you killed,” she asked?“Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?”
“Can you tell the Muslims that their lives are as precious as our lives?”
“Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?”
“Can you stop (drone) strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activity?”
“You are commander in chief! You can close Guantanamo today! You can release” all cleared detainees.
“It’s been 11 years. Abide by the rule of law. You’re a constitutional lawyer.”
Speaking truth to power has a price. Benjamin was forcibly removed. She was detained. She was interrogated by Secret Service, military and FBI personnel. She was then released.
#914316 May 29, 2013
YOU cross the line. You let your temper control you and you went TOO far. I hope TOPIX finds your comment so offensive that they ban your IPS so we will be rid of YOU and all your socks.
#914317 May 29, 2013
The nitwit gets out of control. Makes a moronic post she knows she is going to get hammer for and runs.
#914318 May 29, 2013
Just further proof that an honest man was corrupted by influence from the top, the heavy hand of Obama.
#914319 May 29, 2013
On September 22, 2013, Germany will hold general elections. These elections will be observed with special attention given what it will mean for the austerity policies of the Merkel government and the ‘Euro crisis.’ From an anti-austerity and socialist perspective, the elections are also important with regard to the situation for the new German Left Party Die LINKE. Despite growing economic and social inequality, the Left Party stands at just 8 per cent in opinion polls. The party faces the challenge of presenting itself as a genuine alternative in an unfavourable and even hostile political environment in Germany. In this article, published exclusively in the left-wing daily newspaper Junge Welt, Oskar Lafontaine reflects on the current conjuncture for the party.
Lafontaine started his career as Willy Brandt‘s most politically talented ‘son’; became the most popular leader of West Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) during its years in opposition between 1982 and 1998; was deemed “the most dangerous man in Europe” by the British press for his financial market regulation plans as the Finance Minister of the first coalition government of SPD and Greens in 1998, but stepped down when he realized the lack of support for his left-Keynesian policies within the coalition.
In the early 2000s Lafontaine was a prominent critic of the new government’s neoliberal course and in 2004 he joined the new West German party Election Alternative for Work and Social Justice (WASG) formed by trade unionists, left-wing economists, SPD dissidents and radical leftists, on the condition that it would merge with the East German Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) to form a united German Left Party. In the 2005 national elections Lafontaine led the new party formation into the Bundestag with 8.7 per cent and in 2009 with 11.9 per cent of the popular vote. For health reasons Lafontaine stepped down from his leadership positions nationally and decided to concentrate on the role of opposition leader in his home state of Saarland. His voice nevertheless remains influential within the Left Party and calls for his return to the national stage are frequent.
In the forthcoming German elections the Left Party (Die Linke) can only be successful if it refuses to become another wing of the ‘German Unity Party.’
In the coming months a comedy will be staged in Germany. The piece is called ‘Electoral Battle of the Political Camps.’ The leading actors are Angela Merkel and Peer Steinbrück. In supporting roles we’ll see Horst Seehofer, Sigmar Gabriel, Philipp Rösler, Jürgen Trittin and the other respective leaders of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Green Party. An appearance by Die Linke is not envisaged for this revue. With the help of the intelligence service, the corporate media and public broadcasters, everything possible is being done to banish this inconvenient party from the catwalks of capitalism.
ITS HERE IN AMERICA NOW
#914320 May 29, 2013
This deal is clearly more troubling than many others that have been opposed by the US government.
Since: Dec 08
gauley bridge wv
#914321 May 29, 2013
He will just pop back in as someone else. He was warned. Since them last two clowns the Mods are watching more.
#914322 May 29, 2013
You're not a complete idiot Realtime -- Some parts are just missing....
It's the culture...
#914323 May 29, 2013
Understanding the US/NATO Profit-Driven Military Agenda
The US has embarked on a military adventure,“a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US/NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace.“Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
Nuclear war has become a multi-billion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US/NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.
Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
#914324 May 29, 2013
You are yucking it up with a fool who loss control and had to run away.
#914325 May 29, 2013
Hollywood History: CIA Sponsored “Zero Dark Thirty”, Oscar for “Best Propaganda Picture ‘Hollywood history’ is all the rage these days, but it comes at a huge cost
One of the most pervasive trends in 21st century western culture has become somewhat of an obsession in America. It’s called “Hollywood history”, where the corporate studio machines in Los Angeles spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to craft and precisely tailor historical events to suit the prevailing political paradigm.
‘Hollywood history’ is very much in fashion these days. From Linclon to Dubya, and from Blackhawk Down to The Iron Lady, they constitute a significant portion of today’s major releases. There’s only one problem however, with tailoring a story to fit neatly into a prevailing political paradigm… and over the last 100 years, the Germans and the Soviets did this too – with devastating effect, but back then we just called it propaganda.
No film embodies the Hollywood historical treatment more than the much celebrated cinema release of Zero Dark Thirty, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, and one of the favourites to grab an armful of Academy Awards this weekend in LA including Best Picture, Bigelow for best director, Mark Boal for best screenplay, and Jessica Chastain for Best Actress.
The film’s main premise is constructed around a female CIA officer, played by Chastain, and her dogged determination to find the highly elusive mastermind of 9/11 and the al Qaeda’s MVP, Osama bin Laden. Chastain’s performance, critics claim, has also ‘empowered women’ by showing how her film character caught bin Laden, but it didn’t actually happen that way. We’ll get to that later…
Where this film starts to take heat is with its sensational on screen CIA torture scenes. Unlike previously less celebrated but more integral, intellectual cinematic efforts at taking on torture – like Rendition and Lions for Lambs, Bigelow seemed incredibly bent on going the distance to glorify (through her attempt at Cinéma vérité) the troubling practice of torture by the CIA – as a means to glean intelligence about the whereabouts of various Islamic terrorists scattered throughout the
world’s third world cesspits.
#914326 May 29, 2013
Just because an organization wants smaller government is no reason to discriminate against them.
Galt supports the elimination of all subsidies, tax credits, tax deductions, tax exemptions, etc, for all individuals, all businesses, and all organizations, coupled with a flat tax or a fair tax.
#914327 May 29, 2013
Nuculur fears Florida and always runs...
It's the culture...
Add your comments below
|Crack and the Social, Moral, and Economic Decay...||1 hr||joey||2|
|Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10)||2 hr||Virus Infected||49,488|
|HKN Record Label Need UpComing Artist Call_0803...||2 hr||mr innocent||1|
|Word (Dec '08)||3 hr||andet1987||4,664|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||3 hr||litesong||46,375|
|Michelle Obama, f/k/a MICHAEL LAVAUGHN ROBINSON||4 hr||FXX||3|
|Are ISIS and Obama in Cahoots???||4 hr||My Flowers||5|
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||5 hr||LRS||177,520|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now