Infowars/Prison Planet.com

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I agree, however, the situation I've set up is exactly like the situation which is now legal in Arizona (a situation you and infowars support). Just replace "open carry" and "felon" with "Hispanic" and "illegal". It's the same invasion of privacy, and it opens the door to the same harassment oportunities.

So why do you complain about the erosion of American civil liberties and privacy rights for gun owners, but not Hispanics?

Have you bothered to even read the Arizona Immigration law?

Or

Are you too busy parroting The talking heads on Mainstream Media?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Because the law states that someone must be caught in the commission of a crime or other clear violations,if they cannot produce a U.S. drivers license,green card or any other form of I.D. that shows proof/ allows them to be here legally (Work Visas,passport, that type of stuff) they are detained and deported unless things are sorted out.

It isn't about Race but Legality.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Because the law states that someone must be caught in the commission of a crime or other clear violations,if they cannot produce a U.S. drivers license,green card or any other form of I.D. that shows proof/ allows them to be here legally (Work Visas,passport, that type of stuff) they are detained and deported unless things are sorted out.

It isn't about Race but Legality.

Yes, I read the law, and if you had as well you'd know that those provisions were only added AFTER the national protests broke out, and were not part of the original law. Infowars was championing the law and demonizing the protestors before any of that was announced.

Besides, just because the law says: "hey, don't just profile" doesn't mean it's not going to result in profiling. I would argue that there's no way to enforce it without profiling.

Besides, be it about race or legality, it's still an invasion of privacy, and if the same law was passed with regard to gun owners, you'd be on here posting about how Obama just wanted to disarm you.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Yes, I read the law, and if you had as well you'd know that those provisions were only added AFTER the national protests broke out, and were not part of the original law. Infowars was championing the law and demonizing the protestors before any of that was announced.

Besides, just because the law says: "hey, don't just profile" doesn't mean it's not going to result in profiling. I would argue that there's no way to enforce it without profiling.

Besides, be it about race or legality, it's still an invasion of privacy, and if the same law was passed with regard to gun owners, you'd be on here posting about how Obama just wanted to disarm you.

Because you're talking about a whole lot of nothing and you know it.

Look at Mexico's Immigration laws Vs U.S. Immigration laws,or are you going to continue bitching on about nothing as always?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Because you're talking about a whole lot of nothing and you know it.

Oh, BRILLIANT: just say "I'm talking about nothing" when I have clearly just slapped you in the face with a dick made of facts, and then change the subject.

Dude, we have shown CONCLUSIVELY, that you and all those you admire are MASSIVE hypocites.

You bitch about taxes, while paying no taxes, and living off of tax dollars.

Alex Jones cares about civil liberties, but only when those civil liberties apply to white Americans.

Rand Paul stands by his "private business principals" until he realizes that those principals are unpopular, and then promptly reverses his position.

And you have shown, that you'd rather argue with Goths on the Internet, in an effort to devote your remaining years to some whacko who probably wouldn't even give you the time of day if you ever met, than finish something you've said is a major ambition.

This is not opinion. This is not a gray area. This is fact.

Dude, YOU ARE DYING. If your throat closes up tonight, are you going to be able to say you lived?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Oh, BRILLIANT: just say "I'm talking about nothing" when I have clearly just slapped you in the face with a dick made of facts, and then change the subject.

Dude, we have shown CONCLUSIVELY, that you and all those you admire are MASSIVE hypocites.

You bitch about taxes, while paying no taxes, and living off of tax dollars.

Alex Jones cares about civil liberties, but only when those civil liberties apply to white Americans.

Rand Paul stands by his "private business principals" until he realizes that those principals are unpopular, and then promptly reverses his position.

And you have shown, that you'd rather argue with Goths on the Internet, in an effort to devote your remaining years to some whacko who probably wouldn't even give you the time of day if you ever met, than finish something you've said is a major ambition.

Dude, YOU ARE DYING. If your throat closes up tonight, are you going to be able to say you lived?

Because I'm not as selfish a bastard as many would like to think.

My main goal in all of this is so my great great grandson (If that ever happens which most likely won't in my case,but future generations is what I'm getting at) can walk down the street with a multiracial gf/bf (I'm not going to judge,it's their call) with joints hanging out of their mouths and holstered weapons on their hips and not get hassled over it because somebody throws a fucking hissy fit,and doesn't like the idea that they can legally do that.

What are you really working at as far as long term goals?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

What the Establishment Left and Right fail to realize is the fact that Rand Paul is basicly pulling a reverse Obama bait and switch.

Examples:

Obama claimed to be for the protections of Firearms owners during his run for office,never mind the fact that he signed every piece of anti-Firearms legislation that was plopped onto his desk in Illinois.

Need I remind you of his statements when asked about marijuana legalization?

That's the beauty of it,only instead of the negative aspect of such implications like this nation has been seeing for the past few years with the bail outs,extensions of the Patriot Act,Federal crack downs on users found with small amounts of Marijuana,and the sovereignty as well as civil rights erosion he and the president of Mexico have in mind for the U.S.

We will get to see a positive change across the board,if this keeps up.

[Ben Lahnger]

Boy, too bad that Rand Paul had to cancel all his weekend press appearances (which a smart man would have been using to accelerate his momentum coming off the primary win) because he shot his mouth off and made unpopular statements on three separate issues and had to be reined in on a leash by his campaign manager.

*fap* *fap* *fap* *f ... droop* ...

Bummer, hun?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-st...smear-machine/

Rand Paul Strikes Back At Mainstream Media Smear Machine

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, May 21st, 2010

Related: Desperate Establishment Launch Baseless “Racist” Attacks On Rand Paul

Related: The Establishment Is In Full Blown Panic Over Rand Paul

Would be Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has hit back at a desperate and sustained mainstream media attempt to smear him as a racist extremist following his historic primary victory earlier this week.

Paul appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America today to make it clear that the attacks against him regarding views he expressed on the Civil Rights Act, which we covered in our article yesterday, are “red herrings” and part of an establishment effort to “trash” his campaign.

“I’ve just been trashed up and down and they have been saying things that are untrue. And when they say I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it’s absolutely false. It’s never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics.” Paul said.

Following Paul’s initial appearance on Wednesday’s Rachel Maddow program, during which the MSNBC host suggested Paul would tolerate racial segregation because he opposes federal government regulation, the cable network devoted a full day of coverage to the same talking point.

Despite Paul’s repeated statements that he did not tolerate discrimination or racism in any form, and that he supported the Civil Rights Act in totality, MSNBC wheeled out its liberal attack dogs in the form of Jesse Jackson, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn, liberal professors Boyce Watkins and Michael Eric Dyson and Democratic strategist Karen Finney. The network aired eight different segments totaling 37 minutes, without a single guest to defend Rand Paul’s position or provide any balance whatsoever.

Yesterday Paul’s opponent in the Senate race, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, now lagging behind Paul by a whopping 25 points according to a Rasmussen survey, claimed that Paul had said he wanted to “repeal” the Civil Rights Act, a blatantly false accusation that prompted Paul to issue a corrective statement. Ridiculously, Paul had to clarify that he did not wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act:

“Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Paul’s statement read.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.” the statement concluded.

Despite Paul’s statement, the smear machine went into overdrive and even led to comments from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who said “I think the issues that, that many fought for in the ‘50s and the ‘60s were settled a long time ago in landmark legislation and the discussion about whether or not to support those, I don’t think, shouldn’t have a place in our political dialogue in 2010.”

The LA Times devoted its front page to the smear attack, meanwhile, Organizing for America, an Obama campaign group run by the Democratic National Committee began emailing thousands of people on it’s mailing list in an effort to convince them that Rand Paul supports segregation and that there should be a “massive public outcry”.
Late yesterday afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also issued a statement, noting that “It is apparent that the Democrats are trying to twist Rand Paul’s words and create an issue that does not exist because they are rightfully worried that he is leading Jack Conway,”.

A fired up Paul hit out further at the establishment left’s political smear campaign on Good Morning America today:

“If you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Sen. [Robert] Byrd, and we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act,” Paul said of the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat. “Make him, call him to task for something he actually did as opposed to calling me to task for something they insinuated that I might believe that’s not true.”

“What is going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.” he added.

Watch the video:

(Video Would Be Here)

Rand Paul’s father, Congressman Ron Paul, defended his son on Thursday, describing the smear attacks as “overkill”.

“I don’t think he has anything to recover from,” the elder Paul said in comments reported by Politico. “Get out there and talk to the people … You’re talking about recovery. That’s an insult.”

Ron Paul also refused to comment on his views on the constitutionality of the powers granted to the federal government in the area of civil rights, noting that his comments would only be taken out of context and used to further smear his son. Instead he pointed to a chapter in his forthcoming book in which he addresses the matter.

Historian Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language:

The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.

Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.” One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds, or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)

As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964 Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this Politico article. These people have never in their lives deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe. Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful remedies are impossible.

Leading Libertarians have lauded Rand Paul, noting that his stance is at the core of Libertarian philosophy. True liberty requires a society in which all people can live and thrive without coercion from controlling forces such as the federal government.

Such core principles the are at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

George Washington said “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Should racial discrimination be overcome by reason or by force?

This notion is at the heart of Rand Paul’s stance on civil rights. Those who equate this notion with racist beliefs are either intellectually incapable of grasping it or are purposefully seeking to defame those who embrace it.

Instead of running to the federal government for protection from and a quick fix to everything that is socially reprehensible, it is time for all of the afore mentioned detractors – from Maddow, through all her minions at MSNBC and their zombie choir – to look at the bigger picture, to wake up, grow up, break out of their pre programmed political paradigm.

Without such an awakening, discrimination and divisions will always exist and will always be taken advantage of by those who seek to control our society.

[the-nihilist]

Could you summarize all that in one sentence? I don't have much of an attention span. Thanks.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Because I'm not as selfish a bastard as many would like to think.

My main goal in all of this is so my great great grandson (If that ever happens which most likely won't in my case,but future generations is what I'm getting at) can walk down the street with a multiracial gf/bf (I'm not going to judge,it's their call) with joints hanging out of their mouths and holstered weapons on their hips and not get hassled over it because somebody throws a fucking hissy fit,and doesn't like the idea that they can legally do that.

What are you really working at as far as long term goals?

Long term? In the long term the money that I'm raising will provide 1 African with a source of fresh, untainted drinking water for the rest of their lives (per $25 incriment. My goal is to eventually get enough together to finance the digging of a well, which will provide stability to an entire community for generations. Providing their children with a chance to go to school and helping to improve the quality of life in a war-torn, aids-ravaged region of the world.

If my plays get published, my words and ideas will forever be a part of the human consciousness, and hopefully making this world a little easier to bear (one profain sentence at a time).

Meanwhile, during the twilight of your life you spend what little time you have left posting on a Goth forum in the vain hope that it will make someone visit a website which you hope will somehow contribute to allowing your (hypothetical) possibly gay granchildren to smoke weed, and carry guns in public without offending someone?

You stupid, cowardly, selfish, oxygen-theif.

You know what? That's it. I'm done with you. I hope some day you manage to pull together enough presence of mind to realize and avert to tragic course you've set yourself on.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Long term? In the long term the money that I'm raising will provide 1 African with a source of fresh, untainted drinking water for the rest of their lives (per $25 incriment. My goal is to eventually get enough together to finance the digging of a well, which will provide stability to an entire community for generations. Providing their children with a chance to go to school and helping to improve the quality of life in a war-torn, aids-ravaged region of the world.

If my plays get published, my words and ideas will forever be a part of the human consciousness, and hopefully making this world a little easier to bear (one profain sentence at a time).

Meanwhile, during the twilight of your life you spend what little time you have left posting on a Goth forum in the vain hope that it will make someone visit a website which you hope will somehow contribute to allowing your (hypothetical) possibly gay granchildren to smoke weed, and carry guns in public without offending someone?

You stupid, cowardly, selfish, oxygen-theif.

You know what? That's it. I'm done with you. I hope some day you manage to pull together enough presence of mind to realize and avert to tragic course you've set yourself on.

And how much of that money could go to feed the homeless here ?

[Ben Lahnger]

Dude, I like how you pull all that spin crap from Prison Planet. Sure, that's unbiased reporting.

I saw Rand Paul and his supporters claiming the left-wing attack machine was unfairly savaging him. Doesn't make it so. Why did Paul even appear on Maddow's show? She is known for being just what she was in that interview ... heavily biased to the left. She didn't attack him ... he walked into the opposition camp with a blindfold on and got surprised, for which he has no one to blame but himself.

On Thursday as the outcry was dying down, he and his supporters were out there claiming no fair, decrying the "Democratic smear campaign" and "talking points" ... and on Friday he comes out and says two more stupid things that fire everybody up when the controversy should have been in his rear-view mirror.

His comment about BP was just irresponsible. His comment about the West Virginia mining disaster was heartless.

You have an idiot for a candidate. The media doesn't have to attack him to make him look bad. All they have to do is quote him.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

And how much of that money could go to feed the homeless here ?

What difference does that make, huh? What does it matter where in the world that he saves a life? Turns out that mathematically, you can do a lot more good with a lot less money over there than here, but what difference does it make?

Is it because you think some humans have more value than other humans by virtue of where they live? Or is it that once again you've gone to extreme ridiculous lengths to avoid the point?

Despanan is right.

Per the sentiment expressed in the first post in the ATTN: Gothic.net - a call to action thread, I am putting Deadmanwalking_05 on my ignore list and am no longer reading or responding to his posts.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Dude, I like how you pull all that spin crap from Prison Planet. Sure, that's unbiased reporting.

I saw Rand Paul and his supporters claiming the left-wing attack machine was unfairly savaging him. Doesn't make it so. Why did Paul even appear on Maddow's show? She is known for being just what she was in that interview ... heavily biased to the left. She didn't attack him ... he walked into the opposition camp with a blindfold on and got surprised, for which he has no one to blame but himself.

On Thursday as the outcry was dying down, he and his supporters were out there claiming no fair, decrying the "Democratic smear campaign" and "talking points" ... and on Friday he comes out and says two more stupid things that fire everybody up when the controversy should have been in his rear-view mirror.

His comment about BP was just irresponsible. His comment about the West Virginia mining disaster was heartless.

You have an idiot for a candidate. The media doesn't have to attack him to make him look bad. All they have to do is quote him.

What about Obama and Mexico's President talking down to the U.S. because of the Arizona immigration law?

Never mind the fact that the federal Government in MEXICO: KILLS,ROBS,R@PES,IMPRISONS,AND THEN IF THEY ARE LUCKY deports,their ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

What about MEXICO'S PRESIDENT suggesting another A.W.B. (Assault Weapons Ban) for UNITED STATES CITIZENS,while he was on a National news broadcast in the UNTIED STATES.

Because MEXICO has a problem with DRUG CARTELS.

The DRUG CARTEL'S are in business because of DRUG PROHIBITION in both Countries.

What about Chicago's Mayor threatening a reporter with a weapon?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Where is your answer to post #162/163 Alan/Jillian?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

http://www.infowars.com/obama-pledge...ational-order/

Obama Pledges “International Order”

Michael D. Shear
The Washington Post
May 23, 2010

WEST POINT, N.Y. — President Obama on Saturday pledged to shape a new “international order” as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America’s role in promoting Democratic values around the world.

Speaking to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point — the ninth wartime commencement in a row, he said — the commander in chief who is leading two foreign wars expressed his faith in cooperation and partnerships to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.

“The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,’” he said in prepared remarks. “Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.”
The administration is set to officially release the president's first national security strategy next week, and Obama's preview on Saturday suggests it will be far different than the first one offered by his predecessor in 2002. In that prior document, President George W. Bush formally called for a policy of preemptive war and a "distinctly American internationalism."

Obama has spoken frequently about shaping new alliances with the world, and of attempts to repair the U.S. image abroad after nearly a decade in which Bush's approach was viewed with suspicion in many quarters. In his commencement speech to the graduates, the president emphasized his beliefs in those alliances.

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation," he said. "We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't."

Obama said the United States will pursue a strategy of "national renewal and global leadership."

And yet, even as he calls for global cooperation, Obama has intensified America's own war in Afghanistan. And his administration has repeatedly confronted the dangers of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil, including unsuccessful attempts to down a Detroit-bound airliner and to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square.
To the men and women in the hall, many of whom are headed to Afghanistan because of the expansion of the war he announced here six months ago, Obama pledged "the full support of a proud and grateful nation."

The president expressed confidence in the military's ability to succeed in Afghanistan, but warned of a "tough fight" ahead as the United States helps the Afghan people to rebuild its civil institutions and its security system so they can battle the Taliban and other extremists on their own.

"We have brought hope to the Afghan people; now we must see that their country does not fall prey to our common enemies," he said. "There will be difficult days ahead. But we will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan."

In Iraq, he said, the United States is "poised" to end its combat operations this summer, leaving behind "an Iraq that provides no safe haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant."

"You, and all who wear America's uniform, remain the cornerstone of our national defense and the anchor of global security," he said. "And through a period when too many of our institutions have acted irresponsibly, the American military has set a standard of service and sacrifice that is as great as any in this nation's history."

But he said civilians must answer the call of service as well, by securing America's economic future, educating its children and confronting the challenges of poverty and climate change. He said the country must always pursue what he called the "universal rights" rooted in the Constitution.

"We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union," he said.

To the cadets themselves, he praised their pursuit of being "soldier-scholars" and lauded the records of academic excellence the Class of 2010 has set. He also took note of the fact that the class's top two graduates this year are both women, reflecting, he said, the "indispensable role" that women play in the modern military.

As they become commissioned officers in the Army, Obama told the graduates of West Point that the country owes them a debt of gratitude.

"Here in the quiet of these hills, you have come together to prepare for the most difficult tests of our time'" Obama said. "You signed up knowing your service would send you into harm's way, and did so long after the first drums of war were sounded. In you we see the commitment of our country, and timeless virtues that have served our nation well."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052201586.html

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Maryland Citizens Face Felony Charges for Recording Cops

http://www.infowars.com/maryland-cit...ecording-cops/

Infowars.com
May 23, 2010

In Maryland, it is a felony to record thuggish cops as they push around skateboarding teenagers, beat sports patrons, and pull guns on motorists for speeding.

“Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off,” reports WJZ 23 in Baltimore.

Maryland cops are using a Maryland law that states conversations in private cannot be recorded without the consent of both people involved in order to go about their business of harassing, intimidating, and assaulting citizens.

It is legal according to Maryland’s attorney general for cops to videotape citizens with dashcams but illegal for citizens to do the same.

State authorities are upset after a video appeared on the internet showing the merciless beating of a university student by thug cops at the University of Maryland in April.

In 2009, a video surfaced showing a Baltimore cop pushing around and verbally assaulting a teenager. Numerous videos in other states show cops beating and even murdering citizens.

(Video's would be here)

[Deadmanwalking_05]

17 States Now Filing Versions of Arizona’s Immigration Bill SB 1070

http://www.prisonplanet.com/17-state...l-sb-1070.html

MMD Newswire
May 22, 2010

One of America’s national organizations fighting against illegal immigration is announcing that 17 states are now filing versions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law which is designed to help local police enforce America’s existing immigration laws.

Numerous national and local polls indicated that 60-81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws.

“Our national network of activists have been working overtime trying to help the state of Arizona and the brave Arizonans who have passed this bill,” said William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. “Arizona no longer stands alone and we have now documented state lawmakers filing, or announcing they will file, versions of the Arizona bill in seventeen states! We will not stop until all states are protected from invasion as required by the US Constitution.”

ALIPAC has documented the following 17 states are following Arizona’s lead in response to citizen pressure.

ARKANSAS, IDAHO, INDIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) has helped to pass some form of immigration enforcement legislation in over 30 states, while the group has also gained a national reputation for defeating legislation designed to give licenses, in-state tuition, and other taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens in 20 states.
ALIPAC’s President, William Gheen is a former campaign consultant, Legislative Assistant, state lobbyist, and Assistant Sgt-At-Arms staffer in North Carolina who has turned his local experiences into a political battle plan by driving the national operations of ALIPAC.

“The Federal government has been hijacked by special interests that are neglectful of their duties and even hostile towards the rightful citizens of America,” said William Gheen. “It is incumbent upon our states to protect American lives, property, jobs, wages, security, and health, when the Executive Branch fails to honor its Constitutional responsibility to do so by enforcing our existing border and immigration laws.”

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC lobbied state lawmakers and AZ Governor Jan Brewer to pass SB 1070, which strictly prohibits racial profiling while empowering local police officers to enforce immigration laws.

ALIPAC’s activists have been working for almost four weeks now to encourage state lawmakers across the nation to file versions of SB 1070, to help alleviate boycotts and other political antagonism towards Arizona. Citizen activist are being asked to call, e-mail, visit, and fax their state lawmakers to encourage them to support existing SB 1070 type bills or to file them as soon as possible.

For a list of the 17 states joining Arizona’s push for this kind of legislation, and to view the associated documentation, please visit our tracking link for updated information at…. http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-196989.html

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 703-0864 WilliamG@alipac.us
www.alipac.us

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race

http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-pau...y-on-race.html

Jacob Hornberger
Campaign For Liberty
May 22, 2010

I recently wrote two articles in which I criticized liberals for being two-faced and hypocritical when it comes to racial issues. The articles, which concerned the minimum wage, a longtime favorite government program among liberals whose negative effects fall disproportionately on blacks, were entitled “Why Do Daily Kos and Alternet Favor a Racist Government Program?” and “Free Teenagers: Repeal the Minimum Wage.”

Of course, I could also have written an article pointing out the decades-long liberal support of the drug war, another vicious government program whose adverse consequences have long fallen disproportionately on blacks and Hispanics. See, for example, this list of articles.

Thus, it’s not a coincidence that liberal icon Barack Obama, a drug user himself (he smoked dope and snorted cocaine when he was young and smokes tobacco today) and his Democratically controlled Congress are not only not ending the drug war but instead are ramping it up, even encouraging the Mexican government’s use of the military to wage the drug war in Mexico.

I could have also pointed out the long-time hypocrisy of liberals’ purported concern for Hispanics, especially the poor among them, even while supporting immigration laws and their brutal enforcement, including raiding American businesses suspected of committing the dastardly crime of entering into mutually beneficial economic relationships with financially poor Hispanics of foreign origin.

This week, thanks to Rand Paul’s win in the race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, we are treated to another grand spectacle of liberal hypocrisy when it comes to race. The liberal community has gone into emotional hyper-drive over Paul’s opposition to the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that banned racial discrimination by private businesses. The liberals are just shocked and outraged that anyone would honestly suggest that private businesses should be free to discriminate. And, of course, underlying all this is the suggestion that anyone who advocates such a position must be a secret bigot.

To examine into this latest instance of liberal hypocrisy on race, let’s delve into a few basics.

Suppose a certain white homeowner in a community publicly announces that he is holding a weekly TGIF cocktail party at his home every Friday night. He publicly invites everyone who lives within a one-mile radius of his home to his parties, but with a big exception. He says: Blacks and Jews are not invited and will not be permitted into his home.

How would libertarians respond? We would say that that man has every right in the world to take that position. We might criticize him, we might condemn him, we might ignore him, we might boycott his parties. But we would defend his right to discriminate against anyone he wants, as a matter of principle. After all, we would argue, it’s his home — his private property. To paraphrase Voltaire, we might not agree with how he uses his property, but we would defend his right to use it any way he wants. That’s what private ownership and a free society are all about.

How would liberals respond to that hypothetical? They would take the same position as libertarians! They would say that a man’s home is his castle and that he has the right to keep anyone he wants, even on racial grounds, from his home. They would defend the homeowner’s fundamental right to associate with anyone he wants, even if his choices are abhorrent and offensive to everyone else. They would not call on amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply it to private homeowners.

What? Could this actually be possible? Could liberals actually be defending the right of a bigot to be a bigot in his own home? Wouldn’t this make a liberal himself a bigot? After all, isn’t that what liberals claim about people who call for the right of discrimination in private businesses — that their support of such a right makes them a closet or overt bigot?

Liberals would respond, “No, we’re not bigots simply because we support the right of homeowners to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, the poor, and anyone else. We simply believe in the principle of private ownership of one’s home and we’re willing to defend that principle, even when homeowners make racist choices.”

Well, then why don’t liberals extend that reasoning to people who support the right of private business owners to discriminate? Why are they so quick to claim that they’re not bigots when they stand on principle when it comes to the right of homeowners to discriminate but so quick to label libertarians who call for the same principle to be applied to business owners as racists and bigots?

Like I say, two-faced and hypocritical.

Let’s delve into this two-faced liberal hypocrisy a bit further. For years, the ACLU has publicly patted itself on the back, especially in fund-raising letters, about how it heroically stood for the right of Nazi sympathizers to march down a (government-owned) street in Skokie, Illinois. This shows how principled we are, the ACLU liberals have long claimed, because we defend the right of bigots to exercise freedom of speech, especially when the speech is abhorrent or offensive.

Would liberals accuse the ACLU of being racists and anti-Semitic bigots for defending the right of Nazi sympathizers to express their views? Of course not. Liberals would praise the ACLU for having the courage of its convictions for standing up for the free-speech rights of those who express horrendously offensive views.

Then, why not the same consideration for libertarians who stand up for the right of business owners to run their businesses the way they want, even if in the process they discriminate against Jews, Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else?

Like I say, two-faced and hypocritical.

Now, you might be asking the obvious question: Why don’t liberals apply the freedom to discriminate that they support for private homeowners to private business owners, as libertarians do? After all, on the face of it this inconsistency doesn’t make much sense.

Liberals would respond by saying that businesses are different because they’re open to “the public.” But isn’t that really a distinction without a difference? After all, what’s the difference, in principle, between a homeowner inviting the public (minus blacks and Jews) to his Friday night parties and a businessman who invites the public (minus blacks and Jews) to purchase his goods?

Why were liberals so intent on forced integration of private businesses? What was the real reason they refused to extend their principle of freedom of association and freedom of speech with respect to homeowners and Nazi demonstrators to private business owners?

After all, hardly anyone today questions whether segregation laws and laws that impeded voting rights for blacks were morally wrong. All that needed to be done was to repeal those laws, prohibiting government from discriminating and leaving homeowners, business owners, and other private people (e.g., Nazi sympathizers) free to discriminate on any basis they chose.

How would things have turned out if businesses had been left free to discriminate? Well, does anyone today get into an uproar over the fact that people are free to discriminate in their homes? And yes, people get into an uproar over a Nazi march in Skokie, just as they get upset over the periodic burning of the flag, but how many people lose sleep over the fact that people have such rights?

The same thing would have happened if private businesses had been left free to discriminate. In fact, the likelihood is that the bigoted businesses would slowly but surely have lost market share to businesses that would sell to everyone, especially given the power of social ostracism, boycotts, moral condemnation, and the like.

After all, ask yourself: If everyone in, say, Alabama was a bigot, why would it have been necessary for the government to enact a law requiring segregation? My hunch is that the bigots knew that a free market tends to put a price on discrimination and, therefore, that bigoted firms needed state protection from the competition of firms that would choose not to discriminate.

But the most important principle is the one involving freedom. The essence of a free society is one in which people are free to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. Freedom necessarily entails the right to make choices that other people find offensive, abhorrent, unpopular, and irresponsible. If people are free only to make the correct choices, then they are not truly free.

Liberals understand this principle, but only up to a point. That’s why they support the right of homeowners and Nazi sympathizers to discriminate. But they steadfastly refuse to extend their principles to private businesses....

Why?

I suspect that the answer lies in the long-time, deep antipathy that liberals have to the free market — to free enterprise — to capitalism — to profit. This of course raises the ugly head of socialism, the economic philosophy that has long attracted the liberal community.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

In the ideal world of the liberal, there would be no private businesses, no more exploitation of the worker, no more consumer gouging, no more stolen profits. The government would own and operate all enterprises, and everyone would work for the government. The model, of course, for this socialist paradise is Cuba or North Korea.

But liberals instinctively know that they could never get away with converting America to a complete socialist system. Most Americans simply wouldn’t go along with it. So, long ago liberals decided to compromise and settle for less. They began socializing America with socialist welfare-state redistributive schemes, programs that would use the state to equalize wealth by having the IRS take from the rich and middle class to give to the poor. That’s what Social Security, Medicare, welfare, education grants, SBA loans, and so forth are all about.

But they went further than that. They also figured out if they couldn’t nationalize everyone’s business (except in certain instances, like Obama’s takeover of automobile companies and banks), they would use the state to control and direct private business operations. Here arises the ugly head of fascism, a way of life in which the state leaves businesses nominally in private hands but controls and directs them as if the state were the true owner.

The roots for this combined socialist-fascist economic system are found in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, an economic program that every American is taught in public (i.e., government) schools “saved free enterprise.” It was actually straight out of the playbook of European socialists and fascists. Indeed, Roosevelt’s Social Security plan had originated within German socialists and his NIRA and Blue Eagle campaign could easily have been implemented in fascist Italy.

Read the following book for more on this: Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbush. If you don’t want to bother reading the book, read this review or this review or this review of the book. Or read Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism.

Now, let me say a word about conservatives. For a time, conservatives opposed the liberal movement toward socialism and fascism. Thus, many of them opposed FDR’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society as well as Johnson’s 1964 Civil Rights Act ban on discrimination by private businesses.

Over time, however, conservatives threw in the towel on all counts. Fearful that they would lose credibility, respectability, and, most important, political power, they ended up abandoning the principles of economic liberty and embracing the principles of socialism, interventionism, fascism, and big government. As part of that process, they ended up embracing liberals’ socialist welfare-state programs that came with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society and the federal control over private businesses that came with LBJ’s 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Thus, Americans who wish to see liberty restored to our land cannot count on either liberals or conservatives. Liberals are dead-set on moving our land toward more socialism, more fascism, more control over private enterprise, more interventionism, more imperialism, more war, and more infringements on civil liberties, all of which means more big spending, big debt, big taxes, and big inflation. Conservatives, fearful of losing political power, have embraced the entire liberal agenda and are especially dead set on fortifying the warfare state in America, leaving themselves with nothing more than their old 1950s irrelevant and hypocritical mantra “free enterprise, private property, and limited government” that they use in their speeches, on their stationery, and on their websites.


Looks like the fight is still on in this here Info War!

[Apathy's_Child]

Dude, seriously, no one reads the shit you post here. The only people who did were those who have now realized it's not worth their time to cast an eye over hysterical doom-mongering, because you're so dense no refutation can penetrate the wallsof your self-made hell.

Just trying to save you some time........ although I'm pretty sure I just wasted mine. Eh, never mind, I have enough fulfilling hobbies to cancel out the thirty seconds this post took.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Senators: Obama admin keeps Congress in dark on intel

http://www.prisonplanet.com/senators...-on-intel.html

Kara Rowland
Washington Times
May 23, 2010

The Obama administration has failed to keep congressional intelligence officials in the loop on the investigation into the botched Times Square bombing, as required by law, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate intelligence committee charged in a letter this week.

“Having to fight over access to counterterrorism information is not productive and ultimately makes us less secure,” wrote Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Christopher S. “Kit” Bond in a letter to President Obama on Thursday.

The senators said the lack of information has “caused serious friction in the relationship of the committee, on both sides of the aisle, and the executive branch.”

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, the senators say U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly refused to provide relevant information on the probe into suspect Faisal Shahzad that would allow the committee to conduct oversight activities without hampering the ongoing investigation. Senate intelligence staffers were told that the Department of Justice had instructed the agencies not to convey information on the Times Square plot without its approval, they said.

But a spokesman for the Department of Justice said FBI, Homeland Security Department and counterterrorism officials have conducted several briefings on the incident with various congressional committees, including a May 11 briefing with the Senate Intelligence Committee. Spokesman Dean Boyd said that briefing "was highly classified and no other Senate committee has received a briefing like" that one.

Mr. Boyd also said the Justice Department has not told intelligence officials not to cooperate with lawmakers.

"The Justice Department did not order anyone in the intelligence community to withhold information from the Senate Intelligence Committee in connection with the attempted bombing," Mr. Boyd said. "In fact, when the Justice Department was notified by certain intelligence agencies that they were planning to make calls to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the Justice Department encouraged those agencies to do so." Congressional oversight of intelligence matters has long been a thorny issue in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, often playing out as tug-of-war between the administration and lawmakers who are tasked with holding it accountable.

In the case of the failed New York City bombing attempt, in which a Pakistani native tried to detonate an SUV in Times Square, the senators said the Obama administration has refused to provide the committee with FBI reports that are widely circulated within the intelligence community. The senators said the "great majority" of their information came through public press conferences and media accounts that sometimes continued inaccurate information.

"In the future, we hope and expect that an individual in the intelligence community will be designated to provide documents and regular, if not daily, briefings to the congressional intelligence committees on matters of high priority and interest so that we are able to discern between accurate and faulty reporting, and conduct our oversight duties," the California Democrat and Missouri Republican concluded.

Sens. Feinstein and Bond said the only exception to the information blackout were phone calls from Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Mr. Boyd said the Justice Department is "aware that in cases like this there is often a tension between the need to keep the appropriate Hill committees informed and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and prosecution. We take very seriously our obligation to prevent ongoing investigations and prosecutions from being compromised, but we also take seriously the obligations of the FBI and other intelligence agencies to keep appropriate committees fully and currently informed."

The letter comes as the nation's intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, resigned at the request of Mr. Obama after a rocky tenure as director of national intelligence that saw multiple turf battles with the CIA and incidents that raised questions about his day-to-day engagement on intelligence issues.

Earlier this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a damning report into the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt in which a young Nigerian man attempted to blow himself up on board a flight to Detroit. That report cited 14 specific points of failure that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding the plane, including many on the part of the office of the DNI, which is supposed to bring together all U.S. intelligence.

Still, senior Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees have suggested that Mr. Blair's ousting was a political move on the part of the administration, which they say ignores more fundamental, structural problems with the way the country gathers and analyzes intelligence. The White House has been mum on the resignation aside from publicly thanking Mr. Blair and noting the challenges facing anyone who serves in his position.

Dissatisfaction with the administration on oversight matters goes beyond the intelligence panels. Last month, Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, the top members of the Senate panel on homeland security, issued the administration its first congressional subpoenas over the shootings at Fort Hood. The senators accused the FBI and the Pentagon of ignoring repeated requests for information on the November shooting, in which an Army psychologist allegedly killed 13 people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ss-dark-intel/

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Yet more news keeps flooding in

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Anti-incumbent fever hits Colorado

http://www.prisonplanet.com/anti-inc...-colorado.html

Michael Booth and Karen E. Crummy
Denver Post
May 23, 2010

BROOMFIELD — Andrew Romanoff won more than 60 percent of state Democratic delegates Saturday, pushing him to the top line of the primary ballot over Sen. Michael Bennet and giving his supporters new hope for August.

The former House Speaker won 60.4 percent of more than 3,500 delegates at the Democratic State Assembly, improving on his earlier caucus totals of about 57 percent.

“Game on,” his campaign declared in a release shortly after results were made public.

Romanoff said after the ballots were counted that some fundraisers had told him they were waiting for good results Saturday before committing money to him. He believes he will raise enough to be on television, a key feature in combating Bennet’s multimillion-dollar fundraising operation.

Bennet, appointed to the seat 16 months ago, won 39.6 percent of the delegates.

That guarantees Bennet the second line on the primary ballot, but is a slight drop from his caucus totals. Bennet’s campaign said he has also raised grassroots support with tens of thousands of petition signatures he could have used to get on the primary ballot if he had not passed the 30 percent threshold Saturday.

Meanwhile, John Hickenlooper accepted the Democratic party's nomination for governor today, after a speech emphasizing his business experience and outlining a general vision for leading the state through its present and future challenges.

"Starting a business, meeting a payroll, balancing budgets is something Colorado's next governor should know," said the Denver mayor and former restaurant owner. "We believe that government can be a catalyst for economic development that brings jobs and helps restore our economy.

Cary Kennedy and Bernie Buescher were nominated in the Treasurer and Secretary of State races, respectively, and Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett was nominated in the Attorney General's contest.

And a day after Republicans set her opponent in state Rep. Cory Gardner, U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Fort Collins, told Democrats in no uncertain terms that she was ready to battle.

Markey is a first-term Democrat in a tight district in northern Colorado, and Republicans are gunning for her in part because of her eventual support for President Obama's health care reform plan.

Markey appeared to put any lingering doubts behind her in a speech at the assembly.

"Fear is not a governing strategy," she said, attacking Republicans who stir up unfounded fears about health care reform or other Congressional actions. "If my opponents want to fight me on my record, I say bring it on."

Both Romanoff and Bennet surrounded themselves with family for their assembly keynotes, both drawing on immigrant grandparents who found both refuge and success in America.

Romanoff refutes comparisons to Democrat Mike Miles, who won over party activists and the Senate nomination in 2004, only to lose to eventual Senator Ken Salazar's greater name recognition in the August primary.

"The analogy falls apart," Romanoff said, because he has won office numerous times and helped build statewide Democratic majorities in the Colorado House and Senate.

Bennet campaign spokesman Trevor Kincaid said the senator was "thrilled" with the Saturday vote, well above the 30 percent minimum. They will turn in the petitions anyway, Kincaid said, and capitalize on the potential organizing help.


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15142371