SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (26115)6/30/2012 5:59:16 PM
From: SOROS2 Recommendations  Respond to of 50190
 
The .01% get their markets to rise. What else matters?

They have their well-supplied bunkers ready for several years of occupation with every necessity of life -- food, medical care, state-of-the-art EVERYTHING -- to eat, drink and be merry while they watch the sheeple scramble to survive, if it comes to that.

On this planet, god, guns, and gold are a big effing joke to the .01%, I fear.

The sheeple only hear one word anymore, and that is baaaaaaaaa.



To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (26115)6/30/2012 10:19:01 PM
From: inchingup1 Recommendation  Respond to of 50190
 
Oh Slider...you are so wrong....according to MSM. Look at the pile of dog crap that Yahoo is trying to unload on the public.

news.yahoo.com

Y! Big Story: “Fast and Furious” meets “The Wire”
The federal investigation into Mexican gun-trafficking was dubbed Operation Fast and Furious, because the suspects involved liked a little auto-sideshow action. The better analogy might be "The Wire"—to cover a roiling case of vindictive office politics, cowboy agents, sensationalized reporting, the clash of Second Amendment rights and gun crimes, and election-year bickering that has resulted in the first-ever contempt charge against a sitting Cabinet officer.

Gun seizuresWhat is Operation Fast and Furious?: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives wanted to put a stop to the purchase of guns in the United States, that were later used across the border in cartel crimes. The case has been hampered by office politics, prosecutorial reluctance, and weak enforcement. For instance, straw purchases—the act of buying guns for others—is not illegal in Arizona.

What Republicans are loath to admit is that the ATF tried Fast and Furious in lieu of other means of combating illegal weapons-trafficking partly because Congress, at the behest of gun-rights advocates, has resisted virtually every proposal to empower the bureau against the buying and selling of firearms destined for illegal use in Mexico. (June 21, Washington Post)

The operation ended in January 2011, about a month after Brian Terry was killed in a rare border shootout near Rio Rico, Arizona; he was the fifth Border Patrol agent to die in 2010, and two guns used in the shoot-out allegedly came from Fast and Furious.

The massive fallout: As a result of Terry's death, reports emerged was the belief that ATF allowed known straw buyers for the cartels to "walk" the guns across the border instead of intercepting them and arresting the buyers. Agents planned to track guns to the cartel buyers and arrest them, but accusations flew that ATF purportedly lost track of hundreds of weapons. Politicians in Mexico claimed 'lost' Fast and Furious guns killed more than 150 Mexicans.

A newly released Fortune investigative report (details below and in timeline) took pains to lay out that the fallout was actually a rush to judgment, that the ATF had to allow "gun walking" because straw purchasing is not illegal in Arizona, and that they didn't lose track of hundreds of weapons. Two of the guns that were involved in the shootout, Fortune alleges, a result of a rogue undercover sting that was outside Operation Fast and Furious — although that sting had been approved by an ATF supervisor.

[Related: Operation Fast and Furious timeline]

Historical contempt Eric Holder (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The investigation and Holder's liability: A congressional committee, led by Rep. Darryl Issa, in its 18-month investigation has so far compiled 7,600 documents but wants emails from after the operation shut down in February 2011. U.S. attorney general Eric Holder cited confidentiality, and President Obama, for the first time, asserted executive privilege to back him up. (Bill Clinton claimed the privilege 14 times in his two terms, George W. Bush six.) House Speaker John Boehner claimed that privilege meant involvement, although Issa rebutted that. However, Issa led another first: a House contempt charge against a sitting U.S. attorney general.

This is not the first time this oversight committee has issued a contempt charge, points out Todd Peterson, a law professor at George Washington University, to Yahoo!. Attorney General Janet Reno was on the receiving end of one during a prolonged campaign finance investigation. Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers, who had already resigned as White House counsel, felt the sting of a House charge for contempt, for their refusal to testify in the firings of seven attorney generals. At that time, President George W. Bush had claimed absolute executive privilege.

What is unusual in this case, Peterson says, "is the speed that the full House has proceeded with the contempt vote, notwithstanding the Justice Department's willingness to continue to negotiate."

Rush to judgment: One day before the House passed H.Res. 711 against Holder, Fortune magazine reporter Katherine Erbe released the highlights of her own six-month investigation. The current understanding of Operation Fast and Furious has been "misconstrued, incorrect," Erbe said to CNN, and part of that might be due to the Justice Department's own poor internal communications.

So there's a sense that the Justice Department immediately wanted to deal with the potential political repercussions without necessarily grappling with the substantive question of what actually happened. Now I think they would say that they have turned to the inspector general to do a thorough investigation and they are withholding judgment pending the—that review. But, in fact, I think anyone watching Eric Holder testifying would conclude that he believes that guns were walked [even when they weren't]. (June 28, CNN)

Some takeaways from Erbe's report: No federal statute outlaws firearm trafficking, which hampered the ATF—already in leaderless disarray—from the start. The Sinoloa drug cartel used Phoenix as its "gun supermarket": The National Rifle Association notes that the state doesn't require purchase permits, registration, or licensing. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has scored Arizona 0 out of 100 in its Curb Firearm Trafficking scorecard.

According to government figures, Arizona also has the sixth highest percentage of crime guns recovered that were originally purchased within the state. ( Handguncontrol.org)

A disgruntled ATF agent—described by a former partner and best man at his wedding as an "a--hole"—seems to have set up an undercover case separate from Fast and Furious, then later went on CBS blaming his supervisors for gun walking. The idea of a wiretap, to make a direct link between purchases for criminals, came from an assistant attorney general in Phoenix. Even so, prosecutors were inexplicably slow to issue indictments for suspected gun traffickers—especially compared with New York and Los Angeles—until Terry's murder. Notably, since Congress' investigation began, "gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF's three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%."

Democrats walk-out during contempt vote (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

Political poker: second Amendment, race: Pick your wild card. While the congressional investigation has been widely seen as legitimate, accusations of underlying motives of the partisanship have ranged from racism to Second Amendment conspiracies.

Holder does have a track record of favoring gun-control measures, and firearm forums repost of his post-9/11 Washington Post editorial advocates background checks on sellers and a law allowing ATF a "record of every firearm sale." Fears of gun control have caused gun sales to soar during Obama's term. The White House administration, however, has proposed no legislation on gun control, even after the spree killing and assassination attempt of Gabrielle Gifford.

What's next: After a contempt charge, the case can be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who has the option of bringing it to the grand jury. But the Office of Legal Counsel ruled back in 1984 that it wouldn't be constitutional to prosecute someone asserting a claim of executive privilege, points out Professor Peterson.

Congress could proceed with a civil suit, but usually judges prefer to let Congress and the Department of Justice negotiate a settlement. "There are a million different ways" to settle this, Peterson says, whether deciding if copies can be made or if House members have to hang out at Justice to look at primary material. "These kinds of disputes come up all the time, and they're almost always negotiated."

Ultimately, even though the Congress has a bad track record in keeping confidential information secret, it will likely get what it wants, as the Washington Post points out.

No doubt a lot of congressional investigations are partisan fishing expeditions. For better or worse, that comes with the democratic territory. Absent very strong countervailing considerations—stronger than some of those the administration has asserted in this case—Congress is generally entitled to disclosure. (June 21, Washington Post)



To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (26115)7/3/2012 3:43:56 PM
From: Zincman2 Recommendations  Respond to of 50190
 
youtube.com

Good call two years ago.



To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (26115)7/5/2012 1:43:52 AM
From: SOROS7 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 50190
 
Without saying "Life is not fair, and it is certainly not equal," they will never fix the problems, and the nation and world will eventually economically collapse.

Everything is not a RIGHT, just because a person is born. There are people born in Africa every day who will have a life of hunger, sickness, and early death, as will many others around the world.

To say that in America, everyone born in the country, as well as everyone who makes their way into the borders legally or illegally, is entitled to education, healthcare, housing, and food is not only unrealistic, it is suicide.

LIFE IS NOT FAIR. If governments attempt to make it so, they will eventually destroy what has made America be able to at least provide a higher standard of living for a much greater percentage of the population than any country in the world.

Will there still be those with not enough to eat and no medical care? Absolutely. But would most Americans rather see 10-20% not have the necessities, or would they like to see .01% have wealth beyond their dreams, while 99.99% have their standard of living brought down, or up (for the 10-20% on poverty now) to a level that is just above the poor in other countries?

The gov't can only raise about 2.5-3 trillion a year. The budget, with keeping approximately 20% of the people in poverty, and without having healthcare as a basic "right" of life, is about the same amount. However, I believe about 2.5-3 trillion is spent EVERY YEAR on healthcare in the US. The math does not support giving healthcare to every person living in the country. If you do, then you go in the hole 2 trillion every year and face economic calamity soon, while at the same time, lowering the standard of living and the quality of health care for the approximately 80% of the people who do have it.

No one wants pain, and that is why the country and world face calamity. The needs of the many (80%) MUST outweigh the needs of the few (20%). If the gov't steps in to try and change what cannot be done mathematically, by printing money from paper and diluting the world's currency, disaster will not just happen to 20%, but it will come to 99.99%!

The real kicker in this is that that 20% in poverty would be less, because there would always be charity, and Americans, if not overly-burdened by a gov't wanting to steal all they earn, WOULD take care of those in need, like they have for 200 years. Perfect? No. But WAY closer to it than ANY other country in the world.

Do the .01% care? Heck no. They are bored with life and everything that having too much money can buy, so they love playing this game with the sheeple's lives.

It is simple entertainment for them! That is the point the sheeple do not understand! Wealth, like to the Hollywood stars, brings boredom eventually. Then it's drugs, divorce, and all kinds of damaging activities. For the .01%, this push to total socialism under THEIR control, is their illegal drug! To be able to play a real-time game with billions of people's lives must be a hoot for them. "Let's kill off this group." "Let's drop healthcare for this sect." "Let's wage war on this people." "Let's see what happens IF we DO this?" GREAT FUN FOR THE PSYCHO-PATHETIC RICH OF THE WORLD!

If the 80% are not willing to sacrifice the 20%, and STOP the .01%, ALL 99.99% will perish, or wish they had, before the .01% are done playing their new game.



To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (26115)7/6/2012 9:24:03 PM
From: SliderOnTheBlack11 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50190
 
July 6, 1775: Jefferson's case for the necessity of taking up arms against tyranny when your cause is just...

Almost a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress issued A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. The document was drafted after England sent soldiers to “restore order” in the Colonies and the Second Continental Congress thought it necessary to raise an army and justify its actions.

It also underscored the necessity to bear arms against tyranny – a concept that is almost entirely lost today as the United Nations conspires to register and confiscate the firearms of Americans and ill-informed citizens defend the Second Amendment as the right to own a gun for hunting.

Two days later, on July 8, 1775, the Olive Branch Petition was issued. It proposed a final peace deal with England and promised loyalty to the British government if it repealed the Coercive Acts and ended its taxation without representation policies.

King George official announced that the Colonies were in a state of rebellion and the English parliament rejected the Olive Branch Petition in December of 1775 and passed the the American Prohibitory Act forbidding all further trade with the Colonies.

Thomas Jefferson‘s argument in The Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms is pure genius:

We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.—The latter is our choice—We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.—Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable… With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die free men rather than to live as slaves.



infowars.com

=====================

In the not too distant future another generation of Americans will see "troops sent to restore order."

In the not too distant future another generation of Americans will be forced to choose "between living as slaves, or as free men."

And doing nothing, is choosing to live as a slave.

So it was written, so it shall be done.

Tick, tock...

SOTB



To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (26115)7/6/2012 9:57:20 PM
From: SliderOnTheBlack7 Recommendations  Respond to of 50190
 
"Army Course Manual Trains Soldiers to Confiscate legally owned Firearms"

info.publicintelligence.net

infowars.com

"Army manual outlines plans to kill political protesters and rioters in America"

infowars.com

Tick, tock...

SOTB