Monday, 2 September 2013

Fwd: [New post] Did you know that 1 in 5 flagged CIA Applicants have ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda?





BareNakedIslam posted: "We know that Obama's appointment as CIA head, John Brennan, touts the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate political organization, so is it any surprise that 1 in 5 flagged applicants to the CIA have ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda? Most of the flagged "

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Did you know that 1 in 5 flagged CIA Applicants have ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda?

by BareNakedIslam

We know that Obama's appointment as CIA head, John Brennan, touts the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate political organization, so is it any surprise that 1 in 5 flagged applicants to the CIA have ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda? Most of the flagged applicants have repeatedly applied for employment in the CIA.  The […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | September 2, 2013 at 6:31 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-Xy0

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/09/02/did-you-know-that-1-in-5-flagged-cia-applicants-have-ties-to-hezbollah-hamas-and-al-qaeda/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Citing Obamacare, 40,000 Longshoremen Quit the AFL-CIO









Hypocrites.

Labor supported both Obama and Obamacare.

B

 

CITING OBAMACARE, 40,000 LONGSHOREMEN QUIT THE AFL-CIO

In what is being reported as a surprise move, the 40,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced that they have formally ended their association with the AFL-CIO, one of the nation's largest private sector unions. The Longshoremen citied Obamacare and immigration reform as two important causes of their disaffiliation.

In an August 29 letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, ILWU President Robert McEllrath cited quite a list of grievances as reasons for the dissolution of their affiliation, but prominent among them was the AFL-CIO's support of Obamare.

"We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along," McEllrath wrote in the letter to Trumka.

The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their "Cadillac" healthcare plan.

The Longshoreman leader said, "President Obama ran on a platform that he would not tax medical plans and at the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention, you stated that labor would not stand for a tax on our benefits." But, regardless of that promise, the President has pushed for just such a tax and Trumka and the AFL-CIO bowed to political pressure lining up behind Obama's tax on those plans.

McEllrath also went on to say that they support stronger immigration reform than the AFL-CIO is supporting.

One ILWU committeeman was even harsher on both the AFL-CIO and the President. ILWU Coast Committeeman Leal Sundet criticized the AFL-CIO telling LaborNotes.com that Trumka was marching "in lockstep" with Obama both on the "Cadillac healthcare tax" as well as immigration.

Sundet slammed Obama's immigration plan saying it is "designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship."

Private sector unions have fallen to an all time low participation rate in the US workforce. Unionized workers now account for only 11.3 percent of the US workforce.

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Welcome to Absolute Rights



--------

 

Dear Patriot,

Welcome to Absolute Rights, where Liberty is Reborn!

As a member of Absolute Rights, you will receive a complimentary copy of our daily e-zine which is dedicated to the proposition that it is the duty of all patriotic Americans to take back what is ours!

We believe in The Bill of Rights; they are our rights, and no one -- not Barack Obama, not the Federal Reserve, nor the ACLU or the liberal liars in congress -- are going to take them from us.

You will stay continually updated and informed by our broad panel of experts on subject matter ranging from legal challenges to survival techniques, from macro-economics to the best way to buy and sell gold, and everything in between.

We are dedicated to preserving the ideals and freedoms that our Founders gave us, that our fathers, brothers, and sons fight to defend, and that our children deserve to inherit. We know that to accomplish these goals, patriotic Americans must be prepared to not only defend our rights, but fight for them if necessary, and be able to survive whatever comes our way.

Absolute Rights is about taking individual responsibility for ourselves and our families, and providing all the information and products necessary to help patriotic Americans not only take care of themselves financially, but to also be prepared to physically survive whatever may be thrown at us by a government out of touch with the people, or whatever challenges--natural or otherwise--might be coming at us.

Once again, welcome to the Absolute Rights community!

Stay informed, stay active, and stay tuned to Absolute Rights for the best news and opinion on the web.

Eric Pickhartz
Senior Contributor, Absolute Rights

 

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
© 2013 Absolute Rights

NOTE: If URLs do not appear as live links in your e-mail program, please cut and paste the full URL into the location or address field of your browser.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: http://www.absoluterights.com/important-disclaimer
Absolute Rights | 4330 Gaines Ranch Rd. Suite 120 | Austin, Texas, 78735 | 512-366-3332

 


If you no longer 

Absolute Rights, LLC 5316 Hwy 290 West, Ste. 480 Austin, Texas 78735 United States (512) 366-3332


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: U.S. "black budget" reveals massive bureaucracy, misplaced priorities







 

U.S. "black budget" reveals massive bureaucracy, misplaced priorities:

expert

Published 2 September 2013

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130902-u-s-black-budget-reveals-massive-bureaucracy-misplaced-priorities-expert

 

 

Classified budget figures and successes and failures by American

intelligence agencies, exposed for the first time this week by the

Washington Post, show a massive bureaucracy with misplaced priorities,

according to a cybersecurity and privacy expert. "The major failure

identified in all of the post-9/11 assessments was a 'failure to connect the

dots,'" the expert said. "Nevertheless, the vast majority of the black

budget is being spent on data acquisition - collecting more dots - rather

than analysis."

 

Classified budget figures and successes and failures by American

intelligence agencies, exposed for the first time this week by the

Washington Post, show a massive bureaucracy with misplaced priorities,

according to an Indiana University cybersecurity and privacy expert.

 

Through documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the Post

was able to reveal details of how the U.S.$52.6 billion "black budget" is

divvied up among the nation's sixteen intelligence agencies and how some of

those agencies are using the money. An Indiana University release reports

that according to IU Maurer School of Law Distinguished Professor Fred H.

Cate, it appears, at least on the surface, that the government is creating

barriers against its own interests.

 

"The major failure identified in all of the post-9/11 assessments was a

'failure to connect the dots,'" Cate said. "Nevertheless, the vast majority

of the black budget is being spent on data acquisition - collecting more

dots - rather than analysis. It suggests we didn't learn much from the

tragic attacks the 12th anniversary of which we are about to commemorate."

 

The secrecy of the numbers is also problematic, Cate argued. The Post agreed

to withhold many sensitive details contained in their report, but publishing

the budgetary summary - voluntarily - could provide significant benefits to

the public, he said. Since 2007, the government has released the total level

of federal spending on intelligence efforts, but never before has the public

seen where that money goes.

 

"Why are the numbers secret in the first place?" Cate asked. "The high-level

summary is informative without in any way compromising security, suggesting

that the secrecy is designed to reduce public oversight, rather than advance

any legitimate national interest. This suggests many Americans might think

the money could be better spent elsewhere."

 

Another issue raised by the black budget is the significant investment in

offensive cyberattacks. The Post's documents show that the Central

Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency have begun launching

"offensive cyberoperations" against designated foes.

 

This, Cate said, is problematic because there is no legal framework to

regulate such activities, and it is inconsistent with outspoken U.S.

opposition to cyberattacks by other countries, particularly China.

 

"When taken in context with earlier documents from Mr. Snowden, which

suggest the U.S. is actively engaged in cyberespionage against China, Russia

and others, this new report shows what a difficult position the U.S. is in,"

Cate said. "It is hard to publicly chastise other nations for engaging in

activities that we appear to be conducting in secret and without a legal

framework to control."

 

Perhaps the most challenging question facing Congress and the American

public is the value of national security, Cate said.

 

"Is spending $52.6 billion a year worth what we are getting for it?" he

asked. With cities going bankrupt, federal programs being decimated by

budget cuts and hundreds of thousands of defense employees forced to stay

home over sequestration, are these taxpayer dollars being well spent?

 

"The federal government spends about $5 billion a year on cancer research,

despite the fact that over a half-million Americans die from various cancers

annually," Cate said. "Is investing 10 times as much in the black budget

yielding 10 times as much benefit as saving those half million lives every

year? The secret allotment of tens of billions of dollars for efforts that

no one can successfully say are working raises serious issues that Congress

and the public should be addressing."

 

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

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this

message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to

these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed

within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with

"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The

Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain

permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials

if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,

teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria

for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies

as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four

criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is

determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not

substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use

copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS

PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

 

 

 

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Odds Now Growing Our Constitution Will Pulverize Obama






 

http://www.absoluterights.com/odds-now-growing-our-constitution-will-pulverize-obama/

Odds Now Growing Our Constitution Will Pulverize Obama

By Absolute Rights Contributor on August 31, 2013

obama smug

By Nat Henthoff

I'd previously doubted that the deeply concerned bipartisan rebellion in and out of Congress against President Barack Obama's contemptuous spying on all of us would have lasting impact on him or any of his successors who believe the president is the rule of law.

I spoke too soon, according to this headline in the Aug. 17 edition of the New York Daily News: "Pols rip NSA over privacy."

The article highlighted the current revival of the personal liberty legacy of Tom Paine, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty.

What ignited this political outrage was the previous day's Washington Post, which reported on newly released National Security Agency documents from former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Obama has made Snowden a citizen without a country until he returns from his haven in Russia to be ultimately judged by our Supreme Court, some of whose recent decisions have been supportive of the president in denying us our personal privacy rights.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "the thousands of privacy violations cited by the Post were 'jaw-dropping'?" ("Pols rip NSA over privacy," Larry McShane, New York Daily News, Aug. 17).

Besides The Washington Post and the Daily News, other members of the media are also awakening to Obama's belittling of We The People. In last Saturday's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan quoted me at length: "There are particular constitutional liberty rights that (Americans) have that distinguish them from all other people, and one of them is privacy …

"The bad thing is you no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic" ("What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy," Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 17).

And in addition to the media, more Americans are awakening in anger — across party lines — at being betrayed by their un-American government.

The reporter who has been facilitating Snowden's breaking news, thus disturbing Obama's golf games, is The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald. He's made Edward Snowden into a household name. Last month, Greenwald reported on "major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed," further troubling our leading-from-behind commander-in-chief. He spoke of "a new comprehensive poll released … by Pew Research (that) provides the most compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is" ("Major opinion shifts, in the U.S. and Congress, on NSA surveillance and privacy," Greenwald, The Guardian, July 29).

Dig this, Obama. According to the poll: "A majority of Americans — 56 percent — say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts.

"An even larger percentage (70 percent) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism" ("Few See Adequate Limits on NSA Surveillance Program," Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, July 26).

You see, we're a lot smarter than Obama thinks we are.

Pew continues: "And despite the insistence by the president and other senior officials that only 'metadata,' such as phone numbers and email addresses, is being collected, 63 percent think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications."

Citing these figures, Greenwald further explained the Pew poll's importance:

"That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the U.S. government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe."

Are you listening, Attorney General Eric Holder?

I sure hope the parents among us are telling our kids what's really going on, because the great majority of them aren't learning in school about the president's towering lies that he feeds us almost daily.

As she is busy planning for her likely 2016 presidential run, is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying anything about that? And how many of the potential Republican presidential candidates are mentioning Obama's treating us with such wholesale disrespect?

Hey, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. What do you think of all this? You ought to listen to Sen. Rand Paul, governor. He knows the score.

Having quoted so much from Pew Research polls, I feel required to say that, as with all polls I reference, I first validate them from other research sources. I have found nearly all the Pew polls I've used are accurate.

Here are more of its findings: "Nearly half of Americans (47 percent) say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties; 35 percent say their greater concern is that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country …

"This is the first time a plurality has expressed greater concern about civil liberties than security since the question was first asked in 2004."

Greenwald, who called these figures the poll's "most striking finding," wrote: "For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing short of shocking.

"This Pew visual," Greenwald continued, "underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures."

This conclusion leads me to request that Pew Research and other proven reliable pollsters conduct a carefully, calmly worded national poll. It would ask a wide sampling of Americans — regardless of their politics and other self-identifying characteristics — whether they believe there is seriously documented evidence that indicates President Barack Obama should be impeached for continually defying his oath of office.

Twice he has defied that oath, when he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

More than any other president, Obama has continually broken the oath of office.

(c) 2013. Used with permission.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: George W. Bush was right about Syria and Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton were all wrong







 

 

http://floppingaces.net/2013/09/02/george-w-bush-was-right-about-syria-and-obama-pelosi-kerry-and-clinton-were-all-wrong/

George W. Bush was right about Syria and Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton were all wrong

By: DrJohn

.bush-miss-me-yet

Bashar Al-Assad is what he is today thanks to democrats- specifically Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.

assad and pelosi

George W. Bush has never been a fan of Assad. Bush had been trying to isolate Syria since 2005, believing it was up to nefarious activities but democrats knew better. In 2007 then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi undercut Bush's foreign policy by paying a visit to Assad.

The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, delivered a powerful challenge to the Bush administration's stewardship of American interests in the Middle East by breaking with its policy of isolating Syria and holding talks in Damascus with President Bashar Assad.

Yesterday's visit defied warnings from President George Bush about sending "mixed signals" to Damascus, and was widely seen as a sign of growing determination from a Democratic Congress to have a hand in setting US foreign policy.

"We come in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms Pelosi told reporters before travelling on from Syria to Saudi Arabia.

Pelosi then fabricated a fantasy about her trip:

However, her foray into diplomacy stumbled when she told reporters that she was relaying a message of peace to President Assad from the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. "[Our] meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks," she told reporters after her talks with Mr Assad.

Hours later, Mr Olmert's office issued a statement on its website saying that Israel remained unconvinced that Mr Assad was interested in a peace process. "The prime minister emphasised that although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East," the statement said, adding that Israeli policy remained unchanged.

The Pelosi effort was obviously one designed to damage George W. Bush:

Ms Pelosi's status as the third most senior elected figure in Washington makes her visit to Damascus the most serious challenge to the Bush administration strategy of isolation in four years.

Bush considered Syria to be a sponsor of terror, but democrats wanted to play nice with Syria

Democrats have argued that the United States should engage its top rivals in the Mideast — Iran and Syria — to make headway in easing crises in Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Arab peace process. Last year, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended talks with the two countries.

Bush rejected the recommendations. But in February, the United States joined a gathering of regional diplomats in Baghdad that included Iran and Syria for talks on Iraq.

In 2007 Pelosi said "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

John Kerry, who always seems to know everything at any given moment, has coddled Assad since 2006 and it went on for some time. In 2009 Kerry and his wife had dinner with Assad and his wife.

kerry and assad

Kerry called Assad a "very generous man" and made every effort to hamstring Bush foreign policy in the Middle East with effusive praise for Assad:

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration's own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration's envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama's inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must "move away from a policy based on dictating decisions."

Kerry agreed, condemning the previous U.S. president while on the soil of a dictator who had spent the previous years assisting in the killing of American troops in Iraq. "Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion," Kerry said.

A year later Kerry was reiterating his praise for Assad's tyranny. "Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region," Kerry said about the prominent state sponsor of terrorism and host of jihadist groups. "All of us have to work together in order to seize real opportunities."

The Washington Post called Kerry a "prominent admirer" of Assad.

In 2011, whose current whereabouts are unknown, Hillary Clinton said that Assad was considered a "reformer."

She was roundly hammered for the statement and she tried to blunt the criticism but not even WaPo was buying it:

Throughout the Middle East uprisings, Clinton has had trouble calibrating her comments to the mood of the moment, such as when she pronounced the Mubarak regime to be "stable' and "looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people." Days later, Mubarak was gone.

We grant that we have no way of really knowing what lawmakers may have said privately to Clinton. But there is only a small universe of GOP senators and members of Congress who have recently traveled to Syria — 13 or so — and the word "many" would suggest at least half of those traveling.

The State Department's refusal to identify these lawmakers is also suspicious, especially after Clinton backtracked and sought to pin the blame for the sentiments she expressed on others. So we are left with a public record that suggests Clinton was exaggerating or inventing the chorus of support on the GOP side.

In fact, Clinton's remarks gave a highly misleading impression — that there was general consensus by experts on Syria in both parties that Assad was a reformer, even though Clinton's own State Department reports label him otherwise.

hillary

Across the pond Clinton's current absence has been noticed:

Fourthly, Clinton's own track record on Syria has hardly been stellar. Before Syria descended into war, Clinton was a strong backer of engagement with Syria, greatly underestimating the nature of the Baathist regime, famously referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer" in April 2011. In addition, as Washington's most senior foreign policy official, Clinton did little to stand up to Moscow's aggressive support for the Syrians, eager to appease the Russians through the controversial "reset" strategy, which was her own brainchild. In addition, the Secretary of State was weak in the face of Iran, whose military and financial backing for the Assad regime has been vital to its survival.

Against this backdrop it's not hard to see why Hillary Clinton isn't at the forefront of the Syria debate. Her own handling of the Syria crisis was a spectacular failure, as has been President Obama's. The last thing she needs in the lead-up to her inevitable White House run is a reminder to Americans of her poor track record as Secretary of State, from the Syrian debacle to the farcical Russian reset. Syria is a liability for Clinton in 2016, and with good reason she is nervous about what happens next.

Obama-with-pursed-lips

Barack Obama began courting Assad even before becoming President:

As a matter of fact, Obama didn't even wait until he was sworn in as president to begin that process. On 12 November 2008, just a week after he had won the election, a delegation representing President-elect Obama , met with Syrian officials at a meeting in Beirut that was very hush-hush. I wasn't much reported in the Western media or mentioned by the Syrian press, but it was covered by Al-Ahram Weekly:

A US delegation affiliated with President-elect Barack Obama visited Syria on 12 November and met with two figures close to the Syrian government. The US delegation, comprising intellectuals, academics, and politicians from several US states, aimed to find out more about the impact of Obama's election on the region, explore Arab reactions, and examine the future of US relations with the Syrian government.

The meeting took place at the Arab Institute for International and Diplomatic Sciences in Beirut. Syrian media made no mention of the visit. The delegation is on a regional tour of six Middle East countries, including Lebanon and Jordan to gather information about Arab reaction to Obama's election and the prospects of peace and dialogue in the region. The US consul in Damascus briefed the delegation on Syrian reaction to US policies.
..
The Syrians told the US delegation that Damascus is interested in defusing tensions in the regions, is earnestly pursuing talks with Israel, and wants the Americans to sponsor and participate in these talks. Damascus holds no grudges towards the US administration and believes that the best way to sort out problems is through dialogue.

Third, the Syrians are looking for yet another way to open up to the United States, and are laying the groundwork for what they hope will be a political rapprochement between the al Assad regime and the incoming administration led by President-elect Barack Obama. By privately demonstrating to Washington and Beirut that it is cooperating against significant militant groups in Lebanon, the Syrians are sending a deliberate message to the incoming U.S. administration that Syria is prepared and capable of dismantling militant organizations – to include Hezbollah – in exchange for normalization of relations and support in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. The Syrians have also been exhibiting their cooperation in clamping down on insurgent traffic into Iraq toward this.

Obama, as always, was interested in one thing only- his legacy.

All of the above engaged in policies that were meant to undermine the Presidency of George Bush. The bitter irony is that Bush was right and they were all wrong. And here's one more bit of irony that really ought to be shoved into the appropriate anatomic sites on the appropriate democrats:

Also in 2005, a ferocious battle erupted in the U.S. Senate over the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. A key point of contention: his congressional testimony from late 2003 claiming Damascus had "one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities," and that it might have a covert interest in developing a nuclear bomb. The CIA reportedly went berserk over what it considered Mr. Bolton's undue alarmism, which would later help sink his nomination in the Senate.

(emphasis added)

Contrast today's blathering from the above democrats to their past words. They created the monster they now decry.

Keith Hennessey is right. George Bush is smarter than you. He sure as hell is smarter than Obama, Kerry, Pelosi and Clinton.



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Kerry and Assad Eating Dinner 4yrs ago and Now he's the world's worst human being?






 

 http://tinyurl.com/mdemfw2

 

http://newsninja2012.com/kerry-assad-eating-dinner-like-next-door-neighbors-four-years-later-assad-worlds-worst-human-photo-2013-09-01/#sthash.GN8ujc0q.fynGaUY5.dpbs

 Kerry and Assad Eating Dinner like Next Door Neighbors; Four Years later Assad is the Worlds Worst Human Being? – PHOTO

September 1, 2013 Inside the News, Special Reports, Wayne Dupree 1 Comment

Most people reading this article and viewing this photo will say that this all means nothing. This photo of John Kerry and Syria's President Assad was nothing more than a state dinner that usually is followed with respect for each other while they are trying to work out details. Here's my issue with this photo. John Kerry looks to have really sucked with not doing the job he went over there to do. Now, four years later, the United States wasn't able to fix problems or work out better solutions and now Assad is one of the worst human beings in the world that must be stopped at all costs!

These dinners are not the first or will they be the last of two sides that do not agree siting down with each other trying to work out differences. However, the United States in this regard along with John Kerry's latest statement of going to war against them seems to be one of a jilted lover so to speak. It seems that Kerry wasn't able to work out a plan with Assad so now being Secretary of State, four years later, he can enact whatever type of fabricated lie they could tell to turn the American people against Assad and his regime.

Only problem with that is the American people are detached from Syria. They really know nothing about it and it's not on their radar. Assad can't rap, he can't twerk, he can't mix on turntables so they don't care.

 



__._,_.___






__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Public School Teachers Paid More Than Most Households

http://www.nea.org/home/38465.htm

Just so you know the top 10!!!

I know that in NJ the teachers do not contribute to their healthcare coverage but do have to kick in a little for their pensions ... they can also save all their sick days to cash out at the end when their salary is the highest ... great gig!!!


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

*************************


 Public School Teachers Paid More 
Than Most Households

Despite the clamor about low teacher pay in America, the average teacher in a taxpayer-supported public school earns more in base salary alone — with summers off — than the median U.S. household earns in an entire year.

According to a new report from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the average base salary for a full-time public school teacher in the 2011-2012 school year was $53,100.

The Census Bureau estimated that the median household income in the United States was $50,054 in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available.

The income earned by public school teachers is also significantly higher than the base salary of the average private school teacher, $40,200 a year, according to the NCES.

Many public school teachers earn more than their base salary. For example, 41.8 percent of teachers receive additional income to work in extracurricular activities in the same school system; 4 percent earn additional compensation based on students' performance; and 7.3 percent receive income from other school-system sources, such as state supplements.

On top of that, 16.5 percent of public school teachers have another job outside the school system.

When all sources of income are included, the average public school teacher earned $55,100 in the school year studied.

Teachers at public high schools earned even more: $57,700 in 2011-2012, and teachers at schools with at least 1,000 students made $59,100.

In contrast, teachers at private elementary schools earned just $38,400 that year, and those who work in a community classified as a "town" earned only $31,200.

Footnote: The NCES figures for public school teachers do not include their often generous retirement pensions.


******************************
" God Bless America "

          Brad  aka TxForce
 

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
brine
http://brineb.blogspot.com/

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Exclusive: Army Admits To Major Computer Security Flaw

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: This is the most dangerous time in modern history-intelligence insider update








 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57538

Pawns a-Plenty - Setting the global chessboard

This is the most dangerous time in modern history-intelligence insider update

By Doug Hagmann

Friday, August 30, 2013


"We're in the most dangerous time in modern world history and here's why, here's what's happening," stated my source deep within the spy world early this morning.

"We're seeing a combination of a nine-percent overall approval rating for intervention in Syria, or the absence of public support for the globalist plans by the Obama regime, the UK, the Saudis and other NATO allies. When have we seen this before, and what does history tell us? The increased likelihood of a false flag event larger and causing more public outrage than the alleged chemical weapons attacks."

My source continued, "think Gulf of Tonkin, the Lusitania, even Pearl Harbor, use those as your historical guides for what we're seeing today. Make no mistake, the global agenda has not changed," he emphasized. "When their primary plan backfires or meets resistance, they have alternate plans. In the coming days or weeks, we could see an event that will be horrendous enough to change that nine-percent backing. Also, time is not on their side, they need to act within a short window as the anti-Assad 'rebels' are being beaten badly without Western assistance."

Benghazi, briefly

"Remember what happened in Benghazi and our many conversations about what was really going on there, which you printed and the reports have since been proven correct. It was all about arming and training anti-Assad fighters, including the instructional use of chemical weapons in Turkey and elsewhere, along the border of Syria. People seem to forget that the Turkish consulate met Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, the CIA logistics center, to show him that the Russians had satellite images of this training activity. Putin was not amused and gave Turkey an ultimatum, which was delivered to the United States at Benghazi."

"Russia, however, had to do something to expose the operation for what it was. The primary attacking force was Ansar al Sharia, a military arm of Iran, which is a proxy nation state of Russia. Connect the dots. Do people really think Assad used chemical weapons on a retreating rebel force?"

Pawns a-Plenty - Setting the global chessboard

"Look at all of the military assets being moved into that region. I told you last October, and you reported it, that we are engaged in a proxy war against Russia and China. Both countries have a huge stake in Syria, militarily and economically, especially Russia. Oh, and is John McCain out of his [multiple expletives deleted] mind? This designated loser of the 2008 presidential campaign is talking as if any action in Syria is going to happen in a vacuum. As I said before, any action will not be in a vacuum or without a tit-for-tat response," stated this source.

"Launching cruise missiles into Syria will likely fall not only upon innocent civilians, but on Iranian forces, Russian forces - Russia has over 100,000 'military advisors there now, and perhaps even some Chinese assets. What do you think their response will be?" he asked rhetorically. "This is asymmetrical warfare on steroids. The response might not be what everyone expects. In fact, we should be looking for the unexpected, as we are about to be blindsided."

"Do you think that telegraphing our target list and stating that strikes will be brief and limited is by the incompetence of the Obama regime, or by design? It's by design," stated my source, who added that this will provide the opportunity to the Russians and other essential assets to get out of the way. "And therein lies the 'flash-bang, pyrotechnic display of the magic show I've been talking about, that is intended to divert everyone's attention from what's really about to happen," he emphasized.

"This is not a 'zero sum game' confined to Syria. Again, this is about setting up the globalist takeover of the world's economic system, killing off the U.S. dollar to have it replaced by a basket of currencies, or SDRs, and controlling all transactional activity everywhere on the planet under one mechanism. It will be done by using Syria as the trigger, oil as a weapon, and striking at the weakest aspect of American power—the U.S. dollar, which has been the target all along."

"What better way to accomplish this by blaming the economic 'collapse' on the 'unfortunate and unseen' consequences of a 'humanitarian mission', saving the Syrians from a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people? It's all a lie, and we're being played as fools. This is an international bankers' war that will result in heavy causalities."

Consider that until Western/globalist meddling in Syria, the country was a relatively stable and religiously tolerant secular state. Today, the Syrian death toll as a result of this Western-manufactured civil war stands at and estimated 150,000 dead in Syria alone. Also, over a million Syrians have been displaced and are now refugees. According to a recent assessment made by geopolitical analyst and former Indian diplomat Gajendra Singh, Syria will rapidly fall into a bloodbath that will make 150,000 dead just a small taste of what's to come when Assad is toppled. Removal of Assad will result in the wholesale slaughter of the diverse religious sects. Responsible estimates from those familiar with the geopolitics of Syria estimate that 20% of a population of twenty-million will be killed - or a total of 4 million people.

Watch for a false flag

"The globalists are financing all sides of this conflict to assure the accomplishments of their objectives. When things go hot in Syria and the Middle East, we could see something very bad happen in Saudi Arabia, or something to affect the production or free flow of oil, the single factor that is keeping the U.S. dollar relevant. We could see something happen to threaten, hinder or even temporarily halt oil shipments across the globe. Also, with the U.S. preoccupied, China could well move on the Japanese Senkaku islands, North Korea will ramp up their mischief, and other areas will gradually become unglued. It's all one big transfer of power, transfer of wealth, and a global economic reset."

"Understand this: the globalist objectives have not changed. The absence of popular support just makes this whole situation much more dangerous, and raises the possibility of 'false flag events' of similar historical precedent to change public opinion. Something much bigger than we've seen to date. People are just not thinking big enough."

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.