| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Kavik Kang" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2007 05:37:49 PM |
| Object: |
What would George Washington Think? |
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor excuse
anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has commited an act
of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big deal. Apparently
it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the slang of a community he
is not a part of, the President fires some people that he may fire at any
time and for any reason, or if a particularly pretty woman has died.
Apparently those are all critically important issues, whereas when someone
attempts to usurp the power of the President in an apparent bid to cease
power over the US government... that is not, apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power of the
President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution gives
complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In fact, it is
the main reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly against the
President on matters of Forien Affairs, although that tradition has not been
observed for many years. But Nancy Pelosi has gone much further than that.
Apparently nobody fully understands what it was that she has done. Let me
try to explain it...
It is, and has been for decades, the policy of this nation that we do
not hold one-on-one discussions with hostile minor nations. This foriegn
policy was established by a previous President, and re-affirmed by all
succeeding Presidents. This is, in fact, a critical and fundamental
componant of our foriegn policy. It was established decades ago, and has
been in force for decades. A series of US Presidents has re-affirmed this
policy. Last week Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
leader of Congress, and 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, decided
on her own that she would ignore not only the current President, but every
President since WWII, and well-established US foriegn policy, and decide, on
her own, by herself, that she had the authority to assume authority over US
foreign policy. Further, the current President then specifically asked her
not to violate US foriegn policy, and she ignored that command as if she is
in control of the country now. George Washington would call this "high
treason" and call for Nancy Pelosi to be tried... and then hung. That's
what George Washignton would have to say about this. George Washington
would call Nancy Pelosi a traitor.
The President is the sole authority of US foriegn policy. No other
member of government may conduct foriegn policy on any level unless asked
too by the President. To take it upon yourself to ignore US foreign policy,
and a specific request (a command, really) from the President to not conduct
that foriegn policy, is the very definition of "high-treason". It is an
attempt to usurp the power of the President and the Executive Branch. It is
an attempt by the speaker of the House to assume the responsibilities of the
President. It is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United
States. This is how people like George Washington, Thomas Jfferson, and
Benjiman Franklin would view her actions. If they were alive today they
would call her a "traitor", and "usurper", and would describe her actions as
an attempt to sieze power from the President. They would call for her
execution by hanging. That is what the Founding Fathers would say.
And this is not even a scandal? This is not newsworthy? Don Imus
using the slang of a community he is not associated with is a major offense
but an unconstitutional attempt to sieze power from the President is not.
There really is something wrong with this country.
This is not a minor issue. Nancy Pelosi has attempted to usurp the
power of the executive branch, in a crystal clear violation of the
Constitution of this country. She could have done great damage to the
nation by reversing US foriegn policy on an absolutely critical issue.
Fortunately, the nations she visited seem to understand that she had no
authority to be doing what she was doing, which mitigates that damage
greatly. Had they taken her seriously, she very well may have irreperably
damaged US foriegn policy that took decades to establish with the
international community. Nancy Pelosi should be in prison right now. The
fact that there isn't even a scandal, that it isn't even an issue, truly is
frightening.
I am getting closer and closer to preparing some type of "survivalist
backpack" that I can just pick up and walk out the door with if civilization
collapses. Things really are beginning too seem that bad...
.
|
|
| User: "Grande Mal" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
13 Apr 2007 06:50:55 PM |
|
|
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1DTTh.21126$PL.13832@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor excuse
anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has commited an
act of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big deal.
Apparently it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the slang of a
community he is not a part of, the President fires some people that he may
fire at any time and for any reason, or if a particularly pretty woman has
died. Apparently those are all critically important issues, whereas when
someone attempts to usurp the power of the President in an apparent bid to
cease power over the US government... that is not, apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United
States. Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power
of the President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution
gives complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In
fact, it is the main reason this country even has a President. It is
actually inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly
against the President
Ohfercrissakes.
Sober up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kavik Kang" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
13 Apr 2007 07:11:51 PM |
|
|
"Grande Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zHUTh.88$GV5.82@edtnps89...
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1DTTh.21126$PL.13832@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor
excuse anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has
commited an act of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big
deal. Apparently it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the
slang of a community he is not a part of, the President fires some people
that he may fire at any time and for any reason, or if a particularly
pretty woman has died. Apparently those are all critically important
issues, whereas when someone attempts to usurp the power of the President
in an apparent bid to cease power over the US government... that is not,
apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the
United States. Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp
the power of the President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution...
that is not a newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The
Consititution gives complete authority over foreign relations to the
President. In fact, it is the main reason this country even has a
President. It is actually inappropriate for any member of government to
speak out publicly against the President
Ohfercrissakes.
Sober up.
Everything I said is completely accurate. Maybe you need to "smarten up"...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
13 Apr 2007 09:02:31 PM |
|
|
Kavik Kang wrote:
"Grande Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zHUTh.88$GV5.82@edtnps89...
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<SNIPPED TO SPARE KRETIN FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT>
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the
United States. Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp
the power of the President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution...
that is not a newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The
Consititution gives complete authority over foreign relations to the
President. In fact, it is the main reason this country even has a
President. It is actually inappropriate for any member of government to
speak out publicly against the President
Ohfercrissakes.
Sober up.
Everything I said is completely accurate.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :-D
Maybe you need to "smarten up"...
You better up your meds, Kretin.
Shields Up! Go to Red Alert! Klingons off the starboard bow!
;D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kavik Kang" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
14 Apr 2007 07:16:42 AM |
|
|
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:58aqr1F2b9rjfU2@mid.individual.net...
Kavik Kang wrote:
"Grande Mal" <ironwrkr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zHUTh.88$GV5.82@edtnps89...
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<SNIPPED TO SPARE KRETIN FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT>
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the
United States. Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp
the power of the President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution...
that is not a newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The
Consititution gives complete authority over foreign relations to the
President. In fact, it is the main reason this country even has a
President. It is actually inappropriate for any member of government
to speak out publicly against the President
Ohfercrissakes.
Sober up.
Everything I said is completely accurate.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :-D
I see that you still respond with deranged laughter when confronted with
clear facts that you have no response too.
Everything I said in that post was entirely accurate, as anyone can easily
confirm for themselves just by doing a little reading. There is no reason
for me to re-state any of it, as it was all said quite well the first time
around.
Maybe you need to "smarten up"...
You better up your meds, Kretin.
Shields Up! Go to Red Alert! Klingons off the starboard bow!
Still mocking a simulation that is too complex for you too comprhend? How
pathetic...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarus Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
13 Apr 2007 09:01:45 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:11 pm, "Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Grande Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zHUTh.88$GV5.82@edtnps89...
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1DTTh.21126$PL.13832@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor
excuse anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has
commited an act of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big
deal. Apparently it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the
slang of a community he is not a part of, the President fires some people
that he may fire at any time and for any reason, or if a particularly
pretty woman has died. Apparently those are all critically important
issues, whereas when someone attempts to usurp the power of the President
in an apparent bid to cease power over the US government... that is not,
apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the
United States. Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp
the power of the President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution...
that is not a newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The
Consititution gives complete authority over foreign relations to the
President. In fact, it is the main reason this country even has a
President. It is actually inappropriate for any member of government to
speak out publicly against the President
Ohfercrissakes.
Sober up.
Everything I said is completely accurate. Maybe you need to "smarten up"...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nothing Kavik Kang says is accurate or true.
He is a perfect example of a bigoted misguided usenet troll who always
insists on having the last fart.
Are you on the Bush payroll, Kang, or wish you were, or do you post
your crap free of charge?
Hell, Imus is much less offesnsive than you are.
Perhaps you, Kavik, and Shogun should get together and swap notes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shogun shogunattantonet" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
13 Apr 2007 09:38:06 PM |
|
|
"Lazarus Cain" <rspeaking@aol.com> wrote in
news:1176516105.227503.202750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 13, 7:11 pm, "Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Grande Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zHUTh.88$GV5.82@edtnps89...
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1DTTh.21126$PL.13832@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any
minor
excuse anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has
commited an act of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it
is a big deal. Apparently it is a very important issue if a radio
DJ uses the slang of a community he is not a part of, the
President fires some people that he may fire at any time and for
any reason, or if a particularly pretty woman has died. Apparently
those are all critically important issues, whereas when someone
attempts to usurp the power of the President in an apparent bid to
cease power over the US government... that is not, apparently,
newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in
America
Nancy Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of
the United States. Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts
to usurp the power of the President, and flagrantly violate the
Constitution... that is not a newsworthy item. What is wrong with
this country? The Consititution gives complete authority over
foreign relations to the President. In fact, it is the main
reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly
against the President
Ohfercrissakes.
Sober up.
Everything I said is completely accurate. Maybe you need to "smarten
up"...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nothing Kavik Kang says is accurate or true.
He is a perfect example of a bigoted misguided usenet troll who always
insists on having the last fart.
Are you on the Bush payroll, Kang, or wish you were, or do you post
your crap free of charge?
Hell, Imus is much less offesnsive than you are.
Perhaps you, Kavik, and Shogun should get together and swap notes.
Why don't you and Defendario and Grande Mal get a room, or better yet, drop
dead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: ** Koward Kavik Kang still hasn't Enlisted <= U$ Military Desperately Needs Recruits ** |
13 Apr 2007 11:12:48 PM |
|
|
Kavik Kang wrote:
Where is the scandal?
Here Kavik the Koward --
From: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_K...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <LRN4d.1723$zG1.1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:00:27 GMT
"I am 36 and therefore too old to join the military."
From: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_K...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <%2Cjd.20787$KJ6.5238@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004
"I'd join the military if they needed me, and if I was
young enough, but they don't need me... and i'm too old"
From: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_K...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <8aiee.6051$HL2.3468@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
"I think I remember hearing that they recently raised the age that they will
accept people into the military.
I am getting closer and closer to joining you over there, if they'll take me
at 36. If I can't get funding for my current project, I might just forget
about my carreer and join the military.
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <3Cjee.5936$GQ5.4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
"And I very well just might join the military.
If my current project doesn't get going, I've been seriously
considering doing exactly that."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <8aiee.6051$HL2.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
"I am getting closer and closer to joining you over there, if they'll take
me
at 36. If I can't get funding for my current project, I might just forget
about my carreer and join the military."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <Jq6xe.11631$jX6.2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005
"I never said I was going to join the army, although I have said several
times that if things actually get bad I would try to join the army. I am
too old, they wouldn't take me now even if I wanted too. I have more
important things to do with my own company."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <r1pxe.12921$hK3.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"They wouldn't take me even if I wanted to join, moron, I am too old."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <rbpxe.12931$hK3.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"In a previous post I exposed the lies and distortions you repeated in this
post. I never said I was going to join the army, liar"
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <b0sye.3899$8f7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005
"I am 2 years too old to be accepted by the military,
they wouldn't take me even if I tried to enlist, moron."
From: "Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <YJoxe.11976$jX6.5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"Of course not, he is an enemy propogandist. All he does is lie and distort
the truth."
From: "Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <2dpxe.12932$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"We are winning handily in Iraq."
*************
Army raises enlistment age to 42
June 22, 2006
FORT KNOX, Ky. (Army News Service, June 22, 2006) - The Army has raised the
enlistment age to 42, made possible under provisions of the Fiscal Year 2006
National Defense Authorization Act.
The Army raised the active-duty age limit to 40 in January as an interim
step
while it worked out the additional medical screening requirements for
recruits
ages 40 to 42. Before January, an applicant could not have reached his or
her
35th birthday. The Army Reserve age limit was raised from 35 to 40 in March
2005.
Raising the maximum age for Army enlistment expands the recruiting pool,
provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve and strengthens the
readiness of Army units. More than 1,000 men and women over age 35 have
already
enlisted since the Army and Army Reserve raised their age limits to age 40.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarus Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: ** Koward Kavik Kang still hasn't Enlisted <= U$ Military Desperately Needs Recruits ** |
15 Apr 2007 07:29:14 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 11:12 pm, "=A5 UltraMan =A5" <u...@man.jp> wrote:
Kavik Kang wrote:
Where is the scandal?
Here Kavik the Koward --
From: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_K...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <LRN4d.1723$zG1.1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:00:27 GMT
"I am 36 and therefore too old to join the military."
From: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_K...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <%2Cjd.20787$KJ6.5238@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004
"I'd join the military if they needed me, and if I was
young enough, but they don't need me... and i'm too old"
From: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_K...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <8aiee.6051$HL2.3468@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
"I think I remember hearing that they recently raised the age that they w=
ill
accept people into the military.
I am getting closer and closer to joining you over there, if they'll take=
me
at 36. If I can't get funding for my current project, I might just forget
about my carreer and join the military.
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <3Cjee.5936$GQ5.4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
"And I very well just might join the military.
If my current project doesn't get going, I've been seriously
considering doing exactly that."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <8aiee.6051$HL2.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005
"I am getting closer and closer to joining you over there, if they'll take
me
at 36. If I can't get funding for my current project, I might just forget
about my carreer and join the military."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <Jq6xe.11631$jX6.2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005
"I never said I was going to join the army, although I have said several
times that if things actually get bad I would try to join the army. I am
too old, they wouldn't take me now even if I wanted too. I have more
important things to do with my own company."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <r1pxe.12921$hK3.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"They wouldn't take me even if I wanted to join, moron, I am too old."
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <rbpxe.12931$hK3.3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"In a previous post I exposed the lies and distortions you repeated in th=
is
post. I never said I was going to join the army, liar"
From: "Kavik Kang"
Message-ID: <b0sye.3899$8f7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005
"I am 2 years too old to be accepted by the military,
they wouldn't take me even if I tried to enlist, moron."
From: "Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <YJoxe.11976$jX6.5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"Of course not, he is an enemy propogandist. All he does is lie and dist=
ort
the truth."
From: "Kavik Kang" <kavik_k...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <2dpxe.12932$hK3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005
"We are winning handily in Iraq."
*************
Army raises enlistment age to 42
June 22, 2006
FORT KNOX, Ky. (Army News Service, June 22, 2006) - The Army has raised t=
he
enlistment age to 42, made possible under provisions of the Fiscal Year 2=
006
National Defense Authorization Act.
The Army raised the active-duty age limit to 40 in January as an interim
step
while it worked out the additional medical screening requirements for
recruits
ages 40 to 42. Before January, an applicant could not have reached his or
her
35th birthday. The Army Reserve age limit was raised from 35 to 40 in Mar=
ch
2005.
Raising the maximum age for Army enlistment expands the recruiting pool,
provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve and strengthens the
readiness of Army units. More than 1,000 men and women over age 35 have
already
enlisted since the Army and Army Reserve raised their age limits to age 4=
0=2E
Catch 22 requires the US Army not to accept Kavik, snce he is
mentally deranged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: , |
15 Apr 2007 08:04:55 PM |
|
|
=American confessing to gang rape of an Iraqi child=
During the trial of Private Lynndie England, now doing three years in
a military prison for her part in the Abu Ghraib prison war crimes,
she was asked if there were other things that happened at Abu Ghraib,
things that were not photographed, she said, "Yes". When asked if
there were worse things that happened, she again said "Yes", but would
not elaborate.
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/
While testifying before a Senate panel on May 7, 2004, the now
discredited Donald Rumsfeld confirmed that certain videotapes and
photographs of the horrific sexual tortures at Abu Ghraib have yet to
be released. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's
going to make matters worse", Rumsfeld admitted.
What do these not yet released videotapes and photographs show? The
answer is now slowly but surely surfacing as people who know are
beginning to talk. The truth about these videotapes and photographs in
the Pentagon's custody is more horrific than anything made public so
far.
The videotapes and photographs that have not yet been made public
depict, according to former Abu Ghraib prisoners, bestial U.S.
intelligence interrogators and military police personnel raping and
sodomizing Iraqi children as young as 11 years old.
Some of the new information became known this week when a former Abu
Ghraib prison guard posted a video on YouTube.Com confessing to the
repeated gang rape of a 15 year old Iraqi girl in custody. The video
at http://youtube.com/v/HZuaiZr6YBU was promptly removed (Please see
new location of video below) after it was making the rounds on the
Internet but a transcript survived.
One of our subscribers has located the above referenced disturbing new
video that was deleted from YouTube. We are informed that the U.S.
Army Criminal Investigation Division is presently investigating the
allegations made in the video. Please be warned, the video below is
extremely disturbing:
VIDEO
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/47472/
OR
http://www.aztlan.net/abu_ghraib_revisited.htm
The following is a transcript of the most relevant sections:
Voice of the guard at Abu Ghraib and another person is heard
.....girl, she was probably like 15 years old. Yeah, she was hot dude.
The body on that girl, yeah, really tight. You know, hadn't been
touched yet. She was fucking prime. So....
One of the guys started pimping her out for 50 bucks a shot. I think
at the end of the day he'd made like 500 bucks before she hung
herself.
Really?
Yeah. (laugh)
She hung herself? How's come she hung herself?
I don't know. She wasn't happy. (laugh)
In their culture, it's really shunned upon if you get raped. I guess
she would have been stoned to death by her people. It's fucked up.
She was fucked anyway, I guess. In more ways than one.
(more laughing)
You didn't get ***** from the CO, did you?
No, not until those fucking pictures came out. After then the biggest
rule was no fucking cameras.
End of Transcript
=============
The information on the above videotape is collaborated by Pulitzer
Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. He has
maintained that the Pentagon has videotapes of boys being sodomized at
Abu Ghraib prison. "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys
shrieking", Hersh said.
http://boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh_children_raped.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hersh100504.htm
Seymore Hersh first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing
the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War.
http://www.answers.com/topic/my-lai-massacre
More collaborative statements concerning the sexual torture of
children at Abu Ghraib have been made by the surviving prisoners
themselves. The following is an excerpt from a statement provided by
Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, Detainee #151108, on January 18 2004:
"I saw [name deleted] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15 years.
The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with
sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on
top it wasn't covered and I saw [name deleted] who was wearing the
military uniform putting his ***** in the little kid's *****. I couldn't
see the face of the kid because his face wasn't in front of the door.
And a female soldier was taking pictures. The sodomizer [name
deleted], I think he is [deleted] because of his accent, and he was
not skinny or short, and he acted like a homosexual (gay). And that
was in cell #23 as best as I remember".
The following is another testimony of sexual torture of Iraqi children
from a statement provided by Thaar Salman Dawod, Detainee #150427, on
January 17, 2004:
"I saw lots of people naked for a few days getting punished in the
first days of Ramadan. They came with two boys naked and they were
cuffed together face to face and Grainer was beating them and a group
of guards were watching and taking pictures from top and bottom and
there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners. The
prisoners, two of them, were children. I don't know their names".
One of the most horrific incidents at Abu Ghraib is told by a 16 year
old Iraqi girl in her own words. Nadia, in tears, narrated her story:
"I was visiting one of my relatives, and suddenly the American forces
attacked the home and started to inspect it. They found some light
weapons. So, they arrested all people in the home including me. I
tried to explain to the interpreter, who was accompanying the American
patrol, that I am just a visitor. However, my trials failed. I cried,
begged them, and I lost consciousness from fear when they took me to
Abu Ghraib prison.
Nadia continues "they put me alone in a dark and dirty prison cell. I
expected that I will be released soon, especially when the
investigation proved that I hadn't committed a crime".
Nadia elaborated while tears poured down her cheek, a telling sign of
just how much she has suffered.
"The first day was so burdensome. The cell was malodorous, humid and
dark, and this condition increased the fear inside me more and more.
The laughs of the soldier outside the cell made me even more scared. I
was afraid of what would happen to me. For the first time I felt that
I was in a difficult gridlock and that I had entered an unknown world
that I would not get out of.
"In the middle of these different feelings, I heard a voice for an
American soldier woman who was speaking in an Arabic language. She
said to me: "I didn't imagine that the weapons' traders in Iraq are
women". When I started to explain to her the circumstances of the
situation, she beat me cruelly. I cried and shouted "By Allah! I am
oppressed, By Allah! I am oppressed".
"The soldier showered me with insults in a way that I have never
thought possible or that I would ever be subjected to under any
circumstances. Then, she started to deride me saying that she was
monitoring me all the day via the satellite, and that they can track
their enemies even inside their own bedrooms by American technology.
"Then she laughed and said: 'I was watching you when you were making
love with your husband'. I replied in a confused voice 'But I am not
married'.
"She beat me for more than one an hour and she forced me to drink a
glass of water, and I knew later that they put a drug in it. I
regained my consciousness after two days to find myself naked. I knew
immediately that I have lost something that all the laws in the earth
will not be able to return it to me once again. I had been raped. A
hysterical fit attacked me and I started to hit my head violently
against the walls till more than five American soldiers head by that
soldier women entered the cell and started to beat me, and they raped
me alternately while they laughing and listening to a loud music.
"Day by day the scenario of raping me was repeated. And every day they
invent new ways that are crueler than the prior ways".
She went on describing the horrible acts of the American criminals:
"After about one month, a Negro soldier entered my cell and threw me
two pieces of American military clothes. He said in weak Arabic
language to wear them. After he put a black bag on my head, he led me
to a public toilet where there are pipes for cold and hot water and he
asked me to bathe. He then closed the door and left.
"I was so exhausted and feeling pain, and despite the tremendous
number of the bruises in my body, I poured out some water on my body.
Before I finish my bath, the Negro soldier came in. I frightened, and
I hit him in the face with the water bowl. His reaction was so tough.
He raped me cruelly and spit on my face, then he left and returned
with two soldiers who returned me to the cell.
"The treatment continued that way, to the extent that sometimes I was
raped ten times in a day, the matter which affected my health
negatively".
Nadia continued in revealing the American horrible actions made
against the Iraqi women, saying:
"After more than 4 months, a woman soldier woman came, and I concluded
from her conversation with other soldiers that her name is Mary. She
said to me "now you have a golden opportunity, since an officer who
has a high position will visit us today, if you deal with him
positively, you would be released, especially because we are sure you
are innocent".
"I replied, 'If you are sure of I am innocent, why you don't release
me?'
"She screamed in nervousness, 'The only way that guarantees your
releasing is to be positive with them'.
"She took me to the public toilets, and she supervised my bath while
she was holding a thick stick, hitting me by it if I didn't perform
her orders. Then, she gave me makeup, and warned me not to cry and
ruin my makeup. Then she took me to an empty small room where there
was nothing but a cover on the floor, and after one an hour she came
accompanied with four soldiers who was holding cameras. She took off
her clothes and she harassed me as if she was a man. The soldiers were
laughing and listening to a noisy music, and taking photographs to me
in all poses, and they were emphasizing on my face.
The woman asked me to smile otherwise she is going to kill me, and she
took a gun from one of her colleagues and fired four bullets near my
head, and swore that the fifth bullet will be fired in my head.
"After that, the four soldiers raped me alternately the matter which
made me lose my consciousness. When I regained the consciousness I
found myself in the cell and the traces of their teeth, nails and
cigarettes are in everywhere in my body".
Nadia stopped narrating her tragedy to wipe her tears, then she
continued:
"After one day Mary came and told me that I was cooperative, and I
will be released but after I watch the film that they have shot. I was
in pain when I saw the film, and she (Mary) said: 'you have been
created for the sole purpose for us to enjoy'. At the moment I became
very anger and I attacked her although I was afraid of her reaction,
and I would kill her except for the interfering of the soldiers. When
the soldiers released me she showered me with hitting, then they left
me.
"After this incident, nobody harassed me for more then one month; I
spent that period in the praying and invocation to Allah, the All-
Mighty who has all power, to help me.
"Mary came with some soldiers who gave me the clothes that I was
wearing when they arrested me and took me to an American car. Then
they threw me on the highway road after giving me 10,000 Iraqi Dinars.
"I went to a home that was near the place where I have been thrown out
and since I know the reaction of my family, I preferred to visit one
of my relatives to let them know what happened after my absence. I
knew that my brother had held a consolation board for me for more than
4 months, and they considered me as a dead person.
"I understand the knife of shame is waiting for me. So, I went to
Baghdad where I found a good family who lodged me, and I worked with
this family as a maid and governess for their children.
Nadia wonders in pain, regret and bitterness:
"Who will quench my thirst? Who will return my virginity? What is the
offense of my family and kin? I have inside me a baby, and I don't
know who his father is".
End of Nadia's story
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2071
===============
There is no doubt that the U.S. has committed war crimes in Iraq of
unspeakable horror. The fact is that what occurred at the Abu Ghraib
prison have not been isolated incidents. Similar cases have occurred
throughout Iraq.
One of many cases occurred in Mahmudiya in March of 2006 when a 14
year old girl was gang raped after her parents and her 5 year old
sister were massacred by drunk U.S. occupation soldiers. The soldiers
entered the young girl's home and forced her father Abeer Qassim al-
Janabi, her mother Qassim Hamza and her sister Hadeel Qassim Hamza to
an adjoining room. One soldier shot her parents and sister in the head
and then all proceeded to repeatedly rape her. After raping her, the
U.S. soldiers poured kerosene on her and burned her to death. These
rape and killings are among the most heinous in a series of cases by
the U.S. occupiers that have tarnished the American military.
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2007/01/another-confession-to-rape-and-murder.html
Who should pay for these war crimes? Has there been justice in the Abu
Ghraib torture crimes? Two of the worse Abu Ghraib torturers received
mere 10 and 3 year sentences but one was only a sergeant and the other
a private first class. How about the higher ups? Have they been
responsible for these war crimes as well? How about Colin Powell,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, ***** Cheney and yes even George Bush?
http://www.aztlan.net/abu_ghraib_revisited.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zeno" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
13 Apr 2007 09:04:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor excuse
anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has commited an act
of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big deal. Apparently
it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the slang of a community he
is not a part of, the President fires some people that he may fire at any
time and for any reason, or if a particularly pretty woman has died.
Apparently those are all critically important issues, whereas when someone
attempts to usurp the power of the President in an apparent bid to cease
power over the US government... that is not, apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power of the
President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution gives
complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In fact, it is
the main reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly against the
President on matters of Forien Affairs, although that tradition has not been
observed for many years. But Nancy Pelosi has gone much further than that.
Apparently nobody fully understands what it was that she has done. Let me
try to explain it...
It is, and has been for decades, the policy of this nation that we do
not hold one-on-one discussions with hostile minor nations. This foriegn
policy was established by a previous President, and re-affirmed by all
succeeding Presidents. This is, in fact, a critical and fundamental
componant of our foriegn policy. It was established decades ago, and has
been in force for decades. A series of US Presidents has re-affirmed this
policy. Last week Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
leader of Congress, and 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, decided
on her own that she would ignore not only the current President, but every
President since WWII, and well-established US foriegn policy, and decide, on
her own, by herself, that she had the authority to assume authority over US
foreign policy. Further, the current President then specifically asked her
not to violate US foriegn policy, and she ignored that command as if she is
in control of the country now.
Somehow I suspected she was a willful disregarding the Logan Act -
which is a felony...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
George Washington would call this "high
treason" and call for Nancy Pelosi to be tried... and then hung. That's
what George Washignton would have to say about this. George Washington
would call Nancy Pelosi a traitor.
The President is the sole authority of US foriegn policy. No other
member of government may conduct foriegn policy on any level unless asked
too by the President. To take it upon yourself to ignore US foreign policy,
and a specific request (a command, really) from the President to not conduct
that foriegn policy, is the very definition of "high-treason". It is an
attempt to usurp the power of the President and the Executive Branch. It is
an attempt by the speaker of the House to assume the responsibilities of the
President. It is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United
States. This is how people like George Washington, Thomas Jfferson, and
Benjiman Franklin would view her actions. If they were alive today they
would call her a "traitor", and "usurper", and would describe her actions as
an attempt to sieze power from the President. They would call for her
execution by hanging. That is what the Founding Fathers would say.
And this is not even a scandal? This is not newsworthy? Don Imus
using the slang of a community he is not associated with is a major offense
but an unconstitutional attempt to sieze power from the President is not.
There really is something wrong with this country.
This is not a minor issue. Nancy Pelosi has attempted to usurp the
power of the executive branch, in a crystal clear violation of the
Constitution of this country. She could have done great damage to the
nation by reversing US foriegn policy on an absolutely critical issue.
Fortunately, the nations she visited seem to understand that she had no
authority to be doing what she was doing, which mitigates that damage
greatly. Had they taken her seriously, she very well may have irreperably
damaged US foriegn policy that took decades to establish with the
international community. Nancy Pelosi should be in prison right now. The
fact that there isn't even a scandal, that it isn't even an issue, truly is
frightening.
I am getting closer and closer to preparing some type of "survivalist
backpack" that I can just pick up and walk out the door with if civilization
collapses. Things really are beginning too seem that bad...
.
|
|
|
| User: "pitchforks and torches" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
15 Apr 2007 06:29:44 PM |
|
|
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor
excuse
anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has commited an
act
of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big deal.
Apparently
it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the slang of a community
he
is not a part of, the President fires some people that he may fire at any
time and for any reason, or if a particularly pretty woman has died.
Apparently those are all critically important issues, whereas when someone
attempts to usurp the power of the President in an apparent bid to cease
power over the US government... that is not, apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United
States.
Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power of the
President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution
gives
complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In fact, it
is
the main reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly against
the
President on matters of Forien Affairs, although that tradition has not
been
observed for many years. But Nancy Pelosi has gone much further than
that.
Apparently nobody fully understands what it was that she has done. Let me
try to explain it...
It is, and has been for decades, the policy of this nation that we do
not hold one-on-one discussions with hostile minor nations. This foriegn
policy was established by a previous President, and re-affirmed by all
succeeding Presidents. This is, in fact, a critical and fundamental
componant of our foriegn policy. It was established decades ago, and has
been in force for decades. A series of US Presidents has re-affirmed this
policy. Last week Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
leader of Congress, and 3rd in the line of Presidential succession,
decided
on her own that she would ignore not only the current President, but every
President since WWII, and well-established US foriegn policy, and decide,
on
her own, by herself, that she had the authority to assume authority over
US
foreign policy. Further, the current President then specifically asked
her
not to violate US foriegn policy, and she ignored that command as if she
is
in control of the country now.
Somehow I suspected she was a willful disregarding the Logan Act -
which is a felony...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
WHACK!!!
Somehow I suspected he was a willful disregarding REALITY -
which is The Truth , it's like kryptonite to RW NeoCON corrupt thugs...
George Washington would call this "high
treason" and call for Nancy Pelosi to be tried... and then hung. That's
what George Washignton would have to say about this. George Washington
would call Nancy Pelosi a traitor.
The President is the sole authority of US foriegn policy. No other
member of government may conduct foriegn policy on any level unless asked
too by the President. To take it upon yourself to ignore US foreign
policy,
and a specific request (a command, really) from the President to not
conduct
that foriegn policy, is the very definition of "high-treason". It is an
attempt to usurp the power of the President and the Executive Branch. It
is
an attempt by the speaker of the House to assume the responsibilities of
the
President. It is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United
States. This is how people like George Washington, Thomas Jfferson, and
Benjiman Franklin would view her actions. If they were alive today they
would call her a "traitor", and "usurper", and would describe her actions
as
an attempt to sieze power from the President. They would call for her
execution by hanging. That is what the Founding Fathers would say.
And this is not even a scandal? This is not newsworthy? Don Imus
using the slang of a community he is not associated with is a major
offense
but an unconstitutional attempt to sieze power from the President is not.
There really is something wrong with this country.
This is not a minor issue. Nancy Pelosi has attempted to usurp the
power of the executive branch, in a crystal clear violation of the
Constitution of this country. She could have done great damage to the
nation by reversing US foriegn policy on an absolutely critical issue.
Fortunately, the nations she visited seem to understand that she had no
authority to be doing what she was doing, which mitigates that damage
greatly. Had they taken her seriously, she very well may have irreperably
damaged US foriegn policy that took decades to establish with the
international community. Nancy Pelosi should be in prison right now. The
fact that there isn't even a scandal, that it isn't even an issue, truly
is
frightening.
I am getting closer and closer to preparing some type of "survivalist
backpack" that I can just pick up and walk out the door with if
civilization
collapses. Things really are beginning too seem that bad...
If yer just startin', yer already toooo late. It's comin' and they're gonna
getcha, if'n ya don't watch out....
Let's hope yer blind sycophancy has entitled you to a reserved seat in a
gated community where the Armageddon bunker is stocked with the best food,
drink, and ammo that stolen treasures and spilled blood could buy....
George would think...
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kavik Kang" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
14 Apr 2007 07:22:25 AM |
|
|
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where is the scandal? Lately there is a scandal over any minor
excuse
anyone can think of, and yet also recently a politician has commited an
act
of high treason and yet nobody seems to think it is a big deal.
Apparently
it is a very important issue if a radio DJ uses the slang of a community
he
is not a part of, the President fires some people that he may fire at any
time and for any reason, or if a particularly pretty woman has died.
Apparently those are all critically important issues, whereas when someone
attempts to usurp the power of the President in an apparent bid to cease
power over the US government... that is not, apparently, newsworthy.
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United
States.
Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power of the
President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution
gives
complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In fact, it
is
the main reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly against
the
President on matters of Forien Affairs, although that tradition has not
been
observed for many years. But Nancy Pelosi has gone much further than
that.
Apparently nobody fully understands what it was that she has done. Let me
try to explain it...
It is, and has been for decades, the policy of this nation that we do
not hold one-on-one discussions with hostile minor nations. This foriegn
policy was established by a previous President, and re-affirmed by all
succeeding Presidents. This is, in fact, a critical and fundamental
componant of our foriegn policy. It was established decades ago, and has
been in force for decades. A series of US Presidents has re-affirmed this
policy. Last week Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
leader of Congress, and 3rd in the line of Presidential succession,
decided
on her own that she would ignore not only the current President, but every
President since WWII, and well-established US foriegn policy, and decide,
on
her own, by herself, that she had the authority to assume authority over
US
foreign policy. Further, the current President then specifically asked
her
not to violate US foriegn policy, and she ignored that command as if she
is
in control of the country now.
Somehow I suspected she was a willful disregarding the Logan Act -
which is a felony...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Why, yes, it was also a violation of the Logan Act. But the fact that it is
a violation of the Constitution is far more serious. The Logan Act is more
aimed at preventing private citizens from attempting to conduct diplomacy on
behalf of the nation, but does apply to all citizens, even members of
government. She did also violate that law, but is far more serious to have
violated the Constitution, which she very clearly did. Her action really
and truly was an attempt to "usurp" the power of the President. That fact
is crystal clear and really cannot be denied. Attempting to usurp the power
of the President is "high treason". In the broadest sense, it is an attempt
to overthrow the government of the United States. It really is. I am
amazed that this is not even a scandal, let alone a criminal trial.
If I were President Nancy Pelosi would have been arrested the moment she set
foot on American soil, and would now be on trial for treason and attempting
to usurp the power of the President.
George Washington would call this "high
treason" and call for Nancy Pelosi to be tried... and then hung. That's
what George Washignton would have to say about this. George Washington
would call Nancy Pelosi a traitor.
The President is the sole authority of US foriegn policy. No other
member of government may conduct foriegn policy on any level unless asked
too by the President. To take it upon yourself to ignore US foreign
policy,
and a specific request (a command, really) from the President to not
conduct
that foriegn policy, is the very definition of "high-treason". It is an
attempt to usurp the power of the President and the Executive Branch. It
is
an attempt by the speaker of the House to assume the responsibilities of
the
President. It is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United
States. This is how people like George Washington, Thomas Jfferson, and
Benjiman Franklin would view her actions. If they were alive today they
would call her a "traitor", and "usurper", and would describe her actions
as
an attempt to sieze power from the President. They would call for her
execution by hanging. That is what the Founding Fathers would say.
And this is not even a scandal? This is not newsworthy? Don Imus
using the slang of a community he is not associated with is a major
offense
but an unconstitutional attempt to sieze power from the President is not.
There really is something wrong with this country.
This is not a minor issue. Nancy Pelosi has attempted to usurp the
power of the executive branch, in a crystal clear violation of the
Constitution of this country. She could have done great damage to the
nation by reversing US foriegn policy on an absolutely critical issue.
Fortunately, the nations she visited seem to understand that she had no
authority to be doing what she was doing, which mitigates that damage
greatly. Had they taken her seriously, she very well may have irreperably
damaged US foriegn policy that took decades to establish with the
international community. Nancy Pelosi should be in prison right now. The
fact that there isn't even a scandal, that it isn't even an issue, truly
is
frightening.
I am getting closer and closer to preparing some type of "survivalist
backpack" that I can just pick up and walk out the door with if
civilization
collapses. Things really are beginning too seem that bad...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven M remove wax and invalid to reply" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 AM |
|
|
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United
States.
Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power of the
President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution
gives
complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In fact, it
is
the main reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly against
the
President on matters of Forien Affairs, although that tradition has not
been
observed for many years. But Nancy Pelosi has gone much further than
that.
Apparently nobody fully understands what it was that she has done. Let me
try to explain it...
It is, and has been for decades, the policy of this nation that we do
not hold one-on-one discussions with hostile minor nations. This foriegn
policy was established by a previous President, and re-affirmed by all
succeeding Presidents. This is, in fact, a critical and fundamental
componant of our foriegn policy. It was established decades ago, and has
been in force for decades. A series of US Presidents has re-affirmed this
policy. Last week Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
leader of Congress, and 3rd in the line of Presidential succession,
decided
on her own that she would ignore not only the current President, but every
President since WWII, and well-established US foriegn policy, and decide,
on
her own, by herself, that she had the authority to assume authority over
US
foreign policy. Further, the current President then specifically asked
her
not to violate US foriegn policy, and she ignored that command as if she
is
in control of the country now.
Somehow I suspected she was a willful disregarding the Logan Act -
which is a felony...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Why, yes, it was also a violation of the Logan Act. But the fact that it is
a violation of the Constitution is far more serious. The Logan Act is more
aimed at preventing private citizens from attempting to conduct diplomacy on
behalf of the nation, but does apply to all citizens, even members of
government. She did also violate that law, but is far more serious to have
violated the Constitution, which she very clearly did. Her action really
and truly was an attempt to "usurp" the power of the President. That fact
is crystal clear and really cannot be denied. Attempting to usurp the power
of the President is "high treason". In the broadest sense, it is an attempt
to overthrow the government of the United States. It really is. I am
amazed that this is not even a scandal, let alone a criminal trial.
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
--
Steven M - spam_no@hal-pc.orgwax.invalid
(remove wax and invalid to reply)
It is the first responsibility of every citizen
to question authority -- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zeno" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
14 Apr 2007 12:23:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am, of course, talking about the Leader of Al-Qaida in America
Nancy
Pelosi and her flagarant violation of the Constitution of the United
States.
Apparently if the Speaker of the House attempts to usurp the power of the
President, and flagrantly violate the Constitution... that is not a
newsworthy item. What is wrong with this country? The Consititution
gives
complete authority over foreign relations to the President. In fact, it
is
the main reason this country even has a President. It is actually
inappropriate for any member of government to speak out publicly against
the
President on matters of Forien Affairs, although that tradition has not
been
observed for many years. But Nancy Pelosi has gone much further than
that.
Apparently nobody fully understands what it was that she has done. Let me
try to explain it...
It is, and has been for decades, the policy of this nation that we do
not hold one-on-one discussions with hostile minor nations. This foriegn
policy was established by a previous President, and re-affirmed by all
succeeding Presidents. This is, in fact, a critical and fundamental
componant of our foriegn policy. It was established decades ago, and has
been in force for decades. A series of US Presidents has re-affirmed this
policy. Last week Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
leader of Congress, and 3rd in the line of Presidential succession,
decided
on her own that she would ignore not only the current President, but every
President since WWII, and well-established US foriegn policy, and decide,
on
her own, by herself, that she had the authority to assume authority over
US
foreign policy. Further, the current President then specifically asked
her
not to violate US foriegn policy, and she ignored that command as if she
is
in control of the country now.
Somehow I suspected she was a willful disregarding the Logan Act -
which is a felony...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Why, yes, it was also a violation of the Logan Act. But the fact that it is
a violation of the Constitution is far more serious. The Logan Act is more
aimed at preventing private citizens from attempting to conduct diplomacy on
behalf of the nation, but does apply to all citizens, even members of
government. She did also violate that law, but is far more serious to have
violated the Constitution, which she very clearly did. Her action really
and truly was an attempt to "usurp" the power of the President. That fact
is crystal clear and really cannot be denied. Attempting to usurp the power
of the President is "high treason". In the broadest sense, it is an attempt
to overthrow the government of the United States. It really is. I am
amazed that this is not even a scandal, let alone a criminal trial.
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
The world (eg UN) should fight terrorism, except the US?
http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=War_on_Terror#Syria_and_Lebanon
You're claiming that the government of Syria is *not* actually helping
kill american soldiers in Iraq?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
14 Apr 2007 03:14:12 PM |
|
|
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
--
"Hate Week is officially celebrated from April 4th to April 10th. The
events during that time include waxwork displays, military parades,
speeches and lectures. New slogans are also coined and new songs are
written. The theme of the Hate Week is called the Hate Song. It is
mentioned that a unit from the Fiction Department was assigned to make
atrocity pamphlets (falsified reports of atrocities committed by
Oceania's enemies against her) designed to stimulate Oceania's populace
further into enraged frenzy against all enemies. The aggregate effect
of Hate Week thus is to excite the populace to such a point that they
"would unquestionably have torn to pieces" if given the opportunity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
16 Apr 2007 07:13:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
Mike Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "pitchforks and torches" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
16 Apr 2007 12:34:03 PM |
|
|
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message
news:h1q623hb2uiu540r8mhsjfl43nknnkerqp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
WHACK!!!!
Well, Shitscrubber, he DID point out to you the bait'n'switch, but you were
too busy
waving the pom-poms for a criminally incompetent junta mired down in a
failed illegal invasion to
stop and listen to the inconvenient truth.
Let's recap the ever-shifting rationales for the illegal invasion:
A.Q. did it, so let's forget OBL in Afghanistan and invade Iraq,
16 words,
mushroom clouds,
WMDs,
We'll be greeted as 'liberators' with 'flowers and candy',
Gotta bring Saddam to 'justice',
bringin' 'Democracy' to Iraq,
a few 'dead-enders',
the 'last throes',
spreadin' 'freedom',
'gotta fight 'em there'...
One lie after another, all debunked.
In reality, Bushco allowed the PNAC crowd to find their 'new Pearl Harbor',
and begin the
New American Century. It's all right here....
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Pages 50 and 51 are chilling....
A twisted ideology of total U.S. world domination of resources through the
use of force.
So the basic premise for the 'war', really an illegal invasion based on
cooked Intel, is the theft
of resources so that ShrubCo can continue on the Bushco path: a new world
order - empire - based on
military muscle and stolen resources to conquer and subjugate the Middle
East to sustain the unsustainable....
BushCo after Peak Oil.
Mike Smith- Authoritarian wannabe, sycophant to the Junta, CorporoFascist
Enabler, Fool....
Why even ask 'what would George Washington think'?
We who have NOT shucked our American principles KNOW what George Washington
thought:
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be
free men or slaves."
George Washington
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
20 Apr 2007 03:37:38 PM |
|
|
On 2007-04-16 08:13:28 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
What might that be?
You go to war to WIN. Bush did not.
You go to war with enough troops. Bush did not.
You go to war for a valid reason. Bush did not.
The BuSHIT'es started this war to make MORE MONEY. PEROID.
--
"Hate Week is officially celebrated from April 4th to April 10th. The
events during that time include waxwork displays, military parades,
speeches and lectures. New slogans are also coined and new songs are
written. The theme of the Hate Week is called the Hate Song. It is
mentioned that a unit from the Fiction Department was assigned to make
atrocity pamphlets (falsified reports of atrocities committed by
Oceania's enemies against her) designed to stimulate Oceania's populace
further into enraged frenzy against all enemies. The aggregate effect
of Hate Week thus is to excite the populace to such a point that they
"would unquestionably have torn to pieces" if given the opportunity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zeno" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
20 Apr 2007 05:23:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:37:38 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-16 08:13:28 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
What might that be?
You go to war to WIN. Bush did not.
You go to war with enough troops. Bush did not.
You go to war for a valid reason. Bush did not.
The BuSHIT'es started this war to make MORE MONEY. PEROID.
And bin Laden and crew started this war to spread islam through out
the world. Where does that leave you? Either a muslim or a useful
idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
21 Apr 2007 10:13:56 AM |
|
|
On 2007-04-20 18:23:41 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:37:38 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-16 08:13:28 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
What might that be?
You go to war to WIN. Bush did not.
You go to war with enough troops. Bush did not.
You go to war for a valid reason. Bush did not.
The BuSHIT'es started this war to make MORE MONEY. PEROID.
And bin Laden and crew started this war to spread islam through out
the world. Where does that leave you? Either a muslim or a useful
idiot.
Hey Zero, FREE CLUE...Islam is ALREADY spread all over the world.
The Arabs are done with being fucked over by the Anglo world.
--
"Hate Week is officially celebrated from April 4th to April 10th. The
events during that time include waxwork displays, military parades,
speeches and lectures. New slogans are also coined and new songs are
written. The theme of the Hate Week is called the Hate Song. It is
mentioned that a unit from the Fiction Department was assigned to make
atrocity pamphlets (falsified reports of atrocities committed by
Oceania's enemies against her) designed to stimulate Oceania's populace
further into enraged frenzy against all enemies. The aggregate effect
of Hate Week thus is to excite the populace to such a point that they
"would unquestionably have torn to pieces" if given the opportunity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
21 Apr 2007 10:45:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:13:56 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-20 18:23:41 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:37:38 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-16 08:13:28 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
What might that be?
You go to war to WIN. Bush did not.
You go to war with enough troops. Bush did not.
You go to war for a valid reason. Bush did not.
The BuSHIT'es started this war to make MORE MONEY. PEROID.
And bin Laden and crew started this war to spread islam through out
the world. Where does that leave you? Either a muslim or a useful
idiot.
Hey Zero, FREE CLUE...Islam is ALREADY spread all over the world.
The Arabs are done with being fucked over by the Anglo world.
Ok, I'm still confused.
Slim are you a muslim or a useful idiot?
Answer the question.
Mike Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "pitchforks and torches" |
|
| Title: Re: What would George Washington Think? |
21 Apr 2007 05:30:48 PM |
|
|
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote in message
news:n9ck23db46a5pivi8eavc494ijuh33cmut@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:13:56 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-20 18:23:41 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:37:38 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-16 08:13:28 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:14:12 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
On 2007-04-14 13:23:13 -0400, Zeno <Zeno@home.kom> said:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:21:33 -0500, "Steven M (remove wax and
invalid
to reply)" <spam_no@hal-pcwax.org.invalid> wrote:
Je Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22:25 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> skribis:
"Zeno" <Zeno@home.kom> wrote in message
news:6cd023h6g0lluh9kap8t8r0ng2ps1r9kup@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:49 GMT, "Kavik Kang"
<kavik_kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
What a load of crap. If Nancy Pelosi should be in jail, George
Bush
should be on death row.
Would it be correct to say that you believe that the nations that
have
been identified as "terrorist" states (eg Iran and Syria) are not in
fact terrorist states?
So why did we invade Iraq?
You forgot to include Bush's favorite despots....the Saudis.
The 9/11er's were SAUDI'S, IRAN & SYRIA are terrorist states yet
Bush
invades Iraq.
I see slim is still a confused little boy... Unable to comprehend the
most basic premise for war.
What might that be?
You go to war to WIN. Bush did not.
You go to war with enough troops. Bush did not.
You go to war for a valid reason. Bush did not.
The BuSHIT'es started this war to make MORE MONEY. PEROID.
And bin Laden and crew started this war to spread islam through out
the world. Where does that leave you? Either a muslim or a useful
idiot.
Hey Zero, FREE CLUE...Islam is ALREADY spread all over the world.
The Arabs are done with being fucked over by the Anglo world.
Ok, I'm still confused.
WHACK!!
Hell, we ALL knew that....
Slim are you a muslim or a useful idiot?
Answer the question.
Plungerboi: are you now, or have you ever been a Shrub fellator?
We have proof that you are a Useful Idiot: your history of R'thuglic
willful ignorance is readible available in the intertubes....such gems as:
"Of course. Many people knew what low-life, trailer-trash scum resided
in our White House for 8 long years (93-01). There are numerous books
being written about their true nature and the depths of their
immorality.
Now, more people will be exposed to the truth of #42's presidency.
Mike Smith "
"Now, more people will be exposed to the truth of #42's presidency"
sheeesh.....
We've seen more than enough of your version of the 'truth'....
IMPEACH DEAD-EYE ***** AND THE pREZIDENT!!!
And WHACK a thug for Democracy!
Mike Smith
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
