PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: robert a belfer who wrote (473895)2/25/2012 12:11:38 PM
From: DMaA
   of 659111
Wonder if Asimov got the idea for his Foundation books from that?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill2/25/2012 12:19:12 PM
   of 659111

Report: Unnamed "Asian head of state" knew about 7/7 attacks in advance, backed al-Qaeda
from Jihad Watch by Marisol

The fact that said head of state and his country go completely unnamed in this story is only the tip of the iceberg on the strangeness of this case. "Head of state 'funded al-Qaeda and knew of 7/7 terror attacks'," by Christopher Hope and Robert Winnett for the Telegraph, February 25 (thanks to Alan):

A Parliamentary committee published a document revealing the details of one of Britain’s last remaining super-injunctions. In the submission to the 26-member committee, Mark Burby, a businessman based in the Channel Islands, claimed that he had been gagged by the “ex-spouse of an Asian head of state” in 2009.

He said the “Asian head of state” — who he does not identify — was a “substantial” backer of al-Qaeda, and had advance warning of the suicide bombings on London’s transport system in 2005.

The ex-wife “and her solicitors have boasted to me and others that she 'owns’ the courts in England and Wales and the Government”, he said.

Mr Burby alleged the unnamed ex-spouse, whom he described as one of the wealthiest women in the world, had a sexual relationship “with one of her two solicitors”, as well as two other men, one of which resulted in her having to have an abortion.

On Friday night lawyers for the claimant threatened The Daily Telegraph with an injunction, but failed to make any application.

The decision by the committee to post the claims on the parliamentary website, represents another challenge to the supremacy of the courts after injunctions involving Ryan Giggs, the footballer, and Sir Fred Goodwin, the banker, were also exposed by MPs.

According to Mr Burby the super-injunction governed six general areas including “information/allegations concerning any personal relationship of any kind between the claimant and a man who is not her ex-husband”.

The gagging order covered any “information/allegations” relating to the ex-wife’s attempt to secure payment of monies owed by her family, as well as “any allegation that the claimant was involved in or responsible for” a murder, he says.

Mr Burby said he felt compelled to provide the information to Parliament’s joint committee on privacy and injunctions after Kenneth Clarke, the Lord Chancellor, had told MPs and peers that super-injunctions “are now being granted only for very short periods” and “you cannot have just long-running secret litigation”.

Mr Burby said: “That of course is incorrect as the super-injunction against me has been in place since Sept 9 2009. None of the interim rulings made by the judges in these proceedings have been published, even in an anonymised or redacted form.”

John Whittingdale, the committee’s chairman, said on Friday that Mr Burby’s evidence was an “interesting and relevant submission”, given that his committee had been told by judges that the super-injunctions were now “time-limited” only.

“The points he makes are valid,” he said. “It is very difficult for him to make those points without some reference to his own position.”

Mr Burby set out other allegations, published on the committee’s website, that he said were “pleaded by the claimant as being private and/or confidential but that are not expressly covered by the terms of the super-injunction (but are impliedly covered by it)”.

They included “that the claimant’s ex-husband, as a head of state, sympathised with and supported Islamic fundamentalists; that the claimant knew or suspected from conversations with her ex-husband that there would be major terrorist attacks on the UK (7/7) and Israel.

“That the claimant’s ex-­husband flew a senior member of al-Qaeda to the country of which he is head of state and gave him substantial funding for al-Qaeda.”

Mr Burby raised a number of other allegations and said that if these were untrue, “then the proper course is for the claimant to sue in defamation”.

He added: “The claimant has been using her immense wealth to harass and bully people with overpowering UK legal process under the protection of a web of interlocking super-injunctions.

“The claimant boasted to a member of staff (who has provided a witness statement) about the assassination of an opponent engaged in litigation against her in another jurisdiction and saying that 'Burby’ was next.

News of the gagging order is the latest in a series that have allowed celebrities to cover up sexual scandals using super-injunctions, the very existence of which cannot be reported.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: DMaA who wrote (473889)2/25/2012 12:37:01 PM
From: MrLucky
   of 659111
Obama said the same thing in '07-'08

Merely another politician's line of BS

Somewhat like Paul's commitment to close many departments and eliminate one trillion in his first year which is more BS

It is so obvious since they (the politicians) are never forthright about what specifically they will cut and how and what the unintended consequences will be

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (473897)2/25/2012 12:43:42 PM
From: D. Long
1 Recommendation   of 659111
You know its Pakistan.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: MrLucky who wrote (473898)2/25/2012 12:46:25 PM
From: DMaA
   of 659111
I believe Paul is serious about it. Obviously a President doesn't have the power to do that alone. A president doesn't have the power to nix any line of the budget either.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: D. Long who wrote (473899)2/25/2012 12:54:00 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 659111
its Pakistan.

The REAL history of our war with Al Qaeda the last decade will be very interesting. In about 2050.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (473900)2/25/2012 12:58:35 PM
From: MrLucky
   of 659111
<I believe Paul is serious about it.>

I do not question him being serious. I question his ability to get it done. One does not shut down a cabinet and it's department without finding out a place for the people. What usually happens is that they sell us on the idea to create a new department which will solve all that ails us and ends up merging the other department into it. Homeland Security is the most recent example. Transportation is another.

The actual affect has been to enlarge budgets and costs to the taxpayer with service and performance being little different than if they were still done by the initial grouping of agencies etc.

Most everyone has heard the cliche: "Moving the chairs around on the Titanic".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: MrLucky who wrote (473902)2/25/2012 1:04:18 PM
From: simplicity
8 Recommendations   of 659111
One does not shut down a cabinet and it's department without finding out a place for the people.

How about the unemployment line? That's the way it generally works for the rest of us.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill2/25/2012 1:05:58 PM
2 Recommendations   of 659111
Miracle of the algae
by Scott Johnson

If Americans aren’t sold on electric cars as the solution to our energy problems, I’m pretty sure that they won’t fall for pond scum (algae). Yet this is part of what President Obama had on offer this past Thursday when he spoke at the University of Miami. The White House text and video of the speech are here.

The algae angle would have earned a Republican president hoots of derision and charges of detachment from the real America in the spirit of the mythical story of George Bush’s wonderment at supermarket scanners. The story of Bush’s wonderment, it cannot be stated too often, was fabricated by the New York Times. By contrast, Obama’s support for the transubstantiation of pond scum is in the text of his big energy speech. (The Times mentioned it in the third-to-the-last paragraph of Mark Landler’s story.)

I wouldn’t even have heard about Obama’s brainstorm had it not been for Bret Baier’s serving it up for discussion by the Fox News Special Report panel. Charles Krauthammer delivered the derision that would have permeated page-one news stories throughout the land if Obama were not our Lord and savior in the eyes of the mainstream media.

As it is, I have only seen the Examiner’s Joel Gehrke and IBD’s Andrew Malcolm joining the pile-on with Dr. Krauthammer. Malcolm seems to have been inspired by Obama’s speech. He used it to improvise on a few themes:

  • It was, of course, a phony event, an early afternoon official presidential visit tacked on to cover three political fundraisers that evening, two in Miami and one in Orlando, raking in around $4 million. (At the same time Michelle Obama collected more money from two Midwestern fundraisers and Biden did another in New England.)
  • If the president can claim he’s doing some “official” work on these trips, then his campaign need reimburse less for travel on a government plane. (And don’t worry, Obama did get to watch the Knicks-Heat game on satellite TV in flight.)
    This president, of course, is never not campaigning. It’s easier than governing and better for the ego. So, his 23 minute “official” speech was really political. He bashed the oil companies for getting subsidies. “Preach it, Mr. President!” yelled one audience plant.
  • Obama said his new motor vehicle fuel standard regulations were so tough that someday they would somehow enable American families to save $8,000 at the pump “over time.” [Hmmmm. Have current gas prices been factored into the propaganda?]
  • He said the price of gas was soaring because of turmoil in the Mideast (hence, clearly not his fault). He sympathized with average Americans facing soaring fuel prices and said he’d even just read a letter from one who might have to quit their job.
  • Obama criticized Republicans for making energy prices a political issue and mocked what he said were their calls for a three-point energy plan: Drill, drill and drill. Because, he said, domestic reserves could never fill all of the country’s energy needs. Which no one had suggested until he did.
  • The president praised his drive for reliance on renewable sources of energy, pioneering work on better car batteries, a new nuclear plant.
  • He forgot to mention the Solyndra solar scandal and the $545 million blown on the company of his fundraiser, but said great progress is being made in alternative energy sources.
  • As evidence, Obama cited the Miami-Dade Museum which, he said, has a windmill that by itself on a typical day can generate up to 10% of the energy needs of one local home. (The president’s math would seem to suggest the need for about 10 wind turbines to power every house, which could make for crowded neighborhoods.)
  • Obama didn’t have time to go into his killing of the Pipestone XL pipeline from Canada that would have saved the United States from buying 700,000 barrles of oil per day from unfriendly regimes in turbulent distant areas.
Well, as they say, read the whole thing. The funny thing is that Malcolm doesn’t look like a heretic. About him, however, we can say this: he is not saved.

Professor S. Fred Singer’s American Thinker column “Obama skins the cat” places this story in its larger context. Please check it out.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: MrLucky who wrote (473902)2/25/2012 1:13:33 PM
From: DMaA
   of 659111
What you describe is business as usual. This will stop either voluntarily or through a general collapse.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.