PCNs 
July, 2008

> I received this from my brother-in-law, who works for the
> Florida dept of Law Enforcement (kind of like the Fla FBI),
> so it's almost certainly real. Feel free to send to
> anyone you like.
>
>
> I received this e-mail from a partner at DHS Tactical
> Intelligence Center. You can read more information on this
> issue on the FBI link provided below.
>
> Jury Duty Scam
>
> This has been verified by the FBI (their link is also
> included below). Please pass this on to everyone in your
> email address book. It is spreading fast so be prepared
> should you get this call. Most of us take those summonses
> for jury duty seriously, but enough people skip out on
> their civic duty, that a new and ominous kind of fraud has
> surfaced.
>
> The caller claims to be a jury coordinator. If you protest
> that you never received a summons for jury duty, the
> scammer asks you for your Social Security number and date
> of birth so he or she can verify the information and cancel
> the arrest warrant. Give out any of this information and
> bingo; your identity was just stolen.
>
> The fraud has been reported so far in 11 states, including
> Oklahoma , Illinois , and Colorado . This (swindle) is
> particularly insidious because they use intimidation over
> the phone to try to bully people into giving information by
> pretending they are with the court system. The FBI and the
> federal court system have issued nationwide alerts on their
> web sites, warning consumers about the fraud.
>
> Check it out here:
> http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june06/jury_scams060206.htm
> <http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june06/jury_scams060206.htm>
>

From the wiki on casus belli...
"Casus belli is a Latin language expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means "of war"." ... ""case of war"" ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

(In fact, the entire "casus belli" entry in the wiki appears to be based upon the contents of a book by Gore Vidal, very good, and entitled, "Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia.")

According to the UN, a country has to have a casus belli in order to declare war upon another country, if it is a UN signatory.  They have to say they're defending themselves against an aggressor, for example.  The UN may also respond to acts of war or aggression by non-signatory nations.  In order for a nation to go into a war, it must have a good casus belli.  Think of it as a legal matter; that a nation must have a "case" for legislating upon the matter, where the declaration of war appears as if in a legally stated form. 

Here is an example of a "casus belli" from 1939, also known as "Operation Himmler"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler
"Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a Nazi Germany false flag project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland."
-----------
Operation Himmler successfully convinced the German people that they were under attack from Poland. Operation Iraqi Freedom seems similar, doesn't it?  I mean, this time it's towelheads with IEDs, whereas with the Polish it was men with swords on horseback.  I digress... We are being told that there is a "casus belli"; that the US may be attacked by the sand people.  Our congress, in defiance of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), has legislated Iran as a nulear threat to the United States.

The "Shelling of Mainila", also in 1939, was a casus belli for the Soviet Union to attack Finland. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila
"The Shelling of Mainila (Finnish: Mainilan laukaukset) was a military incident on November 26, 1939, during which the Soviet Union's Red Army initiated shooting at the Russian village of Mainila (situated near Beloostrov) declaring that the shelling originated from Finland on the other side of the nearby border and claiming losses in personnel, thus getting a great propaganda boost and a casus belli that launched the Winter War four days later."
--------------
The Soviets shelled a village in Finland, and then gave its casus belli as though Finland did the shelling.  We've seen this elsewhere...

"The Gulf of Tonkin Incident prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
... "The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War, which lasted until 1975."

"In 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report[2] that the USS Maddox first fired warning shots on the August 2 incident and that there may not have been North Vietnamese boats at the August 4 incident. The report said

    [I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August."
------------------

The evidence suggests to me that the US was not attacked by the Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin, which brings us to the latest from that guy that just won't stop digging... Seymour Hersh...

Tuesday, July 8, 2008
"Seymour Hersh: US Training Jondollah and MEK for Bombing preparation"
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5551

This is quite an article by Mr. Hersh.  In it, he says, and I can easily back this up, “Frankly, the guys I know in the inside-- in the Special Forces, high up in DoD, high up in the intelligence community--if you push them hard enough, they tell you that Iran has been more of a force for stability in Iraq than negative”.

And sure enough, Iran appears quite isolationist at this point, as if they don't want trouble with anyone.  They have assisted US forces in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program, which has been tendered as a casus belli, and since they don't have one, and since the IAEA doesn't report there being one, and since the NIE isn't reporting there is one either, you see?  Where are they getting this stuff?  Iran will never be able to prove that it is not hiding a Pink Unicorn somewhere in an underground bunker, but it appears that the burden of proof is being placed upon them - that they must prove that there is no Pink Unicorn, because you can't prove that there is no Pink Unicorn in a bunker, or under a rock, or behind a tree, and I don't want to beat around the bush, but you just can't prove that something does not exist.  You can only really prove things that do exist, and so Iran will never be capable of proving its case under any circumstance.

The (new) stated casus belli with Iran, as Hersh suggests, puts the US in a position where we are going in.  He's saying that we're creating terrorism and unrest in Iran, and that when Iran becomes unstable, we will have a case for war.

Well, that sounds about right.  The US created the Taliban, and the El Salvadorian death squads.  The US created Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.  Pakistan is our ally, and they've got nukes for sure, and they have not signed any nuclear nonproliferation treaty.  Neither has Israel.  What Hersh is suggesting now, is that the US is creating some new terrorist groups and going after Iran.

Cheers -

Mark

"July 9, 2008 | On July 3, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California made a ruling particularly worthy of the nation's attention. In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush, a key case in the epic battle over warrantless spying inside the United States, Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon."

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/161617-Suing-George-W-Bush-A-bizarre-and-troubling-tale

Right now, the problem is that we have to figure out if the president can legally do this by special, executive powers, as laid out back in 1953, which mentions to the effect that we are powerlessness against the Commander-in-Chief on the matter of state secrets.  Depending on how that turns out, it may be that wherever state secrets are involved, that the president cannot be convicted.  (I'm trying to understand it, too)

..."Meanwhile, Congress is on the verge of killing the pending lawsuits against the telecommunications carriers with a grant of retroactive immunity from liability. The 9th Circuit has not yet decided the AT&T case, evidently waiting to see whether Congress gives the carriers retroactive immunity. Other lawsuits against the government have been thrown out or are in danger of being thrown out for lack of standing -- since the plaintiffs in those cases have no proof that they were actual victims of the warrantless surveillance program. The Al-Haramain case is likely to become the last -- the only remaining hope for a determination of the legality of the president's extrajudical spying program and for Supreme Court review of the "unitary executive" theory.

"It's hardly a secret that the Al-Haramain plaintiffs were spied upon -- it's been reported in Salon, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the New Yorker magazine, among others. The reality is that the Al-Haramain case doesn't threaten national security; it threatens only the "unitary executive" theory and the notion that presidents can disregard an act of Congress at their pleasure. Yet we have had to litigate the Al-Haramain case in the shadow of secrecy, where the government wants the case to die quietly -- without a court ruling on whether the president of the United States has broken the law.

"We, the members of the Al-Haramain legal team -- Ashlee Albies, Steven Goldberg, Bill Hancock, Zaha Hassan, Tom Nelson and I -- cannot let that happen without fighting to the end. "

And I wish them the best of luck.  At least he's officially now been a coke addict, a drunk driver, and a felon.

Cheers -

Mark

Here's a read I enjoyed on the matter - a little more optimistic than the last one. There is also talk of, "the possibility that George W. Bush is under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury as we write this"... For any variety of crimes.  Well, there is such a thing as a "sinking ship" phenomenon, and where rats are jumping off.  If top people think something is coming to justice, it puts them in a position to want to jump ship, too.  Indeed, anything that comes to justice these days is more than we've been seeing.

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/07/federal-judge-ruling-george-w-bush-is.html

And the thing that strikes me most odd about all of the last (nearly a) decade is to wonder how some of our politicians actually think they're not going to get fired, or investigated, or busted.  American culture is being severely underestimated, which by way of the term "culture", means to me, "really big, powerful stuff".  What these people are doing is grating against our own culture, our values, and our way of doing things.  They are not respecting very large, powerful forces, which means they are in all likelyhood inspiring their own opposition.  If our culture and way of life is the point-of-reference, then their actions relative to that point of reference are creating their own opposition.  They seem short-sighted that way, or as "wishful thinkers".  Personally, I think the internet has introduced variables that our establishment has not seen before, and doesn't know how to put into it's calculator.  As I see it, the American way of life will be a behemoth for these people to ultimately have to contend with, when not thinking quite so much in the near term.

Cheers -

Mark

From our third-largest party, congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.  (The green party)

"350 Green delegates from as far away as Hawaii, Montana, and Rhode Island voted today for a choice of four candidates plus a few stray votes for Nader, the ghost in the machine. McKinney was the clear winner. It was a landslide. It was politics at a whole new level. After seven years of struggling to dig up the truth on 9/11, how refreshing is it to hear the biggest third party have a champion asking "what did they know and when did they know it?" in her acceptance speech. This is not a cottage industry of idle speculation. 9/11 is now a national political issue. So is Katrina. So is Pentagon accountability. So is impeachment."

http://911blogger.com/node/16624

McKinney was instrumental in getting Rumsfeld to confess that the DoD had somehow lost $2 trillion.  Unfortunately, she lost a congressional re-election for what the media said was, 'punching a cop" in Washington, DC, which I find hard to believe.

McKinney grills Rumsfeld - youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

Where Obama is the sizzle, McKinney is the steak.  This is a voice for me, because I really do want impeachment, and 911 truth, and accountability.  She's real stuff!  (and she's got my vote)

Cheers -

Mark

AWESOME ANAGRAMS

John Conyers is now in the hot seat, or a seat he doesn't altogether like being in, but he's calling for hearings into "imperialism" in the case of G.W. Bush, and I'm sure that puts at least half of congress in an even hotter seat.  The House Resolution numbers and everything are here, and away we go...
H Res 1258 is the new one for Bush.  Cheney gets two: H Res 333 and 799.

Cheers -

Mark

"Kucinich Says Unidentified Foreign Official Wants to Speak at Impeachment Talks"
CQ TODAY July 15, 2008 – 8:45 p.m.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002917906

The House voted, 238-180, on Tuesday to send Kucinich’s latest impeachment effort (H Res 1345) to the Judiciary Committee.

Chairman John Conyers Jr. said he will hold a broad hearing on the general topic of abuses of power by the Bush administration.

“There’s never been one [hearing] that accumulated all the things that constitute an imperial presidency,” Conyers said, explaining that the anticipated hearing would review more than a year of committee inquiry into such matters as the firing of U.S. attorneys, the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame and the information provided to Congress in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Kucinich contends that President Bush ought to be impeached for allegedly lying to Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq.

Conyers does not intend to specifically debate or hold a committee vote on Kucinich’s article of impeachment, though issues important to Kucinich would get a public airing.

No matter how the eventual hearing is framed, Kucinich said he would like to be joined at the witness table by a foreign official he would not name.

...

And in any event, the power to control the witness list of any congressional hearing rests with the committee chairman — in this case, Conyers.

The article of impeachment that was referred to committee on Tuesday was the fourth introduced by Kucinich.

He also introduced a broader version against Bush (H Res 1258) and two against Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333, H Res 799)."

----------

"Hearing set on "imperial Bush presidency""
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:52pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1733930020080717

Impeachment is out for President George W. Bush, but a top U.S. lawmaker said on Thursday he wants to take a look at his "imperial presidency."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced his panel would examine possible administration wrongdoing, which has included complaints that Bush misled the United States into the Iraq war in 2003.

"Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush administration," said Conyers, a Michigan Democrat.

He scheduled a July 25 hearing on "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses."

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, took office in January 2007 rejecting calls to try to remove Bush from office. She said an impeachment effort would be disruptive and distract from her party's legislative agenda, which included measures to expand health care and increase the federal minimum wage.

Conyers' action follows hundreds of oversight hearings the past year and a half in the Democratic-controlled Congress on a host of administration matters -- from the Iraq war and torture to the firing of federal prosecutors and leaking of the identity of a CIA agent.

Current and former Bush aides have refused to testify, claiming it would violate Bush's right to private counsel from staff. Democrats are challenging their claim in court.

"The administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers," Conyers said. "It is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto brushed off the action, saying, "Representative Conyers is putting the final stamp on a chairmanship that will be most remembered as a political vaudeville act."

Conyers did not say who the witnesses will include, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, may be among them.

Last month, the House referred to the Judiciary Committee articles of impeachment against Bush offered by Kucinich.

While these charges of wrongdoing seem certain to die, Kucinich has pushed the panel to at least consider them before Bush's term ends in January. "

-------------
"Congressional hearing to examine 'Bush Imperial Presidency' -
Update: Kucinich to testify"
Thursday July 17, 2008
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Judiciary_hearing_to_examine_Bush_Imperial_0717.html

In a release Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) announced he will hold a hearing July 25 examining "the imperial presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses."

The word "impeachment" was not mentioned in the announcement, but it appears the hearing is going to examine issues raised by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in his resolution to impeach Bush. A Judiciary Committee spokesman tells RAW STORY Kucinich will testify at the hearing.

“Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration,” Conyers said in a news release. “At the same time, the administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers and authorities. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Next Friday’s hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort.”

Conyers did not say who would testify at the hearing, but he laid out a variety of abuses that would be examined, including:


    (1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;

    (2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

    (3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

    (4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

    (5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

    (6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

... (RawStory article continues)

I suppose that most folks do political action by giving a donation to a political campaign, when so inclined.  It seems quite popular, as compared to forming a militia, for example.

There is one candidate candidate who doesn't mind bringing up impeachment.  When I hear that word, it makes me all warm and fuzzy, like back in 2004, when Peter Welch of Vermont was campaigning, and he said he wanted Rumsfeld fired.  I don't care how much cat-juggling the man is responsible for, he just said something that made me all too warm and fuzzy on the inside.  He said he wanted Rumsfeld fired. 

Ok, so Cynthia McKinney stands up for things.  She's going to New York City for donations for ground zero workers,
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/first_all_women_of_color_presidential
and people who are ticked off at many things of late have a representative.

Below is a diagram of the new paradigm for 2008 presidential campaign financing:

Funds ------> McKinney

Based upon a desire to see some funding go behind some of McKinney's kinds of messages (such as impeachment)  It would be nice for her message to get a little air time!  (something to think about)

Cheers -

Mark

Here's a sample of her from the Democracy Now interview, with Amy Goodman... She mentions the 2004 Ohio vote, for example...

... "CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I’ll be back in New York on September 11th with the wonderful organization wearechange.org, who are planning a candlelight vigil for—at Ground Zero on September 11th, and after that, a benefit—a series of benefits, actually, for the first responders, who of course have been neglected and who have health effects now stemming from their activities in recovery and cleanup of the site.

Now, I think it’s important for us to note that our national leaders have decided that it’s OK to spend $720 million every day for war and occupation. That number is according to the American Friends Service Committee. $720 million a day at the expense of a single-payer healthcare system in this country, like, for example, Medicare for all; like, for example, subsidizing education so that, as Rosa said, no university student graduates $100,000 in debt, as is the case with my cousin. We need to make sure that our young people are actually graduating from high school. We need to make sure that we are investing in our infrastructure and greening our economy, making sure that we are providing jobs and that there’s job training and that those jobs are at a livable wage.

These are not the things that the Democratic majority in Congress has ensured for all of us in public policy. Yet they have continued to vote to fund war and occupation. And so, on my birthday, in front of the Pentagon March 17 of last year, I declared my independence. And I would just like to say that it’s interesting that I declared my independence from the national leadership that gave us these kinds of policies and a failure to roll back the PATRIOT Acts, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Commissions Act, a failure even to provide election integrity for us in face of the fact that we understand that we’ve got voter caging that’s going on literally right now that would deny people the opportunity to cast a vote.

We still have the electronic voting machine problem. We also have the voter ID situation, with laws being passed in various states around the country, making it a requirement that people provide a certain type of identification, but only if they show up on Election Day to vote, not if they mail in their ballot. So we’re establishing a two-tiered voting system by law in this country. At one point, that was thought to be illegal, and now it has become the practice. Who is going to be there on the day after election to make sure that we have ensured election integrity? As it was in 2004, it was the Green Party that put feet on the ground in Ohio, and that’s how we know what happened in Ohio. John Kerry made a commitment that one million black people would not go to the polls in 2004, as was the case in 2000, and not have their votes counted. "

....

I am simply reminded of people who might open fire on travelers from the US, or from any other country for that matter.  I am reminded of Israelis.  Is this stereotypical, or is this fitting?

"Drunken Israeli Settler Threatens Film Crew"
1 min 41 sec video:
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6595
"In a drunken racial tirade, an Israeli settler threatens a British film crew. The wild exchange has the settler cursing Jesus, threatening to kill the film crew and Palestinians. "

At least he adds mention of the Palestinians, because it can't just be about Jesus and the film crew, or he would have been forgetful.  And the nazis.  He curses the nazis a number of times.

Cheers -

Mark

From the New Zealand Herald...

"Reward offered for citizen's arrest of Rice"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10523364

"A $5000 reward is being offered to any Auckland University student who can make a successful citizen's arrest of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to the country this weekend.

"Auckland University Student Association (AUSA) president David Do said the arrest would be for her role in "overseeing the illegal invasion and continued occupation" of Iraq.

"It is hard enough living as a student in Auckland these days without having a war criminal coming to town, so we thought we'd give our students a chance to make a dent in their student loans and work for global justice at the same time."

"Dr Rice will be in Auckland on July 26, where she will meet with Prime Minister Helen Clark, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Opposition leader John Key.

"She will make her first trip to New Zealand after attending a meeting of the Asean Regional Forum this week in Singapore."

------------
Excuse me, but, "we'd give our students a chance to make a dent in their student loans and work for global justice"?  Sure, we'll just arrest the US secretary of state.

Is this the Killington (VT) cessation all over again?  Will the Aussie university exert its influence over the world?  Is this really the lost city of Atlantis, but where we call it "down under"?  These questions call for answers! 

But they sure do seem to be having fun. :-)  We should do stuff like this, but where it's just for fun.

Cheers -

Mark

It seems like a squeaky hinge may have gotten some oil.  People really had to squeak this one! But, glad to see it...

"U.S. to Grant $30 Million for Civilians’ 9/11 Ailments"
Link
July 24, 2008

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce on Thursday that it plans to award $30 million to hospitals and clinics that monitor and treat residents, students and other so-called nonresponders who were exposed to dust and smoke at ground zero."

...

For many years now, neoconservatives and energy enthusiasts (where they overlap) have been on an awful lot about mining in America's national parks.  Is it possible that they are small minded?

If they are not small minded, then we'll have to produce another explanation.

Just I suppose an opinion, but I am reminded of when I had a dirt pile and some Tonka trucks, and how I would sometimes just get lost in all of that.

And when thinking of Donald Rumsfeld, interpersonally, and who I have not personally met, but just from watching, reminds me of the person I was when I found myself lost in all those Tonka trucks, and that beautiful, country dirt pile in the woods.  Then there's Cheney, and the energy business.

I applied all of my own energy when I used my Tonka trucks. 

Our economy has been boosted consistently over the past 7 years.  They are trying to pacify the American people by way of our always having some money to spend.  In this way, these individuals seem somehow pacified in their own lives, by the luxuries that have always given them the ability to act without thought for their fellow man.  It is as if, in a way, they have not stopped playing.

- Mark

"Countdown: Keith Discusses Judiciary Hearing With Bob Barr"
5 min 46 sec video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTt2l8vlqpg

It's a hearing to talk about the president doing bad things, and there are objections being raised because impeachment is not to be considered.

Well, of course impeachment is not being considered, if it was, then they wouldn't talk about it.  Half of congress is guilty, or at the very least, to mention the top 4, or sometimes 8, congressional leaders, who see things and pass on through things that the rest of congress doesn't see.  For example, Nancy Pelosi appears to have been one of the four who "passed through" every last torture technique the CIA has implemented, as the gang of four who were always privy to that information (top two from each major party).

But I think there's enough of a reaction to make it something that's made it to the public.  There are so many bad things to say about the Bush gang.  There's so much popularity to be had from slinging sh** at these m**f**s!

Cheers -

Mark

Long live George Carlin (may he rest in peace)!

Robin has some tough shoes to fill, and I'd love to be there with him, but I am simply too serious. When we love Carlin, we lose some high quality political back-talk. 

I'm going to go along with Robin's points...

Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says "I love New York " in Arabic. You gotta love Robin Williams... ..Even if he's nuts! Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message. Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to argue with this logic!) "I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan." 1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good 'ole' boys". We will never "interfere" again. 2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea , the Middle East , and the Philippines They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence. 3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days, the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them. 4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers. 5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby. 6) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while 7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.) 8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah, or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to their army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything. 9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens. 10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH..learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan? "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' " If you agree with the above forward it to friends...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it!!

Does this mean that people in California are thinking that, perhaps something like the inertia of big business is equal to its mass in society?  That's big!

"Los Angeles wants to take bite out of fast food"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_he_me/fast_food_ban

" LOS ANGELES - In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.

The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.

"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

The aim of the yearlong moratorium, which was approved last week in committee, is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. "

... (AP article continues)

The news is, from this just previously the Mossad director (Israeli intelligence), Ephraim Halevy, that he thinks Iran is a threat to Israel, even if the US has no plans to go into Iran.  As follows, Ephraim Halevy, as brought to us by Time Magazine, in partnership with CNN.  I don't know what that means.

I think that Israel could strike Iran, but also, that I could strike Israel.  I could also strike Iran.  I don't think that's illegal, so long as I'm not in the United States (but naturally, I will look into it ahead of time).  There are also laws in other countries, but those are not our laws.

Israel is, of course, thinking about bombing a not-so-small country, with a not-so-small defense capability, and with a significant ability to cause  a good amount of destruction in Israel.  That's the part that makes me wonder, or to question how Israel would fare. 

And the rest of us will be paying $10/gallon for gas. After Israel, comes the United States.  Someone might try to conjure that one up, and gamble it as a working vision of how to protect Israel.  Who knows?  Gas prices would, I think, rise significantly if Israel went ahead with this.  We still have those ruffians of the billions, wreaking havoc upon gas prices, with their wild speculations upon the value of a barrel of crude.

Cheers -

Mark

"Israel's Debate Over an Iran Strike"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826310,00.html
Thursday, Jul. 24, 2008

"Despite President Bush's insistence that the military option remains "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Israeli officials have recognized that a U.S. air strike on Iranian nuclear sites is increasingly unlikely in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Israelis, along with everyone else, are now counting on European-led diplomatic efforts to persuade the Iranians to halt their uranium-enrichment program. But they know diplomacy may fail, which is why a debate now rages in the highest circles of Israel's government and military: If the Europeans fail and the Americans remain reluctant to launch another war in the Middle East, should Israel strike alone against Iran?"
...