http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=anti-money Tue, 21 May 2013 02:25:19 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=anti-money Mon, 20 May 2013 13:56:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=544_1369072293 kosherfilms A town in western Sweden has agreed to pay damages to a man who was told he wouldn't be hired if he refused to shake a woman's hand for religious reasons. The decision by officials in Trollh"attan to pay the man 30,000 kronor ($4,500) means the municipality won't have to face a review of the case by Sweden's Equality Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen). The incident stemmed from an office visit by a man who had been offered an internship with the integration division at Trollh"attan municipality. When the man was set to meet a female supervisor at the office, he refused to shake her hand, explaining his religion forbade him from shaking hands with women unless he washed his hands directly afterwards. The female supervisor then reportedly told the man that he could not intern at the office if he was not comfortable shaking everybody's hand. She also allegedly added that the office had hand sanitizer that he could use. While the incident was later reported to the Equality Ombudsman, the national office that investigates suspected cases of discrimination, the case was settled before the ombudsman began its investigation, with Trollh"attan municipality choosing to pay damages to the man. "The intern candidate explained that his religion forbade him from shaking the hand of a woman he did not know," municipal spokesman Said Niklund told the TTELA newspaper. "By law, a person who feels they've been disadvantaged because of their religion has a right to damages. We made a mistake, we took responsibility for it, and the person was compensated." The incident has reportedly had repercussions at the workplace, however, damaging the morale among the staff at Trollh"attan's integration division. An investigation into the workplace environment is under way. The leader of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats said on Saturday the party planned to report the municipality to the Ombudsman for Justice (Justitieombudsmannen, JO), stating that "equality is more important than multiculturalism". "This case is extremely upsetting... it is absurd and makes a mockery of equality and Swedish values," party leader Jimmie Akesson said in a statement. TT/The Local/at Muslim and in need of some easy money? Head into Sweden! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=544_1369072293 kosherfilms Muslim gets payout for not shaking woman's hand sweden, muslim, islam, handshake, insane, insane swedes Sun, 19 May 2013 11:58:22 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3dc_1368978968 th1sf8te NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson defied bosses to blow thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money travelling first class. Sir David, who many say should be sacked for his role in the Mid Staffs scandal where 1,200 patients died, racked up huge bills. He has defended the practice but hasn't admitted his own officials raised concerns over his first class tickets in 2010. A memo by the Department of Health's then top civil servant, permanent secretary Sir Hugh Taylor, that July shows Sir David's "train travel" was discussed by officials "on a number of occasions". And a copy obtained by the Daily Star Sunday reveals worries over him using the most expensive seats. In the memo, Sir Hugh wrote: "I am sure David has been travelling first class; and I think in principle we should regard that as consistent with the original contractual commitment. "However, I think it should be put to him that it would send a better signal if he were to move to standard class." We have learned the issue was raised with Sir David, who earns lb211,000-a-year, plus a bonus and benefits. But his expenses - and his testimony to a parliamentary committee - suggest he was still travelling first class until April 1 this year. From April 2011 to March 2012, while NHS budgets were being slashed, he put in 133 claims for rail travel totalling around lb19,745. The highest was for lb399 with the average costing lb148. Many were for Friday first class travel to Birmingham, near his family home. Taxpayers were also billed thousands for Sir David to travel via a "Government car" and lb13,000 in accommodation and restaurant costs. His expenses from April 2012 onwards will be published soon and will show more first class travel claims. In March, Sir David told the Public Accounts Committee he had to travel in luxury as he was doing three jobs and had to work on the go. But he said he planned to travel standard class from April 1 this year when he went to a single role. Campaigners say Sir David, who refused to resign over the Stafford Hospital scandal, has stuck "two fingers up at the public". Julie Bailey, whose mum died at Stafford, said: "It's an insult to all who pay taxes knowing this man earns more than the Prime Minister and insults us further by travelling in such style on the public purse." The Department of Health told us measures had been taken to "minimise costs". It said: "Sir David's employment arrangements were agreed with the Department of Health. "All travel and overnight stays were booked in advance wherever possible to minimise costs. Travel by car may have been used for journeys at short notice, during anti-social hours, where confidential calls needed to be made or to locations not easily accessible by train." We keep getting fucked over by the people with money to wipe their arse with http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3dc_1368978968 th1sf8te NHS CHIEF SIR DAVID NICHOLSON DEFIES BOSSES AND SPENDS PUBLIC CASH ON FIRST CLASS TRAVEL NHS CHIEF SIR DAVID NICHOLSON DEFIES BOSSES AND SPENDS PUBLIC CASH ON FIRST CLASS TRAVEL Fri, 17 May 2013 23:52:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d69_1368837829 RasputinFTW Ok Guys My You tube account Was banned (Many Snackbars report me) so I lost all my subscriptions and favorites however I make this new informative post who can answered many question MY ENGLISH IS A FUCKING BAD I KNOW SO YOU NO NEED TO COME HERE TO SAID WHO EVERYONE SEE. Israel *Israel got at the moment the better military Force in the Middle East US share their better System and technology with Israel *Israel Arrow 3 Is a project at the moment not ready yet *The best Air Defense in the Middle is the Israel Air defense *Israel can Strike Very Easy Iran with Ballistic Missiles Iran no got a good Anti Missile shield *Israel Aid the Ayatollahs during the Iran Iraq war but Romance over *Israel can shot down Syrian Airacraft into Syria Air Space - Syria can do the Same into Israel Air Space *At the military point the only winner in the Syrian conflict is Israel and the Terrorist Al Qaeda.. so the Snackbars destroying the Syrian Military capabilities and Will be make very easy if Israel decided bombing Syria all the fucking time killing Child with White Phosphorus like Zionists do all the Time in Gaza (THAT IS WHY I WANT DEATH ALL THESE SNACKBARS BASTARDS) *Israel got many good large force form good Logistical vehicles *Israel Armour - Mechanized is are very good and well updated *IAF is the first Air force from the Middle East very modern *IAF got the capacity from bombing Iran the problems is the Route. *Israel have nuclear weapons but are inactive (80) *Jericho 1, Jericho 2, Jericho 3 can carried nuclear head Israel can delete Tehran from the Map and any other Middle east City if they wish the range from Jericho 3 is huge *If Israel know Iran is close to got nuclear weapons they will be destroyed the Iranians installations with the Ballistic Missiles. *The Middle East countries who are a Nuclear Threat Are Israel and Pakistan *Israel links with Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria must be exists. *Israel is a very moderns Military force in a pretty Small territory to defend it make easy the Early Warning Syria *After Israel the Second country with better military capabilities is Syria (In 2011) so After more than two years the fucking Zionists Snackbars doing damage is unclear what is the real Syrian Army force now. *The Map of the SyAD not included Pantsir-S1 this map is from 2007-2009 Syria get Pantsir-S1 in 2010. *After the Lasted IAF strike inside Syria Is totally stupid the Snackbar theory who claim "Israel Assad Protector" If Israel decided Help Assad all Snackbars die in just days - Israel Working VERY HARD in HELP Al Qaeda in Syria. *The 50% Of the Syrian tank are a fucking old using during the Yom Kippur War but part of that is well outdated *The Damage from the Syrian Armor structure after two years is around 850 - 900 Tanks / APC /IFV combat vehicles destroyed / Captured it is less than the 15% of the Syrian Armor force - Probability Russia will be replace it soon for more moderns military vehicles. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1366502995 *Syrians APCs are outdated. *The Israel Attack on the "Syrian Nuclear Reactor" is a Zionist bullshit without any Serious evidence http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=544_1368545767 *Syrians IFVs force is more decent than the APCs force but outdated too (Most Part). *For Snackbars is impossible win they only can Win if NATO move in *Most Syrian Air force is Still obsolete compared with Israel, Israel ask Russia many times for no sold Advanced planes to Syria *SyAF got very good and solid ground attack capabilities. *SyAF Losses 100% Confirmed are less than 12 War Planes. *Arab Saudi got a long Range of Chinese Missiles this worried more Syria than Israel Missiles that is probability Syria are working on do a Anti Ballistic Missile Shield like Israel got now. *Syrian Army is in rebuild up phase if the Situation no change the "War" must be over in April 2014. *Syria got the Military capacity for attack Israel and can do high Damage however if Syria do It NATO will be move to Syria that is because Israel do a lot provocation every the time *The more large range Syrian missile is the Scud D with 700km of range *NATO can nuke Syria in a fews Hours - Not Surprise the Only NATO "Equivalent" is Russia *Syria can hit with Ballistic Missiles the Al Qaeda bases in Turkey that is Why NATO deployed Patriots in the Turkey Border just for saving Al Qaeda Ass *Syria need replace some oldies weapons for news elements. Iran *Iranian military capabilities (Air Force - Army) are poor Saddam destroyed the most part of the Ayatollahs Air Force - Army. *During the gulf war part of the Saddam Air Force defected to Iran but Iran got a UN Weapon embargo the quantity of Iranian combat planes operatives are less than 100 according some reports. *Iran at the CONVENTIONAL military point can't help Assad too much it is a Myth of the Zionist - Iran Only can send medicines - some individual equipment thinks like that but nothing "Stronger" *The conventional military capabilities from Iran are Worts during the Sha Era *Iran got a decent infantry force well equipped *The Ballistic Missile capabilities from Iran are unclear *Iranians doing Photoshops in their Ballistics Missile tests *Iranian Zulfiqar Tanks are just a local updated from oldies Americans tanks using during the Vietnam War. *Iranians Made good medium Range Ballistic Missiles *The capacity from Iran to attack Israel is nothing Israel Shield can intercept all the fews Iranians missiles *The "5o Generation Stealth" Iranian plane is a laughable bullshit only Russia and US can do it China no made one 100% 5o Generation Stealth plane working yet. *Iranians got very large and good Air Transport force *Iranians got a medium military industry who can be better soon it worried Israel *Iranians got a nuclear program and build a nuclear plan with Russian Assistance *Iranians got nothing for Stooped the Israel Ballistic Missiles *Iran Navy is very large and a bit decent but NATO can destroyed it without major problems. Others countries: Jordan Small but decent Army / Air force Iraq Very good Army Well Equipped by the Americans - But no got a Combat Air Force yet however the transport and logistic capabilities is decent - They also get Saddam Era Equipment (In 1991 Saddam Was able to delete Israel from the Map) that is the basic Reason because US decided killed him plus 500k of Sunni Muslims who support him. United Arab Emirates Small Military force but very good and modern Air Force, Army and Navy. Lebanon Decent army with good infantry but in a total submission with Israel in 2006 Israel bombing AT LEAST more than 500 times the Lebanese territory killed many civilians - The Two Times who Israel bombing Syria this years they used the Lebanese Air Space - Lebanese must be hate Israel a lot If you bombing my Dear Mongolia 500+ Times I will be hate you a lot too Egypt Egyptians got a large very good military force Equipped by Second Hand US Weapons Egyptians got ballistic missile capabilities according with my info more long range Egyptian Missile is just the scud B Arab Saudi Is the country who wasted more money in weapons in all the fucking middle East, their military hardwares are very moderns From EU and US many weapons from Al Qaeda in Syria come from Arab Saudi - After Israel Arab Saudi is the Most important allied from US in the Middle East Saudi Got a very dangerous small quantity from long range Chinese Missiles - Arab Saudi could be Very soon the first military force from the Middle East. I can do mistakes in some elements but you Experts can fixed it with you comments LOL http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d69_1368837829 RasputinFTW Military comparative / Info from Syria, Israel, Iran and other Middle East Countries Syria, Iran, Israel, Syrian Army, FSA, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Free Syrian Army, Israel defenses forces, IAF, Israel Air force, Israel Army, Iran Army, Iranian Army Fri, 17 May 2013 21:27:09 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b32_1368840208 smyle On Thursday, Gawker's John Cook reported the existence of a video that allegedly shows Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine. Since entering public service as a city councilor in 2000, Ford has been known for his odd and improper public behavior and comments , a habit that only got worse after he was elected mayor in 2010. Whether he's accosting out-of-towners at a hockey game, offering to help procure OxyContin for a constituent, or railing against streetcars and anti-poverty activists, Ford has consistently tested the limits of "mayoral behavior." In fact, the public servant Ford most closely resembles is the fictional mayor from The Simpsons, Diamond Joe Quimby. Both men are heavyset. Both are often at odds with constituents, colleagues, and the press. And both are prone to saying outrageous things in public. I've prepared a 20-question quiz of quotes from Ford and Quimby. Which mayor said which wildly inappropriate thing? Answers are at the bottom. 1. "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?" 2. "It's hard to hide 300 pounds of fun." 3. "People don't want to see their mayor stuck in an office all the time, they want to see him right at their door." 4. "We'll blow up our dams, destroy forests, anything! If there's a species of animal causing problems, nosing around your camera, we'll have it wiped out." 5. "Demand? Who are you to demand anything? I run this town. You're just a bunch of low-income nobodies." 6. "Let's call a spade a spade. The left would have taken it and just wanted to spend it on crazy, stupid things like more social programs ..." 7. "Oh my god, I never want to hurt a bike. That's the last thing I want to do, precious little bikes." 8. "I ordered the re-opening of this prison to send a message to the criminals of . If you commit a violent crime in my town, you are going to end up here. To demonstrate what you're in for, I will now strap myself into this electric chair, which was deactivated over 30 years ago, and, I can only assume, still is." 9. "Water is the healthiest form of liquid." 10. "By the way, this woman is not my wife, but I am sleeping with her. I'm telling you this because I'm comfortable with my womanizing." 11. "I'm sick of you people, you're nothing but a pack of fickle mush heads." 12. "Tuesday, Nov. 27, I'm going to be playing hooky from City Hall." 13. "Those Oriental people work like dogs. ... They're slowly taking over." 14. "Now on to the next item, the proposal for putting term limits on public office. All those in favor say, 'I have sex with animals.' " 15. "I'd love to see us sell the zoo and make money on it if we can. ... Keep the elephants here and take it from there." 16. "You don't scare me, that could be anyone's ass. Now beat it! I'm calling the shots." 17. "I will retract the word 'ass.' " 18. "Very well, if that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow." 19. "You are tampering with forces you can't understand, we have major corporations sponsoring this event." 20. "I'm as clean as the days are long." ANSWERS: Ford: 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 20 Quimby: 1 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/05/17/rob_ford_crack_cocaine_simpsons_mayor_diamond_joe_quimby_or_toronto_mayor.html?wpisrc=most_viral http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b32_1368840208 smyle Who Said It: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford or Simpsons Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby? Diamond Joe Quimby, Toronto, Mayor Rob Ford, crack cocaine, lol Fri, 17 May 2013 09:06:19 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23b_1368795857 omniradar By Daya Gamage May 16, 2013 "Information Clearing House " -" Asian Tribune"- There is a 'side story' going on in the American media - both the electronic and print about the Islamist jihadists lethal attack on the American 'post' in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 which killed American ambassador Christopher Steven and three others; The emphasis and the debate is on why the event was twisted by the Obama administration to conceal a terrorist attack on eve of the presidential election. With the killing of Osama bin Larden on May 2 last year the administration, which was approaching the re-election of Mr. Obama in November, wants to convince the American people that the al Qaeda was now annihilated for good. When the Islamist jihadist group affiliated to al Qaeda lethally attacked the American 'post' in Benghazi the Obama administration twisted the events to convince that a anti-Islamic video produced by someone in California was the cause of the attack. These days the highlights and debate is about why the 'talking points' were changed twelve times to give that different picture. As Obama rightfully said a couple of days ago about this debate, mostly spearheaded by the Republicans, was a 'side show.' The 'real show' is in fact buried. And the 'real show' is that the United States, Ambassador Steven playing a major role, was in the process of shipping arms to Syrian rebels to topple Basher el-Assad's regime. It was on October 25 last year that FoxNews.com broke the story that a mysterious Libyan ship was reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels would have had some link to the September 11 terror attack on the U.S. 'post' in Benghazi. Why do we use the term 'post' in this report? Because when changes were made to the Benghazi attack story by the Obama administration it changed from 'American Consulate' to 'American Post'. The reason: Benghazi operation was entirely a CIA operation. Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officers were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants. On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the 'posts' front gate one hour before the assault began. Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center. According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS. In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group-a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life. In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria. The Internet Media reported at that time that Ambassador Stevens had only one person-Belhadj-between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. The Asian Tribune has also found that the Internet Media further reported that if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey-a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution-then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it. Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died." As noted earlier, the Obama administration has since described the American facility in Benghazi not as a 'Consulate' but as a 'Post'. The U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to run for his party presidential nomination in the year 2016, was the only American lawmaker who disclosed about this 'arms deal' which he connects to Ambassador Steven's brutal muder in the hands of the Islamist Jihadists. In an interview aired on CNN May 9 evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn't ruled out the possibility that last year's attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event - including unfounded admissions from America's United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack - could actually be a cover-up, the senator said. The Obama administration sent its ambassador to UN Susan Rice on the following Sunday talk shows to say that the offending Islamic video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi. "I've actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria," he said. "Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?" Paul asked. "I'm not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered, and I'm a little curious when employees of the State Department are told by government officials they shouldn't testify - before the Senate or House committees - and then they are sort of sequestered and kept away from testimony, so I think there may be more to this." This is not the first time either that Senator Paul raised questions about possible arms supplies under the CIA umbrella. During her testimony in the Senate in January, Rand Paul asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the spy agency was sending weapons from Benghazi into other countries. Clinton replied that he would have to ask CIA officials about it. Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio in mid April: "First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it's important because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this ; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attach'e, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it's very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America...enemies of Israel... enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria...sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists." In the eighties, the Iran-Contra Arms Affair shook the Regan administration the way the Benghazi affair is developing to shake the foundation of the Obama administration. Iran-contra affair, in U.S. history, secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate "moderates" within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction. Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983-85) and John Poindexter (1985-86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo. In early Nov., 1986, the scandal broke when reports in Lebanese newspapers forced the Reagan administration to disclose the arms deals. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Select congressional committees held joint hearings, and in Dec., 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was named as special prosecutor to investigate the affair. Higher administration officials, particularly Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its cover-up. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality. A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. Will the Benghazi Affair leads that far? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23b_1368795857 omniradar The real Benghazi story US Smuggling Weapons to Syrian Rebels Thu, 16 May 2013 17:23:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1368739243 copperdog3 Baron_Kaz cannot seem to deal with opinions that don't agree with his position. Here is the same post only no comments will be deleted. --cd3 ------------------- Note: For a country which doesn't get things right very often, India is taking steps to make universal health care affordable to all. THIS is something that all of us would like to see our tax dollars and elected representatives working on, instead of making laws (e.g.) to regulate the size of sodas being sold in restaurants at NYC. We need politicians with testicles in the US, not just money guzzling pigs, who wouldn't know their asses from their elbows unless their lobby groups told them what was what. NEW DELHI: Prices of 348 medicines, including life-saving drugs, will be cheaper soon by up to 80 per cent as the new drug price control order (DPCO) has come into effect. Industry experts said the implementation of the new drug policy will lead to slashing of prices of many anti-cancer and anti-infective drugs by 50-80 per cent. According to the website of department of pharmaceuticals, the government has notified the drug prices control order (DPCO), 2013, with effect from May 15, replacing the 1995 order. The new order will give power to the national pharmaceutical pricing policy (NPPP) 2012 to regulate prices of 348 essential drugs. Drug prices control order, 1995, regulated prices of only 74 bulk drugs. The NPPP 2012 was approved by the Cabinet on November 22, 2012 and later it was notified on December 7, 2012. As per the new drugs policy, all strengths and dosages specified in the national list of essential medicines (NLEM) 2011 will be under price control. According to the approved policy, prices of medicines will now be capped by taking simple average of all brands which have more than one per cent market share instead of input costs. The DPCO 2013, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, will lay the framework of the drug policy and mechanism of regulating prices. According to it, the National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Authority (NPPA) will be the implementation authority for the new policy and the new DPCO. NPPP-2012 took long to finalize due to differences between ministries of health and chemicals and fertilizers. Other stakeholders, industry and NGOs had also expressed their concerns on the pricing model which was suggested. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1368739243 copperdog3 Update: Life-saving drugs' prices set to fall by up to 80 per cent in India India, healthcare, drugs, free, universal, healthcare, Baron_Kaz, idiot Thu, 16 May 2013 13:37:36 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=42a_1368725474 Baron_Kaz Note: For a country which doesn't get things right very often, India is taking steps to make universal health care affordable to all. THIS is something that all of us would like to see our tax dollars and elected representatives working on, instead of making laws (e.g.) to regulate the size of sodas being sold in restaurants at NYC. We need politicians with testicles in the US, not just money guzzling pigs, who wouldn't know their asses from their elbows unless their lobby groups told them what was what. NEW DELHI: Prices of 348 medicines, including life-saving drugs, will be cheaper soon by up to 80 per cent as the new drug price control order (DPCO) has come into effect. Industry experts said the implementation of the new drug policy will lead to slashing of prices of many anti-cancer and anti-infective drugs by 50-80 per cent. According to the website of department of pharmaceuticals, the government has notified the drug prices control order (DPCO), 2013, with effect from May 15, replacing the 1995 order. The new order will give power to the national pharmaceutical pricing policy (NPPP) 2012 to regulate prices of 348 essential drugs. Drug prices control order, 1995, regulated prices of only 74 bulk drugs. The NPPP 2012 was approved by the Cabinet on November 22, 2012 and later it was notified on December 7, 2012. As per the new drugs policy, all strengths and dosages specified in the national list of essential medicines (NLEM) 2011 will be under price control. According to the approved policy, prices of medicines will now be capped by taking simple average of all brands which have more than one per cent market share instead of input costs. The DPCO 2013, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, will lay the framework of the drug policy and mechanism of regulating prices. According to it, the National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Authority (NPPA) will be the implementation authority for the new policy and the new DPCO. NPPP-2012 took long to finalize due to differences between ministries of health and chemicals and fertilizers. Other stakeholders, industry and NGOs had also expressed their concerns on the pricing model which was suggested. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=42a_1368725474 Baron_Kaz Life-saving drugs' prices set to fall by up to 80 per cent in India India, Healthcare Thu, 16 May 2013 13:12:59 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=313_1368724295 ReoX Read this through, it will only take 5 minutes. This will explain why human have emotional expression, why human are getting weaker, and how the government is using this to their advantage. How the medical field have use this to make trillion of dollars. And now that this condition has worsen, the government's only option is to kill off all mankind before it get out of hand. This will tell it all. The Human Skull Defect. First of all, I want you all to take a look at the picture below. http://img30.imageshack.us/i/19352918.jpg The above is a skull of a human, while the one below is of a Gorilla. Notice the difference between the height of both skulls. Now here's a picture of a human skull alone including the part of the neck or cervical vertebrae. http://img585.imageshack.us/i/91803884.jpg You can see that I drew a red cross in the middle of the skull indicating the point where the cervical vertebrae are connected to the skull. Notice that the red spot is not at the centre of the skull (which is the center of gravity for the skull). The head structure seems to be "too high" and the forehead "too wide" in comparison with the middle point. This to me simply means that our head is not efficiently supported by our neck muscle. Think of it as we are balancing a "bowling ball" on our neck. If you were to put this "bowling ball" on a monkey's neck, in the long term, it too will stand up straight in order to balance this "ball" effieciently. That's what I think. If you look at women, some of them have thinner neck muscle which will contribute to osteoporosis. Although for men, the curve on a women's body seems very attractive but this occur in order to balance their head, which to me is very unhealthy for the spine. Here's something to prove my point This is the untouch picture showing some primates skeleton and also a human skeleton. http://img191.imageshack.us/i/94798319.jpg In this picture, I have pasted the upper head of a human skull to the other primates upper skull in order to show that by doing so it will not only increase the weight of the skull but also the height of the skull. http://img808.imageshack.us/i/35210870.jpg Compare this to a primate head http://img29.imageshack.us/i/41501970.jpg As you can see, the primate upper head is well supported by its neck muscle. The center of gravity is low compared to the human skull which allows it to easily control its head without much effort. So if you think logically, due to earth's gravity, there is no way that evolution will cause the skull to increase in height and eventually became what human skull is right now. That would be like anti-gravity. So here's the billion dollars question: Where did human beings came from? Certainly not from this planet. If so then someone or something must had done something to altered the biological system inside the human body. Some of you may say that this is rubbish and that you can move your head without any problem. In order to move a muscle, we need energy. Energy comes from our blood which contains glucose from what we eat and oxygen through our breathing. Let me give you an example; as you are looking at your computer screen for a period of time you will get tired. This is because you are simply not breathing in enough oxygen to allow your neck to support your head. Do you like to eat while you are using the computer? Now you know. This is also the reason you will find that most people tend to move their head (up, down, left, right) when they are talking. Have you ever notice that? I believe this is because our heart is trying accommodate with the lifting of our head along with our breatihng. When we look down, we feel relax because our heart don't have to work as hard to lift our head and we cn breath easier. This is also the reason why some people seem to be more confident than others, while others feel nervous all the time. A confident person just has a stronger neck muscle or the center gravity of their skull is more balanced thus allowing them to move their head easier than other people without affecting their breathing. It's that simple. Now, some of you may ask what significant does all these have to do with you? My answer to this question is "EVERYTHING". I am confident that it is this defect that have made human weaker in terms of physical and mental. This also contributes to the emotional expression that we are displaying today. http://img202.imageshack.us/i/58740216.jpg This show the long term effect of such defect. As we get older, our skull will slowly lean forward due to gravity (the long red arrow shows the direction in which the skull will slowly fall). Since our brain is inside the skull and doesn't move, what will happen is it will stretch the nerves around the brain which runs through our body (the short double arrows show some of the spots which the stretch will occur). These include our eyes, ears, mouth, and most importantly our spinal cord. Now, what will happen if this stretch continues? For our eyes: Illnesses such as far sighted or near sighted, glaucoma, or in a more severe case - retina tear. For our ears, the ear drum will be stretched and weak in hearing will occur. For our mouth: Ulcer, gum disease(some may find that their gum bleed easily), sensitive teeth, and tonsillitis, just to name a few. Here's a picture of a human brain, your brain. http://imageshack.us/f/26/braincompress.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/f/38/humanbrain2.jpg/ Notice the back of the brain is compressed compared to the front of the brain. This can only be explained by pressure put on the back of the brain. As a result the brain itself will no longer be functioning efficiently. Blood circulation inside the brain will be affected significantly, causing it to degenerate. This is the reason human kind are unable to utilize the full potential of the brain. Not only that, when the part of the brain which is responsbile for controlling certain organ in the body was compressed, for instance the liver. This will cause the liver to not function efficiently. Thus, cancer may start to develope. I also believe that cholesterol is responsible for repairing our nervous system. As our skull do more damages to our brain and nervous system, more cholesterol is needed. This is why some people have high level of cholesterol in their blood. However, high level of cholesterol can sometimes lead to high blood pressure. But if that person reduces his or her cholesterol level too much, that person may not have enough cholesterol to repair the nervous system. This may lead to pain, fever or even more serious nerves problem such as seizure. You can read more about this here. http://www.naturalnews.com/036258_cholesterol_brain_repair_Alzheimers.html The effect for our spinal cord would be back pain. In a long run, illnesses such as osteoporosis will start to developed. The reason for this can be clearly seen with the pictures below The first picture shows a normal vertebrae if you will. Flexible with minimum friction. As the human skull fall forward, it will pull the nerve from the brain all through the spine which can be seen as illustrated in the second picture. Also, the back muscle will tense up in order to lift the head and this will also cause harm to the vertebrae. This is why I am certain that drinking more cows milk will only increase the weight of our skull and thus accelerate the development of osteoporosis. Here's the link to prove what I mean. http://milk.elehost.com/html/osteoporosis.html Notice that Norway, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark which are countries that produce large amount of cows milk incidently also have one of the highest case of osteoporosis in the world. When the weight of human skull increases, it will put more stress to the heart. This of course is very bad and will couse heart attack. I REPEAT. NEVER NEVER DRINK COW MILK IN ANY FORM. To the brain itself, due to the pressure and stretching inside the skull, I strongly believe that brain cells will start to die off resulting in memory loss or Parkinson's disease in severe cases. Some people may experience headache, fever or even apnea (sleeping disorder). Between the membrane of the brain and the inner skull, friction will also occur. As a result it will cause some minor tissue tear. But because there are no nerves on our brain's membrane which detect pain, what we will feel is warmness and sometimes fever. Also, don't forget that the outer layer of the skull is of course our skin which involves blood arteries and veins. Due to the stretching by the neck muscle, the skin on our forehead will get thinner, resulting in blocking of blood supply which leads to baldness in the beginning and sometimes headache will occur. Look at the picture below and you will understand what I'm saying. On the third picture, you can see that due to the "nature" of our skull structure, our face are being stretched, causing the face pores and muscles to be tighten and eventually resulting in condition such as acne and deviated septum. This is also directly responsible for certain facial expression on our face. It is this stretch and pull of muscles which result in us having different faces. Most importantly, this stretch will result in poor blood circulation through out the human body. Therefore, by constantly massaging the scalp and face area, it will improve the blood circulation and may prevent certain diseases like heart attack. Due to this heavy skull of ours, our body will tense up even if you don't realize it. The nerves from our brain to our spinal cord will be stretched. Our breathing is significantly affected by this condition. This have prevented us from breathing properly as you can see from the picture below. This has caused our organs to degenerate faster and causing illneses such as diabetes, cancers, heart disease, kidney failure and etc. This is even directly causing mental illness to some. Behavior such as bad temper, extremely emotional and even a long term effect such as syncophonic. Many allergic such as asthma and sensitive skin can be prevented if proper breathing technique is practice at the early stage. Human being are becoming weaker mainly because of this defect which is preventing us from fully utilizing the potential of our mind. What a waste. Here's a simple experiment which you can all do in front of your computer screen. Sit up straight and put both of your palms on top of your head. Try to search for the most comfortable spot which you can hold you head efficiently without much effort. Now gently press down you head. Use this picture as reference. http://img718.imageshack.us/i/45029108.jpg You will find that in less than 5 seconds, your whole body will feel more relax, your can breathe in more air and feel more alert at the same time. It will also cool down your body. You may want to try this when you are feeling tired to feel the effect. Also, if you look at the position of praying for certain religions, it can also help relieve the pain behind the brain. By using both hands to support the forehead, it reduces the pressure on the back of the brain. This is why some people feel calm and relax after praying. As you can see from this picture. As a chinese myself, I know that China people from long time ago used to sleep on a pillow made from hard material such as wood or porcelain. I am certain that this is to "push" the skull back into it's place. You can read more from this site. http://www.thegreenlightdistrict.net/blog/2009/09/the-history-of-pillows/ In this site, it says "In ancient China it was believed the especially soft pillows robbed the body of vitality and energy. To remedy this, pillows were fashioned from hard materials. For more than a millennium, Chinese dynasties used stone, wood, jade, bronze, bamboo and porcelain for pillows, which were shaped like or decorated with pictures of animals, plants, humans or even geometric figures. Among all these pillows, porcelain pillows were most widely used. Just like other daily-used pillows, porcelain pillows came into being with the development of porcelain-making crafts." Many of you will call this all a bullshit. But ever since I found out about this which is nearly five years ago, I did not swallow a single painkiller(not even one paracetamol) or medicine to cure my fever. Not that I hate medicine but because I didn't have a single fever since. Even going to the hospital is to bring my family member who is sick. I have cured my sister's feet allergic problem which she has been suffering for more than 15 years. You don't have to believe me, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not a doctor or a scientist. What I am writing here is from my simple observation which I happened to bumped into just like when Percy LeBaron Spencer discovered microwave. Maybe this is for a reason. What I do know for sure is there is many lies in the modern medical field. All because of money? Maybe, but I doubt it's that simple. Please take note that I'm not saying that bacteria, viruses or mutation, etc...don't affect the human health. What I have mentioned above is due to the "natural" condition of a human body particulary the skull which contributes to some of the health problem which we are facing today. Please remember this. To some of you this may sound a little unreal at this point, but to me this is as true and real as the water I drank after I finished running a marathon. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=313_1368724295 ReoX Everyone Must Know This - The Human Skull Defect Everyone Must Know This - The Human Skull Defect Tue, 14 May 2013 05:41:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=919_1368523788 english-patriot33 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100215856/barack-obamas-top-ten-insults-against-britain-2013-edition/?fb Barack Obama's top ten insults against Britain - 2013 edition For the past three years I have published a list of Barack Obama's biggest insults (including those of his administration) against America's foremost ally, Great Britain, during his time in office. Here is an updated list to accompany President Obama's meeting with David Cameron at the White House today. The major additions this year are the snubbing of Lady Thatcher's funeral by the Obama administration, as well as attempts by senior allies of President Obama in the Senate to hold up a resolution honouring the Iron Lady. In addition, the Obama presidency has further entrenched its pro-Argentine position on the Falklands, and has also lectured Britain on its Europe policy, warning the UK against leaving the European Union, in a blatant attempt to influence an internal British public debate. Since first taking office in 2009, the Obama presidency has displayed what can only be described as a sneering disdain and contempt for America's most important ally, an approach which has continued into Obama's second term. Barack Obama has been the most anti-British US president of modern times, even kicking off his first term with a decision to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and send it packing to the British Embassy. He followed this with a sustained campaign against Britain's biggest company, with his press secretary Robert Gibbs threatening to put a "boot to the throat" of BP in the wake of the Gulf oil spill of 2010. The Obama administration has also sided with Argentine president Cristina Kirchner in calling for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and flat out refuses to back the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination despite the recent referendum which showed that 99.8 percent of the inhabitants of the Falklands wish to remain a British Overseas Territory. 1. Siding with Argentina over the Falkland Islands This has remained the top insult for four years running. For sheer offensiveness it's hard to beat the Obama administration's brazen support for Argentina's call for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982. In a March 2010 press conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the P'eronist regime. In June 2011, Mrs. Clinton slapped Britain in the face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the Argentine term "Malvinas" to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires. In 2012, against a backdrop of growing aggression by Argentina, including efforts to blockade international vessels fishing in Falkland waters, the Obama administration continued to undercut Britain, again supporting direct negotiations between Argentina and Britain, parroting Kirchner's line. In 2013, the Obama administration declined to formally recognise the result of the March Falklands referendum, reiterating its call for London and Buenos Aires to negotiate the sovereignty of the Islands - despite the fact that 99.8 percent of Falkland Islanders voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. At a press briefing following the referendum, a senior State Department official treated Britain and Argentina as equals with "competing claims" to the Falklands, and refused to support the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. This is hugely insulting to Britain, not least at a time when 10,000 British troops are fighting alongside their American allies on the battlefields of Afghanistan. 2. Snubbing the funeral of Lady Thatcher Incredibly, the Obama presidency declined to send a single serving official from Washington to attend the Iron Lady's funeral in St. Paul's Cathedral in April. While the United States was represented by former Secretaries of State George Schultz and James A. Baker III, the only American official present was Barbara Stephenson, charges d'affaires and acting ambassador at the US Embassy in London. To put this in context, the US sent a similar level of representation, in terms of serving officials, to attend the funeral in March of Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez. To say this was a huge insult to the memory of the greatest peacetime prime minister of the 20th Century would be an understatement. It was an act of tremendous rudeness towards the British people, who turned out in large numbers to bid farewell to Lady Thatcher as her coffin was carried through central London on its way to St. Paul's. Vice President Joe Biden usually represents the president at such occasions, but was a no-show despite receiving an invitation. Also absent were First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also nowhere to be seen. 3. Holding up a Senate Resolution honouring Lady Thatcher Disgracefully, Senate Democrats - key Congressional allies of President Obama, representing his own party - held up a Senate resolution honouring the life and legacy of Margaret Thatcher for several days, before it was finally passed unanimously the day before her funeral. Senior Democrats, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, attempted to remove references in the resolution to the Falklands War and to IRA terrorism, but relented in the face of strong Republican condemnation. The White House remained silent on the matter. As Senate Republican leader, and sponsor of the resolution, Mitch McConnell remarked, "Margaret (Thatcher) was one of the most influential and revolutionary figures of the 20th Century, and failing to name her achievements would do her memory and her legacy a great disservice. It would be unheard of to commemorate Churchill for example and ignore his heroic role in steering his countrymen through the Battle of Britain, nor would we think of honoring Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War." 4. Lecturing Britain against leaving the EU The Obama administration has attempted to intervene on several occasions over the past few months on the issue of British membership of the European Union. In an interview with Adam Boulton on Sky News, outgoing US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, made it clear that Washington is firmly opposed to Britain leaving the EU: From our viewpoint it is something that won't help us - not without speaking for the United Kingdom... We believe strongly it's in America's interests to have a strong EU - it's the key to trading and to certain diplomatic matters and intelligence matters and military matters. And for our best ally not to be a strong voice there, not to be there, frankly we don't think it's in our interests. Susman was echoing the remarks made by Philip Gordon, then US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, who declared that British membership of the EU is "in the American interest" and made clear his support for the EU speaking with "a single voice." The comments naturally sparked outrage among Conservative MPs. Barack Obama himself has even phoned the British prime minister to express his view that a British EU exit would weaken US-British ties. As I noted in a previous post on the US Ambassador's intervention: Susman's remarks illustrate how the Obama presidency likes to pay lip service to the Special Relationship, while actively undercutting it on the European stage by backing ever-closer union in Europe, and the evolution of a federal EU. Obama administration officials parrot the language of the European Commission, as though their words were dictated by Jose Manuel Barroso or Herman Van Rompuy. It is a sad state of affairs when the world's superpower effectively outsources its Europe policy to an unelected, unaccountable and anti-American entity in Belgium. 5. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy - not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense. Four years on, the Churchill bust incident continues to embarrass the Obama White House, and remains a sad symbol of this administration's contempt for the Special Relationship as well as one of the greatest figures in British history. 6. Placing a "boot on the throat" of BP The Obama administration's relentless campaign against Britain's largest company in the wake of the Gulf oil spill was one of the most damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britons agreeing at the time that the president's handling of the issue had harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a YouGov poll. The White House's aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a "boot on the throat" of the oil giant, helped wipe tens of billions of pounds from its share value, directly impacting the pensions of millions of Britons. This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to "anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling". 7. Using a State Dinner for the British Prime Minister as a campaign event In March 2012, the White House used an official state dinner for David Cameron to reward over 40 top Obama re-election campaign financiers with coveted seats at the taxpayer-funded banquet. Collectively, the campaign bundlers had raised more than $10 million for Obama's 2012 presidential run. I wrote in a Telegraph piece on the day of the event: A state dinner with the British PM should be a celebration of the US-UK Special Relationship, and not a reward ticket for hugely wealthy fundraisers who have given large sums of money to the president's re-election campaign. David Cameron has been shamelessly used by a cynical White House that has cared little for the Anglo-American alliance in its first three years in office before rolling out the red carpet this week. It is disrespectful towards the leader of America's closest friend and ally, as well as an abuse of presidential power. 8. DVDs for the Prime Minister This insult has featured in all four editions, not least because it remains a powerful example of breathtaking diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was treated extremely shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and was sent home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz - which couldn't even be played in the UK. 9. Insulting words from the State Department The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown's embarrassing reception at the White House in March 2009 says it all: There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment. 10. Calling France America's strongest ally In January 2011, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, gushing with praise for Washington's new-found Gallic friends, declaring: "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people." As I noted at the time: Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington's strongest partner is simply ludicrous. These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in modern times has described France as America's closest ally, and such a remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq. In November 2012, Obama's Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano repeated her president's line, telling a French audience that "we have no greater partner than France, we have no greater ally than France." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=919_1368523788 english-patriot33 Barack Obama's top ten insults against Britain - 2013 edition islam, muslims, terrorists, pedophiles, fuck you too obama, hurry up and go, Tue, 14 May 2013 04:46:48 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc7_1368520744 english-patriot33 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323983/Now-White-Widow-connected-British-born-Al-Qaeda-bomb-maker.html Now White Widow is connected to British-born Al Qaeda bomb maker: Fugitive wife of 7/7 terrorist was key link between Pakistan and East African extremists :Mother-of-four from Buckinghamshire converted to Islam at 17-years-old :Married to London bomber Germaine Lindsay before disappearing in 2007 :Believed to be working for experienced Al Qaeda bomb maker Habib Ghani :She has built up web of contacts between Somalia, Pakistan, UK and Africa The fugitive 'white widow' of a 7/7 London bomber was a key link between Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan and their fighters in East Africa, it has emerged. Muslim convert Samantha Lewthwaite, who was married to Kings Cross bomber Germaine Lindsay, spent two years working for the deadly extremist organisation in South Africa using a false name. Investigators in Britain and Kenya have now established that the Home Counties mother-of-four has been working with a key British-born bomb maker who had trained with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Lewthwaite's role was to channel money raised in the UK and elsewhere to terror cells in Somalia. A security source said: 'We are now clearer about the role Lewthwaite has been playing for Al Qaeda and her links with this bomb maker. 'She seems to have spent two years building up a network that spans the UK, South Africa, Pakistan and Somalia.' Lewthwaite, 29, a soldier's daughter from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, has been on the run in East Africa after police foiled a Christmas bomb plot against Western tourist targets in the Indian Ocean coastal resort of Mombasa in 2011. Police now believe she has been working with experienced Al Qaeda bomb maker Habib Ghani. Sources said Ghani, from Hounslow, West London, gained bomb-making experience in Pakistan. He is understood to have a Pakistani father and a Kenyan mother and left Britain several years ago. Lewthwaite fled with her young children and was initially thought to have crossed the border into lawless Somalia where she was being sheltered by Al Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab. However, there have been recent reports she may have returned to Mombasa. A Kenyan police source said: 'We believe she is back in Mombasa but because she wears a full Muslim veil, she is difficult to spot. We have identified her as a blue-eyed woman in a hijab and believe she is active on Twitter and still working as a fundraiser for Al Shabaab.' In December 2011, she was arrested and let go in mysterious circumstances after Kenyan police picked up her British accomplice Jermaine Grant close to a make-shift bomb factory. Grant, 30, from Brixton, south London, and Lewthwaite were both charged with possessing bomb-making materials and of planning to cause loss of 'innocent civilian lives'. He will briefly appear in court on Mombasa on Wednesday. Last month, Scotland Yard anti-terror officers were due to fly to Kenya to give evidence in Grant's trial. But police received a tip-off that Lewthwaite and other Al Shabaab terrorists were planning to attack the court and free him, so his trial will now take place in a high-security court inside a prison. Lewthwaite, who also uses the Muslim name Sherafiyah, converted to Islam at the age of 17 and married Lindsay in 2002 after meeting him on the internet. She was seven months' pregnant when Lindsay, a Jamaican convert from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, killed 26 people when he blew himself up on a Piccadilly Line train in July 2005. British security services have so far failed to explain how she slipped off the radar, travelled to East Africa on a stolen passport, and became, as police believe, an integral member of Al Shabaab. Since her disappearance, Lewthwaite has been linked to a spate of grenade attacks in Mombasa, including one on a packed pub last year which killed three people, including a nine-year-old boy. There are also reports she is using Twitter to bolster support for an all-female suicide squad in East Africa. She is known as 'dada mzungu' - Swahili for white sister - and is described as serving 'Allah as his female soldier' and who 'commands her all-female mujahid terror squad and conducts operations against the kuffar '. Grant is also facing charges for trying to sneak into Somalia disguised as a Muslim woman in 2008. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc7_1368520744 english-patriot33 White Widow is connected to British-born Al Qaeda bomb maker islam, muslims, terrorists, pedophiles, outlaw islam, Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:44:32 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b7_1367304183 absu69 April 29 (Reuters) - Tens of millions of U.S. dollars in cash were delivered by the CIA in suitcases, backpacks and plastic shopping bags to the office of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for more than a decade, the New York Times says, citing current and former advisers to the Afghan leader. The so-called "ghost money" was meant to buy influence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but instead fuelled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the newspaper quoted U.S. officials as saying. "The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan", one American official said, "was the United States." The CIA declined to comment on the report and the U.S. State Department did not immediately comment. The New York Times did not publish any comment from Karzai or his office. "We called it 'ghost money'," Khalil Roman, who served as Karzai's chief of staff from 2002 until 2005, told the New York Times. "It came in secret and it left in secret." There was no evidence that Karzai personally received any of the money, Afghan officials told the newspaper. The cash was handled by his National Security Council, it added. In response to the report, Karzai told reporters in Helsinki after a meeting with Finnish leaders that the office of the National Security Council had been receiving support from the U.S. government for the past 10 years. He said the amounts had been "not big" and the funds were used for various purposes including assistance for the wounded. "It's multi-purpose assistance," he said, without commenting on the report's claims the funds fuelled corruption and empowered warlords. However, Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Janan Mosazai told reporters in Kabul that there was no proof or evidence to back up the claims in the story. For more than a decade the cash was dropped off every month or so at the Afghan president's office, the New York Times said. Handing out cash has been standard procedure for the CIA in Afghanistan since the start of the war. The cash payments to the president's office do not appear to be subject to oversight and restrictions placed on official American aid to the country or the CIA's formal assistance programmes, like financing Afghan intelligence agencies, and do not appear to violate U.S. laws, said the New York Times. U.S. and Afghan officials familiar with the payments were quoted as saying that the main goal in providing the cash was to maintain access to Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the CIA's influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan's highly centralised government. Much of the money went to warlords and politicians, many with ties to the drug trade and in some cases the Taliban, the New York Times said. U.S. and Afghan officials were quoted as saying the CIA supported the same patronage networks that U.S. diplomats and law enforcement agents struggled to dismantle, leaving the government in the grip of organised crime. Nahid Fareed, a member of parliament from western Herat province, who usually supports Karzai's government, said the claims in the story represented a "serious issue". "Any hidden money that the palace receives from indirect channels, such as spy agencies, notably the CIA, is against national interest and is treason," Fareed told Reuters. In 2010, Karzai said his office received cash in bags from Iran, but that it was a transparent form of aid that helped cover expenses at the presidential palace. He said at the time that the United States made similar payments. The latest New York Times report said much of the Iranian cash, like the CIA money, went to pay warlords and politicians. For most of Karzai's 11-year reign, there has been little interest in anti-corruption in the army or police. The country's two most powerful institutions receive billions of dollars from donors annually but struggle just to recruit and maintain a force bled by high rates of desertion. (Additional reporting by Alistair Bell and Sarah Lynch in Washington; Hamid Shalizi and Mirwais Harooni in Kabul; Writing by Michael Perry; Editing by Mark Bendeich and Neil Fullick) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/cia-bribes-karzai-millions-ghost-money-paid-afghanistan-president-new-york-times_n_3176956.html?utm_hp_ref=world http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b7_1367304183 absu69 CIA Bribes Karzai: Millions In 'Ghost Money' Paid To Afghanistan President's Office, New York Times Reports cia,cash,afghanista,zarzai,tax,money Mon, 06 May 2013 07:26:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ff_1367839330 LostRothschild I know it's a lot of reading. If you're not concerned about pro or anti gun laws, don't read it. If you are then it is pertinent and well worth the read. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it's all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality. To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we're still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come. Where the media really didn't care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can't distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you'll find in news today. But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can't afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation. We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I'm fine with that; they're the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don't. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily's Opinion section. It's been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It's all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don't have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns. Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, "you should write a column about that!" I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the "gun guy" by some folks who use such terms as epithets. The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I'm as much of a "gun expert" as you're likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won't bore you with my "gun resume," but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too. Today, however, I'm going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more - and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily. No experience necessary In the gun debate, I've discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn't seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I've often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don't think so; at least, I think I'm pretty normal. Sure, we've got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does. But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too - people so normal that nobody knows they're gun people until they're told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip. That is to say, there's a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to. I've come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can't have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we're the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can't get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being. You might think that's hyperbole too, but I've experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register's own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere. Hell, it's even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me). Liberals always make the common plea, "We need to get some experts to solve this problem!" for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner - people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they've seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn't stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner. How can we "gun people" honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust - even just a little - before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue. Death by a thousand cuts Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don't trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it's actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they "respect the Second Amendment" and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don't trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren't so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn't have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that "little book" called the Constitution. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won't tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don't trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a "task force" to "solve" the so-called "gun problem," who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don't want to ban guns, only enact what they call "common sense gun laws." But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal - proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don't shine. If it ain't good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain't good enough for us right now. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don't trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don't. We know because we know ourselves and we're not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and "saving children" is why they want to ban so-called "assault weapons." Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there's a lot of gun control to see the possible connection). Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their "We need gun control to save the children" argument, many of us can't understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I'm personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman's individual rights. That's great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense. Truth, treason and the empire of lies Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don't trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns - a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don't trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don't count in the crime rate, but they're held against us as if they do. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too. We don't trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned - ridiculous "gun-free zones" which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they're a bigger problem than they really are. We don't trust anti-gunners because they're busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment - a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don't trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like "just another dumb redneck with a gun." We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don't trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are "bitter" and "cling to our guns and religion." One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn't commit. We don't trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed - and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal - just like killing people with guns is illegal too. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they're fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they're against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards -and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don't trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren't important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford. A dangerous servant and fearful master Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don't trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists' muskets and powder. Since the shot heard 'round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don't trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don't understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions - or at least, ones of which they don't personally approve. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protects radio, television, movies, video games, the Internet, domain names, Facebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else. Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You're screwed under liberal logic, too. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services - things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own - they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don't trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don't trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America's modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other "undesirables." Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don't trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the "ATF"). We don't trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis Katona, Patty and Paul Mueller, John Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of the dozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn't help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunner Andrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF's "Good Ol' Boys Roundup," "Project Gunrunner" scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don't trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it's not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don't trust anti-gunners because they're too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren't there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren't there, and asked God why we couldn't have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world's distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference? Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call "sheepdogs" and we're proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us "cowboys" and "wannabes" for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one's own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them. Do unto others No, anti-gunners, we don't trust you. And you've given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you're sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars. We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars. So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks? Anti-gunners label people like me "gun nuts" even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn't define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish - including the very same ones anti-gunners do too - like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don't understand guns, they don't understand crime, they don't understand American history and traditions, they don't understand gun owners and don't care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they've got no clue about. Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity. I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being. I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I'd perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice. And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years - roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal! An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV - or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree - and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we're just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what's best for America. You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America's oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America's young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war - a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one. Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing - an argument often used against us pro-gunners - but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn't help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs? The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now. Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it's too late. Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns - but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time. We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won't come to the table to talk with you. And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn't beat their swords into plowshares. Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ff_1367839330 LostRothschild Why I don't trust anti-gun people. 2, 2nd, second, amendment, gun, firearm, rights, constitution, tyranny, freedom