wrong (and stupid) again bobbo!

The son is the winner here.

We already know you're a homophobe. Don't try to whitewash it.

There is no statute of limitations in the offense of the First degree (premeditated) murder by Federal agents of Randy Weaver's wife and son in 1992. Justice has not been served yet.
I sent the following message to Idaho Governor Butch Otter via both is Facebook page and via a direct link to his state website. I'd like to challenge all of you to do the same. Just copy & paste everything below the line. His contact information is at the bottom.
---------------------------------------------------
Remembering the Real Story of Ruby Ridge Idaho - August 21 1992
From >> [url redacted]
Uncovering government corruption at Ruby Ridge
According to FBI Grand Jury Testimony, US Marshals were involved in the cover up, the media, and the story from the Weaver's perspective...

Today, you are considered an "extremist" by the ADL and SPLC if you think the actions taken here by the Federal Government were out of hand. For the first time in US history, the FBI was given permission from cabinet members of the George HW Bush administration to change their Rules of Engagement to, "can and should shoot to kill" effectively rendering the US Constitution useless. A young boy was shot in the back and killed by US Marshals, and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi later shot and killed Vicky Weaver while she was unarmed and holding her 10 month old baby in her arms. This incident serves as an educational tool to all Americans on just how useless our coveted Constitution is to the Federal Government when you cross them. I do not endorse violence towards the Federal Government. This is simply the closest I could come to the real truth without media/Government disinformation.

You have to ask yourself, even in this age of information, why is it so hard to find the truth about Ruby Ridge?

See the following links for more information:
[url redacted]

The Preliminary Hearings of Weaver and Harris -
[url redacted]

New York Times Propaganda -
[url redacted]

DOJ Whitewashing and Final Report on FBI wrongdoing -[url redacted]

Idaho vs Randy Weaver
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. IDAHO
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.IDAHO
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2001 5, 2001 No. 99-71081. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI June 5, 2001 No. 98 30163. SILVER SAGE PARTNERS LTD
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2000 No. 96-50297. IDAHO v.
HORIUCHI June 14, 2000
No. 98-70772. VAN GERWEN v. GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY ERISA
[url redacted]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER
[url redacted]

SPLC and Spokesman Review Propaganda 20 years later
[url redacted]

I have a friend who was a Deputy United States Marshall at that time. He wasn't involved with Ruby Ridge, but he knew 2 agents who were. He told me:

"I knew two of the guys in the woods that weaver's son engaged. It was a mess from the start. If the dog would not have smelled the surveillance team nothing would have happened that day. It all ended badly. Stupid ATF case was bad from the start. Weaver would have been acquitted if he would have just gone back to court. Travesty of bad decisions all around."

The fact remains that it wasn't Randy Weaver's fault he didn't make it to the court appearance. It was all due to an intended snafu on the part of the Feds. They set him up to murder him and his family with extreme prejudice!

At the Nuremberg trials: Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders".

In my opinion, the officers involved should be charged with first degree murder, and those who assisted the operation should be charged and tried as accessories to first degree murder. Until this happens, we will never again be "One nation under God." This travesty screams for justice!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video and this blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law

If we are ever going to get anyone to open the case again and get these murderers charged and tried for their crimes against Americans, we need to raise public awareness of the facts involved. The best way to do it is to get as many people as possible to share the link below or copy & paste it and post it in as many places as possible. I would also suggest you copy and paste the link and send it to every state legislator and the current governor of Idaho.

[url redacted]

To send Idaho Governor Butch Otter a link to this story, click on the link below:
[url redacted]

Governor Otter's Facebook "Page"
[url redacted]

You know what buggers the hell out of me?

This country's most important company (# of jobs, very high wages, etc) is right on the edge of tax fraud. They pay a metric fuckton in absolute terms, but their real tax rate has been decreasing for years, mostly through offshore shenanigans. It's too bloody low to not get pissed at them, yet still too high to get people to call them out on it. Also, they manage to whitewash their image by having just about the highest entry level wages in the country, which shields them from any sort of substantial criticism.

That's interesting because the Mormon stance on homosexuality is quite opposed to it

But anyway, bam!

http://videosift.com/video/GOP-Lawmaker-Regrets-Voting-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage

and bam! (could have sworn this Rob Portman bit was on the sift, but couldn't find it)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/

I remember these two quite vividly because both flipped because they apparently had relatives that turned out to be gay and we were making fun of the common trope of how conservatives don't change their minds until it's something that directly affects them.

and also, depending on how you look at it, Barack Obama. at the very least he was neutral on support for same sex until relatively recently.

And these are just the ones I know about because they were on the sift recently. I'm not even counting the rabid anti-gay politicians who turned out to BE homosexual. While they may not have flipped necessarily, it renders any anti-gay stance from them extremely hypocritical.

so..it's already happened...and will happen more. I'm sure a lot will probably not technically flip...they just suddenly won't pursue any anti-gay agenda anymore and try to whitewash any anti-gay statements they may have made.

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

That is much more honest a commercial than I was expecting. I'm sure there may have been a little whitewashing. I'm sure if you go into a McDonald's with a camera crew and let them know you are the director of marketing for McDonalds Canada you are going to get a pretty well made burger. But all in all, this was much more straightforward than I expected. And they have received +1 goodwill.

Hurray! Canada gets rid of the penny!

- We also got rid of 19,200 jobs! (1)
- Increased the retirement age to 67 years old for eligibility to receive pensioners. (2)
- Slashed funding to the elections Canada (on the eve of investigations into election fraud!) /Source.
- Scaled back of youth programs including the elimination of the Katimavik work exchange program.
- The news organization most capable of reporting on government actions and fraud is severely cut. (3)

And, it spite of all the cuts due to overspending, we're still committed to purchasing several F-35 JSF "White Elephants" from war profiteers, Lockheed Martin. Link.
Canadians taxpayers are still paying 31 Billion to serve the INTEREST on outstanding debt to private banks. (4)
Universities continue to be so underfunded that 200,000 students protested in the streets of Montreal last month. (5)


(1) This would be equivalent of Obama suddenly eliminating about 180,000 public servant jobs in the United States if scaled for population.
(2) Except for politicians, who can still begin to receive their pension as early as 55 until after the next election. info!
(3) The CBC takes budget nosedive on the chin. Link.
(4) And who benefits from that interest payment? Surely not the same people who contribute to political campaigns!! Harper unwilling to actually cut spending.
(5) http://videosift.com/video/Montreal-Students-Protest-Timelapse-March-22-2012

But, hey, at least we got rid of the penny!!
Focus on the shiny coin!

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Sometimes???


The majority of the time then, haha. Totally. He endeared me to him a few times I remember, but I cannot recall how or why. Let's just whitewash the bastard

All the video says is that there's currently enough food. It suggests that fears of running out of land soon are unfounded.

It takes no position whatsoever on environmental destruction, which is the reason that overpopulation is a problem. With exponential growth, technology eventually won't be able to keep up, and environmental disaster will follow, eventually.

This smells of a whitewash as they don't even address the environmental issue. My guess is that this group is a reaction to something like Steady State Economy activism that has been gaining traction in the last few years, and which is antithetical to modern capitalism which relies on the assumption of a continuously growing consumer base.

I bet if you follow this group's money, you end up with a group of very rich men who stand to lose millions or billions of dollars if we turn away from the current winner-takes-all model and move towards a more forward-thinking cooperative economic model.

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

@GenjiKilpatrick I guess I should put this more bluntly, since you're just responding to me with slogans and talking points anyways. I don't want Ron Paul within a million miles of the Presidency. He is not even a slight match for me. He is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath.

The libertarian theory of governance is bunk. If all the government does is uphold absolute property rights, and enforce contract rights, then we don't all get more power, it means the wealthy people who own everything get more power, and the police just become their security guards.

The way I see it, nothing in this country will ever improve as long as this entire line of argument persists. The conversation we should be having is "what are the best government policies to move us forward" not this BS argument about whether government policies should exist at all.

Ron Paul exemplifies the worst aspects of the American right -- he whitewashes the past, and tries to bring old, failed, tyrannical, cruel policies from a century or more ago back to life, all the while trying to drape it in powdered wigs, the American flag, and cheese-covered freedom fries. But it's just snake oil. Hell, it's not just snake oil, it's fucking Soylent Green.

Have you ever looked at Ron Paul's personal copy of the Constitution? It's a cookbook! A cookbook!

@Diogenes, by "whitewash" I mean he's trying to make ugly antipathy towards blacks look like altruistic behavior towards blacks through dishonesty.

And while I largely agree with longde, I do have to point out that a big part of the proper context is that Newt was asked about the criticism he's receiving for saying:

"I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Newt then translates this into being attacked for "citing statistics," which is total hogwash. Specifically, hogwash that he's using to whitewash what he'd really said.

And I'll gladly cop to saying hyperbolic-sounding things, but that's because we're in a situation where outright insanity and hatred from a Presidential candidate gets them a standing ovation from the crowd, and most people think there's nothing to be concerned about.

Oh, and @bobknight33, it's racist to pretend that the NAACP (and black voters generally) are only demanding food stamps, and hadn't even considered the idea of demanding jobs.

Visit the NAACP website, you tell me, does it look like they're just looking for government handouts?

In case you're curious, here's what the NAACP said in response to Newt.

netrunner is right about the cause of the increase in foodstamp recipients

but... i also agree with bobknight - your last paragraph has a bit of hyperbole... he's not whitewashing - if anything, newt's words dig him a deeper hole with the left, and even some on the right... but there is a resonance of truth for many - putting things bluntly can be labeled 'racist' but it doesn't necessarily need to be so

imagine a hypothetical scenario wherein herman cain gives a stump speech to a predominately white crowd in a west virginia coal-mining community... he tells them to "stay in school" and stresses the importance of education in bettering one's station in life -- racist?

gingrich's broth of reasoning lacks a necessary dash of empathy to make the recipe for recovery more popularly favorful... that, imho, is why he won't get the nomination

>> ^moodonia:

Is that a fact that Obama put more people on food stamps or is it careful phrasing, rather than saying he gave more people access to food stamps?
Either way I dont see how giving people food is such a bad thing.


The way I'd relay the facts is that the economy started crashing in 2008 (before Obama was elected), and lots of people lost their jobs, and because lots of people lost their jobs there was a sharp increase in the number of people applying for food stamps.

Part of the stimulus bill in 2009 increased the benefits provided by SNAP (aka the "food stamp" program), and made unemployed adults without children eligible for benefits.

So the way I'd put it is "Obama saw more people needing food stamps, and made sure they got them, while also doing his best to fix the mess Wall Street made of the economy."

I think that's missing the forest for the trees though. This comment isn't really about food stamps. It's about floating several racist memes in the birthplace of the Civil War (South Carolina), and then trying to whitewash them as being "truth" or "common sense," even though they're neither true nor sensible.