REPUBLICANS ARE MORE ETHICAL THAN DEMOCRATS!

Republicans more ethical than Democrats? That's a pretty low standard to set for public officials. And I doubt if it's true.

It is a low standard; but a very true statement.

Republicans more ethical than Democrats? That's a pretty low standard to set for public officials. And I doubt if it's true. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

CERTAINLY A LOW STANDARD, BUT NOT TRUE? DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT IT DIDN'T MATTER IF ROMNEY OR OBAMA WON?

Also, members of the Armed Forces do not, in fact, have unrestricted 1st Amendment rights. There are many thing civilians can do that members of the military would be punished for. This story shows the guy doing a fair amount of them. He is obviously allowed his political views....he can't bring them to work. He is allowed his religious beliefs...he just can't allow bias to affect his dealings with his subordinates. Nobody is persecuting him, he's just being crotchety to an extent that was demonstrably causing a breakdown in unit morale and cohesion. Originally Posted by quietcoolj

Don't confuse JD with facts. If I did not follow my boss's instructions and he fired me for say discussing politics with customers after being told not to...I could not fall back on the 1rst.

JD is supposed to be a teacher. How can he not know simple shit like this?

President Obama has said the outrage over the federal government’s decision to monitor citizens’ phone activity is all “hype.”


Ads by Google
Blog Professionally
Learn how to build an audience with Online Blogging and Journalism.
www.FullSail.edu/blogging
Military Service Records
Super Search: Your 1-stop shop for war & military records online
www.myheritage.com/Military_Records
He might want to share his opinion with the U.S. Air Force, which is ordering members of the service not to look at news stories about it.

WND has received an unclassified NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) that warns airmen not to look at news stories related to the data-mining scandal.

Want to know how and why America has so rapidly come to resemble the totalitarian society described by novelist George Orwell in “1984,” one characterized by universal surveillance? It’s all exposed in a special issue of Whistleblower magazine – titled “ONE NATION UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Big Brother is watching in ways Orwell never dreamed.”

The notice applies to users of the Air Force NIPRNET (Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network), which is the only way that many troops stationed overseas and on bases in the U.S. are able to access the Internet.

The last line of the executive summary states:

“Users are not to use AF NIPRNET systems to access the Verizon phone records collection and other related news stories because the action could constitute a Classified Message Incident.”

Cindy McGee, the mother of an airman stationed in the UAE, spoke with WND.

“The fact that our government is attempting to censor our service members from the truth of what is happening here at home is truly frightening and disheartening,” said McGee.

Her son received the same notice.

McGee continued, “I am outraged that our government is attempting to censor the information from our military that every citizen in this country is potentially being targeted by our government in a massive overreach of their constitutional powers by unconstitutional surveillance of all Americans and storage of that data.”

There have been a multitude of reports already on the latest exploding scandal of the Obama administration.

Last Wednesday, the Guardian broke the news of the top-secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all of its call data on an ongoing basis to the National Security Agency.

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the NSA and FBI are gathering data from the servers of nine U.S. Internet companies.

Then reports came out that there are 50 companies from which the government is collecting data.

During a press conference, the president dismissed what he called “hype” over the surveillance programs.

But concern over this broad surveillance is causing legislators to look into what they can do to enable more oversight of these operations.

The latest news detailing how the government keeps track of this massive amount of data and its origins was posted by the Guardian, for everyone in the world to read, except members of the Air Force.

See the memo:






Text smaller
Text bigger

The scandals are just non stop.....................

Obama: 'We Don't Want to Tax All Businesses Out of Business'
June 10, 2013 - 10:19 AM
By Elizabeth Harrington

President Barack Obama waves after arriving on Air Force One at Moffett Federal Airfield in Moffett Field, Calif., Thursday, June 6, 2013. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama says Democrats "don't want to tax all businesses out of business."

"I know that there are a few Republicans here in the audience," Obama said Friday at a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign in Palo Alto, Ca. "If you talk to us, it turns out we're pretty common-sense folks.

"We don't think government can do everything," he said. "We don't think that top-down solutions are the right way to go. We believe in the free market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations."

"We don't want to tax all businesses out of business," Obama said. "But we do think that there's a role to play for government."




The president's remarks came at a private residence during a fundraising tour last week for the 2014 midterm elections.

Obama has made similar statements in the past. When speaking about implementing a cap and trade system when running for president in 2008, Obama said he would bankrupt coal power plants.

The coal industry "would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are being placed, imposed every year," he said.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Obama said.

During the 2012 election campaign, Obama also drew criticism for a speech where he said, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

You know they would love to tax coal out of business...................... ..

But the problem with using taxes as a weapon is that it all falls on the Middle Class. Thus Obama's war on the Middle Class is inevitable.

Washington is preoccupied with the political decisions surrounding last year’s attack in Benghazi, but nine months later the who and why of the terrorist assault that left four Americans dead remains shrouded in mystery.
Some analysts say Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was the target, while others believe he may have been an opportunistic way to smoke out the location of a CIA compound in the eastern Libyan city. It’s not even clear whether the attack was long premeditated or whether it was a last-minute strike organized after Stevens was seen in town the afternoon of Sept. 11.
SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope
The FBI is investigating the attack in order to fulfill President Obama’s promise to “bring to justice the killers.” But no arrests have been made and only one suspect — a Tunisian since released from custody — has been interrogated.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. dodged the issue when asked about progress last month at a congressional hearing.
“I can’t be definitive other than to say that the investigation is ongoing,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, though he said that the FBI has made “definitive” and “concrete” steps in the inquiry and that “we will be prepared shortly, I think, to reveal all that we have done.”
The FBI has refused to comment during the weeks since, although media reports suggest that the bureau has identified five men as potential suspects in the Benghazi attack.
One man, 28-year-old Tunisian Ali Harzi, was detained briefly by Tunisian authorities early this year. FBI agents reportedly interviewed him, but he was then released and the bureau declined to comment on whether his name was cleared.
The FBI also declined to comment on reports that it has been unsuccessful in gaining access to a second person, Muhammad Jamal Ahmad, the leader of an Egypt-based jihadist network who has been detained by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-led government since December.
In early May, the FBI posted to its website photos of three men taken from security cameras that recorded footage at the Benghazi diplomatic post during the attack.
With no clear explanation of who the three men are, or what their specific motivations were in carrying out the attack, the grainy images seem to symbolize the elusive and uncertain threat posted by Islamic extremism and its evolving terrorist networks across North Africa.
A ‘perfect storm’
Sources said the FBI has set up an office in Tripoli to oversee the Benghazi probe but that investigators have struggled from the start because of reduced U.S. intelligence and diplomatic footprint in Libya after the attack.
Agents have had trouble even getting to the crime scene because of lawlessness in eastern Libya. The country’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies, born out of the chaos surrounding the 2011 ouster of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, haven’t been able to be of much help.
Counterterrorism analysts, foreign policy insiders and former officials, however, say the FBI has settled on a broad conclusion: The attacks were carried out by a combination of militants with varying degrees of connection to three Islamist groups: Ansar al-Sharia, the Muhammad Jamal network, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
“I’ve looked at this pretty carefully,” said Seth G. Jones, who worked on counterterrorism campaigns with U.S. Special Operations Command prior to his current position as an international security analyst at the Rand Corp.
“My understanding,” said Mr. Jones, “is that members of Ansar al-Sharia, the Mohamed Jamal Network and AQIM came together and conducted the attack against the building in Benghazi.”
Of the three suspected groups, only AQIM, as it’s known in intelligence circles, is listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. But operatives from all three are believed to have participated in a series of terrorist assaults on Western interests in Benghazi during the months leading up to the storming of the U.S. diplomatic post and CIA house in the city.
Dozens of foreign fighters linked to the multinational AQIM, and to the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network — whether from Egypt, Tunisia, or elsewhere in North Africa — arrived in Benghazi in 2011 as part of a regional jihadist push to overthrow Gadhafi. Many stayed on following his ouster and began working with operatives from Ansar al-Sharia, a local group long advocating for the implementation of Islamist law in Libya.
The timing of the Benghazi attacks, analysts say, cannot be overstated. In addition to falling on the 11th anniversary of the attacks on Washington and New York, the assault occurred as the world’s major television news outlets were broadcasting images of protesters storming U.S. embassies in Egypt and Tunisia. That set the stage for what one former official described as a “perfect storm” in Benghazi.
But that still doesn’t answer the question of whether the attack was truly premeditated and carefully orchestrated, or whether it was a spontaneous outbreak of the anti-Western Islamic militancy gripping Benghazi.
No claim of responsibility
Among the most vexing aspects of the investigation is that none of three groups suspected of involvement has claimed responsibility.
“Al Qaeda has no issue with claiming responsibility for attacks, so you would think that if they were the ones who did it, they would say something,” said Aaron Zelin, a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who specializes in combing Islamist websites for terrorism-related chatter.
AQIM issued a statement on Sept. 18 — a week afterward — praising the attack, but did not claim credit for planning or executing it. Another statement around the same time, attributed to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also did not claim responsibility.
Investigators have given significant attention to a video message circulated on Sept. 10 in which al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri called for attacks on Americans in Libya to avenge the killing of a senior al Qaeda operative by U.S. drone strike in Pakistan last year.
Some analysts have argued the Zawahri video proves al Qaeda’s involvement because it surely would have trickled digitally down to AQIM operatives during the hours prior to the attack.
But that ignores a subsequent message put out by Zawahri roughly a month after the attack where he made only passing reference to Benghazi, and notably avoided claiming responsibility for it.
In the hours immediately after the attack, State Department officials sent emails referencing a Facebook posting that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility. But that posting has never materialized publicly and Mr. Zelin, who keeps a scrupulous record of every digital move by Ansar al-Sharia, believes State Department officials erred.
“All the stuff in those emails from the State Department, they got wrong,” he said. “They weren’t looking at the actual official Facebook page of Ansar al-Sharia because there was not a posting on the official page until a day later.”
Mr. Zelin said the only posting made by Ansar al-Sharia stated outright that the group “as military did not participate formally and not by direct orders” in the attack.
He said such precise wording may suggest low-level members in the group were involved but that the attack was not planned or orchestrated by Ansar al-Sharia leadership.
One former U.S. official said Mr. Stevens‘ popularity among the wider public in Benghazi may have factored into decisions to avoid claiming responsibility for his death. A local group such as Ansar al-Sharia, the former official said, might fear backlash from the public if it was seen to be bragging about the popular ambassador’s death.
The ‘smoke out’ theory
With no claim of responsibility, authorities have struggled to identify the goal of the attack.
Sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, some with close ties to FBI investigators but not authorized to speak officially on the matter, said one major question is whether the attackers knew ahead of time the location of the CIA house, which was roughly a mile and a half away and which came under assault after the diplomatic compound.
One possibility is that an American armored car that fled from the diplomatic compound to the CIA house inadvertently led the attackers.
A more vexing prospect, one source said, is that the CIA house was the actual “end target” and the militants attacked the diplomatic post to “smoke out” the CIA location. That theory draws on a series of details divulged by senior State Department officials during an Oct. 9 background call with reporters.
During the call, one senior official explained how a “quick reaction security team” of “agents” had driven from the CIA house to the diplomatic post in an attempt to rescue Mr. Stevens and others.
After failing to find the ambassador in the smoke-filled compound, the agents piled back into their vehicle and drove back to the CIA house, facing heavy fire along the way.
Driving with two flat tires, the agents at one point careened the vehicle over “a grassy median and into opposing traffic,” the senior official said. They proceeded to weave “counterflow” through oncoming cars before making it back to the CIA house.
The vehicle’s action-packed course would have been highly visible to militants.
The source who outlined the “smoke out” theory said it was notable that the militants left Stevens‘ body behind at the burning diplomatic post. Had he been the end target, the militants surely would have gone back to make sure he was dead.
The attackers even could have seen Stevens the hour before the assault. According to one of the senior officials who spoke with reporters during that Oct. 9 briefing, the ambassador escorted a Turkish official with whom he had been meeting to an area “out in the street” beyond the external gate of the diplomatic post.
The source who laid out the “smoke out” theory said the militants could have been monitoring Stevens prior to the attack. His presence at the diplomatic post would be required in order to ensure that officials from the CIA house would come rushing to the rescue once fire had been set to the post.
“The folks moving through Benghazi with ties to AQIM, they’ve been around for a while,” said the source. “They would be competent in some basic tradecraft, and really what they would be trying to do is track Stevens to find the CIA location, maybe just to conduct countersurveillance.”
Or opportunism?
Mr. Jones, the Rand Corp. analyst, said it was more likely that the attack was one of opportunity.
The militants who carried out the attack, he said, “decided to take action when they did because of a few factors, including the Ayman al-Zawahri comment about avenging the death of a former al Qaeda commander, and then particularly in response to news that the U.S. Embassy was being overrun in Cairo.”
“These kinds of organizations did have plans for attacks, but I’m not sure if they had a plan for that particular day,” he said. “They probably just pulled some stuff off the shelf and implemented that day.”
But that is not to say the attack was entirely spur-of-the-moment.
“They have to put together sources, plots, locations, some reconnaissance. In some cases, the plots are imminent and discussed in detail,” said Mr. Jones. “In some cases, you just may get a window of opportunity that you can quickly pull one off.”

And the Obama DOS still won't release the names of the Benghazi victims so they can be interviewed by the press and Congressional investigators.

Nope. Didn't matter a whit.

Hundreds of women in India have been forced to undergo virginity and pregnancy tests ahead of a mass marriage ceremony.

Up to 450 women were subjected to the testing in the tribal district of Betul before the ceremony, organised by the Madhya Pradesh government.

Madhya Pradesh is the second largest state in India with over 75 million inhabitants. It is home to a large tribal population, which has been largely cut off from mainstream development.

The Mukhyamantri Kanyadan Yojna ceremony is paid for by the government and helps women from poor families to marry. It provides brides with household items to the value of 9,000Rs (£100).

However, women at the Harad village were made to undergo pregnancy and virginity tests - allegedly on government orders.

FOLLOW IBTIMES
According to the Times of India, minutes before the weddings were due to take place, the women were told they had to go through the tests if they wanted to be eligible for the scheme.

Two district health workers conducted the tests. One worker, Durga Malviva, told media that the examinations had been conducted because of suspicions that some women were pregnant.

The government allegedly believed that already married women take part in the ceremony to get the gifts.

Nine women were found to be pregnant, according to reports, and they were banned from taking part in the ceremony.


Grooms on their way to mass marriage ceremony in Madhya Pradesh (Reuters)
Government officials denied that virginity test were conducted but said some couples were barred because they were taking part in the ceremony under false pretences.

Rajest Prasad Mishra, Betul district collector, said: "I have given the orders to probe the complaints on alleged virginity and pregnancy tests conducted on would-be-brides."

The Madhya Pradesh government has been accused before of ordering virginity tests at its mass weddings.

In 2009, more than 150 women were allegedly tested on government orders. Reports said women had to queue up for the physical examination before being given a badge allowing them to participate in the wedding.

Girija Vyas, chairperson of the Indian National Commission for Women, said: "Such a shameful act where girls had to reportedly undergo tests to prove their chastity to avail the government's financial aid were sinful and could not be tolerated in a sane society."

Nope. Didn't matter a whit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

you are an immoral moron..........

you just love negative attention so you look to disagree all the time even if you don't believe what you post........

we toss your sorry ass to the liberal filth to ass rape and ravish....

you scum..........

It's funny; the gay community embraces this kind of tolerance............. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

.









You do realize that abortion and anal sex are liberal sacraments? The liberals are very religious. They bring their "helping the poor" religious beliefs right into government............









.

You are a ungrateful cock sucker Hanoi has been sticking up for your sorry ass.