Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:
1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name European Union will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.
By Thomas Lifson ... Obama is a seemingly nice guy, inspiring to some with his rhetoric of change and hope. And of course he is black. She can't really out-victim him. To switch metaphors, his victim card is a King, while hers is only a Queen. And being a sympathetic character to many, attacks on him, such as the accusation of little Barry being a kindergartener consumed with ambition to be president, have a way of backfiring on her.
It doesn't help at all that she is not at her best when straying from well-crafted talking points, as demonstrated by her inability to give a straight answer on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants under repeated debate questioning. She is simply not very experienced at responding to cross examination from the media or opponents. Hers has been a regal approach, and it worked until very recently.
Obama, in contrast, can be quick and even funny on occasion, as with his Des Moines debate wisecrack about hoping she will be his advisor. Her established repertoire of soundbites and poses has been falling flat, but she does not seem to come up with any new winners so far. The cackle gambit, introduced on Meet the Press, and then revived when baiting the intended trap for Obama in Des Moines with the question about ex-Clinton advisors on his team, has been a disaster...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Quite true that Hussein Obama is a great extemporaneous speaker. He has a deep, rich speaking voice. His experience as a lecturer in front of law school classes is serving him well. She, although a law dog also, never really practiced law. She did paperwork in law offices. This does not require quit wit as acquired when pleading to a jury, where a few skillful words and phrases can turn a proceeding totally around. So, Obama is much better in front of an audience. But, what about formulating policy ? This requires cold blooded consideration, especially when dealing with the likes of Putin, who has consolidated his iron grip in Russia. Obama thinks he can "reason" with everyone and things will be fine. Maybe look deep into his soul like G.W. So, maybe the little homemaker is a better bet in the long run.
#3
For a long time we got leaders from the Senate which means our leaders could verbally spar. Then we got leaders from the Governers mansions around the nation because they had executive experience but governors do not really debate so our leaders seemed a bit shallower, all we really got were sound-bites.
I think we need a combination of the two. We need politicians to set up a career track of becoming a Senator and then a Governor if they think they want to be President.
#4
"I think we need a combination of the two. We need politicians to set up a career track of becoming a Senator and then a Governor if they think they want to be President."
This points to the problem with W. Good on the vision thing, lousy on the communication thing.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/18/2007 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why does this man need a child, unless pedophilia is his thing? Why does his society condone it?
His society condones this barbarism because his religion/political ideology condones it.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/18/2007 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Why does this man need a child, unless pedophilia is his thing?"
Because all the 18 years olds are already married?
When humans are regarded as property, there is a market in humans. We call it slavery and just abolished it in the U.S. about 142 years ago. Islam treats half the population as property and, anchored in the 7th century, Islam will not abandon such practices easily.
Islam is intimately tied to Pedophilia. Its 'perfect man' was a pedophile, its holy book condones (even encourages) pedophilia and its the literal word of their [demented] god and therefore cannot be changed or re-interpreted. I'm sorry but a 9-year-old simply is not physically able to consumate a marriage.
#6
It's not clear from the article and accompanying text, but this child may be the first wife he could afford. In islam the graybeards get to lock up four wives apiece, leaving the young bucks to diddle little boys or go on jihad 'til they build up the extensive dowries and personal power necessary to get a wife. Young wives are the best 'cos they're pliable and more likely to survive giving birth multiple times.
#7
Surveys of five Afghan refugee camps on the Pakistan border of girls aged 8 to 13 indicate rates of marriage that exceed 50 percent, with the largest concentration of marriages occurring between 10 and 11 years.
The Taliban and their ideological brothers are fighting for sex with children. They know women with the vote, women who can read, women who are able to leave the house and drive cars and work will destroy their rape cult(ure).
#9
Nepal is either Hindu or Bhuddist, I can't recall. Child brides are common in India, too, at least in the lower classes. Same causes, mostly -- girls are a sunk cost to the family, and the men can't afford a wife until they've gotten much older. And, I believe, child brides are less expensive, because less well trained in the household arts, than those in their later teens.
Sadly, giving birth so young is exceedingly damaging to the girl's body, and many are ruined for life -- not just the female organs, but the bladder and other organs as well, so that the girl may well need diapers the rest of her life.
#11
TW, while what you write is correct, it is not really advisable to give birth after thirty, when the body has hardened. 17 or even earlier would be about right for the body to bounce back. However, our civilization is complex and requires many years to learn enough to master the civilization. Else, we could start families at around 17 and stop birthing around 27. I'm no doctor, but I was told all this by a woman who breeds dogs and cows with excellent results.
#14
As ascribed in IRAN-DAILY's article HAJ EMBODIES MUSLIM UNITY, Islam is once again indic or inferred as fighting its own internal
"backwardness" = LT self-oblivion/obsolescence. FAITHFUL MUSLIMS MUST BE ASKED, AGAIN, HOW THEIR RELIGION/FAITH WILL REFORM ITSELF, WITH NO VIOLENCE OR AT A MINIMA OF VIOLENCE AGZ NON-MUSLIMS AND ESPEC WITHIN ITSELF???
#15
Eighteen or twenty to before forty, wxjames -- some girls probably as young as sixteen. It's not just because of the significant increase in the chance of Down's Syndrome that a woman should avoid pregnancy after that if possible. But before a girl's body is fully grown, it isn't physically big enough for the burden of a grown fetus. Bitches and cows that are bred too young suffer from the same problem.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
YouTube may yet save us from the current PC nightmare.
Also pretty good agitprop.
Looks like the Left's Gramscian capture of the media is going to come badly unstuck. People are gravitating to sources they trust (to tell them what things means) and that aint the MSM.
Once the Founding Fathers had broken the chains of tyranny they realized that what stood before them was a task unequaled in history. Civilizations have always risen and fallen, usually due to the enlightened or misguided paths the leaders chose. Having set the stage for a new civilization guided by the ideals of personal responsibility, honor, and freedom, the men who cast off the oppressors of their time found that creating a nation bound by laws that prohibited a government that set itself apart from the people was a task not easily accomplished.
To express the difficulty they faced to future generations so that their intent and desires would not and could not be questioned, they documented much of their discussions. The prime example is of course the Federalist Papers. Notes from the First and Second Continental Congress provide insight as well. Though these documents do exist and are exquisitely detailed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, most American citizens do not know or understand what is contained within these historic pages. Sadly, while the technological knowledge base has increased over the centuries, the fundamental understanding of history and civic lessons of the past are being neglected, dooming the United States to follow other civilizations that fell to the burdensome weight of their governments. This lack of education is the leading culprit that places the United States in the dire position it now is.
Recent passage of laws such as the misleadingly named Patriot Act and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act has subtly eroded away the freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. The lack of public outcry to such travesties of justice and freedom is purely shocking.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/18/2007 10:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I want to make it clear that this was not written by me. I wish I had written it, but I did not. That said, while it is a far more well-ordered and thoughtful exposition than I could produce, I am in complete agreement with the observations and ideas expressed.
I am only passing it along so others might read it as well.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/18/2007 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Should that change, undoubtedly the citizens will come to understand what their forefathers knew at Concord, Lexington and not so long ago in Athens.
Please add Waco,Texas to the cities listed herein. Thank you Clinton, Reno, FBI, and BATF.
#4
Thank you PTAH. I fear we are not too far off from a national revolution based on an out of touch federal govt. I am not a hocus pocus believing type, but my mother who has been known to have some weird premonitions had one on the subject the other night. Like w/some of the others that panned out and some that didn't - I'll sit back but w/due vigilance....all enemies, foreign & domestic.
#5
Roger that, BH6. "...all enemies, foreign and domestic", indeed. Stand by.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/18/2007 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
It occured to me that everyone might not be familiar with the phrase invoked by BH6 and seconded by me. The phrase "... all enemies, foreign and domestic" is a kind of shorthand. It is from the oath taken upon enlistment or commissioning. To me, it is what counts.
Cribbing from the web:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
It is the only oath I have ever taken. It has no expiration date. It is an oath of permanent loyalty to the ideals of the Constitution and the chain of command that exists to defend it.
Probably too simply put, but I am a simple man. Honor, responsibility, duty.
There is a lot going on right now that is not visible or clear. Have faith in the basic honor and courage of your fellow Americans.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/18/2007 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Spot on Whiskey Mike.
We are the only mil force in the world (AFAIK) that swears to uphold an ideal. Gives me goose bumps everytime I've taken it and every time I've given the oath of office to a newly promoted officer or enlisted Marine.
Sometimes I worry that our govt will get so out of control that we will have to possibly push people out by gun point. Thank God for me posse comitatus won't put me in a position to hurt other Americans. I wouldn't mine throwing a few congresscritters out on their ears though.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
... Obama is a seemingly nice guy, inspiring to some with his rhetoric of change and hope. And of course he is black. She can't really out-victim him. To switch metaphors, his victim card is a King, while hers is only a Queen. And being a sympathetic character to many, attacks on him, such as the accusation of little Barry being a kindergartener consumed with ambition to be president, have a way of backfiring on her. 
