BESTSALVIA.INFO

What drives the Democrats ?Article Last Updated:05/02/2007 11:56:39 AM PDTLEGISLATION passed by congressional Democrats would force United States troops to abandon Iraq beginning Oct. 1. Though a veto was foreordained, the vote was great news for the jihadis in Iraq, their second such morale boost in a week. On April 19, Senate majority leader Harry Reid had run up a white flag, declaring that "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything" — music to the ears of al-Qaida and its allies.Why is the Democratic Party so wedded to defeat in Iraq? What drives its determination to see this war end in American failure?The most generous explanation is that Democrats genuinely believe that Iraq will be better off with the Americans gone — that removing US troops will eliminate the catalyst of al-Qaida's butchery.But as Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman pointed out that "in each of these places where US forces pulled back, al-Qaida rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became ... islands of fear and violence."Some Democrats are clearly motivated by ideological conviction. There may be some on the party's leftmost fringe who would welcome a US defeat on the grounds that the only good superpower is a humbled superpower. There are certainly Democrats in Congress, such as Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich, who almost always oppose any use of military force on principle.And then there are those who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq or in the larger conflict against radical jihadism. The reality of this struggle — that we are in an existential war with a totalitarian enemy that celebrates death and cannot be appeased — is too bleak and hopeless. They would rather escape into an alternate reality, one in which Americans can choose to end the war by quitting the battlefield.But in the end there is no escaping that for many Democrats, this is all about politics. Both President Bush and the war in Iraq are unpopular, and the Democratic leadership hopes to capitalize by opposing both of them."We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," Reid said candidly at an April 12 news conference. "Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding." To which Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, added: "The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle. ... They are looking extinction in the eye." He spoke those words, Congressional Quarterly observed, "making no attempt to hide his glee."That glee is very telling. It would be one thing for lawmakers to conclude regretfully that America's campaign in Iraq has failed and that bringing the troops home is the least bad option left. Were that the case, voting to pull the plug would be a sad and painful duty, one no member of Congress would carry out with "glee."Yet when the House of Representatives voted last month to force a withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats were jubilant."Many House Democrats stayed on the floor, reveling in their victory," reported The Hill on March 23. "House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey and Representative John Murtha hugged each other while a smiling (majority leader Steny) Hoyer shook every hand he could find. ... (majority whip James) Clyburn joked with members as (Speaker Nancy) Pelosi kissed and hugged her colleagues."The New York Times noted that in conversations with "dozens" of Democrats, Pelosi's argument for the bill was overtly political: "Did they want a headline saying, 'Congress is standing up to President Bush,' or 'Congress gives President Bush free rein?'Senator John McCain, adamantly supporting the current "surge" in Iraq, says he would rather lose a presidential campaign than a war. Democrats, all smiles, prefer to lose the war and win the campaign. They're not alone. In Iraq, al-Qaida is smiling, too.Jeff Jacoby (jacoby@globe.com) writes for the Boston Globe.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20440.htmFrom the Above URL.Law Professor: Counter Terrorism Czar Told Me There Is Going To Be An Internet-9/11 And An Internet-Patriot Act:Amazing revelations have emerged concerning already existing government plans to overhaul the way the internet functions in order to apply much greater restrictions and control over the web. Lessig also revealed there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an Internet-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.There’s going to be an Internet-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an Internet-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said “of course there is”.***************************************Read the rest of the article - watch the video.What are you going to do about it?They’re going to censor the internet.They’re going to take it away.What are you going to do?What can we do?To people who think the government is not trying to regulate the Internet? That his is a hoax, pull your head out of the sand, or burry yourself completely. You’re going down.

IF YOU ANSWERED THE FIRST TIME, PLEASE DISREGARD.Article Launched:11/ 02/2006 12:00:00 AM MST Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico's proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border creates a unique environment in which immigrant-smuggling operations can easily change into abusive, exploitative human trafficking, experts said Wednesday at an El Paso conference. Victims of human trafficking -- who often are manipulated into forced labor, prostitution, sex tourism and pornography -- are typically reluctant to come forward for fear of deportation, recriminations from their trafficker or insecurity about admitting they are victims, experts said. "The difficult aspect of this is actually identifying the victims," said Paul Piñon, coordinator of the El Paso Human Trafficking Task Force and an organizer of the two-day conference titled "Human Trafficking: Working Together to End Modern-Day Slavery." The conference continues today. About 300 representatives of law enforcement agencies and social service organizations, such as the Salvation Army and the Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services, attended the third annual conference. Piñon detailed several cases in the El Paso area that illustrated crimes possibly related to human trafficking and indicative of the close association of human trafficking and immigrant smuggling. In one case, police charged two men in October 2005 with unlawful transport for holding an 18-year-old man and an 18-year-old pregnant woman against their will after they had crossed the border into the United States near Fabens. In another case, police in February this year recovered a 15-year-old Salvadoran girl during an undercover sting operation at the Downtown Greyhound bus station. Her alleged kidnapper tried to hold her in exchange for a $5,500 ransom, Piñon said. Though local figures were unavailable, officials at the conference Wednesday conference speculated that trafficking in the region is rising and cited a Department of State estimate that about 18,000 people are trafficked annually in the United States. The FBI estimates that human trafficking generates about $9 billion in profit each year. "During the past few years, we have seen an increase in trafficking in this area, but they're difficult to investigate because victims don't want to cooperate," said Michelle Arriaga, a graduate student who presented a report on local efforts to curb the crime. "If they're in constant fear of being deported, it's very difficult for them to be willing to participate or discuss what's happened to them."Jennifer Romero, a victim specialist for the FBI in El Paso, said that victims often experience debilitating psychological abuse at the hands of the trafficker, who lures them with the promise of good jobs and assistance navigating through the U.S. immigration process, she said. Human traffickers use coercion and control, sometimes depriving victims of basic necessities and using long-term manipulation to instill enough fear and doubt to prevent them from reporting to authorities, she said. Victims then can be forced into jobs that are illicit and illegal, such as prostitution and sex tourism. "Screw with the mind, and the body will follow," she said. Darren Meritz may be reached at dmeritz@elpasotimes .com; 546-6127.Spretty, I stated at the beginning of this question: "if you have already answered, please disregard." However, thanks for not being a smartaleck.

Here are some statistics from just Nigeria, and that is only one country in the African continent:"In Nigeria the restored gospel took root spontaneously in the two decades before it was formally preached in that country. From the 1950s on, some Nigerians learned about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through magazine articles and acquired Church literature. Groups of people began meeting unofficially in the Church's name. Through the years, some of them wrote to Church headquarters requesting missionaries. Glen G. Fisher, returning from service as South Africa Mission President, visited Nigeria in 1960 and reported that the groups were sincere. Attempts to send missionaries, however, were thwarted because visas were unavailable. The 1978 revelation on the priesthood, allowing all worthy males of any race to hold the priesthood, was the catalyst for the start of missionary work in Nigeria. two couples were sent to Nigeria as special representatives of the Church's International Mission. The first baptized member was one of those who had waited many years for the coming of the missionaries. In 1987, less than 10 years after the Church's establishment in Nigeria, membership approached 10,000. In January of 1997, when the Africa Area of the Church baptized its 100,000th member, membership in Nigeria had reached 30,300, the highest of any nation in the Africa Area. In February 1998, 12,000 members met in Port Harcourt at a regional conference presided over by Gordon B. Hinckley, the President of the Church.So my question is, do you still think the LDS Church excludes blacks? Or you just don't know a black member?