Would you buy this stock with this trend line and with NO good news in the future … ONLY bad news!
The answer should be obvious … Just say NO!
Buy stock in the CIA. When all this is over Eric Holder, Obami and Dems are going to have egg all over their face sending Obami’s stock plummeting even more.
Mr. Helgerson describes how the CIA collaborated with the Pentagon, the Justice Department and even outside experts to develop specific guidelines for 10 enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that passed legal muster. The enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) “would be used on ‘an as needed basis’ and all would not necessarily be used. Further, the EITs were expected to be used ‘in some sort of escalating fashion’ . . .” The agency had psychologists evaluate al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, to ensure he would not suffer physical or long-term mental harm.
…
Congress also knew about it. The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims that she wasn’t told about all this. “In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . .” Ditto in September 2003.
Both say they are protecting Americans constitutional rights. Well that is half true. Both do protect some American but mostly non-American rights. That’s cool … no problem.
Jack thinks they shouldn’t be able to flat out lie about being civil rights advocates for Americans though.
Do a search for CAIR and ACLU on Google and see whom they are taking to court in almost every totally frivolous case they file. Some even said to be setups to get their case in court.
CNN) — Michigan’s Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday allowing lower state courts to “exercise reasonable control” over the appearance of witnesses and parties, a rule change proposed after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.
A niqab is a garment that covers the entire face and head, except for the eyes.
The order allows courts “reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses” so as to “ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person.”
The order, which amends a rule of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, is effective September 1.
The amendment was prompted by a 2006 small claims case in Michigan filed by Ginnah Muhammad, who wore a niqab — a garment that covers the entire face and head, except for the eyes — to court, the order said.
Now you are thinking … Jack where’s the lie? Right here! When CAIR starts defending Jewish rights or any others … Jack will apologize. That he’s not going to lose any sleep over.
The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement saying that if the amended rule was interpreted broadly, it could “not only adversely affect Muslim females who wear the head scarf, but could also be used to violate Jewish, Sikh, and other people of faiths’ constitutional rights under the First Amendment while in Michigan courts.”
And here …
It added, “As a civil rights advocacy group, CAIR-MI is concerned about individuals who may be reluctant to report crimes or petition the courts out of fear that their religious rights may be violated.”
How about a “muslim rights advocacy group”. Jack would believe that and that would be correct.
CAIR also said that it would announce on Wednesday the filing of a federal lawsuit against a Wayne County, Michigan, judge who had asked a Muslim woman to remove her head scarf in court.
“The Muslim plaintiff felt so intimidated by the judge’s repeated demand that she eventually removed her head scarf,” the organization said in a statement released Tuesday.
Hmmmmm ….
Yeah Jack spells skank … “CAIR” with alternate spelling of ACLU. And this is why Jack is calling CAIR a skank.
“In response to Judge Callahan’s direction, ‘No hats allowed in the courtroom,’ Ms. Albaghdady responded, “Okay, it doesn’t matter,’ and immediately removed her head covering, without protest or explanation,” the statement said.
No case but CAIR forces the state and judge and even one of their own to spend time and resources to defend the judges “legal action” in order to furthur their Islamic agenda in America.
So finally … how do you spell … litigation JIHAD … yep CAIR! It’s the Islamic way … infidels must submit as muslims must submit.
Lastly another lie. She says …
What the Muslim high school senior wants you to understand is that she doesn’t wear the hijab, the head scarf worn by Muslim women, because she is submissive.
Honestly Jack has always had the position that he doesn’t give a flying fuck if you wear a garbage bag, feed sack, whateva … but in cases of security as in the above cases … courts, banks, passport photos, driver license photos etc … you got to give it up skank!
Those are my people, I protested, but I knew what he meant. That’s why I was interested in the Case of the Blond Model and the Malicious Blogger. aka: Maureen Dowd
For example when Miss Venezuela was named Miss Universe 2009 last night … Jack would bet a dollar to a donut that at least half the other contestants thought to themsleves … SKANK!
So gals do you and are you that offended if called a skank?
More on this later … Jack is talking to a skank right now.
Ok Jack had to lookup the word and this is what he found.
skank (sk?ngk)
n.
1. A rhythmic dance performed to reggae or ska music, characterized by bending forward, raising the knees, and extending the hands.
2. Disgusting or vulgar matter; filth.
3. One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.
intr.v. skanked, skank·ing, skanks
To dance the skank.
[Of Jamaican origin.]
skank’y adj.
Aha … Jack has known many skanks in his time. Now is it libel if you call a vulgar dancer or a sexually promiscuous woman a skank? Jack says NO it’s not! If the shoe fits … wear it proudly or clean your act up if your offended.
But for $15 million … you can call Jack any name you feel like and he’ll still love ya.
