DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS Aug 05, 2012

Posted by Xaniel777 on August 4, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : August 05, 2012




So… You’ve Been Indefinitely Detained!


As Funny as this may seem today,

 tomorrow it may be for real.BUT,

Justice is coming!~~~Xaniel777

From 12160.info

 Added by James Φοίνιξ on August 4, 2012

Tom the Dancing Bug









Obama Sues To Restrict Military Voting

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul’s 51% Support By The U.S. Military


{XANIEL’S NOTE : This must be another reason why (the Obama), is pushing so hard for the U.N. (grab our guns) Treaty.

He knows our military does not support him and he will indeed need the U.N. Security Forces when  he declares martial law here soon.

(the Obama) should take the advise of Xaniel777, ” PACK YOUR ASS IN A HAND BAG AND GET OUT OF DODGE ! ”

” Because there will be a Historical Day in the future and that day will be called,

The trial of Barry (the Obama) Soetoro for Treason against the United States of America and For Crimes Against Humanity !

 But if you run now, you might have enough time to locate the one rock that none of us will ever find you hiding under.” }~~~Xaniel777


Obama Sues To Restrict Military Voting: Presidential Candidate Ron Paul’s 51% Support By The U.S. Military.

From Political Vel Craft

 August 04, 2012

President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with Ron Paul on many issues related to national security, they absolutely fein their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces.

Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military.

So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?


Ron Paul’s 51% Military Contributions!

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military.

Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election.

Members of the military are given three extra days to do so.

While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,”

I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

The National Defense Committee reports:

[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.

I think it’s unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn’t make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote.

They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.

If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could “disenfranchise” some voter, somewhere.

We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter.

Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.

Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters.

The judge should reject it with prejudice.


 This is an older poster but Paul is Still a favorite among the military, no matter what the Main Stream Media say’s !~~~Xaniel777

Related articles :










{I Have a great respect for anyone who is willing to challenge the ILLEGAL,

(No matter what the ‘ bought and paid for ‘, U.N. has to say about it), blockade of Gaza.

But beware my friends, the Israeli (Zionist Keystone Cops) Mossad,

will already be waiting for you at one or more of your stops to create whatever havoc they can to stop you. 

They have no choice, as Israel need’s to avoid International Focus on their stopping and killing protesters on board ( like with Turkey),

and diverting the ship to Israel.

They feel that they’ve had way to much International Focus already and people are waking up to their crap.

( All of Israel actions on this are act’s of piracy in International waters and yet Israel always gets away with it,

that would be because that U.N. Elite minion, Ban Ki Moon is a joke of a human being and a piss-ant of a man)  

And by the way, the only reason Israel gave it’s solders the order to kill those eight Turkish citizens and one Turkish/American,

was to send a message.

Not only to Turkey, ( whom they were having political issues with at the time),

but to all who darn challenge them on this very Nazi crap their doing to the people of Gaza.

It was their highest hopes that the action they took would stop any more attempts of breaking their blockade.

What it did instead however,  was motivate more people to challenge their inhumanity !!

Zionist are too stupid and monstrous to a understand what drives REAL HUMANS to push back against them and their EVIL.  

As long as even one Zionist exists, there will always be at least one Real Human to push their evil back !}~~~Xaniel777


From DesertPeace

August 04, 2012

Estelle, a beautiful sailing ship, is going to play a key role in Freedom Flotilla’s renewed attempt to break the blockade on Gaza.

This summer we will be launching an entirely new project.

This time, we are going to sail from Umeå [in northern Sweden] to Gaza, stopping on the way at ports in the Baltic Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.

At each stop, there will be speakers, concerts and public festivals providing information about the situation in Gaza.

We will be bringing a cargo of necessities that have been requested by the non-partisan, independent organizations in Gaza that we work together with.

VIDEO SUBTITLED IN: english, italian and spanish. Click to CC to activate.

More info: 


Twitter: #flotilla #svEstelle

Facebook: Freedom Flotilla Coalition








How the GOP Could Steal the 2012 Election: Corporate Vote Theft and Future U.S. Democracy


{XANIEL’S NOTE : Understand this,  all who are awake or are awakening as we speak,

there hasn’t been an honest election since well before 1913.

How do you think those Zionist Bastards actual managed to get the Federal Reserve Act through the U.S.’s front door to begin with?

And let’s not just throw a shadow over the GOP,

(even though they have committed major voter fraud all over the place with this deliberate Ron Paul block.

And not one Governor, Lt Governor, or A.G. in any state that a caucus has been held in so far, has demanded an investigation. 

Which strongly indicates that they, themselves are involved in it, and will later,

equally share in the charges of voter fraud and treason against ‘ WE THE PEOPLE ‘,

who have/are clearly speaking on what WE want !

And to again make this clear, WE as in ‘ WE THE PEOPLE ‘,

(because politicians can’t understand anything until you shove the heads to the floor and rub their faces in it,

like a dog whose pissed on the carpet repeatedly.)

 are your, (the useless, pissed on the carpet, politicians)EMPLOYER.(MEANING, you are suppose to be working for us, ASSHOLES!!))

Because the Democrats are also involved in all this voter fraud crap.

You can be sure, that despite the ‘ WE HATE THEM ‘

attitude, that they pretend to give each other over every political issue, ALL THESE PEOPLE EAT OFF THE SAME PLATE.

They shoot darts and drink beer together.

All the while, they discuss  how they can best screw the American people AND at the same time,

convince them it’s for America’s own good,

as they juggle, WITH SOLID BALLS OF STEEL, MINE YOU, a way to make lot’s and lot’s of money from doing it all ! }~~~Xaniel777


From Global Research.ca

August 2, 2012 – by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman


The Republican Party could steal the 2012 US Presidential election with relative ease.

Four major factors make it possible: the continued existence of the Electoral College, the systematic disenfranchisement of millions of American voters over the past decade, the widespread and growing use of electronic voting machines, and GOP control of the governorships and secretary of state offices in the key swing states that will once again decide the election.

To this we must add the likelihood that the core of the activist community that came out to protect the vote for Barack Obama in 2008 may not do so again in 2012.

Towering over it all, of course, is the reality that corporate money has come to totally dominate the American electoral process.

The John Roberts US Supreme Court has definitively opened the floodgates with its infamous Citizens United decision.

But for well over a century, at least since the 1880s, corporations have ruled American politics.

Back then the courts began to confer on corporations the privileges of human rights without the responsibilities of human decency.

Citizens United has taken that reality to a whole new level.

As the 2012 election approaches we are watching gargantuan waves of unrestricted capital pouring into political campaigns at all levels.

The June recall election in Wisconsin saw at least 8 times as much money being spent on protecting Republican governor Scott Walker as was spent trying to oust him.

Nationwide this year, the corporate largess vastly favors Republicans over Democrats.

But since both parties are essentially corporate in nature, that could change in coming elections, and may even vary in certain races in 2012.

We do not believe that once given the chance, the Republicans are any more prone to stealing elections than the Democrats.

And that is a major point of this book. On its surface, the prime focus of our nation’s sorry history of stolen elections has to do with Democrats stealing elections from Republicans and vice-versa.

In 2012 it will be primarily Republicans using gargantuan sums of corporate money to take control of the government from Democrats, and democracy be damned.

But in the longer view, the more important reality is that the corruption of our electoral system is perfectly geared toward crushing third and other parties whose focus is challenging a corporate status quo deeply entrenched in war, inequality, and ecological destruction.

So as we trace the stories of election theft dating all the way back to John Adams and Tom Jefferson, we do fret over the corruption that defines so much of the back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans.

But we hope that you, the reader, will always remember that whatever the corporate parties do to each other separately pales before what they will do together to crush non-corporate forces like the Populist Party, the Socialist movement and the grassroots campaigns for peace, justice and ecological preservation.

This applies to both candidates running for office and referenda aimed at directly changing policy.

Yes, we are concerned with the injustice and corrupting nature of the reality that corporate money could fund a series of anti-democratic tricks that will steal the 2012 election away from the intent of the American electorate.

Given the choices facing us, this means Mitt Romney could well become president despite the possibility of a legitimate victory by Barack Obama.

But far more important in the long run is that the ability to do this by either corporate party (or both of them) means no third party will be allowed to break through in future elections to make meaningful change in this country—at least not through the ballot box.

No reality could be more grim for a nation that long-ago pioneered modern democracy and seemed to bring to the world the possibility of a society in which the possibility of continually making meaningful, life-giving change was guaranteed along with the right to vote.

American history is chock full of election abuse from both parties, dating at least back to 1800, when the Democrat-Republican Thomas Jefferson wrested the presidency from Federalist John Adams based on the “votes” of African-American slaves who were allowed nowhere near a ballot box.

That Adams spent the next six years muttering about that theft before he opened a legendary exchange of letters with his former friend and rival did nothing to rid the country of the Electoral College that made it possible.

Nor did it prevent his son, John Quincy, from using it to steal the 1824 election from a very angry slaveowner named Andrew Jackson, who then formed the Democratic Party that now claims Barack Obama.

But in 2012, the GOP controls the registration rolls and the swing state vote count in ways that the Democrats do not.

It will be the Republicans’ choice as to how far they are willing to go to put Mitt Romney in the White House. But as this book will show, they have the power to do it if they’re willing to use it.

They did not have that option in 2008, when Barack Obama and Joe Biden defeated John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Ohio had a Democratic governor and secretary of state that year. Obama safely carried the usually decisive Buckeye State in 2008, along with enough additional swing states to put him in the White House.

But when John Kerry failed in Ohio 2004, he handed George W. Bush a second term in ways that paralleled Bush’s initial coming to power in the bitterly disputed election of 2000.

In both elections, the defeated Democrat refused to raise the issue of widespread corporate-sponsored fraud.

This book lays out much of the evidence that both elections were, in fact, stolen, and shows how the same means used to do it back then are likely to be repeated this year.

The difference in Ohio 2008, as in much of the nation, was that candidate Barack Obama inspired millions of young, committed, active supporters to work overtime for his election.

They came out in droves to promote and protect voter registration, monitor polling places, challenge faulty and discriminatory ballot procedures, scrutinize voting machines and otherwise guarantee a more fair and balanced vote count.

In his four years as President, Barack Obama has alienated much of the grassroots activist community that put him in the White House.

Due to his stances on nuclear power, bank bailouts, social justice, civil liberties, medical marijuana and other issues that are near and dear to grassroots activists, Obama has prompted the progressive press to be filled with “disappointment” at the very least.

As usual, the left community—infamous for its circular firing squads—has already begun tearing itself apart over whether to vote for Obama’s re-election.

But that debate is beside the point. Given the delicate corporate balance on the US Supreme Court, and a wide range of tipping point issues that include women’s rights and the environment, many or even most of those who worked for Obama in 2008 are likely to vote for him again this year.

But just their votes will not make the difference, any more than they did in 2008.

What was decisive in that election was the presence of tens of thousands of committed activists who were willing to devote hours, days, weeks to registering voters, getting them to the polls, making sure they survived challenges to their right to vote,

watching over the ballots, doing exit polling, monitoring electronic voting machines and the counts they rendered, making sure the media was aware of resulting abuses—

or spreading them through the internet—and otherwise guaranteeing that what had happened in 2000 and 2004 did not happen again in 2008.

Their presence is what put Barack Obama in the White House. But his policies there have done little to encourage those activists to come back to work for him in 2012.

Their ballots will probably go his way, but the ardent commitment that defined the 2008 election is clearly missing.

So is ACORN, a key long-standing grassroots voter advocacy organization that was destroyed by a concerted GOP attack that succeeded through the cynical but highly effective use of entrapment and disinformation that succeeded in its purpose while Obama stood silent.

Without that activist core to protect the voter rolls, balloting procedures and vote counts this year, Obama and the Democrats are highly vulnerable to a re-run of what was done to Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004.

We do not yet know if Obama’s policies, so widely perceived as pro-corporate, will yield him enough corporate cash to match what Mitt Romney will raise.

That both parties are dominated by corporations is a forgone conclusion.

In 2008 Obama managed to balance that reality with a hugely successful portrayal of himself as a man of and for the grassroots.

At least among the activist community, that perception is long gone.

It remains to be seen whether Obama’s decision to court the corporations at the expense of the grassroots will yield him a financial war chest larger than what Mitt Romney can raise.

We also can’t pinpoint the exact advantages—if any—the additional corporate dollars might yield Obama and the Democrats in their attempt to keep the White House.

But simply put: even if he succeeds in winning a legitimate majority of the American electorate, there are not likely to be enough grassroots activists inspired by the hard realities of Barack Obama’s presidency to put in the grueling work that will be needed to guarantee a voter turnout and ensure a vote count fair enough to give him a second term.

In this book, we show why such a national grassroots effort to guarantee a fair election will be necessary to Barack Obama’s re-election. And why without it the GOP is virtually certain to put Mitt Romney in the White House come January, 2013.

That such an effort would also be key to what happens in the races for the US Senate and House of Representatives goes without saying, and we’ll discuss that after we deal with the presidency.

Carried along by the tsunami of corporate cash now pouring into American politics, there are four key factors that could allow the Republican Party to steal the 2012 presidential election:

The continued presence of the Electoral College;

The systematic disenfranchisement of millions of legitimate American voters, most of them likely Democrats;

The widespread use of electronic voting machines.

The Republican control of the governorships and secretary of state offices in the key swing states should decide the 2012 election for Romneys.








Palestinians brace for repercussions over UN bid




The National

From The National via  Associated Press

August 02, 2012

RAMALLAH // The Palestinians are bracing for possible punitive reactions by the US and Israel if they go ahead with plans to seek UN General Assembly recognition of “Palestine” as a non-member observer state, according to an internal document obtained yesterday.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, backed by the Arab League, is ready in principle to take this step, but has not decided whether to submit the request when the General Assembly convenes in September or to wait until after the US presidential election in November.

A high-ranking Palestinian official said Mr Abbas leans towards waiting until after the US vote, in line with a US request, to avoid further strain to his relationship with the administration of Barack Obama.

A Palestinian UN bid in September could hurt Mr Obama’s re-election efforts by inserting the disruptive Middle East conflict into the campaign.

However, some members of Mr Abbas’s inner circle are pushing for a September bid, arguing that the Palestinians have gained nothing by trying to appease the US.

“We have nothing to lose from the Americans,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee. “What we need is to move fast.”

The final decision is up to Mr Abbas.

The Palestinians seek General Assembly recognition of a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in 1967.

While such a nod would be largely symbolic, they would gain firm international approval of the pre-1967 frontier as the border between Israel and a future Palestine.

An upgraded UN status would also allow the Palestinians to join various organisations of the world body.

Palestinian officials have said they have the required votes in the General Assembly to win recognition.

A bid last year to win full UN membership for Palestine, rather than as an observer state, failed because the Palestinians did not have sufficient support in the UN Security Council.

Israel and the US are vehemently opposed to the Palestinian campaign, saying a Palestinian state can only be established through negotiations with Israel.

The last round of talks broke off in 2008, and efforts to revive them failed because of deep disagreement between Mr Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

An internal Palestinian document, prepared by the PLO’s Negotiations Support Unit, lays out the pros and cons of seeking UN recognition.

On the downside, both Israel and the US have a whole arsenal of punitive measures at their disposal.

The US could close the PLO mission in Washington, suspend millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians or withhold contributions to any UN agency the Palestinians try to join, the document said.

Possible Israel reactions could range from cancelling interim peace deals, annexing parts of the West Bank or increasing restrictions on Palestinian trade and movement, the document says.

It also states all Palestinian institutions should get ready for any of these scenarios.

The paper was presented to the Arab League last month and on Wednesday was discussed by leaders of Abbas’ Fatah movement.

“We discussed the different scenarios … and decided to go (to the General Assembly) regardless of the pressure and the threats,” said Mahmoud Aloul, a Fatah leader. “The date is up to the Arab League … For us, the sooner the better.”

Related :








 (Fair Use Notice):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.