% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Golden Star Resources, Ltd. Message Board

  • moses_on_wall_street moses_on_wall_street May 24, 2007 11:10 AM Flag

    Why Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies Them

    In one short answer to a moderator�s question in the South Carolina debate in which Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that U.S. foreign policy motivated the 9/11 terrorists, Paul produced an earthquake that is shaking the Republican establishment.

    The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party proposed banning Paul from future debates. Besieged by adverse public reaction, however, he quickly backed down.

    FoxNews commentator John Gibson and columnist Michelle Malkin somehow reached the warped conclusion that Paul was suggesting that U.S. officials had committed the 9/11 attacks. After bloggers pointed out the inherent contradiction between that claim and Paul�s point that foreign terrorists motivated by U.S. foreign policy had committed the attacks, Malkin quickly issued a retraction.

    Other members of the Republican establishment suggested that Paul was �blaming America� for the 9/11 attacks. That�s because they think that the federal government is America. In actuality, as our American ancestors understood, the federal government and the country are composed of two separate and distinct groups of people � those within the federal government and those within the private sector, a point reflected in the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the country from the federal government.

    What�s going on here? Why the enormous, almost panicky, overreaction to what is a rather simple point about U.S. foreign policy? Why the attempts to suppress, distort, and misrepresent? What are they so scared of?

    The answer is very simple: The Republican establishment knows that if the American people conclude that Ron Paul is right, the jig is up with respect to the big-government, pro-empire, interventionist foreign policy that Republicans (and many Democrats) have supported for many years.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States

      Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States

      The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nation�s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.

      Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.

      Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels� application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for � and receiving � permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]

      Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive.

      Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices�all as a �profit-maximizing strategy.� A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices�and this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giants�Valero Energy and Premcor�giving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government.

      Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability.

      Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today�s reformulated gasoline blend needs.

      Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion.

    • Anti-semitism - a Zionist's best friend

      Why Zionists make sure that Jews are blamed for their diabolical plans for world domination.


      Nothing weighs heavier on a person's conscience than being accused of blaming innocent people merely for practicing their religion.

      That's why it's so important for zionists - who are not true Jews - to commit their atrocities while standing behind the shield of people who believe in God.

      [O]nce the Israeli jeeps' engines were turned off, it was the matter of a few seconds before it all began: a fury of pounding at the door.

      "Who is it?" My dad would ask, as if he suspected anyone else but the tormenting soldiers. Their reply was always the same, always as confident as it was terrifying, "Yahoud," they would reply.

      I grew up making the association between "Yahoud," the Arabic word for "Jews," and the horror my family had experienced.

      When my cousin Wael was shot dead in his teenage years, while on his way to study with me -- it was the "Yahoud" who killed him.

      When my childhood friend Raed Munis was shot repeatedly as he dug a grave for a neighbor of ours, shot just an hour earlier, he was killed by the "Yahoud."

      When my mother was struck in the chest repeatedly by the butt of an Israeli soldier's machine gun, a beating that led to her untimely death 50 days later, that too was carried out by the "Yahoud."

      Palestinians in the Occupied Territories ascribe all of these practices to the "Yahoud," simply because this is how Israel wishes to define itself, a Jewish state.

      As a child, in my many many terrifying encounters with the army, this is, without exception, how they chose to address themselves.

      Thus, every inch of land that was stolen from Palestinians in the last 40 years of occupation was done in the name of the "Yahoud" and their security.


      Posted By: LightEye <Send E-Mail>
      Date: Friday, 25 May 2007, 4:34 a.m.

      Bush Snr. Murdered Jack Kennedy

      Part 2 of a two part interview. (See part 1)

      Special Guest: John Hankey

      A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of
      George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing him beyond a reasonable
      doubt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate Jack Kennedy.

      Examines the roles of Bush, E. Howard Hunt, Hoover, Oswald & Nixon.

      Topics Include:

      E. Howard Hunt and GHW Bush..... Nixon Impeachment a CIA Coup.....
      Hunt 'Confession' implicating LBJ.... Hoover and FBI JFK warning memo....
      Secret service stole JFK's body.... GHWB quashed Congress investigation.....
      Hunt v. Spotlight libel suit...... Hunt, the Cubans and the JFK hit.......
      Hunt's Connectionsto GHWB...... GHW Bush's Meeting with Hoover......
      GHW Bush's CIA Connections...... The Skull & Bones and the CIA.....
      CIA Use of Oswald in Russia... Was Oswald working for Hoover?....

      Broadband Mp3 Audio

      Dialup Mp3 Audio

    • From the article below:

      ...there is the love affair between France's new leader, Nicholas
      Sarkozy and the Labour Zionists, a match made in Hell. It turns out that
      Sarkozy's father was a Hungarian officer responsible for sending
      hundreds of thousands of Jews to their murders.


      All characters in this tale of genocide were killed
      by the Labor Zionists including the brave Swede who did his best to save
      the Jews and learned the hardest way that the Labor Zionists wanted them
      dead, Raoul Wallenberg.

      LET THE ARABS WIN FOR ISRAEL by Barry Chamish

      A 32 year old woman dies in Sderot from a Hamas missile in Gaza. Israel
      launches a brief helicopter attack and then nothing. Meanwhile, 78% of
      the public wants of a ground attack to snuff out he rockets. The
      government forgets to announce, "Why should we? We've got the Arabs in
      civil wars in Gaza and Lebanon now. They'll do the dirty work for us."

      The 2007 Middle East War has erupted into half-blossom and this time,
      our soldiers aren't at far.

      So now we know why Israel practically guaranteed a Hamas victory by
      banning them from running in Jerusalem during the last elections and
      then permitting them to do so. And now we know why "right-wingers" like
      Avigdor Lieberman recently voted in favor of re-arming the PLO. The PLO
      was told, "Defeat Hamas and we'll give you a state in all of 'the West

      And NOW we know why on the 40th anniversary of Jerusalem Day, when the
      opposition was elsewhere, the Knesset passed a law for the future
      withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

      And now we really know why G-d, or the weather deities, canceled the
      celebration with an unheard of and ungodly deluge on Jerusalem (which
      killed 7 people near the city, no less.)

      For those who know my writing, we know the first open American military
      association between the US and the PLO began in March, 1996 when Shimon
      Peres decided the Palestinians were not killing Jewish "settlers" fast
      enough. In about his last act as Prime Minister, Peres asked two members
      of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), CIA Chief John Deutsch and
      his "Middle East expert," George Tenet, to send 40 PLO "policemen" to
      Virginia for advanced training. After that, the PLO became expert at
      killing Jews and many hundreds more flew to the US to learn
      sophisticated techniques in Jew murder.

      Now those "experts" in Gaza and one Palestinian "camp" in Lebanon are
      keeping the "militants" from Israel's door, at least for now.
      Why should Israeli soldiers die when the PLO will fight for them?


    • Read a book

      The Global Class War
      How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future�and What It Will Take to Win It Back
      by Jeff Faux

    • The Next Added 100 Million
      Americans - Part 34
      Solutions To Our Dilemma
      By Frosty Wooldridge

      Where do we start? What on earth can anyone do to change the grave results of adding 100 million people to the United States by 2040? If the current S.B. 1348 passes on mass amnesty for illegal alien migrants, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation states that America will add as many as 103 million by 2027. What about the fact that the rest of humanity expects another three billion added by 2050? Why won't our leaders speak up about an issue so dire that it affects every American today and in the future?

      Why wouldn't anyone question adding 100 million people to the US population when millions sit in gridlock traffic, breathe toxic air, pay more for everything, suffer water shortages-and know that it can only worsen?

      Heck of a question! Everyone runs from the answer.

      As you can imagine--religions, emotions, cultures and history lock most humans into paradigms formed 2,000 years ago. While such paradigms fail in the 21st century, most humans cling to those beliefs as a life raft in the desert when they should be searching for water. Capitalism, corporations and religions' premise that humans can multiply forever shall prove our greatest obstacle to reasonable choices.

      As you read this series, you realize our civilization stands at risk. What can you do?

    • By Any Other Name, Amnesty Bill Still Stinks!
      by Chuck Baldwin
      May 22, 2007

      One of Shakespeare's most oft-quoted phrases comes from Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet asks Romeo: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Accordingly, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call their immigration bill by any name they want to, but it is still amnesty, and it still stinks!

      Hopefully, readers are aware that the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill is being debated in the U.S. Senate this week with both the White House and senate leaders hopeful of quick passage.

      If it passes, the proposed immigration bill would immediately give all 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the United States "probationary" citizenship. It would also put an estimated 60 million immigrants on the path to citizenship over the next 20 years. In exchange for granting U.S. citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, the bill promises to better protect America's borders.

      However, what is abundantly clear is that the federal government's idea of border enforcement is totally without meaning or merit. Consider the fact that the United States already has copious laws against illegal immigration, including punishment for businesses that hire illegals. So, what good have these laws done? Very little.

      No one with any sense of objective truth believes that the Bush administration is serious about border enforcement. No one. Therefore, how can anyone believe that more promises of border enforcement will accomplish any more than with existing laws?

    • we have to get Ron Paul in the White House before they issue everyone a national ID card [an ID card they "say" is so that they can keep track of all the 13 million newly forgiven illegal criminal aliens they are giving a free pass to]....but, of course, all Americans will be made to carry one so we don't discriminate

0.787+0.007(+0.91%)10:51 AMEDT