This paper is presented in an historical context and is indicative of the various rants, raves, treatises, etc., that were prevalent in the old BBS (Bulletin Board Service) days. Content has not been changed, though formatting changes may have taken place to make it more presentable. (Spelling, sentence/paragraph structure, etc.) Wherever possible, credit is given to the originating source.
April 24, 1995
`SHOOT AMERICANS‘ SURVEY RESULTS
One in Four Marines Would Fire
Results are in from the U.S. military “shoot Americans”
survey-and they are disquieting.
By Mike Blair
About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base in southern California.
In addition, more that four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to “participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force.”
The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results to the survey contained in a master’s degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval -More-Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, to determine “unit cohesion” when soldiers are assigned to “non-traditional missions.”
Few stories published in The SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir as when it was revealed in this newspaper’s July 25, 1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base.
This, of course, is because of the large amount of briefcases that have been exploding across America killing… zero people.
Once again, Janet Napolitano, is asking that “if you see something, say something”.
We’d like to thank her for once again providing us with the opportunity to point out a few of the suspicious activities we’ve noticed of late.
It’s hard to know where to begin – there are so many things.
We find it suspicious that both Janet Napolitano nor Michael Chertoff have been investigated or charged for their part……………….
In the aftermath of last week’s riots in the United Kingdom, the NYPD has held a “mobilization exercise” to train police to prepare for civil unrest in the United States, while also launching a program designed to spot signs of potential trouble via social networking websites.
The NYPD Disorder Control Unit brought together police from all five of the city’s boroughs to rehearse what the response would be “should out-of-control riots break out here”.
“Approximately 180 police officers total from each borough’s task force, including the horseback and aviation units, came out for the drill,” reports the Metro.
However, unlike in the United Kingdom where the rioters mainly comprised of teenage kids taking the opportunity to steal iPods and other high-end electrical goods, civil unrest in the United States is far more likely to have a political motivation…………………
What ended World War II?
For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to Japan’s surrender. By the middle of 1945, the war in Europe was over, and it was clear that the Japanese could hold no reasonable hope of victory. After years of grueling battle, fighting island to island across the Pacific, Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed. The production of materiel was faltering, completely overmatched by American industry, and the Japanese people were starving. A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender.
But in early August 66 years ago, America unveiled a terrifying new weapon, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a matter of days, the Japanese submitted, bringing the fighting, finally, to a close.
On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.
In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa – a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara – has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com …
“It’s time to level the playing field.” “The rich need to pay their fair share.” “We have to end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.” These are some of the stock phrases used by President Obama and his administration to fire up their troops to picket private homes, gin up mobs to protest success and to channel America towards the future they envision.
Like a one trick pony or an extremely inept coach the Progressives’ playbook has only one option. It’s a Hail Mary pass they run over and over: class warfare. From Marx to Chavez the collectivists have always played the same card from each according to the ability to each according to their need.
Over a century of propaganda and indoctrination has conditioned most Americans to accept one of the most insidious aspects of class warfare as a natural and respectable feature of our government: progressive taxation. At its core progressive taxation is the quintessential action of the Trojan horse the Progressives have constructed to transform America from a representative republic with a capitalist economy into a centrally planned socialist democratic republic.
The shock troops for this movement which has captured the leadership of both major parties is made up of the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media, unions, crony capitalists, and a conglomeration of front groups and organizations, many of which receive vast amounts of government money. These interest groups constantly agitate for Progressive policies and carry the water for Progressive politicians. They also contribute time, money and resources for the election campaigns of the very Progressive politicians who vote to give them government grants in a circular money laundering scheme which if not illegal is certainly immoral.
Eight of the nine justices found that the reports can’t be withheld on privacy grounds because the public has a “legitimate interest” in knowing how the allegations were investigated.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com …
In referring to past email inquiries he received on this subject, Limbaugh continued, “They are interesting because those people haven’t surfaced. There aren’t any ex-girlfriends that have admitted it.”
In fact, I wrote about this question in my book, “Deconstructing Obama,” and on these pages last year. As the likely source of these rumors, I thought I might clarify them, at least to the degree they can be clarified.
As it happens, Obama inadvertently raised the girlfriend issue himself in his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.” Published when he was 33, “Dreams” documents Obama’s all-consuming search for identity.
Whether he dated white women or black women – and what he might have learned from either – matters, but Obama gives the reader very close to nothing.
“Cosby never got the girl on ‘I Spy,'” he laments in “Dreams,” but in his own retelling, he does not do much better.
Although Obama spent 13 years on the mainland as a single man, on only one occasion in “Dreams” does Obama make any reference to his love life.
In a brief recounting, he tells his half-sister, Auma, that in addition to a white woman he had loved and lost, “There are several black ladies out there who’ve broken my heart just as good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com …