The Pakistani Doctor's 30-Year Prison Sentence

    Why did the Pakistanis give the doctor, who helped the US locate Osama bin Laden, a 30-year prison sentence?
    You need to think like a Pakistani in order to get the answer. Basically, it was a business gone bad.
    The US is afraid of terrorists and terrorist organizations, particularly foreign-based. The US government feels that Pakistan is a breeding ground for such terrorists and through substantial monetary payments, it solicits help from the Pakistani government to control the terrorists.
    However, the Pakistani government recognizes that the only reason it obtains substantial monetary funds from the US is because of the existence of terrorists in their country. In other words, if there were no terrorists, the US would have no reason to send money. The obvious course of Pakistani action is to maintain terrorist activity in order to maintain a continuing flow of US funds.
    As long as Osama bin Laden was alive, the US had a greater fear of terrorism and a willingness to part with more money. This was obviously an incentive to the Pakistani government to maintain the life of Osama bin Laden. The best way to do this was to have him in Pakistan and closely protected.
    However, the Pakistani doctor blew the cover by revealing the location of Osama bin Laden, which resulted in his death at the hands of US forces. This significantly reduces the incentive of the US government to maintain a high flow of funds to Pakistan. Obviously, the Pakistan government is upset with this development and has given the doctor appropriate retribution of a 30-year prison sentence.

"WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."

    This is an Internet poll on gun ownership. It was forwarded  to me by Gordon Anderson.

    If you click on the "USATODAY.COM", you will be asked the question, "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?. If you vote "yes", you will receive a message that 97% of respondents voted the same way.

    I won't take issue with the numbers.

    I question the motivation of the voters. I suspect that the 97% "yes" voters are not actually voting on whether the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own guns. They likely are voting on their desire to own guns.

    Why would they take this attitude? It's something to consider on this Memorial Day, when we  honor our fallen veterans, who attempted to preserve our freedoms, or some may say "preserve our liberty".

    We need to go back to the War of Independence, also known as the Revolutionary War. It was there that our freedoms were established. These freedoms were only later documented. The British used guns to quell the rebellion. The colonists used guns to persist in pursuit of independence and freedom. Colonial guns made the difference. Without them, we would still be British subjects.

    What about subsequent wars, such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War the Libya War, and the Afghanistan War? Were they wars to reserve our liberties and freedom? There are various opinions, but my claim is that it is a long stretch to believe that our freedoms were threatened by dictators and other regimes in those countries. But that is not the issue We are talking about guns, and in each of those conflicts guns were heavily involved.

    We now have at home an increasing national objection to actions by our federal government. Our government officials are no less human than Sadaam Hussein or Qaddafi. They like power and will use force if necessary to retain it. Can it happen here, as it did in Iraq and Libya and now in Syria? Unlikely, but why take chances? The Federal Government would like a weakened populace, if push comes to shove, and is opposed to citizens owning guns. The citizens see the potential danger and wish to protect themselves against radical government actions to destroy liberties. The presence of guns in the hands of citizens also serves to restrain government, even if the guns are not used.

    None of the above is applicable to the slow loss of freedoms, which has been occurring through socialist conversion over the past 80 years, but that is another matter for discussion at a later time and perhaps a temporary reprieve in the forthcoming November elections.

   

 -----Original Message-----

Subject: "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS ...

I don’t presently own a gun and have no immediate plans to buy one….but I don’t think the government has the right to forbid me to buy one if I want to……just another step to set us up for socialism control!   GNA

Subject:  "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS ...

Subject:  "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS .-     Attorney General Holder says, "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS." TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS IT ON. Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time,  so USA today is running another one...Vote now... Attorney General Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today.  Then pass the link on to all the pro-gun folks you know. Hopefully the results will be published later this month. Here's what you need to do: First - vote. Second- Send it to other folks, then we will see if the results get published. Click to vote: USATODAY.com          http://www.stolt-nielsen.com - Please don’t take offense to this undisclosed address list.   We treasure your friendship and respect your email privacy. If you share this message,  please help reduce "spam" by deleting my name  from the top of your outgoing email....Thanks!