Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Fwd: Atlas Shrugged, then and now - the Cliff Notes

b

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Atlas Shrugged, then and now - the Cliff Notes
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:42:48 -0400
From:	M. Johnson <michaelj@america.net>
Reply-To:	politicalforum@googlegroups.com
To:	PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com

Atlas Shrugged, then and now - the Cliff Notes
By: Scott S. Powell
OpEd Contributor
August 22, 2010

According to a Library of Congress survey, Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, may be second to the Bible as the most influential book read in America. It is required reading in management training at BB&T, the 12th largest bank in the U.S. and one that resisted taking TARP bailout funds.

Since President Obama took office, Atlas Shrugged has been making a renaissance with rising sales and library waiting lists, partly because it explains our current economic woes more straightforwardly than most of what we hear from today's experts.

What happened in Rand's narrative is coming to pass today, with the public sector growing in scope and power over the private sector. Then, just as now, an anti-business administration reviled private industry, capitalizing on crisis to expand and redirect investment within and between sectors of the economysetting quotas, prices and compensation.

Businesses responded by retrenchingceasing to invest, innovate and expand. Whole industries contracted, closed down, or moved offshore; much like the U.S. gas and oil drilling industry is doing today. Then, just as now, management became frustrated and discouraged, reluctant to create jobs in an environment of excessive government meddling.

A record $2 trillion now sits on corporate balance sheets waiting to be invested amidst reasonably cheap assets prices.   What holds back investment is uncertainty and lack of confidence stemming from an overbearing and free-spending government.

Businessmen and investors would never attempt spending and borrowing their way back to prosperity. In terms of job creation, the Obama stimulus plan has been worse than a failure. Its attendant debt has ratcheted up systemic risk inviting a currency crisis and bond market collapsefrom which recovery might be impossible.

Recently, Obama took credit for a .2% drop in the nation's unemployment rate to 9.5% and the creation of 71,000 private sector jobs, claiming his policies were working. In fact, much of that meager job creation was in the socialized automotive sector.

The supposed decrease in unemployment resulted from 611,000 Americans giving up on finding work, dropping off the official rolls of the unemployed. Official unemployment statistics mask the underlying truth of a private sector economy that is failing to create jobs.

In fact, when all those who have given up looking for work are accounted for since the recession began, the real unemployment rate may be closer to 18 percent, almost double the official numbers.

While the private sector shed nearly 8 million jobs in the last two-and-a-half years, the federal government increased its payroll by 240,000 jobs. So, the private sector that is the primary source of national wealth has been shrinking, while supporting a growing public sector that generally produces nothing.

That burden is made greater by the fact that government workers have incomes 30% higher and benefits 50% more costly on average than those received by equivalent private-sector workers.

This shift of wealth from the productive private to the unproductive public sector is more sticky today than it was in Atlas Shrugged because government has now become a union shop, with pay having little to do with performance.

Unionized government cannot be downsized easily and its employees have effectively become the country's most powerful entitlement special-interest group. Thus, government-run schools controlled by the teachers unions can fail decade after decade without consequence or substantive reform.

The government takeover of the healthcare industryaka "Obamacare"was a high priority not because it was good for the majority of Americans, but because the ruling elite want to expand unionization, entitlement and dependency.

The media is enamored with scandal and the latest class war nuance, such as raising taxes on the richnow those making over $200,000 annually. But they ignore one of the biggest stories of our time: Obama's drive to shift wealth and power from the productive private sector to the non-productive public sector.

Rand calls this appropriation of wealth by the government nothing less than looting. For her, the primary source of social good is in ingenuity and hard work that produces wealth in the form of invention and technological breakthrough. Crony capitalism and forced redistribution of wealth by faceless government bureaucrats is anything but virtuous.

Rand warns us that government policies that engender entitlement and cause business owners to shrug and withhold their capital are detrimental to the economy. What compounds this problem today is that by enlarging dependence on an out-of-control profligate government we are setting ourselves up for a greater crisis than the last one.

Fortunately, the catalyst for course correction is around the corner. Ironically, Obama can be thanked for making this mid-term election an overdue referendum on liberalism. Average Americans are now more informed and engaged than they have been in generations, and they are highly motivated to vote.

The most credible and successful candidates, whether incumbents or new entries, are likely to be those resolutely committed to deficit and debt reduction and getting government out of the way of private sector job creation, the essence of Ayn Rand.

Scott S. Powell is a director at RemingtonRand and Alpha Quest LLC and a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Scott-S-Power-Atlas-Shrugged-then-and-now---the-Cliff-Notes-101258174.html#ixzz0xXvnFMsy

http://bit.ly/cBSF6P
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

You would think the states might notice the different results over time

Maine Versus New Hampshire: The American states provide a number of natural policy experiments that let us judge — if we are open-minded — what works and what doesn't work.

One such natural experiment can be found in two neighboring New England states that pursued different paths after World War II. Amity Shlaes, relying on a study by J. Scott Moody, describes the result.

At the end of World War II, Maine boasted a bigger economy and a bigger population than New Hampshire. In some other respects the two states were similar. They were both in New England, and both were struggling with the death of old industries such as textiles. In 1946, per capita income was $9,610 and $9,768 for Maine and New Hampshire, respectively.
. . .
Overall today, Maine residents shoulder a heavier tax burden than do those of New Hampshire. State and local taxes take 12.6 percent of personal income in Maine, the sixth-highest share among states. In New Hampshire state and local taxes take 8.7 percent, putting New Hampshire at 49th for tax burden.

The result? Decade in, decade out, New Hampshire's economy grew faster than Maine's, so that the Granite State surpassed the Pine Tree State in 1984 and today boasts an output that is 20 percent bigger. Maine's recessions and double dips were worse than New Hampshire's. Eventually New Hampshire also won the population contest, passing Maine, in part thanks to migration. Last month, joblessness was 8.1 percent in Maine, better than Ohio but still bad, and 5.8 percent in New Hampshire.

What about that family pocketbook that the White House highlights? Bureau of Economic Analysis data show average per capita income for Maine in 2009 was $36,745, a bit more than Ohio. In New Hampshire that number was $42,831, eighth highest in the nation.

If you want lower unemployment and higher incomes in your state, you should imitate New Hampshire — and learn from Maine's mistakes.

(In the late 1970s, I read a comparison of New Hampshire with neighboring Vermont. The Green Mountain State had had higher taxes than New Hampshire for many decades. But they didn't seem to have gotten better services in return. SAT scores were a little higher in New Hampshire, the state's roads were about as good, welfare payments were a little higher (though a little harder to get), and so on, and so on. Vermont taxpayers were paying more (and still are, last I looked) but weren't getting more in return.)

- 9:40 AM, 24 August 2010 [link]

Gun Owners of America Sever Ties With Soros and Communist Think Tank 'Free Press'

doctorbulldog | 24 August, 2010 at 10:22 am | Categories: Communism, Obama Sucks, Right to Bear Arms, censorship, politics | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6qO

Excellent news. I guess I won't be shredding my GOA card after all:

This updates our previous coverage HERE.

Net-neutrality group challenged by ties to MoveOn.Org, ACORN
By Sara Jerome - The Hill

A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming more divisive.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.

The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a "neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank" and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.

GOA was one of the charter members of Save the Internet, but a spokesman for the gun rights group said times have changed.

"Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues," said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.

"The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that," Pratt said.

Save The Internet had long pointed to the support of gun owners as evidence that net neutrality is a nonpartisan issue.

Hope n' Change Epiphany

Atlas Shrugged, then and now - the Cliff Notes

JP True face of Jeay Sind Qaume Mohaz (JSQM)

These are the true faces of Jeya Sind Quami Mahaz (JSQM). These are the vultures, not very different from the rest of their lot, those who live on ethinic lines and their counterparts, who try to break the nation in parts (political groupings), so that their games can be played.

I am proud to see the police action and wanted awards for policeman who took part in it.

Such faces need to be exposed. These criminals do not hesitate to loot and take advantage, even when someone is dieing, instead of trying to save the person, these crooks will be searching his pockets if he can get something out of it...

All these pathetic people need public trials and public punishments and we need to cleanse our country from such measles!

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

By our correspondent

Karachi
An armed clash was witnessed in Sachal area when police took action against the occupation of flats by the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mohaz (JSQM)-Safdar Sarki group allegedly under the pretext of a flood relief camp.
During the operation, the SHO Gulshan and two others were injured. The police also arrested eight JSQM activists after some resistance and got the property vacated, police claimed.
DIG East Zone Ameer Ahmed Sheikh said that a complaint was received from Rauf Builders. The builder maintained that Safdar Sarki of the JSQM alongwith his companions had occupied some flats situated in Chapal Sun City, Sachal, for a flood relief camp. When he was approached to leave the flats, Sarki refused to do so and threatened him of dire consequences, the complainant said. â€œWe decided to free the place from the illegal possession and the police personnel of Gulshan Town were sent to the spot. Upon seeing the law enforcers, armed JSQM men started indiscriminate fire due to which SHO Gulshan Asif Munawar received a bullet wound. Afterwards, a commando action was taken by the police and an encounter ensued,â€� the official claimed.
DIG Sheikh said that the police, after a brief encounter, arrested eight activists of the JSQM with arms, and managed to get the flats vacated. â€œAn FIR was lodged against JSQM leader Safdar Sarki and his companion at the Sachal police station. Another FIR was lodged against them for creating a law and order situation, damaging public and private property and police encounter,â€� the official added.
Meanwhile, armed men damaged several vehicles and two banks near Chapal Sun City, Sachal as well as the office of Rauf Builders. Five men who were injured during the ensuing violence were identified as Ghulam Jaffer, Raja, Sanaullah, Abdul Karim and Jam Ali.

JP We Want Justice for killing 2 innocent brothers in Sialkot

We Want Justice for killing 2 innocent brothers in Sialkot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZrXzaDFbfs

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

The Bush-Obama Lies on Iraq

The Bush-Obama Lies on Iraq
by Jacob G. Hornberger

President Obama's announcement that all combat troops have exited Iraq, while 50,000 combat troops remain in Iraq, is fitting. Since the war began with a lie, the "end" of the war might as well be based on a lie as well.

Interventionists continue to maintain the sweet delusion that Iraq is better off as a result of the U.S. invasion. However, when they make that claim, they're always referring to the Iraqis who are alive. They never refer to the Iraqis who are dead as a result of the invasion.

Are dead Iraqis better off because of the invasion? Unfortunately, we can't ask them because they are dead. I'll bet that if they could answer, many, if not all, of them would say, "We would have preferred living under a totalitarian dictator than having our lives snuffed out prematurely by a violent U.S. military invasion."

Nonetheless, U.S. interventionists steadfastly maintain that the loss of Iraqi life has been worth it.

How cavalier! How noble! Sure, it's true that some Iraqis have been sacrificed, but they haven't died in vain because Iraq is now a better place than it was under Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government did it for the Iraqi people, and at great cost too. More than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died. The U.S. national debt has skyrocketed.

But it all shows how good "we" are. "We" are willing to make such great sacrifices for others. And "we" are willing to sacrifice others for the greater good of their nation. How caring "we" are. How compassionate.

A fascinating aspect of this welfare-warfare mindset is that there has never been an upward limit on the number of Iraqis who could be killed to achieve a successful operation. Any number of Iraqi dead, no matter how high, is considered worth it.

In fact, no one really knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the invasion and subsequent occupation because early on, the invaders made a conscious decision to not keep track of how many Iraqis were being killed.

The number of Iraqi dead didn't really matter. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions. Who cares? All that mattered was that the survivors, whatever number they happened to be, would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power. The sacrifice that the Iraqi dead would have made, no matter how many that would be, would be considered worth it.

Never mind that the Iraqi people, including the dead, were never consulted about the invasion. Never mind that many of them would have preferred to live under Saddam Hussein than die in a U.S. invasion of their country. Never mind that many of them never wanted the U.S. government to invade their country. All that is irrelevant. "We" know what is best for them, even if they don't. Sometimes people have to make sacrifices for "freedom," even when the sacrifice is involuntary.

Interventionists say that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, one that used weapons of mass destruction against Iranians and Iraqis.

Fair enough, but isn't the world filled with brutal dictators, many of whom are supported by the U.S. government?

Need some examples?

Well, Saddam Hussein himself comes to mind. Who do you think gave him those WMDs that he used against Iranians and Iraqis? You guessed it the United States and other Western powers. (See here.)

Why did they give him those WMDs? Because U.S. officials wanted him to use them to kill Iranians.

And why did they want to do that? Because U.S. officials were angry at the Iranian people for having had the audacity to oust the CIA-installed, unelected, anti-democratic dictator known as the Shah of Iran from power and replace him with an anti-U.S. regime, one who, unlike the Shah, refused to do the bidding of the U.S. Empire. In the interventionist mind, the Iranian people should have continued to permit their U.S.-installed dictator to torture and oppress them with his CIA-trained domestic intelligence force.

(For the full story of how the U.S. government damaged what had been a growing democratic tradition in Iraq, read Stephen Kinzer's books All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror and Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future.)

That brings us back to Saddam's infamous WMDs, the excuse that interventionists initially emphasized to scare Americans into supporting the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq, one that lacked the constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress, making the war illegal under our form of government.

George W. Bush's lie wasn't in falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He "knew" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs because he still had the receipts from when the United States delivered them to him during the 1980s. Bush just never figured that Saddam would really have destroyed them. Bush figured that he'd invade, find some left-over WMDs, claim to have saved the world, and install another U.S. puppet, like the CIA did with the Shah of Iran.

Thus, Bush's lie wasn't in falsely claiming that Iraq had WMDs, it was in using what he knew to be an exaggerated WMD threat to disguise the real reason for the invasion regime change, one intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a U.S.-Empire-approved ruler.

That was what the brutal sanctions, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials also considered "worth it," were all about.

That's what U.S. foreign policy is all about. That's what the U.S. Empire is all about. That's what the lies are all about: regime change, pure and simple, designed to oust independent dictators from power and replace them with pro-U.S. Empire regimes. And no amount of death and destruction is ever considered too high to achieve it.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-08-24.asp

JP Changing Ghilaf-e-Ka'aba

صور تغيير كسوة الكعبة

Picture of Changing Ghilaf-e-Ka'aba

JP WHY BLAME ISLAM?

Dr. M.A .Qazi

WHY BLAME ISLAM?
Individuals, not religions,

carry out inhuman acts!

Islam is a religion of peace, accepted and practiced by more than 1.5 billion people worldwide. It is the fastest-growing religion in the world, and if it was what some critics claim, why should the people from all walks of life from around the world keep embracing Islam?

Where is the sword now?

In Islam, a person has the right to defend himself, his family, his country or his neighbor(s), which justifies the resistance being offered by the people of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir and Palestine, to attacks on their soils by the so-called liberators, who are actually the occupiers.

The Holy Qur'an clearly states that if a person saves one life, it's as if he saved humanity, and if a person kills one human being, it's as if he killed humanity.

What is happening in the enslaved Muslim countries is a natural reaction to occupation, bombings, killing and terrorizing of innocent civilians (children, old men and women), rapes, in addition to looting of resources, national antiques and artifacts, above all destruction of property by the occupiers.

Terror breeds terror!

We assure those who bash Islam that if there was no occupation in this world by foreign invaders, there would be no resistance – the so-called terror.

We would like those who criticize Islam to explain the following acts committed by the Christians on Jews, other Christians and Muslims alike, throughout history:

- Hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women and children killed by the crusaders, who were Christians.

- Inquisition of Jews and Muslims from Spain by Queen Isabella, a Christian.

- Millions of people killed by the European and American Christians during the two world wars.

- Atrocities committed on millions of Jews and Christians by Adolph Hitler, a professed Christian.

- Hundreds of thousands of Christians killed every year by the Irish Christians, including the British and the IRA, bothCatholics and Protestants, during the past few centuries. Why they are not blamed to be "Christian Terrorists?"

Both of them believe in Jesus Christ, who told them to turn the other cheek, and both of them believe in the same Lord, Who commanded that "Thou shall not kill." Period.

- Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, was a Catholic. Are all Catholics terrorists?

Last but not least, the bombings, killings, rapings and lynchings of both American Indians and black slaves (Afro-Americans) during the past 200 years in the United States.

What about them?

Will those filled with hate for Islam blame Christianity for the above inhuman acts by Christians in various parts of the world since its inception? If not, then why are they blaming the religion of Islam for what is a natural reaction to occupation of Muslim countries by foreign invaders?

Most importantly, these folks should know that the three great Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – have one common basis, and that is one God Almighty.

"All men (and women) are created equal, and we all are one nation under Almighty God," is a statement according to the Holy Qur'an and is very well elucidated in the U.S. Constitution.

Lastly, yet importantly, as brothers in humanity, we recommend those filled with hate get an education in the history of Islam and Muslims, before they dare to write nasty letters full of personal, ingrain hate and vendetta.

drmaqazi@yahoo.com

JP Most Beautiful Dua's (Collection 1)

Most Beautiful Dua's (Collection 1)