Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Constitution [sic] Party: Also Worthless
Constitution Party: Worthless
09-15-2010
Larken Rose
In my last message, I pointed out that the Libertarian Party has watered down its message, basically dumping the principle it was founded on, in order to get votes. Well, while I'm at it, I might as well offend some more people. The Constitution Party is also worthless. Why? Several reasons:
1) Contrary to the divine holiness some people image the Constitution to have, it really is just a piece of paper (or parchment). While some of what the Founders wrote -- the Declaration more so than the Constitution -- expressed some pretty darn important and profound concepts, they still ended up creating a ruling class. It was supposed to be a tiny, "limited" ruling class, but they still pretended to bestow upon politicians certain powers that you don't have, I don't have, and none of the writers or signers of the Constitution had. Nice trick.
Sorry, but the term "Constitutional principles" is an oxymoron. The Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in terms of rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion) then claimed to give some of those "equal" people the right to forcibly rob all the other "equal" people. Yes, the power of "taxation" was supposed to be significantly limited in several ways, but it was still the power to steal. How does that match the notion of everyone being "created equal," and the only purpose of "government" being to protect rights? It doesn't. It is a direct, blatant, glaring contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a glaring contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea.
2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because it was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the official, formal procedure of "amending" out all those pesky limitations, then what? Then totalitarianism will become "Constitutional," and what would the Constitution Party say then? The truth is, instead of being some perfect expression of truth incarnate, the Constitution started as a huge, self-contradictory, illegitimate compromise, between some people who actually wanted individual freedom, and others who wanted to rule.
(It's worth noting that the predictions of the anti-Federalists, who didn't like the Constitution, turned out to be about a zillion times more accurate than the promises of the Federalists, who swore that the beast they were creating would remain small and meek.)
3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must be "legalized" before it is good, that they remain determined to bash their heads against the wall of the "political process" to achieve it. This is true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe in inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for "legislative" permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) describes things that "government" was not supposed to do at all -- yet they do them on a regular basis. If your answer is to try to elect people who will change that, you're implicitly conceding that they weren't inalienable rights to begin with. By definition, if you need a "law" to allow something, it's not a "right." So, aside from the contradictions in the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the "inalienability" of rights described therein, you'd be doing whatever you could -- including things the politicians have deemed "illegal"-- to defend those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind, or to let you be armed, or to spare you from random searches and interrogations, and so on, carries with it the implied message that you need the master's permission to do those things. As a result, trying to regain "rights" via the political process is an inherent contradiction.
4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of statism and the worship of collectivism, don't want what the Constitution describes. (Neither do I, but for very different reasons.) By playing the "democracy" game, the Constitution Party is basically conceding that what the majority wants is what matters. Yes, they would like the majority to agree with them, but since it doesn't, why play a game (i.e., voting) that merely reinforces the looney notion that the majority has the right to rule in any way it sees fit (or in any way it's duped into supporting)?
5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not what it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that's what it actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment that there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people would even support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone expect it to turn out differently next time?
(Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the principles described therein were trashed. If you haven't before, do a little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters. Each of the first three "Presidents" trashed the Constitution, and any principles it pretended to be founded upon. Pretty much every President since then has done the same, though some more dramatically than others.)
------------------------------------
Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many treat as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you tell me how stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this:
There have always been opportunistic control freaks waiting to take any bit of truth, any righteous cause, any good idea, and turn it into power and control for themselves. The Founders stated a lot of profoundly important truths. For example, had they quit after the Declaration of Independence, I would have had very few complaints. But the fundamental principles stated by some were immediately hijacked by others for their own power.
Ironically, we have a fine analogy to study today. The Republican Party is now going to great lengths to hijack the ideas and enthusiasm of the "Tea Party" movement, to use as a source of power for itself. In other words, they are trying to use the advocacy of freedom as a tool to gain dominion over others. This is an exact rerun of what happened a couple hundred years ago, when a few pro-freedom radicals (e.g., Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) spoke the truth and got some attention, and some political conmen hijacked the results, and used it as a tool for power for themselves. The result was the Constitution. So before you bash me, make sure you're not accidentally cheering for the usurpers, thieves, liars and control freaks, instead of the people (like me) who actually want you to be free.
(P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step toward freedom would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that ever actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to happen now, because of any "political" efforts?)
http://bit.ly/9XXgSc
Will America Ban Criticism of Islam?
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, flippant and ignorant of the Constitution
Will America Ban Criticism of Islam?
By Daniel Greenfield Wednesday, September 15, 2010
In 1935 Sinclair Lewis wrote It Can't Happen Here, a novel about the rise of tyranny in America, whose message was that it indeed can happen here. Just to remind us that in fact it "can happen here", Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer used the occasion of his appearance on noted legal forum, Good Morning America, to suggest that there may not be any First Amendment protection for burning the Koran.
"Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater," Breyer told me. "Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?"
Breyer's statement was every bit as flippant and ignorant of the Constitution and even previous Supreme Court decisions as you would expect from a Clinton appointee.
To begin with, Breyer misstated what Holmes had said and what he had meant. In Schenk vs United States, Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." The key word here is "falsely". Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there really is a fire, is a warning. Shouting it when there is no fire, is a malicious attempt to start a panic. Holmes used the metaphor to argue that freedom of speech was contextual, so that some speech which presented a clear and present danger in a time of war could be banned. An Anti-War argument during peacetime might be legal, but illegal in wartime.
Breyer is relying on a widely discredited decision from almost a century ago, and taking it completely out of context. It's as if Breyer had decided to pluck Dred Scott vs Sanford, a decision made closer to the time of Schenk vs United States, than to our time, and used it to argue that companies don't need to pay non-citizen workers anymore. No Supreme Court has actually banned political speech on the grounds that Holmes did in a very long time.
What Breyer is proposing smacks of an attempt to reintroduce WW1 security measures back into law, measures that were widely considered illegal even at the time, and that next to slavery and prohibition, represent low points in American jurisprudence. The same liberal civil rights activists who warned us that the Patriot Act was scary and totalitarian, will of course have nothing to say about Breyer's flirtation with laws that make the Patriot Act seem like Woodstock.
Laws that prohibited derogatory or disloyal speech toward the government
Am I exaggerating? No. We are talking about laws that prohibited derogatory or disloyal speech toward the government. Laws under which a filmmaker who directed a movie about the Revolutionary War was imprisoned on charges of making German propaganda since the British were our allies. We're talking about laws which extended into monitoring people's speech in their own homes. Theodore Roosevelt denounces those laws as "unpatriotic and servile" and "morally treasonable to the American public". That quote was widely circulated by Democrats, in opposition to the Patriot Act, who are now silent when Breyer flirts with using those laws themselves as precedents for censoring speech that offends Muslims.
Breyer is even more misguided, as Schenk vs United States was at least a case in which the defendant's free speech arguably incited people to commit the illegal act, of dodging the draft. Burning the Koran does not incite people to commit any illegal acts.
Clearly see the true perversity of Justice Breyer's misapplication of the Schenk case
Here we can clearly see the true perversity of Justice Breyer's misapplication of the Schenk case. Schenk urged likeminded people to resist the draft. Refusing to serve was itself illegal, Schenk was encouraging sympathizers to commit an illegal act who would engage in the "stampede" and lead to the "danger" which justified criminalizing Schenk's speech. But who exactly is going to "stampede" in Breyer's Koran burning scenario?
Either Breyer has to argue that burning the Koran will encourage violent assaults on Muslims, an argument that would essentially criminalize all criticism of Islam. Or he has to argue that burning the Koran will result in a backlash of Muslim violence. The latter is easier to prove, but sets an equally disturbing precedent, as it would criminally any speech that could lead Muslims to "stampede through the crowded theater". A disturbing component of this argument, is that it would hold non-Muslims criminally responsible for Muslim violence.
For example a man walking through a Muslim neighborhood wearing a provocative t-shirt, who is set upon and stabbed by a Muslim, could be charged with inciting the very violence that he was a victim of. Under Felony-Murder laws, people have been charged with the murder of members of their group by law enforcement officers. Since a hate crime is considered a felony, and people have been charged with felony hate crimes for mere arguments, it would essentially become possible to charge people with the murder of one of their group by a Muslim, if they are found guilty of provoking the Muslim.
However under the relevant Supreme Court precedents on political speech, the real test is not "fire in a crowded theater", but the "imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg vs Ohio. The majority opinion there stated that; "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
In other words burning the Koran is fully legal. Telling a crowd, "Let's go burn down that mosque" would not be. Specifically, speech can only be criminalized when it actually calls for an illegal act. A test that is obviously not met by the Koran burning.
But Justice Breyer is aware of this. His comments on Good Morning America, ominously call for the Constitutionality of Koran burning to "be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully". What Breyer is really doing, is questioning the Brandenburg test, and talking about reopening the criminalization of free speech. His neutral language might go over most people's heads, but what he is actually doing is telling state lawmakers to go ahead and criminalize burning the Koran, and then arrest someone for doing it, run the case through the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court.
Breyer has given the go ahead to state lawmakers and law enforcement to begin harassing Koran burners to see if it holds up. His real message is, "Go and get em, boys".
And the Supreme Court decision might not be what people expect. In 2003, on Virginia vs Black, the Supreme Court ruled by a wide margin that state laws could criminalize burning the cross, so long as it was done in order to intimidate. The rationalized hinged on the KKK's long history of intimidating African-Americans, but the door had been opened to censoring some speech based on content and context. That the decision was bad should have been obvious when the lone African-American justice on the court dissented from it.
Considering Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor's well known contempt for the Constitution
This was a shift from a much more widely publicized and controversial, yet extremely narrow decision in 1989 on Texas vs Johnson, on flag burning. There the Court had found by a 5 to 4 margin that flag burning was protected speech. In 2003, the decision however was quite different, and while it did not approve of a ban on cross burning in general, it did approve of a ban on cross burning, if done in order to intimidate. And the safest bet for getting laws against Koran burning approved is to piggyback it on the precedent set by Virginia vs Black. Fraudulent claims about Islamophobia would be used to argue that burning the Koran serves the same function as cross-burning.
In 2003, justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled in favor of a cross burning if done to intimidate. If Sotomayor and Elaine Kagan joined them on a Koran burning case today, then the court will have a 5 to 4 majority in favor of state laws outlawing burning the Koran. Considering Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor's well known contempt for the Constitution, it leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. A thin thread on which to hang the First Amendment.
This however is not even the worst case scenario. Because Breyer might be proposing to open an even bigger pandora's box, than that.
Of course Breyer might just be stupid, as well as a snake. In the recent McDonald vs Chicago case, he actually wrote a dissent asking, "When is a gun semi-automatic". During the review of the 2000 election, Breyer actually told a Republican lawyer, "whether we win—whether your side, the side you're supporting wins or loses", an excessively and inappropriately candid admission for a Supreme Court justice to make. He defended his interest in introducing foreign laws into the United States by saying, "I can read what I want". It is also quite possible that Breyer thought his audience was dumb and needed a metaphor that is as populist as it is problematic, even if he had to misstate it.
But there is another uglier possibility, which is that Breyer meant exactly what he said. That he wasn't satisfied to just propose applying Virginia vs Black to burning the Koran, but that he actually wanted to revisit Holmes' original standard. There is also a war on today, but where during WW1 speech sympathetic to the enemy was criminalized, this time speech hostile to the enemy would be criminalized.
The argument would be used that burning the Koran endangers the lives of US soldiers and incites terrorist attacks against America. Terrorists would then be able to define the limits of free speech for Americans. And anything that might make Muslims angry, would be off limits.
The idea that a country would criminalize speech that the enemy doesn't like seems absurd on the face of it, yet Muslims receive that protection in Europe and even Israel. For example, Israel's left wing judiciary sentenced Tatiana Soskin, a woman who drew a picture of Mohammed as a pig to 2 years in jail back in the 90's. At the time, the Clinton Administration's spokesman, Nicholas Burns condemned her as "sick or evil" and said that "she deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam".
The significance of this is that back in 1997, the Clinton Administration's policy was already to encourage treating any mockery of Islam as a crime. Things have only gotten worse since then. Two of the people who publicly burned the Koran, including Derek Fenton at Ground Zero, have already been fired. Fenton was fired by NJ Transit, a state public corporation, which effectively means that punitive government action has already been taken against a Koran burner. How far it will go, will depend on the public's willingness to stand up for the United States Constitution and our civil rights, in the face of a totalitarian ideology and the politicians eager to kowtow to it.
It's easy to dismiss the idea of Koran burning as a crime as one of those things that "can't happen here", but in fact it can happen here. And I hope that this examination has shown people just how close it really is to happening here.
CFP Tools| More |
| Daniel Greenfield Bio | Daniel Greenfield Most recent columns Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. "Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com. Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com |
Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27685
--
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.
Who Islam Hates
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20100915.aspx
Who Islam Hates
September 15, 2010: One of the biggest problems with Islamic terrorism is that it is based on ancient, and widespread, hostility between factions in the Islamic world. The Islamic world has no central religious authority, and a long tradition of being hypersensitive and violent to those who appear to give offense. In Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the Moslems casualties were caused by other Moslems. While Islamic conservatives and radicals are usually doing the attacking, these killers represent many different strains of Islam. Even if the U.S. and NATO troops were to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing would go on, probably at a higher intensity. This is the basis for the great fear of Islamic nations getting nuclear weapons. Moslems, as they have demonstrated over the last few decades, are more prone to killing lots of their real or imagined enemies. Thus it is a more serious matter for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, than India. Per capita, India has lost fewer people to terrorist violence than the Moslem world. Moreover, the Moslem scientists who developed the Pakistani bomb, then went on to peddle it to other Moslem, and non-Moslem dictatorships. Moreover, many radicalized Moslems consider it their religious duty to attack and kill infidels (non-Moslems.)
This Moslem propensity for violence has a long history, and the hatred and killing is still with us. In the last few years, Moslems have regularly attacked Buddhists in Thailand, Jews everywhere, Baha'is in Iran and Christians in Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia and elsewhere. This is not a sudden and unexpected outburst of Moslem violence against non-Moslems. It is normal, and at the root of Islamic terrorism. While this violent behavior represents only a small number of Moslems, it is a large minority (from a few percent of a population, to over half, according to opinion polls). Moreover, the majority of Moslems has not been willing, or able, to confront and suppress the Islamic radicals that not only spread death and destruction, but also besmirch all Moslems. This reveals a fundamental problem in the Islamic world, the belief that combining righteousness with murderous tactics, is often the road to power and spiritual salvation. Throughout history, when these tactics were applied to non-Moslems, they often failed. The non-Moslems were unfazed by the religious angle, and, especially in the last five hundred years, were better able to defeat Islamic violence with even greater violence. Thus, until quite recently, the Moslems fought among themselves, and left the infidels (non-Moslems) out. But after World War II, that began to change.
During the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, Christian and Moslem Arabs fought bitterly over political, cultural and, ultimately, religious differences. The capital, Beirut, was divided into Christian and Moslem sections by the Green Line. The name came from the fact that in this rubble filled no man's land, only grass and weeds survived. And that the line on a ceasefire map was drawn in green. There have been a lot more Green Lines since then. Few realized it at the time, but this war was but the first of many between Christians and Moslems in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Many of the earliest Moslem converts were Christians. And many of the peoples Moslem armies unsuccessfully sought to conquer were Christian. The original Crusades, which modern Moslems portray as Western aggression, were actually a Western attempt to rescue Middle Eastern Christians from increasing Islamic terrorism and violence. But Islam as a political force was in decline for several centuries until the 1970s. Then things changed, and they continue to change. Fueled by oil wealth and access to Western weapons and technology, Islamic radicals saw new opportunities. Islam was again on the march, and few have noticed the many places it was turning into religious war with Christians and other non-Moslems.
In Asia, we have a Green Line between India and Pakistan. Inside India, many Moslem communities remain, and feelings aren't always neighborly. Indonesia and the Philippines suffer growing strife between Moslems and non-Moslems. Malaysia has fanatical Moslems persecuting more laid-back ones, and non-Moslems in general. China has a large Moslem community that generates an increasing amount of violence. Russia and America have formed a curious partnership to deal with Islamic-based terrorism coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in Chechnya, Russia faced Islamic-inspired violence all alone in the 1990s.
Africa has a rather dusty Green Line south of the semi-arid Sahel region. Many African nations are split by increasingly sensitive religious differences. The Moslems are in the north, Christians and animists in the south. Nigeria, Chad and Sudan are among the more violent hot spots at the moment. When the Moslem Somalis stop fighting each other they will return to raiding their Christian and animist neighbors to the south.
The Middle East still contains many non-Moslems. None have their own country, except for Israel. But Egypt contains five million Copts, native Christians who did not convert to Islam. Similar small Christian communities exist throughout the Middle East, and growing hostility from Moslem neighbors causes many to migrate, or get killed.
Moslems also have turned their righteous wrath on dissident Moslem sects. The Druze and Alawites are considered by many Moslems as pagans pretending to be Moslems. Similarly, the Shias of Iran and neighboring areas are considered less orthodox, not just for their admitted differences, but because many adherents openly practice customs of the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian religion. These differences are less frequently overlooked today. To survive, the many Druze have allied themselves with Israel, and most of the current Syrian leadership are Alawites who pretend to be more Shia than they really are.
Even Europe has a Green Line. The Moslems in the Balkans (Albanians and Bosnians) have been a constant source of strife for the last decade. Moslem migrants in Europe face even more persecution because of all those Green Lines, and this makes it easier for radical groups to recruit and carry out their crusade against Christians. In many European cities with Moslem minorities, there are neighborhoods non-Moslems are advised to stay out of.
But the Green Lines are about more than religion. A lot of it is politics. One of the reasons Islam ran out of steam centuries ago was that the Moslem areas never embraced democracy, and intellectual progress. Until the 20th century, most Moslems lived as part of some foreign empire, under local totalitarian monarchs. The foreign empires are gone, but democracy has had a hard time taking hold. The dictatorships are still there. And the people are restless.
Radical Islam arose as an alternative to all the other forms of government that never seemed to work. In theory, establishing "Islamic Republics" would solve all problems. People could vote, but only Moslems in good standing could be candidates for office. A committee of Moslem holy men would have veto power over political decisions. Islamic law would be used. It was simple, and it makes sense to a lot of Moslems in nations ruled by thugs and thieves. Especially if the people are largely uneducated and illiterate.
Islamic Republics don't work. The only one that has been established (not counting others that say they are but aren't) is in Iran. The major problems were twofold. First, the radicals had too much power. Radical religious types are no fun, and you can't argue with them because they are on a mission from God. Most people tire of this in short order. To speed this disillusionment, many of the once-poor and now-powerful religious leaders became corrupt. This eventually sends your popularity ratings straight to hell.
It will take a generation or so for everyone in the Moslem world to figure out where all this is going. This is already happening in Iran, where moderates are getting stronger every day, but everyone is trying to avoid a civil war. While the radicals are a minority, they are a determined bunch. The constant flow of Islamic radical propaganda does more than generate recruits and contributions in Moslem countries, it also energizes Moslem minorities (both migrants and converts) in Western countries to acts of terrorism. In the United States, you find such Moslems getting arrested several times a year for attempting to carry out religious violence.
Radicals throughout the Moslem world continue to take advantage of dissatisfaction among the people and recruit terrorists and supporters. To help this process along they invoke the ancient grudges popular among many Moslems. Most of these legends involve Christians beating on Moslems. To most radicals it makes sense to get people agitated over faraway foreigners rather than some strongman nearby.
Most radicals lack the skills, money or ability to carry their struggle to far-off places. So most of the agitation takes place among Moslem populations. Any violent attitudes generated are easily directed at available non-Moslems. Thus we have all those Green Lines. But the more violence you have along those Green Lines, the more really fanatical fighters are developed. These are the people who are willing to travel to foreign lands and deal with non-believers, and kill them for the cause. We call it terrorism; the fanatics call it doing what has to be done. Defending Islam with jihad.
Not surprisingly, Moslems get motivated to do something about Islamic radicalism when the violence comes to their neighborhoods. That's why terror attacks in the West are so popular. The infidels are being attacked, without any risk to those living in Moslem countries. Iraq changed all that, and during the course of that war (2004-7) the popularity of Islamic terrorism, in Moslem countries, declined sharply because the terrorists were killing so many Moslems. That, in the end, is what has killed, for a while, most Islamic terrorism in Iraq. But this time around, it would be nice if the Moslem world got their act together and expunged this malevolent tendency once and for all.
--
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.
Police Probe Substance Smeared On Koran
--
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.
Fun at Feiz Mohammad's Facebook Page
--
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.
Couple good postings from Grouchy Old Cripple
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/008022.html
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/008023.html
--
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.
Fidel Castro and American Statism
Fidel Castro and American Statism
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Cuba's president Fidel Castro is surely making American liberals extremely nervous. Mugged by reality, Castro is moving his country in a direction away from socialism, at the very same time that American liberals are trying their best to move the United States further in the direction of socialism.
Castro has a much firmer grip on reality than American liberals. Castro fully understands that Cuba has a socialist economic system, and he is starting to understand that it is that socialist system that is the principal cause of Cuba's economic woes. American statists, on the other hand, think that the United States has a free-enterprise system and that that system is the cause of America's economic woes. Thus, it makes sense that while Castro is moving away from socialism, American statists are moving toward it.
Consider the following statement of fact about the situation in Cuba from an article in the New York Times, among the paragons of liberal media in America: "Cubans have access to free health care, education and subsidized food and housing." The article should have also mentioned that Cubans have long had a comprehensive system of social security.
Now, everyone acknowledges that Cuba has a socialist economic system, right? No one disputes that.
But I'll bet that when some Americans read that statement from the New York Times, their immediate reaction is, "Why, I'll be darned. Cuba has a free-enterprise economic system, not a socialist one."
Why do I say that?
Because those programs are ones that are inherent to America's economic system, one that every school kid in America is taught is a free-enterprise system. Thus, given that such things as free health care (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid), education (i.e., public schooling), subsidized food and housing (i.e., agricultural subsidies and food stamps; FHA), and Social Security are core elements of America's "free-enterprise" system, the fact that they are also core elements of Cuba's economic system must mean, in the minds of some Americans, that Cuba's economic system must be "free-enterprise" also.
Not so, as we libertarians have been pointing out for decades. These are all socialist programs. Therefore, it's not surprising that they have been the pride and joy of Fidel Castro and other Cuban statists. The programs also show how far Americans have traveled down the road to socialism and away from a genuine free-market system.
In Cuba almost everyone works for the government. Why? Because this gives people a sense of security. The government is providing for them, taking care of them, ensuring that they don't face the risk of being laid off. There's no risk of capitalist exploitation.
Isn't that how American statists view the federal government as their provider and protector as their daddy or their mommy? Don't they look to the federal government to take care of them and protect them from the vicissitudes and hardships of life? Don't American statists believe in the equalization of wealth, taking from the rich to give to the poor? Cuba simply carried these principles to their logical conclusion, taking everything from the rich and letting most everyone work for the state.
There's one big problem, however, with socialism massive poverty. The state doesn't produce wealth. Instead, it survives by extracting wealth from the private sector, much as a parasite does to a host. The reason there is mass poverty in Cuba is because the percentage of people permitted to be in the private sector is extremely small only 5 percent of the population. That small private sector of 5 percent is insufficient to sustain the 95 percent parasitic sector.
Isn't that the problem facing the United States today? Doesn't the parasitic sector, including both the welfare state and the warfare state, continue growing bigger and bigger, while the private sector teeters under the weight of it all?
Castro has finally realized the nature of the problem. So, he just announced a layoff of half-a-million public-sector employees, with the aim of providing a bigger private-sector base to sustain the parasitic sector.
Isn't this in principle what American statists hope to do with their stimulus plans get more people hired in the private sector to prevent layoffs in the public sector?
Not surprisingly, Castro is keeping a tight leash on these newly discharged workers. He's making them get government licenses as a condition to run private-sector businesses.
In other words, like American statists Castro views economic activity as a privilege bestowed by the state, one that the state can license, control, and regulate. Like American statists, he does not view economic liberty as a fundamental, natural, God-given right with which no government can legitimately interfere.
What is happening in Cuba provides valuable lessons for Americans. First, it causes them to confront the real nature of such socialist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, subsidies, welfare, and occupational licensure, thereby providing them with a clue as to why the United States is mired in economic difficulty.
Second, and more important, it helps them to understand and appreciate the wise words of the great German thinker Johann von Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-09-15.asp
The Tea Party as a Leaderless Movement
September 15, 2010
The Tea Party as a Leaderless Movement
Posted by Lew Rockwell on September 15, 2010 10:16 AM
This morning on NPR, Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal was analyzing the Tea Party as a deliberately leaderless, non-hierarchical movement. Its people are not interested in political power as such, he said, but in changing people's minds about big government. This, I thought, is the libertarian revolution. But as long as the Tea Party is mired in Republican abstractions like the budget deficit, while accepting and even promoting the empire and the police state, it will not bother those in power. Still, the heart of the Tea Party is libertarian, in concert with its leaderless, ultra-decentralized organizational principles. Broadly speaking, the Tea Party is split between the Palinites and the Paulians. Indeed, the first Tea Parties, anti-tax like the original, were held by Ron Paul in 2007, and he has influenced nany subsequent developments by his example. As a real libertarian, he has never sought to be a top-down controller of a movement, or a country. Instead, he has put the ideas of libertarianism and Austrian economics in the lead.
Rauch reported on a sociologist who predicted the leaderless structure cannot last, and either the Tea Party would go out of existence, or it would end up having offices, a leader, and a staff in the DC graveyard of principle. A Tea Party activist responded, "He would say that, wouldn't he? He's a traditionalist." Certainly that taming the leaderless opposition is what the regime desperately wants. But the Tea Party should have a leader, said Rauch, so if some nut waves an ugly sign at a rally, the leader can say, "'That man does not represent us,' and ex-communicate him." Such wavers are often agents provocateur, of course. And as Rauch in effect confirmed, the regime much misses CIA agent Bill Buckley, who controlled the then-monolithic right wing. A dissident? Expel him! And indeed Buckley expelled such ideological tendencies as the Birchers, the Randians, and the Rothbardians. Especially, anyone who questioned the national security state, perpetual cold and hot war, the morality of nuclear war, and global hegemony for the US government was to be crushed. Maximum Leader Buckley was successful for a time, but along with the others demonized, Murray Rothbard more than survived, and today his ideas–anti-Fed, anti-empire, anti-power elite, pro-capitalist–shape the Paulian part of the Tea Party. Palin's mentor Bill Kristol, on the other hand, seeks to enforce the CIA-Pentagon line, in the Buckleyite tradition.
In this fight, the election of candidates is largely a distraction. It is our formerly suppressed ideas, inculcated in such men as Murray and Ron, that matter. Many other intellectuals like Hans Hoppe, Walter Block, Tom DiLorenzo, Tom Woods, and David Gordon have taken up the banner. We even have a TV star-intellectual, Andrew Napolitano. With their help, and despite the neocons, the leaderless, non-violent resistance to DC, is roiling the regime. More and more of us are withdrawing our consent, the one deadly,non-violent threat they face. It is the role of LRC to stoke this rebellion. Thanks to all of you who make that possible. And what a great time to be alive! We have much work to do, but so much to look forward to. Fighting the bad guys by changing hearts and minds is not only essential to all we believe in, indeed to the future of our freedom, prosperity, and civilization, it is a heck of a lot of fun. Let's roll.
Re: New York State Legislature: Downstate, voters dump Espada, Monserrate, but entrenched Rev. Ruben Diaz Sr. wins primary over Charlie Ramos.
Coincidence is not causation.
On 09/15/2010 12:06 PM, Tommy News wrote:
On 09/15/2010 12:06 PM, Tommy News wrote:
Downstate, voters dump Espada, Monserrate
Published: Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 10:26 AM Updated: Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 10:29 AM
View full sizeNew York State Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., D-Bronx, lost his primary Tuesday.
NEW YORK (AP) — A pair of New York Democrats who've grabbed headlines for legislative antics and legal woes have gone under the political steamroller.
Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx was trounced by Gustavo Rivera in Tuesday's primary. Former Sen. Hiram Monserrate of Queens lost his Assembly bid to Francisco Moya.
In 2009, Espada and Monserrate staged a monthlong state Senate coup by joining a Republican-dominated coalition that overthrew the majority.
Espada is accused of illegally directing millions of dollars in government grants to his health clinic.
Monserrate was expelled from the Senate in February after a misdemeanor assault conviction involving his girlfriend.
More:
The Results
September 15th, 2010Sen. Pedro Espada is out. Gustavo Rivera is in–at least as the Democratic candidate. Carl Paladino is the Republican candidate for governor. And most incumbent legislators held on to their seats. Throw the bums out? Not quite.
Check out our election list and see who survived. Hint: If you had a sitting Democratic incumbent they are likely still the party's nominee.
The margins weren't exactly close:
Sen. Ruben Diaz defeated Charlie Ramos with 79 percent of the vote. Sen. Jose Serrano beat his challenger by 81 percent. Assemblyman Marcos Crepo took 74 percent of the vote. Sen. Shirley Huntley won by 73 percent.
Not heartening news for the reform crowd or Ed Koch's NY Uprising. Voters did manage to keep former Sen. Hiram Monserrate from having a second go as a state legislator. Check out our in-depth coverage here.
For more on the man who beat Espada check out our primary-eve interview with Gustavo Rivera.
More:http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2010/09/15/the-results/--
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
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.
Re: The Male Maxine
LOL!!! It will never fly. Maxine is priceless.
CW
----- Original Message -----
From: Travis
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:15
Subject: The Male Maxine
|
--
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.
Re: Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
"The demise of the Republican Party as we know it" would be a very good and Progressive occurance. Yes, it would.
On 9/15/10, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Cold "Undaunted00" Water!!I agree. I do think that the Republicans have done some housecleaning, (not as much as I had hoped, but there has been some!!) and we are back to the Reaganesque conservative libertarian policies that made not only our Party, but our Nation great, and what our Nation once again so desperately needs!If the Republicans go back to D.C. in November with the same "spend/tax/big government" mindset that they had four and six years ago, then I think you will see the demise of the Republican Party as we know it, and quite possibly the beginning of a new political party in the United States for the first time in over a century.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Cold Water <coldwater000@gmail.com> wrote:
It pains me to say this BUT the Republican establishment has needed a good shaking up for a while now. Should be very interesting to see how this all works out on Election Day.CWNew SKYPE name: Undaunted00----- Original Message -----From: Keith In TampaSent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:02Subject: Re: Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election VictoryI wouldn't count on that seat being in Democratic ("Marxist") hands come November Tom! It's a brand new world, it's a brand new day, and Americans have had all they can enjoy of yours and President Obama's "Change". Clearly, it wasn't "Change That Anyone Believed In"; and as O'Donnell represents, there is a sweeping sea change throughout America, (with the exception of D.C. and personally, I don't think anyone in D.C. should be allowed to vote).
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will remain in Democratic hands come November.
O'Donnell Scores Huge Upset in Delaware
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call StaffSept. 14, 2010, 9:15 p.m.![]()
Updated: 9:38 p.m.
Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will remain in Democratic hands come November.
The Associated Press called the race just after 9 p.m. for O'Donnell, who earned 54 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for Rep. Mike Castle, with 85 percent of precincts reporting.
O'Donnell's victory almost certainly hands the general election to New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D). Republicans don't plan to spend money to contest the race with O'Donnell claiming the nomination, because they do not view her as a viable candidate who can appeal to the broader electorate.
Had he survived the primary, Castle, a former governor and longtime Congressman, would have been the frontrunner to defeat Coons.
Following a string of upsets by tea party-backed Senate candidates in Kentucky, Nevada, Colorado and Alaska, the Delaware race tested the clout of the conservative movement in the Northeast, a region where Republicans must make substantial gains to reclaim majorities in the House or Senate. And in some ways, Tuesday's contest showcased the GOP's identity crisis amid intense pressure from the right.
Democrats delighted in the defeat of another establishment-backed candidate and used Republicans' own words to demonstrate how unlikely it is that O'Donnell will be embraced by party leaders now that she is the nominee.
"Delaware Republicans chose an ultra-right wing extremist who is out of step with Delaware values. Christine O'Donnell cares more about imposing an extreme social doctrine than addressing the challenges facing working people," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said in a statement. "Even the Delaware Republican Party Chairman has said O'Donnell is 'not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware,' and 'could not be elected dog catcher.'"
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had vigorously supported Castle, released a one-sentence statement in reaction to O'Donnell's victory.
"We congratulate Christine O'Donnell for her nomination this evening after a hard-fought primary campaign in Delaware," NRSC Executive Director Rob Jesmer said.
O'Donnell and her tea party supporters knocked Castle earlier in the week as "King RINO, the most liberal GOP member of Congress."
"We have gone all in," Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell said before polls closed Tuesday. The group is an arm of the national movement and sent a team to Delaware for about a week, organizing rallies, phone banking and spending as much as $250,000 to help O'Donnell. "We think we've done everything we can to put the spotlight on Christine," he added.
But in a state where less than 30 percent of voters are registered Republicans, the Delaware GOP waged all-out war against O'Donnell and the tea party in recent days. After repeated accusations that O'Donnell was dishonest on the campaign trail and irresponsible in her personal finances, the state party disseminated an eleventh-hour robocall Tuesday featuring former O'Donnell campaign manager Kristin Murray.
"As O'Donnell's manager, I found out she was living on campaign donations, using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt," Murray said in the recording. "She wasn't concerned about conservative causes. O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck. That's why I left and why I won't trust O'Donnell with my hard-earned tax dollars."
More:--
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
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.
--
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.--
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.
--
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.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy --
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.
Re: Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
It was a baiting, insulting, offensive, and officious question. Yes, it was.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy --
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.
On 9/15/10, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Then explain socialized medicine, the governments ownership of the majority of car companies, etc.
It was a baiting question ONLY if the answer is not obvious and impossible to defend.--
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad and baiting question.The answer is none.
--On 9/15/10, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:Tommy,
Please name one of Obamas core policies that does not fit the very
definition of a Marxist brand of socialism and we can discuss this
further. Until you can do so Keiths description will have to stand.
On Sep 15, 8:34 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Democrats are not "Marxists".*
> **
> *Republicans are self centered. They want a return to the failed Bush
> policies, de-tax, de-regulate, take take take and blindly spend spend spend,
> which got us into this mess.*
> **
> *I believe you are wrong, as usual.
>
> *
> On 9/15/10, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I wouldn't count on that seat being in Democratic ("Marxist") hands come
> > November Tom! It's a brand new world, it's a brand new day, and Americans
> > have had all they can enjoy of yours and President Obama's "Change".
> > Clearly, it wasn't "Change That Anyone Believed In"; and as O'Donnell
> > represents, there is a sweeping sea change throughout America, (with the
> > exception of D.C. and personally, I don't think anyone in D.C. should be
> > allowed to vote).
>
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> *Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge
> >> Election Victory*
>
> >> Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican
> >> establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the
> >> First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will
> >> remain in Democratic hands come November.
> >> O'Donnell Scores Huge Upset in Delaware
> >> By Steve Peoples<http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/udt/fdc.collector?client_id=rollcall&...>
> >> Roll Call Staff
> >> Sept. 14, 2010, 9:15 p.m.
>
> >> <http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/rollcall/news;abr=!ie;sz=100x75;tile=2...>
> >> [image: Print]Print<http://www.rollcall.com/news/49827-1.html?type=printer_friendly>
> >> [image: E-Mail]E-Mail<http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.send.story.prompt?client_id=ro...>
> >> [image: Reprints]Reprints<http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/udt/fdc.collector?client_id=rollcall&...>
> >> [image: Decrease Text Size][image: Increase Text Size]Text Size
> >> Latest News
>
> >> - O'Donnell Scores Huge Upset in Delaware
> >> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/49827-1.html>
> >> - Murkowski Will Settle Her Campaign's Future on Friday<http://www.rollcall.com/news/49826-1.html>
> >> - NRCC Adds Boucher and McIntyre to Ad Target List<http://www.rollcall.com/news/49810-1.html>
> >> - LeMieux Expects Former Boss to Lose Senate Race to Rubio<http://www.rollcall.com/news/49805-1.html>
> >> - Senate Democrats Divided Over Warren as Possible Consumer Agency
> >> Chief <http://www.rollcall.com/news/49786-1.html>
>
> >> *Updated: 9:38 p.m.*
>
> >> Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican
> >> establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the
> >> First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will
> >> remain in Democratic hands come November.
>
> >> The Associated Press called the race just after 9 p.m. for O'Donnell, who
> >> earned 54 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for Rep. Mike Castle,
> >> with 85 percent of precincts reporting.
>
> >> O'Donnell's victory almost certainly hands the general election to New
> >> Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D). Republicans don't plan to spend
> >> money to contest the race with O'Donnell claiming the nomination, because
> >> they do not view her as a viable candidate who can appeal to the broader
> >> electorate.
>
> >> Had he survived the primary, Castle, a former governor and longtime
> >> Congressman, would have been the frontrunner to defeat Coons.
>
> >> Following a string of upsets by tea party-backed Senate candidates in
> >> Kentucky, Nevada, Colorado and Alaska, the Delaware race tested the clout of
> >> the conservative movement in the Northeast, a region where Republicans must
> >> make substantial gains to reclaim majorities in the House or Senate. And in
> >> some ways, Tuesday's contest showcased the GOP's identity crisis amid
> >> intense pressure from the right.
>
> >> Democrats delighted in the defeat of another establishment-backed
> >> candidate and used Republicans' own words to demonstrate how unlikely it is
> >> that O'Donnell will be embraced by party leaders now that she is the
> >> nominee.
>
> >> "Delaware Republicans chose an ultra-right wing extremist who is out of
> >> step with Delaware values. Christine O'Donnell cares more about imposing an
> >> extreme social doctrine than addressing the challenges facing working
> >> people," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said
> >> in a statement. "Even the Delaware Republican Party Chairman has said
> >> O'Donnell is 'not a viable candidate for any office in the state of
> >> Delaware,' and 'could not be elected dog catcher.'"
>
> >> The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had vigorously
> >> supported Castle, released a one-sentence statement in reaction to
> >> O'Donnell's victory.
>
> >> "We congratulate Christine O'Donnell for her nomination this evening after
> >> a hard-fought primary campaign in Delaware," NRSC Executive Director Rob
> >> Jesmer said.
>
> >> O'Donnell and her tea party supporters knocked Castle earlier in the week
> >> as "King RINO, the most liberal GOP member of Congress."
>
> >> "We have gone all in," Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell said
> >> before polls closed Tuesday. The group is an arm of the national movement
> >> and sent a team to Delaware for about a week, organizing rallies, phone
> >> banking and spending as much as $250,000 to help O'Donnell. "We think we've
> >> done everything we can to put the spotlight on Christine," he added.
>
> >> But in a state where less than 30 percent of voters are registered
> >> Republicans, the Delaware GOP waged all-out war against O'Donnell and the
> >> tea party in recent days. After repeated accusations that O'Donnell was
> >> dishonest on the campaign trail and irresponsible in her personal finances,
> >> the state party disseminated an eleventh-hour robocall Tuesday featuring
> >> former O'Donnell campaign manager Kristin Murray.
>
> >> "As O'Donnell's manager, I found out she was living on campaign donations,
> >> using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid
> >> and piling up thousands in debt," Murray said in the recording. "She wasn't
> >> concerned about conservative causes. O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck.
> >> That's why I left and why I won't trust O'Donnell with my hard-earned tax
> >> dollars."
> >> More:
>
> >>http://www.rollcall.com/news/49827-1.html?ET=rollcall:e8672:80082561a...
>
> >> --
> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> >> Have a great day,
> >> Tommy
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
--
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.
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.--
Have a great day,
Tommy
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.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
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.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy --
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.
Re: Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
As a general statement, you are correct in stating, "Democrats are not Marxists." I'm sure that most Democrats would not consider themselves Marxists. Unfortunately, most Democrats have no idea what a Marxist is. The same can be said for most Republicans.
What "got us into this mess" is the people of these united States blindly thinking that every time we have a problem with the Washington aristocracy all we have to do is change the faces of the aristocracy and things will get better. However, the aristocracy in Washington is inhabited (primarily) by political whores. That applies to members of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The evidence is overwhelming.
This mess began long before anyone in this group was born. The current mess began circa 1913 when a group of banksters gathered on Jekyll Island in Georgia to draft the Federal Reserve Act. As a result, we do not have an honest money system. Combine that with the political whores from both major parties (who's campaigns are funded by the spawn of that same group of banksters) and this is what you get.
If you read the Communist Manifesto you will find that much of what Karl Marx espoused currently exists in the united States of America. It has been evolving since 1913 as a result of that wicked piece of legislation enacted under Woodrow Wilson. It has been used to enslave us ever since - by both the Republican and Democratic parties.
On 9/15/2010 7:34 AM, Tommy News wrote:
What "got us into this mess" is the people of these united States blindly thinking that every time we have a problem with the Washington aristocracy all we have to do is change the faces of the aristocracy and things will get better. However, the aristocracy in Washington is inhabited (primarily) by political whores. That applies to members of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The evidence is overwhelming.
This mess began long before anyone in this group was born. The current mess began circa 1913 when a group of banksters gathered on Jekyll Island in Georgia to draft the Federal Reserve Act. As a result, we do not have an honest money system. Combine that with the political whores from both major parties (who's campaigns are funded by the spawn of that same group of banksters) and this is what you get.
If you read the Communist Manifesto you will find that much of what Karl Marx espoused currently exists in the united States of America. It has been evolving since 1913 as a result of that wicked piece of legislation enacted under Woodrow Wilson. It has been used to enslave us ever since - by both the Republican and Democratic parties.
On 9/15/2010 7:34 AM, Tommy News wrote:
Democrats are not "Marxists".Republicans are self centered. They want a return to the failed Bush policies, de-tax, de-regulate, take take take and blindly spend spend spend, which got us into this mess.I believe you are wrong, as usual.
On 9/15/10, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:I wouldn't count on that seat being in Democratic ("Marxist") hands come November Tom! It's a brand new world, it's a brand new day, and Americans have had all they can enjoy of yours and President Obama's "Change". Clearly, it wasn't "Change That Anyone Believed In"; and as O'Donnell represents, there is a sweeping sea change throughout America, (with the exception of D.C. and personally, I don't think anyone in D.C. should be allowed to vote).
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will remain in Democratic hands come November.
O'Donnell Scores Huge Upset in Delaware
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call StaffSept. 14, 2010, 9:15 p.m.![]()
--Updated: 9:38 p.m.
Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will remain in Democratic hands come November.
The Associated Press called the race just after 9 p.m. for O'Donnell, who earned 54 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for Rep. Mike Castle, with 85 percent of precincts reporting.
O'Donnell's victory almost certainly hands the general election to New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D). Republicans don't plan to spend money to contest the race with O'Donnell claiming the nomination, because they do not view her as a viable candidate who can appeal to the broader electorate.
Had he survived the primary, Castle, a former governor and longtime Congressman, would have been the frontrunner to defeat Coons.
Following a string of upsets by tea party-backed Senate candidates in Kentucky, Nevada, Colorado and Alaska, the Delaware race tested the clout of the conservative movement in the Northeast, a region where Republicans must make substantial gains to reclaim majorities in the House or Senate. And in some ways, Tuesday's contest showcased the GOP's identity crisis amid intense pressure from the right.
Democrats delighted in the defeat of another establishment-backed candidate and used Republicans' own words to demonstrate how unlikely it is that O'Donnell will be embraced by party leaders now that she is the nominee.
"Delaware Republicans chose an ultra-right wing extremist who is out of step with Delaware values. Christine O'Donnell cares more about imposing an extreme social doctrine than addressing the challenges facing working people," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said in a statement. "Even the Delaware Republican Party Chairman has said O'Donnell is 'not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware,' and 'could not be elected dog catcher.'"
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had vigorously supported Castle, released a one-sentence statement in reaction to O'Donnell's victory.
"We congratulate Christine O'Donnell for her nomination this evening after a hard-fought primary campaign in Delaware," NRSC Executive Director Rob Jesmer said.
O'Donnell and her tea party supporters knocked Castle earlier in the week as "King RINO, the most liberal GOP member of Congress."
"We have gone all in," Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell said before polls closed Tuesday. The group is an arm of the national movement and sent a team to Delaware for about a week, organizing rallies, phone banking and spending as much as $250,000 to help O'Donnell. "We think we've done everything we can to put the spotlight on Christine," he added.
But in a state where less than 30 percent of voters are registered Republicans, the Delaware GOP waged all-out war against O'Donnell and the tea party in recent days. After repeated accusations that O'Donnell was dishonest on the campaign trail and irresponsible in her personal finances, the state party disseminated an eleventh-hour robocall Tuesday featuring former O'Donnell campaign manager Kristin Murray.
"As O'Donnell's manager, I found out she was living on campaign donations, using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt," Murray said in the recording. "She wasn't concerned about conservative causes. O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck. That's why I left and why I won't trust O'Donnell with my hard-earned tax dollars."
More:
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
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.
--
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.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy --
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.Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere.
Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts.
http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html
--
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)