World News: Dec 28, 2010

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Re: JP Low cost electricity petition rejected by Lahore High cour.

bhai kr tou kuch nhi sktay bas is k jaanay ka intezaar kr sktay hain,,,,,,,,,,,

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM, sumbel ijaz <university.lhr@gmail.com> wrote:

Bnda kya krey aisi Government ka? :(

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Join Pakistan <joinpakistan@gmail.com> wrote:

--
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

--
Sumbel Ijaz

--
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

--
syed zakir ali
03008377791

--
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

JP Pakistanis are poor but Pakistan is not a poor country

"Pakistanis are poor but Pakistan is not a poor country", says one of the Swiss Bank Directors. He says that "28 trillions (28,000,000,000,000) of Pak Rupees are deposited in Swiss Banks which can be used for:

* "tax free" budgets for 30 years.

* Can give 6o million jobs to all Pakistan .

* Constructing 4 lane roads from any village to Islamabad .

* Ensure forever free supply to more than 500 social projects.

* Financial Assistance of Rs. 20,000 per month to every citizen for 60 years.

* Disbanding the need of World Bank and IMF loans.

Think how our money is stolen and blocked by rich corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. We have full right against these corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

Don't ignore and forgive corruption at any level in our country.

Iss message koe itna forward karo kay poora PAKISTAN parhay aur jaag utthay.

Please take it seriously. If you can forward jokes, then why not this? Be a responsible citizen.

ALLAH Hafiz

JP Hamd-o-Naat

Hamd-o-Naat

JP "Employment Opportunity"

Greetings!!!

Please find attached file containing information related to latest employment positions vacant in different cities of Pakistan.

Kindly forward this precious information to persons, in need and, whom are searching for employment.

Note: The purpose of this mail is to serve the Pakistan.

Thanks.

Re: JP Jst Amazing

Long live Pakistan......?
Agar Jamhooriyat rahegi to pakistan Tarriqi Karega...Farman Ch.Aitezaz Ahsan
Agar Adlia main Ch. saheb honge to pakistan Tarraki karega Ch.Aitezaz Ahsan
Agar hamari Hukoomat rahegi to pakistan Tarraki karega Ch.Aitezaz Ahsan

On 12/28/10, sumbel ijaz <university.lhr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lahol wala..
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Adeel Jafri <adeel.jafri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After All these expenditures i wonder what thay do for people.........
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Adeel Jafri
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sumbel Ijaz
>
> --
> 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
>

WikiLeaks, Michael Lind, and the ‘New’ Nationalism

WikiLeaks, Michael Lind, and the 'New' Nationalism
The authoritarian left comes out of the closet
by Justin Raimondo, December 27, 2010

The international debate engendered by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication of classified US diplomatic cables has sent most American liberals into hiding. Gone AWOL when it comes to the Obama administration's escalation of the federal government's war on civil liberties, mainstream liberal defenders of WikiLeaks are few and far between.

On the cable news circuit, Rachel Maddow, the supposed "foreign policy wonk," devoted a brief segment to the issue, echoing the MSM's party line that There's Nothing New Here. (Earth to Rachel: Since only a small percentage of the cables have so far been published, isn't it a little premature for such a pronouncement? Just asking .) Her fellow MSNBCer, Chris Matthews, confined himself to a few snarling comments about Julian Assange – "a rapist" – with only Keith Olbermann (who can hardly be called "mainstream," in any event) openly defending the last remaining symbol of what had once been a free society.

By far the most consistent and effective champion of WikiLeaks on what passes for the "left" these days has been the heroic Glenn Greenwald: not only in his widely-read columns for Salon.com, but in numerous media appearances in which he has taken on the worst of the very worst – and, yes, I do indeed mean John F. Burns, of the New York Times. Glenn has been everywhere, a libertarian gladiator up against the Empire's pundit warrior-slaves, and winning every time.

News programs which would normally interview only regimist "experts" and commentators have been forced, by the very nature of a contentious subject, to bring in someone who doesn't toe Washington's line, and Glenn – with his legal training and calm, reasoned demeanor – is almost singlehandedly taking on the Powers That Be in this important fight.

Now, however, a challenger has arisen from within the ranks of the Salon.com limousine liberal set to take on our Spartacus: Michael Lind, who has staked out a position as a "new nationalist" on the Obama-friendly left, has entered the arena, outlining the case against Assange and WikiLeaks that Eric Holder's Justice Department will make in court if US goons succeed in netting him from the Swedes, or perhaps even the Brits. (If only we could read those diplomatic cables going to and fro between Washington, Stockholm, and London!)

"This controversy," avers Lind, "has nothing to do with views of current U.S. foreign policy." It's time to reel out his lefty, antiwar credentials, and he does so:

"I denounced the Iraq War in advance in print, on the radio and on TV, and after it began in two books. I favor rapid disengagement from Afghanistan and a far more modest American military role in the world."

Yes, but what has Lind done to advance the cause of downsizing America's overseas presence lately? These cables are a treasure trove for advocates of military modesty: we'll be poring over them for years extracting the lessons of the rampant immodesty that has so far dominated the minds of US policymakers.

For revealing the true face of America's overseas empire, Assange should be hailed as a hero by anti-interventionists of every stripe, much as opponents of the Vietnam war supported and continue to honor Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. So why is the allegedly anti-interventionist – or, perhaps, modestly interventionist – Lind coming out against WikiLeaks? "I agree with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that much, perhaps most, government secrecy is unnecessary and counterproductive," he writes,

"But everyone other than anarchists who oppose government of any kind must acknowledge the need for diplomats and military officers, as well as civilian officials, to be able to engage in confidential communications among themselves and with foreign governments without fear of unauthorized publicity. Even the government of an isolationist America would insist on that prerogative."

The government of a country that was "isolationist" (i.e. intent on minding its own business) and also authoritarian would undoubtedly prosecute WikiLeaks, and any American or foreign national on American soil who gave it aid and comfort. It would most certainly insist that PayPal, Bank of America, Amazon.com, and all "private" companies cease doing business with WikiLeaks. This could indeed happen in an "isolationist" America in which the Constitution never existed, or in which the anti-Federalists didn't succeed in inserting those essential Amendments to the final document – notably the first, which protects WikiLeaks and the media in general from government censorship and prosecution.

As to whether such a regime would do everything in its power to capture Assange, and drag him, in chains, into a US court, is highly doubtful. Not being an American citizen, the WikiLeaks founder is not subject to our various laws regulating the release of classified information, nor do we have the legal authority to prosecute him – unless one assumes the US government has legal sovereignty over the entire globe. This, however, is a doubtful legal premise for an "isolationist" administration, of any stripe, to uphold. Only the government of an isolationist America with Lind in the White House would make such a legal argument shortly before being laughed out of court.

In an isolationist America, the jury would certainly take a dim view of the government's claim to supra-national sovereignty, but most of all they'd wonder what all the fuss was about. After all, the content of the cables would be far different: details of peaceful, non-invasive, non-threatening cultural and educational activities, blow-by-blow accounts of cocktail party conversations, etc. We certainly wouldn't be hearing about secret bombing raids, how we're dragged into conflicts by reckless allies, and how our diplomats are directly intervening in the legal affairs of other nations. And I very much doubt we'd be reading about our "isolationist" secretary of state ordering US diplomats to collect credit card numbers and computer passwords of their foreign counterparts.

In any case, Lind, undeterred by the illogic of his position, is here merely echoing Obama administration spokesmen who claim WikiLeaks is an "anarchist" cabal. Discussing the various "legal" options open to the Obama administration, and their origin during the Wilson era, Lind again raises a point of personal privilege:

"I'm no defender of World War I-era paranoia, as my German-born great-grandfather was a victim of it. However, if the Espionage Act did not exist, I would favor passage of some sort of reasonable act to protect legitimate government secrets, because democratic republics have a right to protect themselves from genuine spies and real traitors, as well as vengeful employees. If the perennial presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, Eugene Debs, whom the Wilson administration imprisoned for opposing the draft, had been elected president, I doubt that America's socialist commander in chief and chief diplomat would have looked kindly on unauthorized publication of classified government secrets.'

President Debs would undoubtedly have released the secret unpublished protocols of the Versailles Treaty – although they leaked out anyway, and soured a whole generation of progressives on the idea of wars to "make the world safe for democracy." And surely there would be no Espionage Act, and scant legal means to prosecute either WikiLeaks or Assange – although, with extensive control over the economy, government officials could simply order companies like Amazon.com to sever their links to WikiLeaks. And I find it difficult to reconcile Debs the person, who saw himself as a challenger to authority and not its enabler, ordering Assange's imprisonment.

Debs, however, was an old-fashioned leftist, who would certainly disdain the sort of "new nationalism" preached by Lind and similar would-be renovators of the progressive vision. Exchanging his historian hat for that of a legal expert, Lind then tries to claim WikiLeaks is trying to wriggle out of prosecution by "rewriting its own history" because of text changes on its submissions page. "WikiLeaks accepts a wide range of materials," the new text reads, "but we do not solicit it." Which is no doubt true: after all, they've already got a huge backlog, what with 250,000 diplomatic cables to publish, not to mention all the other material they've received. They don't have to solicit material: their mere existence is in itself a solicitation, like the office Suggestion Box.

Lind doesn't seem to understand either this concept, or indeed anything to do with computer technology and anonymity on the web: for example, he claims that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could be used to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks. But the Act criminalizes the practice known as "cracking," i.e. remotely accessing computer files electronically, and "hacking" into the system. This is not what WikiLeaks does, or is involved in: instead, it is merely an electronic drop box in which whistleblowers can store and transmit documents and other evidence of governmental or corporate wrongdoing in complete anonymity. There is no conspiracy between WikiLeaks and whoever leaked those cables because there is no need of one: the technology is itself the subversive element that compromises and exposes the system.

As an attorney for the prosecution, Lind is eager to debunk WikiLeaks' journalistic credentials, but instead reveals more about himself than he does about the issue:

"There is little resemblance between a media organization that summarizes leaked information from a Pentagon or State Department official, following elaborate precautions and internal discussions among the publisher and the editors, and a sect of anarchists who dump stolen documents from more than a hundred countries into cyberspace."

He goes on to rant that the WikiLeakers are akin to "criminal lunatics and terrorists" plotting to collect "hush money" from their "victims." Whatever relationship to reality these accusations may have is not clear, but, then again, at this point, Lind's hold on reality seems increasingly tenuous as his tirade proceeds on its cyclonic, scattershot course. Lind, by the way, claims to know what is in the encrypted "insurance" file:

"The 'doomsday files' which have been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters are understood to include information on Guantanamo Bay, and aerial video of a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP reports and Bank of America documents."

How does he know this? He says the files "are understood to include" this information: understood by whom? The Bank of America files are a separate question, not necessarily related to the "insurance" file. The aerial video is in the same category, and as for information on Guantanamo Bay, the expectation – my expectation – is that this will come out in the many thousands of cables yet to be published.

Well, then, says Lind, how do we know WikiLeaks isn't using this information to shake down institutions – like banks. "We would never know," he avers. But of course the argument can be turned around, and we can ask the same question about what the US government is doing with this vast database: is it conceivable that US government officials could use this information to shake down or otherwise intimidate foreign or domestic politically players into more cooperative behavior? Indeed, it's inconceivable that they didn't.

The unspoken premise behind this unasked question is that governments have this prerogative, which no private citizen must take it upon themselves to exercise. Lind, being a dyed-in-the-wool statist, and incipient authoritarian, is furious that this cardinal rule has been violated, and by an "anarchist sect" to boot. He can hardly contain his spittle-flecked fury: "If Assange sincerely believes that he needs to blackmail the U.S. government into refraining from assassinating him," he bellows, "he is delusional as well as conceited."

There are many more ways for the US to take out a high profile thorn in its side, and assassination is perhaps the least effective. The most effective, it seems to me, is to do what they have been doing: running a well-coordinated smear campaign and reel him in, initially, on a lesser charges, using proxies like the Brits and the Swedes. Lind is right about one thing, though: the prospect of facing ever-darker spilled secrets is unlikely to deter the number one criminal organization on earth, otherwise known as the US federal government, from closing in on its prey. We see this in every day's headlines, in which the smear campaign and the legal campaign against WikiLeaks take on more hysterical overtones, of which Lind's essay represents a new low point.

Conflating the public pronouncements of "Anonymous" – the online hackers who have vowed to avenge the persecution of Assange by hacking into various government and corporate web sites – with those of Assange and the WikiLeaks leadership, Lind conjures a "contempt for the masses" and a messianic message that the people must be saved from themselves: "Like other illiberal sects, the cult of Assange rationalizes its contempt for law and ordinary politics by dismissing the 'general public' as passive fools brainwashed by the 'media with a political agenda.' So much for democracy."

Yet Assange clearly does not believe any of this: his online manifesto, which Lind cites but seems not to have read, clearly is counting on public support in order to achieve its objective of a freer, more transparent society, and Assange has himself expressed optimism that support for his cause will increase as the crimes of the mighty are exposed. Yet Lind's preferred narrative will not be denied by a few uncomfortable facts:

"As in other forms of anti-liberal thought, like anarchism and fascism and Marxism-Leninism and radical Islamism, the central idea of cyber-anarchism is that society must be saved by a self-appointed vanguard of vigilantes who themselves are above the law and whose motives are beyond question: 'Anonymous is here to ensure punishment does not go unserved to those who deserve it.' So much for liberalism, which dreads arbitrary power, fears hero worship and assumes that charismatic rebels as well as bureaucratic authorities are likely to be fallible, biased and corrupt."

There are no links, or even footnotes, to validate Lind's weird definition of what he calls "cyber-anarchism," nor does he even try to prove his counterintuitive thesis that anarchism is a form of "anti-liberal thought," akin to "radical Islamism": he simply states it as a given. But, really, his attempt to give the persecution of WikiLeaks and the relentless pursuit of Assange a "liberal" coloration is a bit of overreaching: instead of convincing the reader, it merely gives the author a neoconservative coloration. And while charismatic rebels may have their downside, they are not in a position to inflict as much damage as their fallible, biased, and corrupt counterparts in government, who have access to the indispensable tool of tyrants everywhere: state power.

WikiLeaks isn't a news media organization: in Lind's view, it's a "cult-like political and intellectual movement." Critics of this dangerous new "illiberal" movement are supposedly being smeared by Assange, who – incredibly! – thinks moves by major credit card companies, Bank of America, et al., to disrupt WikiLeaks makes them "instruments of US foreign policy." Oh, perish the thought! Governmental-corporate collusion? Not in Michael Lind's America! And if you believe the US government had something of a hand in the awfully convenient "rape" charges thrown at Assange, why, then "the Birthers and Birchers and Truthers now have company." See how that rhymes – Birther, Bircher? Clever, isn't it? And conflating Assange with those terrible right-wing ogres so familiar to readers of Salon – using all-purpose smear words divorced from any real meaning and perfectly suited to Lind's purposes, which dovetail nicely with those of the US Justice Department. Even cleverer still!

While Vice President Joe Biden's description of WikiLeaks as "high tech terrorism" may have been overwrought, says Lind, WikiLeaks supporters are indeed akin to "terrorists," in that they are hoping for an overreaction from the government, which will reduce the free flow of information within governmental organizations, and this will lead to their collapse. And who describes this similarity to al-Qaeda, asks Lind: why none other than Glenn Greenwald. Therefore, WikiLeaks is indeed a "terrorist" organization – so, Eric, the coast is clear, you can go ahead and prosecute now!

Except there's just one tiny difference between al-Qaeda and WikiLeaks: the latter isn't commandeering airliners and flying them into skyscrapers, nor is it murdering civilians indiscriminately all around the world. Oh, but in Lind's world, which shares a solar system with Bizarro World, al-Qaeda and WikiLeaks are indistinguishable entities, two heads of the same creature.

Like apologists for the previous administration, the defenders of this one are eager to equate their enemies with terrorism, and the Obama-ites are just as prone to this as the Fox News crowd. This is their "argument" of last resort: when all else fails, bring out the "you're-a-terrorist" guns and fire away. It works every time.

Lind's "new nationalism," is, I'm afraid, the same as the "old" nationalism: a flag-waving, hysterical, ingrown doctrine of delusion and rationale for unbridled militarism. It is an ideological instrument that makes repression easier to justify, even as the epitome of an enlightened "liberalism." Like all statists, his is the idolatry of Authority, which requires secrecy as a matter of course. His socialistic vision of a highly centralized American state, which controls much of the economy and society, far from curtailing US intervention around the globe, would make it far easier for our government to marshal national resources around an aggressive foreign policy. Once they grab power, these sorts of "liberals" are usually the first to make the most of it. In Lind's rabid ultra-nationalism, we are seeing the future of "liberalism" as it exists under President Obama – and what a discredited, foul creature it is!

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/12/26/wikileaks-michael-lind-and-the-new-nationalism/

Free or Fair?

Free or Fair?
by Walter E. Williams

At first blush, the mercantilists' call for "free trade but fair trade" sounds reasonable. After all, who can be against fairness? Giving the idea just a bit of thought suggests that fairness as a guide for public policy lays the groundwork for tyranny. You say, "Williams, I've never heard anything so farfetched! Explain yourself."

Think about the First Amendment to our Constitution that reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How many of us would prefer that the Founders had written the First Amendment so as to focus on fairness rather than freedom and instead wrote: Congress shall make no unfair laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the fair exercise thereof; or abridging the fairness of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble in a fair fashion, and to fairly petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?

How supportive would you be to a person who argued that he was for free religion but fair religion, or he was for free speech but fair speech? Would you be supportive of government efforts to limit unfair religion and unfair speech? How might life look under a regime of fairness of religion, speech and the press?

Suppose a newspaper published a statement like "President Obama might easily end his term alongside Jimmy Carter as one of America's worse presidents." Some people might consider that fair speech while other people denounce it as unfair speech. What to do? A tribunal would have to be formed to decide on the fairness or unfairness of the statement. It goes without saying that the political makeup of the tribunal would be a matter of controversy. Once such a tribunal was set up, how much generalized agreement would there be on what it decreed? And, if deemed unfair speech, what should the penalties be?

The bottom line is that what's fair or unfair is an elusive concept and the same applies to trade. Last summer, I purchased a 2010 LS 460 Lexus, through a U.S. intermediary, from a Japanese producer for $70,000. Here's my question to you: Was that a fair or unfair trade? I was free to keep my $70,000 or purchase the car. The Japanese producer was free to keep his Lexus or sell me the car. As it turned out, I gave up my $70,000 and took possession of the car, and the Japanese producer gave up possession of the car and took possession of my money. The exchange occurred because I saw myself as being better off and so did the Japanese producer. I think it was both free and fair trade, and I'd like an American mercantilist to explain to me how it wasn't.

Mercantilists have absolutely no argument when we recognize that trade is mostly between individuals. Mercantilists pretend that trade occurs between nations such as U.S. trading with England or Japan to appeal to our jingoism. First, does the U.S. trade with Japan and England? In other words, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament? That's nonsense. Trade occurs between individuals in one country, through intermediaries, with individuals in another country.

Who might protest that my trade with the Lexus manufacturer was unfair? If you said an American car manufacturer and their union workers, go to the head of the class. They would like Congress to restrict foreign trade so that they can sell their cars at a pleasing price and their workers earn a pleasing wage. As a matter of fact, it's never American consumers who complain about cheaper prices. It's always American producers and their unions who do the complaining. That ought to tell us something.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams64.1.html

Our Establishment Church: Its Rules and Credo

Our Establishment Church: Its Rules and Credo
by Charles A. Burris

Anders Mikkelsen has written an excellent review of Andrew Bacevich's recent book, Washington Rules, which summarizes and lays out the "rules" and "credo" of the American foreign policy Establishment. It is another fine example of power elite analysis or "establishment studies."

The concept of the Establishment was first used in England referring to the established (or official) state church, the Anglican Church or Church of England, created by the usurper and schismatic Henry Tudor during the Protestant Reformation.

Nineteenth-century writer William Cobbett later expanded the concept to include those networks of financial institutions related to the Bank of England, elite public schools and clubs, and publishing entities (such as "the bloody old Times") the ruling aristocracy used to train and sustain its oligarchic bureaucracy who manned the British empire. Cobbett labeled this power elite as "the Thing."

As Leonard and Mark Silk observed in their masterful book, The American Establishment, twentieth century British historian A. J. P. Taylor later adapted Cobbett's "the Thing" into "the Establishment" in a 1953 article in The New Statesman, followed by journalist Henry Fairlie's usage of the term in The Spectator in 1955.

The broad concept was soon adopted by wide-ranging American analysts of the powers-that-be, such as Richard H. Rovere, C. Wright Mills, Dan Smoot, Phyllis Schlafly, Carroll Quigley, John Kenneth Galbraith, and G. William Domhoff.

These authors recognized that while the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits an establishment of religion, our nation does indeed have, like its British cousins across the pond, an Establishment, complete with its own theological canon and doxology of statecraft and spy craft. Its "Vatican" is the Council on Foreign Relations. Its primary source of treasure and alms has been the Morgan and Rockefeller financial empires, which created the Fed, the great enabler of the Welfare-Warfare State. Many of its elite seminarians have studied at Ivy League institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, or Columbia; some in particular, at Yale where they were initiated into Skull and Bones.

Bacevich concentrates on the immediate post-World War II period of history, tracing the Establishment's bipartisan "foreign policy consensus" on the Cold War to the present Bush/Obama war on terrorism. He see this as the crucial gestation period, a time implementing "the American Century" of Henry Luce, of the Truman administration's creation of the National Security State and its doctrine of Containment as a public rationale for global intervention and the military-industrial complex (and George F. Kennan's, Robert A. Lovett's, and the Dulles Brothers' clandestine policy of Rollback or Liberation through covert operations of the OPC and CIA).

But the Establishment's rules and credo were sketched on papyrus long before 1948. They were put forth by visionary prophets of pelf, plunder and empire fifty years earlier, during the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection.

A central figure was the sinister Elihu Root, later founding chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, who like his fellow interventionists and war criminals Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama, was recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. He was the archetype of the Establishment's much-abused "Wise Man" category, the mainstream media's designation of select servitors of power stretching from Root to the recently departed Richard Holbrooke – Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Bilderberg group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, former managing director of Lehman Brothers, and board director of AIG to July 2008 (just before the bailouts).

Before the acclaimed "Wise Men" of the Truman regime came the "Four Evangelists" of an earlier era. Led by Elihu Root, his protégé "Colonel" Henry L. Simpson, along with "Colonel" Edward M. House and Raymond B. Fosdick, these little-known four were the real architects of the American Establishment and its interventionist gospel of the Welfare-Warfare State. It is they who wrote its rules and drafted its credo which has transformed the American republic into a squalid and overstretched empire.

In a recent LRC article I wrote of how today's libertarians must become the new abolitionists.

We must also continue our role as non-interventionist heretics to the CFR's church, working for its disestablishment and demise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris17.1.html

Tuesday Funny!

Scotty Starnes | December 28, 2010 at 9:00 AM | Tags: assholes, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Obama, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-3TX

Brought to you by iOwnTheWorld.com

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

A Mosque, Some Muslims, and a Mob

A Mosque, Some Muslims, and a Mob
by C.J. Maloney

Is it possible The People should ever be their own enemies? -- Fischer Ames (1805)

Remember the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy? It took place last summer in New York City when some people – with no sense of how a democracy works – had the foolish notion to build on property they owned an Islamic cultural center to worship God as they pleased. In both Constitutional law and simple humanity they were well within their rights but their proposed location was, unfortunately, just two blocks from where the Twin Towers once stood. Crushed under a wave of populist indignation, the Islamic center has yet to be built.

Admittedly I hadn't thought about it in some time, and would gather that most New Yorkers hadn't thought about the "Ground Zero Mosque," either, since the tabloids stopped telling us to think about it. The angry mobs that once gathered outside the proposed location have taken their pitchforks and torches and run off toward other distractions. ( Call of Duty: Black Ops was released, for one.) Now emotions lay at low tide, all is calm. So it's time to take stock of what it cost us.

The fact that a most basic human right – to worship in peace as you please – came under blatant assault in America, in our greatest, most liberal city no less, is tragic but predictable. This is what you get from nine (and counting) years of living under endless war, breathing the harsh, poisonous air of an increasingly militarized society, and the effects were shown in the tepid defense my great state's political grandees' offered in response to this populist rejection of religious freedom.

The political leaders of New York were, with but rare exception, either outright scoundrels or mealy-mouthed cowards. Steve Israel, my local House representative, took a few moments to defend our Constitution in a fuzzy, kind of, sort of way that characterizes those without any spine. "While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque," he began (and history would be kinder to him had he stopped there), "it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims."

So there we have it. Our Constitution, Israel laments, is too insensitive. Freedom isn't free, the saying goes, and here Israel is unwilling to pay even the price of hurt feelings. Mr. Israel's feeble gesture sums up all that New York's timid Congressional representatives could muster in defense of religious freedom; highlights how bereft our leaders are of any courage to stand up to a howling mob.

The farce deepened as the one politician who came out the hero of this sad tale was none other than the Golden Tongue himself, Barack Obama, a man not exactly known for political courage. "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding." For once I applauded the man and realized I was wrong about one thing – he has read the Constitution.

The entire sad episode of the "Ground Zero Mosque" gave warning that democracy is no bulwark for liberty; it never has been and cannot be. I look at America today and see the wisdom in Bertrand de Jouvenel's assertion that democracy is "the time of tyranny's incubation." (de Jouvenel, 1978, 15) Americans have forgotten to remember that Hitler – who was elected – is not only a symbol of the vile Holocaust but of sweet democracy, too.

Like many of our ancestors these newly arrived Muslim immigrants pinned their hopes on America's reputation as a nation of law and not of men but found, in this case, that reputation to be far short to its reality. Today, America's reality starts for the Muslim immigrant as soon as they disembark onto freedom's golden shores.

Where once our forefathers, upon entry into New York harbor, came up from steerage to gather on the ship's deck and watch the Statue of Liberty slide by, today's immigrants come through an airport. What do they think when they first spot a line of freedom-loving Americans, standing meek with shoes in hand and pants around the ankles as surly TSA agents bark orders and jam their hands into our crotch? Do any of them take a moment to think about the lawlessness they had fled and wonder, "Why did I bother?"

Don't be alarmed, new Muslim-Americans, all you see and hear about you is from what democracy is made! As H.L. Mencken noted long ago, a citizen of a democracy will be met everywhere by "an assumption of his disingenuousness and dishonour." (Mencken, 2009, 156) So take off your sandals, lift your robe, and wait for Uncle Sam's frisk.

I don't claim this anti-Muslim populism to be anything unusual. History tells us that all human societies need a dog to kick. Without exception every race and nationality has been through the ringer at one time or another and, also without exception, every race and nationality has behaved like a beast when given the opportunity to pummel some minority in their midst. Every dog has its day, and every society has its dog. Current dog in America are Muslims within our borders. Native born or no, these poor people now find themselves cursed to be Muslim in a land that doesn't want them.

James Madison once looked about him at 1774 Virginia and its wave of religious persecutions and exclaimed that he had "nothing to brag of as to the State and Liberty of my country…that diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among some." Now, over two hundred years on, some Texas Congressman named John Cornyn declared of President Obama's defense of religious freedom "the president himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America." No truer words can be said of 2010 America. Democracy has spoken; The People have made themselves heard. Freedom of religion is conditional upon the mob's approval, the Constitution be damned.

As things currently stand any Muslim who comes to America in search of freedom is to be pitied – they are like a drowning sailor climbing into a sinking lifeboat.

Sources Cited

Mencken, H.L. Notes on Democracy (Dissident Books, New York, 2009)

De Jouvenel, Bertrand. On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth (Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, IN, 1975)

Re: Liberal! Socialist! Fascist! Marxist! Democrat! Moonbat! Muslim! Obamacare! Enemy! Terrorist!

Right on the money Greg.

The truth is, that the hate, lies and smear by far left extremists is "untoppable".

The terms, "Socialist", "Marxist", "Liberal"; "ObamaCare"; and I dare say even "Moonbat" are not derogatory terms. They are in fact, accurate descriptions of political thought, political doctrine, and/or political policy. From a previous post of mine:

The truth is, that the Democratic Party now openly advocates socialism, which by its very definition, is some middle ground and transition to communism.   Although the Democrats used to try and evade the moniker, and distance themselves from being classified as socialists, they do so no more. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, (D. Cal.) this past summer, parroted the Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the nationalization of the oil companies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

As I just quoted, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said just recently:

"So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) on June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference of the Democratic Leadership said:

"Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html

Democrats openly call for redistribution of wealth in our Nation, they call for socialized medicine, socialized energy, and in general, the Democratic Party openly advocates the federal government's involvement in each and every facet of our lives.   Period. What part of this can any member of this group, with a straight face, argue is NOT socialism?

By example, here in President Obama's own words, he openly advocates a redistribution of wealth:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":

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

There is no question that President Obama is calling for the very tenets of socialism, which is the forerunner of communism, and a economic and political system that has failed miserably throughout recorded history.   President Obama's, and many Democrats' belief, is that "Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism were all wonderful political, social and economic systems, we just haven't had the right folks try and implement them yet!"

====================

Re: Big Book of Bird Brains.

I have TWO Big Books that I try my best to live my life by

On Dec 28, 10:14 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [[ Let me know if the pics don't come through.]]
>
> *Subject:* Big Book of Bird Brains
>
> [image: Bfhbigbook]
>
> *Species: The Downy Gorepecker *(*Fatuous Bastardus*)
>
> *Habitat: *Private Jets, Humongous Houseboats, Gigantic Mansions, Hollywood
> Buttocks.
>
> *Voice: *In flight a screeching trill evocative of a pithed frog gargling
> ground glass. When at rest stunned "no press" silence, but the empty
> knocking of the head on tree trunks can be heard wherever Climategate emails
> are read.
>
> *Diet: *Feeds on aging hippies, gullible econazis and other small insects.
>
> *Range:* Once global but lately confined to a small section of his basement
> where the splotched draft pages of his magnum opus, "I, Gore" line the
> floor.
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/292/article/plugheaded.jpg?1...]
>
> *Species: Plug-Headed Dodo* (*Gaffis Bidonius*)
>
> Habitat: Motorcades, empty stadiums, waiting rooms.
>
> Voice: Imagine a chimpanzee talking through a snorkel. Make it louder.
>
> Diet: Crow.
>
> Range: Can be found without warning anywhere except the Oval Office.
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/293/article/loon.jpg?1291617354]
>
> *Species: Rat Faced Loon *(*Humongus Nostrilus*)
>
> Habitat: Nests frequently found in pockets of Big Pharma and Dreamworks.
>
> Voice: Flatulent.
>
> Diet: Flatulence.
>
> Range: Migrates between House of Representatives cloakroom and homeless
> shelters in Southern California.
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/298/article/redrobbin.jpg?12...]
>
> *Species: Red Robbin' *(*Screwuvious Obamanationis*)
>
> Habitat: Constantly aloft but similar to that of the Bower Bird.
>
> Voice: Hybrid of JFK, MLK, Ice-T.
>
> Diet: American taxpayer.
>
> Range: Global (with the exception of the Oval Office).
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/300/article/ducks.jpg?129161...]
>
> *Species: Lame Ducks* (*Dumbius *and *Dumberus*)
>
> Habitat: Foggy Bottom, Avenue K.
>
> Voice: Squawks, shrieks, can be lured with Palin duck call.
>
> Diet: Coprophagic.
>
> Range: If led slightly can be brought down with double-ought buck
>
> .
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/296/article/vulture.jpg?1291...]
>
> *Species: Massive Bill Vulture* (*Scumsukingus Pigus*)
>
> Habitat: Casinos, union halls, and wherever fine graft is served
>
> Voice: The faint susurration common to all fork-tongued reptiles. Amplified.
>
> Diet: Livers of American children yet unborn.
>
> Range: Assisted living facilities from Georgetown to Reno.
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/295/article/yellowbellied..j...]
>
> *Species: Yellow Bellied Tax Sucker* (*Fellationitus Hagnonymous*)
>
> Habitat: Your wallet.
>
> Voice: Your ex. Yes, that one.
>
> Diet: Botox.
>
> Range: Soon to be limited by commercial aviation.
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/297/article/SCOowl.jpg?12916...]
>
> *Species: Scowl *(*Flotus Dementis*)
>
> Habitat: Throne
>
> Voice: The man behind the curtain. (Pay no attention.)
>
> Diet: All your Twinkies belong to us.
>
> Range: Hawaiian beaches to the Costa del Sol
>
> .
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/294/article/condo.jpg?129161...]
>
> *Species: Domician Condo* (*Lyintous Diddendoit*)
>
> Habitat: House of Representatives doghouse.
>
> Voice: A living insult to Martin Luther King.
>
> Diet: Pre and post tax income.
>
> Range: Harlem to Dominican Republic.
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/299/article/parrot.jpg?12916...]
>
> *Species: Gutless Parrot* (*Slobberina Droolcuptin*)
>
> Habitat: White House Meet the Depressed Room
>
> Voice: Of "Truth"
>
> Diet: Presidential droppings.
>
> Range: Potentially from A to Z but stopping at B
>
> .
>
> [image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightnetwork-cms/301/article/correctFlamingo....]
>
> *Species: Pink Flim-Flamingo* (*Silverdadin Twinkus*)
>
> Habitat: The Anvil. The Ramrod. The Basement.
>
> Voice: Borrowed from Elmer Fudd in 1962. Never returned.
>
> Diet: Don't ask. Don't tell.
>
> Range: Medium to high falsetto. Depending on stimulation.
>
> ATT00012.jpg
> 152KViewDownload
>
> ATT00003.jpg
> 216KViewDownload
>
> ATT00033.jpg
> 194KViewDownload
>
> ATT00024.jpg
> 152KViewDownload
>
> ATT00021.jpg
> 173KViewDownload
>
> ATT00018.jpg
> 160KViewDownload
>
> ATT00006.jpg
> 216KViewDownload
>
> ATT00015.jpg
> 168KViewDownload
>
> ATT00009.jpg
> 270KViewDownload
>
> ATT00030.jpg
> 275KViewDownload
>
> ATT00027.jpg
> 196KViewDownload

--
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: Liberal! Socialist! Fascist! Marxist! Democrat! Moonbat! Muslim! Obamacare! Enemy! Terrorist!

Lefties love to whine about the evil Rush and Glen, but mention CBS
using a forgery to influence an election, and they get really quiet.

Sorry libbies, thats just not toppable

On Dec 28, 9:47 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> too bad you are incapable of a logical argument or analysis of these lies
> you say your opponents propagate
>
> rather than these school girl nya nya nya nya nya chants that do so much
> good for the PR for the gay community
> Lefties
> I think a group of faggots should take you out just because you are such a
> bad representative, you silly old queen
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, Keith, the Right wing twisted pretzel glue logic continues to rear
> > it's ugliness and false lies.
>
> > The point is the false smear, finger pointing, and blame the right wing and
> > you yourself demonstrate are filled with vile hatred,and negativity,
> > lies and false fear smear.
>
> > Let us harken back to the fear tactics of Rove, Cheney, and the Dubya
> > administration. Those false lies and smear tactics are now being
> > directed at the Obama administration.
>
> > The right wing, as a whole, is disgusting and dispicable. Stop the
> > lies, hatred, and false smear, Lil' Keithie Keith.
>
> > Lets see just what the Tea Party Obstructionist Congress does in
> > January. I predict a dismal gridlock failure.
>
> > On 12/28/10, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Funny that they don't mention that the family of Katerina Vanden Heuvel
> > > has millions and and that Soros also gives to Nation magazine. That is
> > > why the magazine is not out of business. Without the big bucks these
> > > couple of families and also the Progressive Insurance Company donates
> > > they would be out of business.
>
> > > On 12/27/2010 09:37 PM, Keith In Tampa wrote:
> > >> What is amazing, is when these Marxists, Socialists, Communists and
> > >> outright Anti-Americans are called on the carpet for espousing
> > >> Marxism, Socialism, Communism and Anti-American rhetoric, somehow,
> > >> those who are conservatives, Libertarians, or just folks with common
> > >> sense, are "Slinging Mud". Terms like, "Tea Bagger" mean nothing,
> > >> we are supposed ignore them. To portray each and every conservative
> > >> as a bumbling fool, we are supposed to laugh it off. The lies and
> > >> smear that folks like TommyTomTom spewed toward the likes of Christine
> > >> O'Donnell and Sarah Palin, we are to ignore.
> > >> The article is laughable, and make only those who are so Anti-American
> > >> feel comfortable. The truth is, as this last election demonstrated,
> > >> Americans have caught on, and we are not amused any longer.
>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com
> > >> <mailto:tommysn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > >> Liberal! Socialist! Fascist! Marxist! Democrat! Moonbat!
> > Muslim!
> > >> Obamacare! Enemy! Terrorist!
>
> > >> >From The Nation
>
> > >> Liberal! Socialist! Fascist! Marxist!
>
> > >> If you're a progressive of any kind, centrist to leftist, you're a
> > >> target. The mouthpieces of the far right will sling any mud they can
> > >> to brand you and frighten you.
>
> > >> And us.
>
> > >> The corporate-owned media (and Fox News) aren't going to fight it.
> > >> Whatever kind of muck and lies Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah
> > >> Palin spouts is going to make the headlines as "news."
>
> > >> Who's not whimpering and apologizing? Who's not being distracted
> > from
> > >> the real job of digging through the dirt and exposing both the
> > tactics
> > >> and the endgame?
>
> > >> The Nation. Still. Of course. Won't you make an end of year
> > >> contribution to keep us publishing?
>
> > >> We knew all this was coming. But not how fast and how virulent. Nor
> > >> did we realize how much it would cost us to conduct our
> > investigations
> > >> and carry on as the voice of the opposition in this political
> > climate.
>
> > >> We have not had to cut back the minimal staff or bare bones expenses
> > >> that we need to cover to publish week after week.
>
> > >> Yet.
>
> > >> That's because we are not dependent solely on advertisers, or
> > >> economically wounded foundations. Fully 25% of our funding comes
> > from
> > >> supporters like you.
>
> > >> Now, facing a looming deficit -- nearly all of it brought on by the
> > >> outrageous escalation in postal rates pushed through by Time Warner
> > >> lobbyists and their cadre of big-bucks loyalists -- we're worried.
>
> > >> The Nation depends for its survival on contributions from readers
> > who
> > >> want to see us continue to publish.
>
> > >> The future is perilous.
>
> > >> We badly need support.
>
> > >> Please let me know quickly that The Nation can count on yours by
> > >> making an end of year contribution to The Nation today.
>
> > >> Sincerely,
>
> > >> Teresa Stack
> > >> President, The Nation
>
> > >> P.S. Nobody owns The Nation. But a very special group of
> > "investors"
> > >> known as Nation Builders contribute $1,000 or more each year to
> > >> underwrite our unique brand of journalism. Nation Builders receive
> > an
> > >> Ed Koren illustrated stock certificate, a sterling silver lapel pin,
> > >> are invited to special investor events and receive regular
> > >> communication from me. Want to find out more?
>
> > >> More Here:
>
> > >> http://www.thenation.com/about-and-contact
> > >> --
> > >> 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 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/
> > >> * 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/
> > > * 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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

Big Book of Bird Brains.

[[ Let me know if the pics don't come through.]]

Subject: Big Book of Bird Brains

Species: The Downy Gorepecker (Fatuous Bastardus)

Habitat: Private Jets, Humongous Houseboats, Gigantic Mansions, Hollywood Buttocks.

Voice: In flight a screeching trill evocative of a pithed frog gargling ground glass. When at rest stunned "no press" silence, but the empty knocking of the head on tree trunks can be heard wherever Climategate emails are read.

Diet: Feeds on aging hippies, gullible econazis and other small insects.

Range: Once global but lately confined to a small section of his basement where the splotched draft pages of his magnum opus, "I, Gore" line the floor.

Species: Plug-Headed Dodo (Gaffis Bidonius)

Habitat: Motorcades, empty stadiums, waiting rooms.

Voice: Imagine a chimpanzee talking through a snorkel. Make it louder.

Diet: Crow.

Range: Can be found without warning anywhere except the Oval Office.

Species: Rat Faced Loon (Humongus Nostrilus)

Habitat: Nests frequently found in pockets of Big Pharma and Dreamworks.

Voice: Flatulent.

Diet: Flatulence.

Range: Migrates between House of Representatives cloakroom and homeless shelters in Southern California.

Species: Red Robbin' (Screwuvious Obamanationis)

Habitat: Constantly aloft but similar to that of the Bower Bird.

Voice: Hybrid of JFK, MLK, Ice-T.

Diet: American taxpayer.

Range: Global (with the exception of the Oval Office).

Species: Lame Ducks (Dumbius and Dumberus)

Habitat: Foggy Bottom, Avenue K.

Voice: Squawks, shrieks, can be lured with Palin duck call.

Diet: Coprophagic.

Range: If led slightly can be brought down with double-ought buck

.

Species: Massive Bill Vulture (Scumsukingus Pigus)

Habitat: Casinos, union halls, and wherever fine graft is served

Voice: The faint susurration common to all fork-tongued reptiles. Amplified.

Diet: Livers of American children yet unborn.

Range: Assisted living facilities from Georgetown to Reno.

Species: Yellow Bellied Tax Sucker (Fellationitus Hagnonymous)

Habitat: Your wallet.

Voice: Your ex. Yes, that one.

Diet: Botox.

Range: Soon to be limited by commercial aviation.

Species: Scowl (Flotus Dementis)

Habitat: Throne

Voice: The man behind the curtain. (Pay no attention.)

Diet: All your Twinkies belong to us.

Range: Hawaiian beaches to the Costa del Sol

.

Species: Domician Condo (Lyintous Diddendoit)

Habitat: House of Representatives doghouse.

Voice: A living insult to Martin Luther King.

Diet: Pre and post tax income.

Range: Harlem to Dominican Republic.

Species: Gutless Parrot (Slobberina Droolcuptin)

Habitat: White House Meet the Depressed Room

Voice: Of "Truth"

Diet: Presidential droppings.

Range: Potentially from A to Z but stopping at B

.

Species: Pink Flim-Flamingo (Silverdadin Twinkus)

Habitat: The Anvil. The Ramrod. The Basement.

Voice: Borrowed from Elmer Fudd in 1962. Never returned.

Diet: Don't ask. Don't tell.

Range: Medium to high falsetto. Depending on stimulation.