Thursday, January 20, 2011

Re: Judge OKs 'flag of Islam on American soil'

the court stated the following: "In the absence of evidence showing
that AIG's development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the
instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those
beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that
AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF
products."

no, we shouldn't consider the religious doctrines of muzzies, jews, or
xians with our tax dollars or laws

On Jan 20, 12:25 pm, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Attorneys for a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War say they have filed a
> petition to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal district
> judge ruled it is fine for the U.S. government to fund commercial
> enterprises that promote the indoctrination of Shariah religious law inside
> the United States.

--
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: democrats -- the party of low

you are clearly not an dicklipper of any skewl

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Old Sagey is wrong again.

I am not a diciple of any school or movement, I am not a socialist,
and I am not a propagandist.

I am an independent thinker with my own personal centrist Progressive beliefs.
I speak the truth, as I see it.  I believe in Democracy, despite its
many flaws.

It is the Far Right that is the real puveyour of lies, smear, and propaganda.

On 1/19/11, Sage2 <wisdom812@gmail.com> wrote:
>                   Don't you all know that Tommy is a student &
> disciple of the Saul Alinsky school of progressive socialism &
> propaganda?!  Just like Bill Ayers and most progressives infesting our
> Colleges & Universities as well as government. They are like leeches
> crawling in the dark waiting to make any move at any time.
> Divisiveness & DEMagoguery being just a few of their tools of the
> trade.
>
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************************************************************************
>
> On Jan 19, 10:17 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is not a personal insult, it is a general and genuine political
>> opinion of mine.
>>
>> The far right extremists are indeed similar to the Third Reich in many
>> respects, especially regarding fear mongering, false propaganda, war
>> mongering, and pre-emptive "Bush Doctrine" illegal wars, self centered
>> supremist beliefs, corrupt profiteering, Corporate personhood and
>> greed, etc. Tell me I am wrong, and why?
>>
>> On 1/19/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Oh, THIS post.  LOL
>>
>> > You toss Reich Wing around like candy and then have balls to ask, 'Do
>> > you feel that personal insuts and vicious attacks on group members are
>> > acceptable in this forum?"
>>
>> > Guess what doof.  Reich Wing is a personal attack and an insult.
>>
>> > Duhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
>>
>> > Have a good cry.  Its fun to watch
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 9:50 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> You are evading or avoiding my questions.
>>
>> >> 1- Please show me specifically where it says anything about "Nazis" in
>> >> THIS
>> >> post.
>>
>> >> 2- Please show me exactly where i have cryed "like a 6 year old
>> >>  girl about" anything at all?
>>
>> >> 3- Do you feel that personal insuts and vicious attacks on group
>> >> members are acceptable in this forum?
>>
>> >> 4- How old are you? Are you aware that bullies and many children find
>> >> humor in the vicious things that you find funny?
>>
>> >> On 1/19/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > You toss Reich Wing around like candy, and whine like a girl if
>> >> > someone calls you a name, or cry "offensive" when challenged on your
>> >> > crying offense.
>>
>> >> > ALL THE TIME
>>
>> >> > Its hilarious.  Please don't stop.  I always need a good laugh in the
>> >> > morning, and you're a king.
>>
>> >> > On Jan 18, 10:07 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Gregie-
>>
>> >> >> Please show me specifically where it says anything about "Nazis" in
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> post.
>> >> >> Also, please show me exactly where i have cryed "like a 6 year old
>> >> >> girl about" antthing at all?
>>
>> >> >> I am waiting.
>>
>> >> >> To Repeat:
>>
>> >> >> The illegal invasion of Iraq was indeed in violation of both the
>> >> >> United Nations Charter and also violated The Geneva Convention. See
>> >> >> the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment I have provided previously for
>> >> >> empirical proof and documentation.
>>
>> >> >> The "Bush Doctrine" was indeed illegal, and the war criminals
>> >> >> responsible should be prosecuted.
>>
>> >> >> The blood is on the hands of the Republican party of low.
>>
>> >> >> On 1/18/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > What fun it is to see Tommy News cry like a 6 year old girl about
>> >> >> > being offended and called names, while in the same post calling
>> >> >> > any
>> >> >> > and everyone on the right Nazis.
>>
>> >> >> > Its Mel Brooks comedy, but the dif is, Mel is smart.
>>
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> >> Have a great day,
>> >> Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > --
>> > 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- 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.


--
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.

Re: 'Reminiscent of Nazi Germany'

Hi Keith, it's good to see you also.
So, you don't think that every American has an obligation to keep on
the lookout for terrorists? No, terrorists are not our neighbors. Nor
are illegal alien/criminals.

On Jan 20, 1:57 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl!
>
> First, it's good to see you!
>
> Second,  I am at a loss as to why you are in disagreement with the writer
> about protesting Walmart for joining Johnnie Napolitiano in her march toward
> utopia, and turning in your neighbor.
>
> I agree with the writer,  I am outraged by Walmart's participation in such a
> farce, and it is reminiscent of Nazi Germany,

--
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.

Judge OKs 'flag of Islam on American soil'

Attorneys for a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War say they have filed a petition to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal district judge ruled it is fine for the U.S. government to fund commercial enterprises that promote the indoctrination of Shariah religious law inside the United States.



--
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: 'Reminiscent of Nazi Germany'

studio, go fuck yourself harder than the last time

On Jan 19, 10:48 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:35 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Choose sides carefully.
>
> Choose sides carefully or what?
> Some dumbass is going to make us brain-dead us with his empty threats?

--
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: Bringing Up Hitler

The jews think that flooding the media with hitler at every turn
helps. It doesn't. Americans didn't and still don't owe the jews
sympathy or protection. You're either an American first or you're
something else.

On Jan 20, 11:48 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Thursday, January 20, 2010Bringing Up Hitlerby Jacob G. Hornberger
> Yes, I know that American statists hate it when someone brings up Hitler in the context of U.S. government policies. But it seems to be that bringing up Hitler can sometimes be instructive, especially given his historical role as a benchmark for evil.
> That's not to suggest that every single thing that Hitler ever did was evil, but it seems to me that if the U.S. government is doing something that Hitler did, that ought to at least raise some red flags in the minds of the American people.
> For example, consider such things as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, economic regulations, government-business partnerships, welfare, and a big military-industrial complex. Hitler loved those things, and they were core elements of his National Socialist program.
> That shouldn't surprise anyone, at least with respect to the welfare state. As most Germans undoubtedly know, welfare-state programs originated among German socialists in the late 1800s, and they were incorporated into Germany's political system by Otto von Bismarck, who was known as the Iron Chancellor of Germany. The welfare-state ideas were later imported into the United States and becamecore elements of America's political system during the Franklin Roosevelt administration.
> Perhaps that's why American statists hate it when someone brings up Hitler in the context of U.S. government policies. They fear that Americans, upon learning that Hitler embraced welfare-state programs and regulatory programs, might begin questioning the moral legitimacy of such programs. At the very least, Americans might begin realizing what Hitler and the German people realized: that welfare-state programs are socialist in nature and origin, not free-enterprise.
> Another thing about Hitler was his appreciation for how crises could be used to centralize and expand the power of the state. The best example of that was the terrorist attack that became known as the Reichstag Fire, when terrorists fire-bombed the German parliament building. For the Germans, the Reichstag Fire was considered as big an event as the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
> Hitler didn't skip a beat. His people charged and prosecuted several people who they believed had conspired to commit the attack. To their surprise, the courts acquitted some of the defendants, which motivated Hitler to organize a special court known as the People's Court to try accused people accused of terrorism in the future, to ensure that suspected terrorists would never again be acquitted by the regular German courts.
> Hitler also seized on the terrorist crisis to seek a temporary suspension of civil liberties from the Reichstag. After all, he argued, adherence to the protection of civil liberties might enable the terrorists to win their war on Germany. By suspending civil liberties, he argued, Germany could win the war on terrorism, after which civil liberties could be restored.
> In the process, Hitler had an advantage. He was actually able to present two official enemies to achieve his goal terrorism and communism. Not only was one of the Reichstag terrorists a communist, every German knew of the threat to Germany posed by the Soviet Union.
> The Reichstag granted Hitler's request for a temporary suspension of civil liberties. Equally important, Hitler was able to use the twin crises of communism and terrorism to support ever-growing expenditures on the German military and German military-industrial complex.
> Ironically, after opposing Hitler in World War II, the U.S. government adopted one of Hitler's twin threats the Soviet Union to justify an enormous and ever-growing peacetime military establishment and a military-industrial complex in the United States. Equally ironic was the fact that the Soviet Union had served as a partner of the U.S. government in its battle against the Nazis in World War II.
> In fact, to this day many American interventionists still celebrate the fact that World War II was a great victory because "we" won control over Eastern Europe from the Nazis, with the "we" meaning "our" ally, the Soviet Union. Also ironic is the fact that the U.S. government enlisted Nazis to help it fight its new cold war against Hitler's old enemy and the U.S. government's old ally, the Soviet Union.
> When the Soviet communist threat came to an end many decades later, interventionist policies of the U.S. government in the Middle East produced, ironically, the other threat that Hitler had relied upon to centralize and expand the powers of the state, build up the military, and suspend civil liberties: terrorism. With the 9/11 attacks the U.S. government declared war on the same enemy that Hitler had declared war on after the Reichstag fire a war on terrorism.
> Ironically, however, unlike Hitler President Bush didn't even bother going to the Congress to seek permission to suspend civil liberties. He and the Pentagon simply held that since we are now at war against the terrorists, they didn't need legislative approval to suspend civil liberties, establish overseas prison camps, suspend habeas corpus, torture people, and deny people fundamental rights and guarantees. War is war, they argued.
> In the process, the irony was that U.S. officials did the same thing Hitler did use the terrorist threat to justify ever-increasing expenditures for the military and the military-industrial complex.
> They also used the war on terrorism to wage an undeclared war of aggression on Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Ironically, a war of aggression had been declared a war crime at Nuremberg.
> They also established a special Pentagon judicial system for trying accused terrorists that, ironically, bears a remarkable similarity to Hitler's special court for trying accused terrorists that he established after some of the Reichstag Fire defendants had been acquitted in the regular German courts.
> Recently, the Pentagon and U.S. interventionists have been forewarning us about the growing threat from the Chinese communists and the North Korean communists, which, not surprisingly, they are using to justify ever-increasing spending on the military and the military-industrial complex.
> Isn't that ironic? We're now at a point where the U.S. government is supposedly faced with the twin threats that Hitler was faced with terrorism and communism. Equally ironic, those twin threats are being used to justify the same three things that Hitler achieved: a suspension of civil liberties, an ever-growing military and military-industrial complex, and a specially created judicial system that will guarantee convictions for accused terrorists.
> Would it be inappropriate to bring up Santayana while bringing up Hitler? "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-01-20.asp

--
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: democrats -- the party of low

Reich Wing does not mean Nazi. You are saying things which were never said.

Reich Wing means potentially dangerous far right wing extremist
wingnut, like Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Timothy
McVeigh.


On 1/19/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, THIS post. LOL
>
> You toss Reich Wing around like candy and then have balls to ask, 'Do
> you feel that personal insuts and vicious attacks on group members are
> acceptable in this forum?"
>
> Guess what doof. Reich Wing is a personal attack and an insult.
>
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
>
> Have a good cry. Its fun to watch
>
> On Jan 19, 9:50 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are evading or avoiding my questions.
>>
>> 1- Please show me specifically where it says anything about "Nazis" in
>> THIS
>> post.
>>
>> 2- Please show me exactly where i have cryed "like a 6 year old
>> girl about" anything at all?
>>
>> 3- Do you feel that personal insuts and vicious attacks on group
>> members are acceptable in this forum?
>>
>> 4- How old are you? Are you aware that bullies and many children find
>> humor in the vicious things that you find funny?
>>
>> On 1/19/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You toss Reich Wing around like candy, and whine like a girl if
>> > someone calls you a name, or cry "offensive" when challenged on your
>> > crying offense.
>>
>> > ALL THE TIME
>>
>> > Its hilarious. Please don't stop. I always need a good laugh in the
>> > morning, and you're a king.
>>
>> > On Jan 18, 10:07 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Gregie-
>>
>> >> Please show me specifically where it says anything about "Nazis" in
>> >> this
>> >> post.
>> >> Also, please show me exactly where i have cryed "like a 6 year old
>> >> girl about" antthing at all?
>>
>> >> I am waiting.
>>
>> >> To Repeat:
>>
>> >> The illegal invasion of Iraq was indeed in violation of both the
>> >> United Nations Charter and also violated The Geneva Convention. See
>> >> the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment I have provided previously for
>> >> empirical proof and documentation.
>>
>> >> The "Bush Doctrine" was indeed illegal, and the war criminals
>> >> responsible should be prosecuted.
>>
>> >> The blood is on the hands of the Republican party of low.
>>
>> >> On 1/18/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > What fun it is to see Tommy News cry like a 6 year old girl about
>> >> > being offended and called names, while in the same post calling any
>> >> > and everyone on the right Nazis.
>>
>> >> > Its Mel Brooks comedy, but the dif is, Mel is smart.
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> --
>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> Have a great day,
>> Tommy- 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.


--
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: democrats -- the party of low

Lil Keithie Keith is a wingnut. Yes, he is.

On 1/20/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not a personal insult, it is a general and genuine political
> opinion of mine.
>
>
> ====================
>
> --
> 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: democrats -- the party of low

Old Sagey is wrong again.

I am not a diciple of any school or movement, I am not a socialist,
and I am not a propagandist.

I am an independent thinker with my own personal centrist Progressive beliefs.
I speak the truth, as I see it. I believe in Democracy, despite its
many flaws.

It is the Far Right that is the real puveyour of lies, smear, and propaganda.

On 1/19/11, Sage2 <wisdom812@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't you all know that Tommy is a student &
> disciple of the Saul Alinsky school of progressive socialism &
> propaganda?! Just like Bill Ayers and most progressives infesting our
> Colleges & Universities as well as government. They are like leeches
> crawling in the dark waiting to make any move at any time.
> Divisiveness & DEMagoguery being just a few of their tools of the
> trade.
>
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************************************************************************
>
> On Jan 19, 10:17 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is not a personal insult, it is a general and genuine political
>> opinion of mine.
>>
>> The far right extremists are indeed similar to the Third Reich in many
>> respects, especially regarding fear mongering, false propaganda, war
>> mongering, and pre-emptive "Bush Doctrine" illegal wars, self centered
>> supremist beliefs, corrupt profiteering, Corporate personhood and
>> greed, etc. Tell me I am wrong, and why?
>>
>> On 1/19/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Oh, THIS post. LOL
>>
>> > You toss Reich Wing around like candy and then have balls to ask, 'Do
>> > you feel that personal insuts and vicious attacks on group members are
>> > acceptable in this forum?"
>>
>> > Guess what doof. Reich Wing is a personal attack and an insult.
>>
>> > Duhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
>>
>> > Have a good cry. Its fun to watch
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 9:50 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> You are evading or avoiding my questions.
>>
>> >> 1- Please show me specifically where it says anything about "Nazis" in
>> >> THIS
>> >> post.
>>
>> >> 2- Please show me exactly where i have cryed "like a 6 year old
>> >> girl about" anything at all?
>>
>> >> 3- Do you feel that personal insuts and vicious attacks on group
>> >> members are acceptable in this forum?
>>
>> >> 4- How old are you? Are you aware that bullies and many children find
>> >> humor in the vicious things that you find funny?
>>
>> >> On 1/19/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > You toss Reich Wing around like candy, and whine like a girl if
>> >> > someone calls you a name, or cry "offensive" when challenged on your
>> >> > crying offense.
>>
>> >> > ALL THE TIME
>>
>> >> > Its hilarious. Please don't stop. I always need a good laugh in the
>> >> > morning, and you're a king.
>>
>> >> > On Jan 18, 10:07 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Gregie-
>>
>> >> >> Please show me specifically where it says anything about "Nazis" in
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> post.
>> >> >> Also, please show me exactly where i have cryed "like a 6 year old
>> >> >> girl about" antthing at all?
>>
>> >> >> I am waiting.
>>
>> >> >> To Repeat:
>>
>> >> >> The illegal invasion of Iraq was indeed in violation of both the
>> >> >> United Nations Charter and also violated The Geneva Convention. See
>> >> >> the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment I have provided previously for
>> >> >> empirical proof and documentation.
>>
>> >> >> The "Bush Doctrine" was indeed illegal, and the war criminals
>> >> >> responsible should be prosecuted.
>>
>> >> >> The blood is on the hands of the Republican party of low.
>>
>> >> >> On 1/18/11, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > What fun it is to see Tommy News cry like a 6 year old girl about
>> >> >> > being offended and called names, while in the same post calling
>> >> >> > any
>> >> >> > and everyone on the right Nazis.
>>
>> >> >> > Its Mel Brooks comedy, but the dif is, Mel is smart.
>>
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> >> Have a great day,
>> >> Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > --
>> > 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- 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.


--
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.

Bringing Up Hitler


Thursday, January 20, 2010
Bringing Up Hitler
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Yes, I know that American statists hate it when someone brings up Hitler in the context of U.S. government policies. But it seems to be that bringing up Hitler can sometimes be instructive, especially given his historical role as a benchmark for evil.

That's not to suggest that every single thing that Hitler ever did was evil, but it seems to me that if the U.S. government is doing something that Hitler did, that ought to at least raise some red flags in the minds of the American people.

For example, consider such things as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, economic regulations, government-business partnerships, welfare, and a big military-industrial complex. Hitler loved those things, and they were core elements of his National Socialist program.

That shouldn't surprise anyone, at least with respect to the welfare state. As most Germans undoubtedly know, welfare-state programs originated among German socialists in the late 1800s, and they were incorporated into Germany's political system by Otto von Bismarck, who was known as the Iron Chancellor of Germany. The welfare-state ideas were later imported into the United States and became core elements of America's political system during the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

Perhaps that's why American statists hate it when someone brings up Hitler in the context of U.S. government policies. They fear that Americans, upon learning that Hitler embraced welfare-state programs and regulatory programs, might begin questioning the moral legitimacy of such programs. At the very least, Americans might begin realizing what Hitler and the German people realized: that welfare-state programs are socialist in nature and origin, not free-enterprise.

Another thing about Hitler was his appreciation for how crises could be used to centralize and expand the power of the state. The best example of that was the terrorist attack that became known as the Reichstag Fire, when terrorists fire-bombed the German parliament building. For the Germans, the Reichstag Fire was considered as big an event as the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Hitler didn't skip a beat. His people charged and prosecuted several people who they believed had conspired to commit the attack. To their surprise, the courts acquitted some of the defendants, which motivated Hitler to organize a special court known as the People's Court to try accused people accused of terrorism in the future, to ensure that suspected terrorists would never again be acquitted by the regular German courts.

Hitler also seized on the terrorist crisis to seek a temporary suspension of civil liberties from the Reichstag. After all, he argued, adherence to the protection of civil liberties might enable the terrorists to win their war on Germany. By suspending civil liberties, he argued, Germany could win the war on terrorism, after which civil liberties could be restored.

In the process, Hitler had an advantage. He was actually able to present two official enemies to achieve his goal ­ terrorism and communism. Not only was one of the Reichstag terrorists a communist, every German knew of the threat to Germany posed by the Soviet Union.

The Reichstag granted Hitler's request for a temporary suspension of civil liberties. Equally important, Hitler was able to use the twin crises of communism and terrorism to support ever-growing expenditures on the German military and German military-industrial complex.

Ironically, after opposing Hitler in World War II, the U.S. government adopted one of Hitler's twin threats ­ the Soviet Union ­ to justify an enormous and ever-growing peacetime military establishment and a military-industrial complex in the United States. Equally ironic was the fact that the Soviet Union had served as a partner of the U.S. government in its battle against the Nazis in World War II.

In fact, to this day many American interventionists still celebrate the fact that World War II was a great victory because "we" won control over Eastern Europe from the Nazis, with the "we" meaning "our" ally, the Soviet Union. Also ironic is the fact that the U.S. government enlisted Nazis to help it fight its new cold war against Hitler's old enemy and the U.S. government's old ally, the Soviet Union.

When the Soviet communist threat came to an end many decades later, interventionist policies of the U.S. government in the Middle East produced, ironically, the other threat that Hitler had relied upon to centralize and expand the powers of the state, build up the military, and suspend civil liberties: terrorism. With the 9/11 attacks the U.S. government declared war on the same enemy that Hitler had declared war on after the Reichstag fire ­ a war on terrorism.

Ironically, however, unlike Hitler President Bush didn't even bother going to the Congress to seek permission to suspend civil liberties. He and the Pentagon simply held that since we are now at war against the terrorists, they didn't need legislative approval to suspend civil liberties, establish overseas prison camps, suspend habeas corpus, torture people, and deny people fundamental rights and guarantees. War is war, they argued.

In the process, the irony was that U.S. officials did the same thing Hitler did ­ use the terrorist threat to justify ever-increasing expenditures for the military and the military-industrial complex.

They also used the war on terrorism to wage an undeclared war of aggression on Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Ironically, a war of aggression had been declared a war crime at Nuremberg.

They also established a special Pentagon judicial system for trying accused terrorists that, ironically, bears a remarkable similarity to Hitler's special court for trying accused terrorists that he established after some of the Reichstag Fire defendants had been acquitted in the regular German courts.

Recently, the Pentagon and U.S. interventionists have been forewarning us about the growing threat from the Chinese communists and the North Korean communists, which, not surprisingly, they are using to justify ever-increasing spending on the military and the military-industrial complex.

Isn't that ironic? We're now at a point where the U.S. government is supposedly faced with the twin threats that Hitler was faced with ­ terrorism and communism. Equally ironic, those twin threats are being used to justify the same three things that Hitler achieved: a suspension of civil liberties, an ever-growing military and military-industrial complex, and a specially created judicial system that will guarantee convictions for accused terrorists.

Would it be inappropriate to bring up Santayana while bringing up Hitler? "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-01-20.asp

The Incessant Growth of Government Bureaucracy


The Incessant Growth of Government Bureaucracy
by Gregory Bresiger, Posted January 18, 2011
This article originally appeared in the September 2010 edition of Freedom Daily.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, & government to gain ground. -- Thomas Jefferson

"It is far easier to introduce a government program than to get rid of it."

Those were the words of a former federal bureaucrat who had worked in World War II in the Office of Price Administration (OPA). He was quite successful. His wartime work has had an effect on all wage earners to this day.

As an OPA bureaucrat, he devised the withholding tax. That was also known as the "win the war" tax. Withholding was supposed to conclude once the war was won. Yet withholding ­ like so many other government programs and bureaucracies ­ goes on even though the circumstances that gave rise to it ended long ago.

It is the same with just about all government programs and the bureaucracies that administer them, successful or not, popular or detested. They never end. Withholding, for example, has lasted for so long that almost no one can remember when employers didn't withhold taxes.

That OPA bureaucrat was none other than Milton Friedman. In his book of memoirs that he wrote with his wife, Rose, Two Lucky People, Friedman wrote that his wife would kid him for the part he played in making possible "overgrown government."

Why are government bureaucracies resistant to the same forces of change that remake the competitive private sector?

In the 1950s and 1960s, popular socialist economist John Kenneth Galbraith remarkably complained in bestsellers such as The Affluent Society and The New Industrial State that government bureaucracies were starved of resources. He also warned that big American corporations had virtually omnipotent pricing power and, thus, could practically dictate to consumers how much they would have to pay for their products. He talked about the "dependence effect," by which consumers were led to buy things they never really wanted. If one accepted those notions, he would think that corporations had a power that could guarantee permanent survival and success.

Yet every day in the private sector we see this disproved. Big stores go out of business. We frequently see supposedly invulnerable corporations humbled or driven out of business.

Yet what public-sector bureaucracies, either under Republicans or Democrats, have died recently? Or, for that matter, ever?

Why haven't government bureaucracies, many of which are hated or are obviously incompetent, such as the IRS or Amtrak, gone out of business, as have countless private entities that have been outdone by competitors?


The nature of government bureaucracy

Government bureaucracies, unlike private, competitive firms, sustain themselves with taxpayer dollars, and they are almost always successful in convincing policymakers that they deserve more power and more money.

The nature of government bureaucracy is to expand in good times and bad. Oftentimes, it uses the citizen's own tax dollars to convince him that he needs much more of the same ­ that any cut in funding or authority would be the height of recklessness.

For instance, not long ago in city libraries in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens, I found handouts everywhere urging people to act ­ and act now ­ to save a public bureaucracy. Here was what one said:

Library Day at City Hall. Thursday, May 28, 2009. Fight Massive Budget Cuts ­ Save Our Libraries! Travel to Manhattan by chartered bus. Orientation and materials for your own information, and to share with your City Council Members. Light breakfast provided.

Who paid for the pamphlets? Who paid for the chartered bus? (Why did they have to take a private charter bus to city hall? Weren't the wretched state-run subways good enough for them?) Who provided the orientation and materials? Who paid for that light breakfast?

And what was the nature of the orientation? Somehow, I don't think the city's and state's notorious overspending practices were discussed. By the way, as of this writing no significant cutbacks have taken place in those library bureaucracies, which maintain their same schedules.

I don't have any answers. Repeated calls to the Queens County Library CEO Thomas W. Galante were never returned. Government bureaucracies are not accountable to the average citizen, whom they supposedly serve.


How am I doing? Great!

While cutbacks go on in the private sector, bureaucrats often use taxpayer money to tell citizens how great they are and that any suggestion of waste or incompetence is ridiculous. That is tantamount to letting me ­ not my private-sector boss ­ do an evaluation of how good I am as a worker. Why can't public bureaucracies have the same evaluation standards as the private sector has?

The successful private-sector company survives only because it successfully competes today, tomorrow, and into the future. To succeed, it must constantly please finicky customers. Remember that customers, unlike taxpayers, aren't obligated to continue buying at the same business and often change their preferences.

The opposite is the case in government bureaucracies. Suppose you became disgusted with Social Security and the accounting gimmicks of its so-called trust fund. You are angry and vow never to "contribute" to Social Security again. Sorry, not allowed. You must pay into the Social Security bureaucracy whether you like it or not. Forever. Suppose you think Amtrak is a joke and swear you will never ride its egregious trains again. You can, but there's a problem: you will still pay for its incompetence through your tax dollars, regardless of whether or not you ever ride it again.

But government-bureaucracy supporters, economist Ludwig von Mises warned, resist all these comparisons to the private sector, since they make the government sector look so bad.

Again today, as in so many previous economic crises, the public sector and its allies have been able to convince lawmakers and mainstream media that it would be an injustice if the public sector were reduced even in the midst of a deep recession.

"Bureaucracy," Mises wrote in his book of that name, "is imbued with an implacable hatred of private business and free enterprise." But the greatest danger of government bureaucracy, Mises argues, is that the bureaucratic mindset may start to infect the private sector.

"The trend toward bureaucratic rigidity is not inherent in the evolution of business. It is an outcome of government meddling with business," Mises writes. Bigger and bigger government bureaucracies will justify themselves by reference to the supposed evils of the private sector.

It doesn't matter that times may be difficult or prosperous; the assumption of ruling Democrats and Republicans is that the taxpayers can always afford more bureaucracy. For instance, between 1994 and 2004, a conservative, supposedly anti-government era in America, the number of state and local government workers rose from 13.4 million to 15.8 million workers.

So government bureaucracies are resistant to the same economies that the market imposes on businesses operating in the private sector.

For example, here in New York State, the state government, despite all its considerable taxing powers, is once again grappling for dollars. The bond market gives state bonds an unsurprisingly poor rating. Yet the latest proposed state budget calls for an increase in spending. The public sector experiences none of the pain that individuals and business must accept.

Having lived through the Rockefeller years in New York in the 1960s and 1970s, I've seen this happen many times. (Governor Dewey, before Rockefeller became governor of New York, told the young Rockefeller, "Nelson, I like you. But I don't think I can afford you," according to Thomas Dewey and His Times, by Richard Norton Smith.)

Yet the taxpayers must pay for the policies of elected officials who frequently find it convenient to get along with bureaucracies at the expense of what William Graham Sumner called the Forgotten Man, the average taxpayer.

As I write these words, New York transit workers and city teachers are being given raises by units of government that are running huge amounts of red ink and must take more from the overburdened taxpayers, many of whom plan to retire to places with lower taxes. Meanwhile, we hear every day of the slow growth of salaries in the private sector.

Many private-sector workers have had to accept pay cuts in lieu of losing their jobs. Yet government bureaucracies, even in bad times, prosper owing to one interesting fact: All they must do is win just once and then they will go on forever.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1009e.asp

xxx

This article originally appeared in the October 2010 edition of Freedom Daily.

A government bureaucracy may be difficult to establish, as supporters of expanded Obama health-care socialism discovered. But the friends of collectivism should take heart. No matter how many times people reject their calls to venture farther down the "road to serfdom," no matter how many times American outrage is expressed at town halls across the nation, no matter if socialists lose a million times, they just have to win once. Then, ostensibly, they win forever.

If they are triumphant, the collectivists ­ the supporters of bigger government ­ have history on their side: The history of government bureaucracies is that once they are established, it is well nigh impossible to dismantle them or even prevent them from swallowing more resources.

But socialists beware: the bureaucratic monster you create can become unmanageable and turn on you. That is because government power ­ through permanent, seemingly untouchable bureaucracies ­ can have unintended consequences. And the government bureaucracy, once established, can trump party and the elected officials supposedly in control, regardless of whether the government is left or right.

Here in New York we hear constant complaints from city and state officials about the bureau cratic entity that runs the subways, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). No one in city hall or in the state legislature seems able to control this state agency. Few citizens know who sits on the MTA board, which is an important part of their lives whether they recognize it or not.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, running for re-election and looking for a good issue, promised to reform the MTA and ensure that "the taxpayer gets his money's worth." But what's to reform? The MTA bureaucracy is supposedly the servant of the elected officials. They created it. They empower it. And since the MTA consistently loses money, the lawmakers fund it with citizens' dollars.

With apologies to Mayor Bloomberg, there is no reform of government bureaucracies. They can't be reformed, although vote-hungry pols will constantly say they have the magic reform formula.

Their promises are like the promises of the drunk who says just one more drink and he'll stop drinking. The sudden I-got-religion lawmakers promising bureaucratic reform resemble W.C. Fields, who said, "Now, don't tell me you can't give up drinking. I've done it thousands of times."

And, of course, there is a structural problem in reforming public bureaucracies. Government bureaucracies such as the MTA and thousands of others usually become so big that it is a delusion to think that ­ despite the power of the purse ­ even the most popular elected officials can control those powerful entities and the people who run them. Some actually go through the charade of pretending to control the huge bureaucracies. But the bureaucrat usually can outmaneuver them, something the lawmakers hope the voters never understand.


The power of bureaucrats

Here is the ghost of the famed New York builder, Robert Moses. As detailed in Robert Caro's superb biography The Power Broker, Moses, as an über bureaucrat with countless city and state posts from the 1920s to 1960s, changed the landscape of New York, usually for the worse.

Nevertheless, most elected officials did not dare to cross him and most citizens had little idea of the extent of his power until he was bulldozing their homes for super highways. Yet Moses was a bureaucrat liberals once loved just as today's critics of the MTA once applauded its creation decades ago as a great reform that would bring planning sanity to the city's and state's transportation networks.

Moses was a bureaucrat who delivered new roads and parks just in time for elections. So pols conveniently forgot that he violated laws, ruined lives, and destroyed many neighborhoods thanks to his unchecked bureaucratic power, something even socialists have discovered can be dangerous.

Richard Crossman, a cabinet minister in the British socialist government of the 1960s, complained in his memoirs that the top civil servant in his department had more influence and power than the cabinet officials. Yet the latter, at least in theory, were the bosses.

"The department was run as her personal domain," he writes of that particular civil servant in his Diaries of a Cabinet Minister. He concluded, "And that is why it was badly run and badly organized."

Crossman conceded that cabinet secretaries couldn't even understand the complex public entities run by career bureaucrats. So how can one even know whether those bureaucracies achieve their goals?

The people running public entities, whenever a critical word is written or there is the least suggestion of a cutback or of privatizing some of their functions, will always insist that those are not serious options, and they are usually backed by mainstream media elites

For instance, here in New York, I have written articles proposing privatizing various functions of the hated MTA. All are rejected. The idea is unthinkable even among people one would expect to embrace it.

Indeed, a recent letter from a Manhattan Institute scholar tartly informed me that there is no history of private entities' making money in the subways. His comment simply ignored the golden era of the subways ­ 1904–1917 ­ when private management companies made money and established a system described as an engineering marvel.

Why is there a rejection of any private alternative? Many people don't know of private-sector successes. Therefore, many just assume that that there is no private alternative, just as many people have no idea that there was a time when there was no IRS or withholding. The individualist tradition, especially in its most thrifty and successful products and services, is a direct challenge to the government bureaucracy and its self-perpetuating mindset, which, once established, is "we must always grow."

Can anyone cite for me an example in which the leaders of a government department or commission ever told lawmakers, "We can get by on less," or, "This department is no longer needed"?


Silence

This perpetual expansion tendency, Mises tells us in Bureaucracy, is the opposite of what an effective manager in the smallest unit of the private sector does.

"[If the private manager] wastes the concern's money, he jeopardizes the branch's profit and thereby indirectly hurts his own interests.... Thrift must be imposed on him by regimentation."

But bureaucrats under fire will often explain that the general public doesn't understand what various departments do. They also insist that our lives would be made miserable without Amtrak, a government postal monopoly, or any other government bureaucracy.

Government bureaucracies, unlike most of the private sector, aren't subject to a system of profit and loss. And given the well-advertised failures of bureaucracies to achieve their goals, wouldn't it make sense to end as many as quickly as possible?

Unfortunately, the bureaucratic mentality, supported by mainstream media, won't allow even that idea to be debated, as I have found here in New York. The idea of government's going on a crash diet, of slimming down just as a corporation in trouble sells off money-losing divisions and lays off workers, seems unthinkable. But why is government contraction off-limits at a time when the government is going deeper in the red?

There are countless untapped opportunities for expanding economic liberty -- for dramatically reducing public spending and returning money to the pockets of overtaxed Americans

For instance, why do Americans need a government post office with monopoly power over the delivery of first-class mail? Isn't it superfluous in an electronic age in which people can pay bills online and communicate immediately through email or cell phones? Besides, wouldn't private companies rush in to offer first-class mail services if the United States Postal Service lost its legal monopoly?

Why are there far more people in the U.S. Agriculture Department today than a century ago? Surprisingly, the department was, Stephen Moore points out in Government: America's Number One Growth Industry, the fastest-growing government department in the 1980s. He notes that farm-program spending went from $4 billion to $30 billion from 1980 to 1986.

Agriculture plays a smaller and smaller role in our post-industrial economy. So why do Americans need an Agriculture Department?

Why does the country need a national passenger railroad system, when relatively few people ride Amtrak and its faux-high-speed train, Acela? Back in the 1970s politicians said that Amtrak would provide "the greatest business turnaround in business history," as documented by Joseph Vranich in his book End of the Line. Once he had been a supporter of the system, but now he calls for Amtrak's breakup. Private-passenger railroads, before they were regulated to death in the 1970s, made money.

There's no reason that private railroads, using new technologies such as Maglev, couldn't offer high-speed services. Or rather, they could if they were allowed to charge a market rate, which many people, tired of the hassles of air travel, would be glad to pay for efficient and fast service.

The Rural Electrification Administration, created in the 1930s, goes on and on.

Federal aid to education hardly existed generations ago, yet today the U.S. Department of Education, which was created in the Carter administration as a political payoff to teachers' unions, is a huge, powerful force that dwarfs local school districts.

But the government's education bureaucracy, the same as all other bureaucracies, is a gross failure despite repeated attempts to reform it.

"It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy," said Albert Shanker, a former leader of one of the teachers' unions that helped create the U.S. Department of Education.

The United States got along quite well without a federal Education Department for two centuries. Why can't Americans do so again?

The U.S. Defense Department's budget is bigger than ever, and some might say more ineffective than ever in an age of terrorism. Much of its budget is designed to confront a Soviet enemy that no longer exists with carrier task forces that are cumbersome and whose appropriateness should be debated.


Why do they survive?

Even those major politicians who promise to rid us of at least some of these public bureaucracies can't be trusted to keep their promises.

Ronald Reagan, in 1980, exploited the disgust with big government's using its bureaucratic tentacles to run every aspect of Americans' lives. He ran on a platform of ending the U.S. Department of Education as well as the U.S. Department of Energy. Neither was ever in danger. Neither was ever cut back. Both go on and on, oblivious to whether there is a Republican or Democratic president or whether they are a burden on taxpayers groaning under ever-increasing debt.

Many people can sympathize with the theme of this article. Indeed, all kinds of people of different political philosophies tell horror stories of trying to deal with various byzantine government bureaucracies. And yet the poor service goes on and on.

The problem, in part, is that many elected officials can't control the bureaucracies that supposedly report to them, so how can they even know whether they are necessary? It is a problem as old as the modern welfare state and has been going on for some time.

Government bureaucracies become so powerful, Tocqueville warned more than a century and a half ago, that they can make all of us seem to be so dependent that we are lulled into thinking that they are the only answer to every problem.

"Such a power," he wrote in Democracy in America, "does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

The problem is, while many can accept my analysis ­ government bureaucracies are inherently inefficient and dangerous, and, as they get bigger, their problems compound ­ they also fear the logical solution: dismantle them as fast as possible before any of them spends more taxpayer dollars.

But the problem of the government bureaucracy, the same as the woes of the old Soviet Union, is insidious. The solution requires drastic measures: Government bureaucracies need to be dismantled, not reformed.




Gregory Bresiger is a business writer living in Kew Gardens, New York.



http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1010d.asp

Gift to Hu




 

--
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.

Fwd: [I-S] Record of President Obama's birth in 1961 is 'in the archives': Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie



 


Quick quiz ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Who got a recent call from Washington, D.C?

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

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/19/2011-01-19_record_of_obamas_birth_is_in_the_archives_hawaii_gov.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/4mfsyxq

Record of President Obama's birth in 1961 is 'in the archives': Hawaii
Gov. Neil Abercrombie

By Michael Sheridan DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, January 19th 2011, 2:32 PM

Internet rumors spurred on by a fringe group known as 'birthers' insist
that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

Officials in Hawaii have tracked down papers indicating that President
Obama was indeed born in their state, according to its new governor.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who took office in December, told Honolulu's
Star-Advertiser on Tuesday that "our investigation" indicates there is a
recording of his birth.

"It actually exists in the archives, written down," he said.

The new Democratic head of the state vowed when he took office that he
would do his best to end the debate over Obama's birth, which began in
2008 during the presidential campaign.

"We'll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that
only those who wish the President ill, only the ones with a political
agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing," Abercrombie told CNN
in December. "The President is entitled to the respect of his office
and he's entitled to have his mother and father respected."

During that interview, Abercrombie said his goal to combat birthers was
a personal one.

"It's a matter of principle with me," the 72-year-old said. "I knew his
mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a
question honestly could have had their answer already."

On Tuesday, he again promised he would do "what I can do" to publicly
verify that records show Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen of
the United States, making him eligible to be President.

Birthers insist that the President, born in 1961, is not eligible to be
commander in chief. The reasons often vary, and have changed and
expanded in the two years since the Internet rumor began.

Some believe his Certification of Live Birth is fake and he was really
born in Kenya. Others argue that Obama is a citizen of the United
Kingdom or Indonesia. Most theories have been dismissed by many in
public office and the media, and have been found to be misleading or
generally untrue.

However, the conspiracy theories still thrive, and according to
Abercrombie, likely will continue despite whatever evidence that shows
him to be a proper U.S. citizen.

"You're not going to convince those people because they have a political
agenda, or they have minds that go in that kind of direction," he told
CNN. "Conspiratorial theorists are never going to be satisfied. This
has gone into another area of political attack."

Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/19/2011-01-19_record_of_obamas_birth_is_in_the_archives_hawaii_gov.html#ixzz1Bapgh2Bz

--

Warm Regards

DOC

___________________ ~ ~
(_____(*)___________} } }

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.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.

Fwd: [I-S] Figures show decrease in Md. millionaires



 

[Claiming the millionaire tax should be extended this year, 'Progressive Maryland' again shows its economic naiveté, since they point to the number of people in the state who have $1 million in assets -- irrelevant issue, since those people WILL be declaring lower tax states as their residence as soon as they want, and especially before they are likely to face the Md. death tax!]   Steve

 

Posted: 6:45 pm Tue, January 18, 2011 By marylandreporter.com Len Lazarick

The number of Marylanders filing million-dollar tax returns went down again in 2009, according to figures from the comptroller's office.

In calendar year 2009, there were 4,134 returns showing net taxable income of $1 million or more, or 16 percent fewer than there were in 2008, according to David Roose, director of the Bureau of Revenue Estimates. Roose produced the numbers at the request of MarylandReporter.com.

The legislature passed a surcharge on millionaires in 2008 to replace a sales tax on computer services. The "millionaires' tax" expired Dec. 31, but liberal groups are proposing that the tax be extended this year. The surcharge was 0.75 percent on earnings over $1 million, on top of the top tax rate of 5.5 percent.

There was a "a slight uptick" in the percentage of taxpayers who filed a million-dollar return in 2008 but did not file a return in 2009 at all, Roose said. This could indicate that high-income people had left Maryland, as opponents of the tax say.

But Roose was unwilling to interpret the numbers that way.

"The reason we had a lot fewer millionaires in 2008 and 2009 is people made a lot less money," Roose said.

Numbers of millionaires — Marylanders with seven-figure taxable incomes — rose steadily for five years from 2003 to a record of 7,192 filers in 2007. The next year the numbers fell by 30 percent to 4,932.

Almost half of the 2007 millionaires (3,404) filed returns with incomes under $1 million in 2008, and another 448 (6.2 percent) either filed a part-year return, or filed no return at all. About 40 percent of the 2008 millionaires had incomes less than that the following year, and 364 (7.4 percent) filed no return or for a partial year.

Ron Wineholt of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce expressed no doubt about what the new figures meant.

"The CPAs I've talked to continue to tell of clients who have declared their tax domicile in other states because of this millionaire tax," he said.

"People at that level [of income] have choices," Wineholt said, and tend to "own houses in more than one state."

"I think that's a big part of these numbers," he said.

But Rion Dennis, executive director of Progressive Maryland, said Congress had already given Maryland millionaires a $77 million tax cut in the extensions of the Bush-era tax rates passed in December.

The reduction in millionaires reflects "two very bad economic years" and "can be accounted for by the bad recession," Dennis said.

Dennis cited a Phoenix Marketing International study released in September that found Maryland had the second-highest percentage of millionaires in the nation, after Hawaii.

Phoenix estimated that 6.26 percent of Maryland's households — 133,000 — had assets of $1 million or more.

"Phoenix defines a millionaire household as one with $1 million or more in investable or liquid assets" excluding sponsored retirement plans and real estate, the company says.

This means that Phoenix measures "millionaires" based on accumulated wealth, rather than the taxable incomes figures from Roose. People who make $1 million a year are likely to be wealthy, but many other households with incomes in the low six-figures could accumulate $1 million in liquid assets, including IRAs under their control.

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.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.

Message from the Creator of Defeat Liberals.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: [Defeat_Liberals] Message from the Creator of Defeat Liberals.
To: Defeat_Liberals@yahoogroups.com


 

Hello. For those who do not know me, my name is Will James Hicken. I created this group in my father's office nearly 7 years ago. I was a young pup then, barely the age of 16. I never thought at that time this group would grow to become this big, with more than 73,000 posts, 487 members from all over the world, and also winning the Best of Yahoo!'s election 2008 for being the most conservative group. Which a huge accomplishment. I am always amazed when I think of this group. I know many people have never heard of Yahoo! groups. And yet we still survive. I want to thank the moderators for helping (and more than just helping) this group. I know it would not be where it is without them. Thank you each and everyone one of you. To the members I wish to thank you as well. There is a battle out side of your homes. A battle of how to run a government. I am young. Only 23, attending full time at a jr. College in the state of Utah, working part time at the school building the set for school plays. I have seen very little and yet I've seen a lot. I lived in Guatemala for 2 years. I saw full blown corruption in the government there. I saw poverty that would rock your minds. Where people ate the dead dogs from off of the roads. I've seen presidential contenders dropping money out of a helicopter for votes. I have seen this, but I say I have seen very little because my life is still unraveling. I know more will come. Sadly it will. I don't believe that President Obama is out to destroy this country. I don't and cannot believe this. He is not lowering our defense, shutting down our armies and navy forces. He is not shutting off everything and allowing us to defend our homes with pitchforks. However I believe he is doing it all wrong. His viewpoint is wrong. Making our (your, my future children) children work to pay off our debts. We cannot spend our way out of debt. I can see what he's doing. But it's been mismanaged. This is what happens when you get an unexperienced man in office. This is not my change. Here very soon, people are going to start, as they have already, gearing up the next election. People are going to start announce they are going to run for the President of the United States of America. I ask and plead with you. Please get involved. America is a great country. We do not need to see it get destroyed little by little. Please lets not pick he "lesser of two evils" but the person that will take our country to victory!! This is important for us all, past, present, and future. Learn about the people, then make the choice to follow him. Local leaders are so important. If you have a good, wholesome view of how your area should be lead or conducted, then run for that office. I plan on it someday.
Once again. Thank you for being a member of this group. I am so happy and proud of each and everyone of you. If anyone wants to talk to me more, you can find me on Facebook. Thank you again.

Will James Hicken
Owner/your servant

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." Winston Churchill
.

__,_._,___

--
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.