Fwd: Do You Like Tax-funded Political Campaigns?

Quote of the Day: "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) American writer

Should you be forced, at the point of a tax-collector's gun, to fund . . .

* political candidates you dislike?
* the communication of political beliefs you oppose?

If not, then I hope you'll join us in paying for a legal brief to the Supreme Court that will oppose tax-funded political campaigns.

DC Downsizers have already had a dramatic impact on the Supreme Court by funding previous legal briefs.

Our attorneys pioneered the argument that the "Freedom of the PRESS" (rather than speech) is the primary reason to reject campaign finance laws. We have repeatedly asserted to the Court, on your behalf, that you have the same right to spend money on political communications that the New York Times and the major networks do.

This way of thinking has begun to have an influence on Court decisions, including the famous Citizens United case. In other words . . .

These legal briefs give you a powerful tool for influencing an entire branch of government, where you only have to convince five minds to accept your position in order to win a major victory that will change the way The State operates.

Our position is simple. Politicians must NOT violate your First Amendment rights under the excuse that this will somehow reduce their desire to hand-out special interest favors using your money. Instead, if we compel the politicians to obey the 9th and 10th Amendments, they will have no favors to confer. It really is that simple. By comparison . . . 

The idea of tax funding for political campaigns is just another part of a rotten campaign-finance-scheme, by which the politicians seek to protect their positions by reducing political competition. Tax-funding for political campaigns is really another way to make sure that challengers NEVER have more money than incumbents, because challengers have a greater need for money than incumbents do.

Tax-funded campaigns are just a scam.

In order for this project to be successful, we will need some generous patrons. When combined with the support of others, a $2,000 contribution would nearly seal the deal. Absent that, we're looking for a few $1,000 or $500 supporters.

These amounts are out of the range of most folks reading this message, and we cannot achieve our goal with them alone. We need dozens of other individuals joining them, with amounts varying from $10 to $300 -- EVERY contribution will make a difference.

That's why ANYONE who makes an electronic donation to this project, starting today through Wednesday (1/26) at midnight, will receive a copy of the brief, in .pdf format, via the email address they provide with their contribution.
   
This is a project of the Downsize DC Foundation. Therefore, your contribution for this purpose is tax deductible.  

If you believe in voluntary funding for political campaigns, rather than coerced, State-controlled funding, then please make a contribution to fund a brief to the Supreme Court supporting your views.

Thank you for making this work possible, 

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".

Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".

Your subscription comes to this email address: ashleyjon@lavabit.com.

If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.

If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click here.

Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter or by using our "Educate the Powerful System" to send a message.

-

powered by phplist v 2.10.5, © tincan ltd

Find: Medical Manager Software. Review & Compare!
http://click.lavabit.com/1f6ybjha7tcehfpwc11fthdaou3q3hdnpif8nwu137hetc4mhcfy/

Re: Shared by sage2: Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County

Problem is, if you were born here, you're a citizen and entitled to
all the perks thereof. I can dig the achor babies thing, but ex post
facto law is illegal, and were just fucked.

On Jan 20, 4:04 pm, "sage2" <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I thought you would find this interesting
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Shared by sage2 while visiting FoxNews.com:
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost. 
>
>
>
>  
>
> YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:
>
> new healthcare reform taxing us all to deathA Federal Gravy Train May EndLatest Border Gunfire in Texas Targeting Four U.S. Workers Proves Violence 'Getting Worse,' Authorities SayDo Not Try This at Home: It is NOT Baby YogaPhiladelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts of Murder
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> - sage2
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
> This email is a direct message from a friend who wants to share an item of interest with you.
> This email message is powered by Gigya's Wildfire technology. If you no longer wish to receive messages that are sent via Gigya's service, pleaseclick hereto remove your email address.
> Gigya Inc., 855 El Camino Real Building 4, Suite 290 Palo Alto, CA 94301.

--
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 can't reason somebody out of something they
weren't reasoned into. -- L. Neil Smith

GORGEOUS, MJ!

On Jan 21, 11:44 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> You can't reason somebody out of something they
> weren't reasoned into. -- L. Neil Smith
>
> At 05:09 PM 1/20/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >against your disregard of facts
>
> >On Jan 20, 3:23 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Your fallacy of appeal to authority AND delusion.
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the
> > > first example of governments erected on the simple principles
> > > of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to
> > > disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and
> > > superstition, they will consider this event as an era in
> > > their history. Although the detail of the formation of the
> > > American governments is at present little known or regarded
> > > either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an
> > > object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any
> > > persons employed in that service had interviews with the
> > > gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven,
> > > more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring
> > > in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be
> > > acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
> > > by the use of reason and the senses....
> > >    -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government
> > >    of the United States of America" [1787-1788];
>
> > > At 03:04 PM 1/20/2011, you wrote:
>
> > > >You're wrong again:
> > > >The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic.
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
>
> > > >On Jan 20, 1:59 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > WRONG.
>
> > > > > The US -- as crafted by its Constitution -- is a Constitutionally
> > > > > LIMITED Republic.  The States who created it choose a President (by
> > > > > electors chosen by whatever method each State's legislature chooses),
> > > > > the People of the States are 'district-ly' represented by a single
> > > > > House Member .  The States themselves WERE represented by Senators
> > > > > (before that check was eliminated).  The ENUMERATED Powers provided
> > > > > said Government *may* call for democratic process, but such process
> > > > > does NOT a democracy make.  Those enumerated Powers can ONLY
> > > > > (legitimately) be changed by those Sovereign States that put the
> > > > > agreement into effect.
>
> > > > > A Democracy, on the other hand, can be DIRECT or REPRESENTATIVE
> > > > > ...  whatever the Mob (or at least what is perceived as such) desires
> > > > > becomes law.
>
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > Democracy: A government of the masses.
> > > > > Authority derived through mass meeting or
> > > > > any other form of direct expression. Results
> > > > > in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is
> > > > > communistic ... Attitude toward law is that
> > > > > the will of the majority shall regulate,
> > > > > whether it is based on deliberation or
> > > > > governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse,
> > > > > without restraint or regard to the
> > > > > consequences. Result is demagogism,
> > > > > license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> > > > > -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)
>
> > > > > At 02:07 PM 1/20/2011, you wrote:
>
> > > > > >I believe in Democracy
> > > > > >---
> > > > > >then you should move to democratic country
>
> > > > > >The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately
> > > > > >defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people
> > > > > >decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by
> > > > > >voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other
> > > > > >hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in
> > > > > >turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the
> > > > > >Constitution were altogether fearful of democracy. Everything they
> > > > > >read and studied taught them that democracies "have ever been
> > > > > >spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
> > > > > >incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
> > > > > >have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
> > > > > >in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
>
> > > > > >On Jan 20, 12:05 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@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 <wisdom...@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,
>
> ...
>
> read 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.

my new post

http://prathamthinking.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-should-i-call-my-teachers-sirmadam.html

--

************************

Aspire - > Act-> Achieve 

Pratham Parekh 

+91-9662736979

--
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: Fox Government News

>
>Can a corporation stifle the right of an employee to make political
>donations by stipulating it in a contract?
>If so, corporations indeed have more rights than individuals.

Nonsense.
Two Individuals MUTUALLY contract with one another. In exchange
for A, B and C from one party, the other will provide X, Y and Z.

There is no 'more' or 'less' rights in such an exchange.

Regard$,
--MJ

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights
of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain
him. -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.

--
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: Fox Government News

MJ
What did Keith Olbermann's CONTRACT state?
Studio
I don't know.
His contract could state that he can't vote either for all I know...
that doesn't make it legal or correct.
MJ
Whether or not he can vote is irrelevant.
If he AGREED to not provide his dollars to candidates, then he
was in violation. It might be important to his employer to appear
'non-biased'.

Studio
Instead of fighting it in court and losing his job, he probably felt
he could do more good by not fighting it.
MJ
If memory serves he got some high paying gig immediately ... elsewhere?
Sounds like a 'manipulated' scheme.

Studio
So do you believe Corporations should have more rights than
individuals?
MJ
A corporation is a government creation whereby 'businesses' are
bestowed with Government advantage.
I believe corporations (not businesses) should be abolished.
Individuals, however, OWN businesses (corporations) and should be
free to do with THEIR property as any other Individual.

Regard$,
--MJ

(W)e ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and
interests groups are willing to give politicians millions
of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives
are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the
stakes are so high. They know government controls
virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives,
and that they must influence government to protect their
interests.

Our federal government, which was intended to operate as
a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become
a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes
trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when
countless special interests fight for the money. The
only true solution to the campaign money problem is a
return to a proper constitutional government that does
not control the economy. Big government and big
campaign money go hand in hand.
-- Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), "Texas Straight Talk," 2/4/02

--
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

ROTFLMAO!

Regard$,
--MJ

You can't reason somebody out of something they
weren't reasoned into. -- L. Neil Smith

At 05:09 PM 1/20/2011, you wrote:
>against your disregard of facts
>
>On Jan 20, 3:23 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Your fallacy of appeal to authority AND delusion.
> >
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> >
> > The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the
> > first example of governments erected on the simple principles
> > of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to
> > disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and
> > superstition, they will consider this event as an era in
> > their history. Although the detail of the formation of the
> > American governments is at present little known or regarded
> > either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an
> > object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any
> > persons employed in that service had interviews with the
> > gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven,
> > more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring
> > in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be
> > acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
> > by the use of reason and the senses....
> > -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government
> > of the United States of America" [1787-1788];
> >
> > At 03:04 PM 1/20/2011, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >You're wrong again:
> > >The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
> >
> > >On Jan 20, 1:59 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > WRONG.
> >
> > > > The US -- as crafted by its Constitution -- is a Constitutionally
> > > > LIMITED Republic. The States who created it choose a President (by
> > > > electors chosen by whatever method each State's legislature chooses),
> > > > the People of the States are 'district-ly' represented by a single
> > > > House Member . The States themselves WERE represented by Senators
> > > > (before that check was eliminated). The ENUMERATED Powers provided
> > > > said Government *may* call for democratic process, but such process
> > > > does NOT a democracy make. Those enumerated Powers can ONLY
> > > > (legitimately) be changed by those Sovereign States that put the
> > > > agreement into effect.
> >
> > > > A Democracy, on the other hand, can be DIRECT or REPRESENTATIVE
> > > > ... whatever the Mob (or at least what is perceived as such) desires
> > > > becomes law.
> >
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
> >
> > > > Democracy: A government of the masses.
> > > > Authority derived through mass meeting or
> > > > any other form of direct expression. Results
> > > > in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is
> > > > communistic ... Attitude toward law is that
> > > > the will of the majority shall regulate,
> > > > whether it is based on deliberation or
> > > > governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse,
> > > > without restraint or regard to the
> > > > consequences. Result is demagogism,
> > > > license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> > > > -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)
> >
> > > > At 02:07 PM 1/20/2011, you wrote:
> >
> > > > >I believe in Democracy
> > > > >---
> > > > >then you should move to democratic country
> >
> > > > >The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately
> > > > >defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people
> > > > >decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by
> > > > >voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other
> > > > >hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in
> > > > >turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the
> > > > >Constitution were altogether fearful of democracy. Everything they
> > > > >read and studied taught them that democracies "have ever been
> > > > >spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
> > > > >incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
> > > > >have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
> > > > >in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
> >
> > > > >On Jan 20, 12:05 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@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 <wisdom...@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
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »
>
>--
>Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

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

Obama officials caught deceiving about WikiLeaks

Wednesday, Jan 19, 2011 04:20 ET
Obama officials caught deceiving about WikiLeaks
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below)

Whenever the U.S. Government wants to demonize a person or group in order to justify attacks on them, it follows the same playbook:  it manufactures falsehoods about them, baselessly warns that they pose Grave Dangers and are severely harming our National Security, peppers all that with personality smears to render the targeted individuals repellent on a personal level, and feeds it all to the establishment American media, which then dutifully amplifies and mindlessly disseminates it all.  That, of course, was the precise scheme that so easily led the U.S. into attacking Iraq; it's what continues to ensure support for the whole litany of War on Terror abuses and the bonanza of power and profit which accompanies them; and it's long been obvious that this is the primary means for generating contempt for WikiLeaks to enable its prosecution and ultimate destruction (an outcome the Pentagon has been plotting since at least 2008).

When WikiLeaks in mid-2010 published documents detailing the brutality and corruption at the heart of the war in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, held a Press Conference and said of WikiLeaks (and then re-affirmed it on his Twitter account) that they "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."  This denunciation predictably caused the phrase "blood on their hands" to be attached to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in thousands of media accounts around the world.  But two weeks later, the Pentagon's spokesman, when pressed, was forced to admit that there was no evidence whatsoever for that accusation:  "we have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," he admitted.  Several months later, after more flamboyant government condemnations of WikiLeaks' release of thousands of Iraq War documents, McClatchy's Nancy Youssef -- in an article headlined:  "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks" -- reported that "U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date" that the disclosures resulted in the deaths of anyone, and she detailed the great care WikiLeaks took in that Iraq War release to protect innocent people.

The disclosure of American diplomatic cables triggered still more melodramatic claims from government officials (ones faithfully recited by its servants and followers across the spectrum in Washington), accusing WikiLeaks of everything from "attacking" the U.S. ( Hillary Clinton) and "plac[ing] at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" and "ongoing military operations" ( Harold Koh) to being comparable to Terrorists ( Joe Biden).  But even Robert Gates was unwilling to lend his name to such absurdities, and when asked, mocked these accusations as "significantly overwrought" and said the WikiLeaks disclosures would be "embarrassing" and "awkward" but would have only "modest consequences." 

Since then, it has become clear how scrupulously careful WikiLeaks has been in releasing these cables in order to avoid unnecessary harm to innocent people, as the Associated Press reported how closely WikiLeaks was collaborating with its newspaper partners in deciding which cables to release and what redactions were necessary.  Indeed, one of the very few documents which anyone has been able to claim has produced any harm -- one revealing that the leader of Zimbabwe's opposition privately urged U.S. officials to continue imposing sanctions on his country -- was actually released by The Guardian, not by WikiLeaks.

To say that the Obama administration's campaign against WikiLeaks has been based on wildly exaggerated and even false claims is to understate the case.  But now, there is evidence that Obama officials have been knowingly lying in public about these matters.  The long-time Newsweek reporter Mark Hosenball -- now at Reuters -- reports that what Obama officials are saying in private about WikiLeaks directly contradicts their public claims:

Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . .

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials. . .

But current and former intelligence officials note that while WikiLeaks has released a handful of inconsequential CIA analytical reports, the website has made public few if any real intelligence secrets, including reports from undercover agents or ultra-sensitive technical intelligence reports, such as spy satellite pictures or communications intercepts. . . .

National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown "pockets" of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. . . .

Shortly before WikiLeaks began its gradual release of State Department cables last year, department officials sent emails to contacts on Capitol Hill predicting dire consequences, said one of the two congressional aides briefed on the internal government reviews.

However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said.

In response to Hosenball's story, Obama officials naturally tried to salvage the integrity of their statements, insisting that "there has been substantial damage" and that there were unspecified "specific cases where damage caused by WikiLeaks' revelations have been assessed as serious to grave."  But the only specific cases anyone could identify were ones where the U.S. was caught by these documents lying to its own citizens or, at best, concealing vital truths -- such as the far greater military role the U.S. is playing in Yemen and Pakistan than Obama officials have publicly acknowledged.  

And this, of course, has been the point all along:  the WikiLeaks disclosures are significant precisely because they expose government deceit, wrongdoing and brutality, but the damage to innocent people has been deliberately and wildly exaggerated -- fabricated -- by the very people whose misconduct has been revealed.  There is harm from the WikiLeaks documents, but it's to wrongdoers in power, which is why they are so desperate to malign and then destroy the group.

Just as was true in 2003 -- when the joint, falsehood-based government/media demonization campaign led 69% of Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks (the Bush era's most revealing fact about American politics) -- this orgy of anti-WikiLeaks propaganda has succeeded, with polls reliably showing the American public largely against the group and even favoring its prosecution (citizens in countries not subjected to this propaganda barrage view the group far more favorably).  As has been demonstrated over and over, when the U.S. Government and its media collaborate to propagandize, its efficacy is not in doubt.  And as Marcy Wheeler notes, these lies were told not only to distort public opinion and justify prosecuting WikiLeaks for doing nothing more than engaging in journalism, but also to coerce private corporations (MasterCard, Amazon, Visa, Paypal) to cut all services to the group.

The case against WikiLeaks is absolutely this decade's version of the Saddam/WMD campaign.  It's complete with frivolous invocations of Terrorism, grave public warnings about National Security negated by concealed information, endlessly repeated falsehoods, a competition among political and media elites to advocate the harshest measures possible, a cowardly Congress that (with a few noble exceptions) acquiesces to it all on a bipartisan basis and is eager to enable it, and a media that not only fails to subject these fictions to critical scrutiny, but does the opposite:  it takes the lead in propagating them.  One might express bewilderment that most American journalists never learn their lesson about placing their blind faith in government claims, but that assumes -- falsely -- that their objective is to report truthfully.

 

UPDATE:  Kevin Drum, Dan Drezner and Daniel Larison all cite this report as evidence that the WikiLeaks disclosures have been insignificant.  They seem to equate a finding of "no harm to national security" with "nothing of significance," but not only are those two concepts not the same, they're hardly related.  Many revelations are very significant even though they do not harm national security.

When The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Americans' communications without the warrants required by law, that revelation was extremely important even though it entailed no national security harm.  The same is true of The Washington Post's exposure of the CIA "black site" program, or David Barstow's exposé on the Pentagon's propaganda program, and countless other investigative reports.  The WikiLeaks disclosures -- like most good investigative journalism -- harm those in power who do bad things (by exposing their previously secret conduct), but do not harm the national security of the United States.  I'd be interested in hearing anyone who wants to argue that the WikiLeaks disclosures contain "nothing new" dismiss the actual revelations ( here and here).

As for the comparison of this deceit to Saddam/WMD:  obviously, the magnitude of the consequences are not similar, but the misleading tactics themselves -- for the reasons I enumerated -- are.  Moreover, prosecution of WikiLeaks would hardly be inconsequential; it would likely be the first time in history that a non-government employee is convicted of "espionage" for publishing government secrets and, as such, would constitute one of the greatest threats to press freedom in the United States in a long time.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/19/wikileaks/index.html

Null. Void. Of No Effect.

Null. Void. Of No Effect.
by Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center

When Washington D.C. violates the constitution – as it does every single day – the essential question is – "what do we do about it?"

For countless decades, Americans have been responding through protests, lawsuits, and "voting the bums out." Yet, year in and year out, federal power always grows. And it doesn't matter which political party is in power, or what person occupies the white house either.

THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." [emphasis added]

Notice that TJ didn't advise us to use nullification as a remedy "once in a while." And he certainly didn't tell us that a nullification is the rightful remedy after "we vote some bums out" or "we sue the federal government in federal court" or after anything else for that matter. Jefferson was pretty straightforward and recommended that every single time the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it in the constitution (there's about 30 powers and nothing more), that we're to reject and nullify those acts on a state level as they happen.

HAPPENING NOW

Already, more than two dozen states have virtually stopped the 2005 Real ID act dead in its tracks. How? By refusing to implement it. Fifteen states – most recently Arizona – are using the principles of the 10th Amendment to actively defy federal laws (and a supreme court ruling, too!) on marijuana. Eight states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts in an attempt to reject some federal gun laws and regulations. And seven states have passed Health Care Freedom Acts to block health care mandates from being enforced.

NULL. VOID. OF NO EFFECT.

Get used to reading these words, because the political climate is starting to swing a new direction. There is a growing number of people in America that are recognizing a simple truth – Asking, demanding, or suing to get the federal government to fix problems caused by the federal government just doesn't work.

Take, for example, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, first introduced in Texas as HB297, and now also introduced in Montana ( SB161), Wyoming (HB0035 ), Oregon ( SB498) and Maine ( LD58). Here's an excerpt:

"the federal law known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect."

But these bills, as introduced in Texas, Maine, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming are far more than mere declarations or position statements

ENFORCEMENT

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

"The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist"

Here Madison and Webster assert what is required of nullification laws to be successful – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are "duty bound to interpose" or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

All five bills explicitly include this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties on federal agents for attempting to enforce National Health Care mandates in their state. For example, from Wyoming's HB35:

Any official, agent, employee or public servant of the state of Wyoming as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, who enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this article shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), imprisonment in the county jail for not more than two (2) years, or both.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect approximately ten states to introduce such bills in the 2011 legislative session.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

On Gun Control and Violence

On Gun Control and Violence
by Ron Paul

Listen to Ron Paul.

The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable.

We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, internet, and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric. Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech, and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech! Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated.

Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to "do something" to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.

Remember – liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.

We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.

Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.

Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.

Newsday editor trains Muslims to influence media

Newsday editor trains Muslims to influence media creeping | January 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM | Tags: cair, Creeping Sharia, islam, Life, Media, Muslim, New York, News, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia | Categories: Alerts, Creeping Sharia, Media, New York, News, Politics, Religion, Sharia, Stealth Jihad | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-7GR

An Islamic gathering featuring numerous terror-linked Islamists stirring up hatred against those opposed to jihad and sharia law. Oh, and they are planning a mass anti-islamophobia rally. Sounds like a counter-rally is in order. via Training Summit for Muslim Peace Activists : The Muslim Observer. h/t MFS January 8, 2011 could very well turn out [...]

Read more of this post

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.

Pentagon Ecstatic Over New Chinese "Threat"

January 17, 2011
Stealth Escalation
Pentagon Ecstatic Over New Chinese "Threat"
By ANDREW COCKBURN

Once upon a time, as the FY 1964 defense appropriations bill was making its way through congress,  there came a somber moment when it looked as if the U.S. Navy might actually receive a lesser increase in its appropriation than its hated Air Force rival.  Then, just when all seemed dark, a Soviet November class nuclear attack submarine surfaced a few miles off San Francisco Bay.  Instantly, the situation on the battlefield was reversed, as press and congress urged emergency budgetary measures to ward off the looming threat of the Red Navy.  Queried at a Pentagon press conference  as to the convenient coincidence of the sub's appearance, the chief navy flack simply smiled and said "I don't know; we just got lucky I guess."

For much of the 1990s, luck deserted our military industrial complex.  Its formerly reliable Soviet partners ceased to play their part, leaving the Pentagon to scour the world for a "peer or near peer competitor."  There were hopes, always futile, for a reconstituted USSR, or perhaps an emergent China (always popular on the right in those days) which was followed by the putative menace of regional competitors, (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) combining against America.

Help finally came from the CIA's former Jihadi ally Osama bin Ladin, whose 9/11 attack sufficiently traumatized society to allow the Pentagon to spend any money it wanted on anything it wanted, relevant to the task at hand or not.  Even so, old hands yearned for the days when a military spend-up could be justified by whatever the other guy was up to, especially with ominous talk circulating in Washington about restraining (not cutting of course) the defense budget.

Now, just like that long-ago Soviet sub captain, the Chinese have stepped up to the plate.

Our Asian friends have suddenly offered a titillating peek from an airfield in Chengdu at their newest warplane, described as a radar-evading "stealth" fighter like our own F-22.
           
The reaction from some quarters has been predictably enthusiastic. "From what we can see, I conclude that this aircraft does have great potential to be superior in some respects to the American F-22, and could be decisively superior to the F-35," claims Richard Fisher, a senior fellow on Asian military affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a Washington-based security think tank.

Other denizens of the military-industrial complex have pushed hyperbole further, with predictions that the plane ­ though it looks enormous in the photographs ­ may be pretty much invisible to radar.

"You can tell it has some serious stealth technology," proclaims one former Navy pilot now in the defense investment business quoted by Fox News. "My F-18 looks like an 18-wheeler on radar. That thing might not even show up."

Arriving in Beijing shortly after the news broke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has added his own voice of concern. "We knew they were working on the stealth aircraft," he said. "What we've seen is that they may be are somewhat further ahead in the development of that aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted."

We should not have to wait too long before some obliging member of Congress calls for the reopening of the F-22 production line, cut off by Gates in 2009 after a mere 187 planes had been built.

To those with fond memories of the Cold War, when it seemed that the arms race was a two-nation affair, things are moving in a familiar pattern. Reading Aviation Week & Space Technology in those days left you with your heart in your mouth, as it regularly broadcast the news that Soviet techno-military ingenuity was on the point, again, of overwhelming our own puny and underfunded efforts. "The Soviet Union is producing and fielding inventory aircraft with major performance improvements at twice the U.S. aircraft production rate," ran one typical jeremiad in June 1982. "The NATO technological lead is decreasing."

It was never true. Soviet warplanes always suffered from a fundamental deficiency of "short legs" ­ insufficient range ­ due to heavier airframes -- retarded (deficient metalworking technology) --  and shorter-lived engines (ditto), not to mention myriad other deficiencies. Whenever actual examples of some highly touted Soviet warplane arrived on public view in the West, the reality invariably fell far short of the advance billing. When the MiG-25 Foxbat, once promoted in Aviation Week and elsewhere as a wonder plane that could fly vast distances at 3 1/2 times the speed of sound, was inconveniently delivered by a defecting pilot to Japan in 1976, it turned out to have one-third the advertised range and engines that melted well short of the advertised speed.

Anyone speculating that the Chinese turn out a better product should know that their efforts to rip off the Russians by copying Russian engines have produced only engines that make the Russians look good, forcing them to rely on the original product, deficient as that may be.

One characteristic of Soviet military aviation culture that the Chinese may indeed be emulating was deference to American technological fashion. Thus, just as the U.S. Air Force was concluding that the "swing-wing" technology of the 1960s F-111 bomber had been a technological misstep, the Soviets produced their own even more unwieldy Su-24. Other bad ideas ­ especially in the field of electronics ­ were also regularly and dutifully duplicated on the other side of the Iron Curtain. (An official in the CIA's Office of Strategic Analysis swore to me in the 1980s that the entire contents of Aviation Week were transmitted in encrypted form from the Soviet Embassy in Washington to Moscow as soon as it appeared on Monday mornings.)

If the Chinese have indeed invested the necessarily vast sums that an F-22 lookalike program would require, those disposed to fear the Middle Kingdom need only rejoice. The F-22s now in service with the U.S. Air Force cost at least $355 million each (the total cost is probably higher); it is doubtful whether the F-22 can achieve "supercruise" ­ the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound without afterburners, once touted as a distinguishing feature  ­ for more than a few minutes. Most tellingly, its vaunted stealth performance has proved sadly disappointing. Although it is indeed less visible (though never actually invisible) to tracking radars such as that carried on other fighters or air defense missiles, longer wavelength search radars can detect its presence at considerable distances. In 1999, the Serbs used radar defenses to down one F-117 Stealth fighter and severely damage another.

Unfortunately, while some may applaud a Chinese initiative to spend the money that Wal-Mart sends them on a weapon of dubious utility, we too may end up paying a price, as the "threat" of China's J-20 is invoked to justify further increases in our own obscenely bloated defense budget.

Andrew Cockburn published The Threat in 1983, the only accurate assessment of Soviet military potential in the 20 years before the fall of the Soviet Union. He can be reached at amcockburn@gmail.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01182011.html

Re: Shared by sage2: Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County

On Jan 20, 4:04 pm, "sage2" <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,

Now we have California, New York & Texas on the verge of bankruptcy
and are the three states with the largest population of " illegal
alien immigrants " because of their aiding & abetting. Billions they
could have saved by not breaking the laws along with the Feds. Next
they will be wanting " stimulus " money to continue the illegal
activity at taxpayer expense. States that aid & abet in ' Illegal "
activity should be prosecuted under RICO statutes for the conspiracy
they have perpetrated on this countries true citizens & " legal "
immigrants & nationals.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I thought you would find this interesting
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Shared by sage2 while visiting FoxNews.com:
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost. 
>
>
>
>  
>
> YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:
>
> new healthcare reform taxing us all to deathA Federal Gravy Train May EndLatest Border Gunfire in Texas Targeting Four U.S. Workers Proves Violence 'Getting Worse,' Authorities SayDo Not Try This at Home: It is NOT Baby YogaPhiladelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts of Murder
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> - sage2
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
> This email is a direct message from a friend who wants to share an item of interest with you.
> This email message is powered by Gigya's Wildfire technology. If you no longer wish to receive messages that are sent via Gigya's service, pleaseclick hereto remove your email address.
> Gigya Inc., 855 El Camino Real Building 4, Suite 290 Palo Alto, CA 94301.

--
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.

Wrong Questions

The Goal Is Freedom
Wrong Questions
Fifty years later.
Sheldon Richman
Posted January 21, 2011

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Fifty years ago yesterday, John F. Kennedy said those words during his inauguration as president. It is undoubtedly the best-known line from any American inaugural address, except perhaps for FDR's "[T]he only thing we have to fear is fear itself." (Besides the government, I'd say.)

That JFK's words are so well remembered and so often quoted can be chalked up to one of three things, depending on who's doing the quoting: 1) pudding-headed political naiveté,  2) condescension, or 3) cynical special-pleading by those who aspire to reap the benefits of all the "do[ing] for your country."

First off, what does "country" mean here? We're not really meant to ask that question, because if we do, things begin to fall apart rather swiftly. Does doing for your country mean doing something beneficial for one's fellow human beings who live in the territorial United States? If so, any honest participant in the marketplace is doing it already. He or she hardly needs to be admonished by a president who himself never made that sort of contribution. All genuine market participants (those who eschew fraud and political privileges) offer goods and services that other people believe will make their lives better. Productive people's direct motive may not be to do unto others, but that's what they must do via persuasion if they are to prosper. (The existing corporate state of course enables the well-connected to prosper by other means.)

Now contrast that with the people ridiculously called "public servants" -- you know, the ones who decide what is good for you and then impose it by force -- all the while raking in nice incomes, perks, and prestige. Is there anything more self-serving than "public service"?


Country = Government

We may assume, then, that Kennedy did not mean we should try harder to produce goods and services that others are willing to buy. And we can rule out simply being nice to one another. It's clear he had other things in mind, because had he meant only those things, he would have proposed radically scaling back the power of government, setting us free to do them. Of course government was wrapped up in his and every politician's notion of country. The country may be the body, but the government is the head.

What about that second part? Taking "country" in the likely corporate political sense, why would any self-respecting person ask what he or she can do for it? This is an important question, since we grow up being told that what makes America different is our right to live our lives as we please, unfettered by duty to the State. (Theory and practice diverge here, of course.) The Declaration of Independence talks about the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where does it mention service to the State, or what Chris Matthews refers to as "the call to duty"? Who does talk about service to the State? I'll leave you all to ponder that question.

I just don't see where such service is any kind of virtue. It clashes with the Kantian/Randian principle that each person should be regarded as an end in him or herself. And it's particularly unseemly for a president to preach it. With all due respect, who the heck is he -- any of them -- to lecture us? In theory we're the masters and he's the servant. (Once again, theory and practice part ways.)


Check Your Premises

Well, as Ayn Rand would say, check your premises. In fact, we're the servants and they are the masters. (See my "The Misrepresentation of Health Care Reform" for details of this relationship.) Or more precisely, they are the self-servants, the misleaders, and the misrepresentatives. The semblance of service to us is a mere cover for their exercise of power.

I like how Milton Friedman put it:

Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny.  The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country' implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

In light of all this, we might edit Kennedy's words thus:

Ask not what your "country" can force other people to do for you. Ask who benefits from what you do for your "country."

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/wrong-questions/